q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
631l10 | how do certain religions become more popular/practiced than others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/631l10/eli5_how_do_certain_religions_become_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfqle3k",
"dfqnlmp",
"dfqu76h"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Lots of people feel either a religion fits with how they think about the world, or it doesn't. Most, if not all, religions argue that the way *they* think people should think about the world is the correct one. Whether or not that's actually the case has been a matter of great debate for thousands of years, and is notoriously complicated.\n\nSome people really think the important things in life are being happy, so they start following a set of beliefs that help them understand life in that way. It's hard to say if that's actually the way you're supposed to go about it.\n\nSome people think there's no God. Some people say God is one, others say God is three in one, others still say there are many gods. All in all, it's very difficult (arguably impossible) to say HOW this happens or why without picking a side.\n",
"Ironically enough, via evolution by natural selection. Religions are examples of memes, in the original sense of the word. A \"meme\" is an idea that is transferred from person to person and evolves over time (religions, folk tales, urban legends, the weird middle school S, and the image memes on Imgur...All examples of memes). \n\nJust like anything that replicates and has an imperfect copying mechanism (be it gene transfer, protein folding, or word of mouth/writing), a meme is subject to evolutionary pressure. People hear the idea and, if they like it, pass it on, forgetting it if they don't. They don't copy it perfectly to the next person, so little errors creep in over time. If the error makes it more likeable to more people, that error is more likely to get replicated, and if it makes it less likeable to other people, that error is likely to get weeded out. \n\nNow, *why* some idea may be more likeable than another depends on the time and the place. When Christianity first got started, mystery religions from the eastern part of the Empire were, for lack of a better word, a fad. That gave it a leg up. The idea that the injustices Israel was facing would be avenged by God in the hereafter was enticing (given that the Romans subjugated them, and ended up destroying Jerusalem entirely about 40 years after Jesus). The promise of eternal life is appealing, especially given the dim view of the afterlife common in the Roman world at the time.\n\nNow, what people have found appealing varies from place to place and time to time. Traditional Christian denominations are shrinking in the United States, while non-denominational, charismatic, and Evangelical strains are booming. The doctrine of those traditional denominations hasn't changed (much), but they're shrinking because people's tastes have changed. \n\nSometimes people find something appealing for much more obvious reasons: if you were a small town on the Arabian Peninsula in the eighth century, you became Muslim because that was more appealing than being invaded and killed (same went for non-Christian towns in the Byzantine domains a few hundred years earlier). If your local emperor or chief or whatever converted to some religion, it was often advantageous to follow along. In more recent times, if you disagree with a religion's stance on drinking or homosexuality or violence or whatever, a related but slightly different strain/denomination of your religion might win your heart.",
"Generally because of war.\n\nCatholisism spread via the Roman empire, which became the holy Roman empire. It was then spread by the Spanish, Portuguese, British, Dutch and Danish empires.\n\nProtestantism spread via the British empire.\n\nSame with Sunni, Shia and other Islamic denominations.\n\nA random tid bit is that gengis Khan was a \"Christian\" of sorts, he believed in all God's and wished to anger none. This eventually lead him to believe that he was given Devine Providence to rule the whole world.\n\nWhen the crusades started, the Christian soldiers heard of a Christian King from the East and sent a papal envoy to meet him. He told them to submit or he would destroy them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3s34f5 | the infinite hotel paradox | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s34f5/eli5_the_infinite_hotel_paradox/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwtnpyq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's not a paradox, really, just an illustration of how infinity is not \"a number\". \n\nIf you have a hotel with any finite number of rooms, you can add guests until the number of guests is equal to the number of rooms; if a new guest shows up, you have to turn him away because there are no available rooms.\n\nIf you have a hotel with a countably infinite (aleph-null) number of rooms and a countably infinite number of guests turn up, you can always find a room for them by the simple process of moving guest 1 (2^0 ) to room 2 (2^1 ), and similarly moving every guest from room 2^n to room 2^(n+1) then putting the new guest into room 1.\n\nA further non-intuitive feature: suppose a countably infinite number of guests turn up instead of just one. You can still give them all rooms by moving every guest in room n to room 2*n, which will free up an infinite number of rooms for the new guests.\n\nAs I said, it's not really a paradox, more an illustration of the properties of \"infinity\" (aleph-null), the \"smallest\" infinity. This is the infinity that is the size of the set of integers and also of any infinite subset of the integers (like the set of positive integers, or even numbers). If you add, subtract, multiply, or divide aleph-null by any finite quantity, the answer is always aleph-null. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6rx2gt | how does the shoulder joint work? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rx2gt/eli5_how_does_the_shoulder_joint_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl8fcqu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure if \"complex\" is the right word, but the shoulder joint is the most flexible in the body. The shoulder joint is what's known as a ball and socket joint. The ball of your arm bone(humerus) is nestled into the cup or socket of the bone in your torso(scapula).\n\nThe same is true of your hip bone. What makes the shoulder unique is the muscles that help control it. In the front of your arm, if held at your side, is the bicep. This muscle connects to the tendons just above your shoulder and is what makes you capable of moving your arm forward and backwards. Surrounding the back of your shoulder is the rotator cuff, another important group of tendons and muscles that allow your to move the shoulder up and down and in almost a complete circle.\n\nIn addition to muscle groups, the socket of your shoulder bone has a very small area in which it covers the ball of your arm bone. This allows for a much wider range of movement than it's ball-and-socket cousin the hip bone.\n\nTL;DR: Widest range of movement in the body, surrounded by important muscle groups."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dutino | if the hindenburg disaster hadn't turned public opinion against airships, would they have been an efficient form of air transportation or were they mostly novelty? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dutino/eli5_if_the_hindenburg_disaster_hadnt_turned/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7844ts",
"f784ipc",
"f784s2e",
"f784yez"
],
"score": [
13,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably not. If not the Hindenburg it would be something else in the future. If they just naturally swapped to helium without a disaster they’d just deplete global helium supplies faster. Currently we’re getting close to the point where it’s becoming a scarce commodity and harder to find.",
"They were on decline before the Hindenburg as airplanes became more practical. Airplanes can be plenty comfortable, are much faster, and are easier to supply since they don't need a lfiting gas. They weren't really a novelty at first since they were around before planes, but eventually a plane would've just been better for pretty much anything an airship was functionally useful for.",
"The writing was on the wall for them.\n\nAirships really just aren't an efficient form of personal travel, and even in their heyday airships were noted as being pretty spartan in terms of their accommodations (entirely because they had to shave so much weight in order to work).",
"Planes are faster and more efficient - especially so with the invention of turbofan engines and aluminum. While lighter-than-air transport was/is cool, and used to be able to compete with airplanes in terms of economy, it can no longer do so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
30hicj | - why are there so many fast food restaurants in very low income communities? | I grew up the Bronx when I was younger in a very low income area. However even with most people on Food Stamps, Public Assistance, Welfare, WIC there so many restaurants in areas like that. I would think low income = unable to afford it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30hicj/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_fast_food_restaurants/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpsg72y",
"cpsg8pe",
"cpsgcp9",
"cpsgwox"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Easy access to a quick, relatively cheap meal. ",
"High demand, low rent and business costs of operating in low-income residential zones as opposed to more costly high-density retail strips.",
"Because its often many times cheaper to buy fast food than to buy fresh food.\n\nYeah. That's the fucked up world we live in.",
"Fast food is designed to be cheap & easy to get. Healthy foods aren't necessarily more expensive as it's more time-consuming to make healthier meals. In low-income communities, most people are working one or more full-time jobs that takes up a lot of their time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
78n9sp | what, exactly, is petro-yuan and how will it affect the us dollar? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/78n9sp/eli5_what_exactly_is_petroyuan_and_how_will_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dov4uke",
"dov4vxr",
"dov4wwr",
"dov93in"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
33,
2
],
"text": [
"i am not an economist nor an oil tycoon but people have been sabre-rattling for decades over how china will finally dethrone the US as an economic and industrial powerhouse and the reality of the situation is that we've found ourselves in a co-dependent relationship and i highly doubt anything will change the status quo. this seems like yet another reason that china will totally shake things up economically, for real this time!\n\nchina's entire mode of operation is claiming things are better than they they are to save appearances to the point where it is not only government policy but government policy they have a reputation for, and western outlets like to take the sweeping grand statements made by the chinese government-sponsored media as fact when they should under no circumstances ever be. ",
"Trading oil in US currency does almost nothing to bolster the US dollar's value. It's a myth. If the yuan takes over as the currency of choice, it would mean little beyond one fact, the Chinese yuan is a bigger reserve currency than the US dollar for oil. There are about 6-7 currencies that are considered solid currencies. The yuan, while relatively new, doesn't really change the market all that much. ",
"It creates an automatic demand for dollars that keeps the value of the currency high. We could produce no exports of any kind, and the money would stay valuable because everyone needs to buy oil, and oil only sells for dollars.\n\nIt's pretty unlikely that China will make that move in the near future, since devaluing our currency would basically gut their economy...Yuan being cheap compared to dollars is what drives the trade gap between our countries, and they have worked hard to keep that state of affairs going.",
"The relative value of a currency is based on supply and demand. \n\nIn a traditional country, demand is driven (among other things) by people needing the currency to pay for things from the home country. For example, any item purchased from country X and sent to another country needs country X's currency to pay for it. Therefore when country X exports items, it drives demand for that currency.\n\nSupply is generally the opposite. The supply of a currency is driven by the home country's imports. If a country is importing WAY more than they are exporting it means that there is an excess supply of that currency and the price of it relative to others will fall. \n\nSo. Knowing this information about supply and demand you might look at a country like the US, who imports almost everything and wonder why their currency has value at all. The answer is that demand can be driven by other means.\n\nPeople needing US dollars to pay for oil in the international markets drives a demand for US dollars. So the US can import everything and export very little and still keep a strong currency. If this artificial demand increase were to stop, other countries would be selling their goods in US dollars but have nothing to spend those dollars on. So over time, they would want more and more for what they are selling and the value of the US dollar would fall. The end result would be more expensive products for the US consumer. Funny enough, it would also make American manufacturing more competitive... so there's that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
49sbm5 | how can legendary rock stars, such as freddie mercury, not only remain functional but absolutely thrive at their careers for while so heavily abusing drugs for so long? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49sbm5/eli5_how_can_legendary_rock_stars_such_as_freddie/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ug0x6",
"d0um3cw"
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text": [
"Sorry to break it to you, but you've been lied to.\n\nSee, the government and the anti-drug forces want you to think that your typical drug user looks something like this:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nWhen in fact, MOST drug users look far more like this:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYes, drugs wreck some people's lives. But for every pathetic crackhead wasting away in some shithole, there are ten ordinary, professional people leading normal lives while using recreational pharmaceuticals. Sometimes even heavily, sometimes even at for-real abuse levels.\n\nUntil they get some bad shit or accidentally OD and die, anyway. Don't do drugs, kids.\n\nThe problem with *illegal* drugs is that there's no quality control. So the dose you get might be way less than you're used to or way more. Or it might be cut with too much rat poison. Or any one of a dozen other problems. Rich people like celebrities can usually afford higher-quality drugs.\n",
" > just how much coke he **allegedly** actually did on a daily basis.\n\nFTFY. What's your source? Is it reliable and unbiased?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://aflen2008.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/group_of_workers2.jpg",
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/12/article-1180859-04E8E8BA000005DC-338_468x302.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
29s146 | why does the music industry typically categorize the musical artist as a certain genre (e.g., country, folk, rock, blues, etc) rather than their songs, considering that many artists record songs of different genres? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29s146/eli5_why_does_the_music_industry_typically/ | {
"a_id": [
"cinxp1u"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Even if an artist has 1 or 2 songs that cross genres a bit, the vast majority of their music is going to fit within the same genre, and so it's just a more practical way of labeling an artist. If I'm looking for a new alternative rock band to listen to, I would much rather someone say \"This band is an alt-rock band\", than give me a giant catalog of 45,000 songs, each labeled by genre and expect me to pick out of there.\n\nId rather just browse through the \"mostly-alt-rock\" bands discography."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5mif97 | why is war not a war crime? where do you draw the line? torture? mustard gas? why not killing? nukes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mif97/eli5_why_is_war_not_a_war_crime_where_do_you_draw/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc3uomu",
"dc3ur4n",
"dc3w9np",
"dc41san",
"dc435ak",
"dc47vbh"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
22,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There are actual rules for making and mantaining a war. As explained in this Vsauce video (He segways to this topic in the middle of it): _URL_0_\n\nAbout not beign a crime, i don't know If there is a singles answer. This gets into social and philosophical issue, i guess. ",
"War crimes are decided by the winners\n\nThe \"winner\" also does not need to be involved in the war.\n\nCurrently, the US (and NATO) is the perpetual winner and decides whatever is in their best interest, regardless of the actions actually taken.\n\nThere technically are some guidelines, but because the above is true, they don't matter in the real world as compared with the interests of the winner",
"In theory, war itself is a diplomatic state between two nations, where in those two nations will use their respective militaries to sort out what ever disagreement brought on the state of war.\n\nWar crimes are, in theory, defined by a breach of the Geneva convention, which are the rules by which nations are required to make war ( pretty much, leave the civilians alone, and don't nuke, gas, or use any weapon that will cause unnecessary suffering.), in theory.\n\nIn practice, the worst offenders tend to win the wars they're involved with, rendering the Geneva convention useless as a tool to restrain the excesses of powerful nations at war, And reducing it to a tool to further punish people who have lost a war.",
"In addition to the other answers, there are usually gentleman agreements in regard to what you can and can't do during a war. This is under the condition of \"I won't do x to you if you don't do x to me\".",
"You draw the line where countries agree to draw the line.\n\nUnderstand that humanitarianism was only part of the reason the Geneva Convention exists. It was every bit as much about big countries not wanting nasty but easy to make weapons in the hands of little countries. Banning chemical and biological weapons was a way of maintaining their power.\n\nBanning killing and nukes...not so much.",
"Basically, war crimes are things where you can get a lot of countries to agree \"We want to avoid having these done to us and our people enough to officially declare that we'll never do them ourselves.\"\n\nGoing to war as an ultimate measure is too important, so very few countries are willing to entirely forego it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/oThh3_Srxtc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
71eyyg | when, where and why did developers and artists adopt a more minimalist design for their user interface (ios, microsoft, xbox, skype, etc) | Over the last few years we've seen so many artists drive forward more minimalist user interface designs in notable services such as Windows, Facebook, Twitter, Xbox and in generally all upcoming technology for the foreseeable future.
