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
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6t8aa2 | if red and purple are at opposite ends of the visible spectrum, why does red seem to fade into purple just as well as it fades into orange? | Wouldn't it make sense for red to fade into green or yellow more smoothly than purple? They are both closer to red in wavelength than purple. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6t8aa2/eli5_if_red_and_purple_are_at_opposite_ends_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlinjpj",
"dlinm1f",
"dlis7y9",
"dlix4i6",
"dliy0ow",
"dliz7g1",
"dlj51vu",
"dlj6y9t",
"dlj9rsn",
"dljc6v1",
"dljcl1v",
"dljlrjv",
"dljls57",
"dljmld1",
"dljmzeg"
],
"score": [
76,
3843,
6506,
8,
40,
9,
124,
8,
2847,
17,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"You have three types of color-sensitive cells in your eye, which are most sensitive to red, green, and blue light. If you adjust the wavelength of a light gradually from red to green, the light will gradually stimulate the red-sensitive cells less and the green-sensitive cells more. To your eye, orange or yellow light looks just like a combination of red and green light because it stimulates the same cells. Gradually changing the wavelength looks just like gradually making a red light dimmer and a green light brighter.\n\nBut what if you start with a red light and gradually make it dimmer while turning a blue light on? That's the fade from red into purple and from purple into blue. There's no wavelength of light that stimulates the red and blue cells equally, so this fade isn't equivalent to any gradual change of wavelength. But it should still look like a smooth fade to your eye because it's still just one type of cell being stimulated more as another type is stimulated less.",
"Because purple isn't actually on the spectrum. It's not a real color at all (that is, there is no single wavelength of light that is purple). The visual spectrum runs from red to deep blue (indigo), but there's no purple on it anywhere. Purple exists all in our head, as a consequence of how our visual system works. How is that possible?\n\nWe have three different types of cone cells in our eyes, which detect three different ranges of light: Red, green, and blue. As you would expect, red light stimulates the red cone cells, and we see red. Same with green and blue. What about wavelengths between those colors? Well let's take yellow as an example. Yellow light stimulates the red and green cones simultaneously, and our brain sees that as yellow.\n\nBut here's where it gets interesting. If yellow light stimulates the red and green cones, what happens when we shine both red and green light on the same spot of our retina? As far as your cone cells are concerned, there is zero difference between the red and green cones being activated from one wavelength of light, or from multiple wavelengths of light. So when we see both red and green light from the same source, it looks exactly like yellow light to us, because of how our eyes work (as an aside, this is how we can produce so many different colors from computer monitors, TVs, and phone screens: we just use different combinations of red, green, and blue).\n\nSo now we get to the *really* cool part. What happens when you shine both red and blue light on the same part of the retina? Your brain wants to interpret that as a single color. But it can't use the midpoint between red and blue (like it does for red+green=yellow), because the midpoint between red and blue is green, and shining red and blue light at your retina specifically *doesn't* activate the green cone cells.\n\nSo your brain invents a new color: purple! It's a color that doesn't actually exist in nature. There is no pure purple light. There is no single wavelength that can stimulate both the red and blue cones, but not the green ones. Purple is an \"imaginary\" color that is all in our head, as a byproduct of how our visual system works.",
"This question leads down a rabbit hole. Ready?\n\n**Purple is not on the visible spectrum**\n\nROYGBIV. No P at all. Violet =/= purple. \n\nViolet is not the same as purple. Let that sink in. The similar color is an illusion. Violet is actually a color we can't really precieve (directly). Purple is a mix of red and blue pigment. Violet is the thing to the right of blue on the rainbow. Purple is a fake color - so is brown. \n\nWe \"see\" violet because of harmonics. We don't have a violet color receptor; just red blue and green. There is a sensitivity in the red cone that makes it activate a tiny bit from violet light. Thus is essentially a harmony like in music - because the wavelength is almost doubled. Notes have the same similar sound to their harmonic partners. \n\nBecause this is similar to a red mixed with a blue (purple) our brains use the same sensation to represent them. In reality, they are as different as yellow and indigo. \n\n\n**Edit: people seem interested so here is more of the rabbit hole**\n\nThey sky isn't blue. \n\nEver heard of Rayleigh scattering? This is the explanation often given for why the sky is blue. It states that nitrogen and oxygen (thanks /u/rrtk77) refract light to favor shorter wavelength and it's true. But violet is shorter than blue. So why isn't the sky violet?\n\n**The sky is violet**\nIf you hold a colorimeter up to the sky, it will tell you that your eyes are lying to you. The sky is actually violet but our eyes don't see violet very well (for the reasons above). \n\n**Edit 2: pink is also not real**\n_URL_0_",
"Red and Blue are opposite ends of the spectrum but we perceive Blue and Violet fading into purple and magenta as you add red to it. The spectrum is continuous and doesn't loop back but our vision is tristimulous based meaning we seen in buckets of wavelengths that our eyes and brains determine at Red, Green, and Blue. The buckets over lap a bit and tail off so we can get a decent idea of if a single wavelength is a red-orange, orange, yellow, or a greenish yellow but we can't exactly tell the difference between a single wavelength in-between or a mix of multiple wavelengths that give us the same perception.\n\nMagenta is the perception we have that is the lack of green. So Blue+Red. There is not a single wavelength that gives us magenta but it's the color our brains tell us we are seeing when we are seeing \"not green.\"",
"You have 3 color receptors in your eyes. Colors are interpreted by your brain as a blend between those receptors. Yellow is green and red being activated. Magenta(reddish purple) is blue and red. Cyan (a sea-blue) is blue and green. All the colors you can see are an interpretation of how much each of those receptors get activated. \n \nIn the electromagnetic spectrum, the colors of light go from red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet. Spectral violet isn't the purple violet that you see elsewhere. It's because the red color receptor is a little bit sensitive to the deepest blue wavelengths of light, while the green is not. Biology isn't perfect. \n \nSo to answer your question why does red seem to fade into purple as well as orange? That is because orange is red, with increasing of green, where as fading to purple is red with increasing amounts of blue. \n \nRemember, we are talking about light here, not paint colors. Paint works by absorbing all the colors, except for what you see. Paint that is yellow is absorbing the blue light, while reflecting green and red. That is also why \"blue blocker\" sunglasses make everything yellow. ",
"The relationship between perceived colors and wavelengths of light is not at all simple. Wavelengths are easily described in physics terms but the physiology and psychology of vision are a whole different story with some surprising facts. For example, the eye can perceive a full range of colors even if only two rather close wavelengths are present which don't include some of the perceived colors - ie you can perceive green in a scene where only two different red wavelengths are present physically (Land Color Theory). This shows that the brain supplies a lot of what is perceived as color vision, and it doesn't go by obvious logic.",
"I see all these replies about how we can't see purple and now looking at the purple on my shower curtain like what color are you really?? .... I feel like my whole life has been a lie.",
"Wow! It's amazing what one can learn clicking on a Reddit thread. I learned more about how my brain and eyes look at color than I ever did in school just now. They say we don't retain color in our brains either... but I once bought an outfit, then awhile later found stockings the exact same color, and a year later shoes the same color, without having any of the items with me at the time to match the color. Strangely enough it was a very bright blue with purple hue to it... I wonder how I was able to do that if my brain doesn't retain color memory. Anyways I found this thread super intetesting. Thanks!",
"Gah, some people responding here need to just not. \n\nAlright I'm going to spend some time breaking down how colour works for you before getting to the why. It's needed background information, but feel free to skip over the bits you know. \n\nColour as we perceive it is not something inherent to the spectrum of visible light. It's related, but there is nothing about a photon with a 2.61whatever eV of energy that makes it inherently or objectively blue. The photon does not give a shit, it's just a photon that carries some energy and has the related wavelength. \n\nThe perception of colour is a product of biology. Your eyes send an electrical signal to the brain and your brain interprets that information. It turns out being able to easily distinguish different objects is useful what for not getting eaten and finding things to eat, and most materials reflect different and unique parts of the light spectrum. Thus the eye evolved to give more detailed information to the brain and the brain evolved to process that into what we perceive as colour, thus reducing your chances of getting eaten by wolves or licking a poison dart frog. \n\nSo how does the eye work. I'm sure you're aware that you have specialized cells in your eyes called rods and cones; rods cells are responsible for low light vision, cone cells for vision in bright light. You've also probably been told that rod cells are achromatic which is why you don't see colour in darkness, but cone cells are chromatic and allows you to see colour in other times. This is accurate enough but a little overly simple. Each one of those cells, cones and rods both, contains a pigment, and like any pigment it absorbs light around a certain wavelength and reflects others, and when it absorbs light, this produces a response in the cell to the brain. They also respond most strongly at a certain wavelength and then falling off in a general bell curve type shape to the left and right of that peak. \n\nYou can see an image of that [here](_URL_2_) (note, not to scale, comparative only) but to list: \n\nRods activate between 400nm and about 640nm, with their peak around 510nm. \n\nBlue cones activate between 370nm and about 550nm , with their peak around 420nm. \n\nGreen activate between 400nm and about 700nm with their peak around 530nm. \n\nRed activate between 400nm and about 700nm, with their peak around 560nm. \n\nThis is why the light off a 420nm ish laser looks really really blue. It's activating the blue cones in your eyes very very strongly, and everything else much weaker. However most things aren't lasers and don't produce/reflect monochromatic, instead they reflect multiple different parts of the spectrum. That results in more than one wavelength of light hitting your eyes at the same time. You'll also notice there's quite a bit of overlap between the ranges of activation for the cells in your eyes. It's that overlap combined with mixed wavelengths triggering more than one type of cell at a time that gives rise to the rest of the colours. So while the visible spectrum looks like [this](_URL_0_) the diagram of colours we can percivce looks like [this](_URL_1_)\n\n\nSo now we can get into the why. That last diagram there is a C.I.E. Chromaticity chart. The X,Y coordinates describe the relative strength of activation of each of the cone cells in your eyes. Closer to the bottom right, red is most strongly activated , bottom left blue and top left green. If I point violet light at your face (so bottom left) and then start to also add in red light by increasing the intensity of the red you can follow the charting from violet and start moving into purple into a sort of light fuchsia to a dark fuschia and so on. Eventually there's just tons of red wavelength light bombarding your eyes, in comparison to blue wavelength light and the red overwhelms the blue and you see nothing but red. This is also why a really really bright violet wavelength light appears blue, but bright purple still looks purple. Intense violet light just triggers blue cone cells strongly so our brain goes \"oh that's really blue\", but intense purple still maintains that mix of red and blue we perceive as purple\n\nAlso contrary to what you may have heard, rods do play a role colour vision, however not all of the time. You need light that's dim enough for rods cells to be activated, but not too dim that the cone cells stop activating. This is why colours get a bit funny around dusk/dawn or in areas with dim light from streetlamps. Rods activate quite strongly in the sort of blue-green area of the spectrum. So when the light gets dim reds start to become more dull or even close to black, but you're more sensitive to light in that green/blue chunk spectrum and can still make out greens and blues. \n\nThat also why things like aircraft cockpits use red lights. Rods are not saturated by the red light and remain active thus allowing for night vision when looking outside of the aircraft, but the red light stops you vision from shifting entirely to scotopic (night) vision where the pilots would no longer be able to read their instruments. It's also good way to observe nocturnal animals who usually can't perceive red very well and are thus still in the dark as far as they're concerned. ",
"Because the color spectrum is actually like a globe. if you go too far red you'll find America and think you're in India, sparking a mass genocide that ultimately results in my existence.",
"Pigment colors work a little differently then the color spectrum. take white and black. in the light spectrum, light is white/clear when all colors in the spectrum are visible, but the absence of all colors is black. With pigments, when all colors are present you get black, and when they are all gone you get white.\n\nas for Red, well Purple is a mix of red and blue, so red fades in well. and Orange is a mix of Red and Yellow, so it also fades in well.",
"As someone who is completely colorblind, I find this thread quite interesting. Its like you all can see fake colors. I never even knew that was a thing. This really did change my perspective on colors.",
"Rainbow has only secondary colors. Any two primary, like cmyk. To a color. Yellow and magenta make red. Magenta and cyan make purple No other combos of magenta plus a color. Unless you count black and that's not a color",
"Most of these replies are quite convoluted, here's an attempt at a simpler explanation.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) is a graph representing all the colours that humans can see. This graph has the special property that if you pick two points on it and blend the corresponding colours of light then the result will be a colour somewhere in between those two points.\n\nOn the graph is also a black line, with some numbers behind it. Those numbers are wavelengths, and the colour next to them the colour of light with that wavelength. All other colours are some blend of light with pure wavelengths so they are somewhere in the shaded area on the inside of the black curve.\n\nNow to get from red to blue you can either follow the black line or take a shortcut through the area with purple colours. Both will result in a smooth transition of colours. Note that you can get from red to blue without passing through the green area.\n\nEdit: Note that this graph depends heavily on the way human vision works, for other animals it can look drastically different and might have a different number of dimensions.",
"Actually, purple isn't on the color spectrum at all.\n\n[Pictured: Spectrum by wavelength](_URL_0_)\n\nYou can see that at the longest wavelengths, you get your reds, while at the shortest, you get blues leading toward violet before hitting the invisible ultraviolet.\n\nBut violet is not purple. [These are shades of the color violet.](_URL_1_), while [these are shades of the color purple.](_URL_2_)\n\nPurple is a perceived color created by the mixtures of blue and red signals in our brain. It has no wavelength, whereas violet has a wavelength ranging 380-450 nanometers. Purple is something of a virtual color, only existing when you synthesize it. This is why the color spectrum is non-continuous, but the color wheel appears continuous and smooth even where blue goes into purple, then back into red."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/color-pink-doesnt-exist-can-see/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9bd877c0d7d5a998e2dfba6736d3389",
"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZKral.png",
"https://www.unm.edu/~toolson/human_cone_action_spectra.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/CIE1931xy_blank.svg"
],
[
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZgUM591YaNI/maxresdefault.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Color_icon_violet_v2.svg/225px-Color_icon_violet_v2.svg.png",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Color_icon_purple.svg/1024px-Color_icon_purple.svg.png"
]
]
|
|
9amqff | bizarre sound question | If I were to have a *directional* sound of a specific frequency, but had another sound of the same frequency that is not in any particular direction, would they harmonize, create a larger wave amplitude, and both move in the direction of the directional sound?
Does directional sound follow a similar rule to the conservation of momentum when it comes in contact with other sounds of the same frequency? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9amqff/eli5_bizarre_sound_question/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4wn3tw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It would create patterns of interference close to the directional source. Those patterns look like waves on the surface of a pond, with some regions increasing and some decreasing. These patterns would weaken further from the source and converge to some average, as all sources behave as omnidirectional (point) sources far enough away. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6h9ujk | recently there was news about two girls joined at the head being surgically separated by a team of over 30 surgeons. what is there for 30 surgeons to actually do during a job like this one? 30 people is a lot of people. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6h9ujk/eli5_recently_there_was_news_about_two_girls/ | {
"a_id": [
"diwmlps",
"diwn7l1",
"diwncyx",
"diwoifd",
"dixe7z9"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
24,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nLink to story about the separated girls ",
"Some are there to observe, but in a surgery that complex, you need different expertise. You'll need a neurosurgeon to work on the brain. A vascular surgeon to help separate the blood supplies without accidentally killing off supply to one or the other brain. Then you need a plastic and orthopedic surgeon to come in and start working on making the \"replacement\" skulls and skin on the two separate heads.\n",
"Hey there, I work in the operating room during spine and neuro-surgery and can give you my run-down of why... \n1) Time: A surgery like that takes a lot of time. Most likely 20+ hrs. Although surgeons have been known to operate for that long at one time, it's not the safest way to do things. Splitting the surgery up in to different sections (1 guy will do the exposure and craniotomy and start working on separation until surgeon #2 will come in and begin his part etc...) Anesthesiologists usually work in 8 hr shifts and then a call schedule after that. Same is typical for nurses, scrub techs, etc... so the 30 people probably includes a lot of turnover of that type of staff. \n2) Level of complication: Taking on a huge risky, complicated case like that is a lot of stress on the surgeon. Having colleagues that are experts in their own little niches of the surgical field to come in and help makes the surgery safer and builds confidence in the surgical team. You also have to consider all the things that could potentially go wrong in such a big surgery and having the appropriate staff available for Vascular problems etc also probably adds to that number. \n\nThose are the two reasons that come to mind. I'm sure someone else can add to them and elaborate.",
"There aren't 30 at the same time. The surgery took place over 11 hours. The surgeons need to take turns/shifts because no one surgeon can work that long. \n\nAlso, it's not 30 surgeons, it's a surgery team of 30. Surgeons have several assistants in the room that do numerous tasks, and they all need to swap out too after long enough.",
"The TV biopic \"Gifted Hands\" was about Ben Carson (Cuba Gooding Jr) who was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head with both surviving.\n\nThis is the same Ben Carson who is current HUD Secretary and was running for president. He seems to be a pretty legit neurosurgeon.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere are a few scenes showing how these teams worked to separate the twins and repair them. Kind of interesting."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/twin-girls-conjoined-head-separated-abby-erin-delaney-surgical-team-north-carolina-pennsylvania-a7789441.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_Hands:_The_Ben_Carson_Story"
]
]
|
||
6jm8ev | how many calories are burnt climbing stairs? | According to various online estimates (just google "how many calories are burned climbing stairs"), you burn 0.17 calories for every step you climb.
This doesn't seem right to me. A calorie is by definition the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water by 1 degree celsius.
Say you weigh 70kg. The formula for potential energy is mass(gravitational acceleration)height (presumably all in SI units). Thus, the difference in potential energy obtained by raising your body up 1 step (approximately 0.15 meters) should be:
70kg * 9.8m/s2 * 0.15m = 102.9 Joules. Converted into calories, this is 24.6 calories. This seems wildly inconsistent with what various online sources are estimating. What's going on here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jm8ev/eli5how_many_calories_are_burnt_climbing_stairs/ | {
"a_id": [
"djfd858"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Are you confusing cal with kcal? The energy commonly called calories when referring to food and diets is actually kilocalories, or 1000 traditional calories. \n\nYou need to do **at least** the amount of work required to raise yourself through the height against gravity. You will expend additional energy through your forward movement, friction against your clothes, etc. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
31d8ay | why i've never heard of a famous person from history dying of cancer when it's so prevalent today | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31d8ay/eli5_why_ive_never_heard_of_a_famous_person_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0hffv",
"cq0i53m",
"cq0iqm2"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Cancer has only recently become widely understood and many cancers (such as leukemia or bowel cancer) aren't particularly visible.\n\nSo people died of cancer but mostly, they didn't know it was cancer at the time.\n\nHowever, the word \"cancer\" was coined for the disease in the 5th century BCE by the Greeks, who were known to surgically remove certain malignant tumours, so it's not like the disease was unknown, just \"invisible\" in the majority of cases.",
"John Wayne, Bea Arthur, Dennis Hopper, Bob Marley, H.P. Lovecraft, Babe Ruth, Farrah Fawcett... Are they not famous? \n\nThat's just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can look up a list of celebrities who have died from cancer. ",
"Cancer is mainly a disease of old age. Only 20% of cancers occur in people under the age of 65.\n\nBefore the development of antibiotics and modern medical technology in the early 1900s, people died much earlier than they did now. \n\nBack in 1900, if you had already survived your childhood and got to your 18th birthday. Your life expectancy would be to age 60. Most people would not get to age 65, which is the age at which cancer starts to become common.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2l0sp5 | what is cyberpunk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l0sp5/eli5_what_is_cyberpunk/ | {
"a_id": [
"clqde4b",
"clqdknp"
],
"score": [
4,
29
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, it's a futuristic setting with people with electronics integrated into their bodies, mechanical body parts, that sort of thing. That's the \"cyber\" part.\n\nIt's also typically a corporate dystopia, in which faceless corporations rule the world, and heroic/antiheroic hackers and stuff fight The Man. That's the \"punk\" part.",
"It's a sub genre of science fiction that's mostly characterized as a dystopian future with:\n\nVery little nature/natural resources\n\nWorld owned mostly by corporations rather than countries or government \n\nHeavy use cybernetic augmentation like implants and limb replacements \n\nLarge gap between the slums/poor and the wealthy/corporate level guys\n\nHeavy use of the Internet as a kind of cyberspace that can be utilized by almost everyone, anywhere\n\nGothic/futuristic architecture \n\nMore often than not, there's also themes of addiction, poverty, uprising, rebellion and people running in and out of the shadows and corporate networks.\n\nOver time it's become a little more streamlined, but I personally prefer the retro, clunky tech, Blade Runner-esque style of cyberpunk (which is a good movie to start with if you want sort of an introduction to the genre) \n\nThere are some classic novels like Snow Crash and Nueromancer that are kinda at the root of the genre and you've also got Shadowrun, which is a great cyberpunk franchise that mixes traditional fantasy with sci-fi themes. I highly recommend the game Shadowrun: Returns for anyone who really wants a crash course. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1nn2ws | why does melting and boiling at a specific temperature? | During heating, the kinetic and potential energy increases. But once the melting or boiling point is reaches, the potential energy only increases while kinetic energy remains the same.
Why isn't it possible for the kinetic and potential energy to continuously increase as we heat up a substance. Something like if we heat up ice, why can't the KE and PE increase all the way until the distance between each water molecule is so far that it is considered a liquid and not a solid anymore. I don't get why suddenly there is a point where only PE increases and KE stays the same. Why can't the PE and KE keep increasing and there wouldn't be a clear distinction between a solid and liquid. So we can't say for sure that "oh it's a solid" rather than maybe while heating it has properties of both a solid and liquid not distinctly one or another. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nn2ws/why_does_melting_and_boiling_at_a_specific/ | {
"a_id": [
"cck3uzv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > why can't the KE and PE increase all the way until the distance between each water molecule is so far that it is considered a liquid and not a solid anymore\n\nI think this is where your misunderstanding is coming from. The molecules in a liquid are about as far apart as the molecules in a solid--that is why solids and liquids are practically incompressible and why there isn't much volume change when a substance changes from solid to liquid or vice versa (water has an atypically large change upon freezing/melting). The real key is how they are interacting.\n\nYou can think of molecules for this example as if they are little marbles that have a tendency to stick together. When these marbles have very little kinetic energy they are moving pretty slowly. Since they like to stick to each other they tend to form lasting bonds. This can lead to a crystalline structure--perhaps you have a structure where the molecules align themselves as if they were points on a grid (i.e. every molecule in the middle of the crystal has a neighbor to the left, right, top, bottom, front, and back). The marbles vibrate around, but they don't move any large distance--they like to be connected to their neighbors too much. This is analogous to what's going on in a solid.\n\nNow imagine you take your container of marbles and introduce more energy. If you get just the right amount then some of the marbles will start to break free from their neighbors and move to other neighbors which they are also attracted to. There isn't enough energy for everyone to do this at once, but when a neighbor-shifting marble stops it gives its energy to the next marble which is able to shift around. This is the start of melting (this specific phenomenon I've described is recrystallization).\n\nIf you keep on adding more and more energy then more and more of the marbles will be able to be moving to new neighbors at the same time. As you do this you will likely have a mass of marbles where each marble is trying to stay connected to its neighbors (solid) and other marbles that are freely making and breaking bonds with their neighbors as they pass by--this would be like having an ice cube in a glass of water. Note that you now have an analog of a liquid--it has a definite volume since the marbles are still pretty much touching, but it can freely take the shape of its container. Despite all of this energy and motion, though, no marbles have enough energy to jump from the surface and escape the bucket.\n\nIf you continue this analogy to the next level eventually marbles *will* have enough energy that they will fly out of the container. If the particles are going fast enough they will fly around the room bouncing off of the walls (in this model every collision is elastic--there can be energy transfer but none is lost as heat). Now that the marbles have broken free of their bonds with each other they are free to take up as much room as is available (just like a gas), and over time they will produce a net force on surfaces, caused by their collisions (this is akin to pressure).\n\n******\n\nThus, you can think of the three phases as being:\n\n* Solid: long-term bonds between molecules and their neighbors\n\n* Liquid: short-term bonds between molecules and their neighbors\n\n* Gas: No (ideal gas) or few (real gas) interactions between molecules other than elastic collisions.\n\nIn an ideal substance the transitions between these states happens at a set temperature because there is a certain amount of energy necessary in order to break free of ones neighbors in favor of other neighbors (solid- > liquid) or to break free of neighbors entirely (liquid- > gas). In real materials (e.g. some alloys which are not \"eutectic\") there is sometimes a range over which the solid's properties break down and it becomes more liquid-like until it finally truly melts. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7o88ro | why does paint stick to some surfaces and not others (silicon etc.) ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7o88ro/eli5why_does_paint_stick_to_some_surfaces_and_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds7kp31"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Surface energy. A liquid will spread on a high energy surface (like water on clean glass) and bead up on a low energy surface (like silicone or Teflon). Like a water drop becoming a sphere to minimize its air-water interface, a liquid drop on a surface will take on a shape with the lowest energy. This is measured quantitatively as the contact angles of the system.\n\nIf you want to paint on silicone, you will need a specially formulated paint, which exist for archetechtural coating applications. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4o5g7t | why would government bond yields ever go negative? | Article for reference: _URL_0_
German government 10-year bonds dipped into negative territory today, meaning that people are willing to pay the government (a small amount of) to keep their money for 10 years.
Why would anybody ever purchase these? It seems you'd be better off by just keeping your money in cash. You can literally let money sit in a guaranteed savings account and earn 0% interest at any bank, why pay the government to keep your money instead?
Am I missing something here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o5g7t/eli5_why_would_government_bond_yields_ever_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"d49rp1d",
"d49s96n"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Most people wouldn't have a good reason to buy something like this, but if you have a whole lot of money, and you think typical investments like stocks are going to tank, it might be a good idea.\n\n\"It seems you'd be better off just keeping your money in cash\": You can't easily get that much cash. And even if you could, you would be wise to have it guarded in some way, which would cost you money, and also be risky even so.\n\n\"You can literally let money sit in a guaranteed savings account and earn 0% interest at any bank\": What do you mean, \"guaranteed\"? Banks can and do collapse, and if your bank collapses, government insurance programs like the FDIC only insure some of the money that you held in your bank, not all of it.",
"You're thinking about this from the perspective of people who keep relatively small amounts of cash. Now think of it from the perspective of a large company like Volkswagen, who [as of their most recent financial reports had $38.19 billion in cash](_URL_0_).\n\nDeposit insurance (like FDIC in the USA) exists to protect *small* depositors from bank failure. From the point of view of a large depositor that's well past the deposit insurance maximum, when they put money in a bank they run a legitimate risk that they might lose it. So lending it to the government minimizes that risk—even if it costs a little bit."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/14/brexit-news-uncertainty-around-eu-vote-causing-volatility-in-markets.html"
]
| [
[],
[
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=VOW3.DE+Key+Statistics"
]
]
|
|
2115r0 | why does reddit maintains such a basic interface/design? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2115r0/eli5_why_does_reddit_maintains_such_a_basic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg8mch5",
"cg8mdx8",
"cg8mffm",
"cg8mfii",
"cg8mfu5"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because there would be little to no benefit to making it fancier and every change you make to a program makes it more likely for you to introduce bugs.",
"If it it ain't broke don't fix it.\n\nMaking the site look different would risk breaking it, creating bugs etc. \n\nAnd every subreddit can look different, have a look at /r/Diablo or /r/wow if you wanna see some nightmares of overdoing design. ",
"Every time you to try to change a heavily used app, it ticks off users who've become comfortable with the way things have always worked. \n\nWhen google tweaks gmail, they get a lot of hate. But then google does tend to fix things in gmail that weren't broken. ",
"My guess; because if you give a huge number of users free reign to dump an incredible amount of information into your site at all times, in a never-ending downward spiral of categories and sub-categories, you want to keep you fundamental code base as lean as possible. As the site's density approaches infinity, every extra character costs you an infinite amount.",
"They focus on usability, not visual appeal. Plus...this particular design is very bandwidth UN-intensive, easily reproduced/referenced in mobile devices etc."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
f8ewqd | cream of tartar?? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f8ewqd/eli5_cream_of_tartar/ | {
"a_id": [
"fikxa3w",
"fil0jyx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Cream of tartar is a byproduct of wine production. It is an acid, aka potassium bitartrate. It's main use is to stabilize egg whites and/or cream while beating them into meringue, but it also adds a tanginess flavor, and prevents sugar from crystallizing. It can also be used as a leavening agent.",
"This is easily found on Wikipedia, or you can r/askculinary about r/baking."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1ovo1w | how does wikipedia avoid abuse? | So I understand that Wikipedia has measures in place in case people edit articles inaccurately but a good amount of Wikipedia including some of the more complex topics in science and mathematics for example have very accurate, cited information free of errors. Why did people spend the time to write these articles in the first place? Why, with the way the internet is, are articles not constantly getting debased? It just seems like so many websites, even if they have positives sides have those people looking for a reaction or just trying to cause trouble, in all the time I've used Wikipedia, I've only run into one serious error(page about ostriches replaced with stuff about Nazi Germany) and it was fixed later that same day. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ovo1w/eli5_how_does_wikipedia_avoid_abuse/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccw43p3",
"ccw44xv",
"ccw4azc",
"ccw6yd5",
"ccw7cah",
"ccwbs1b"
],
"score": [
22,
3,
4,
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the people who administer the site are diligent in their work. Also, logs are taken every time a change is made, so it's not hard for registered editors to see where someone has taken a huge chunk out of a page and replaced it with garbage and then simply undo the changes.\n\nIn addition, sensitive topics are often blocked from editing by unregistered users or users who are not given permission by the administrators. This reduces biased defacement of pages like \"Nazism,\" \"Israel,\" and other such hot topics.",
"People like sharing information. They feel like they're making the world a better place by writing articles. For some it's a hobby as well as a calling.\n\nWikipedia articles are vandalized sometimes, but community editors can revert them to earlier versions. Every version of an article is saved, so if someone ruins it the older version can be restored with a click. In addition, controversial articles prone to constant vandalism or edit wars are locked down so they can only be changed by trusted users.",
"Imagine there was a bright white wall with spray paint cans in front of it. That's wikipedia, and the spray cans are the ease of editing it by people looking to vandalize it.\n\nThe interesting bit is that the wall automatically gets painted white again 5 seconds after graffiti is painted on it.\n\nTurns out, after a few tries, people stop trying to vandalize it, because there's not gratification when it's wiped away so quickly.\n\nTo get away from the analogy, the regular users on wikipedia have extremely powerful tools and they are ridiculously dedicated to preserving wikipedia. So much so that it's nearly impossible to cause any obvious harm to the site.",
"As a WP editor with 1500 edits, I can say I benefit from it more than the readers do. When I write an article about that complex scientific topic, find/read through those sources and summarize them, all while ensuring everything is accurate, I learn more about the topic then the reader.\n \n \nBeyond that, we all have a \"I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine\" kind of attitude. I feel like I have benefited SO MUCH from WP that I just have to give back.\n \n \nThere are a few other tools we use to avoid vandalism, but some times it does slip through. And, if you see it, feel free to correct it yourself. Who knows? Maybe you'll learn a thing or two. ",
"There at eplenty of articles run by certain wikipedians who are, shall we say, less than diligent when it comes to the truth. There's an Indian cult leader whose wiki page mysteriously doesn't mention crimes he committed because it's guarded by a high-up wikipefian who just reverts any changes he doesn't like.\n\nTL;DR There is a cabal.",
"Along with normal people identifying vandalism, there's also actually a few other cool automated things going for Wikipedia:\n\nThere's an automated system called [Cluebot NG](_URL_0_) that automatically looks through every new edit made on Wikipedia and checks it for vandalism against a pre-set of filters. For example, if detects you just replaced a normal article with a bunch of expletives, it will assume it's vandalism and revert it instantly:\n\n\"It can catch 70% of vandalism, with a 0.5% false positive rate, and the core operates in 0.02 seconds.\"\n\n\n#\n\n\nBesides the bot, there are also some basic editing screening techniques used. If you blank an article and try to hit save, the Wiki editor tool itself knows this is not a contribution and won't allow you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_NG"
]
]
|
|
3g4qev | why do animals have such big testicles? | What advantage does this have? I have literally seen goats, pigs, etc, where they drag the ground and are just bouncing around between their legs. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g4qev/eli5_why_do_animals_have_such_big_testicles/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctutsq7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > In species in which many males mate with one female when she is in heat, sperm from all these males is deposited in the female's reproductive tract in a short span of time. A male that deposits more sperm under these conditions will have a higher chance of fertilizing the female's eggs, and hence siring offspring. Males with larger testicles produce more sperm, and therefore have an advantage in such a sperm competition scenario. This is called sperm competition theory, because sperm from different males duke it out inside the female's reproductive tract.\n\n > Rats have just such a mating system in which multiple males mate with one female, especially at higher population densities. When a female rat comes into heat, she may be mated by multiple males in a short span of time. The male with the biggest testicles will produce the most sperm, which means he'll have a higher chance of fertilizing some of her eggs.\n\n > In contrast, species in which just one male mates with a female during her estrus don't have sperm competition, because the sperm racing to fertilize the female's eggs belong to a single male. There is no need to produce a lot of sperm, so males of such species can afford to have small testicles.\n\n > This relationship between testicle size and sperm competition holds true across the animal kingdom, and has been found in mammals (primates, sheep, rodents etc.), birds, amphibians, fish and insects. In fact, testicle size is considered an excellent predictor of a species' mating system. Species in which multiple males mate with a female in a short span of time encounter sperm competition and have large testicles relative to their body size. Species in which just one male mates with a female encounter no sperm competition and have relatively small testicles.\n\nHence our species has small testicles relative to our size and other species have large."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4pmy75 | why does it help sleeping on the floor when drunk? | Whenever I'm drunk (like right now) and I try to sleep in my bed everything is spinning so much that I just want to vomit. However, when I sleep on the floor it doesn't. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pmy75/eli5_why_does_it_help_sleeping_on_the_floor_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4n3mzk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sleeping on the floor isn't the trick that works (at least IME and with others), it's putting a foot on the floor while sleeping in a bed. Without feet on the floor and with alcohol in the bloodstream, the mechanism for controlling balance is thrown off. The foot on the floor is supposed to mitigate this."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
bjlya5 | how do apartment building fire alarms work? | For example, if I set off the smoke detector in my apartment, will it set off the whole building? Is this system able to tell the difference between burnt food and a legitimate structure fire? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjlya5/eli5_how_do_apartment_building_fire_alarms_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"em97re4",
"em9i03c"
],
"score": [
4,
10
],
"text": [
"yes, most fire codes require that fire alarms be linked together. the smoke detector detects smoke. and it doesn't differentiate it from actual fire or burnt food. they work by running a current from one end to another and smoke blocks that flow of current and sets off the alarm. \n\nfire extinguishers work differently, they usually have a small capsule that b locks the water flow. if that capsule overheats and bursts ie from a fire, then the sprinkers starts flowing.",
"This depends on jurisdiction, when your building and alarm system was built, and possibly the whims of the local inspector.\n\nYou got options:\n\n1) You have \"single-station\" smoke detectors in your apartment and \"system\" detection, if at all, in the rest of the building (hallways, common areas). Your burnt toast shouldn't alarm the whole building.\n\n2) The master panel monitors your single-station smokes or you have system smokes in your apartment. Depending on panel programming, your burnt toast may only alarm your unit, or the whole building if a neighbor also burns her toast at the same time. The 2nd detection may also happen if you open the door to vent smoke into the hallway (if there's a detector out there).\n\nIt's really dumb to program the panel so that detection in a single apartment alarms the whole building. Fire departments hate false alarms and the newer codes have been making many changes to reduce false alarms just like this.\n\nI've been a fire panel tech 15 years, in 3 cities in 2 states. It's highly likely that burning your toast will only result in an upset roommate, and not fire trucks."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5c1dln | what are the sets of black tubes i keep seeing across the roads and driving over and what is their purpose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5c1dln/eli5_what_are_the_sets_of_black_tubes_i_keep/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9sufie",
"d9suhk3",
"d9suivf",
"d9sujzc"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a traffic counter. Used to gauge approximately how many vehicles go past a spot and at what times of the day.\n\nThe tubes are compression tubes that can be easily measured by the equipment in the grey box. They're not accurate enough to provide speed data, though.\n\n",
"It's a tally meter. It counts how many vehicle's drive over it. Helping plan future maintenance or road extensions to existing highways.",
"They're for counting traffic. Odds are someone is planning to do roadwork soon and want's to know how badly this will affect traffic. Roads are designed to allow so many cars through per minute. So you find out how many cars are going down the road you're going to close and how many are already using the side roads. Then you make sure the side roads could handle that extra traffic. That's how you decide detours or if you only close half the road or whole thing. ",
"\nPNEUMATIC ROAD TUBES\n Uses rubber tubes placed across traffic lanes in a\nspecific configuration. When a pair of wheels (on one axle) hits the tube, air pressure in the \ncompressed tube activates a recording device that notes the time of the event\n. Based on the \npattern of these times (for instance, the length of the interval bet\nween the time that two axles of a \ntypical vehicle activate the counter), the device will match each compression event to a \nparticular\nvehicle according to a vehicle classification scheme. Two tubes attached to the same counter can \nbe placed a set distance \napart in order to determine speed\n by measuring the interval\n between \nthe \ntime an axle hits the first tube and the time it hits the second tube."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2yexdd | why does western formal clothing require men to cover the entire body whereas women have the option of baring arms and legs in formal attire? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yexdd/eli5_why_does_western_formal_clothing_require_men/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp8vvlo",
"cp8w4rn"
],
"score": [
7,
8
],
"text": [
"Because most of women's clothing was designed with form in mind from the get-go. Dresses are made to look nice, period. Men's wear, on the other hand, tends to have origins in functional clothing. Dinner jackets have a slit in the back so you can mount a horse, ties are descended from scarves that provided warmth, etc. \n\nPut that together with the fact that western formal dress grew out of the European tradition, from Northern latitudes where it is relatively cold for much of the year, and you get long-sleeved formal wear. ",
"Because women look better in less clothing. No one wants to see men's hairy arms and legs. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
47i1is | how to pay off students loans? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47i1is/eli5_how_to_pay_off_students_loans/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0d2tv3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Interest is a percentage that you were told when you took out the loan, and every month (or year or some other time frame) that much percent of the amount you have left to pay is added to your bill. To pay off the loans you probably have to contact the company you took out the loan from, look for a contact number on the monthly statement you receive for the loan in the mail or online."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
dgu6cr | what is that subtle grainy texture we see in a dimly dark room or in absolute darkness in our vision? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dgu6cr/eli5_what_is_that_subtle_grainy_texture_we_see_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3elu3w",
"f3equxu"
],
"score": [
2,
14
],
"text": [
"Quick bookmark in case this theory is correct: Visual Snow. If true, I'll do my research on a ThioJoe video.",
"Your eyes have photopic and scotopic vision. Photopic vision uses reseptors called cones during the day and has good image quaility and color. Scotopic vision is your low light vision and uses light receptors called rods. It does take some time for eyes to adjust to low level light and for the rods to start working at full capacity. The rods are best at collecting and amplifying light and they do not provide color vision or high image resolution. This makes the image seen by the eye look grainy. \n\nWhen you see color in dim lighting, it is the cones working with the rods and it is called mesopic vision."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
7yisyc | "the flu" vs influenza vs a "bad cold" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7yisyc/eli5_the_flu_vs_influenza_vs_a_bad_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"dugv87o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A cold is an infection commonly caused by the rhinovirus. Even a bad cold is milder than the flu. A cold will come on slowly, and have you sneezing/coughing, and you'll feel terrible for a few days.\n\n\"The flu\" and \"influenza\" are the same thing. It's a disease caused by the influenza virus. The symptoms come on abruptly, and generally include headaches, body aches, fever, sometimes sneezing/coughing, and generally feeling like you want to die for about a week."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
a63s1x | why don't humans have antibiotic injections? | My cat went to the vet today for an injury. To prevent it from becoming infected she got an injection of antibiotics and the vet said it'd last two whole weeks, the anti-inflammatory shot lasts a few days.
It's fantastic that I don't have to force-feed her oral tablets, so I wondered how come we don't do this with humans? Obviously antibiotics are on the way out, but wouldn't this work a lot better for patients like children or the elderly who might forget to take a pill, or refuse to take it? Also potentially not harming gut bacteria as much?
I know not everything translates directly across from animals to humans (and vice versa, eg. a dog taking a paracetamol tablet can be deadly) - but it does sound pretty neat. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a63s1x/eli5_why_dont_humans_have_antibiotic_injections/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebt8r11"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Long lasting intramuscular injections of antibiotics are used in humans. For example, that is the usual treatment for syphilis.\n\nThere are some things that limit their popularity in humans. For most antibiotics, the size of the dose needed to last two weeks would be quite large, leading to injections that would be quite painful. We are less willing to subject humans to that than we are animals. Also, if you have a bad reaction to an antibiotic after a large long-lasting dose, you are screwed, you can't just stop taking it. Again, we are less willing to risk that on humans than animals.\n\nThere are also bureaucratic obstacles to introducing more of this type of dosage to humans, when an oral dosing already exists and is known to work. For example, there is generally an ethical obligation to ensure a good standard of care for the part of the research group which gets the old treatment. Part of that would generally be going out of your way to ensure that they do comply. So if the only clinical advantage that the depot injection has is better compliance, the rules of running human trials might cause the improvement to be undetectable. Also, pharma companies usually wouldn't be willing to develop new treatments unless they can charge more for them, while insurers or government payors might not be willing to pay extra when there is an existing treatment which is \"good enough\" if people would just do what they are told to.\n\nDespite this, there is research on developing more long-lasting antibiotics for use in humans. But this type of technological spread in medicine often reaches animals first, simply because the barriers to adoption are lower.\n\n > Obviously antibiotics are on the way out\n\nHunh?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
djjk52 | how is working out good/recommended when our bodies naturally tend to resist physically demanding activities like lifting or running which makes us not want to do it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/djjk52/eli5_how_is_working_out_goodrecommended_when_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"f45kkba",
"f45kvrn"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because your body evolved, mostly, when energy conservation was appropriate. It was a survival thing.\n\nNow, we sit on our asses all day and suck down sugar and shit food. So it's necessary to go against the evolution and get active to not be a obese and/or unhealthy.",
"Nowadays we have what's termed a sedentary life style. We don't move much and thus our bodies adapt to our needs and get really out of shape. Back in the day we didn't have this technological revolution and all the comforts, we had to hunt, move, run, etc so we had to conserve energy, so we evolved that way."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3enl2k | why is it taken that for life to exist it must be "earth like"? why is it not considered that aliens should they exist possess different physical tolerances/requirements for survival? | Was not sure if I should have posted in askscience but please bear with me! This kinda goes into the domain of "what is considered life" but even so, if we discover some complex autonomous physical form that is completely different from our notion of life... do we just ignore that?
I get that part of our search is for finding an inhabitable planet for our own survivals sake, but how about taking it from an "are we alone" standpoint? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3enl2k/eli5_why_is_it_taken_that_for_life_to_exist_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctgmb9j",
"ctgmil2",
"ctgmqko",
"ctgn425",
"ctgn8bf",
"ctgnb6q",
"ctgnl20",
"ctgnlie",
"ctgnqvk",
"ctgns2v",
"ctgns37",
"ctgnxur",
"ctgo0qb",
"ctgo31d",
"ctgodze",
"ctgokpb",
"ctgoreg",
"ctgoy4t",
"ctgp42e",
"ctgp9wb",
"ctgpb7b",
"ctgpewt",
"ctgpgmn",
"ctgphs1",
"ctgpi53",
"ctgpk4a",
"ctgplbd",
"ctgpn0f",
"ctgppkp",
"ctgppz2",
"ctgq36h",
"ctgq7wy",
"ctgq8qw",
"ctgq951",
"ctgqfdg",
"ctgqotz",
"ctgr79n",
"ctgrc3i",
"ctgrg21",
"ctgrk54",
"ctgrma3",
"ctgrvne",
"ctgrxx3",
"ctgs357",
"ctgs3pc",
"ctgs52q",
"ctgsiuz",
"ctgsnut",
"ctgso0k",
"ctgss66",
"ctgsudu",
"ctgt0ha",
"ctgt1qf",
"ctgta7r",
"ctgtn3z",
"ctgtvdi",
"ctgtwce",
"ctgugm2",
"ctgusv2",
"ctgw7wh",
"ctgwjpd",
"ctgwqkv",
"ctgwspu",
"ctgwzmp",
"ctgxq82",
"ctgyb56",
"ctgynsq",
"ctgz9ki",
"cth02cu",
"cth0cjv",
"cth0fu7",
"cth18ez",
"cth1jqs",
"cth1qee",
"cth3r48",
"cth427m",
"cth4hyg",
"cth67qx",
"cth6jd5",
"cth89f0",
"cth8uth",
"cth9szl",
"ctha57u",
"cthavkq",
"cthbuqi",
"cthdbg0",
"cthdtot",
"cthe1mh",
"cthey4s",
"cthf7yt",
"cthh5rg",
"cthhyz9",
"cthkkf2",
"cthl00l"
],
"score": [
4170,
67,
260,
3,
6,
12,
154,
5,
217,
5,
4,
2,
634,
22,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
12,
2,
2,
3,
2416,
2,
2,
2,
2,
55,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
4,
3,
9,
2,
2,
2,
2,
24,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not that life different from the life that we see around us on Earth couldn't exist, it's that the only examples of life that we have to go on require certain conditions like liquid water. So, we're focusing our efforts on finding the conditions that we already know support life instead of just blindly searching everywhere.\n\n\n > I get that part of our search is for finding an inhabitable planet for our own survivals sake\n\nAlso, this part isn't necessarily true. The search isn't primarily focused on finding another planet for humanity to move to. Simply finding another planet that supports life, even if we could never get there, would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries ever made.",
"Aliens may exist outside our understanding of life, but since we have no idea what that could be, our best guess is to look for life similar to what we observe on Earth. That way, we know what signs to look for in other planets and our search can have a 'checklist' of sorts to guessing where life can develop.\n\nWe would probably consider an autonomous form 'living' if it possessed the characteristics of life. These include, movement, energy production, growth and reproduction, ability to react to the outside world, etc. In the far future advanced self-replicating robots may be able to do all of these things independent of human input, and would probably be considered alive.\n\nFrom wondering whether we are alone, again we cannot know if Earth life is like all or most life in the universe, if it exists at all. But what we do know is that life exists or can exist in the environment of Earth, so it is a good starting point to search for Earth-like planets. We do not yet know of any life that exists outside of Earth, so it would be searching blind. Given the variety of extremities that different bacteria can survive in, it wouldn't be that surprising if we found even stranger forms of life in the universe.",
"While acknowledging that they could be wrong, scientists are generally pretty convinced that carbon-based chemistry is just about the only way that life can happen. If you watch enough sci-fi you'll know that silicon is a *possibile* runner-up, but it has its own problems. Carbon has specific traits that allow it to form long chains that are critical to the chemistry of living things. Again, no one is saying that it's absolutely impossible to have non-carbon life, they're just saying they can't come up with another solution. Any non-carbon-based life would probably be so far out of our experience that we wouldn't know how to look for it, so they focus on looking for signs of life like the kind we do understand.",
"This has not been the case since December of 2010. At that time scientists found a bacteria that used Arsenic instead of Phosphorus in it's genetic code. Arsenic is an element that to almost every living creature is extremely poisonous so the discovery of a living thing that not only tolerates it but needs it to survive was a redefinition of what requirements would be to support life.\n\n_URL_0_\nIs one place to read about it.",
"How do we know that the entire universe isn't sentient and humans are like microbes in the universe's gut",
";tldr it's **much** easier to look for things that are familiar to us than to look for things that we have no experience with.\n\nIt is considered that \"aliens\" could be very different from humans, but we base our search for intelligent life after that which exists on our home planet, Earth.",
"Because we're already looking for a needle in a haystack. Now you're telling us we don't even know what the needle looks like.",
"Because when you are looking for your keys you start at the places that make sense to you. You don't go to the roof, the fridge, or the septic tank. Could they be there? Yea, sure. But it would be kind of foolish to waste time and resources checking those places first.",
"A minor point: most biologists believe that complex life form necessarily requires large complex molecules. Elements that can form such large complex structures are usually in the carbon group most commonly carbon or silicon. Also the other likely elements are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen because these are abundant in the universe and they are sufficiently reactive (helium is not). Thus statistically it is very unlikely that other extraterrestrial life forms will have super-exotic biochemical structure. ",
"Cause its all we know so its all we can imagine. All life as we know it is carbon based. But what if theres elements that form life out there that we don't even know about? Its like trying to imagine a new color or something, you just cant know till you know ",
"If we are not looking for other planets like ours, what are we looking for? Our planet is the only one we know of that has life on it, so a good start when looking for other life would be to go by what we know. If there is life that lives in other conditions, great, but we don't know what those conditions are so we can't seek it out.",
"We look for planets like earth because we know that carbon based life is possible and we know how to recognize life based on carbon. We do not know if life based on other chemicals is possible and we do not know what that life would look like and are therefore less likely to find it even if it exists.\n\nSETI looks for intelligent life in any form which can produce electromagnetic signals we can receive.\n\nA truly earth like planet, with an oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide atmosphere would be a general proof of living organisms since we know of no other way for a world to have an atmosphere like ours.",
"I had the same question and found a Neil deGrasse Tyson video where he gives a really good explanation. Here is a [link](_URL_0_). Start at 2:44\n\nTL;DW\n\nWe are made of the most common elements found in the universe, it makes sense that other life would also use the most common elements\n",
"There's actually a thing called Carbon Chauvinism to explain this exact bias. Carl Sagan coined the term.",
"Not only could there be alien life forms completely unearth like, there would also be aliens many thousand of years more advanced than us. Look at what humanity has learned in just 4,000 years. Imagine an alien civilisation with a million years of technology. \n\nIt reminds me of a story between two aliens who were speaking with each other.\n\nThe first alien says, \"The dominant life forms on the earth planet, have developed satellite-based weapons.\n\nThe second alien asks, \"Are they an emerging intelligence?\"\n\nThe first alien says, \"I don't think so, they have them aimed at themselves.\"\n",
"I've always had a major problem with this. It should make absolutely no difference that \"it is the only life we've seen.\"\n\nWhen you enter a realm that is completely hypothetical, as in we have 0 hard evidence of aliens, we should not be going into it with any preconceived notions of what they may entail.",
"The premise of your question is wrong. We don't know that for life to exist, it has to look like earth. But we do know that if a planet looks like earth then life is possible.\n\nAnd looking at planets that may have life may give us insights in where there is life.",
"Because our idea of life is the only example we know. It's tough to search for something if you don't know what you're looking for. ",
"Odds are very good that if a life form evolved on an earth-like planet, they would be similar enough to us to allow communication. Its likely, given the randomness of the universe, that there are a wide variety of kinds of life that could exist in the universe, and many of these would be so foreign to our paradigm of life that we may not be able to perceive or understand that they are living, sentient beings. ",
"I have thought about this too. I think though that looking for earth like planets, narrows the search down a bit and increases the chances of finding life. Instead we would have potentionally wasted millions of dollars every time we checked each planet. Great question. It's good to see some people actually using their brains. :)\n",
"There is nothing special about life. It is just a very complex system of systems of molecules, that are constantly in decay and need to perform certain chemical reactions using molecules available outside of the systems in order to sustain them. Yes, there could theoretically be some other very complex system of systems that is not at all like our definition of life. For example, viruses do not quite meet the requirements to be considered life, yet they are quite complex and exhibit behaviors that are similar to living organisms such as carrying generic material and reproducing. Planets, stars, black holes, they are all just systems of molecules that are trying to sustain themselves to postpone their inevitable decay. It would not surprise me if there have been tons of much more complex and \"life-like\" molecular systems in all different kinds of environments throughout the billions of years of the universe's history.",
"Why is a bubble round? Because that is the most energy efficient form it can take. A square bubble would be implausible. So it is with the chemistry of life. We are built with the most abundant and the simplest elements in the universe. Perhaps life could be built out of rarer and more complex elements, but that would be the exception to the rule.",
"We assume that life requires complex chemistry. ~90% of all chemistry, especially the complex kind, is carbon based. That kind of chemistry works a lot better at moderate temperatures. Too low, and molecules don't move around enough to combine very often. Too high, and most complex proteins etc, are torn apart or combust. \n\nEdit: Liquid water. Water is the best know solvent. It eases molecular reactions and allows for more varied chemistry. It's also composed of the other vital elements for complex chemistry. Oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons, (Carbs for short) are essential for many of the kinds of life we recognize. Hydro for hydrogen, carbon for carbon. ",
"Life is a statistically unfathomable event in the universe, in Earth alone the conditions can be so harsh that no life should have been able to continue, let alone evolve into multicellular. It's not that it's impossible for life to evolve in a different way, it just makes more sense to investigate planets that we know could support life because we know for a fact that it's possible. \n\n\n\nMaybe somewhere out in the universe there are silicon based lifeforms that are looking for other planets that could support their known forms of life too. Scientifically it's possible but it just doesn't make much sense to investigate something that we have no confirmation if it's possible or not. I always loved the term \"life as we know it\" because it opens the universe to the possibility of life as we do not know it and maybe one day millions of years into the future those different forms of life will find each other",
"It isn't, but certain aspects of life on Earth required very specific conditions to be able to form. I believe there are very specific reasons why life came to be carbon based and no other element seems to fit these prerequisites. I'm being vague here but the Astrobiology Very Short Introduction book is quite a nice read on the subject.",
"I asked a vaguely similar question in my high school English class, we were doing a report for w/e we wanted we just needed a topic, then we all shuffled around spots writing a comment about what we personally think about that person's topic. All i got for responses was \"if you payed attention in science class..\", \"water, air, atmosphere\", after that i switched to a report about black holes.",