My question is what originally drove this huge change forward? It may look nicer, but we have that opinion based on what we're now currently used to, rather than what we used to accept (the more bevelled, chunky and colourful graphic design that dominated design work post 2010s) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71eyyg/eli5_when_where_and_why_did_developers_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dna8fzt",
"dnal5gf"
],
"score": [
22,
6
],
"text": [
"When high-resolution, rich-color displays became the norm, designers had fun making ultra-lifelike controls, with shadows and reflections and woodgrain and the like. People got sick of it, so this was a reaction.",
"It's basically the same evolution every fledging artist makes when first trying photoshop. First you find all these 3d and bevelled stuff options that just pops out of the screen and gives cool effects.\n\nBut the more you work with it the more you find out that it's not really targeted towards usability. The fonts get hard to read when they're on the edge of the bevelled surface, you can't fit as much buttons into a row as you'd like because the effects at the button edges take up so much pixel space, etc.\n\nThe Bevelled look came around with Windows 98 IIRC, and continued until Vista. IPhone and Android also started with a much more busy interface design and both got more \"grokable\" over time as they evolved (almost naturally).\n\nIf you don't know the meaning of grokable, it's basically something you can \"get\" just by looking at it for a moment. Stuff that makes it harder to get something in an instant makes it less grokable.\n\nFor example, \"+ 10 Damage per Second\" on a weapon in a roleplaying game is much more grokable than \"+ 1.5 damage per attack\" which forces you to look up your weapon's attack speed to get how much damage it actually adds.\n\nAnother factor is that whenever screens get a huge jump in resolution (i.e. when we went from CRTs to LCDs, or from normal cellphones to smartphones) the new user interfaces usually try to show the screen power, with lots of little details (like the bevel for example), but then again as resolution upgrades slow down and people are used to the new fidelity, usability takes over and interfaces tend to get more functional and flatter again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
a4t9vq | why is it when you stay up late, you get aches in your joints that don’t go away? | Title, thanks in advance!
Edit : Like u/mrchesterchapman mentioned, it’s more like a deep marrow pain. Joint pain and the weird ache sensation are different. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a4t9vq/eli5_why_is_it_when_you_stay_up_late_you_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebheijv",
"ebherr2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I have never experienced this. Are you sure it's not just you? Do these aches ever show up at other times?",
"No, I know what you mean!! I've always wondered about this, and not just the joints, it's like sleep deprivation makes your marrow sore. Haven't the faintest clue what it could be."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
qumdd | are the cell phones in "phone hacking" scandals actually hacked or is it just social engineering? | We're seeing more and more celebrity photos leaked online due to supposed "hacks" (Christina Hendricks... Muurrrrrr). Is this simply a matter of less technologically savvy celebrities being duped by social engineering or are these phones actually being hacked somehow? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qumdd/are_the_cell_phones_in_phone_hacking_scandals/ | {
"a_id": [
"c40kkpm",
"c40kqqf",
"c40ndv4"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely explanation is that these celebrities simply had their passwords guessed. A surprisingly large number of people use weak passwords and/or the same password for everything.",
"As far as I can tell from various news stories, these people's voicemail accounts had no 4-digit passcode assigned in order to access their voicemail service - making it rather easy to access. From what I can gather, there was no special technical tricks involved, the people who got \"hacked\" just didn't lock their voicemail services.",
"Socially engineering, bad passwords, and \"whoops, I go drunk and sent out naked pics and don't want to own up to it\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
32aa83 | why are police in the us using more and more military/unnecessary equipment? | Police, even in my small town, are arming themselves with rifles, trucks, and other types of equipment that seem like they're better suited to kill people, and to protect against bombs or an army.
Why are things like that needed, and why are we even using them? Is it just because the Iraq war is over and the military is selling their stuff off, are police overreacting to crime and arming themselves to 'intimidate' people, or do they really need it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32aa83/eli5_why_are_police_in_the_us_using_more_and_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq9brnb",
"cq9bt1w",
"cq9bzhm",
"cq9dki0",
"cq9hemr",
"cq9j7af",
"cq9k4yf"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
4,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Watch season 3 episode 2 of vice (documentary series). It's excellent in their analysis.",
"Mostly an intimidation factor. But in some cities police are worried about rioting if another innocent/ 'innocent' black person gets shot and people go crazy",
"You're pretty much right but I think its also kind of a cop out answer that we get. The wars are winding down so yeah there is a lot of surplus equipment but why not just keep it for the next war? Because then defense contractors would cease to create profit. And there are so many voting districts with defense companies in them and Senators want to get reelected and they at all cost don't want to lose those jobs so they support police militarization to keep the goods flowing. \nAlso with the \"threat of terror\" that can happen anywhere unexpectedly, no Govenor wants to be caught in a crises without looking tough and scary. So they support it even if they know it is ridiculous. ",
" > Is it just because the Iraq war is over and the military is selling their stuff off\n\nSort of. George Bush issued every police district in the country a budget to buy 'counterterrorism' equipment during the height of the 9/11 hysteria. Police kept their military hardware ever since.",
"IMO, the simple answer is because criminals have access to military grade weapons. What good would police be if they only had pistols, when any citizen with $800+ can get their hands on an AR-15? \n\nPeople typically act like police are rolling up and down the streets all day in APV's (armored personnel vehicles). Which just isn't true. These military grade weapons and vehicles come out in times of emergencies. Such as mass riots.\n\nHowever, this topic will never be one people agree or change their view on. Those who don't think police need it will never see otherwise. Just the same as those who understand why police have this type of equipment. \n\nEdit: autocorrect ",
"As for rifles, look up the North Hollywood shooting, (_URL_0_) it shows what happens when cops without military gear try to halt criminals with military gear. Unfortunately because assault rifles and body armour are easily available to the general populace in the USA the police, or large parts of it will need them too. Why are police outside of SWAT starting to carry them? Because police need to respond immediately to mass shooter situations and often waiting for SWAT will mean more dead victims. As for the ex-military gear and vehicles like MRAPS (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) it's cheap. Ex-military gear is a very cheap option to get hold of bulletproof vehicles, even though their explosive protection and size are rather unnecessary. Do cops in the US have an image problem and to an extent a culture problem? Yes. But there are reasons behind their decisions.",
"Because they're cheap compared to their perceived value. 700k isn't pennies, but that's what, about 10 new interceptor SUV's? For a large department that might be a justifiable cost. Pointless 99.9% of the time? Sure. But whatever.\n\nHonestly, I don't really care. They're just armored SUV's that are damn hard to see out of. Now if they start mounting 50's on em I'll start to get damn concerned.\n\nThat said I would totally drive one myself and turn it into a baller camper."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"
],
[]
] |
|
45guak | how do nature programmes make their timelapse shots (like a flower growing etc) so smooth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45guak/eli5_how_do_nature_programmes_make_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"czxsjlp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"At least some of them are composites filmed mostly indoors under very controlled environments, [as alluded to here by Sir David Attenborough](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn9H8hbAAWQ"
]
] |
||
26kqak | what is title insurance and why do we need it? | Like purchasing a house and whatnot. Seems like a useless (almost leechy) financing charge. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26kqak/eli5what_is_title_insurance_and_why_do_we_need_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"chry6nj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is one of the biggest scams in the history of ever.\n\nTechnically its protection against someone coming forward to claim that the land your house is built on is actually owned by someone other than the person who sold it to you. If it wasn't then the transaction is invalid and the rightful owner has a right to claim their property.\n\nThe thing is... those transaction histories are extremely well documented and the odds of someone claiming the title of your house with a valid claim is virtually zero. \n\nThe worst part is... it doesn't matter if the house is 10 years old with 1 previous owner... or 1000 years old with 100 previous owners it will cost you the same amount. The amount in question is always a lot.\n\nEdit: Proofreading."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1vlxqs | how is it legal for gas stations next to disney world and other amusement parks to charge up to $6/gallon for gas with price gouging laws? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vlxqs/eli5_how_is_it_legal_for_gas_stations_next_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cetjva9",
"cetk0ij",
"cetm5w8",
"cetqxku",
"cetszcm"
],
"score": [
181,
32,
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"because they're not exploiting a temporary weakness that's not within the control of people visiting. you can simply make sure you have enough gas to get there and away again without needing to tank up there. it's kinda like a stupidity tax.",
"Price gouging laws are meant to protect the cost/prince of a thing during a shortage.\n\nGas stations that charge in the manner you describe are taking advantage of people's laziness, not a supply problem.",
"Price gouging and high prices are too different things",
"Have you ever been to Disney World? The gas stations on property are always cheaper($0.10 - 0.20) than if you go off property! ",
"Its not just this kind of a place where you will see this.\n\nYou tend to see higher prices (a few cents) at stations adjacent to a major interstate highway versus in town as well... because travelers won't venture into town.\n\nYou will also see them in more rural communities. My parents live in the Sierra Nevada about 50 minutes from a major city (in their case, Redding, California). The station in town will be 30-50 cents higher. If you ask them, its because they have to pay to have the fuel hauled up the hill (Redding is ~900 feet, where my parents are at is 4500') but no way is it 30 cents a gallon to get it up there. But if you need gas, you're going to pay what you need to, or you're gonna be stuck.\n\nLike everyone else has said it comes down to people being lazy and similar. You think the prices are bad at the pump, take a look in the mini-mart. You'll probably pay twice as much a gallon for stuff like milk too.\n\nThere is a reason they call the stores attached to a gas station \"convenience\" stores. They make it simple for you to get simple staples.\n\nBut you'd be better off driving to your local supermarket for just about everything in there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5lgr3x | why do we have different cups for different drinks? wine glasses for wine, coffee mugs for coffee, etc | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lgr3x/eli5why_do_we_have_different_cups_for_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbvj1rg",
"dbvknxa"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Different materials for the different kind of liquids. If you poured hot coffee in a wine glass, the glass wouldn't just break, but you wouldn't be able to hold it.\n\nHence the creation of the coffee mug, strong enough for your coffee.\n\n",
"The aromatic compounds of alcohol are intensified depending on the shape of the glass. So a brandy smells better in a snifter/large goblet, and wine in a wine glass. Champagne glasses direct the bubbles to the nose. Shot glasses are for rapid drinking and convenient measurements. Soda/water glasses are for volume drinks. And coffee cups insulate the beverage heat from the consumers hand. Certain beer glasses have similar functions to wine with amplified volatile compounds directed for improved flavor which is partly based on odor. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
35k9b5 | how does hot sauce work? | This is a very small title that doesn't give much, so I'll explain what I mean here.
How do hot sauce create the "hot" feeling in your mouth, how does a certain something irritates your Taste buds.. I don't know what I'm saying but I just don't understand how that works.