"We know that cows eat grass. Why are we looking at grass when trying to find cows? Why not look at cupcakes?\n\nWell, I've never seen a cow eat a cupcake. That doesn't necessarily mean cows don't eat cupcakes. But from what I've seen, I'd be better off looking for cows in a pasture than a bakery. \n\nSo we look in the pasture. Sure there may be cows in bakeries, but we don't have enough people to check all the pastures AND all the bakeries, and no one has ever seen a cow in a bakery, so we will look in places we KNOW cows can live.",
"On earth there are many forms of life that can exist where people can't. In high acid, high pressure, low-pressure, extreme heat, or extreme cold for a few examples. There are even complex forms of life (plants and animals) on earth which are not carbon-based. \n\nHowever, we have never found a form of life that can exist without liquid water. As far as our knowledge reaches, liquid water is a requirement.\n\nTherefore, the search for life is also a search for water. Water can only occur within a relatively narrow set of planetary conditions (narrow compared to all the planetary conditions available). \"Earth-like\" is a relative term. Mars, for example, is earth-like. Its also the the only planet in our own solar system that humans could plausibly set foot on. ",
"It's not assumed a planet has to be Earth like for life to exist. We just know, for sure, life can exist on an Earth-like planet, so we tend to rank them as higher chances of having life based on the only examples of life we have.\n\nThere could be life in the atmosphere of Jupiter right now, but it would be so completely different to our type of life that we can't even guess at what it would be like.\n\nSo, due to limited resources, we aim our searches at places that we at least know life can exist.",
"There is an official FAQ on this that is pretty ELI5: _URL_0_\n\nBasically we need a sticky liquid, a solvent, for other things to be diluted in. On Earth this is water. One of the requirements is for the majority of that solvent present to remain liquid throughout the planet's orbit. It cannot all freeze or evaporate. There has been hypothesise made that other solvents could be used for life to form.\n\nSecondly, the plants needs to be big enough so that is has sufficient gravity to hold onto an atmosphere containing hydrogen and helium. But if it's too big it will become a gas giant like Jupiter instead and them the atmospheric pressure maybe too great.",
"A liquid, like water, is the best \"conductor\" of complex life. It's much easier for single celled organisms to move and interact with each other in a liquid, rather than in a solid or gas. A planet with all three states of matter would be the ideal for a planet to sustain complex life. It is very possible other planets have single celled organisms. There are way too many planets to check every one of them. To narrow down our search we look for a planet closest to our own, which increases the likelihood of complex organisms to exist upon if. ",
"This is a great question, and one that has been nicely addressed by many top comments. I agree with all the ideas presented there. I also want to discuss a valuable idea I don't see discussed often... or ever. I like to call it the *kissing cousins hypothesis*. The [Drake Equation](_URL_3_) (which underlies the [Fermi Paradox](_URL_0_)) is typically applied with the approximation that 1% of planets capable of sustaining life **will** have given rise to life (via [abiogenesis](_URL_4_)) by now. It then applies much more reliable estimates to that number (things like how many galaxies, stars, and planets in the observable universe) to tell us that our galaxy must be teeming with life. **But the likelihood of abiogenesis is probably much, much rarer than typically estimated.** \n\nI'm an [RNA](_URL_1_) biochemist, and I have a good sense of what Earth's first replicators probably looked like. The first replicating molecules on Earth were likely incredibly fragile, so it feels miraculous to me that they managed to pull their power of regenerating information together into the first living cells at all. I'm also familiar with modern attempts to recreate the conditions that initially gave rise to Earth life. It's telling that none of these attempts have come close to generating the full complement of biomolecules necessary to constitute a primordial cell. Finally, even with our ability to guide a deliberate effort to effect abiogenesis on Earth, no progress has been made. Life is incredibly fragile and necessarily quite complex. The \"1%\" estimate for biogenesis on a suitable planet is likely a massive overestimate; I'd put it at something like 0.00001% or lower. I know the universe has been around a really long time, but if you toss all the right ingredients for a cake into an abandoned kitchen and simply wait, would you really expect to end up with any sort of cake? Ever? (I'm not suggesting a *creator* is needed; I believe we are the cake. A very rare cake.)\n\nEven though a much lower likelihood of biogenesis feels bleak, it still leaves us with an estimate of [10,000 life-bearing planets and 1 intelligent civilization in our galaxy.](_URL_0_) (and that 1 intelligent civilization might be us!). **But** if abiogenesis occurs on a planet and that seed is able to travel to another planet, the odds can be tipped back towards a more populated galaxy via [Panspermia](_URL_2_). And if this is the case, we are **much** more likely to be close neighbors (in the cosmic sense) with a distant relative (in the biological sense), one that is water-dependent and based on cells and DNA/RNA. Hence the *kissing cousins hypothesis*: if one instance of abiogenesis is likely to have given rise to all life in a given corner of the universe, then it's reasonable that one planet would search on physically similar planets for its relatives. \n\n**TL;DR:** Since life arising from nothing is an extremely rare event, it makes sense to look for extraterrestrial life on Earth-like planets since any other life near us probably shares a common, distant ancestor and accordingly would be likely to thrive in a similar environment. ",
"Life as we know it is based on chemical evolution, the coming together of molecules over time that support life. Carbon is an important part of this process because of its ability to form four bonds and still maintain reactiveness. Silicon is essentially inert at lower temperatures so that it can't undergo the reactions needed for life.\n\nThe biggest reason life would probably look like ours is because life revolves around lowering the energy requirements of most reactions by using enzymes within the cell. The proteins in our bodies catalyze reactions that would never occur on their own in nature, and for such complex molecules to form in the first place requires carbon.\n\nSo while it is possible that life could take on some other molecular form, it is most likely going to be carbon-based.",
"It isn't, its just what we are familiar with and have a hard time rationalizing other circumstances. We evolved based on our environment, oxygen is actually quite toxic to most ancient bacteria but the ones who survived oxygen rich ozone were the ones that spread their DNA further on. Is no reason to say that bacteria on another planet didn't drive on a different type of elemental composition of elements and they live on those with your talk with us it all depends on what evolved in your environment",
"Because life doesn't need to be different than what we know. What I mean by this is that the life we know of is made of very light, reactive, stable, and most of all common elements. Carbon bonds are very stable, and the lighter an element is, in this case carbon is number 6 on the table of elements, the more abundant it will be in the universe because of how elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are formed (which is inside of stars in case you didn't know). Also water has some pretty crazy chemical properties that not a lot of other compounds possess like the fact that it is less dense in its solid form than in its liquid form, among many other important characteristics. Also the size of our planet is pretty important as far as having enough gravity to keep an atmosphere, but not too much gravity as to stop larger creatures from evolving. We also have a liquid nickel/iron core which generates a magnetic field to protect our atmosphere from solar winds. The moon protects us from impacts and moves the oceans via tidal forces which allows the water not to sit and stagnate. Also our sun is the perfect size to provide life giving energy for loonngg amounts of time. It took life over 4 billion years to make us, and some stars don't live that long...\n\nThere are just a ton of reasons that life would most likely be similar to our life here on earth. Its not that life couldn't be different, made of different compounds, it's just that it doesn't need to be. Life is about evolution and survival of the fittest, and heavier elements and different living situations are not as fit as the stuff we are made of and where we live.\n\nEdit: To everyone saying we look for life like ours because that's what we know or because it's easier, that is not true. The reason we look for life like our is because of all of stuff stated above. A lot of people here have it right, talking about complex molecules and organic chemicals giving rise to life.\n\nThe few programs we have that try to search for extra terrestrial life look for lots of different things. SETI doesn't even look for organic life, it looks for communication from ETs. Most of the satellites trying to find planets outside of our own solar system find tons of planets, not just earth-like ones. Anyway, I recall reading a few articles about multicelled organisms that didn't require oxygen for life and they were talking about how certain moons in our solar system could potentially have atmospheres that show signs of life that didn't require oxygen. I'll try to post an article if I can find it, but it was a while back. Just want it to be known that we don't just look for life like our own.",
"They're looking where, according to everything we know, life is most likely to exist. All life forms we know of require liquid water. For Liquid water to exist the planet needs to be a certain temperture, too cold it's always ice, too hot it's all evaporated. Which is why scientists look for planets that are \"just right\" in the goldilocks zone.\n\nIt's like looking for your car keys, you check the most likely spots first. While there is a remote posibility they might be on the roof or burried ten feet down in the back yard, you're not going to look there because the odds of them getting there are a lot less likely.",
"Because, quantum mechanics.\n\nIn plain human language, the short answer is: Carbon is the most interesting element in the universe because it can bond simultaneously with up to four other atoms. Moreover, those bonds are just the right level of energy that they are reasonably secure while also loose enough to easily be broken, readily allowing for interesting chemical reactions to happen. This versatility of carbon uniquely enables it to be the backbone of all kinds if amazingly complex molecules.\n\nThis chemical complexity, unique to carbon, provides an information-dense framework within which life can evolve the vast tapestry of little processes needed for the formation of sophisticated, adaptable organisms. \n\nLife is essentially a matrix of self-perpetuating chemical chain reactions.\n\nAnyway, water, the universe's most versatile and plentiful chemical solvent is also needed to enable all that interesting carbon chemistry to take place. Water requires a fairly narrow range of temperatures (and pressures) to form oceans.\n\nSo carbon and water need comfortable conditions that we term \"earthlike\" in order to form all the interesting chemistry needed for life.\n\nNo other chemical (not even silicon, which is valence-similar to carbon) can naturally provide the same degree of information density in its chemistry to enable life to form spontaneously over time.\n\nUltimately, the combination of quantum mechanics and certain fundamental constants define how atoms will form into the elements that make up all the matter that we know. QM determines the energy levels and weird shapes of outer electron orbitals in atoms (valence orbitals). And it is the valence configuration of an atom that determines how it will behave chemically. So, in the end, it is the laws of quantum mechanics that ultimately give carbon it's uniquely versatile chemistry.\n\nThus, quantum mechanics.",
"You have to remember that water is reasonably rare in that it's solid form is lighter than it's liquid form. That results in the sea freezing from the top down, and that frozen top insulates the bottom.\n\nIf ice didn't float on water, all the water on earth would probably be frozen solid.",
"Brian Cox explains it all so well in this documentary series...\n\n_URL_0_\n\n(It's real nice to watch - especially for ents).",
"Life could be silicon based, like in that TOS episode where Spock communicates with the rock creature, or. .just watch all the TOS episodes and next gen when they meet weird creatures like Q and that will leg you ruminate on what could possibly be out there.",
"You have to remember that we do know some things about life on other planets, i.e. that it must develop under the same laws of nature-- chemistry, physics -- that we have observed here on earth.\nFor instance, the only element other than carbon capable of making many bonds and creating large, complex molecules is silicon, which is only reactive at much, much higher temperatures. For this reason it is very likely that any other life we find will be carbon based. You see where I'm going with this? The more you apply the laws of chemistry and physics, the more we find that it is likely, if and when we find life elsewhere, that it will be similar enough that we can rationalize it within our own framework for life.\nAs for something completely outlandish, say, a sentient cloud of gas, how do you recognize it is alive in the first place? I think our own limitations as humans would prevent us from recognizing something so completely different than ourselves as \"life\". ",
"Lets say you lost your favorite toy. Now, it *IS possible that the Hamburglar snuck in while you were asleep and stole it to display in the Musuem of Childrens Dreams he has in his basement. However, the last time you lost it, it was under your bed. So you should probably start looking there.",
"Because that's all we know. Kind of hard to base a scientific theory on non-existent (to our knowledge) possibilities ",
"the reputable scientists actually dont limit themself by thinking that other lifeforms if they exist need human like environments only those \"scientists\" on the history channel do\n\n",
"It's only a way of narrowing down our search. It's *possible* that life could evolve on word we would consider 100 percent uninhabitable. But we *know* that life can exist on worlds like Earth, so with so goddamn many planets to search, it's natural to start only with the ones that we *know* could potentially support life.",
"I agree, watch the movie Evolution with David Duchovny, it's not very good but it does propose the idea of life completely different from life on Earth.",
"The short answer is \"because the only examples of life we have ever seen require this sort of setup.\" It's what we know so, based upon that, if we are going to go searching that's where we are statistically more likely to find life. If all our evidence of our local system shows that only one type of planetary body is capable of supporting life then you look for that type of planetary body.\n\nThe long answer is a bit more complex.\n\nFirst of all, you have to remember space is huge. Too big to comprehend. You cannot look everywhere. It's too big, there is too much data, and we don't have enough equipment. It's impossible.\n\nSo you want to narrow your focus to high probabilities.\n\nEspecially as the most common life form out there we probably wouldn't be able to detect.\n\nMicrobial life has a very high probability of being, well, all over the place. A lot of scientists still think the idea of panspermia has merit. This theory (okay, really more of a hypothesis if you want to get technical about it) states that life didn't spontaneously evolve on Earth at all. Microbes attached to meteors or comets landed on primordial Earth when it was rich in the right setup to create lots of amino acids and it got the ball rolling. In which case all life is the descendants of an invasive species.\n\nWheeeee!\n\nBut, that's beside the point. Microbes may be everywhere. They can be really hardy things. But one or two dormant microbes clutching to a comet somewhere in deep space is going the be nearly impossible to detect from Earth. We're looking for more complex organisms. That's what most people think of when they talk about \"life\" which, you know, is sort of ironic as bacterial cells outnumber your own cells in your own body. \n\nBefore I go on, I need to first introduce this acronym to you. N-CHOPS. That is short for Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur. Those are the six elements that form the basic building blocks of all life we know of no matter where we find it. (Before anyone points it out, yes, there were some extremeophile simple organisms that were coaxed to swap out a few of those for something else. Cyanide for Phosphorus, if I remember correctly. But that's not how we typically find it and it normally follows the N-CHOPS recipe just like everything else).\n\n There is a reason all life we know of is organic. By that I mean it is built off carbon chains. Carbon atoms (and those that are organized in the periodic table in that same column) can form the most bonds to other atoms. Hydrogen? That can really only bond to one other atom. It has a single electron to share. That's it. Most of the others can bond to two or three. Carbon can bond to four other atoms. It can also form two bonds with one atom, making a really strong bond, and still have two slots open. \n\nCarbon gives us the possibility of ridiculously complex chains of atoms. These are where your basic proteins come along. Those other elements in the N-CHOPS recipe fill out those slots as carbon atoms bond to other carbon atoms and form chains, branching chains, and other complex shapes.\n\nComplex life forms need complex structures. For that organic molecules offer your best bets.\n\nIs it possible to do it without carbon? Oh sure! Silicon and the others in the column should react similarly. However those chains are going to be weaker. Why? Um.\n\nOkay, this is an outdated model of how atoms work and it is more complex than this but - just for the moment - let's pretend the satellite model of atomic structure is how it works.\n\nYou have a nucleus of an atom and you have electrons orbiting around it. The rows on the periodic table line up with the orbits of these electrons. Carbon has four free slots in a low orbit near the nucleus. Silicon, on the other hand, has all those slots filled and the four free slots are in a higher orbit. Since this orbit is further away from the nucleus the bonding is weaker. It takes less energy to break this bond than a carbon bond.\n\nEver head that diamonds are harder than quartz? There you go. Almost the exact same structure but one is made from carbon bonds and the other is made from silicon bonds.\n\nSo, while it is possible to have that same sort of complexity without carbon the chains will probably be a lot weaker. This is bad as the chains we already have are pretty weak.\n\nLet's step back for a second and look around at all the mammals. Ah, mammals. Big, fast moving animals. They burn a lot of energy and, in return, they are less affected by ambient temperatures in regards to how energetic they are. Really, a mammal is an animal where the metabolic throttle is held firmly to the floorboards. We go full speed all the time. \n\nTo go full speed we need a lot of heat. Human body temperature is usually given as 98.7 F or 37 C, depending on which country you live in. That number is really, really interesting. The chemical reactions that drive life occur faster and more often as heat is added. This makes sense. The more heat, the more energy you have. The more these chemicals move around, bump into each other, and collide with force. That makes sense.\n\nBut it only works up to a certain point. After you go past human body temperature a weird thing starts happening. Those proteins start breaking apart. It's a process called denaturing.\n\nThose complex shapes that I mentioned earlier? They normally don't happen by random chance alone. These chains have to be built a bit at a time. These amazingly fantastical shapes can continue to hold their shapes as long as the electostatic forces in play holding them together aren't broken. Once they are broken there really is no getting them back.\n\nSo if you heat up a protein too much that energy and vibration causes some of those fragile bonds to break. Even if you allow it to cool they don't go back to the way they were. Instead they form more stable \"normal\" bonds.\n\nThey congeal.\n\nWhy do I bring this up? Well, this goes right back to your habitable zone question. \n\nEarth is in a good spot relative to the sun. If we go much closer the planet would be boiling hot. Too much energy would be present to keep those carbon chains we expect. They would break apart and denature too quickly for life to stick around. If Earth was a bit further out it'd be too cold. Too cold means there isn't enough energy to get these carbon chains to start building in the first place.\n\nIt takes energy for life. A lot of it.\n\nEver notice that all complex animals breathe oxygen? There's a reason. Oxygen packs a lot of energy in it. It tends to react a very volatile manner. It's why fire is even a thing. \n\nAll animals need this constant source of energy just to keep moving. \n\nSo, as far as we know, a world probably needs oxygen to support animal life because they need that energy to come from some where.\n\nWater is probably also necessary. Why? Well, for life to form you need these single cells to start coming together and working as a unit. I just mentioned how much energy it takes to move around and how all known animals need to constantly take in a highly combustible element to keep moving. It takes a lot less energy to drift in the sea.\n\nSo, without a motivation to move (how do you know there are other cells out there anyway) there is no pressure to \"evolve\" such a high energy system. However, if things are in water they can be brought together by random chance. Plus water has some interesting properties that help out in other ways. It permits some degree of ionization which allow electrical currents to form. That in of itself can help pull simple cells together and allow them to align. It also grows less dense as it freezes. This is important because in cool periods the ice goes to the top and traps water below. This protects simple life from the damages of freezing and gives it a (relatively speaking) warmer place to keep growing and developing.\n\nAlso, in the early formation of a solar system there is a period of a few million years where rocky debris is raining down on the newly formed planets pretty often. Water, particularly large bodies of water like oceans, would give primitive life a place where it is reasonably protected from impacts.\n\nThere are a lot of interesting properties of water that are useful for building the structures we associate with life. So, looking for water is a good thing.\n\nBut let's ignore all this! Is it possible that, hypothetically speaking, there is life out there that follows none of these rules? That is so alien to our expectations that we may not even recognize it as life?\n\nSure! It's a big universe!\n\nSo why don't we look for them?\n\nOkay. Where? What do you want us to look for? What are some definite signs we can look for that indicates this is \"life\"?\n\nBig questions. Big questions that are hard to answer. On the other hand, looking for the telltale signs of life we are more familiar with that follows the rules we understand? It's not easy but it is much, much easier in that we can at least define some parameters.\n\nSo that's what we look for. Looking for a needle in a haystack is hard. Looking for a particular piece of straw in a haystack is almost impossible. ",
"Searching for life in the way that we understand it is like picking the low hanging fruit. Some day we might have knowledge or tools to get higher up the tree, but right now we have to try for what we can reach. ",
"It's not taken to be what you said. No one possessing any significant degree of intelligence expects that to absolutely be true. Your question is unfortunately moot.",
"It's a lot easier to look for what we know works, than for anything else that we don't know will work. ",
"We are Carbon based life forms. We understand the world and survive based on the fact that we are Carbon based lifeforms. We look for environments that would support Carbon based life. \n\nSince we have not had any experience with life that isn't Carbon based, we can't fully account for the basis of which their lives formed. We search for environments that can support our brand of life. There are some environments that can't support us, so there's no point in focusing time, energy, and resources on researching those.",
"There's a really good audio story called *They're Made Out of Meat!* that's a cool view on the topic. \n\n\nHere's a link:\n\n_URL_0_",
"This is a question that NASA takes very seriously; if life is very different somewhere else, how will even even recognize that is is 'alive'? The people that study this are called \"astrobiologists\". There are some basic 'life' principles which astrobiologists have come up with; life must replicate, but not perfectly, as it needs to evolve; it must have metabolism (take in some form of energy and convert it into other forms); some believe that it must be isolated (have something like 'cells'). \n\nA particularly fun idea is that such different life could exist right here on earth, a 'shadow biosphere' under our noses, and we don't know it is there as we don't yet know what to look for! [Here is an article on that concept](_URL_0_) and if you google \"shadow biosphere\" you will find many more.",
"This is a fantastic question, and there are several parts to it.\n\nWhen scientists say \"Earth-like\" life forms, what we are really discussing is carbon-based life forms. It's just easier to say Earth-like because more people get it. Why do we think Carbon-based life is what we would see out there? Simply put, it's most likely to happen.\n\nThe reason that earth supports life is due to a number of amazing factors, so we're pretty lucky. We have an Earth that has regular orbit around a sun, which causes minimal fluctuation in temperature. No fluctuation means life can evolve without irregularity. Irregularity kills weak forms of life, like back when all we had on Earth were single-celled life forms. On top of this, an atmosphere! It blocks out almost all of the harmful rays from the sun, and keeps us free from asteroids and other space debris. Without this, we would also not have life, because we wouldn't be protected. The other amazing thing we have is a giant planet outside our orbit, Jupiter. I won't go into detail, but basically Saturn is so big and orbits us just right to increase our gravitational protection.\n\nWith all of these protectors, life was able to form on Earth. Carbon-based life. This is an important factor to keep in mind because Carbon bindings are much stronger than other types of binding, like nitrogen or methane. We can theorize DNA being made up of these types of chemicals as well, but the likelihood is just so much immensely smaller that we generally rule it out. Even Earth doesn't have enough protection for this type of life.\n\nSo, we look for Earth-like planets and Earth-like life. It's not because we're not considering the other possibilities, but because Carbon-based life on Earth-like planets is simply the most likely to happen.",
"I'm always reminded of a quote from Arthur C Clarke novels when they are surprised to find shark-like creatures in the oceans of Europa. He has a line that sticks with me \"common problems of life have common engineering solutions\". Or something like that. So life may require carbon and water because that is the most efficient and the path of least resistance. Not saying there can't be another way, but it might be less likely. ",
"We have some basic assumptions:\n- Life must be complex to perform all the functions needed for sustaining itself.\n- The composition of a planetary body, due to entropy, will be mostly simple compounds.\n- So simple compounds must be responsible for allowing the wide range of complex functions necessary for life.\n- The simplest (and one of the only) solvents that allows for the wide range of chemical processes needed is water.\n- The simplest element that allows for the wide range of compounds is carbon. Silicon is close in its range of compounds which is why it has been proposed as another possibility for sustaining life.\n- The metabolic reactions that sustain the type of life that is built on water and carbon as the foundation tend to need a certain temperature range to function properly and that is where the \"goldilocks zone\" comes into play -- too close to its star, and a planet will be too hot, too far away and its too cold.\n\nWikipedia has a decent discussion: _URL_0_\n",
"Wasn't this part of the kepler thread from yesterday? And it had a ton of comments pointing out this assumption isn't actually assumed by anyone?",
"That's the thing tho.. we don't know what exactly makes life other than carbon, or h20, or nitrogen. So there's no way of looking for something specific if we don't even know what we are looking for.",
"It is highly possible that many other forms of life exist, all around us even, but exist in such a way as to be imperceptible to us in ways of both our understanding and our observable range. We look for life like what we know already because that is all we know to look for, we literally wouldn't know what something dramatically different was if we were able to observe it.",
"To our knowledge, all life on earth exists because of Water. There may be instances where life has existed without water, but for living creatures such as the mighy blue whale, to the small ants crawling around, come into existance, water has been a pre-requirement.\n Now that we have established the reason for why we are looking for water, we now need to decide Where to look for water. \n Water has 3 states, Solid (Ice), Liquid (Water), and Gas (Vapor). The three states of water depend on the temprature and a few other factors, therefore we know that water freezes at 0 degrees celcius and boils at 100 degrees celcius, so the pareter for liquid water is from 1 to 99 degrees celcius. What does all this mean? The planet we are looking for has to be within that temprature range for hollywood style, smart and intelligent aliens.\nSo now we know what we are looking for (liquid water), and where we are looking for (between 0 to 100 degrees celcius* [terms and conditions apply]). We will establish how we will look for these planets in our vast universe. \n Almost all source of heat in the universe is derived from stars. Stars are very, very, very, very Hot! places in the mighty universe that do not have stars are very, very, very cold, so, in order for water to be in a liquid state, it needs to be at a certain distance from a star, but not too far away for it to be freezing. Using techonology and smart people we actually can tell how hot a star is and around how far off would be the ideal distance for water to exist, and if the star has a planet orbiting it in that distance. There are many other critereas for how to search for these planets but the core criterea is water in liquid state.\n\n You asked if we find another notion of life then will we ignore it? well to me the first example would be ghosts. I think we should look for ghosts here on earth before we start looking for them in space. \n\n So with this search either of 2 things happen. We find a planet that has conditions like earth, and we find aliens. Then we will try to communicate with them. If no aliens exist, but the planet is habitable then we will try to figure out how to get there in one piece. \n\n I could go on and on, but I am on my phone so I will stop here :)\n\ntl;dr - We are looking for water.",
"It's not completely out of the question that there could be cybernetic lifeforms such as the transformers far away in another corner of space BUT... we(us) humans, we're like the easiest most basic thing that could come from being. Let me explain, if you look at us, we're made up of the most abundant elements in the cosmos(err that's a slight lie cause helium is a bitch and we don't like things that are made of bitches cause bitches just overreact with everything and that's not good) and we're based on like the best thing to be based on, carbon(carbon is a slut, carbon will like just attach to whatever and always be 100% game for a gang bang[gangbang? one word... idk]), therefore by the process of probability if there is life, its probably life that would be similar to ours i.e carbon based, needs the right temperature for liquid water etc because in all honesty, we're not rare or unlikely, we're like super mundane and the most likely scenario if there is a scenario... you get me? But I totally agree with the possibly of other much more complex and strange lifeforms, although I hope there isn't a megatron out there but i would welcome an optimus prime.",
"It's an interesting point. Anthropocentric approaches are embedded in science often creating huge bias in studies and I believe it is more widespread than people think in astronomy and the like. Maybe it will take a profound discovery outside our imagination/current ways of looking at the universe to change this?\n\nOf course one day we could find life similar to life on Earth, but odds are we will continue searching like mad blind men, occasionally declaring a distant planet as \"earth 2.0\" in ever more transparent ways of drumming up interest (and therefore funding).",
"Lots of other types of life have been considered, but life like our own is the only kind we reasonably know how to look for. If an alien species was made up of giant bubbles floating in the gas clouds of Jupiter, we'd have no real way of knowing how to spot them from here and say \"look - there is life!\"",
"Because people are so ignorant and close minded , that unless it looks like us or has tissue and organs that it is not life, like the movie ex machina",
"[Terry Bisson](_URL_0_) wrote a nice story about it, \"THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT\". \n\nQuote:\n\n > Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again.\n\nThere's no reason to think that intelligent life can't be something that we would not even recognise as such. It can be incredibly large. Larger than our solar system. It could take that life form years to form a thought like our: \"I'm hungry\"-thought. It could be that we are the weird ones out there.\n\nBut we don't know. So we focus on what we do know.",
"What does it take for 'life'? As in, what physical and chemical processes define 'life'?\n\nLet's offer a definition. The ability to 'do work', and as part of that, 'to reproduce'. Energy in, waste out, replication. The absolute basics of life. What's needed for that, on a physical... or perhaps it's best to say, chemical level? Gotta have something with a lot of ways to bond. Ways to mix it up and change properties, with a variety of different sources of potential energy.\n\nCarbon works. We have proof that carbon works. You're proof carbon works. So is the tree, the carrot, that bug, a mouse. Carbon bonds to tons of different stuff, in lots of interesting ways, giving it lots of different properties. It's abundant, too. Path of least resistance is carbon.\n\nThe only one close I can think of is silicon. Not quite as many connections, not quite as abundant in the universe, but not too horrible. Given the size of chances... yeah, that could work.\n\nGiven those two, carbon and silicon, the likelihood is on carbon. Sure, you'll get silicon life from time to time, but most of it'll be carbon. Couple bits of life here and there based on other stuff higher up (Germanium, Tin, Lead), but we'll just 'discount' those for right now, we have found carbon-based (but only one!), and nothing for silicon yet. How about we focus on the 'easier' ones, first.\n\nNext, we need transports that interact with that carbon. Oxygen binds, rips, and does well next to carbon. It's a gas, too, so that makes it easier to play with. Oh, and throw some hydrogen at some oxygen and burn it, you get a liquid! Liquid flows, holds stuff by dissolving and keeping it in solution, etc. Water is a great way to 'resivoir' smaller stuff you need. Carbon and water, rock on.\n\nSomeone please correct me if I'm wrong, the analogy for Silicon would be something along the lines of chlorine? Maybe chlorine-lithium? I get a bit fuzzy here in my chemistry, sorry. Anyway, harder to do, less potential. Looking worse for silicon. Don't ask me about the heavier analogies, I start getting really rubbish then.\n\nSo, best chance from a physical/chemical standpoint would be carbon-oxygen-hydrogen-trace everything else. We know Earth had a lot of that stuff around, and it made life. It's a good start, somewhere to look at least :)\n\nWhat I'm saying is we're literally at the very, very edge of the science on this. We're literally throwing stuff at the wall and hope things stick. We've got some basis for our guesses, but nothing definitive. Our sample size is way, way too small and we know it. We're looking at one petri dish and going 'well... i hope every lab everywhere is just like this!' It's not. We know it's not. We suck at this right now, and we know it. Only way to get better is to have a look.\n\nKeeping that in mind, the whole concept of 'going and having a look' right now is way beyond our capabilities. I mean, we've gotten probes to a couple other nearby planets (Mars, Venus (not long term... at all), our own moon, couple other moons, asteroids and comets), and some stuff flying by other planets... but that's it. We're literally infants just barely peeking over the bars of the crib in this game.\n\nTL;DR: We know shit about shit and we know it. Grab a [telescope, a microscope, an oscilloscope, a stethoscope, and some Scope](_URL_0_), and help!",
"Basically, most life on earth is microbial. Microbes outnumber us drastically and have been here WAY longer. When searching for evidence of life on other planets, we are actually searching for evidence of microbial life, not intelligent or advanced life. Though evidence of those lifeforms wouldn't be ignored if we found it, we're just far more likely to find microbes as they would drastically outnumber any other lifeforms and wouldn't require deep drilling in case of a subterranean species, or searching whole oceans for aquatic species. We can catalog the planet as supporting life and move on.\n\nLiquid water is one of the major building blocks to microbial life. There are theories of silica based life rather than carbon based, but they're just theories.\n\nSo no we wouldn't ignore other forms of life that don't require liquid water, we're just primarily looking for microbial life on the theory that it'd outnumber life on every other planet that microbes exist.",
"It has to do with universal properties of physics and chemistry. There are only so many elements, and so many different things they can do, under so many different conditions. That constrains the circumstances under which we believe life is possible, or at least likely. For example, the extreme conditions in or near stars would so severely constrain the range of possible chemical structures that it's a reasonable bet that nothing could live there that relied on chemistry. (And so far, we're very uncertain that any kind of 'life' could exist without chemistry.) We feel we can comfortably say the same for places like Pluto.\n\nA common presumption is that liquid water, or at least the potential for it, is a likely prerequisite. Though complex organisms like tardigrades ('water bears') exist in extreme conditions, we're pretty sure they evolved from more primitive ones that didn't. Everything we believe we know about evolution seems to require liquid water at some point. So even though we know that some extremophiles can exist without it (at least for some time), we believe that a planet without liquid water is unlikely to harbour life.\n\nUnderstand that whatever \"different physical tolerances / requirements for survival\" must still adhere to natural laws. Ask a chemist about what natural laws constrain the formation and survival of complex molecules, and you'll get some idea of why biologists are quick to narrow down the range of physical environments they believe are likely to harbour life, and which they are very reluctant to allow. It's not because they're narrow-minded fools who've never seen a movie or turned on a TV. It's because they're highly knowledgeable about what's actually possible given what we're pretty sure we understand about how the universe works.\n",
"We are carbon based life. Carbon is one of the most plentiful elements, so it stands to reason the chances of other life existing is likely carbon based. You could search for argon based life but it's going to be a lot harder to find. I heard Neil degrasse Tyson say this once hope I got it close. ",
"Didn't Hawkins talk about this exact topic in his documentary on aliens? I recall him explaining, how organisms from other planets could be using completely different body-building materials as us and could look nothing alike, we've ever seen here on earth. Could ask him on that notion in the upcoming AMA, for sure.",
"It's not that a planet must be earth-like. It is just that we know that under certain conditions it is definitely possible for life, i.e. the conditions on earth. \n\nIt is just a way of focusing the search for alien life.",
"tl;dr: because you need stability for life to form and a biochemistry that makes the huge amounts of energy available that a complex life form needs to prevent itself from falling apart.\n\nLonger:\n\nBecause of entropy. Because of what it takes in this universe for something as orderly as a life form to come into existence and keep existing, even though the universe is doing what it can to destroy the order. The question is: what does it take for complex life to be able to come into existence? \n\nFirstly, a fairly constant, warm, environment. If even the simplest life form has to deal with surviving never ending storms or being scorched and frozen every planetary rotation, no life is going to be able to persist long enough to evolve into something more complex. If it is consistently cold, there simply isn't enough energy available for any complexity to form. You need energy to withstand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.\n\nSecondly, in that same vein, a source of energy. Our metabolism is a wonderful thing. It can deliver the enormous amount of energy it takes for our internal machinery to remain functional. It crucially depends on liquid water, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Whether any other kind of biochemistry can be conceived that can also consistently deliver such amounts of energy is open question, but so far we haven't been able to think of any[1].\n\nSo life is not going to come into existence if a planet is cold or wild. That pretty much means you need a planet in what's called 'the habitable zone' (wiki). On planets in that zone, it is likely carbon, water and oxygen/carbon dioxide are available. When that is the case, do you even need another metabolism? Probably not: there are a few lifeforms with different biochemistries on earth, but they just can't beat our kind of metabolism, except for in very specialized niches.\n\nIf you believe other forms of life are possible, you need to come up with an evolutionary pathway: what could the initial forms consist of and how could they evolve (despite their harsh environment) and how could they harvest the energy necessary to become as complex as mammals on earth? On most planets, even explaining how the simplest cellular organism could come into existence and survive would be quite a challenge.\n\n[1] And remember that the universe is the same everywhere we look. That means the same chemical compounds can exist everywhere. Most chemical compounds that are possible in this universe exist, or have existed, on earth, either naturally or in a lab. Of those that cannot exists here, the properties can nevertheless be inferred. ",
"I think that most scientists aren't suggesting that life must be \"earth-like\", but rather that we know that an \"earth-like\" planet can sustain life. Sure, there certainly could exist life on other, non-human-inhabitable planets, but since we already know that a certain planet has most of the right statistics to support life, it makes sense to look there first.",
"I've always thought this. Like Jupiter, it's a gas giant. What if there is gas people, and gas cities and shit? And we just can't see or detect them for an...infinite number of reasons ",
"It's kind of Biochemistry based in a sense. We basically never found a species which isn't a [carbon based type of life](_URL_2_) due to the need of carbon, life can only start by a certain way and in certain places. \n\nMaybe life exists, maybe we have found where it is, maybe it even lives with us, and we just don't know it, we can't recognize it. There are a lot of theories out there like [Silicon based life] (_URL_1_)([\"Live long and proser.\"](_URL_0_))\n\nThis is a potential possibility; others are possible.\n\nDo you need anything else ?",
"We just found a fucking miniature satan tadpole (black fangfish) in some volcano under water. A VOLCANO. You know, where rocks die and rings are forged. So why couldn't a species of aliens be living in some fucked conditions on some fucked planet?",
"This was asked and answered a few months ago, can't find it but basically it's not that we don't expect life to be able to survive and thrive in different conditions than we experience but that we focus efforts on finding life where we already know it exists instead of just looking at every option we've narrowed our focus in hopes of finding more results. Which is planets with similar conditions to earth. ",
"Science is founded on the idea that if a scientist tells you something, you can go out and test his idea and your findings should reflect what he's saying. If this is not the case, then by default, science must either seek more evidence, or scrap the idea and find a new explanation. \n\nScience is entirely proof-based. If you can't prove a conjecture/hypothesis/theory, it's not science. It doesn't mean that the idea is not true, per se, it just means that there is no logical reason to believe it. It is entirely possible that we may find evidence in the future. But it is also entirely possible that we won't.\n\nBasically, you can't logically believe a concept that has no supporting evidence, but you also can't say with certainty that it's not true, because again, you don't really know. The absence of evidence does not prove that the concept is not true. It only creates an obstacle to logical belief. \n\nIf you have no evidence to prove that uranium can support life, then you cannot logically (and by extension, scientifically) believe it. This doesn't mean that uranium can't support life. It's just that, humans have no logical reason to believe that uranium can support life. \n\nIt's more of a time-saving effort than it is a definite answer. If we believed anything without proof, then nothing would be consistent. The moon could be both big and small. Vertebrates could have a nervous system, and not. \n\nScience is not absolute. It doesn't have all the answers. In fact, a lot of the \"answers\" are probably/possibly wrong/incomplete. This, however, doesn't discredit science, simply because no other field of inquiry is as rigorous or strict with it's assertions. No other field makes you suffer even when everyone can see what is obvious (except maybe law, but it is founded on similar principles unsurprisingly). But this is a good thing. This means that no other field is as accurate. \n\nedit: my grammar sucks",
"what would we have looked like if that meteor didn't destroy all of the dinosaurs 62 million years ago? what if we descended from dinosaurs instead of mammals?, and also our moon is essential to our evolution,steadies the planet--so life on other wordls could be really weird",
"It's not discounted that life could exist in other conditions it's accepted that it is entirely possible. But we wouldn't know how to even start looking. \n\nthat is why we look for earth like conditions when looking for possible alien life because we know what that looks like and what conditions are conducive to it. Its easier for look for rocky planets in the goldie locks zones of stars that contain liquid water and look for familiar looking life than looking for a needle you've never seen before in a infinite haystack. ",
"Read Crichton's \"Sphere.\" It's definitely science fiction, but they discuss exactly this issue under the label the \"anthropomorphic problem.\"",
"I can't explain much of anything at all but I do have this. \n\nCarl Sagan had a segment in Cosmos where he theorized what something living in the clouds of a gas giant planet could look like. He imagined a gigantic Sting Ray looking jellyfish thingy that floated and flapped through the gas filled atmosphere.\n\nCarl Sagan is my hero.",
"This is such a broad question. It has several easy answers:\n\n1. The chemical makeup that is \"us\" allowed for easy energy transfer. We cannot make liquids that exist that can transfer energy as efficency to allow life to occur.\n\nWe would need new elements on the element table. \n\nIt is completley possible, for example, maybe some kind of life made completley of dark matter.\n\nBut that's not possible for us. We live in the third dimension, we know what we have, and it basically needs the same chemical composition to exist. \n\nArsnic is a possible alternative, but not likley.\n\n2. Do you mean evolution? We are completley open to a new form of live, probabaly carbon based because it's not likely to exist any other way.\n\nBut we are open to other evolutionary ideas. Evolution is basically guessing. No evolutionary design is proof of best because we don't have a way to really judge it. Suprize them. Find new life that took a different direction. ",
"So, it seems necessary that life as we can possibly imagine it requires some mechanism for encoding and passing on information. One obvious way in which this could be done is via long molecular chains such as the carbon chains that form the basis of all Earth life. Aside from Silicon and Carbon, no other types of atoms of molecules are capable of forming these long, information-encoding chains of molecules.\n\nAt the same time, all molecules fall somewhere on a spectrum from what is called \"polar\" to \"nonpolar\". Polar molecules are those that have one positive end and one negative end, whereas nonpolar molecules are those with a constant charge all over with no obvious positive or negative areas. You may have heard the phrase \"like dissolves like\" in chemistry - this means that polar liquids will dissolve polar molecules, and nonpolar liquids will dissolve nonpolar molecules. By far the most common polar liquid in the universe is water, though ammonia is probably the next most common, but is only liquid at extremely cold temperatures or high pressures.\n\nNow, the two molecular chains I mentioned above, Carbon and Silicon, both form nonpolar chains. Water, in contrast, is very polar. Thus, carbon and silicon are free to float about and form long information-encoding chains in water, but if in a substance like liquid methane (like on Saturn's moon Titan) would be dissolved. \n\nSo to sum this all up, an environment that would allow long molecular chains to form, which we consider necessary for any sort of information-encoding that would be necessary for any kind of life, almost certainly requires a liquid polar solvent. For most scientists, this means looking for planets where liquid water could exist. As I mentioned above, ammonia is another possible candidate, but it is commonly thought that the conditions necessary for ammonia to be present (high temperature, low pressure) would not be conducive to life as it would be so cold that there wouldn't be much energy available.",
"It would be nearly impossible for humans to actually observe and identify an alien life form that was too far from our current experience. I think the scientists are using a very narrow point of view when they say they're searching for life out there, but when you think about it, they're just using all the known variables we have for what constitutes 'life' as a reference point. We have never seen a sentient cloud of alien gas, or a conscious alien star being, so we likely wouldn't be able to recognize it as alien life at all.\n\nI mean, for all we know, the rocks on the moon are a special form of alien lifeforms stemming from Zeta Reticulii, who have thoughts and feelings and the ability to exist for millenia, and can exist in the vacuum of space pretty much indefinitely. We can only look for life that's similar to our own, simply because our understanding wouldn't stand up to the required levels to comprehend something entirely different.\n\nAlso, it's easier this way. It's easier looking for (and finding) something that is similar to what you already know, than what you don't.",
"My thoughts, not fact. \n\nScientists tend to suffer from group think. Scientists that think outside of the box are often treated poorly by their peers. I understand why. Most of the ones thinking outside the box are quacks and almost never produce anything of value or work that can be replicated. \n\nIt keeps people from wasting money and time. The byproduct is lack of imagination. Imagination is usually worth fuck all in science. However life is as much a philosophical question as a scientific one. \n\nI see no valid reason that life can't exist outside of our defined framework. I think it is possible that conscious beings could exists from elements we haven't discovered yet because they don't exist on earth. ",
"I read a short story about this in high school.\nI think it was titled \"life on earth\" it was a Martian view of earth. It had all comic satire about how life is not possible in earth as it has o2 and a ozone and temperature is not nearly habitable (very low fluctuations in daily temperature)\nIt was amazing\nThis reminded me of that\n\n\n",
"Not all life would have to be, but if Humanity wants to make a long-term settlement on a distant planet, it would be nice if we could actually grow food and live there without having to have every settlement hermetically sealed against a hostile environment. Would you pick a plot of land in the crater of a volcano or under the ocean to build your home? No? Well it's the same concept. It would be pretty pointless to try and establish permanent settlements on a planet that rained molten glass or had an atmosphere laced with sulfur and radioactive soil. \n\nThe dream would be to find a planet we could colonize without having to do any terra-forming.",
"It's kind of like asking \"why do I have to use an egg to make a boiled egg\". It is because our existing definition of life depends on evidence that is observable.",
"This will probably be buried but [this](_URL_0_) is an article about how complex plasmas in space exhibit all of the properties of life (including metabolism!) The study was conducted on a computer simulation. I would like to see this idea receive more attention and further evaluation. ",
"I've seen what is considered habitable for life sometimes described as an even smaller range of habitat than that of life we know of on earth if you start counting life at undersea volcanic vents and tardigrades (go waterbears!). I think sometimes we look at too narrow a range for life.",
" > if we discover some complex autonomous physical form that is completely different from our notion of life\n\nNo way, that would be great! The problem is that we have no idea what that would look like, so it is hard to go looking for it.\n\n > but how about taking it from an \"are we alone\" standpoint?\n\nBecause we have limited resources, so we build telescopes to look for planets where we know that life can possibly exist: Watery rocky planets. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy so we have to prioritize where we closely look.",
"I tried posting nearly this exact question 2 days ago in askscience but it doesn't seem to have received moderator approval, then I log on today and see you on the front page... Well, at least I'm still getting answers to my question.",
"It is considered but taking it into account how hard it is for us to travel to planets or moons in our solar system its just logic to search first in environments that we know for sure that life can exist"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/12/epic-discovery-nasa-discovers-new-non-dna-based-life-form-to-be-annouced-at-2-pm-est.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhj45BFK5dw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/faq/"
],
[],
[
"http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonders_of_Life_(TV_series)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://podbay.fm/show/502304410/e/1332246600"
],
[
"http://aeon.co/magazine/science/does-earth-have-a-shadow-biosphere/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/ZZ_BtZ-5O60"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_Dark",
"https://www.google.fr/search?q=silicon+based+life",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
890fig | how do bulls not impale people more often? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/890fig/eli5_how_do_bulls_not_impale_people_more_often/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwoinnb",
"dwom70k"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Bulls are still domesticated cattle, and generally not overly agressive by themselves. People do get gored occasionally on farms, but it's not super common. Most cattle-related injuries are kicking related when they get startled.\n\nThe ones you see charging crowds during the running of the bulls are worked up into a stampede, and they *do* gore people every year. They don't gore more because a thousand pounds of beef on tiny hooves on slick, winding pavement isn't exactly nimble, and people in running shoes are.",
"How often are people hanging out with loose bulls? They don't regularly, and typically those who do are trained to minimize risk. Also, there just aren't that many bulls relative to cows because they don't produce milk so they are usually used for beef at a young age."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
72x8jz | rappers and other celebs often record themselves doing illegal things, like smoking weed, doing drugs, and having large amounts of guns. why are they not arrested when the cops see the videos? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72x8jz/eli5_rappers_and_other_celebs_often_record/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnm0yjl",
"dnm0zr5",
"dnmawz2"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Prove they smoked an actually illegal substance and not tobacco. \n\nWeed is legal in several states. \n\nFurther, you are usually charged with possession or distribution of the substance, not just having consumed it. You generally cannot be forced to take a drug test, in America, so they would have to catch you with the drug. The police don't typically conduct raids, because someone posted on Snapchat with a joint. \n\nI don't know that I've seen celebs showing off other illegal things like cocaine. Typically you'd have to his someone with actual possession of the drug, which if they're smart, they only have a small amount or are not carrying. \n\nI believe 50 cent was recently in trouble, after declaring bankruptcy he was seen on IG with piles of cash. His defense? They were 'fake bills'. It would be up to the court to prove the money was real. \n\nOwning guns in America is rarely illegal. Exceptions include while on probation. Sometimes celebs are charged. Soulja boy recently was charged for possession of a stolen firearm. \n\nAnd then finally the most important point, it comes down to money. Life is easier if you can afford to pay a lawyer. Something you and I would struggle to fight in court with a legal defender, a well paid attorney can shake off or plea down with ease. ",
"Because it's fairly easy for a person with a lot of money who makes lots more money 'being bad' to win a court case.\n\nThere's no proof it was cocaine rather than flour, or weed rather than a home-made herbal cig. And they have very good legal consul who will tell them what to say and make sure to make the prosecutor's life a bitch.\n\nTo top that off the rappers who do drugs usually have a paid 'fall guy' who carries them around. Cops pull them over and find pot in the car the fall guy says \"That's mine, blame me.\" and he goes to jail and rehab and all of that and still gets paid his salary. The NFL gives seminars advising young recruits to hire a fall guy.\n\nBut it does happen. There have been a handful of successful prosecutions of rappers and rock stars for drugs. Willie Nelson got busted in Texas for pot and got probation, mostly because he was honest and thought they wouldn't care.",
"Because you can testify it's all an act, a gimmick, a ruse - like the WWE, it's \"fake drugs\". The burden of proof is on the state to prove you're guilty of a crime. You don't have to say anything."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1zfh2z | why do your ears turn red when in a cold environment? | I know why our face or stuff turns red when we are warm, as our blood vessels expand and therefore come closer to the surface of our skin, making it (more) red. However I don't understand why our ears get red when in a cold environment, could someone explain? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zfh2z/eli5_why_do_your_ears_turn_red_when_in_a_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"cft63bf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If I'm not mistaken, it is because ears have a relatively large surface area relative to their internal volume. The body senses that they are cold and expands the blood vessels to get more heat to the area (same as your face).\n\nSomebody please correct me if I'm wrong, though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
77pn3d | how does a movie obtain a cult following?? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77pn3d/eli5_how_does_a_movie_obtain_a_cult_following/ | {
"a_id": [
"donps8v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"More people like it and talk about it after its been released for a few years. I would also say that the new fans be of a different generation than the first fans."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
bk4e88 | are silica gel safe to touch? | I know they are dangerous when eaten obviously, but I read a post of Amazon saying it's dangerous to touch. I don't know much about silica gels except for they are used to dry stuff and beads are doped with Cobalt to indicate it gets too saturated. But I'm not sure if it can do something to ur body if you touch it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bk4e88/eli5_are_silica_gel_safe_to_touch/ | {
"a_id": [
"emdx6rs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Silica (SiO2) is one of the most stable substances in existence. It is non-flammable, non-toxic, non-reactive with many acids, bases, oxidizers, etc etc.\n\nHowever, it can be doped with chemicals like Cobalt (II) Chloride to indicate if it has absorbed water. These dyes may be toxic, so eating coloured silica gels is a really bad idea. Even without additives, Silica gels are still a desiccant, meaning they absorb water. Eating the gels might cause damage to the Mucous membranes in your throat, lungs and intestines, plus they can’t biodegrade meaning if it gets stuck somewhere you’re never getting rid of them.\n\nTouching with your fingers should be fine. Silica can’t do anything through skin contact."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
cn1959 | why can't countries with currecny in the 1000s, such as indonesia, change their currency to smaller numbers such as 1,2,5,10,100? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cn1959/eli5_why_cant_countries_with_currecny_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew64191",
"ew65wsn",
"ew67hj4",
"ew6a713"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Doing so would essentially require issuing a new set of currency, providing for a fixed exchange, and eventually retiring the old currency.\n\nEspecially for a country with a huge population spread across a huge land mass, that's probably far more work than it's worth.",
"They can, and when the inflation gets to ridiculous levels (like when you have to start issuing trillion-dollar bills) governments do end up doing what's called a \"redenomination\" where they knock a few zeroes off the value. But this is obviously a bit of a pain in the ass, you've gotta print up new money, declare the old money will be invalid, and try to gather up as much of the old money as you can. It's economically disruptive. So a government would prefer not to do this if they don't have to. \n\nSo if the inflation isn't like out of control or anything, governments are happy to make do with currencies in the thousands, like the Japanese yen. In the end it's not really that big of a deal. It might even make the day-to-day math slightly easier if you don't ever have to deal with cents, fractions of a unit of currency. Like one yen is worth so little that no one ever has to worry about yen cents.",
"In Japan, a 1000¥ bill is the equivalent of a 10$ bill to an American. The difference is Japan doesn't deal in fractions like we do. So $100.00 to us would be more or less a 10000¥ bill, and a 10¥ coin is like a dime.\n\nEven more basic explanation: It's like if we gave prices in the number of pennies rather than dollars.",
"They can and they do.\n\nTurkey did essentially just that a decade ago.\n\nInflation has cause the Turkish Lira to lose value and they were at the point where they had grocery bills in the millions.\n\nThey printed new Lira bills and said that 1 new Turkish Lira was 1,000,000 old Turkish Lira. They basically struck of 6 zeros of all values to make stuff easier to handle.\n\nIn theory nobody really got poorer or richer as a result as every thing staid the same it just looked better.\n\nRomania did the same thing with their currency about the same time. They reissued all the money (the Romanian Leu) with 4 less zeros on them.\n\nWikipedia has some before and after pictures.\n\n[1,000,000 old Lei](_URL_1_)\n[100 new Lei](_URL_0_)\n\nIt was just a cosmetic change.\n\nWhy don't more countries do that?\n\nIt is a change that costs money to implement. For countries like Romania and Turkey it was thought to be a worthwhile investment. They wanted to show the world that the days of high inflation were behind them and that they were now a normal currency again.\n\nJapan also has gone through inflation in the past. Once upon a time it was basically on par with the USD when both currencies were still young and based on the example of the Spanish silver dollar. Today an US dollar buys you more than a hundred Yen.\n\nJapan could revaluate their currency to make it closer to parity again, but they don't need to. Everyone knows that no matter what happened in the past the current yen is stable, they don't need to convince people that they are good.\n\nThis is one of the things that also matters. Lower numbers may be more convenient to handle in everyday life and that might be reason enough to adjust your currency, but if you are doing it to look strong than it also sends a signal. People who are strong don't need to go though great efforts to convince everyone how strong they are. Revaluating a currency like that can be seen as an attempt to look strong and have the opposite effect."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/100_lei._Romania%2C_2005_a.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/ROL_1000000_2003_obverse.jpg"
]
]
|
||
2oo0vj | why can we only have so many ct scans in our lifetime, and what will happen if we have too many? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oo0vj/eli5_why_can_we_only_have_so_many_ct_scans_in_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmox84a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A CT scan is basically a powerful, complicated X-ray. But instead of just catching a snapshot onto a single film like regular X-rays do, it allows for more complicated imaging, and you can even build a 3d computer model of certain organs from a CT scan.\n\nAs a result of being more complicated, it hits the body with significantly more X-ray radiation than your basic X-ray snapshot: on the order of 100 to 1000 times as much. This is a significant cancer risk, so you are advised to not have too many CT scans in your lifetime. \n\nThis is based on what's called the [*linear no-threshold model*](_URL_0_) of radiation absorption, which is the subject of some dispute. The CDC, EPA, and other safety bodies use the linear no-threshold model when calculating radiation exposure guidelines. It assumes that any radiation exposure, no matter how slight, still adds up to cancer risk. In other words, lots of smaller exposures can add up to the same risk as one big exposure. This is compared to other models that assume a *threshold* for exposure, meaning that the exposure has to be large enough, has to be \"above the threshold\", before it adds any risk.\n\nIn addition, there can be other effects from some CT scans. These are caused by the *contrast*. With certain CT scans, you're given either an injection or a pill containing a chemical that will darken certain areas of the body to X-rays, giving better contrast to the CT scan image. Most of the time, this is harmless or has only short-term side effects like a rash. Sometimes, though, it can cause nephropathy (kidney disease)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model"
]
]
|
||
6qo1oh | do paleontologists have educated guesses as to what's hiding under antarctica's ice? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qo1oh/eli5_do_paleontologists_have_educated_guesses_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkz0sc8",
"dkz2bk6",
"dkz3f1h",
"dkz4ok5"
],
"score": [
28,
4,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Geologists have a hard time patching together what's under the ice because they often only have access to rocks and boulders exposed on mountaintops and marine glacier sediment that can be traced back to the continent itself to provide valuable clues, but more work needs to be done. There is a good picture of the geological regions and their ages, but that doesn't always give information on what organisms lived there and may be preserved. \n\n\nMarine glacial silt:\n_URL_0_",
"i don't have much to add, but the ice cap covering the continent is said to be about 4.7km thick.\n\nI know of one core drilling that got as far as around 3.5km deep.",
"It has been a while since I've seen/heard anything new from [Lake Vostok](_URL_0_). ",
" Palaeontologists can certainly infer a few things about what lies beneath the ice, although they are specifically looking at fossils to reconstruct past life and past environments. The fossils found in Antarctica indicate that it was once home to lush green forests before ~50million years ago, and even had dinosaurs that lived there prior to the extinction event 66 million years ago. \n\n\nThe professionals able to give us insight into what lies beneath the ice today are geologists and geophysicists. Geologists can study the volcanoes on the continent, as well as take samples from areas where the rock outcrops, and even map largescale structures in areas which are well exposed like the [McMurdo dry valleys of East Antarctica](_URL_0_), which glaciers do not invade. \n\n\nThe geophysical measurements which are done with gravity readings and ice-penetrating radar are what [really reveal the topography below the ice](_URL_1_) though. The British Antarctic Survey's Bedmap2 is the most recent and comprehensive project to have combined geophysical measurements for the whole continent, incorporating data from satellites, aircraft, and surface-based surveys. The gravity measurements help to define the general shape and density of the rock below, the density can then be used to make informed guesses at the rock composition. The majority of bedrock topography data comes from radar though, in a similar way that mapping the sea-floor is done with sonar. Radar signals are beamed down through the ice and the angle and timing of returning waves is recorded in order to image the ice surface, internal layering and the rocky under-layer. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379117302020"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vostok"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/kjctbPO.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/EA2XfwR.jpg"
]
]
|
||
ap14pp | why (according to my teacher) is the equator not perpendicular to earth’s axis? | To preface this, I’m currently in 8th grade and generally have a good grasp on new concepts, so when something doesn’t click it really bothers me internally.