How are things hotter? Once you reach like 300,000 scoville, to about 1,000,000 scoville, what is hotter and how? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35k9b5/eli5_how_does_hot_sauce_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr579dl",
"cr58032"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"When you get cut, burned, or any other kind of \"boo boo\" \"little detectors\" on your body tell your brain that there is a problem. Now when you eat a pepper or any other hot food a chemical named capsaicin causes these \"pain detectors\" to think something is wrong.",
"It turns out that capsaicin – the active ingredient in spicy food – binds to a special class of vanilloid receptor inside our mouth called VR1 receptors. After capsaicin binds to these receptors, the sensory neuron is depolarized, and it sends along a signal indicating the presence of spicy stimuli.\n\nVR1 receptors weren’t designed to detect capsaicin. They bind spicy food by accident. The real purpose of VR1 receptors is thermoreception, or the detection of heat. This means that they are supposed to prevent us from consuming food that will burn our sensitive flesh. (That’s why our VR1 receptors are clustered in our tongue, mouth and skin.) As a result, when the receptors are activated by capsaicin, the sensation we experience is indelibly linked to the perception of temperature, to the feeling of eating something near the boiling point of water. But that pain is just an illusory side-effect of our confused neural receptors.There is nothing “hot” about spicy food.\n\n\nTL;DR - watch this [video](_URL_0_) from TED-Ed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0_yWgifDM"
]
] |
|
exek2e | what's the difference between an autoimmune disease and an autoinflamatory disease? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/exek2e/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_an_autoimmune/ | {
"a_id": [
"fg7wr8p",
"fg88evz"
],
"score": [
13,
46
],
"text": [
"There really isn't. Autoimmune diseases are inflammatory as the immune system is attacking one's own body for a variety of reasons. Inflammatory processes occur due to immune system factors whether it be appropriate or inappropriate responses.",
"The difference is in which immune system the problem occurs. Your body actually has two immune systems: the innate system, and the adaptive system:\n\nThe **innate system** is much older, from an evolutionary perspective. It is designed to stop invasion from simple everyday things like bad stuff that gets into cuts in your skin, or poisonous substances that get sucked into your nose, etc.\n\nThe innate system isn't super smart. Its job is to basically carpet-bomb the area with a set of chemicals that neutralize the invading baddie. There isn't time to generate these chemicals on the fly, so they're always swimming around in your blood to some extent. The trick is signaling for them to assemble where they're needed fast, when something bad happens.\n\nInflammation is how this works. Your body gives off inflammatory \"Help!\" signals from the scene of the crime. In response, your blood vessel valves start directing more blood to the location to get as many helpful chemicals there as possible. It swells up and gets red or pink from the extra blood. And usually that's enough to stop your basic simple bad guys from going any further.\n\nMore complicated invaders, like viruses and complex bacteria, or rogue body cells like cancer, present more of a problem. They're not really phased by the innate immune system. They need a much more sophisticated police department to identify and catch them. This is the **adaptive system**, which is what most people mean when they say \"immune system.\"\n\nWhen your adaptive immune system gets triggered, it generally turns on the innate immune system as well, because parts of it might still be useful. The innate system will raise your body temperature, make your sinuses stuffed up, your eyes watery, etc. as an extra (but not super useful) attempt at helping the adaptive immune system do its job.\n\nWhen you have an auto-immune disease, generally we mean that the *adaptive* system has mis-identified your own body as a complicated foreign invader. It is now actively attacking those cells and killing them with its sophisticated police network. This usually also triggers inflammation from the innate system as a \"Look! I'm helping!\" side effect, but not always.\n\nHowever an \"autoinflammatory\" disease means something has actually gone wrong with the *innate* immune system. It is generating inflammation \"Help me!\" signals but there is nothing bad happening to actually cause it. And the adaptive immune system is generally not activated or involved in any way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4v2kf7 | how can electronics companies test the lifetime of their products? | Particularly lightbulbs and batteries there are many claims like provide 7 years of light or X hours or can power for X amount of time. How is accelerated testing done on these to give an answer prior to release of "new" innovations without waiting the few years to see them go out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4v2kf7/eli5_how_can_electronics_companies_test_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5uwl7b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Two different things here - one is testing battery life in a certain application. This is often directly testable, if we're talking about hours, days, or weeks, with some assumed \"typical use profile.\" For extremely long-life batteries (years, etc) the use profile is combined with a more sophisticated model of the battery, including self-discharge, etc.\n\nThe other thing you mention is estimating time before failure of an electronic device. This is often done through a combination of analysis (which components are most likely to fail, etc) and HALT (highly accelerated life testing.) In HALT testing, a device is subjected to the _types_ of factors which cause electronics death, but at a highly accelerated rate. A HALT chamber can induce major swings of temperature and humidity, as well as vibration forces, all of which kill electronics. Survival rate in the chamber is measured, and based on the severity of the tests compared to the intended use environment, engineers estimate how much time in the chamber would equate to real-world use.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1upqc5 | how would liquid in a container settle in space? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1upqc5/eli5_how_would_liquid_in_a_container_settle_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cekgjp3",
"cekgnac"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In a weightless environment no liquid would settle without some force put on it.",
"Water and liquids containing lots of water form spheres due to water's surface tension. Video of it in action: \n\n_URL_0_\n\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI"
]
] |
||
1ixl44 | i just don't understand citizens united. | As I understand it, Citizens United has established that corporations are people and that money is speech.
Why, then, are corporations not subject to the same laws and regulations that your everyday citizen must adhere to?
I refer to this post: _URL_0_
How, if corporations are people, is this bank less criminally liable than any random stranger breaking in to your home and stealing your things?
I just don't understand why the police can kick in a criminals door and drag them off to jail, while a bank that is guilty of the *exact same crime* can just go about their day.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ixl44/eli5_i_just_dont_understand_citizens_united/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb90tvs",
"cb918ad"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no real clear answer to this question. You are neither the first, nor the last person to raise these issues. Because this was a recent court decision, we will likely see these kind of questions play out in future court cases.",
"First of all, Corporate Personhood was established in the late 1800s, way before Citizens United. \n\nAnd secondly, your question has nothing to do with your example. The issue with Citizens United had to do with Campaign Finance. Before the case, there were limits on what an entity could do in terms of Broadcasting political ads before an election, they were limited within 30 days of a primary, 60 for a general election. The SCOTUS overturned previous cases, which essentially allowed entities like SuperPACs to broadcast political ads like anyone else.\n\nIt is still illegal for them to donate directly to a campaign fund, but that point is moot, since the major point of campaign funds is to raise funds for ads, so by simply being able to pay, produce and broadcast political ads on their own, there is no really need for the SuperPACs to donate directly anyway. \n\nThe other problem is accountability, before the case, political ads had to run a disclaimer telling you which candidate's campaign was supporting the ad, but with the new ruling, SuperPACs need only say that the ad is from them, and do not have to mention the candidate they support at all. This is an issue because the SCs are allowed to raise nearly unlimited amounts of cash from anonymous sources, so you cold have some Mobil Executive donating millions to a SC that runs an ad against a candidate who is against Oil drilling."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.10tvtogo.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=40&nid=3355439430&cid=21017&scid=-1&ith=4&title=Local+News&headtitle=Local+News"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
s1jd8 | facebook's value | I saw on another post today that Facebook is currently valued at over $100 billion. Last year, Facebook had $1 billion in profits. I understand there's a difference between value and revenue, but can someone explain to me how a company can be "worth" over 100 times their actual demonstrative value? Surely people's personal information can't be worth *that* much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s1jd8/eli5_facebooks_value/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4acc3y",
"c4admy5",
"c4aft28"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I spend $1000 to buy a riding lawnmower. Every lawn that I mow costs me $20 in fuel. I charge $30/lawn. I mow 10 lawns. So I make $300 and then of that I spend $200 in fuel, giving me a profit of $100.\n\nI made $100, but my company is worth more like $1100 because I already own a riding lawnmower and I have relationships with customers.\n\nPlacing the \"value\" on a company is very difficult. But it usually includes how much \"stuff\" the company owns (which is called \"Capital\"), how much money they make, and what their market looks like.",
"lex418787 goes into what's called the \"book value\" of a corporation—the value of the stuff it owns, minus its debts. I'll go into the \"future profits\" part.\n\nI pay lex418787 $5,000 to buy half of his lawn mowing business. That means that from now own, half of the profits come to me. The business owns a $1,000 lawnmower and makes $10 for each lawn he mows; this means I am entitled to $500 for the mower and I get $5 out of each lawn mowed.\n\nIf lex418787 manages to mow 900 lawns with $10 profit each, I will have broken even: $500 equity in the mower + 900 x $5 = $5,000, my initial investment. If he mows more than 900 lawns with $10 profit, I will have made a gain over my initial $5,000. If he doesn't manage to make that much profit, I will have lost some of my $5,000.\n\nSo let's figure lex works 5 days a week, and can mow 3 lawns a day. Huh, then he should be able to mow 900 lawns in 20 weeks. Not too bad lex!\n\nSo what happens after 40 weeks? Well, lex mows 900 more lawns, and at a $5/lawn profit for me, I've now gained $4,500.\n\nSo if those estimates are right, then I paid 5 times what lex's company actually owns, yet because of the rate at which it made profits, got my investment back in 20 weeks, and made nearly 100% profit in 40 weeks.\n\nSo what's the value of a company? Roughly, the value of the stuff that the company owns, plus somebody's estimate of how much profits they will make in the future (and how quickly they will make those profits, which makes the math more complicated), and then a discount on top to reflect the fact that this is a risky guess. If the estimate is good, the people spending that much for the company will end up ahead. If the estimate is bad, then they lose. That's fundamentally all there is to it—the rest is details.",
"There are several different ways to value a company. I'll go into the ones that are used for Facebook.\n\nOne way they valued facebook was by **comparable transaction analysis**. What this means is they compare facebook to similar companies. \n\nAll of these companies have financial statements and people come up with different ratios. Price to Earnings, Debt to Equity, Enterprise Value to Earnings Before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization, etc. All that matters is that there are ratios that go with a company's financial statements. Once banks and financial analyst obtain all these numbers, they compare it to a universe of similar companies. For example, facebook and google both make most of their money from online advertisement revenue.\n\nWith a group of similar companies, they can compare the ratios and place a value on facebook based on the value of the other companies. (Sidenote: the value of other companies is considered the Market Capitalization. Which is the share price of a company multiplied by the number of shares. This is an already established number).\n\n**Pro**: Since this compares similar companies, the free market has already placed a value of those type of companies. Therefore is a good indicator of what facebook is worth.\n\n**Con**: It ignores strengths facebook may have over other companies. \n\nThe other way that was used is by **Discounted Cash Flows**. \n\nFacebook made $1Billion in profits last year. That's fine, but we don't care too much about past profit, we care about future profit. We expect facebook to find new ways to generate even more revenue in the future. What is the value of all of those future cash flows \"discounted\" to today's worth? It was decided that all futures cash flows of facebook are worth $100 Billion today.\n\n**Pro**: It takes a look at the earnings and expenses of facebook.\n\n**Cons**: Difficult to predict future earnings, and it ignores current market conditions.\n\n**How Facebook got it's $100 Billion Valuation**\n\nInvestment Banks are the ones that declare the value of a company. Facebook used several different banks to try to value the company. They decided that based on all the information they had, facebook was worth $100 Billion. Now, it may seem attractive for the banks to just say a really high number but that is not always true. What happens is that they buy all the stocks facebook was going to sell for a small discount. They then go and try to sell those to investors. If they can't sell them then they lose money.\n\n**Why that figure isn't ridiculous**\n\nBack when Google first went Public, they were valued at $30Billion. From a revenue standpoint they were in a similar position to Facebook. When the stocks went public, the share price tripled very quickly making them worth $90 Billion.\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1w1pz7 | when i leave a tip but pay with a credit card. | Often I try to tip in cash, even when I pay with a credit card. From time to time I'll pay with a credit card and have no cash and have to use the tip line on the signatory part. Every time I leave a tip - I never seem to see the charge. How does that work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w1pz7/eli5_when_i_leave_a_tip_but_pay_with_a_credit_card/ | {
"a_id": [
"cexutik",
"cexv1ia"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It just isn't charged immediately like the actual bill.",
"Credit card authorizations are a 2-step process:\n\nFirst, the merchant (restaurant, store, sex shop, etc.) will place a hold on your card. This can be for any dollar amount; in a restaurant, it would be the value of the bill alone. These show up in the \"pending transactions\" but not your statement.\n\nSecond, within 2-3 days or so, the merchant has to confirm the charge. If they do not, the charge eventually drops from the \"pending charges\" and goes away. If they do confirm it, they also have the option to change the dollar amount. Restaurants will use this to add your tip. Gas stations use this too: you swipe before you pump, you get a token authorization of $1 (some gas stations are dicks and try to auth some shit like $100) then, you pump your gas, get your actual total, and then the station will confirm the charge with the new total."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1mw13d | why do people set up fake company facebook pages promoting non-existing contests? | To see how many gullible users repost their content?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mw13d/eli5_why_do_people_set_up_fake_company_facebook/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccd4jsw",
"ccd4knz"
],
"score": [
2,
12
],
"text": [
"To collect personal info for spam?",
"To collect a tremendous number of people \"liking\" the page, then sell the page off to someone who wants easy advertising access to a tremendous number of people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9teajg | how do they arrest and prosecute people on catch a predator | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9teajg/eli5_how_do_they_arrest_and_prosecute_people_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8vn4mh"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