Anyway, we were learning about the scientific misconceptions associated with seasonal weather changes and the actual reasoning for seasons. We had to draw a whiteboard model; I drew the equator perpendicular to Earth’s axis. Teacher told me this was incorrect, and that the equator was flat relative to Earth’s orbital plane. This confused and contradicted everything I had learned about basic astronomy in years prior. Anyone care to explain what he may have meant or what I’m failing to grasp here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ap14pp/eli5_why_according_to_my_teacher_is_the_equator/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg51t57",
"eg51utp",
"eg51v2b",
"eg51ynr",
"eg52np7",
"eg55929"
],
"score": [
4,
26,
11,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I think they meant that as the earth is spinning around circling the sun.. if you drew a line from the sun out to touch the earth...as the earth tilts causing the seasons the line would move up and down on the earth. Did that make sense? \n\nBut honestly, I’ve never thought of it that way. I thought the equator remained perpendicular to the axis. I think they are wrong. It’s the line at zero latitude equal distance from the north and south poles. I think maybe some concepts have gotten confused. We did learn recently that the magnetic North Pole has moved. Think they meant the equator moved because of that?\n\nI’d ask teacher some more questions. ",
"The Earth's axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees with respect to its orbital plane. This tilt is largely responsible for seasons. The equator is precisely in the middle of the planet, perpendicular to the poles, and is thus also tilted 23.5 degrees.\n\nThe Earth's orbital plane, from our perspective on the ground, is called the ecliptic, and is represented by a circle in our sky that the sun travels through over the course of a year (the constellations this circle passes through are called the zodiac). The Earth's equator, when projected outward into space, also makes a circle in the sky. These circles are offset from each other by, you guessed it, 23.5 degrees, and they cross at two points, which are called equinoxes.",
"If your teacher really said what you report s/he said, it is 100% wrong. The equator is perpendicular to the Earth's rotational axis. That axis is tilted 23.5 degrees with respect to the orbital plane.",
"I'd have to see the pictures to be sure, but from your description you have the right idea. Earth's equator is perpendicular to the rotational poles. It is tilted compared to the Earth's orbital plane.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nHe might be thinking the equator is were the sun passes overhead, but that is only true on the equinoxes. It is not directly overhead every day.\n",
"If your teacher actually said that and you didn't misinterpret what they said, your teacher is 100% wrong and has no business being in a classroom. The equator is ***literally by definition,*** perpendicular to the rotational axis. Perhaps you misunderstood and what your teacher said was that Earth's *axis* is not not perpendicular to it's orbital plane? [This image shows what's going on](_URL_0_). You can see that equator is NOT NOT NOT I REPEAT NOT aligned with the Earth's orbital plane (the ecliptic). Can you show us what you drew?",
"That can't be right. If the equator matched the orbital plane, it would twist up and down as the planet orbited the sun. Not to mention that where a spot was in relation to the equator would change throughout the day. \n\nThe earth's axis is NOT perpendicular (i.e. crossing at a 90 degree angle) to it's orbital plane, and that may be what they were saying.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.first-learn.com/images/day-and-night-on-the-earth.png"
],
[
"https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/axial-tilt-earth-vector-diagram-41459242.jpg"
],
[]
]
|
|
2yl4ki | what exactly does it mean that the hiv virus does not live long outside the body? | As far as I know, viruses are not alive nor dead, but somewhere in between. Yet, one of the most vocal aspects of the HIV virus "marketing" is that it dies shortly after it leaves the human body. Now, I'm pretty sure this is a simplification of what actually happens, so I'm wondering what exactly happens to the virus when it leaves the body? Or rather, what is NOT happening to the virus while it is inside the body? And why once it leaves the body and somehow 'deactivates' it no longer 'reactivates' (using these instead of "dies" and "revives") upon re-entry? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yl4ki/eli5_what_exactly_does_it_mean_that_the_hiv_virus/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpajvna"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Viruses are genetic material surrounded in a shell of protein and sometimes lipids. In the body, viruses introduce their genetic material into a cell, which causes the cell to make more copies of the virus.\n\nWhen viruses are exposed to air, the molecules that make them up start to degrade. Various elements in the air or the surface they're on react with them and break up the molecules. Since viruses have no way to repair this damage themselves, they eventually degrade to the point where even if they enter a living creature, the mechanisms that would have infected a cell are broken."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3xqide | if i am allergic to peanut butter and i eat a jar everyday, will i become un-allergic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xqide/eli5_if_i_am_allergic_to_peanut_butter_and_i_eat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy6v1w1",
"cy6vwzw",
"cy6w4h2",
"cy6wa55",
"cy6wg2p",
"cy718vq",
"cy725id",
"cy72u1q",
"cy7gjo4"
],
"score": [
112,
16,
8,
5,
13,
17,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are some allergy therapies that try a version of this. You can build up resistance to peanut butter if you are exposed to VERY SMALL amounts ever day. Starting with a jar will just send you to the morgue.",
"Like /u/forestman88 already said, it is possible, but needs to be done the proper way. This is known as [Mithridatism](_URL_0_) and is an actual treatment for peanut allergies.",
"By a jar? No. Small doses over a long period can work if you are lucky. I have grown out of a lot of allergies, and my doc says that it is important that i keep subjecting myself to it, so that my body is familiar with it because i am still allergic to it. i just dont react on it, if that makes sense.",
"My wife and I have been very successful slowly getting rid of my son's severe egg allergy using this technique.",
"You have to be very careful because sometimes exposure actually makes the allergy worse. For instance, my mother has a latex allergy and each time she is exposed to it, or bananas, the reaction is worse than the previous time.",
"If you are allergic to peanut butter and you eat a whole jar, you will not become immune, you will become dead. ",
"If you ate a that much peanut butter, technically you wouldn't be allergic anymore, primarily because you would be dead. This process is known as immunotherapy, and typically it is conducted with very minuscule doses of peanut proteins over long periods of time.",
"I have an allergy/intolerance to clams. My mother has it as well. I ate a few clams once as a kid, liked them a lot, and ordered a bucket of boiled clams a few weeks later. I got violently ill and puked more than I've ever puked any other time in my life. I didn't touch clams again for 15 years. \n\nWhen I next had clams, it was one bite of clam chowder and one fried clam. My girlfriend talked me into it, and I gave it a try thinking that maybe I just got food poisoning. Well, I didn't get sick, but I felt very weird. I felt dizzy, my head was cloudy and spacey. It lasted an hour and went away.\n\nOn a business trip to Japan a few years back, I was given a bowl of miso soup filled with clams. I had no interpreter, so I just drank the broth and didn't eat the clams. I didn't get sick. \n\nAfter that, I'd eat a little clam now and then. I thought that maybe I could build up a tolerance.\n\nI went to Korea for my wedding, and my friends, in laws, and I were all at a seafood market. A plate of seafood was brought out and I dug in, eating a ton before my father in law went \"OH NO! THAT IS CLAMS!\" Well, it was too late to go back, so I drank a bunch of soju and didn't eat any more clams. I did not get sick.\n\nNow, I eat clams whenever I can. Occasionally, I'll feel a little weird, but nothing too bad.\n\nI consider myself allergy-free now. \n\nI am also allergic to cats, and we just adopted a stray kitten. I'd take medicine for it once a day, then once every two days, and now it's been two weeks since I've taken any. I've adjusted, and no longer get allergic reactions.\n\nThese are my anecdotes, and I'm sure it depends on the type of allergic reaction and the severity, but I would assume that it is possible train your body to not have any reaction.",
"So, OP, why did you choose an entire jar as the starting place. If someone was allergic to peanut butter even a small small amount of peanuts would send them into shock. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridatism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
46w0uz | how come gas planets don't lose their shape | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46w0uz/eli5_how_come_gas_planets_dont_lose_their_shape/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0882kl"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The same reason rocky planets don't; gravity.\n\nThe only reason Earth is (roughly) spherical is because gravity pulls it into that shape. Gases are affected by gravity in the same way.\n\nAbove a certain mass, anything will become spherical...but I'm too British to make jokes about \"your mother so massive...\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
34vgg0 | institutional racism | What is it? How did it come to be? What are some examples of it? What are some examples of solutions to it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34vgg0/eli5_institutional_racism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqyft0j",
"cqyfw4q",
"cqyfwrb",
"cqyg24h"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Institutional racism is typically a holdover from periods of blatant racism.\n\nImagine you are born *just after* the end of Jim Crow and other formal, racist laws. Growing up, your family will be poorer than average and less educated than average. As you look around yourself, you will have few people who are very successful with whom you can talk, network, learn from, or model your behavior after.\n\n*That's* institutional racism. Nothing is explicitly keeping you down, but you are at a huge disadvantage none-the-less.\n\nThis is the idea behind special programs like race-based scholarships or affirmative action/race quotas in hiring. It helps to level the playing field a bit, so that underprivileged communities can begin to build some wealth, as well as a resource of people to serve as a guides and role models to the following generation.",
"Institutional racism is basically just racism or discrimination / inequality that is in some way (officially or unofficially) endorsed by institutions like governments, schools, employers, banks, insurance companies etc.\n\nFor example, if a university consistently chooses to admit white applicants over black applicants who share very similar backgrounds and qualifications to the white applicants, then you could say this is a form of institutional racism because the admission to university appears to favor applicants on the basis of their skin color.\n\nLikewise, if a bank is willing to loan you more money or an insurance company is willing to give you a lower rate because you live in a white-majority neighborhood (which is often institutionally associated with lower crime and greater responsibility), then that's also a form of institutional racism. \n\nIn other words, you can have two people with a very similar background, qualifications and wealth, but they may be treated differently by institutions like banks and employers based directly or indirectly on the racial composition of the neighborhood they live in.",
"Institutional Racism is acting as an organization (rather than as an individual) to favor one race over another.\n\nThere's a lot of reasons for it, but the heart of all of them is that humans tend to form groupings of \"us\" vs \"them\"; and if enough people in an organization have their \"us\" vs. \"them\"s along racial lines.\n\nThe classic example in the US is slavery and later Jim Crow laws: the laws of the country were set up so that Whites were legally superior to non-Whites (Specifically Blacks in this case). At the national level, Native Americans and several Asian groups have been subject to similar laws as well.\n\nThe main solution is to make it illegal. Dealing with the underlying cause (sufficient racism at the individual level) is a lot harder, and a lot more problematic (as much as we might wish, we can't make certain thoughts or opinions illegal); but targeting it at the organizational level isn't targeting individuals, and still accomplishes the same result; and can contribute to dealing with racism at the individual level by acclimating people to people of different races.",
"Institutional racism is when society is structured in a way to benefit one race or hinder another. It's at a social, or institutional, level as opposed to a person or group of people being racist. An example would be if banks never gave home loans in a specific area of the city, and that area is predominantly black. This is called [redlining](_URL_0_). You can't really point to one person that is saying or acting racist. It's the whole lending institution that doesn't create loans. \n\nOne solution for redlining was to require banks to lend in all areas they service. They couldn't \"officially\" use redlining as a reason for why they didn't offer a loan to a person. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining"
]
]
|
|
2ih8x5 | how does an internal combustion engine make a car move and what do cubic measurements mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ih8x5/eli5_how_does_an_internal_combustion_engine_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl255sl",
"cl25aw4"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The internal combustion engine has been explained on this sub more times than I can count, but cubic measurements are a measure of volume.\n\nFor example, one cubic centimeter is the amount of space in a cube one centimeter wide.",
"Basically, in a very condensed version.\n\nThe engine has within it, pistons: they suck in fuel and air through the top and compress it until it combusts. It's that combustion which turns a pole attached to the clutch which (when the pedal is depressed (manual only)) connects to a gearbox, which connects to the axle, which connects to the wheels.\n\n[Handy infographic.] (_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/gallery/SkwZn"
]
]
|
||
4h0zq8 | how do you make paints of primary colors? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h0zq8/eli5_how_do_you_make_paints_of_primary_colors/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2mg3u7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Pigments, which come from a variety of sources. The cochineal is a popular one for red color."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9ff8c6 | article 13 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ff8c6/eli5_article_13/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5w1fim"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's copyright protection that prohibits use of copyrighted material on the internet - on sites,...\nSorry if this is wrong. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
48qr8g | why does disney abandon parks/places instead of tearing them down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48qr8g/eli5_why_does_disney_abandon_parksplaces_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0lqv3d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Disney only abandoned 2 parks.\n\nDiscovery Island was apparently closed because of health concerns- apparently it was infested with an incurable brain eating bacteria (I kid you not).\n\n > Uncertainties and a lack of general information about the island has led to speculation that the island was shut down due to the amoeba species Naegleria fowleri being found in the water park.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n > N. fowleri can cause a lethal infection of the brain called naegleriasis (also known as primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM), amebic encephalitis, or Naegleria infection). Infections can occur when water containing N. fowleri is inhaled through the nose, where it then enters the nasal and olfactory nerve tissue, travelling to the brain through the cribriform plate. N. fowleri normally eat bacteria, but when it enters humans, it uses the brain as a food source. Once the trophozoites ingest brain tissue and symptoms begin to occur, death will usually occur within 1–2 weeks. There is no effective treatment. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nDisney's River Country was closed because of lack of business.\n\n > But after the 9/11 attacks, the decline in business for all Disney parks and hotels prompted Disney to halt the reopening of River Country. On April 11, 2002, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “Walt Disney World’s first water park, River Country, has closed and may not reopen.” The report concluded with this line: “Disney World spokesman Bill Warren said that River Country could be reopened if ‘there’s enough guest demand.’”\n\n_URL_2_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Island_%28Bay_Lake%29",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney's_River_Country"
]
]
|
||
9culdo | what is the difference between plan, method and methodology? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9culdo/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_plan_method/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5dbnuj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I’m not sure of explaining in software terms. But the way I understand it is:\n\nPlan: I’m going to build a bridge made of steel. In 10 weeks.\n\nMethod: There are many ways to build a bridge. I’m going to use slave labor as a workforce and steel. \n\nMethodology: I’m using slave labour because it’s cheaper. Methodology is basically the justification of the method."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2cuti9 | why do my fingers get sticky when i eat chicken? | Even with no glaze of any kind, eating chicken with skin on the bone makes my fingers sticky. Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cuti9/eli5_why_do_my_fingers_get_sticky_when_i_eat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjj8i7u",
"cjjb56f"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The skin has fat in it, when you cook it, it becomes oily and I think you can figure out the rest ",
"Its gelatin in the skin. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
97qx9l | how does google maps create this "globe effect"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/97qx9l/eli5_how_does_google_maps_create_this_globe_effect/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4a8pvd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The images in Google maps come from the satellites in space taking photos of the real spherical Earth. They stitch those images together to naturally form a sphere. It's not an effect, it's reality.\n\nBefore this, they had to stretch out images to look flat. That would be an effect.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
a6dw88 | how does flossing work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6dw88/eli5_how_does_flossing_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebu0i3s",
"ebu0kwn",
"ebu1rzu"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're supposed to pull the floss against the side of each tooth and pull up/out to clear the gunk from between the teeth. If your hands feel too big to maneuver inside your mouth, there's a tool you can string the floss around so you don't have to use your fingers - google \"floss pick\"\n\nAlso if your teeth are too tight together to be able to easily get the floss between, there's a more slippery kind of floss for that; I believe oral b's is called glide",
"Are you in an area of the world that doesn't sell plackers? They're amazing.",
"When you floss, you shouldn’t just shove the floss between your teeth. You should be scraping the floss against the sides of each tooth from the top all the way down to where the tooth meets the gums.\n\nIf you don’t floss regularly, this can make your gums bleed or hurt at first.\n\nIf you literally can’t fit your fingers in your mouth to make this happen, they make picks that you can use."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3jqcmm | what is actually happening in our vision when two colors seem to "clash"? | I don't mean, "Oh, the color shirt mixed with those pants looks AWFUL." I mean when something is written in green ink on a red background and people with full color vision have to strain their eyes to read it. Why does that happen, and why is it only with certain color combinations? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jqcmm/eli5_what_is_actually_happening_in_our_vision/ | {
"a_id": [
"curfh73"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The hardest to read is red text on blue. That is because long-wavelength red light and short-wavelength blue light focus slightly differently. So as our eyes can't focus for both at the same time, they constantly try to adjust. This makes looking at it is very uncomfortable. Green on red is OK if you have good color vision, but many people who have mild colorblindness (or even severe!) never find out - they just find red text on a green background hard to read."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3jbwft | how does linux mint update programs while i'm working with them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jbwft/eli5_how_does_linux_mint_update_programs_while_im/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuny7r0",
"cunyl93"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Windows doesn't let you write to a file currently being executed, but Linux does. Linux can keep the old file around on disk and just point the name to the new data, only fully 'deleting' the file when nothing's using it.\n\nBut, you'll often see problems after an upgrade when the old binary tries to load in some old file but gets the upgraded file instead.\n\nChrome, specifically, has the concept of a 'zygote' process that loads all the code needed up front, and then makes copies of itself when new tabs are created, rather than trying to create them from disk, risking getting a newer, incompatible version.",
"It updates the executable and other files on disk but the instance you are running is not updated. You will have to restart chrome to have the updates take effect. If it's a security update you really should restart chrome.\n\nOn debian systems we have a program called checkrestart that tells you which programs need restarting. It's found in a package called debian-goodies and may be available in mint since it's debian based too. Try `sudo apt-get install debian-goodies` or `sudo apt-cache search checkrestart`\n\nThere's also the following command:\n\n lsof|grep deleted|less\n\nignore the lines about /var/tmp/ /tmp and other temporary files."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1z24sw | why can't tv stations be on the same channel no matter where you are? | For example, why can't NBC be on channel 6 everywhere? It would make things a lot easier. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z24sw/eli5why_cant_tv_stations_be_on_the_same_channel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfpunvg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Interference. Because they originate from broadcast towers in different locations, the channel numbers have to be staggered as not to bleed into each other's signals. These are broadcast stations, although you may have always seem them via cable or satellite.\n\nThe channels may appear to be identical, but they air different programming and commercials in each market. If you were able to receive both signals from different markets (like DC and Baltimore), they would reach your antenna at different times and would not know which signal was \"correct\".\n\nIf you've ever used an FM transmitter in a car, you know to look for an unused frequency. You don't want your mp3 player trying to use the same channel number that is in use by an existing station. If you are on a road trip, you will have to keep looking for different empty frequencies to change your FM transmitter to as you travel, as a blank frequency in one city is a broadcasting station in another city.\n\nSame concept with TV channels between towns.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
337opf | why do characters in movies always take off their bullet proof vests right after being shot? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/337opf/eli5_why_do_characters_in_movies_always_take_off/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqibak5",
"cqif7vn"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"From a movie sense, to show the audience that the vest stopped the bullet, and that the shootout is over.\n\nFrom a realistic perspective, bulletproof vests are really only designed to take one bullet. Once they take one bullet, their ability to stop more bullets drops off drastically. After the first one, you'd probably want a new vest.",
"Do realize that a kevlar vest prevents the bullet from penetrating. It does so by spreading the transfer of energy from an area the size of a pencil tip to area the size of your hand. But that doesn't reduce the amount of energy, which is ballpark 500 joules, still means your getting punched by a heavyweight boxer. Its quite expected you end up with bruises and broken ribs."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
20dhak | liquor before beer, you're in the clear. | Fact, fiction, and explanation.. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20dhak/eli5_liquor_before_beer_youre_in_the_clear/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg25xjq",
"cg25zlc",
"cg26f6u"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Basically bullshit that sounds funny when you are half drunk.",
"Mythology spoken of by first time drinking teens. \n\n",
"Mostly bullshit. The only truth it might have is that if you switch to higher alcohol content drinks when you're already impaired, you're going to have a hard time judging how much is appropriate to consume at what rate, so low ABV stuff like beer followed by higher ABV stuff like liquor gives you a higher chance of getting more drunk than you planned. There's nothing physiologically special about it though, alcohol is alcohol."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2u4ivw | how it's possible for bees to have evolved stingers that kill them on use | I mean, if evolution is the strongest living and mating and the weakest dying, and a bee's one form of attack will kill them, then the strongest bees with these stingers would die out...right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u4ivw/eli5_how_its_possible_for_bees_to_have_evolved/ | {
"a_id": [
"co5181n",
"co51at9",
"co51bav",
"co520o5",
"co52e79",
"co546ti",
"co54b0x",
"co54esw"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
78,
3,
6,
59,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because those individuals do not mate regardless. Only the queen mates, and she does not leave the nest in order to sting attackers.",
"Those bees are essentially extensions of the queen. They protect her, she produces them and replaces them. Their survival is immaterial, evolutionary, because they are not reproductive. However, they still provide a tangible benefit, in that they protect the queen and the resources she needs to reproduce. ",
"Disclaimer: not an expert.\n\nIIRC bees only die when stinging something with a comparatively thick skin, like say... a human.\n\nMost of the things bees are stinging have thin enough skin/exoskeletons that the stinger doesn't become lodged in it and tear off, killing the bee. So from a natural selective perspective, bees' stingers work fine.\n\nIt's only when they go up against an unusual foe, like a human, that this disadvantage comes into play, and it doesn't happen often enough that it matters on an evolutionary scale.\n\nFinally, the bees doing the stinging are the ~~drones~~ workers, which are not the ones doing the breeding. Natural selection only effects how well something can reproduce, not how long any member of the species lives. So a worker or two dying doesn't effect the reproductive abilities of the hive.",
"Evolution is NOT the strongest living and mating and the weakest dying...\n\n\n\"Survival of the fittest\" is not about the strongest individual. Rather, \"fittest\" is about which species best \"fits\" in the environment where it exists. That species is most likely to succeed.\n",
"Bees have stingers to protect the hive against other insects. That barb tears at the exoskeleton of their enemies and the poison incapacitates and kills them.\n\nThat the barb sticks in flesh and they rip their asses out is not intended.",
"It's very helpful to think of the bee *hive* as the organism, and not the individual bees. First off, remember that all the bees in the hive are related, as they are descended from a common queen. Thus, they share a lot of genes. To an individual bee, it doesn't really matter if *that specific bee* reproduces or not, because she's got plenty of siblings who will pass on identical genes in her stead.\n\nThat being said, there are basically three types of bees: Queens, drones, and workers.\n\n**The Queen** (usually only 1 per hive) is female, and is the only bee that has full reproductive abilities. Queens lay eggs, which can hatch either drones (male) or workers (female). They can actually determine the gender in the mating process; a queen can produce drones without mating at all, but can only produce workers if it mates with a drone. \n\n**Drones** are the males of the hive. They don't have stingers, and they don't really serve any purpose at all other than to mate with the queen. Like I mentioned above, they don't have a \"father,\" only a mother.\n\n**Workers** are the bees that you're thinking of. They're the *only* ones that have stingers. They're *all* classified as female, but unlike the queen, they don't have the same reproductive abilities. They usually don't reproduce at all, making them genetic dead ends. The only exception is when the hive is missing a queen, wherein a worker can become a \"laying worker bee.\" It can lay eggs, but can *only* produce drones, and thus isn't a viable long-term replacement for a queen.\n\nSo to answer your question, bees have a suicidal sting because those particular bees were never meant to reproduce anyway. They're acting in support of an organism much larger than itself.",
"The only function of a drone bee is to reproduce, and they do not sting. So the *procreation* of the species does not depend on stingers at all. \n\nThe survival of the species depends partially on stingers (although not as much as it does on other factors like weather, food supply, and so on). However, the bee life cycle provides an interesting perspective on this: \n\nWhen a female worker bee hatches, she spends her first couple days cleaning the brood cells around her. Then she spends the next week or so feeding larvae, before she moves on to building and transporting stuff in the hive. Then she's on guard duty for a little while, and it isn't until halfway through her lifespan, at about 22 days old, that she leaves the hive and goes foraging. \n\nSo, the bees you see out foraging are, in a way, expendable. They've performed duties for the hive, and while the hive does depend on their foraging abilities, there are always more bees on the way for more foraging. It's what they're all going to be doing until they die. \n\nAnd none of those sterile female worker bees are going to be doing any mating, anyway. So the success of the hive as a whole is the success of a single organism. \n\nOr, put it this way: If a cat breaks off a claw defending itself, but that claw grows back a month later, it's no big deal. The cat can still tear your face off if it wants to. ",
"In most sexually reproducing species, offspring inherit half of each of their parents' genes, so they're 50% related to each parent. Siblings that share both parents are also 50% related to each other. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and half-siblings share 25% of genes, etc. Therefore, for a kin-selection behavior (that harms an individual but benefits its relatives) to evolve, it must have at least twice the benefit to offspring, siblings, or parents as cost to the individual, and more if extended to more distant relatives.\n\nBees and ants are different: the males only contain one set of genes (haploid) instead of a pair (diploid), so each individual gets half of the mother's genes and all of the fathers' and offspring share 75% of their genes. That allows kin selection behaviors with lower relative benefits to evolve."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
22a1fp | i've never smoked pot. how is the feeling different from being drunk? | When I was younger drugs just weren't in the area where I grew up. When I moved away, I got a job that does random drug checks. I'm 40 now and I'm hearing that alcohol is worse for you than pot. I still work at the same job so I won't be able to try it, but I've always been curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22a1fp/eli5_ive_never_smoked_pot_how_is_the_feeling/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgktdzk",
"cgktfw2",
"cgkttbi",
"cgkv41d",
"cglcxx4"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Drunk - Dizzy, Giggly, Dumb, Dazed, Confused\n\nHigh - Dazed, Happy, Sleepy, Giggly (At everything), Hungry",
"Alcohol is poison, it kills you.\n\nI think the first thing you notice when you smoke, besides the occasional burning lung coughing fit, is a... for want of a better term, euphoric high. It feels *good* and everything is *good*. The next thing you notice is that your brain loses a lot of road blocks. Ever have a train of thought that stopped short? With marijuana, your brain stops stopping itself so that one train of thought leads to another, and another, and another. Then after a while you'll notice all your aches and pains have gone away. Simply existing feels good. But what else feels good is whatever you're doing, be it sitting there doing nothing, playing video games, cleaning your house, etc.\n\nIt's a subtle but enjoyable difference from being sober. Compared to alcohol... alcohol kills and destroys you, marijuana gives you life and restores you.",
"Before I'd ever tried it, I always imagined the two would be comparable. They're so different, I don't think I can compare one to the other, but I'll try to give you an idea of the feeling...\n\nLike drinking, there are different levels of a high - /r/trees usually refers to these on a 1-10 scale, and right now I'm at about a [6]. Things are a little fuzzy, as I have to try a little harder to narrow my focus on writing this, but I can still maintain a clear line of thought (I hope) without too much trouble.\n\nMy thought process is definitely more stream of consciousness when I'm stoned, so I hope this isn't too rambling... But that's one of the coolest feelings - having one thought (a lot of the time a new perspective on something), then chasing it down the rabbit hole until you're questioning existence or whatever stereotypical stoner shit you've seen in movies.\n\nOther times, you just mellow out so much that you feel like you're sinking into the couch, like it's a struggle to move you're so fucking relaxed. This gets referred to as \"couchlock,\" which some people like, some don't. It's a good state to be in to just relax and watch some comedy because, seriously, things just get funnier when you're on a good buzz.\n\nRight now I'm listening to music, and, as cliche as it sounds, it just *sounds* better - I'm fascinated by all the harmonies and layers in a way that I wouldn't even necessarily notice sober. I guess in general, I just appreciate everything more (or at least in a different way).\n\nI hope that answered a couple questions, sorry if none of it made sense. If people disagree or have different experiences, I'm sure I'll hear about it, but whatever - this is how it affects *me*.\n\n**TL;DR** It affects how you think, how you feel emotionally, and how you feel physically differently than alcohol, but, IMHO, the overall feeling is more relaxed and usually more enjoyable. ",
"There are two major, distinct highs one can get on pot that come from two largely different types of pot: a body high, and a head high. These come from what are called indicas and sativas, respectively.\n\nThe type of high can also be greatly influenced by the individual strain of indica or sativa marijuana, and further complicated by the fact that indica strains can be hybridized with sativas generating complex and distinct highs that are either perfect hybrids or indica/sativa dominant with undertones of the other. But I'm explaining this to you like you're five, so I'll keep it as simple as I can.\n\n**Indica** (body high): You feel lazy, tired, but in a good way. You want to relax on the couch, chill for a bit, and stare at some Breaking Bad. Maybe some animal videos, if you're too high to follow basic dialog. Your brain slips off some details, which can be frustrating and a cause of paranoia/anxiety if you focus on it or fight it, but is generally accepted as just part of the experience and is usually a non-issue if you simply roll with it. It's hard to form cohesive thoughts, and your body feels heavy and prone to inaction.\n\n**Sativa** (head high): You feel mellow, but more creative and mentally active. Your head feels... not \"larger,\" but more prominent somehow. While you still experience the connective state of mind in a body high, it's definitely kicked into overdrive by a head high. You generally want to do mentally active things in this high, like hold conversations, undertake artistic endeavor, or post on reddit. It still can be difficult to hold onto your thoughts, and many people in this high claim to have great ideas that just slip through their fingers. The quality of these ideas as perceived by outsiders is sometimes dubious, however.\n\nIt's definitely something I'd recommend experiencing once by youself in a safe place at least once in your life. Then again, as a lurker on /r/psychonaut , there are a lot of things that fall into that category for me. ",
"Scruff McGruff lied to us. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3ktofc | why does making a higher pitched voice at the end of a sentence make it a question? | Where does this originate from, and why is it like that | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ktofc/eli5_why_does_making_a_higher_pitched_voice_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv0nyyh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's completely cultural. Some languages are tonal, which means that a word's tone is an inherent part of its pronunciation. If you change the tone from a falling one to a rising tone, you've mispronounced it and have likely said a different word entirely. In Mandarin questions are indicated by adding the word \"ma\" to the end. The tone of the other words is identical when you convert a statement \"You have a car\" to \"Do you have a car?\"\n\nEdit: \"Cultural\" may not be the best term to use. It's purely a feature of the specific language in question."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
pl0a1 | i put a paper towel in green*-dyed water and wrung it out. why did it turn pink? | Here's what we (me and an almost five year old, so ELI5 is pretty spot on here) did.
We took a glass of water and put four drops of food coloring in it, one each of red, yellow, blue, and green. We mixed it all up and the water turned a dark green.