" > It's not illegal to hang out with a minor\n\nTheir intentions were made clear during the online conversations with the presumed minor. The meeting was not made under the pretense of \"Let's hang out and play with Lego,\" so their showing up is just part of the case to be made. When the trial takes place the prosecution will present the logs of their conversations to show intent, then their keeping the meeting would amount to the constructive behavior of actually committing the crime.\n\n > and isn't it considered entrapment?\n\nEntrapment is the law enforcement doing something which would cause the normally law abiding person to break the law. For example an undercover police officer intimidating someone into buying drugs, \"You better buy this or I'll make you wish you had,\" would be entrapment. Their argument would be that if the officer hadn't forced their actions they wouldn't have taken them.\n\nEntrapment is not simply offering an opportunity to break the law. An undercover officer saying \"Hey, want to buy some drugs?\" is not entrapment. Similarly an officer impersonating a minor willing to be taken advantage of isn't going to make a non-pedophile propose meeting them alone at night in order to have sex."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
46crpd | how do people on different continents communicate through the internet? is there a telephone line stretching across the ocean? | So like, some game servers can have north americans on a server, but europeans can still join it, how do the messages go to both places? If 2 people were in a chat room, but one guys was from NA and the other from EU, how does the NA computer tell the EU computer that it sent a message? Only way I can see it is telephone lines or radio waves, but both don't make sense. I really feel like I'm missing something here | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46crpd/eli5_how_do_people_on_different_continents/ | {
"a_id": [
"d043aey",
"d043bso",
"d044vqb",
"d046xww",
"d04ef33",
"d04l2t5"
],
"score": [
14,
204,
33,
3,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"There are cables sunken into the ocean, they provide the communications you are asking about. ",
" > Is there a telephone line stretching across the ocean?\n\nClose. Undersea cables. They're quite a lot bigger than a telephone line. [Here's what they look like](_URL_0_), and [here's a map of where they all connect from/to](_URL_1_).",
"Part of the confusion here might be that most people think of the Internet as this source of cheap or free entertainment and chats with friends.\n\nIn reality, communication is hugely valuable. You think laying subterranean cables is impressive today? Imagine the expense and effort needed in the days of the telegraph!\n\nTelecom infrastructure today is essential to banking and finance, transport of people, food and goods... not to mention military applications.",
"You're thinking of circuit switched networks (old home phone systems) vs. packet switched networks (internet). ELI5: in the old days, a single connection occupied the line, whereas now, a single connection is nothing more than a short burst through a line, and the line can handle millions of these short bursts at the same time.",
"You'll periodically see the undersea cables in the news when they break: _URL_0_",
"Yes, and in fact we tried to wiretap the Soviets through one of their lines in the 1970s. Sabotage [here](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://assets2.motherboard.tv/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/284ccab4ca387be16caa273652d018c2.jpg",
"http://www.submarinecablemap.com/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4267160&page=1"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells"
]
] |
|
2unkh0 | why can't we do like a hundred airstrikes a day against isis | We know what areas they control, why not bombard them constantly. People are talking about how these airstrikes aren't that effective, but we have the biggest air force in the world, why not do way more than we're doing now? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2unkh0/eli5why_cant_we_do_like_a_hundred_airstrikes_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"co9yhra",
"co9yoop",
"co9ys19",
"co9zgte",
"co9zluk",
"coa0857",
"coa0icw",
"coa1nwt",
"coa27yg",
"coa4s2e",
"coa9585",
"coab398",
"coafty5"
],
"score": [
82,
8,
31,
17,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
6,
39,
4
],
"text": [
"Air strikes are really expensive, and it would not get rid of the ideology of hate that ISIS embodies. This isn't a fight against people, it's a fight against ideas. Start bombing them daily, and ISIS says they're being killed because the enemies of god want them dead. ",
"You do realize that groups like this are only strengthened in number and reinforced in belief when a western country comes in with brute force and causes mass collateral damage, right. In fact, such tactics are part of what *created* these extremists in the first place. ",
"ISIS aren't exactly in big castles of evil. They're fortified in towns and villages containing people who aren't fighters, including women and children. If we launched air strikes against them, then they would be telling the truth when they say that the West murders innocents",
"Because you can't reliably tell what team someone plays for from the air.\n\nBecause civilian casualties inflicted by foreigners are a prime recruiting tool for groups like ISIS.\n",
"Combination of expense. A single tomahawk, or flight can cost 1 million or more. Drones are cheaper, but they are limited in numbers.\n\nAllies who lack the supplies. Seriously even the US can burn through our ordnance stockpiles are a scary fast pace. We even had to fly more bomb to France when they were bombing Libya. \n\nOpportunity costs. Every plane, ship, sub, or drone you use to strike ISIS or affiliated targets could be doing something else. sometimes those other things are just more important. \n\n",
"Air power doesn't win wars. We can very effectively degrade ISIS's military capabilities: i.e. deny it tanks, heavy weapons, bulk shipments of supplies (and the ability to ship out and sell oil), etc. etc. etc. but in the end they would be left with a butt load of AK-47s and concentrated inside Iraqi cities that they rule with force and fear and the only way to get them out of there would be to send ground troops in.\n\nAnd to do the above would neither be easy, cheap, or clean.",
"There's a lot more to putting warheads on foreheads then just pulling the trigger. I can only speak for the Navy side of the argument but the cost to operate a Carrier and its attached air wings is truly mind boggling. You have to account for the cost of running and maintaining dozens of high performance vehicles that are under a ton of stress every day, and to put it lightly it breaks all the time. Then you have to account for pre and post operations maintenance which can take hours to perform and must be done correctly because lives are at stake. All of this cost money (I've personally replaced parts costing almost half a million dollars) and man hours.\n\nSpeaking of man hours I can assure you that the people working on these ships and aircraft are not getting enough sleep and still working their butts off everyday. Modern operational tempos are brutal, they expect more and more work from an increasing smaller group of people. The human element means you have to give people rest, otherwise mistakes get made and the wrong people get hurt.\n\nTL;DR People operate the machines that drop the bombs. Sometimes those people need to sleep. Also have to get the machines that drop the bombs there and back again in one piece more or less.",
"Because there aren't a hundred different targets discovered every day. Need intel to drive targeting. That takes time.",
"We have very little intelligence of where the guys are on the groud at any given time, targets of oportunity are difficult when they hide among the regular population. I think the comment about how we have to be mindful of all the bobs out there is spot on, we can't just go to another country and level it to the ground whatever the reason, what's the point of that, if we leave the inocencet nothing left after it's over then they could be worse off than before we \"helped\".",
"I'd imagine that we ran our of good targets relatively quickly. Heavy equipment and fixed bases are easy to bomb, but those will all be destroyed or abandoned in relatively short time. ",
"Whats the difference between an ISIS training ground and a children's playground? \n\nDon't ask me I just fly the drones",
"Ex-military intelligence analyst here,\n\nThe limiting factor for air-strikes is identifying targets. If they know where a target is, and the target is going to be there by the time the airplane shows up, they will bomb it. However, people are very poor targets, since they tend to move around and be around other people we really don't want to hurt. It's also very hard to find 'bad humans' via satellite, as opposed to say trucks or artillery. By now ISIS will have adapted to the threat of airstrikes, and is avoiding doing things that expose their activities to our methods of detection (massing equipment, meeting in large groups, moving in convoys). One of benefits of our airstrikes isn't killing ISIS soldiers or destroying ISIS equipment, it's disrupting their ability to efficiently control the area and depriving them of options (they can no longer mass forces, etc) when they need to react to defend themselves. Of course it is also demoralizing them, many times more Iraqi's just walked away from their units in the Iraq War than were killed. Being under threat of air attack is very stressful and most people will choose to go do something else if they have the option.\n\n\nIn a target rich environment, such as the Gulf War, the limiting factor is the time it takes to return to base, refuel, and get back to the combat area. This is why aircraft carriers are so important, they move the base very close to the targets. Our aircraft could take off from Minnesota, bomb Isis, and return all the way to Minnesota, but then they would spend almost all their time 'commuting', whereas when they are doing missions from a carrier the time back to the ship is only a few minutes. This lets them either do more sorties, or linger over the combat area waiting for targets of opportunity. This all when there are lots of targets, we probably destroyed every truck and building we could identify as ISIS within a few hours of starting.",
"Read the top four comments and go no lower. Your I.Q doesn't deserve it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6s942o | what does daytime look like from other planets? | How bright is the sun? How big is it? Do other planets have eclipses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6s942o/eli5_what_does_daytime_look_like_from_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlb6pm8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Light intensity decreases really quickly so the further out you go, daytime looks darker and darker. If you are at Pluto it is not nearly as warm and bright as our sun...BUT it is still more than 400x brighter than our moonlight is. But it is coming from a tiny dot in the sky like a star in our night sky. \n\nSome planets are locked in place--they don't spin around while orbiting. As a result parts of the planets are always in daylight and other parts are fully at night. To see the light you have to go halfway around the planet. (Edit: not in our solar system, but elsewhere.)\n\nEclipses can happen elsewhere but you have to have the right conditions: the right sized moon at the right distance on the right plane. (Of course the further you are, the smaller the sun is, so more moons can create a solar eclipse.) mercury and Venus have no moons and therefore no eclipses. Eclipses can't happen on Mars because the moons aren't big enough to cover the sun. If you could live on the four gas giants you would definitely see eclipses (remember the sun gets smaller) and they have many moons. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
olfbg | how the 18th amendment to the american constitution happened. | IE Prohbition. I mean considering things like the Patriot Act and SOPA and PIPA maybe it is actually easier than americans make out to bind them but it still seems incredable the supposed leader of the free world was able to pass, albeit ultimately unsuccessfully, such a draconian measure. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/olfbg/eli5_how_the_18th_amendment_to_the_american/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3i8akw",
"c3ib9d2"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"The 18th Amendment was the result of decades of campaigning by temperance groups. While there had been anti-alcohol groups in America basically since the first settlers, a few thing came together to make Prohibition feasible:\n\n* Increasing involvement of women in politics. Alcohol was mainly seen as a man's problem that hurt women, so women's group made prohibition a major issue. The Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was probably the best known of the groups.\n\n* Hygiene, Public Health, & Wellness movements. All of these arose in the run-up to the passing of the Volstead Act in 1919. Alcohol was then able to be challenged not only as a moral evil, but as a social ill and health problem.\n\n* Growing religiosity. The [Third Great Awakening](_URL_0_) took place in the latter half of the 19th Century. This led to a great deal of people either renewing their faith, or adopting a more fundamentalist view. Often this movement went hand in hand with the women's movement mentioned above.\n\n* Straight up old school racism. The US had just experience a large influx of Irish and Italian immigrants (along with Germans and Eastern Europeans). Even then these groups had a reputation for being lazy drunks and, worse, they were *shudder* Catholics. Temperance groups were able to use stereotypes of hard-drinking immigrants to contrast with \"traditional American\" virtues of hard-work and sobriety.\n\nAll of these issues came together to make enacting Prohibition a good idea, even by people who did drink. ",
"I also find it hard to believe that two-thirds of Congress and 36 state legislatures could approve such an amendment, but one of the reasons this happened was that the supporters of Prohibition (Wayne Wheeler and the Anti-Saloon League, and the various women's temperance societies) would support any political candidate who supported Prohibition, no matter what their other policies might be. Basically, \"You like Prohibition? We like you.\" By using their minority voting bloc to give the edge to pro-Prohibition candidates, they could secure legislative majorities and pass the necessary laws.\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the book \"Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition\" by Daniel Okrent. There are several interviews with the author floating around on the net [here](_URL_0_), [here](_URL_2_), [here](_URL_1_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening"
],
[
"http://www.npr.org/2010/05/10/126613316/prohibition-life-politics-loopholes-and-bathtub-gin",
"http://www.radioparallax.com/File/092911B.mp3",
"http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-7-2010/daniel-okrent"
]
] |
|
68w4pc | why is it so hard to properly replicate the quality of restaurant/takeaway food such as curries/chicken/pizzas at home? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68w4pc/eli5why_is_it_so_hard_to_properly_replicate_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh1r8md",
"dh1rc4r",
"dh1rh67",
"dh1rwhm"
],
"score": [
3,
50,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Not familiar with Curries. I would assume the time it takes to layer the flavors. \n\nChicken is all about the seasoning and cooking style. Easy to make better at home. \n\nPizza, is not as simple unless you have the proper oven to reach the temp for the style you are cooking, plus the correct sized pans. \n\n",
"The biggest thing is that your home kitchen sucks. A commercial pizza oven will be running at 7-800 degrees while most home ovens top out at 550F. The wok burner in a Chinese restaurant is rated something like 100k BTU of heat while your home range puts out 5-10k. Fried chicken restaurants have specialized chicken deep-friers while, at home, you have a little pot of oil that gets cold again as soon as you add the bird to it.\n\nAfter that, the next biggest difference is that most home cooks don't put anywhere near enough butter & salt in their food.",
"It depends on the food. One big thing a restaurant has going for them is that they make that food a lot. They've got the oven/griddle/whatever at the exact right temperature (because they've done this before), and a guy who works 5-6 days a week is making that same dish he's been making all the time for the last year.\n\nAnother is specialized ingredients and equipment. It's easy for a restaurant to get a big box of chicken carcasses to make stock withm it's relatively easy for them to get ingredients like tamarind for thai food at a decent price, and so on. If they're making neapolitan pizza, they're likely to have an oven that cranks to 1,000F, which your oven can't do (except on the cleaning cycle).\n\nIn reality a lot of this stuff can be replicated (or even improved) at home quite well. It just takes time, effort, some research, and practice. Poking around the internet you can find hacks that people have made to get around the need for special equipment at home. For instance, some pizza aficionados will cut the lock off their oven and cook pizza on the cleaning cycle.",
"The above comments cover it. One trick I have for pizza is to turn off the oven a few minutes before recommended time and turn on high broil. This will brown the cheese and get the veggies well cooked. You can even add more cheese as the broiler heats to brown"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
m92c6 | how does the electoral college/delegates work in the election process? | I've never fully understood the process, and it finally dawned on me that this subreddit is a fantastic place to gather a better understanding.