We took the paper towel out and it was obviously very wet -- and very green. We wrung it out and the green water went back into the glass, but the paper town turned pink. What's going on here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pl0a1/eli5_i_put_a_paper_towel_in_greendyed_water_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3q8bbc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This may be better for /r/askscience since you are probably looking fir some specific chemistry "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
97kpok | what is the difference between bribery and the typical exchange of money, goods, and services? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/97kpok/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_bribery_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e48w86w",
"e48wexu",
"e48widh",
"e48xo3e",
"e48ysy3"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
13
],
"text": [
"A bribe is when you offer money in exchange for circumventing the rules. For example, your house is being inspected after construction. They inspector finds an issue. You offer him $200 dollars to make it go away. That's what makes bribery illegal.",
"Bribery involves an assumption on the part of the recipient party that they're acting in good faith; i.e. they're obligated and responsible to some other party to act in a specific way.\n\nSo if you have no such responsibilities, you can't be bribed, since you're under no expectation of behavior - this governs most typical transactions. But if you are under such expectations and you're being paid to act in a way that is counter to the expectation *and* you're pretending you're still conforming to expectation, you've been bribed.\n\nFor example, if I run a bookstore that claims to sell all variety of popular books, and I'm secretly paid to not stock or sell books by a specific author (and I lie about that book 'not being available'), that's pretty open and shut bribery. This is as opposed to being open about it (yeah, the publisher hates GRRM so we as a bookstore were paid a make-good fee to make up for the lost sales), or doing it without being paid to do it (I hate GRRM so I'm not going to stock his stuff).",
"It's bribery when the extra cost isn't authorized by someone who has the authority to set prices, or otherwise isn't incorporated into the services that are available for everyone.\n\nFor instance, imagine a government office that's in charge of issuing permits. The office might have a priority system where you can pay extra to have your application considered more quickly, available to anyone who chooses to pay, which would be fine. On the other hand, one of the permit officers might be willing to accept a personal payment to consider your application more quickly than it would be otherwise according to the office's standard system, which would be a bribe.",
"If you want security and you hire a security firm to provide you a security guard, that is an exchange of money for a service that is rendered.\n\nIf I wanted to harm you and I gave your security guard a wad of cash to be somewhere else at a predetermined time, that is a bribe.\n\nThe distinction is typically that a bribe is paying someone to not do their job, or to abdicate duties that they are beholden to personally or professionally.",
"In bribery, the exchange is for something the recipient of the bribe *does not own, or is not allowed to give*. \n\nFor example, a politician is allowed to sell their own car for money.\n\nBut they're not allowed to sell approval for one company to build or do business instead of other companies, that decision isn't \"theirs\" to sell.\n\nMisuse of public services or money is a particularly upsetting type of bribery, because everybody has some sort of ownership or stake in the resources which are being misused. And that sort of bribery is often prevented with very specific laws and prosecuted/punished in its own way. But you can imagine a similar exchange elsewhere.\n\nSay a criminal is at a store and wants to get a $1000 laptop without paying for it. Instead of stealing it (and getting caught), they pay a clerk $200 to allow them to take it without stopping/reporting this \"theft\". \n\nThis is a form of bribery because the cashier *effectively* received a payment for the laptop, but the laptop belonged to the store-- not them. It wasn't theirs to sell. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2kyh0y | what's the evolutionary justification for crying out of emotion? | So, we tear up when we have debris in our eye or if it is overly irritated, and I understand why. Why do we cry just because we feel emotion? What is the reasoning behind it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kyh0y/eli5_whats_the_evolutionary_justification_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"clptbhr"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Non-verbal display of distress or hardship. say you can't verbally communicate for whatever reason but need to convey a sense of emergency, pain, hardship.... crying i a good way of doing that/"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
272uqb | why do people always say to "walk it out" when you get hurt? i know many times that actually helps, but how? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/272uqb/eli5_why_do_people_always_say_to_walk_it_out_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"chwvm3e",
"chx335a"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's also a crude way of encouraging you to just tough out the pain.\n\n",
"If you're not actually injured, the pain will go away in a few minutes. Standing and walking gets you moving, stretches muscles, increases blood flow and gives you something to distract you from the pain.\n\nIt also gets you off the ground and stops you from whining like a bunny.\n\nOn the flip side, you can't walk off serious injuries. About two months ago I broke my leg - shattered one of the bones in my knee. I kept telling everyone I'd be able to walk it off, I just needed a minute to get my shit together. Two hours later, when I still couldn't move my leg without screaming they called an ambulance. The doctors still don't want me walking for another week."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4gbjfe | why does very cold water never give me brain freeze but drinking even a little bit anything else cold does? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gbjfe/eli5_why_does_very_cold_water_never_give_me_brain/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2g69jp"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"If its pure water and ice mixture, no matter how much ice you add the temperature will never drop below zero celsius. But if you start adding solutes, the temperature can then drop below zero. Pure ice in a solid state can certainly drop below zero, but if it is combined with water its in whats called a transition state, and therefore fixed at that temperature (zero celsius) and only after all the excess energy is removed from the water and can therefore freeze can the energy drop below that point. \n\nThink of how ice cream is made. Rock salt is used to lower the temperature below the freezing point of water, and therefore its temperature is below any temperature that can be reached by ice water alone. \n\nInterestingly enough, zero Fahrenheit is the lowest point that Mr. Fahrenheit was able to achieve by adding salts to ice water, which is significantly colder than a glass of ice water. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1vi7bg | how does _url_0_ get all of its information? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vi7bg/eli5_how_does_ancestrycom_get_all_of_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"cesi9mc",
"cesi9q1",
"cesib8a"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Government databases release most information they have such as military records or birth certificates if enough time has passed or if the person has died.",
"From user submissions and public records. \nBut mostly from user submissions.",
"On 22 June 2006, _URL_1_ completed the indexing and scanning of all of the United States Federal Census records from 1790 through 1930.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [
"Ancestry.com"
]
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry.com",
"Ancestry.com"
]
]
|
||
4e6i9t | why do successful bands break up, when staying together would be lucrative? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4e6i9t/eli5_why_do_successful_bands_break_up_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1xex6l",
"d1xg08y",
"d1xgeyt",
"d1xgho7"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As an artist it can be very demanding to create new music and spend months away from home and family on tour. There may be creative differences between band mates or everyone may just hate each other. But to make music full time requires a lot of time and dedication, and after a while people just want to do new things.",
"Most bands aren't making music for the money, at least not only for the money. \n\nLike /u/QuantumDischarge said, it's a demanding job and when you have a group of people who all have their own idea of what their music should sound like there are bound to be disagreements. Sometimes there are compromises and sometimes an artist might feel stuck in a sound or style that the band is known for and wants to make something different that they can't do as a member of a certain band.\n\nBesides, bands get back together and headline festivals and do small tours all the time. ",
"Robert Plant, for example, won't reunite Led Zeppelin because he's fucking old and can't sing that way any more. Though it would be lucrative he doesn't want to harm the band's reputation by touring way too long and being shitty a la Guns and Roses.\n\nTouring and recording constantly is very strenuous and requires months away from home. Especially for older guys it is very difficult to maintain a tour schedule. Many of them have families that they'd like to spend more than a few months a year with.",
"Because money is NOT everything they care about. As artists the idea of being creative and independent has a real impact in the work they produce. For some, after some years that's no longer the case so they simply prefer to part ways. In other cases, artists have huge egos and when some band members have more visibility than others it creates an unsustainable environment. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2ei5ts | if another sperm won, would i still be me? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ei5ts/eli5_if_another_sperm_won_would_i_still_be_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjzq7cb",
"cjzqa5l",
"cjzqaj8",
"cjzqw7e",
"cjzr46t",
"cjzr7v8",
"cjzs9bg",
"cjzufjj",
"cjzv2yc",
"cjzwuh8"
],
"score": [
4,
174,
5,
39,
2,
3,
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Define \"me\". Your answer will vary depending on what you think constitutes the self.\n\nYou wouldn't have the same genes, though, so you can look at it that way if you want.",
"A completely different person would have been born instead of you. On average, that person would have 25% different chromosomes from you, and 75% the same. In other words, your sibling would have been created and you would not.",
"You would be different. Is a different \"you\" still you? You can see it however you want.",
"Short answer: No, it would be another person. Congrats, you were the superior spermatozoon of your spermatozoan tribe. ",
"how genetically different is each sperm? My assumption is each one is different, but that's only based on hearsay. Is it possible to have identical sperm?",
"Somewhat off topic but would it be theoretically be possible to have an genetically identical twin be born at a totally different time as you? Obviously the chances would be tiny but is it possible?",
"Simple answer is no. \n\nWho you are is determined by several things and two important factors are genetics and environmental, for simplicity we can think of personal experiences. \n\nAnother sperm would contain a different gene set, from the same pool of genes but randomly generated, so siblings are alike but different all the same. Different genes would constitute a different you to start with, and these differences would also grow as the different you would react differently to the environment and thus making different personal experiences.\n\n Super ELI5 :\n\nImagine building legos. Your parents hand you each half of their bowl of legos (which they in turn got from their parents). Now you have one bowl of random lego pieces. When building you come up with a result, a spaceship, a car or whatever you imagine and have the pieces for. \nNow imagine your father took his pieces back, shook the bowl and gave you another random half of his bowl. \nThis lego piece could be similar, but not the same as the pieces and assembly would be different.",
"You would still be \"me\" but you'd be a different \"me\"\n\nThink brothers and sisters. Egg & Sperm from the same source (parents) but different people.",
"The short answer: No.\n\nThe long answer: It depends on your view of what you define as you, but at a molecular level, no.",
"Well no. There are many things genetics determine that would change who you are. The easiest to see is your sex. The sperm determines if you are male or female.\n\nSo regardless of the nature vs nurture argument (how much of you comes from how you were raised vs genetics). A change in sex would change how you are raised."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1psba4 | how is cliff-diving safe while so many suicides are from jumping off bridges over water? | My assumptions are:
1. Technique
2. Height of the jump/dive
... but to what extent, and how? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1psba4/eli5_how_is_cliffdiving_safe_while_so_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd5h9od"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Height of jump and depth of water."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
lwqbl | zeitgeist | I've heard many different definitions. What the fuck is Zeitgeist?... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lwqbl/eli5_zeitgeist/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2w6qig",
"c2w9h4s",
"c2wdqiw",
"c2w6qig",
"c2w9h4s",
"c2wdqiw"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2,
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ \n \nBasically it's the shared cultural understanding at any given time - the 'way things are'. It literally translates as 'time ghost or 'time spirit'. \n \nWhen something is said to enter the zeitgeist, it essentially means that it's something that has become as an accepted norm among the population at large.",
"Zeitgeist is a means of communication. Its the fact that someone can say something which is a collection of references with connotations, and it will make perfect sense. Its the fact that each generation and each epoch of a community will have their own norms and their own meanings to works. If you called someone a scoundrel in 1901, they would likely kill you. If you called them a bastard, they'd trade insults but most likely nor escalate. In another sense, I can say \"like a boss\" in ordinary conversation, and it will make sense. Look at writing from the 1500-1600s. Despite speaking English, it is so hard for us to understand the significance of their word choice and their emphasis because we are truly speaking a different language. \n\nZeitgeist is the belief that this other realm of communication, that which isn't part of the language itself but is necessary to really have significant communication, is a part of culture that can be identified. Looking at one's cultural ethos and spirit as it happens is almost impossible. It is only through contrast that we can really understand a generation's Zeitgeist. ",
"The general meaning is \"the spirit of the age,\" or the thinking/mentality of the general populace during a time period.\n\nExamples would the anti-war/environmental movement of the 60-70's by the hippies.\n\nAnother would be in the 30's, people all over the world were debating which economic system were superior. There were many more systems than we hear about today.",
"_URL_0_ \n \nBasically it's the shared cultural understanding at any given time - the 'way things are'. It literally translates as 'time ghost or 'time spirit'. \n \nWhen something is said to enter the zeitgeist, it essentially means that it's something that has become as an accepted norm among the population at large.",
"Zeitgeist is a means of communication. Its the fact that someone can say something which is a collection of references with connotations, and it will make perfect sense. Its the fact that each generation and each epoch of a community will have their own norms and their own meanings to works. If you called someone a scoundrel in 1901, they would likely kill you. If you called them a bastard, they'd trade insults but most likely nor escalate. In another sense, I can say \"like a boss\" in ordinary conversation, and it will make sense. Look at writing from the 1500-1600s. Despite speaking English, it is so hard for us to understand the significance of their word choice and their emphasis because we are truly speaking a different language. \n\nZeitgeist is the belief that this other realm of communication, that which isn't part of the language itself but is necessary to really have significant communication, is a part of culture that can be identified. Looking at one's cultural ethos and spirit as it happens is almost impossible. It is only through contrast that we can really understand a generation's Zeitgeist. ",
"The general meaning is \"the spirit of the age,\" or the thinking/mentality of the general populace during a time period.\n\nExamples would the anti-war/environmental movement of the 60-70's by the hippies.\n\nAnother would be in the 30's, people all over the world were debating which economic system were superior. There were many more systems than we hear about today."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6zjibs | why is it so hard to stick with working out when it makes you body feel so good? | Shouldn't the mind remember that it felt great and want to go workout again? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zjibs/eli5_why_is_it_so_hard_to_stick_with_working_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmvpueo",
"dmvqivy",
"dmvtmc2"
],
"score": [
2,
17,
4
],
"text": [
"because your body and mind is inclined to remember the bad part of the workout, which happens to be most of the workout.\n\nas an example, i may enjoy Mountain biking greatly simply through sheer adrenaline rush that i get going downhill fast, but the pain of cycling a good 30 minute uphill is enough of a deterrent.",
"Despite what many say, committing to regular exercise (and diet) is a very (very!) difficult thing to do, especially for \"normal\" people who live in real life, with work, families and problems. \n\nFirst, it requires time. Even if you will work out 30 mins a day, it can add up to much more than that with time to drive to gym, change, shower, this and that.\n\nSecond, it takes a lot of energy, if you really do a serious work out. Especially if you lift, a 45 min at the gym will tire the heck out of you. After a serious session, you will be hungry like hell, have hard time doing many other things you need to do (like paying the bills, or helping the kid with homework), and you will just want to eat and sleep. If you exercise at night, waking up at 6:00 AM will become very hard. \n\nThird, your life will constantly throw obstacles at you. Your kid will get sick, work will get busy, SO will get pissed, you will get the flu, car will break down, etc. There will always be very good reasons to skip the gym.\n\nFinally, it is easy to get motivated when you are rested, do not have a worry in the world, eaten well and healthy. But, when it is 6:00 PM, after 10 hours at the office, when you are hungry, stressed or upset, convincing yourself to go to gym will be really hard. \n\nBut I strongly recommend it!",
"Evolution has shaped our preferences to help us survive and thrive, *in the lifestyle our ancestors had for thousands of years,* which is a farming or hunter/gatherer lifestyle. The desire to conserve energy, and only use it for the physically challenging tasks you had to do, was a good adaptation.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3y9775 | how are some .com websites allowed to host full movies and tv shows without getting shut down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y9775/eli5_how_are_some_com_websites_allowed_to_host/ | {
"a_id": [
"cybkz3o"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"probably because they aren't actually hosting full movies but merely a collection of links to god knows how many servers. and when/if they get shut down it takes only minutes to move servers when your site is < 100mb."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1qnjr3 | why do 18 wheelers drive so close to cars? | I've noticed that most 18 wheelers (semi-trucks) I see often seem to allow only a car length or less between them and a car in front of them on the highway. I was taught I should allow a car length for every 10 mph I'm driving in order to have enough room to stop. Isn't it extremely dangerous for semi drivers to roll right up to cars in front of them? I can only assume they are trying to save fuel by not using their brakes but isn't it risky? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qnjr3/eli5_why_do_18_wheelers_drive_so_close_to_cars/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdekjxq",
"cdelldw",
"cdelosr",
"cderp15",
"cdevml3"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"From what I've noticed, it's not the semis driving close up to cars. Cars often pass them because in many states, there are regulations saying truckers can't go over 60 mph. I believe Missouri is one, but Kansas isn't (I live on Stateline). So people pass them because they're slow, and when they pass them, they just hop right ahead of them.\n\nI was always taught to be at least 1/5 a mile ahead of them before passing but some people don't care. I know hopping right ahead of them frustrates the hell outta them.",
"* when someone changes lanes in front of a truck, they can't slow downs as quickly to make space\n* trucks are big and intimidating, and are going to seem closer than they really are\n* when changing lanes, it is harder for trucks to find a big enough hole, so there are more likely to cut more closely\n* trucks know you are are more motivated to adjust to them then they are to you, and are content to wait it out",
"I live just off Route 78 in NJ. Trust me, some semi drivers definitely DO tailgate cars. I'm not saying I wouldn't too if I were driving a semi, but I don't do it in my car, and I don't pass and swerve in front of them either. They will often tailgate me right down the mountain (5 - 6 miles from the Pa. border). And I mean bunches of them. They bog down going up the slope on one side and haul ass down the other. \n\nAnd yes, car drivers are fucking nuts out there passing and swerving. Accidents happen weekly. But there have been many truck wrecks as well. A semi went off the road near Clinton NJ and killed himself.",
"As a car driver, a motorbike rider and an ex lorry driver I feel I have some authority in answering your question. Basically who ever (or whomever, fuck I don't know stop judging me, god) is in/on a vehicle that's different from yours is automatically a cock. If they're going slower than you then they should speed up or get the fuck out of the way. If they don't then they should just die. \nThis is why trucks ride slow cars bumpers.\n\nJust to add, if some one else is going faster than you then they are dangerous irresponsible cocks and you secretly hope you find them in a ditch further up the road so you can drive passed with the satisfaction of knowing justice was served.\n\nAnyway I hope this helps in answering your question.",
"After reading the comments and replies I can see that this ELI5 is disingenuous. Its apparent that you have an axe to grind against the truck drivers in your locale. You are soap-boxing, which violates this subreddit's rules."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6v96rx | power button on a smart phone | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6v96rx/eli5power_button_on_a_smart_phone/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlyigi9",
"dlyj2oi",
"dlyqc7s"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Software. If the button wasn't pressed on the previous time, but is now, save the time. If the button was released and press time was < 1 second, turn off the screen. If the button is still being pressed and more than 1 second elapsed so far, show shutdown screen. If the button is still being pressed after 5 seconds, perform a shutdown.\n",
"I suggest that you read a few button tutorials for embedded systems like arduino or raspberry pi. The processor can read the state of the buttons at any time. So they do this in a loop. When they notice the button is pressed they start a timer and wait for the button to be released. By measuring the time it takes for you to release the button they can do different functions. To save on battery they might not do it in a loop but rather have an interrupt logic in place that will signal the CPU whenever the state of a button changes and make it run the button checking logic. There may also be additional logic on the circuit board that detects if the power button have been held down for some time without the CPU reacting and do certain functions like toggling the power. This can be useful if the CPU have crashed or if the device is out of power.",
"It is worth noting that a smartphone power button is not a physical on/off switch like a typical light switch, but instead something more akin to the key of a keyboard - when you press the button a piece of software in the phone registers this and then performs the appropriate task, which can be programmed to be different depending on how long the software determines the button is pressed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
11kr3r | corporation tax and how starbucks have avoided paying tax in the uk. | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11kr3r/eli5_corporation_tax_and_how_starbucks_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6nczh0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They have structured the UK company so that it pays any taxable revenue as royalties to the American holding company each year for the rights to the brand and such."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19967397"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
1fwecy | how do satellites in geostationary orbit on the south pole stay in orbit? | Watching time lapse imagery of Antarctica from space got me thinking, how do satellites that are filming it from a "stationary" position not fall into the atmosphere? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fwecy/elif_how_do_satellites_in_geostationary_orbit_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"caefw95"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Because there are no geostationary orbits above the poles. They are always above the equator.\n\nTime-lapse satellite pictures of the poles come from satellites in lower orbits that take pictures of the same area as they pass over. The pictures are aligned after the fact so that a time-lapse animation is possible."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3r4huq | how do solar flares affect gps signal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3r4huq/eli5_how_do_solar_flares_affect_gps_signal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwkw8vb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Solar flares spit out a ton of electromagnetic radiation. GSP receivers listen for a very specific electromagnetic signal. During a solar flare this signal can become drowned out by the noise from the flare.\n\nThink about listing to someone give a speech in a lecture hall. Then all of sudden someone fires up a jet engine in the same room. You won't be able to hear what the guy is saying. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
145wnx | why the us dollar has been subject to 768% inflation in fifty years ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/145wnx/eli5_why_the_us_dollar_has_been_subject_to_768/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7a5e2c",
"c7a5ouz",
"c7a6gks",
"c7adm1g",
"c7ah4z1"
],
"score": [
4,
40,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Why do you think the US dollar should not have been subject to 768% inflation in fifty years? That's about a 4.3% yearly inflation rate; I'm not sure what about it you think requires an explanation.",
"Because inflation is good. Sort of. 700% sounds like a lot, but actually it's only about 4% each year. And that's not a lot. A few percentage of inflation is what most countries aim for, since this tend to make people more likely to invest.",
"Because its value, relative to the goods it purchases, has fallen. The same is true for gold, actually. Gold has appreciated in value with respect to the dollar, but you can't buy today with a bar of gold (using gold as a currency) what you could in 1950. ",
"ITT we learn redditors have no fucking idea how economics works and everything they do know they heard from Ron Paul ",
"Cue shill frenzy."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
rscwv | the difference between a serial ata drive and a solid state drive and why i should care. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rscwv/eli5_the_difference_between_a_serial_ata_drive/ | {
"a_id": [
"c489gtu",
"c48c6hn"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Serial ATA drive (aka SATA) is your standard hard drive. It is generally inexpensive and holds *a lot* of data, 500 GB to 2 TB is common and *cheap*. These drives store info on a magnetic platter. SATA drives are fast, but not super fast and are great for everyday use and holding lots of information.\n\nSolid State Drive (aka SSD) are newer on the home computing front. These new drives use a different method of data storage, storing their data on chips rather than on magentic platters. This has positive and negative affects. --Positive: These are super fast to access --Negative: They are *really* expensive, and generally hold a small amount of data (40 GB - 256 GB). They work well for holding your OS and programs you access which need to run quick. They don't work so well for storing large amounts of data like movies or music because you don't need speed for those, just cheap space (in other words they aren't cost effective for storage)",
"There are two types of drive in common use.\n\nThe first are magnetic drives. These can hold 2000GB for $100, but they're relatively slow. \n\nThe second are solid-state drives. These ones are very, very, very fast, but they can only hold about 80GB for $100.\n\nSATA is the name of the connection both of these drives (as well as Blu-ray drives, DVD drivers, etc) use to communicate with the rest of your system. Presumably you meant *magnetic* drives, because those are the 'standard'/ultracommon ones.\n\nPeople will generally buy a 60-120GB solid state drive to keep their operating system (Windows, Mac OS, etc) on, along with games and other applications, and then buy a 1-2TB magnetic drive to keep their movies, music, etc on. That would let your system load very fast (with an SSD, computers can go from completely-powered-off to your desktop in 5-10 seconds), make Photoshop open in less than a second, and have your games load levels before the loading screen even appears, while still giving you room for things like movies that don't really need to be accessed rapidly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
ksuje | why is germany key? what will happen if euro fails? what does this mean for americans? | Financial things are talking about Germany more and more saying they are the key to the future of the Euro. If they realize the Euro is holding them back, the Euro will collapse entering most of Europe into a depression. They say this will effect the Chinese and the Americans.
Why is Germany key to the euro? Why will they enter a depression? Will the depression be horrible? What exactly will the depression do? Why do they say this will effect Americans and Chinese people? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ksuje/why_is_germany_key_what_will_happen_if_euro_fails/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2mxkr5",
"c2mxoto",
"c2myg3a",
"c2myivn",
"c2mxkr5",
"c2mxoto",
"c2myg3a",
"c2myivn"
],
"score": [
56,
13,
6,
8,
56,
13,
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Germany is the healthiest economy in the Eurozone and the only country with the resources to bail out all the countries in trouble. In the original treaty they signed (the Maastricht Treaty) to create the European Union, all the countries agreed that they'd never force any other country to bail them out, so whether or not Germany helps is up to the German people.\n\nThis will effect the American and Chinese people because a lot of us have in one way or another given loans to a lot of the countries in Europe whose economies are in trouble. Without Germany's help, those countries probably won't be able to pay back all of the money they owe us and so it'll hurt us all.",
"I'm probably over-simplfying this, but...\n\nThink of it this way... Euro-zone = The United States, Germany = California (grand over-generalization that most Europeans hate, but this is ELI5). While Euro-zone nations are still independent, the Euro binds them economically - not as tightly as American States, but still, point stands - there is a semi-shared fate economically.\n\nOk, so imagine California is doing great - they still manufacture many things there, economy is great, unemployment is low, businesses are thriving. But the rest of the US is doing terribly. California is effectively propping up a country in bad shape.\n\nOk, now imagine if California seceded from the US ~ Germany leaving the Euro-zone. Why stick around with a loser? Just go it alone, they would be better off, right? This is where it gets complicated... they are just too well-integrated to make it an easy process or a sure fix. And it will really screw a lot of people both inside and outside Germany.\n\nIt's kind of a '*damned if you do, damned if you don't*' type situation.\n\nEffect for the world? All of our economies are interlinked to a certain extent. Globalization means we all rise and fall together. China is thriving right now, but recession / depression in the US and Europe hold that back (more people with less money to buy Chinese products). See? One country can do *well* compared to others, but there are limits. It's a shared fate on the global scale, but there can be smaller pockets of highs and lows.",
"Another question about the Euro: if things are so bad, why is the Euro relatively strong? If you look at a 10 year chart of the EUR/USD rate, it doesn't look weak at all.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso if you compare it to the GBP it looks as strong now as it's ever been:\n\n_URL_1_ \n\nSurely if things really are as bad as some people are saying, we should expect to see that reflected in the value of the Euro?",
"Germany is key to the Euro because it is the largest economy in the Eurozone, and one of the governments with the most political sway. Basically, they control a lot of the policy because they have the ability to bail other countries out, etc. Their economy is the fourth largest, I think and don't quote me on this, in the world behind US, China, and Japan.",
"Germany is the healthiest economy in the Eurozone and the only country with the resources to bail out all the countries in trouble. In the original treaty they signed (the Maastricht Treaty) to create the European Union, all the countries agreed that they'd never force any other country to bail them out, so whether or not Germany helps is up to the German people.\n\nThis will effect the American and Chinese people because a lot of us have in one way or another given loans to a lot of the countries in Europe whose economies are in trouble. Without Germany's help, those countries probably won't be able to pay back all of the money they owe us and so it'll hurt us all.",
"I'm probably over-simplfying this, but...\n\nThink of it this way... Euro-zone = The United States, Germany = California (grand over-generalization that most Europeans hate, but this is ELI5). While Euro-zone nations are still independent, the Euro binds them economically - not as tightly as American States, but still, point stands - there is a semi-shared fate economically.\n\nOk, so imagine California is doing great - they still manufacture many things there, economy is great, unemployment is low, businesses are thriving. But the rest of the US is doing terribly. California is effectively propping up a country in bad shape.\n\nOk, now imagine if California seceded from the US ~ Germany leaving the Euro-zone. Why stick around with a loser? Just go it alone, they would be better off, right? This is where it gets complicated... they are just too well-integrated to make it an easy process or a sure fix. And it will really screw a lot of people both inside and outside Germany.\n\nIt's kind of a '*damned if you do, damned if you don't*' type situation.\n\nEffect for the world? All of our economies are interlinked to a certain extent. Globalization means we all rise and fall together. China is thriving right now, but recession / depression in the US and Europe hold that back (more people with less money to buy Chinese products). See? One country can do *well* compared to others, but there are limits. It's a shared fate on the global scale, but there can be smaller pockets of highs and lows.",
"Another question about the Euro: if things are so bad, why is the Euro relatively strong? If you look at a 10 year chart of the EUR/USD rate, it doesn't look weak at all.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso if you compare it to the GBP it looks as strong now as it's ever been:\n\n_URL_1_ \n\nSurely if things really are as bad as some people are saying, we should expect to see that reflected in the value of the Euro?",
"Germany is key to the Euro because it is the largest economy in the Eurozone, and one of the governments with the most political sway. Basically, they control a lot of the policy because they have the ability to bail other countries out, etc. Their economy is the fourth largest, I think and don't quote me on this, in the world behind US, China, and Japan."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=USD&view=10Y",
"http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=GBP&view=10Y"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=USD&view=10Y",
"http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=GBP&view=10Y"
],
[]
]
|
|
3i0my6 | what the heck is happening with all these explosions in china? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i0my6/eli5_what_the_heck_is_happening_with_all_these/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuc824o",
"cuc92sn",
"cucdm6x",
"cucgi8h",
"cuclqpl",
"cucm8ds"
],
"score": [
48,
3,
11,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"China has no effective workplace or transportation safety regulation. \n\nThis leads to explosions.",
"What do you mean by *all*?",
"The general attitude in china, culturally, is one of: ''i can break any rule i want as long as nobody is looking.'' So the government may make rules about safe operation of plants or warehouses or pretty much anything (i work in aviation and you cant even imagine how bad it gets) and if people think they can do something and not get caught, they disregard the rule. Thus, it was well documented that the first explosion in tianjin (where i am) was in a warehouse that was only certified to store 10 tons of sodium cyanide, but was in fact holding 700 tons, thanks to an illegal delivery the day before. The workers probably figured that as long as nobody checked on what was stored they could get rid of it before it became an issue. \n\nAs far as the new explosion goes, the details havent really leaked yet, but it is likely to be a similar situation. ",