Why do we need the electoral college, and what role do delegates play in this? How are the delegates chosen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m92c6/eli5_how_does_the_electoral_collegedelegates_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2z2t2g",
"c2z4ks4",
"c2z2t2g",
"c2z4ks4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Each state has a set number of electoral votes. Generally, these people cast their vote for whoever wins that states popular vote. It isn't 100% though, theoretically the electoral voters can vote for who they want and different states have different rules and guidelines. \n\nPeople generally don't like the overall design of the system because it doesn't reflect population very well. The degree by which a candidate wins doesn't matter, as long as they win by 51%. So if you take a state like Massachusetts, which always goes Democratic, there's less incentive for other Democrats to vote, knowing that regardless their state will go for their candidate. \n\n\n",
"CGPGrey goes an amazing job of explaining all of this. This is a link to a part of his \"Grey Explains\" playlist that sums up the Electoral College:\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n I highly recommend watching the entire playlist to understand why the EC is so inferior to other voting systems.",
"Each state has a set number of electoral votes. Generally, these people cast their vote for whoever wins that states popular vote. It isn't 100% though, theoretically the electoral voters can vote for who they want and different states have different rules and guidelines. \n\nPeople generally don't like the overall design of the system because it doesn't reflect population very well. The degree by which a candidate wins doesn't matter, as long as they win by 51%. So if you take a state like Massachusetts, which always goes Democratic, there's less incentive for other Democrats to vote, knowing that regardless their state will go for their candidate. \n\n\n",
"CGPGrey goes an amazing job of explaining all of this. This is a link to a part of his \"Grey Explains\" playlist that sums up the Electoral College:\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n I highly recommend watching the entire playlist to understand why the EC is so inferior to other voting systems."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&feature=BFa&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62&lf=list_related"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&feature=BFa&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62&lf=list_related"
]
] |
|
dr54n8 | why does hot air feel "windy"? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dr54n8/eli5_why_does_hot_air_feel_windy/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6f519q",
"f6f58lh"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The short answer is convection currents. Hot air rises. When you have something like a heater that creates a large temperature difference, that hot air rises faster. This can create a windy effect. In fact this is the reason for tornadoes and hurricanes as well.",
"If air is hot enough for you to feel it, it's probably coming from/off a source of heat (out of an oven or fire.) That means, as warm air does, it's rising from said heat source."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
74kxzk | what is bureaucracy and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74kxzk/eli5_what_is_bureaucracy_and_how_does_it_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnz6h9y"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Bureaucracy is making policies and rules that govern a large group of people. In government, the bureaucrats are non-elected people that manage the population in day to day affairs that require government intervention. Since it would be impossible to manage people on a case by case basis, bureaucrats seek to standardize elements of society so that the procedures and rules apply to all people. Things that require government intervention includes: driver's licenses, marriage licenses, property management, taxes, etc.\n\nThe main purpose of bureaucracy is to simplify government interactions. If everything is standard, the government doesn't need to spend too much time and money to make individual judgement on all elements of society. However, bureaucracy is often criticized because it often gets too complicated and ignores the unique characteristics of each case.\n\nLet's say you want to build a house. Instead of having a government official personally review your request and research all elements of it, the government creates a step by step process that you allows to build a house. This include permits, application forms, etc. You fill in forms A1, B2, C3, and get permit D4. These forms contain all the info the government needs and organizes it in a way that it is easy for them to process. One person can go through hundreds of these forms a day, instead of taking a week or so to individually go through all the elements. \n The process is easy... if all goes well. \n\nAs life is full of surprises, nothing is as easy as it seems. For example, let's say you run a website from your computer that will be located in your new house. According to the government, you need permit E5 to own a property that earns income. You need to fill in form F6 to get permit E5, but doing so requires a G7 application. Don't forget, each of these forms must be handed in by person to different people and the lineup is about 3 hours for each and they each cost $100. As you can see, you are falling down a rabbit hole of requirements. If you were able to explain that your income is web based and is not dependent on the property, you would be approved with any extra headache. Unfortunately, since this is a variation the forms did not anticipate, you are shit out of luck."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3sqe94 | why does a major site like reddit go down when a global event (like paris, today) happens? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sqe94/eli5_why_does_a_major_site_like_reddit_go_down/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwzj18k",
"cwzj7mk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Reddit did not go down today. I have been here for most of the day and have had absolutely no issues with the site going down. ",
"None of us are involved with reddit finance or reddit operations, anything here is speculation. Try r/help or r/theoryofreddit"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5tlp8h | is it possible or practical to divert excess surface water down to a aquifer to replenish the groundwater? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tlp8h/eli5_is_it_possible_or_practical_to_divert_excess/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddndu5n",
"ddne0q7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This was the exact topic of a recent (within 5 days) NPR report!\n\nI don't have a link for you, but if you search _URL_0_ I'm sure you'll find it.\n\nIt may have been during \"Here & Now\".\n\nThe bottom line was that it may actually turn the drought situation in CA around.\n\nEdit: [Here is another article. Not the one I was thinking about though.](_URL_1_)",
"it is called deep well injection here in Florida. Yes it's possible and proven but it is expensive to do so most areas don't consider it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"NPR.org",
"https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2016/01/26/california-farmers-flood-fields-with-el-nino-rain"
],
[]
] |
||
2akela | how are spam and popups still a thing? | Marketing is not like it used to be. The new face of advertising tries to be friendly, helpful, and, when it can, unobtrusive. How and why, then, are things like old fashioned spam and popups still around?
My thought is that these types of advertisements can't be that effective anymore. Wouldn't whoever is paying to have these things made start to realize that they're wasting their money? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2akela/eli5_how_are_spam_and_popups_still_a_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciw0z5c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Advertising is a very results oriented industry. Results matter. If people don't click on them, people will stop paying for them. It's natural selection of advertising methods. If they didn't work, they would go away. While most savvy internet users would never click on a pop-up, you'd be surprised how many internet-illiterate people do. You would be horrified. Those are the people that make them worthwhile."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2991wn | why do people think anne coulter is a satirist? | Whenever Anne Coulter says something outrageous I always see apologists posting about how some of her work is satire and should be taken lightly. Is this true? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2991wn/eli5why_do_people_think_anne_coulter_is_a_satirist/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciil8h3",
"ciiledj",
"ciilfep",
"ciillav",
"ciiltle",
"ciim0bc"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
7,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there's only so much stupid people are willing to accept exists. Anne Coulter exceeds this value.",
"I had mentioned this in another post here on the new page, but I feel like she's an act (or at least mostly an act). To me, the tell is her relationship with Bill Maher. While I don't think she's a left wing person in disguise, she has a lot of Andy Kaufmann in her. \n\nShe made a statement yesterday that Americans interest in World Cup soccer is a sign of moral decay. It's INSANE to think that, and also kind of hilarious. She said it to get into the news. If she had said \"meh, I don't like soccer.\" no one pays attention.\n\nI don't know if satire is the right term (that's more of what Stephen Colbert does), but it's definitely a form of \"political professional wrestling.\"",
"It's more accurate to say she's pandering instead of satirizing.\n\nSatire would imply that she is poking fun of the conservative position, which she's not. She takes the conservative position and exaggerates it to keep her name in the headlines and to stoke her follower's emotions.",
"\\**hope* she's a satirist",
"It's best summed up as Poe's law.\n\nFrom Wikipedia:\n\n > Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.\n\n\nPoe's original statement, from which it was derived, was\n > Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.\n",
"She is the Right Wing equivalent of the haggling merchant who names a price higher than he actually expects to get for the item so that when he's haggled down, the ending price will still give him a healthy profit. She creates a far-right-wacko point to the diaspora of Right-wing and Right-wing vs Left-wing such that when calmer, more rational people try to find the center (of the Republicans, of American politics, whatever), she skews that point more towards right and wacko than it actually is. As such, she doesn't actually need to be respected by the Right (for plausible deniability when someone tries to entrap them into agreeing with her), just accepted as a part of the big tent. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4xg4rs | why does a "normal" guitar have 6 stings but a bass guitar has 4 | As someone learning to play the "normal" guitar, I was a little curious | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xg4rs/eli5_why_does_a_normal_guitar_have_6_stings_but_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6f6fc7",
"d6f6n4x",
"d6fhcwu",
"d6fkybj"
],
"score": [
16,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The bass guitar is a replacement for the upright double bass - the one that looks like a really big cello. That, like the rest of the orchestra string instruments, has 4 strings, so the electric bass kept that arrangement.",
"The guitar started out with four strings but more were gradually added to give the instrument a wider range. The bass guitar has 4 strings because it replicates the double bass. ",
"Just from a practical perspective, a guitar plays in a higher range and doesn't need as thick strings so the nut and bridge can have strings spaced closer on the neck without one hitting the other. A bass needs large thick strings to play lower without a really long neck, so they have to be spaced further apart. \n\nYou could make the neck wider, and many manufacturers do. But that makes the instrument more difficult to play. In addition the bass is a solid rhythm instrument, whereas the guitar doubles as a solo and rhythm instrument in music. As a result it needs a wider range, or more strings. \n\nAnd lastly when it comes to actual music composition it's bad practice to have \"crossed voices\" or multiple instruments playing in the same range at a given time. That means the bass doesn't really want to be chilling in the same range as rhythm guitar, so when you extend the range you go down instead of up. Hence the low B string on a 5 string bass. ",
"Not always, Phil Lesh has been playing a six string bass for at least 30 years now. Cut to second minute of [video!](_URL_0_). Notice he plays the bass like a lead guitar, meaning he does not pluck but picks. I think he is one of the best bassists who has ever graced the planet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w00PCSbaYIU"
]
] |
|
1ou8b4 | the i-work-two-hours-from-home-and-make-thousands scam | how does the scam exactly work? and why has it persevered over the years? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ou8b4/eli5_the_iworktwohoursfromhomeandmakethousands/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccvne1m"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Pyramid scheme: basically, you are considered an owner, so you don't get a wage, but most of the profits from what you are selling go to the distributors, suppliers and whoever contracted you to sell for them, so there is very little money left for you. The person who contracted you is usually the main reason there is no money left. They buy the product and sell it for a profit to you so you can sell it to a profit to someone else, but they don't actually care if you sell anything, just as long as you are buying the product from them. Now your stuck with a garage full of vitamins that you can't sell but have already paid for."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3pawti | why are there so much stigma against the poor and disabled on welfare? | For example, if I mention that I'm on disability and have welfare because I cannot work, I get the "oh, you're cheating the system, stop being so lazy and work!" response.
Why?
Isn't welfare and disability there to help you get back on your feet (if you can work) and to help you survive so you won't starve in the streets (if you can't work)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pawti/eli5_why_are_there_so_much_stigma_against_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw4q1h5",
"cw4r8nj",
"cw4rmsa",
"cw4u0ya"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The main problem is that those who can work don't. Don't think many have a problem with those who are unable to work due to a disability ",
"You're being judged for the actions of frauds. It's kinda the reverse of \"some people have thyroid issues, so you can't judge any fat f**ks riding in motorized scooters at Wal-Mart because who are you to judge, you don't know them!\". Some people commit disability fraud. Or they're on welfare because they're too good to go work at McDonald's for min wage. So you get judged on that standard, not on maybe you really do have a disability.\nAlso, mental illness isn't seen as a disability by a lot of people in the US. You have debilitating anxiety, suck it up. Personally, on the one hand, I do know people that should be on SSI for mental issues, on the other, I know quite a few people that are just stupid and lazy. \nAlso, the rhetoric people see from politicians backs up their anectdotal evidence. You ever get behind someone at Wal-Mart that's talking on their iPhone 6 and paying for their groceries with a foodstamp(EBT) card while at the same time complaining to the cashier that the steaks they're buying this time better not be as dry as the one's they bought last time? I haven't, but I was the cashier for stuff like that. And I wasn't able to afford any of it on my salary.",
"part of this is the way that welfare and disability are administered...and i lay the blame at the feet of the legislators and the bureaucracy that runs those government agencies.\n\nall i have is anecdotal evidence from the persons in my neighborhood who are on disability, or who are paying a lawyer to help them get on disability.\n\ngetting on disability can be such an expensive, onerous process that once one is given disability status, there is *every* incentive to *not* be dropped from disability...because it is so difficult to get the disability designation and benefits.\n\none lady i know is now physically fine, but she is purposely working off the books and continuing to maintain doctor office visits in order to maintain her status.\n\nshe is so worried (she's 55-ish) that she will never get a good job with benefits again, that she will do *anything* (her word) to keep the disability status because she needs the Medicaid...for the next 10 years or so.\n\nin a way i can sympathize with her, but in a way...it also pisses me off.\n\ni lost my job at 58 1/2 years old, and i knew i was never going to get another good job with benefits, but i had saved up enough that i was able to survive until 59 1/2 so i could withdraw from my 401(k).\n\ni can't afford obamacare, and i'm having to go without any medical or dental insurance until i get Medicare at 65.\n\nthere is definitely abuse of the system...by the people designated, *AND* by the medical industry...in order to inflate the amount of money paid to the medical practitioners who will accept Medicaid patients.\n\nthere are also many who have serious health problems due to accidents or other life circumstances.\n\nmy only wish would be that there was more actual assistance in the form of life changes for those with disability. by this, mean actual physical therapy participation, including daily participation in physical activities designed to improve life situations, not just perpetuate bad habits and bad situations.\n\ni also realize that my comments will be unpopular, but they are based on my neighbors in my neighborhood...and one friend who used to live in los angeles before dying imprisoned in a bed due to obesity and ruinous life habits...though she was a smart, good person.",
"Are you actually disabled and can't work? If not, that is a pretty good reason why people would think you are cheating the system when you tell them that.\n\nHidden disabilities are a thing. But you know what? So is fraud, and laziness."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21s6v7 | i've heard that most of the heat generated on a space shuttles reentry is due to compressed air, but i thought as pressure goes up, the temperature goes down. | If mmost of the heat is from compressed air, why doesn't that cool the air in front of it. Arent pressure and temperature inversely related? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21s6v7/eli5_ive_heard_that_most_of_the_heat_generated_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgfzvqp",
"cgg0avo"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"As pressure goes up, temperature also goes up if you hold the volume constant (which is essentially happening when with [ram pressure](_URL_1_), as there's no way for the air to get out of the way fast enough). That's part of [Gay-Lussac's law](_URL_0_).",
"The ideal gas law reads like this: P\\*V = n\\*r\\*T\n\nP = Pressure \nV = Volume \nn = amount of gas \nr = gas constant \nT = Temperature\n\nIf Pressure increases and Volume and amount of gas is constant, then the Temperature also has to increase."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-Lussac's_law#Pressure-temperature_law",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_pressure"
],
[]
] |
|
14vh89 | how communism is theoretically supposed to lead to a classless and stateless society? | I have an odd fascination with communist history but never was able to dive into of the readings. How did Karl Marx a classless and stateless society would actually come about and then function? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14vh89/eli5_how_communism_is_theoretically_supposed_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7gwerj",
"c7gwxsg"
],
"score": [
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Please see /r/DebateCommunism, /r/Communism101, and /r/PathofCapital for a better response. There's plenty of Marxists around here in the shadows of Reddit and we don't like to come out much...",
"There are several different strands of communist thought, so I'll be explaining only classical/orthodox Marxism. The transition, a prediction which Marx made in an objective scientific manner, is based on dialectical materialism and historical dialectics... which are just fancy ways of saying that:\n\n(1) all development in human civilization can be analyzed in the form of *thesis*, *antithesis*, and *synthesis* -- two opposite ideas struggle with one another until this tension is relieved by reconciling the two ideas to result in a new idea;\n\n(2) this *dialectic* (the above) is wholly concerned with *material* aspects, i.e. production of goods, meaning that civilization's development is wholly a story of economic relations (the *base*), whereby all other manifestations are merely outgrowths (the *superstructure*);\n\n(3) the major conflict in human history is of *class struggle*, the product of *social stratification*, particularly between two major classes, the *proletariat* (the workers, who labor and thus create^1 wealth) and those who are unproductive and live off of the proletariat's fruits of labor (in capitalism, this is the *bourgeoisie*, the capitalists, who exploit the proletariat).\n\nTo elaborate, Marx was a man very interested in political economy and spent much time researching industrial capitalist economics, seeking to develop a theories to explain the changes around him. In these pursuits Marx developed a *labor theory of value* (LTV), in which all goods ultimately derived their worth from the amount of productive labor that had to go into them.\n\nUsing this logic, Marx had trouble understanding where profits come from; where does this extra worth come from? How can a capitalist make money off of selling the products of labor? Where does this wealth *come from*? Ultimately Marx concluded that this *surplus value* must be sourced in the labor of the workers who produce the goods, and thus the bourgeoisie are little more than parasites, exploiting their workers.\n\nNow, Marx attempted to analyze human history using this notion of historical dialectics, and identified several different periods of history; the first was primitive communism, of the hunter-gatherer kind, followed by slave society, in which the idea of the *state* emerges, feudalism, in which workers are tied to land, and lastly capitalism, characterized by market economy, wage labor, and private property.\n\nMarx believed the transitions between these stages (and thus the history of human civilization) can be explained by dialectical materialism, evaluated in terms of production and class struggle. Marx believed class struggle had been amplified following the industrial revolution. In capitalism, workers sell their productive abilities, and are thus *alienated* from their labor, losing their sense of identity; in fact, workers are controlled by the bourgeoisie in the interests of this ruling class, used as little more than instruments of production. Capitalism then was a system which hinged on abuse of the worker by the bourgeoisie and thus class struggle would not allow it to survive.\n\nWhat Marx believed was to happen was a new major transitional stage into a society ruled by workers, the *dictatorship of the proletariat*, as a result of this natural class struggle, particularly *class consciousness*, the education of the naive workers, so as to make them aware of their exploitation and lack of power. The resulting economy would be run by workers amongst themselves, owning their own capital (e.g. factories), for themselves, free of bourgeois exploitation. Marx believed some remnants of past stages would remain, e.g. the price mechanism, the state, etc.\n\nAs this trend precipitates around the globe, without the capitalist elite to oppose them anymore, Marx believed \"perfection\" would be reached, leaving the entire world to be governed by workers, and thus without the bourgeois outgrowths of the class inequality of capitalism and its predecessors (i.e. the state, religion, private property -- all tools of a more powerful class to exploit the workers). Goods and services are produced by all workers for all others, \"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.\" This ultimate final stage is communism, and Marx believed it was inevitable as human civilization progressed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2mshnt | what is a panic attack. what do i do if i come home and see my housemate suffering from one. | I witnessed one of these this morning. I think I used to have them when I was little but remember nothing of them. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mshnt/eli5_what_is_a_panic_attack_what_do_i_do_if_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm75h4l",
"cm75q1k",
"cm75xvk"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
8
],
"text": [
"Deep breaths to ten and back. The key is to be rational regardless of their behavior.",
"I am not a doctor. This is not medical advice, but I have lived with three different people prone to panic attacks and learned this that way:\n\n**What happens during a panic attack**\n\n(Please note: there may be other things at play: this is the \"what happens\" that I know about, and I believe is most common, as I know several people who suffered from these.)\n\nA panic attack is triggered by something - often specific to the person suffering, or sometimes they just happen on their own.\n\nThe panic response (in everyone) triggers heavy breathing to get as much oxygen into the blood as possible ready for a fight-or-flight response.\n\nHowever, in a panic attack this heavy breathing (hyperventilating) is overdone, and it actually makes it harder to breath.\n\nThe sensation of not being able to breath causes new waves of panic, and so it continues.\n\n**What you can do**\n\nFirstly, do not panic yourself.\n\nThe first time I saw someone have a panic attack I thought she was choking on someone, and started trying to hit her on the back. That wasn't so helpful, as it turned out.\n\nYou should be the paragon of calm. A panic attack is not dangerous. If someone really overdoes the hyperventilating they will trigger a \"breathing reset\" sort of thing, which sorts out their breathing and they quickly calm down. Even if this doesn't happen (which I've never known to happen) the worst that can happen is that they'll fall asleep, but anyway.\n\nSecondly, be comforting.\n\nOne person I knew who was prone to them had flashbacks to a traumatic event that triggered her. By hugging her closely, and talking to her I'd override her flashback-senses with real-world-here-and-now senses and bring her out of the flashback and she'd calm down quickly.\n\nTo her I said things like \"You're okay, you're safe. You're here with me now. Look at me, nothing here can hurt you ... \" etc ...\n\nAnother person I knew had more random ones. With her I'd do the same, but try to get her to focus on deep breaths.\n\nWith a third person I tried the deep breaths thing, but she said it only made her want to punch me, only she was too deep into panic mode to do so. With her I'd just hold her, try to say calming things and use the tightness of my grip (tighter, gentler, etc...) to try to subtly adjust her breathing and found that worked.\n\nThirdly, talk to them. Some people don't like talking about it, but you can talk about how to help them. This means you find out what makes certain people want to punch you, or useful things like the \"bring them out of flashbacks\" and stuff.",
"As someone who suffers from panic attacks on occasion, a great thing to do is to start reading off the symptoms of a panic attack. Unless they're panicking over something external, most people having a panic attack mistake it for a heart attack. Tingling in extremities, rapid heartbeat (caused by all that fast breathing) and so on.\n\nTry putting on a metronome (you can get apps for a smartphone) to help whoever's panicking get a sense of time passing. When you're panicking, your brain starts perceiving everything faster and time slows down. This will also help regulate their breathing. A good pace for breathing is 4-7-8: in for four, hold for seven, out for eight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3k930o | why are glow in the dark items generally always translucent green? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k930o/eli5_why_are_glow_in_the_dark_items_generally/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuvnm3u",
"cuvnvfp"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My guess is because green glow in the dark items last alot longer and are brighter than any other color.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"Human eye is most sensitive to the green color. \n\nThere is glow in dark red blue purple white yellow etc colors."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/strontium-aluminate-photoluminescence-Glow-in-the_1257089590.html?spm=a2700.7724838.35.1.eQfeZ4"
],
[]
] |
||
8b5072 | how can an odor be contained? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8b5072/eli5_how_can_an_odor_be_contained/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx41qw1",
"dx4bxb9"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"An odor is a series of particles dispersed in the air that land in your nose and dissolve on your epithelium in your nose, which then signals the brain about what just dissolved on it, which is what we perceive as smells. \n\nSo, anything that can contain particles dispersed in air can contain an odor. It would have to be an airtight, imoermwable container.",
"Odors are chemicals that come off certain things and get into your nose.\n\nIf you prevent them from getting into your nose, you won't smell them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
bjovaj | why does the same speed feel much faster in narrower roads? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjovaj/eli5_why_does_the_same_speed_feel_much_faster_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ema2npo",
"ema3dan"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Your perception of safety? \n\nGoing 80 down a freeway when you can clearly see everything straight in front of you, know that you have plenty of time to slow down as needed, and a shoulder to veer into if necessary is vastly different than going 80 down a side road with no shoulder and the possibility of hitting a curve or a sudden stop, and the knowledge that if you’re doing 80 you won’t be able to make that stop.\n\nThe condition of the road itself can also play into it.\n\nI honestly just think it’s your brain registering a more potential threat.",
"It's about how quickly what is in your field of vision passes out of your field of vision. Imagine being on a narrow road. Now point at a tree that is 45° to the left. Let's say at your current speed it takes 1 second for that tree to be out of sight behind you. Now widen the road. Pick another tree still at 45°, even though the angel is the same, the distance ahead is greater and at the same speed will take longer to be out of sight. This apparent slower speed of the objects around is an illusion."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1t8rq2 | "information is neither created nor destroyed" | A recent post led me to wonder, as I had never heard of it before, how some scientists believe information is neither created nor destroyed. How is this possible? How did we discover this? Thanks for any explanations.
EDIT: My title is in correct, it should be "Information can't be lost". This was inspired by this ELI5 post, top comment: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t8rq2/eli5information_is_neither_created_nor_destroyed/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce5jzbn",
"ce5kngo"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Okay, so what they are talking about is essentially information on a \"quantum\" or at least microscopic level. Consider a collection of some amount of different particles, and assume that we have maximal information about them. In a classical world, this would mean that we would know the position and velocity (and all other properties) of each particle. But in quantum mechanics, we have the famous Heisenberg uncertainty, so we can't know exactly, there must be some uncertainty. Nevertheless, also in the quantum case we have some information, with some uncertainty. Now, to say that information can't be destroyed is to say that the amount of uncertainty shouldn't increase with time. So we should keep the same \"amount\" of information about the system as it evolves with time. \n\nIt is clear if you think about it classical mechanics: if we know where all particles are and how they are moving right now, we can calculate where they are at any future or past time. The same thing is true in quantum mechanics, its just that we now have some uncertainty (so all we really can compute is probabilities), but our total information should stay the same.\n\nOf course, this type of information, and way of talking about it, is quite far removed from the everyday concept, and it is surely not very useful most of the time. From a standard point of view, if you burn a book, all the information in it is lost. But from a theoretical physics standpoint, with the information concept explained above, there is really equally much information in the ash and the smoke, as in the original book, so no information was really destroyed. ",
"The information contained in a physical system is *everything* that is needed to describe it. We can just stick to classical mechanics to explain this concept. You don't need quantum mechanics to understand it. \n\nLet's say you have a box filled with air at room temperature. The *information* in that box is the exact state of every single particle in the box. Where they are, how they're moving, etc. Let's say at some specific time you write all that down. Everything about the particles. You take your paper and turn it upside down so no one can see what's on it.\n\nThen a minute later another physicist walk into the room. He does the same thing. Writes down everything about the particles. The question now is, can he guess what was on your paper? Can he take his paper and calculate a minute backwards and figure it out? If he cannot, then that means there are multiple pasts that could explain the present. In a sense, the box has 'forgotten' what the past was. This would mean information about the past had been lost. \n\nThe black hole ordeal comes from the idea that even if you threw the box into a black hole, the other physicist would *still* be able to guess what was on your paper. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t6972/eli5_the_paper_holographic_description_of_quantum/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