"1: No safety regulation\n\n2: They use shitty equipment.\n\nTake steel for example. Take good, well-made, forged steel. Now, melt it down in a shitty smeltery, mix it in with tons of other shitty steel, and now pour that into moulds and make screws, bolts and everything else.\n\nDon't be f*cking surprised when it fails horribly. \n\nThis is the first of many things like this to come, I'm sure. ",
"I think the idea is that these kinds of things happen all the time in china, it's jyst that you don't hear about most due to the state-controlled media.",
"You mean all two of them? Did I miss some?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3qfbc4 | what occurs in the human body when a sudden increase of sound volume occurs(jumpscares)? | Is there some sort of mechanism that triggers and causes our body to jump? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qfbc4/eli5_what_occurs_in_the_human_body_when_a_sudden/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwemcoz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, not necessarily a literal jump, but the reaction happens because your brain identifies the sudden change in stimuli (loud sound, sudden thing coming out from behind another thing) as a potential threat and triggers your \"fight or flight\" response."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
69m6l9 | why does your black jeans turn whitish on the corner of your phone whilst having it in the pocket of your jeans? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69m6l9/eli5_why_does_your_black_jeans_turn_whitish_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh7sd1o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Abrasion points...since the fabric is pushed out by the phone it rubs and wears unevenly compared to the rest of the fabric. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3ojz76 | what would happen if our bodies didnt fight back against certain virises like gastro? the symptoms seam to all be from our body fighting the virus. | After a recent bout of gastro while travelling in Thailand, I experienced fever and diahorea. From my understanding both of these symptoms are my body fighting the virus. What would of happened if my body did nothing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ojz76/eli5_what_would_happen_if_our_bodies_didnt_fight/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvxweb8",
"cvxwpw2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"AIDs is a disease that does just this. It makes your body do nothing to fight illnesses. And what happens to people with AIDs? *They die.*",
"Just as an FYI, \"gastro\" refers to a *condition* (\"gastroenteritis\", from *gastro* \"stomach\" + *entero* \"small intestines\" + *itis* \"inflammation of\"), not to a particular virus. Many different things can cause gastroenteritis, most commonly [norovirus](_URL_1_) and [campylobacter](_URL_0_) in an adult.\n\nDifferent viruses and bacteria would have different results if left totally unchecked, but it would certainly be a lot worse than just a stomachache and diarrhea. People with severe immune loss, either from a genetic cause or from a disease like AIDS, can die even of very minor infections like a cold (*rhinovirus*) that would normally not even cause any tissue damage (_all_ the symptoms of a cold are the result of your immune system)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campylobacter",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norovirus"
]
]
|
|
2q8coe | why does the nypd blame mayor di blasio for the killings of the 2 officers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q8coe/eli5_why_does_the_nypd_blame_mayor_di_blasio_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn3sdr7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The mayor is seen as supporting and validating grievances against NYPD and thus encouraging anti-police sentiment."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1jpv2q | what are some things i should know to fully understand ice hockey? | I never liked most sports before, but my friend wanted me to watch the Stanley Cup with him this year. I watched, then I couldn't stop watching, something about it had me hooked. So I was wondering if you guys could help me understand the basics of the game? If possible, could you link a site that explains it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jpv2q/eli5what_are_some_things_i_should_know_to_fully/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbhj670"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Played hockey for 15 years, and played at a pretty high level. Also a nucks fan. Pm me if you've got more questions"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2b1ilq | before the invention of radio communication, how did a country at war communicate with their navy while they were out at sea? | I was reading the post on the front page about Southern Americans fleeing to Brazil after the civil war and learned about the Bahia Incident. The incident being irrelevant, I reads the following on wikipedia:
> Catching Florida by surprise, men from Wachusett quickly captured the ship. After a brief refit, Wachusett received orders to sail for the Far East to aid in the hunt for CSS Shenandoah. *It was en route when news was received that the war had ended.*
How did people contact ships at sea before radio communcations? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b1ilq/eli5_before_the_invention_of_radio_communication/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj0uvpv",
"cj0ux7c",
"cj0vtt7",
"cj0vzzk",
"cj0wd74",
"cj0wybe",
"cj0y6ch",
"cj0yd57",
"cj0ymh4",
"cj0zogg",
"cj10bqd",
"cj10cxk",
"cj119ia",
"cj11jir",
"cj12kwz",
"cj12umt",
"cj142lh",
"cj15j8c",
"cj16jik",
"cj181aw",
"cj1adyy",
"cj1b1tg",
"cj1chr1",
"cj1cmjj",
"cj1g47h",
"cj1ke4e"
],
"score": [
38,
19,
1643,
10,
1151,
144,
33,
20,
3,
25,
2,
14,
6,
8,
2,
4,
2,
26,
2,
20,
2,
2,
5,
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They didn't. Ships would only receive new news or instructions when they put in to port or encountered other ships.\n\nNote that in your quote, en route doesn't mean they're out in the middle of sea, they might have made a stop over in a port somewhere and that's how they found out.",
"_URL_0_\n\n > Semaphores were adopted and widely used (with hand-held flags replacing the mechanical arms of shutter semaphores) in the maritime world in the 19th century\n\n19th century is 1801-1900",
"Mail and news were delivered to other ports and to ships via *Packet Ships*, fast schooners that could catch up to other wessels.\n\nIt was imperfect and unreliable when it came to delivering news to other ships, but at the same time most fleet actions still happened close to shore.\n\nedit: shit.",
"Light signals and flags were used. Ships were often close to shore. If you controlled the shore the lighthouses could be used to send messages. Even now ships have light systems that can send messages by Morse code.",
"The short answer is that they largely didn't. That's why ships' captains had such insane amounts of authority over their crew - they were given the responsibility to carry out sometimes-vague orders with pretty much zero oversight for months (or even years) at a time.\n\nThat said, as others have noted, there _were_ ways to get messages to fleets at sea - by signal (semaphore, etc) if they were close enough to land or by direct communications (sending another, faster ship with new orders). But those only worked if you had a pretty good idea of where the fleet you wanted to talk to was at the time...",
"A perfect example:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"War of 1812\n \nIn June 1812, at the start of the War of 1812, British General Isaac Brock sent a canoe party 1,200 miles (1,900 km) to confirm that a state of war existed. This party returned with an order to attack Fort Mackinac, then known as Fort Michilimackinac.\n \nA minimal United States garrison of approximately sixty men under the command of Lieutenant Porter Hanks then manned Fort Mackinac. Although a diligent officer, Hanks had received no communication from his superiors for months.\n \nOn the morning of 17 July 1812, a combined British and Native American force of seventy war canoes and ten bateaux under the command of British Captain Charles Roberts attacked Fort Mackinac. British Captain Roberts came from Fort St. Joseph (Ontario) and landed on the north end of Mackinac Island, 2 miles (3 km) away from the fort. The British quietly removed the village inhabitants from their homes and trained two cannons at the fort. The Americans, under Lieutenant Hanks, were taken by surprise and Hanks perceived his garrison badly outnumbered. The officers and men under Roberts numbered about two hundred; a few hundred Native Americans of various tribes supported him.[4]\n \nFearing that the Native Americans on the British side would massacre his men and allies, American Lieutenant Hanks accepted the British offer of surrender without a fight. The British paroled the American forces, essentially allowing them to go free after swearing to not take up arms in the war again, and made the island inhabitants to swear an oath of allegiance as subjects of the United Kingdom.\n \nShortly after the British captured the fort two American vessels arrived from Ft. Dearborn (Chicago), unaware of the commencement of the War of 1812, or the fort's capture earlier that day. The British raised the American flag and when the vessels tied up at the pier the British captured them, as prizes of war. The British captured these two sloops, the Erie (Capt. Norton) and Friends Good Will (Capt. Lee), the latter being taken by the British into service as HMS Little Belt, and the anchored schooners Mary and the Salina, which they sent to Detroit as cartels carrying the prisoners they had taken.\"\n \nTL:DR Communications were so slow the British managed to take over a for before the Americans knew they were at war.",
"I'm pretty sure there are plenty of historical examples of wars that ended before anyone in the navy (or prohibitively far away) got the message causing additional battles to take place. The Treaty of Ghent Was signed in December 1814 to end the war of 1812 but the British Navy continued to attack New Orleans until mid to late January 1815.",
"OP if you're interested in the development of early electric land-to-sea communication, Erik Larson's [Thunderstruck] (_URL_0_) is an amazing read on the subject, as well as how this technology helped lead to the arrest of a wanted murderer. ",
"Either using faster boats or using flags to communicate. When it got dark out the lamps came out and Morse code was used.",
"My GGG-something grandfather, Captain, RN, cleared the pirates out of the 'Arabian Sea' (using a wooden 3-master and Admiralty 'sealed orders' only). We have his letters home. His ship now features on a postage stamp, the Sheik who profited from the vacuum created awarded him a scimitar which he rendered to the HEIC. No radio, no nothing - BUT the letters are in a box upstairs. Try that with bits and bytes in a couple of hundred years from now.\n\nA GGF-1, RN, was sent to the Aleutian Islands to await Franklin (who took another route home, that time). No way of recalling him so he overwintered in rather dangerous 'Saint Francisco' (where he taught the Spanish monks to hunt - on horseback - natives who had escaped from their 'Bible Studies' - is there a computer game like this?) and went to wait again up north next year, primed by cabbage from Oahu. The Eskimos had stolen the barrels of flour they had buried for Franklin, not for the flour (which made their wives sick -uncooked), but for the iron barrel-hoops for making excellent harpoons. No reports of that on the radio either.\n\nPS A distant Army uncle in 1814 sent letters home 'by overland' from ops in Afghinistan (surprise?). That meant ship from India to Suez, camel 'overland' to Port Said, ship to Marseille then across (civilised?) France and home over the Channel Packet. Worked well enough to run an Empire, but hardly solved Afghanistan.",
"Further question, how would people know a war had ended? It would take both sides being personally told the war was over until a field stopped becoming a KOS scenario.\n\n",
"Basically, they didn't - interestingly, in the article you read, the \"hunt for CSS Shenandoah\" was necessitated because the Shenandoah had not gotten word of the Confederate surrender, and continued to seize Union ships as they (naturally) had no reason to believe those ships' crews. Incredibly, when they got independent word from a passing British ship, they were actually enroute to San Francisco TO ATTACK IT -- this was in August, while Jeff Davis had declared a surrender in May.",
"Send a raven",
"Ships had logs/schedules, and usually specific set routes and times they'd reach destinations. So it was a matter of triangulating a location between the time to send a message out and the location of the recipient would be at. ",
"I can't say how they communicated at that specific time, but I can tell you before radio communications, ship used various ways to communicate basic messages. Such as flag signals and light signals. The flags signals were pretty cool since you can line up a bunch of different flags up a pole and a guys from another ship could sum up what your trying to say with a telescope.",
"Send a raven",
"Lighting signals have been common practice for a very long time, still used today in fact. ",
"They wrote letters.\n\nWarships in the age of sail were huge, lumbering beasts designed to carry more giant iron cannon than the other guy. They made four knots on a good day, so about walking pace. The best shape for a floating gun platform is round---the best shape for a ship is long and thin---a compromise between the two was reached, but they erred on the side of more guns. At walking speed, they had to travel hundreds of miles before the cannon were pointing at the other guy's ports. Wars happened at a leisurely pace.\n\nCaptains were given standing orders and a great deal of latitude: orders were along the lines of \"kill as many French people as you can, we don't really care how you do it\". (It was usually the French.) More specific orders were things like \"make it as difficult as possible for the French to trade in this area\". All the captain really had to do was come back into port two years later and say, \"done\".\n\nSurrounding each of these huge battleships was a small flotiila of attendant vessels, frigates and sloops, which had few guns (a couple for self-defence) but were faster. They would use these as runners to carry messages. They would also take the opportunity to send mail from all the crew to their families, whom they might not have seen for several years.\n\nFor a good example, look up the story of HM Schooner *Pickle*, which was charged with the task of getting the news of the victory at Trafalgar back to England in 1805---there was a hefty prize available for the first captain to get the news to London. There was an epic race, they reached Britain but couldn't sail up the English Channel in time, so the captain travelled by coach and horses to London---twenty separate sets of fresh horses---nine days sailing time from the south of Spain, throwing the guns overboard to make it faster, plus what would normally be a week of horse time done in 37 hours.\n\nIn the US Civil War, you weren't using sailing ships so much any more but ironclads, which were technologically much more defensible but made of solid cast iron. They were very, very heavy and slow. So similar principles would apply.\n\nFor communication between fleets over shorter distances, they used flags as a signalling system---you can see the flags on a ship on the horizon from eight to ten miles away, based on the curvature of the earth, and they would sometimes use a chain of frigates repeating the signals to communicate between ships that were farther away than that. Look up the Popham Code, which is the one used at Trafalgar. They had short codes for words that were commonly used, like \"turn right\" and \"start killing the French now\", and they had a flag for each letter of the alphabet in case they needed to use other words.\n\nSauce: I read a lot of books and I'm a ship nerd.",
"They mostly did not, but the Chinese used kites to communicate orders, and many nations implemented flag systems, but these only worked at very close range and were mostly used for coordinating attacks (like an invasion or naval battle with a lot of ships. If it was an open ocean type mission, the captain was given his orders and that was that. Many battles were fought after hostilities between countries were officially over ",
"It is so long ago, they probably used ICQ or the AOL Instant Messenger.",
"a faster ship.",
"Warships were supported by smaller faster ships that transported equipment, personnel, supplies, and information. A captian of a warship had more authority than an equivalent rank in the army due to the independant nature of his duty. Also, a navalship landing marines was not nnecessarily a declaration of war, it could be a \"police\" action. Landing army troops was considered war. That is why marines guard embassies. Not everone plays by those rules. The senior person in a fleet was a defacto ambassador unless an assigned ambassador was present.",
"On a recent trip to London I'm happy that I spent a day at the Royal Navy Observatory. I'd highly suggest taking the tour of the Greenwhich Observatory. It brought up a lot of things that I'd never thought about like \"What did they do before latitude and longitude\" - \"How did they keep track of time?\" etc.. \n\nEngland made some huge contributions to navigation and timekeeping. Look up the observatory and learn some of the history. It's pretty amazing.",
"Actually I think the Dutch East India Company (VOC) is a good example of this. Its captains and leaders were given liberty to start wars and rule with the same rights as a state. Anyone know any more about this?",
"They sent letters. By ship. And they used signal flags and signal lights between ships.",
"In places like Britain etc they used some sort of flashing light system where a series of mirror reflections or something controlled by shutters would relay a message to another series of mirrors a few miles further up the coast, which would then flash the message to another one etc. until it got where it needed to be."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_semaphore"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Mackinac"
],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Thunderstruck-Erik-Larson/dp/1400080673"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7t2tmh | why can't, under normal circumstances, a blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent have a green eyed biological kid? | Explain like I'm a prodigious 12 year old in AP biology please.
Edit 1: I'm actually 29. They even let me vote and drive a car and everything.
Edit 2: I'm brown eyed, my fiancé is blue eyed. We always stumble upon charts like [this](_URL_0_). Which, if true, does seem a little weird for me (aren't green eyes like blue eyes, but with more yellow pigment so they look green?). I haven't been up to date on my biogenetics ever since I graduated high school in the mid 00s.
Edit 3: by normal circumstances I mean I'm excluding albinism, adoption, fucking the mailman, or any clever loophole you lovely fuckers always seem to come up with! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7t2tmh/eli5_why_cant_under_normal_circumstances_a_blue/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt9fk7v",
"dt9flky"
],
"score": [
6,
16
],
"text": [
"What are normal circumstances? I don’t have an explanation. I have green eyes. My mom has brown and my dad has blue. My cousins also have lots of green eyes with blue/brown eyes parents. So maybe all of us weren’t created under normal circumstances. ",
"Actually, they can.\n\nEye color is a complex genetic equation. Basically, you can be a carrier for eye colors that you don't have.\n\nSo if I have brown eyes, but my mother had green, and I inherited her recessive allele for green, I'd carry the gene but not express it.\n\nIf my wife also was a carrier, and had brown eyes, it's actually possible for us to pass down our carried genes, though it's very rare.\n\nA summary that someone else gave, that goes more in depth.\n\n > There are at least two separate genes that determine eye color. One gene (let’s call it A) comes in a brown and a blue variant, and brown is dominant to blue. The other gene (let’s call it B) comes in a green and a blue variant, and green is dominant to blue. Meanwhile Gene A-Brown is dominant to Gene B-Green.\n\n > A simple way to think of how this could work is to imagine that everyone has a background set of eye-producing genes that make a blue coloured eye (ie blue is the default colour for human eyes). Gene A produces a pigment that when added to the blue eye turns in brown, while Gene B produces a pigment that when added to the blue eye turns it green. Both Gene A and Gene B have “broken” variants that sustained a mutation that prevent either from producing any pigment at all. Thus if you have a working copy of Gene A, you produce a pigment that turns your eyes brown. If you have a working copy of Gene B, you produce a pigment that turns your eyes green. If you have a working copy of both A and B, you have both brown and green pigments in your eyes, but the brown being darker masks the green, so your eyes look brown. If you have non-working copies of both A and B, you have no extra pigments in your eyes and your eyes are the default blue.\n\n > This may not necessarily be exactly how the genes actually work in real life, but as a simplified model, it works well enough.\n\n > So, how can two brown eyed parents have offspring with both green and blue eyes?\n\n > Both parents can have their A and B eye colour genes like so:\n\n > A(Brown)/A(Blue) and B(Green)/B(Blue)\n\n > This would result in both parents having brown eyes, since both have at least one A(Brown) gene.\n\n > But a child of theirs could inherit the A(Blue) allele from both parents, as well as the B(Blue) allele from both parents. This child would therefore be:\n\n > A(Blue)/A(Blue) and B(Blue)/B(Blue)\n\n > With only blue alleles, the child will have blue eyes.\n\n > Another child could inherit two A(Blues) but at least one B(Green) from one parent. This child would therefore be:\n\n > A(Blue)/A(Blue) and B(Green)/B(Green or Blue)\n\n > With at least one green allele and no brown alleles to mask the green, this child will have green eyes.\n\n"
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.sittingaround.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Eye-Color-Imag.png"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
21854m | what is this "international law" that obama and the us say russia is breaking by annexing crimea? | Does something like that even exists? And is Russia really violating some international agreement with the referendum? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21854m/eli5_what_is_this_international_law_that_obama/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgair5z",
"cgajvgn"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Well if you want something specific, there's the 1994 Budapest Memorandum that the Ukraine and the nuclear powers of the world signed. One of the tenets was that the other nations, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, was to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine's territories and refrain from using the threat of force against them. ",
"Apparently, UN charter prohibits UN member countries from attacking each other to threaten territorial integrity. \"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state ...\" from _URL_0_\n\nAlso read somewhere that the vote for Crimea to secede didn't follow Ukraine's constitution, and violating a constitution is also a violation of international law."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_United_Nations_Charter"
]
]
|
|
2d3lhx | why is the split of facebook messenger so appalling and why should i be afraid? | Someone help me out in understanding this. I feel that it's nothing more than a circlejerky witch hunt.
* [Each permission is for a justified reason](_URL_0_)
* Other applications have done this before (4Square & Swarm, Google+ and Hangouts) without a fraction of the uproar
* A few thousand (even a few *million*) people deactivating/deleting their accounts in spite of this situation will do absolutely nothing but make them think they're "changing" something | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d3lhx/eli5_why_is_the_split_of_facebook_messenger_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjlpjk0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The permissions thing is just people freaking out, but mostly it's just \"Why would you take a completely fine app and turn it into two apps with no extra functionality at all\".\n\n > Other applications have done this before (4Square & Swarm, Google+ and Hangouts) without a fraction of the uproar\n\nIf you look hard enough, you can find some uproar, Facebook is just vastly more popular, so way more people are affected.\n\nHeck if you go to /r/technology and look at the comments this topic is getting, a LOT of people are referencing the swarm situation saying things like \"that's when I stopped using 4square\", Google+ as well."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2d171y/facebook_messenger_is_no_1_in_app_store_has/cjl8uhn"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
5tl5mq | how do field drug tests return so many false positives? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tl5mq/eli5_how_do_field_drug_tests_return_so_many_false/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddnawap"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Field drug tests are designed to be very cheap, and very easy for an amateur to use. Therefore they are not very *specific* -- that is, they just test whether the mystery substance reacts with one or two chemicals in a specific way. This makes it very likely that some *other* substance would also react in the same way.\n\nImagine if you had to tell whether an animal was a horse, but you only got one or two specific questions. You'd end up getting a positive for zebras, ponies, donkeys... anything very much like a horse."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2ineuc | how can various youtube music "playlists", eg majestic, post songs without infringing copyright laws? | Question can also be answered in a broader sense - How can any Youtube uploader post a song without risking a lawsuit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ineuc/eli5_how_can_various_youtube_music_playlists_eg/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl3o7n7",
"cl3pc3x"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In most cases, they will infringe copyright. This is why most youtubers use royalty free music. However, they can also change the pitch/frequency only slightly on the music and it will prevent the YouTube bot from discovering the track. This was my research a few years ago, so it may be different now.\n\nBut also you won't find any youtuber with music on their video from the charts.",
"they work out a deal, it's sort of like promoting the music to a broader audience "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
20witd | why watching someone get hurt make my stomach drop and my muscles tense, even though i'm well aware that i'm not at risk of any harm? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20witd/eli5_why_watching_someone_get_hurt_make_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg7e5oy",
"cg7f1yb"
],
"score": [
4,
34
],
"text": [
"That's empathy. You see a bit of yourself in that other human getting hurt, and imagine yourself getting hurt in the same way.",
"Mirror neurons. \"A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron \"mirrors\" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. \" (_URL_0_)\nSome think that mirror neuron deficiency may be a factor in autism. Mirror neurons are also responsible for the way we feel watching a sports match we are interested in. Also, when we watch someone do something with the intent of learning how to do it mirror neurons help us learn how to do that task.\nedit:detail"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron"
]
]
|
||
1x9xmd | what is the difference between a patent and a "trade secret"? | so why does intel patent their technology instead of keeping it a trade secret?
why dont coke patent their technology instead of keeping it a trade secret. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x9xmd/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_patent_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf9f1q2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The nature of a patent is that the patent itself is public -- the design, the processes, are documented and available to anyone who asks. The patent holder gets an exclusive right to make market use of that technology or process for the duration of a patent. Someone else can look at the patent, but they can't sell what's described in it until the patent expires. This is very useful for selling things that can be reverse engineered once the purchaser receives the item.\n\nA trade secret, however, may not be something that it patentable, or even if it is, you may not want to detail exactly how it's made. It's harder to reverse engineer a recipe, to get the ingredients and proportions exactly right. Also, sometimes trade secrets are just business approaches a company makes that aren't subject to patent and copyright, but could harm the company if their competitors found out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5h3w7o | the concept of freud's uncanny or unheimleche | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h3w7o/eli5_the_concept_of_freuds_uncanny_or_unheimleche/ | {
"a_id": [
"dax8v3d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The \"Uncanny\" is a Freudian concept of an instant where something that is familiar to us becomes foreign and frightening. It is a class of terrifying that leads back to something once known to us. Uncanny comes from the German word \"Unheimlich.\"\n\nHere's the wiki link: _URL_0_\n\nYou're welcome."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny#Sigmund_Freud"
]
]
|
||
8bit1b | why is it a big deal that paul ryan is not seeking a re-election | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bit1b/eli5_why_is_it_a_big_deal_that_paul_ryan_is_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx70i7b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"He's the speaker of the house, i.e. the de facto leadership of the Republican party in the House of Representatives.\n\nHis retirement means that the Republican party is going into the 2018 election somewhat rudderless, without much unity or policy direction from above.\n\nSince all reps are up for reelection, it increases the odds that the Democratic party will win a majority in the house.\n\nIf you're a fan of Democrat politics (like the r/politics crowd) then this is a good development."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1vs3j9 | why is the language mandarin not called chinese? | AFAIK, nearly everyone in China speaks Mandarin. So why is it not simply called Chinese? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vs3j9/eli5_why_is_the_language_mandarin_not_called/ | {
"a_id": [
"cev8gfe",
"cev8j2n",
"cev9ut9"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's multiple languages across China. Many people still speak Cantonese as well as Mandarin. There are also a number of regional dialects. Considering they all originated in China, you wouldn't know which \"Chinese\" you're speaking",
"China is diverse. Extremely diverse. There are many languages and cultures in China. So there isn't any language called Chinese, that's just a label we give to everything in that area. There's Cantonese, Mandarin and hundreds of other languages. ",
"The land that we call China is actually very broad and diverse linguistically. Think of it like India: you can't say that someone speaks \"Indian.\" You'd have to say that they speak Hindi, Telugu, Punjabi, Gujurati, etc., but to say that they speak Indian would be incorrect. The term \"Chinese\" as a demonym is as broad as \"Native American\" or even \"European.\" Within the category of \"Chinese languages,\" there are multiple related sub-languages with regional variations and dialects, only some of which are mutually intelligible. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1s78aj | when i read internet comments someone always has this post. "start working from home as of today... you can work for 3-5 hours a day and earn $2000 a week... weekly payments, simple job for which you only need a computer and a reliable internet...." how does this scam (if it is a scam) work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s78aj/eli5_when_i_read_internet_comments_someone_always/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdul1ux",
"cdusxtl"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"The [Federal Trade Commission](_URL_0_) explains how several of these scams work. ",
"The Golden Rule: \n\nIf it sounds too good to be true, then it's not true. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0175-work-home-businesses"
],
[]
]
|
||
5vdt9q | i had a tube of my blood on my desk and it seperated, why did it do that and what is the clear liquid? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vdt9q/eli5i_had_a_tube_of_my_blood_on_my_desk_and_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"de199hw",
"de19bfe"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"The clear liquid is blood plasma, the part in which the blood cells are normally suspended before they settled over time to the bottom of the vial.\n\nWhat should be the real question is \"Why do you have a vial of blood on your desk if you didn't already know this?\"",
"Ignoring the question of why one would have a vial of their own blood if not in a profession that makes them knowledgeable about blood....\n\nThe clear liquid is plasma; the dark stuff is mostly red blood cells.\n\nIt separated because the two liquids are of two different densities; this is the same mechanism that separates liquid and oil. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5ok1of | in "band of brothers", in the last 10 or so months of the war they portray the situation as the germans very willingly surrendering and not putting up much of a fight, believing the war to be almost finished, so no point getting killed. how true was this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ok1of/eli5_in_band_of_brothers_in_the_last_10_or_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcjvbo9",
"dcjw9pn",
"dcjxpng"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I know that is exactly how it went for the Italians. They even put up signs pointing the Brits to the next town, with phrases like \"This way if you like the spaghetti\" written on them. \n\nEdit: This was in Northern Africa before the Germans started helping them out. ",
"A lot of the soldiers at the end of the war were not prepared to die in battle for a losing cause. However you have to remember that there were lots of propaganda on both sides. Germans were told they were winning the war even though they might see overwhelming evidence otherwise. They were also told that Germans that were being taken prisoners were living in miserable conditions or even outright executed (during WWI this did happen in some later stages as the French and British did not plan for as many prisoners). And some of the regiments that were left at the end of the war were true fanatics who had been in ideological training for over a decade. Even those who did think the war was lost would also want to fight for their motherland even if they were not willing to die for it. By fighting back and holding up the advancing enemy it would be easier for the high command to negotiate a better peace treaty. It would also demonstrate to the world that even after a long war Germany were not a pushover. Just look at how France is now viewed after losing the hundred day war in a bit over hundred days, then needing help from all over the world to hold the line in WWI and then losing WWII in a few days.\n\nIn short, most German solders would fight when the battle were staggered in their advantage but would surrender before they started to take heavy casualties. German civilians did offer passive resistance to the occupying armies. SS troops were often seen as fighting to the bitter end even if that meant heavy casualties to both sides.",
"Ask historians please"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
e62eq8 | how did humans domesticate wolves without getting mauled to death? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e62eq8/eli5_how_did_humans_domesticate_wolves_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9na559"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We didn't decide to do it, they did. \n\nLess aggressive packs may have started trailing human groups to eat what was left of animal carcasses. They would have also smelled cooking meat and possibly survived on scraps thrown away from the group. \n\nHumans would have benefited as these packs of wolves would have scared off or alerted them to other predators approaching their camp. \n\nOver time these wolves evolved to identify the humans as their territory rather than a single geographic area, although as humans settled they may have also accepted territorial overlap. \n\nIn order to more easily communicate with humans, the wolves noses shortened. This provided a flatter face that could more easily show facial cues. This gives humans an easier time telling whether the animal is angry or happy."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6zgbr1 | why is fast food so bad for the body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zgbr1/eli5_why_is_fast_food_so_bad_for_the_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmuztv8",
"dmv110u",
"dmv69jn",
"dmv7y3o",
"dmvbeab",
"dmvcvlb",
"dmvxipk"
],
"score": [
3,
73,
9,
7,
5,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"It is high in calories, fats especially trans fats, and sodium, and relatively low in basically the vast majority of nutrients.\n\nIn addition, it is easy to obtain (cheap and convenient) and aggressively advertised, so people eat way too much of it as well. ",
"It is not. It is high in salt, fat, and sugar and those are bad when you eat too much of them. But they are also vital components for you to live (which is why we like them). Fast food is only bad if you eat too much. ",
"It's not inherently. It is extremely high in calories, but we need a certain amount of calories. The issue is that fast food is usually consumed in massive amounts - many restaurants offer \"Super sized\" discounts on large orders (In WA we have this thing called the Hawks Box from McDonalds which is this metric ton of food for like $10). The result is that most people tend to overeat easily when eating fast food.",
"It's not bad per se, it's just loaded with calories and usally with low amounts of nutrients. A general fast food meal (fries, coke, etc) can reach up to 900/1,100 calories, which is the majority of what most people should eat in order to maintain weight (RMR)\n\nSo if you're burning 1,500 calories by simply living, and you've eaten that mcdonalds meal in that day, you will lose weight. But since you won't only eat that specific meal, you will most likely gain weight since that mcdonalds meal (1,100 cals) + whatever you eat during the day (lets say 500) will put you at a surplus, most likely.\n\nYou CAN lose weight by eating fast food, it's just not good for your body (nutrients /vitamins) and is practically impossible since you will need to only limit yourself to like 1-2 portions of said fast food.",