19wcwz | how are jellyfish even possible? like their structural make up just looks incomplete and vulnerable, yet they are one of the most dangerous of creatures? and no brains! | You can see right through them and its like they have nothing. What gives? I heard a certain species is immortal too?! Like it can program itself to be born again? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19wcwz/how_are_jellyfish_even_possible_like_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8rxkhy"
],
"score": [
63
],
"text": [
"Jellyfish may not have a brain, but they have a rough nervous system and innate behaviours. However, they are very simple creatures. They're invertebrate: creatures without a backbone. Most jellyfish have really short life spans. Sometimes just a couple of hours. The \"immortal\" ones you're thinking of are [Turritopsis nutricula](_URL_3_), which can basically revert to an earlier stage after they become sexually active. However, they aren't really immortal. None have ever survived past a few generations (they're still vulnerable to disease and other faults). We just think that they may have the potential to be immortal, but it's never been observed.\n\nSeeing through them isn't anything special, though. Your eye has transparent components. Imagine at as being on a larger scale. There's [frogs that are partially transparent](_URL_1_), as well as [butterflies](_URL_2_) and [fish](_URL_0_).\n\nAs their name implies, they are largely composed of basically jelly inside a thin membrane. They're over 95% water. If you're wondering, the jelly stuff is called \"mesoglea\".\n\nAnd they are very vulnerable. Their form handles pressure well because it's mostly water, but their \"skin\" is really vulnerable. They don't usually have eyes, but some, like the [box jellyfish](_URL_4_), do. Some are capable of basic light detection, though.\n\nAnyway, Jellyfish are their own predators: a number of jellyfish eat other types of jellyfish. Otherwise, they'll eat whatever small fish and similar animals they can find. You've probably seen their potent stingers. They may be vulnerable creatures, but some of them have venoms strong enough to kill a human (and a good handful of people die every year).\n\nYou should not that peeing on jellyfish stings don't actually help (in fact, it can make it worse). Vinegar may be helpful. You need to remove any tentacles, of course. Scrape the area clean to ensure you remove all toxic cells (called nematocysts; they're basically exploding cells)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_goby",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_frog",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_oto",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_jellyfish"
]
] |
|
ev2f9n | how does bird vision work? | The pigeons on my kitchen window sill like to watch me. However, when they look at me with one eye, their other eye is looking in the opposite direction. Are they processing two separate images at once? Is it like a sort of peripheral vision where what they see on the other side doesn't take away from their central focus? I'm mostly curious about what it is like to see as a bird. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ev2f9n/eli5_how_does_bird_vision_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffsy3pu"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"pigeons have basically 360° vision. its like having peripherals all the way around you. you can focus on something directly in your line of vision, but still be able to kinda see thinga around you, like when something moves in the corner of your eye."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
j9250 | (li5) explain the collapse of world trade center building 7 | The *official* explanation I mean not outside theories. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j9250/li5_explain_the_collapse_of_world_trade_center/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2a69zr",
"c2a69zr"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The official explanation is this. \n\nA peice of smoldering steel, or large burning item fell from one of the WTC 1 or 2 into the face of WTC7. It caught a massive fire in the floors 4-5. This fire spread out of control, and weakened a large \"transfer\" truss, which is basically just a big steal beam that runs from one column (or \"pole\") to another column. These \"transfer trusses\" are designed to pick up a large load and \"transfer it\" from one location to another. Well, the theory is that this one single \"transfer\" truss, when it was weakened, collapsed. When this happened the massive internal building loads it was carrying collapsed in and caused something of a cascading effect. Bringing down the whole building. Also, the official \"report\" (which i've read) says a team of \"engineers' modeled the building's collapse \"proving\"* that a loss of the transfer truss could cause the collapse. \n\n\n*STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHY THAT EXPLANATION IS IMPOSSIBLE* \n\nIf you read the official reports, no explanation is given as to how this giant smoldering steel piece from WTC1/2 made it's way into the interior of WTC7 (There was no hole in the roof). The theory is that it came through the front facade. Well, if that is the case, the peice smashed through the 6th floor into the 5th floor (as shown in pictures of WTC7). The transfer truss was on the 7th floor, which in theory would have given fire crews ample time to extinguish the fire. \n\n \nClaiming that the perfect collapse-implosion of the structure in perfect symmetry due to a single transfer truss is bat-shit insane. Looking at the structural framing of the building, even if the transfer truss collapsed, the remaining interior columns including the exterior skin would have been intact, keeping MOST of the building perfectly sound. Even if it had collapsed, perfect implosion is impossible with only a single member missing. Buildings are designed to remain standing with the loss of any member. \n\nFinally, the \"model\" that these \"engineers\" created, completely neglected the structural support of the exterior building facade, and also assumed that MOST MEMBERS WERE ALSO WEAKENED BY FIRE. Even though, there is conclusive PROOF that the fire in WTC7 was localized, and UNDER CONTROL. Finally, the strength of the structural connections in their model is in serious question, as several engineers have run their own models and have not seen the same collapse that these 'engineers' saw. \n\n-I am a structural engineer.",
"The official explanation is this. \n\nA peice of smoldering steel, or large burning item fell from one of the WTC 1 or 2 into the face of WTC7. It caught a massive fire in the floors 4-5. This fire spread out of control, and weakened a large \"transfer\" truss, which is basically just a big steal beam that runs from one column (or \"pole\") to another column. These \"transfer trusses\" are designed to pick up a large load and \"transfer it\" from one location to another. Well, the theory is that this one single \"transfer\" truss, when it was weakened, collapsed. When this happened the massive internal building loads it was carrying collapsed in and caused something of a cascading effect. Bringing down the whole building. Also, the official \"report\" (which i've read) says a team of \"engineers' modeled the building's collapse \"proving\"* that a loss of the transfer truss could cause the collapse. \n\n\n*STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHY THAT EXPLANATION IS IMPOSSIBLE* \n\nIf you read the official reports, no explanation is given as to how this giant smoldering steel piece from WTC1/2 made it's way into the interior of WTC7 (There was no hole in the roof). The theory is that it came through the front facade. Well, if that is the case, the peice smashed through the 6th floor into the 5th floor (as shown in pictures of WTC7). The transfer truss was on the 7th floor, which in theory would have given fire crews ample time to extinguish the fire. \n\n \nClaiming that the perfect collapse-implosion of the structure in perfect symmetry due to a single transfer truss is bat-shit insane. Looking at the structural framing of the building, even if the transfer truss collapsed, the remaining interior columns including the exterior skin would have been intact, keeping MOST of the building perfectly sound. Even if it had collapsed, perfect implosion is impossible with only a single member missing. Buildings are designed to remain standing with the loss of any member. \n\nFinally, the \"model\" that these \"engineers\" created, completely neglected the structural support of the exterior building facade, and also assumed that MOST MEMBERS WERE ALSO WEAKENED BY FIRE. Even though, there is conclusive PROOF that the fire in WTC7 was localized, and UNDER CONTROL. Finally, the strength of the structural connections in their model is in serious question, as several engineers have run their own models and have not seen the same collapse that these 'engineers' saw. \n\n-I am a structural engineer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6j6hdr | why do they always call it "scrambling the jets" instead of just "launching the jets" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6j6hdr/eli5_why_do_they_always_call_it_scrambling_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"djbxlqh",
"djbxvqz"
],
"score": [
7,
8
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n > to move with urgency or panic\n\n > to take off quickly in response to an alert\n\n\"Scramble\" doesn't just mean launch the jet, it means to launch in a hurry in response to an enemy threat.\n",
"The phrase originated with the Royal Air Force in the Second World War. Because long range detection of enemy aircraft was difficult fighter pilots had to be ready to launch on very short notice. That meant wherever they were, and whatever they were doing, when the alarm sounded they sprinted to their fighters.\n\nI imagine a dozen fighter pilots bolting out of the mess all at once looks quite a bit like a scramble."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scramble"
],
[]
] |
||
3g57ks | why don't we have $25 bills? | Or at least a 20¢ coin. Why wouldn't we have the coin and bill system be identical? It just occurred to me the other day. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g57ks/eli5_why_dont_we_have_25_bills/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctuxo9q",
"ctuxt7m",
"ctuy1wg",
"ctuzieb",
"ctv0ame",
"ctv1gvq"
],
"score": [
9,
32,
8,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There is an underlying optimization problem.\n\nThe goal is to have a set of coins such that there is only one way to make change with the minimum number of coins.\n\nTo do otherwise means people are carrying around excess change (you could carry around a dime and a 20 cent piece or just carry around two dimes). There is no benefit to one over the other.\n\nI don't recall if the US system is optimal under these definitions, (things like the rarely seen or used $2 bill likely break it) but adding other denominations doesn't improve the situation.\n\n----\n\nTo be specific suppose you needed to make 45 cents. That is 25+10+10 or 20+20+5, so which is better?",
"... I'm going to guess here and say it's history + inflation.\n\nWhen the dollar was created, we were paying with stuff mostly in fractions of a dollar -- 1/2, 1/4, 1/10, 1/20, 1/100. One quarter of a dollar was a good measurement that would otherwise take a minimum of three other coins -- two dimes and a nickel. A twenty cent piece is just two dimes. \n\nBut we don't think of paying in \"quarters of $100\" because things aren't priced in a fraction of a hundred dollars. \n\nIn other words, we think of paying in fractions of a dollar (1/4 being more common and more useful than 1/5) and in multiples of a dollar, not fractions of $100.\n\nPretty good logic, eh?\n",
"First off, we need to be getting rid of coins not making more. The penny, nickle, and dime are all so worthless that people don't even bother keeping them half the time. \n\nSecond, a you can't have both a 25 dollar bill and a 20 dollar bill, it would be super impractical. We chose the 20 instead of the 25 because it can be divided by 2, 4, 5, 10, and itself, so it's easy to break. A 25 dollar bill can only be broken in one way: 5s. Considering that most of the time if you're paying for something with cash, it's going to be an amount probably less than 100 dollars, you want something easily divisible by lots of numbers. Coins aren't the same way. You're rarely dividing the value of coins. When coins are used, they're usually used to make a part of 100. Having a 25 cent coin makes sense here because it's easier to make a part of 100. ",
"Because we already have separate $5 and $20 bill and probably wouldn't make sense print a $25 bill",
"At least some of the way our coinage wound up was due to the Spanish coins in use before the establishment of the country. You could split a Spanish dollar in half and get half a coin, split it again and there's your quarter. But since most transactions didn't include fractions of a penny, a 12.5 cent coin wouldn't have made much sense. \nThere were briefly 20 cent coins minted, you can look them up. But since the quarter had been around a long time by then and the two were similar, they weren't popular (like the SBA dollar). I like odd coins like that, like the trime for example. ",
"Australia got their coins right.\n\n5cent - Smallest silver coin the size of a dime with a echidna on it.\n10cent - Slightly larger than 5c, this silver coin represents a Lyrebird (look it up).\n20cent - Slightly larger than 10c, 20c is a silver coin just larger than the US quarter with a awesome platypus.\n50cent - largest of all Aus coins, the 50c is 12 sided and shows the Aus coat of arms (fun fact Australia is the only country to eat both animals on its' coat of arms). \n1 dollar - The $1 coin is similar to the 20c except for the gold colouring and portrait of 5 Kangaroo's.\n2 dollar - A small gold coin roughly the size of the 10c coin. This coin is thicker and features an Aboriginal Elder. \n\nWe also minted 1c & 2c coins however they were discontinued due to inflation over the years. \n\nThe quarter works perfectly well except for the large gap between 25c & $1 (50c coin guys?) and I would discontinue the penny asap! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
330x1x | in a movie or a tv show, i'm fully aware that the hero is a fictional character that didn't actually die. then why did i cry and feel extremely sad afterwards? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/330x1x/eli5_in_a_movie_or_a_tv_show_im_fully_aware_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqggnw6",
"cqghlqs",
"cqgihvn",
"cqgiku3",
"cqgj9hn",
"cqgjueo",
"cqgjzvs",
"cqgk59o",
"cqgl0yb",
"cqglm3p",
"cqglzei",
"cqgmkg7",
"cqgmop2",
"cqgmp1w"
],
"score": [
54,
148,
77,
14,
9,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2,
6,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's called \"suspension of disbelief\":\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"Empathy. It's a good thing. At least we know you are not a sociopath!",
" > I'm fully aware that the hero is a fictional character that didn't actually die.\n\nBecause you really aren't.\n\nIn order to enjoy a fictional setting, you suspend your disbelief, and start reacting as though it were real. Without that, it would be difficult to enjoy any fiction.",
"Suspension of disbelief\n\nAnd you're a little bitch.",
"Empathy and imagination. It's how actors work.",
"Basically, your conscious brain may know that it's fiction, but your subconscious, emotional mind really doesn't understand that or care.",
"That my good sir is literally an actor doing their job to make you emphasize is what they train for.",
"The character does die. The actor does not die.",
"I believe it is being cathartic. It is the purging of emotions we get when we observe any play or show. Go google it!",
"Its because movies are so realistic and believable, they completely immerse our mind to the point that it can't tell the difference. Joe Rogan talks about this all the time in his podcast, how much of an effect watching a TV show or a movie can have on you. Its pretty remarkable ",
"You have experienced a good writer. \n\nOf course, if Reddit had its way all those people would be forced to study thermodynamics or some such under penalty of being forcibly starved, but that's another thread. \n",
"At least you aren't like me and tear up a bit during the first song in Sister Act. There is something about music and watching it affect people in movies that gets me in a really weird way...\n\nShut up.",
"[Mirror Neurons](_URL_0_). A mirror neuron, \"is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron \"mirrors\" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting.\" \n\nBrains are crazy interesting.",
"Because the story was engaging AND you're not a psychopath. Both very good things to have."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief",
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron"
],
[]
] |
||
4680ke | how can something as tiny as a pill or a few drops of poison affect a full-grown adult so much? | Something I've never understood: I can take a pill with, say, 10mg of active ingredient that completely changes how my body operates. I weigh about 100kg (I'm working on getting that down). So that active ingredient is equal to about 1-ten-millionth of my body weight, yet it can profoundly alter my body's workings. Obviously, poison is similar. A tiny drop can kill me, mutilate me, cause no end of pain or changes.