"The concept of fast food items like eating a burger, fries etc. is not necessarily horrible.\n\nHOWEVER,\n\nSuch food items produced in fast food principles is BAD for you because:\n\n1- They usually use lowest quality meat from very unhealthy animals that don't move around a lot and that eat an unbalanced diet. Probably low-quality food ingredients from other sources.\n\n2- Full of salt, bad fats, and sugar....\n\n3- Lacking variety meaning lots of sugar, fat, carbohydrates and beef protein BUT VERY LITTLE fresh vegetables, fruits, grains etc.\n\nIn moderation, prepared with good quality and fresh ingredients Burgers, fries, chicken tenders can all be a part of your healthy diet. ( Especially if you also have a balanced lifestyle with good amount of movement, optimal amounts of challenge and stress and healthy social life )\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Another questions might be: Why do we crave fast food when it is so bad for us?\n\nOur brains subsist off of sugars, salts, fats, and protein. Sugars, protein, and fats contain tons of energy, and are the building blocks of many cellular processes. Also, salts are used to relay electrical signals. Our brains originally evolved in an environment where those are hard to come by in excess, and our hunter-gather environment demanded a high caloric intake (plus early humans likely didn't live exceptionally long anyways)\n\nFast forward through agriculture, civilization, and modernization, and we've distilled all the required salts, sugars, proteins, and fats into a $3 happy meal that anyone can access in under 60 seconds. Couple that with a more sedentary lifestyle and suddenly was was great for the brain turns out to be devastating for the body.",
"The long and the short of it is that they have many more calories packed into a very small amount of food. Those calories are very easy to digest, which raises blood sugar levels very quickly and provides a feel good energy boost. But the energy doesn't last very long making a person crave more. \n\nIt would be like if we made very calorie dense food so that a person could survive starvation with just a few pounds of rations, but instead of using them in emergencies, we ate them every day in place of normal food. \n\n\n\nDetails: Lets compare processed materials to natural materials and it will begin to make more sense. \n\nFor thousands of years people in the Americas would use coca leaves for a little burst of energy. They would chew the leaves which contain cocaine, and the effect was not unlike a strong cup of coffee. It certainly wasn't an addictive narcotic that led to societies decline. \n\nBut if you take those coca leaves and you process and refine them to extract pure cocaine, then you have a substance that is incredibly strong and addictive and it can hurt you. \n\nThe same might be said of sugar. You have fruits and vegetables, sugar beets, sugar cane, apples, etc and they are naturally sweet. We have a taste for sweet things because when we were hunters and gatherers, fruit was a high calorie treat that gave us energy to live and work. But when we started refining sucrose, fructose, and other sweeteners we ended up with something that is low in nutrition (lacking vitamins), readily absorbed by our bodies (sugar rush hits you all at once), inexpensive, and if over used could lead to health problems. It's basically cheap and bad for you without considerable moderation. A good recipe for a health problem. \n\nWhen you have whole foods, fruits, grains, they aren't as calorie dense. Meaning for the amount of food you eat, they contain less calories than the same weight in processed foods. And the calories they do have take longer for the body to absorb and digest. Like a time release drug, it helps satiate hunger for longer periods without causing a sugar rush. \n\nProcessed foods like white flour, where all of the nutritional content of the wheat is ground away, processed sugars, and processed fats, all lead to even small quantities of food having massive amounts of calories without the same nutritional vitamins and minerals, and because they are very pure, the body absorbs those calories quickly as it doesn't need to do as much work to digest them. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5r60p3 | they say an object is of a particular color because it absorbs all colors but that particular color that is reflected back but what is that "absorption" exactly. what is going on in terms of atomic level to make an object absorb or reflect a particular color? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r60p3/eli5they_say_an_object_is_of_a_particular_color/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4t2qf",
"dd50rzn",
"dd56inw"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It all comes down to electrons.\n\nElectrons exist in certain energy levels around the atom. At rest, they're in the lowest energy state, but they can absorb energy to become excited - and move up to higher energy states.\n\nHowever, they can only absorb energy in precise amounts - exactly the amount needed to increase their energy state to a whole integer multiple.\n\nThis means they can go from ground to 1st excited, or ground to 2nd excited, but they can't go from ground to 1.5.\n\nNow for light, the amount of energy that a photon contains is a function of its frequency, which itself can be determined from the wavelength - and its wavelength that determines color.\n\nThis means certain energies are associated with certain colors of light. And electrons need to absorb certain energy to increase their energy level. If this amount they can absorb is equal to the amount in photons of a particular color, they'll absorb light of that color.\n\nNow, photons can also decay back to the ground state, and they do this by releasing photons. They don't always go from their excited state straight to the ground state, they can fall through intermediary states and release photons equal to the difference in energy of these intermediate steps.\n\nIf that energy corresponds to light of a certain color, they emit light of that color.\n\nPut this together and it means that substances can absorb light of one color and emit light of another color or mixture of colors. Or they can absorb light outside the visible spectrum and emit light in the visible spectrum, or absorb light in the visible spectrum and emit light outside the visible spectrum.",
"Light interact with matter in varying degrees of transmission, absorption and reflection. So, there's the color, but there's also the matter of shininess and transparency.\n\nUsually electricity-conducting materials are shiny. That's because electrons are moving a lot on its surface. This movement is what enables the easier passing of electricity. This is also what bounces light back. As for dull surfaces, electrons do not move as much and light is absorbed easier.\n\nIn an ideal mirror, the color of its surface is the same color that bounced on it. In an ideal glass, the color of its surface is the same color that went through it. Both materials have no color on its own because its particles do not interact with light. They either bounce it back or let it pass through.\n",
"I will try to make it simpler for you, because even the way they taught me in college was jarring:\n\nConsider the conventional model of atoms that take the form of a nucleus surrounded by different orbits of electrons akin to our Solar system. These orbits are what everyone calls discrete energy levels and electrons can't exist between these orbits (which is what /u/pyrespirit mentions as 1.5 instead of 1 or 2).\n\nSo light is made up of photons, which are waves but are considered particles containing packets of energy and the amount of energy they contain depends on the wavelength of the photons. The spectrum of white light we see daily are basically a mess-pit of photons with different wavelengths, corresponding to the colors of the rainbow, more or less.\n\nSo the electrons in their orbits can be energized by the transference of energy from the photons and enter the orbit above them, only if the photons in question contain just the right amount of energy to push them into a higher orbit (energy state) - not too near nor far, just right.\n\nNow your atoms have all this extra energy from the photons that they absorbed while the rest just reflected away. Now pushing electrons from their original orbits to higher orbits is like pulling or pushing on a spring - they spring back. Your electrons will begin descending the orbits back to their original state and in-between, release the exact amount of energy in between orbits (because you can't go down energy states without getting rid of that energy in the first place) and the wavelength of that energy - now photons again - is what you see as the color of the object."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6n3lfx | why isn't there a keyboard command for capitalization like there is for bold, italics, underline, etc.? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6n3lfx/eli5_why_isnt_there_a_keyboard_command_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk6g56e",
"dk6gfew"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"You mean like shift+F3 which will cycle between all caps, no caps, sentence caps and title caps? Office programs have this",
"Historically it is because capitalization was used more and also commonly used in a sentence. So the typewriter manufacturers found it worth it to add double the number or characters and add the shift key and later the caps lock key to toggle between the cases. If you wanted italics you could swap out the typewriter head which on the latest models were quite easy. So when computers came along they just continued using shift and caps lock for capitals but came up with new commands for bold, italics and underline. If you want to toggle the selected text there is usually commands for that as well."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5n65qq | why teams like the browns and 76ers seem to always be awful, despite getting draft picks, etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n65qq/eli5_why_teams_like_the_browns_and_76ers_seem_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc8xe49",
"dc8z7gm",
"dc90m0e"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Several factors work together here to help them stay awful.\n\nFirst, when they do get good draft picks, the good players leave as soon as they can because they don't want to be on a bad team.\n\nSecond, there's the whole attitude thing. Some players are going to start thinking that they stink because they are on that team, so they're performance will be bad.\n\nThird, if a team doesn't have a strong, loyal fanbase, having a losing record is going to hurt attendance, which will hurt the team's income, which will hurt their ability to attract and pay good players and coaches.",
"Also, just because you get a good draft pick doesn't mean you draft a good player. Browns are notorious for drafting poorly. as far as the Browns go, since 2010, here are a few players they passed up on who've become big players, and those teams have had great success with the player :\n\n2010 : Dez Bryant, rob gronkowski\n2011 : Andy dalton, Colin Kaepernick, Demarco Murray\n2012 : Alshon Jeffery, Russell wilson, TY Hilton, Lamar Miller\n2013 : Tyler eifert, LeVeon Bell, Travis kelce\n2014 : Odell beckham Jr, Derek Carr, devonta Freeman\n2015 : jay ajayi\n2016 : Ezekiel Elliot, Carson wentz, dak Prescott",
"* bad ownership groups who make bad decisions\n* poor environment that makes it harder to attract and retain free agents...and coaches\n* poor coaches who fail to develop talent\n* bad luck\n\nThe Browns, in particular, had had really ad luck when it comes to first round draft picks...and not just the Johnny Manziel type picks. Tim Couch, Trent Richardson, Courtney Brown, Braylon Edwards, these were all picks a lot of other teams would have made in the same position. How much of it was them being busts, and how much of it was the Brown not being able to develop them, we can never say. But that is a *lot* of draft capital going to waste. To put things in perspective, Tim Couch was drafted in 1999...the year before Peyton Manning was drafted by a pretty bad Colts team."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7i7x3n | conservation easement | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i7x3n/eli5_conservation_easement/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqwqfbv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you would strongly prefer someone not use their land in a way that ruins the ecology of that land, you can try to buy the right to use it in that way from them, which means now they can't, but they can still use the land in any other way, so it doesn't bother them as much.\n\nSay you have a soda can you're going to throw on the ground, and I don't want you to litter. I can pick up the soda can if you throw it down, but I can't follow you around forever. What I could do instead is buy the can from you for a nickel and then you have to give me the can, which means I can control where it goes. Same concept. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2onehv | (michelin stars) why do we care what a tire company thinks about restaurants? | Unknowingly went to a Michelin starred restaurant, waiter mentioned they were Michelin-starred, thought their restaurant doubled as a Les Schwabb or something. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2onehv/eli5_michelin_stars_why_do_we_care_what_a_tire/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmoqkg0",
"cmoqkia",
"cmoqlho",
"cmoqplz",
"cmorm34",
"cmos14r",
"cmos4yl",
"cmoupr4",
"cmovica",
"cmoxv4g",
"cmoxxxu",
"cmoyhub",
"cmoz324",
"cmozllf",
"cmozv6k",
"cmp07qm",
"cmp0old",
"cmp1bs6",
"cmp1ep0",
"cmp1j4n",
"cmp1qe2",
"cmp1ygf",
"cmp30z8",
"cmp3dvv",
"cmp3jxb",
"cmp3mgb",
"cmp74w1",
"cmp7t8n",
"cmp7xxh",
"cmp9er4",
"cmp9rve",
"cmpa0e1",
"cmpaest",
"cmpaxpz",
"cmpdy7y",
"cmpevar",
"cmpfihd",
"cmpfyqn",
"cmpjiv3",
"cmpmp0d"
],
"score": [
338,
13,
42,
3906,
4,
244,
35,
6,
2,
7,
5,
6,
2,
5,
4,
5,
3,
7,
7,
28,
4,
3,
3,
5,
2,
14,
2,
17,
2,
11,
5,
3,
8,
6,
2,
2,
3,
8,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Michelin got into the business of rating restaurants in order to encourage car travel way back in the day. They are now the authority.\n\n/u/ediba's thoughtful comment leads me to add this: Michelin makes car tires. They make money only when people buy tires. People generally buy tires when their old ones wear out. They wear out because of being used to drive somewhere. People drive places if they think they'll enjoy their trip. Knowing that they can find a good place to eat will increase the chances that they'll enjoy their travels. So the Michelin company started checking out restaurants all over France, and publishing a guide to restaurants. That restaurant reviewing business has taken on a life of its own, so now Michelin is sort of in two businesses: tires and restaurant reviews. For all I know, they might even be separate companies now.",
"The star system was used as a promotion to sell more Michelin guide books for road trips. I imagine it was found to be much more useful back in the early days of it's publication.\n\nSome things just take off from the original intention and take on a life of their own.",
"It started out as a free guide for French motorists, to let them know where the good restaurants are. Over the last 100 years or so, it expanded and gained a reputation for knowing fine dining.",
"In the early days of motoring, the Michelin company put together a travel guide which rated hotels and restaurants. The idea was to encourage people to drive to distant cities.\n\nOver the years, the travel guide grew more & more respected. At some point, it lost its connection to the tire business & became a stand-alone guide to the world's finest restaurants.\n\nIt's sort of like how the Guinness Book of World Records doesn't really have anything to do with beer anymore.",
"Why do we care what a company that makes Irish stout thinks of our record attempts? (Guinness World Records). Just because they're the company that makes it, doesn't mean its any less prestigious. ",
"As much as anything just from longevity and dedication. Yes it was originally way to sell more tires, but it was done exceptionally well.\n\nSince then the secrecy of the reviewers has increased. The time and attention paid to each star has increased. So it isn't so much a tire company as it is the hundreds perhaps thousands of highly qualified secret reviewers that they use to build it. The secrecy helps to verify the restaurant is not just putting on a show for the reviewer but is in fact high quality.\n\nAlso we care because the restaurants care. A restaurant with a star will almost always push themselves to be better, to meet the perception if their guests. So they get a star for having great food, and the star pushes them to deliver even greater food. \n\nNext time order the tasting menu. Tasting menus are where the chef shows off.",
"Because of the longevity of the guide it has become an \"institution\". I literally watched this documentary just the other night: Michelin Stars The Madness of Perfection: _URL_0_",
"This goes through a tale of what we call \"spin-off industries\".\n\nWhen a car is being built, it needs lots of things, like metals and plastics for most of the structure, batteries and spark plugs to make the tiny explosions that power it, leather for the interior seating, gasoline for the tank, and oil to keep it lubricated, as well as rubber for the tires. To get more people to buy the cars, we need to make them seem useful, so we make new additions to out current economy. We make something called travel guides, so people can use their cars for and that is good tire companies, gas companies, motor oil companies, mechanic shops, and in the long term, car companies.\n\nTL;DR spin-off industries",
"I just watched a [programme](_URL_0_) on youtube about what chefs around the world think of the Michelin stars, you should watch it, its a good insight! ",
"[Michelin Stars The Madness of Perfection - worth a watch!](_URL_0_)",
"Imagine life in 1900 when people are first learning to use cars. When you get where you're going, where do you eat?\n\nMcDonalds has their strategy. For better or worse, the food is the same everywhere, so you know what you're gonna get, and it worked for them.\n\nFor Michelin, the strategy was to provide a nice list of places to eat when we got there, some so good (three stars) that the dining experience itself justified the trip.\n\nIn both cases, the risk of hit-or-miss is eliminated.\n\nMichelin also intended their guides to encourage people to drive more, increasing demand for their tires.",
"To answer your question, Michelin originally started the guide as a way to encourage travel. Over time, it became the premier guide to truly exceptional restaurants, as it was the only guide devoted to them (they wanted to find places that could draw people from far afield).\n\nSub-point though, Michelin has less and less credibility nowadays. Most people care more about top 50 or critics, or similar. It is still incredibly prestigious, but not quite as important as it was.",
"Wait, what? its actually Michelin Tyres that give the stars?",
"This whole time I thought this was a joke title like a coincidence they were both similarly named with no connection...TIL I guess.",
"Its a tire company who made a travel guide of places to go. Almost anywhere can get a michelin star. Amusement parks, movie theatres, carnivals. But restaurants are the most popular. One star is you should for sure go here if you are in the area, two stars is you should travel for this place (like, drive a couple hours to get to it) and three stars is this place is worthy of being the reason for a trip (airline to another country).\n\nThey are super strict about giving stars, and the food isnt the only way restaurants get stars. A restaurant with good service but amazing food could get up to 2 stars, but for that third, EVERYTHING needs to be flawless. Testers would go into the bathroom at the beginning of their meal and put a paperclip under the sink, and a towel on the floor. After they finished their appetizer, they would go to the bathroom again and see if the towel had been picked up and the paperclip removed. If either of those were still there, but everything else in the meal was flawless, you arent getting that third star.",
"At first I thought I was in /r/shittyaskscience because I had no idea the two were related other than the name. TIL.\n\nI guess it's like that other tire company that makes really great beer.",
"Michelin publishes a \"travel guide\" every year, and for some reason or another theirs became the definitive, most famous and coveted status symbol for restaurants. Other travel and automobile-related companies, like Exxon and AAA, also publish travel guides, although restaurants don't really care about them. I'm not sure, historically, what the specific evolution of the Michelin guide as a restaurant-specific status symbol is. The AAA and Exxon travel guides carry more weight for hotel ratings, for example. It is pretty strange. ",
"Additional fun fact:\nThe stars translate into:\n1=worth a detour\n2=worth a nationwide trip\n3=worth an international trip",
"Remember in Ratatouille, Gusteau's restaurant lost its stars after it started being bad? Well the Michelin guide is like Ego. He decides what food goes into the book.\n\n^^^this is how you talk to a 5 year old\n\nSource: Parent of 3 children.",
"Here is the incredibly detailed response from /u/miodi from when this was asked a month ago. _URL_2_\n\n\n > As it should be when connecting tire companies with restaurant reviews, the Michelin Guide's popularity started to rise with the innovation of the \"motor tourist,\" the vehicle-toting traveler. The Michelin Tyre company made its first *Guide Michelin France* in 1900. The first Michelin Guides were just driver's handbooks, with tips for vehicle maintenance and nearby petrol stations. These pocket Michelin Guides were given out freely for \"l'instruction sur l'emploi des pneus Michelin pour voitures et automobile\" (instructions for the use of Michelin tires on cars and automobiles). The ultimate goal was to reassure new drivers that, even if they left town in their new motor vehicles, they could still find petrol stations, mechanics, and even post offices. As Kory Olston points out in her study of *Michelin* maps, the guide's popularity was indebted to the rise of motor tourism in turn-of-the-century France. The *Michelin* maps were designed differently than standard travel guides; town plans were relatively sparse and two-tone, with major roadways taking the focus instead of urban landmarks. The guide catered to bourgeois drivers, offering a \"more restrained number of tourist venues\" with a \"clarity of display to make it easier for their readers to traverse unfamiliar municipalities easily.\"\n\n > In 1926, these \"tourist venues\" finally included restaurants for motor tourists to frequent on their holidays in the countryside. The *Guide* of 1926 included a \"restaurant star,\" or a single star to denote a particularly special dining experience. A decade later, the second and third stars showed up, along with a criteria: one star for \"Une très bonne table dans sa catégorie\" (a good site in its category), two for \"Table excellente, mérite un détour\" (an excellent site worth a detour), and three for \"Une des meilleures tables, vaut le voyage\" (one of the best sites, worthy of a trip). Within three decades, the *Guide* had gone from a mechanic's handbook to a special purchase for rich motor tourists looking to get the best out of their journeys.\n\n > The three-star feat is more difficult to explain. One possible reason for its \"impossibility\" may come from the fact that the third star didn't exist during the WWII era. During the War, the *Guide* was simply reprinted from its 1939 edition, and then post-war shortages forced Michelin to put a halt on three-star ratings until 1950. *Guide* critics are anonymous, so there's not much testimony on the elusive three-star review--but we can guess that the restaurants that *do* have three stars have supreme quality of ingredients, consistency between visits, and head chefs with dedicated personalities.\n\n > Sources:\n\n > Kory Olson, *Maps for a New Kind of Tourist: The First Guides Michelin France (1900–1913)*. Available [here](_URL_3_).\n\n > *Michelin Guide History*. Provence and Beyond. [Here](_URL_1_).\n\n > *The Michelin Guide: Over 100 Editions and a Century of History*. ViaMichelin. [Here](_URL_0_).\n\n",
"OP, it was all right [there in the comments](_URL_0_) you karma whore",
"Because when Michelin started producing tires cars were still a very expensive luxury item only available to the wealthy, they were play things. When Michelin was founded in 1889 rubber plantations were considered a prestige item to have in your colonial position so the company was in high regard in France.",
"TIL that it's the same Michelin. I always thought it was just some old french company that just *happened* to share a name with the tire guys....",
"You're a karma whore and I posted this in the other sub but I'll post it here as well because people are seriously circle jerking over Michelin Stars.\n\n[Nate Silver did a comparison study of Michelin and Yelp in NYC and came to the conclusion that Yelp reviewers are about as good as Michelin reviewers.](_URL_0_)\n\nYou'll also see from this article that many people have food price bias. They spent a lot on food and because of that they either believe or want to believe it tasted better.\n\nBottom line... you shouldn't really care if a restaurant is Michelin star rated.",
"Having eaten at French Laundry and Le Monde De Joël Robuchon, both three stars...yeah, they are that great! It was another lifetime ago, but I was shocked with what could be done with food. First food hangover I ever experienced. Even after ten years, I can still remember clearly.",
"Congrats on taking this guys comment (which was answered in about 2 minutes) and using it to whore for karma. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nAnd you \"unknowingly\" went to a Michelin starred restaurnt? What, you were looking for the TGI Fridays, couldn't find it and just decided to pop-in to that $150 a plate joint instead?\n\nEDIT: p.s. ELI5 is supposed to be getting answers on subjects that might be difficult for a laymen to understand without some help, not for stuff you could look up in 30 seconds on Wikipedia. But, you knew the answer already from when you saw the other guy's comment and were just karma whoring, so guess you don't care anyway.",
"3 Michelin stars is generally understood to mean that it's worth traveling to that country just to eat at that restaurant without having other reasons for going there.",
"Back in the 20s-30s Michelin wanted people to drive more places. Unlike a car company Michelin benefits a lot from people travelling huge distances on their car. They started doing guides to promote people to travel places. Now part of the reason why the stars are so important is because from the beginning they had a [huge meaning](_URL_0_):\n\n* 1 Star is a restaurant that is pretty good and you should go to if you are in the area.\n* 2 Stars is a restaurant that is good enough to take a detour and visit even if it's a bit far away.\n* 3 Stars is the kind of restaurant you want to plan a trip around. This is that it's so good that (if you like food enough) it makes sense to travel there just to eat at this place.\n\nThis is the reason why the Michellin stars are so valuable compared to other restaurant ratings. Hotel stars [represent the amenities available](_URL_1_) (that is you can't be 5 stars without a reception that is open 24/7). A hotel only needs to fullfill a checklist.\n\nTo get a great Yelp review you need to convince people living nearby that the food is good. To get a fancy award you only need to have your food be considered good. To get three Michellin stars a restaurant has to convince the inspectors that they could travel to the city were it's at, eat at the place, and then leave, but still call it a great trip. As far as I know no other rating system is as extreme, but open, in it's demands, so not better rating system exists.\n\nIn short: Michelin made the guide and rating system to promote people travelling. It happens that it became a really good way to rate restaurants. Now it's extremely coveted and sustains itself, even if it began as a side business to a tire company.",
"It took me a few seconds to find this hilarious.",
"Michelin published road atlases in the early days of motoring that included mechanics and tyre shops for maintenance on the go as well as restaurants and hotels. The restaurants listed got given a star rating dependence on how good they were. \n\n1 star meant a restaurant was a recommended stop if it was on your way, 2 stars meant it justified taking a diversion to visit and 3 stars meant the quality of the restaurant warranted a trip in and of itself\n",
"TIL: Michelin Stars and Michelin Tires are the same Michelin. ",
"This has been asked before. They used to provide a touring guide for places to stop off and see. Led to restaurants being rated as best of",
"ELI5: Why people like OP don't bother to google/wiki the answer instead of seeking attention on reddit?",
"Because Michelin wanted to sell more tires. And how do you sell more tires? If people drive more, the tires will wear out quicker and people will buy tires more often.\n\nBut, how can we make people drive longer distances? By making the long drive worth it. Therefore Michelin decided to start rating restaurants. Most people don't go out for diner very often and when they do, that usually don't have a problem driving a few extra miles for good quality.",
"ELI5: Basically the same reason any company starts out as one thing and ends up doing other things. Example: Nintendo started as a playing card company and then diversified into Taxis, sex hotels, food production, and TV before stumbling on toys and video games. If any of those other business had been successful (they weren't), we would be asking, why do we care what a Taxi company thinks about family-friendly video gaming?",
"\nMichelin is also famous for its reliable and up to date maps.\nMichelin also donated 1000s of concrete markers all around France to indicate all notable monuments and places of interest you could find on the maps.\nalong with the Guide Michelin all of this was there for people to explore the wonderful country of France.\n\n",
"If you ever get to visit the home of Michelin in Clermont-Ferrand, France, you'll see that it's not just a tire place but a cultural icon, economic force, but also a company that seems to embody (or did) the French concept of égalité. Much like AT & T here in the US before its divesture in 1984. It's a way of making good food and dining information available to all. \n\nClermont-Ferrand, by the way, is an absolutely wonderful place to visit with the nicest people, the best sausage and cheese, and amazing countryside. Highly recommended.",
"All of these answers have been very good, but /r/AskHistorians had a very good [answer](_URL_2_clnbjcc) to this same [question](_URL_2_) from a month ago from /u/miodi:\n\n > As it should be when connecting tire companies with restaurant reviews, the Michelin Guide's popularity started to rise with the innovation of the \"motor tourist,\" the vehicle-toting traveler. The Michelin Tyre company made its first *Guide Michelin France* in 1900. The first Michelin Guides were just driver's handbooks, with tips for vehicle maintenance and nearby petrol stations. These pocket Michelin Guides were given out freely for \"l'instruction sur l'emploi des pneus Michelin pour voitures et automobile\" (instructions for the use of Michelin tires on cars and automobiles). The ultimate goal was to reassure new drivers that, even if they left town in their new motor vehicles, they could still find petrol stations, mechanics, and even post offices. As Kory Olston points out in her study of *Michelin* maps, the guide's popularity was indebted to the rise of motor tourism in turn-of-the-century France. The *Michelin* maps were designed differently than standard travel guides; town plans were relatively sparse and two-tone, with major roadways taking the focus instead of urban landmarks. The guide catered to bourgeois drivers, offering a \"more restrained number of tourist venues\" with a \"clarity of display to make it easier for their readers to traverse unfamiliar municipalities easily.\"\n\n > In 1926, these \"tourist venues\" finally included restaurants for motor tourists to frequent on their holidays in the countryside. The *Guide* of 1926 included a \"restaurant star,\" or a single star to denote a particularly special dining experience. A decade later, the second and third stars showed up, along with a criteria: one star for \"Une très bonne table dans sa catégorie\" (a good site in its category), two for \"Table excellente, mérite un détour\" (an excellent site worth a detour), and three for \"Une des meilleures tables, vaut le voyage\" (one of the best sites, worthy of a trip). Within three decades, the *Guide* had gone from a mechanic's handbook to a special purchase for rich motor tourists looking to get the best out of their journeys.\n\n > The three-star feat is more difficult to explain. One possible reason for its \"impossibility\" may come from the fact that the third star didn't exist during the WWII era. During the War, the *Guide* was simply reprinted from its 1939 edition, and then post-war shortages forced Michelin to put a halt on three-star ratings until 1950. *Guide* critics are anonymous, so there's not much testimony on the elusive three-star review--but we can guess that the restaurants that *do* have three stars have supreme quality of ingredients, consistency between visits, and head chefs with dedicated personalities.\n\n > Sources:\n\n > Kory Olson, *Maps for a New Kind of Tourist: The First Guides Michelin France (1900–1913)*. Available [here](_URL_4_).\n\n > *Michelin Guide History*. Provence and Beyond. [Here](_URL_1_).\n\n > *The Michelin Guide: Over 100 Editions and a Century of History*. ViaMichelin. [Here](_URL_0_).\n",
"Sounds like an abortive attempt in /r/shittyaskscience. ",
"Why do we care what a beer company considers world records?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/0f-j1ctaQqw"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f-j1ctaQqw"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f-j1ctaQqw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.viamichelin.co.uk/tpl/mag6/art200903/htm/tour-saga-michelin.htm",
"http://www.beyond.fr/food/michelin-guide-history.html",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ko9zx/how_did_michelin_a_tire_company_become_the/clnbjcc",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085691003747142#/doi/full/10.1080/03085691003747142"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2on0ak/famous_chef_and_mentor_of_gordon_ramsay_marco/cmorj50"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yelp-and-michelin-have-the-same-taste-in-new-york-restaurants/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2on0ak/famous_chef_and_mentor_of_gordon_ramsay_marco/cmorj50"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide#History",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_rating"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.viamichelin.co.uk/tpl/mag6/art200903/htm/tour-saga-michelin.htm",
"http://www.beyond.fr/food/michelin-guide-history.html",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ko9zx/how_did_michelin_a_tire_company_become_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ko9zx/how_did_michelin_a_tire_company_become_the/clnbjcc",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085691003747142#/doi/full/10.1080/03085691003747142"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
88pb0z | since base 10 was just create due to the number of fingers on our hands, why are all of our senses logarithmic to a base of 10? | Many scientists believe we began to use base 10 because it was easily countable on fingers, and 10 is not more special of a number than 11 or 9. Why then do our senses like hearing work in log base ten? I.E. in order to hear a sound that appears twice as loud, you need a sound that is 10 times louder. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88pb0z/eli5since_base_10_was_just_create_due_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwmaiu5",
"dwmfchz",
"dwmg4cz",
"dwmgvqh",
"dwmhar6",
"dwmja5q",
"dwmyhhr",
"dwnain2"
],
"score": [
39,
4,
15,
6,
2,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is not that the perceived intensity doubles for a ten-fold increase in stimulus, it is that for a given increase you need a constant multiplier (that is, the difference between perceived intensity of two stimuli is constant for a constant ratio of the stimuli).\n\nThis gives you a logarithmic scale, no matter what the base is.",
" > in order to hear a sound that appears twice as loud, you need a sound that is 10 times louder.\n\nIs this true? It's probably some number close to 10",
"I see the source of confusion here.\n\nOur senses are logarithmic in intensity, yes. But this remains true no matter what base you choose. Whether you draw the graph in base 10 or 3 or 25, it will fit our senses equally well.",
"I think you are confused about decibels. Doubling the intensity of the sound increases the decibels by 10. To increase by another 10 decibels you have to double the intensity of the sound again. Etc etc.\n\nAnd this is what a logarithmic scale is, multiplying the intensity of the stimulus only adds a certain amount to the response. Every multiplier will have a certain amount added on along a specific scale we choose. We, as humans, have arbitrarily chosen that doubling = > plus 10. We could have chosen any amount we like.",
"Ever use dimmable lightbulbs? You may notice that halfway down the dimmer does not at all seem darker but right towards the end, things get darker quickly. This is what the OP is talking about. Our vision and hearing are logarithmic. They are not linear. \n\nAlso, the reason we count by 10 is that we have ten fingers. So why would our hearing and vision scale according to a mathematical system based on how many fingers we have?\n\n\nThey don't. I've actually studied this directly as an optics physicist. We perceive most senses as roughly n · Log_5 (this is very rough and we used a small sample size). \n\nThat's a constant (n) multiplied by log base 5. The constant shifts depending on environmental factors like how long it has been dark (are your eyes in \"dark mode\" from visual purple being released). \n\nWe made the decibel scale base 10 because we have 10 fingers and base 10 is a common way of scaling very large graphs. It scales approximately correctly and the differences in perceived sound are very hard to quantify. \n\nAlso, sound diminishes at an exponential rate of n^3 because it is traveling in 3 directions at once (up/down, left/right, forward/backward). So in order for more sound energy to hit our ears, you need more generated by 3 x. ",
"Hey, great question that I think people are understanding in a different way than what is helping you.\n\nSo why do we is our hearing in log10 and not log2? Well it is.\n \nFor any logarithm base, there is a constant number you can multiply to change it to the same value as another log base. 3.322*log base of 10 will give you the same value as the log base of 10.\n\nSo why is this important? This matters because the base of the logarithm isn't important, just the fact that it is a logarithm. The logarithm implies exponential scaling, but by changing the base, we can just change the values and get the exact same information.",
"We use different bases in math for different reasons. In computer design there is the binary numbering system to base 2?\nand the hexadecimal system with a base of 16 LIKE THIS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F - ARE ALL NUMBERS so that all the spaces in a 16 bit byte can be written with a single symbol. In the 50's our math teacher told us we could select any number as a base for making a log table and the real statement for a log statement was for a log to the base of ___ the wheteveryoucallit happens.",
"All logarithms can be linearly scaled to one another.\n\nExample, Lets look at Log Base e, Log Base 10, and Log base 16.\n\neLog(17) = 2.8332, eLog(41) = 3.7136, eLog (89) = 4.4886\n\n10Log(17) = 1.2304, 10Log(41) = 1.6128, 10Log(89) = 1.9494\n\n16Log(17) = 1.0219, 16Log(41) = 1.3394, 16Log(89) = 1.6189\n\nIf you divide all the log base e results by all the log base 10 results, you always get 2.303. If you divide all log base 10 results by log base 16 results, you always get 1.204. Since you always get the same number when dividing any log base by another base, they are simply the same thing at a different scale.\n\nYour hearing isn't logarithm base 10, it is simply logarithmic."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.