I get how something like a virus or bacteria can have that effect. But how is it possible for a drug, which doesn't self-replicate, to do the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4680ke/eli5_how_can_something_as_tiny_as_a_pill_or_a_few/ | {
"a_id": [
"d033wm3",
"d0344xf",
"d034b1q",
"d034q86",
"d0350bn",
"d035jvx",
"d03bepp",
"d03dqxj",
"d03fx46",
"d03hs6o",
"d03htvi",
"d03rn9h",
"d03skw1",
"d03wv8k",
"d0451io",
"d047l7v"
],
"score": [
2,
809,
16,
107,
9,
27,
2,
2,
41,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Poison mostly kill people by chemical reactions, which means that the substance reacts with our cells in some way or another. If you intake a small amount of poison, loads of chemical reactions can happen just because this substance triggered it. Imagine a bath tub filled with water, drop in a few drops of food coloring and the water will discolor. Even though the mass of the water is many times larger than that of the food coloring, the food coloring still has a substantial affect on the water (in this example by changing its color)",
"Pretty much for the same reason getting shot in the brain kills you; the active component only has to hit the right places. Consider that the poison might only affect 1 part of every cell in only your heart, then you die of heart failure",
"Snake venom is actually different however. If I recall, venom is made up of proteins/enzymes. So proteins/enzymes are molecules that are basically a very efficient factory. You put in materials and proteins will produce a product. In our bodies, it's the same way. Except we don't have snake venom proteins in our body. So when it's introduced into our blood stream, our blood reacts with the protein from snake venom, and the proteins do what they were meant to do. They create a product (blood clots) from materials (blood cells). Now the thing is with proteins is that they aren't used up in a reaction. That's one of the reasons why a small amount can essentially be detrimental. Coupled with how fast they work, death is imminent, unless anti venom is introduced. The anti venom probably inactivates the protein somehow and it becomes targeted for denaturization. But that's a different topic.\n\nEdit: Mobile is hard :(",
"Poisons or drugs generally have very specific targets in the cells of your body. They fit very well and very tightly into just the right part of particular protein molecules inside the cells to stop them doing what they're supposed to do, or change what they're doing. If they do their job on something that's vital to the way your body works, they can have a huge effect.\n\nThat's *why* they're drugs or poisons - there are lots of other chemicals that make up what you eat or absorb from the environment that don't have a specific effect on the molecular machines that make you work.\n\nBecause they stick so well to the place where they work, you don't need huge concentration of them in the cells of your body to have a big effect. For example, the poison that makes pufferfish so dangerous to eat is probably lethal at a dose of 25mg for a 75kg person (or even less if you inject it directly into the blood). When it's inside you, just 8 *nanograms* for each kilogram of your body is enough to kill you by stopping lots of the important nerves from working. That might not sound a lot, but because individual molecules weigh so little, there's still plenty of them to do their job.\n\nSo how do they get this way? For naturally occurring medicines and toxins they've got so good at working on your body because of years of evolution. For modern, 'rationally designed' medicines, scientists have carefully designed (or accidentally discovered) just the right shape of molecule to do the job they want.",
"Ok, like you're five:\n\nJust like a key in the right shape can unlock the front door but not start the car, a chemical in the right shape will have no effect on most cells but have a huge effect on others because it can only fit together with those. Kind of like how puzzle pieces fit together. \n\nSo those very specific chemical molecules meet up with and attach themselves to the right shaped cells and they either make the cells do something they're not supposed to (like agents that cause respiratory muscle spasms which mess up how you breathe badly enough that you stop) or stop them from doing things they're supposed to (like being able to use certain proteins that help turn fuel into energy or ones that let your cells use oxygen).\n\n",
"The human body has ooodles of failure points. Your brain stops functioning, you die. Your liver stops any one of over 500 different vital functions, you die. Your lungs stop working properly? You die.\n\nNow, don't think of poisons as affecting the entire body. Instead think of a poison affecting a single function of a single part of the body. For example, cyanide prevents cells in the heart from absorbing oxygen. It does many many other terrible things but if you have enough cyanide to stop your heart from absorbing oxygen, you die.\n\nEverything has to remain in a precarious balance inside the human body to function and even a small thing can throw off one of the 1000's of things that are vital for you to live.",
"Because the drug does not have to affect all of your body in order to be effective. Most of your body and its weight is irrelevant to the drug or poison, except indirectly.\n\nThe point is that your body is a very complex and finely balanced machine. To prevent such a machine from working, you don't need to damage a specific *amount* of the machine, you need to damage something suitably *important.* Imagine you want to disable a complex machine like a car: you don't need to take a hammer and start smashing as much of the car as possible. In fact, you could just put some glue in the ignition keyhole, or cut the fuel lines: tiny changes which prevent the whole thing from working. In the same way, if you damage an important part of the human body, that part can be a very tiny amount of the body but still cause catastrophic failure.\n\nTo take a specific example, look at botulinum toxin, botox. This is the most poisonous known substance and will kill an average human being with less than one hundred *nanograms*! To know how it can be so deadly in such tiny quantities, you need to know how it works. Botox works by paralysing you: it attaches to a specific part of the nerves which control your muscles and stops them from working. Eventually, it will prevent you from breathing, and of course if you can't breathe you will die. So this means that, in order to have such an effect, you need enough of the poison to affect enough nerves so that you can't breathe properly. Already you can see that your 100kg is not so relevant: only a tiny proportion of your weight is nerves! An even tinier proportion of that weight is the specific part of the specific type of nerves that botulinum toxin affects.\n\nBy the way, your body weight is still important, because a larger person generally *does* have more of almost every individual component (motor neurons in the case of botox.) Also a poison or drug will be diluted into your blood before being able to affect anything, and if you are bigger you will have more blood and it will therefore be more dilute, and less able to have that affect. So your body weight *is* important and this is why the toxicity of a substance - its LD50 - is measured per kg of body weight. But the above should indicate why the LD50 can be such a tiny proportion of body weight.",
" > But how is it possible for a drug, which doesn't self-replicate, to do the same?\n\nI'll just give you one especially dangerous example - ingesting a few *micrograms* of strontium-90 will kill you. Why? Because your body treats it like calcium, and deposits it into your bones. once there, it irradiates your bone barrow, destroying it. Your bone marrow is the factory where your immune system is created. Without new cells, your immune system will collapse. ",
"For the same reason that a single finger can turn on/off all the lights in a big building. Sometimes the \"switch\" that a drug or toxin activates is able to effect a system that is much larger than itself.",
"5mg is trillions upon trillions (actually, it's much more than this) of individual chemicals (hopefully all of the same type mind you). The only reason that all drugs are not insanely deadly is because most drugs are very weak at the individual level, and require trillions upon trillions to have any effect. If every single one killed exactly 1 neuron, 5mg would kill you many, many, many times over.",
" It's pretty much the same way that removing a fuse can shut down your whole house.\n\nIf you interfere with nerves you can stop the brain or heart.",
"One car can cause traffic in a major metropolitan area that brings everyone to a standstill. ",
"A good way to look at any medication/drug is as \"code\" to program your body to do something. So if you take a decongestant, it activates mechanisms in your body to make you decongested. \n\nSo with poison, a minor poison can \"instruct\" your body to cause water to be released into your intestines, causing diarrhea. But if you take a stronger poison, it instructs your body to stop releasing chemicals which are needed for nerves and muscles to function, and you basically instruct your muscles to stop working and you can't breathe and you die. \n\nSo in terms of quantity of poison needed to elicit this effect, it mainly comes down to how many receptors in your body need to be triggered to have the effect, and how strongly this poison likes to attach itself to these receptors. If a given effect doesn't need much to be triggered, a small amount of poison can trigger it. \n\nThis is obviously a vast oversimplification. ",
"The effects are amplified by the way the chemical interacts with the body, and what the chemical triggers biologically. A good example of this naturally occurring in the body is in your immune system, a small series of signals(via injury etc.) can summon a massive immune response.\n\nAlso certain localized poisons/toxic chemicals can destroy function in small vital areas without having to be in much supply.",
"Because what looks small might actually be very big.\n\nLet's take for example the extremely poisonous substance Ricin. Ricin is a protein found in the seeds of the Castor oil plant. It is a poison that works by stopping cells making proteins. If your cells cant make proteins they die very quickly. As I was taught in protein synthesis lectures, a single molecule of Ricin is capable of shutting down an entire cell's ability to make protein.\n\nAn adult human contains about 37.2 trillion cells.\n\nNow, Ricin has a molecular mass of about 64 kDa (a Da or Dalton is a unit of mass that chemists use that is equal to the mass a hydrogen atom). This makes it a pretty big molecule, but it's still very small on the scales that people think of.\n\nIf I were to take Ricin and put one molecule into every single cell in a human body it would only take 3.95 nanograms (according to my back of the envelope calculation).\n\nAnd this would utterly kill every bit of that person. The actual lethal dose in reality is much higher, because the body is full of barriers and the Ricin isn't gong to be perfectly distributed through the body. But it doesn't need to kill every cell, it only needs to kill a few here and a few there to cause irreparable damage to essential things like brain tissue, kidneys, bone marrow etc.\n\nBut we are still talking around 1 milligram per kilogram bodyweight for swallowed poison (due to the acidic environment of the stomach breaking some of it down) If we assume an average human is 75 kg that means we need 75 mg of ricin. That's about the weight of two grains of rice.\n\nBiochemistry can get all kings of messed up with only the smallest amount of interference.",
"Imagine that the cells of your body are soldiers in an army encampment that is your body. You may imagine that it would take a large enemy force to endanger that army encampment. But this isn't the case - imagine that I hijack the PA system and tell them \"the enemy has infiltrated the command tent, destroy it at all costs\". Youd have an army rendered useless by a single enemy soldier issuing false orders.\n\nA lot of chemicals that are dangerous act as \"bad orders\" such as those that came over the PA system. They're screwey biological signals that tell larger components of your body to work against itself. It doesnt take a comparavly sized enemy force to render your encampment ineffective - just a few well-placed words. Plant poisons such as agent orange act as false hormonal signals causing defoliation and death.\n\nNow imagine that instead of hijacking the PA system, I just replaced the daily multivitamin in the soldiers rations with a visually identical dose of ex-lax. Suddenly the whole camp is scrambling for the shitter instead of doing their jobs. Heavy metal poisonings often work in an analgous way - metal compounds look a lot like phosphorus compounds that play a role in sugar metabolism - so our enzymes used for processing sugar are \"tricked\" into attempting to act on those metal compounds. The enzymes activity is affected, and you can get very sick. Since these enzymes dont make up a lot of your body weight, it doesnt take much heavy metal to mess them up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
rxxm9 | how did the big bang ''create'' time? and how can the universe be infinite since it has no edge- so what i beyond it? | Maybe this is impossible to explain to a 5 year old :D even writing the question hurt my brain! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rxxm9/how_did_the_big_bang_create_time_and_how_can_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c49ths7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Edit: LoveGoblin provided some information I haven't seen before. It renders most of my post invalid. Rather than spread disinformation I had deleted this comment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1gu326 | why is it that when you increase voltage from 120 to 220, the total amperage ends up being the same as if you did not change voltage at all? | I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a little while. If you have 2000 watts at 120, the amperage is 16.7. If you have it at 220, it's 9.09. But that 9.09 amps ends up on 2 different legs, so you end up with a total of 18.18 amps. Isn't voltage supposed to decrease amperage? Whats going on here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gu326/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_you_increase_voltage/ | {
"a_id": [
"cantjp0"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"You're confusing stepping voltage up or down via a transformer (and since power equals voltage times amperage, as one goes down the other must go up) with the two phases of voltage that is supplied to a typical US house. You aren't stepping anything up and down when you place a large appliance across both phases in order to provide it with a total of 240VAC. Most electrical devices in a house, of course, only need 120VAC and are connected across one phase (or the other) and the neutral wire. Two phases of 120VAC, 180 degrees out of phase from each other, combine as a single phase of 240VAC when you connect a large appliance across both phases. Internal components inside that appliance that only need 120VAC (such as an electronic controller) will only be connected across one phase and the neutral wire."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2h7d73 | how people know where sounds are coming from | I'm deaf out of my left ear and I can't tell (in games, mostly) where sound is coming from. I play CSGO a lot and one very bad issue is me not knowing where sound is coming from. I'd like to know how other people can tell where sounds are coming from and which direction and all that. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h7d73/elif_how_people_know_where_sounds_are_coming_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckq2et4",
"ckq2gpy",
"ckq2i2r",
"ckq3azl"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If it's to your right, the sound will hit your right ear before it hits your left. It will also be a little louder on that side. ",
"While sound travels pretty quickly, it isn't instantaneous. Because of this, if someone were to say something next to the right ear of someone else, it would take slightly longer for the sound to reach to the person's left ear. Your brain does a quick calculation to figure out what the delay is and, based on that, we can figure out what angle the sound is coming from.\n\nAs a related trivia piece, some birds, such as owls, have ears that are staggered such that one is higher than the other. This lets them locate a sound in the vertical plane as well as the horizontal, letting them locate their prey more easily while perched up in a tree.",
"The brain uses the slight difference in timing of the sound's arrival to calculate the direction of the sound.",
"We know the direction of sound - a process called sound localization - because of:\n\n* Intensity - the loudness of sound detected is different for each ear. If sound is to the right then your head itself will block/alter it for your left ear.\n\n* Spectral analysis - the pitch (frequency) of sound helps you locate things since there is a difference between how high vs low frequency sounds reflect and interact with both your body and surroundings\n\n* Time delay - sound travels slow enough for our brain to be able to detect the difference between when you right and left ear detects it. This delay helps you locate the direction the sound came in.\n\n\nFor more information read this [wiki page](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization"
]
] |
|
21myqu | what are freddy mac, fannie mae and sally mae; and why do they have funny names? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21myqu/eli5_what_are_freddy_mac_fannie_mae_and_sally_mae/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgel4kh",
"cgelvb8"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"No offense to anyone bearing one of those names... ",
"They are nicknames for federal agencies with long names and complicated abbreviations. For instance, Freddie Mac is short for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or FHLMC. \n\nAll three names were adopted because they're somewhat similar to the acronyms and are simple and easy to remember. That's honestly the entire reason. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
758y5b | what makes some people more “jumpy” than others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/758y5b/eli5_what_makes_some_people_more_jumpy_than_others/ | {
"a_id": [
"do4s0w3",
"do4z8hi"
],
"score": [
13,
5
],
"text": [
"This would be determined by the sensitivity of that person to adrenaline. The more sensitive that person is, the more likely it will be he/she would get an overreaction to the situation that caused the adrenaline to flow.",
"A lot of our fears and phobias are genetic defense mechanisms. For example, spiders can be deadly and venomous, so ancestors who have had to survive many encounters with deadly spiders will presumably have developed a fight, flight, or freeze response to the sight of a spider. This can become distorted and make us fear anything that resembles the shape of a spider, for example, a leaf, or a ball of hair may make us jump as if we saw a spider. We’ve also been programmed to fear the shapes of snakes and jump when we see a hose or tree branch that resembles a snake. We also fear sharp teeth, sharp claws, animals that are bigger than us, or bright colors that could indicate venom or poison.\n\nSome fears are not genetic, but products of nurture. A person who experiences some sort of trauma like a public shooting, can develop a fight, flight or freeze response to.. say any loud bangs. The mind thinks, “last time I heard this loud bang, people started dropping dead and all hell broke loose” so now when a fire cracker goes off, the mind is tricked into thinking the shooting is happening again, and it goes into a sort of panic mode to prevent the trauma from happening again, even though its just the town fireworks display, not a real shooting.\n\nSometimes the fears are rational: like fearing a gun, because you watched a gun kill someone. \n\nSometimes the fears are irrational, like fearing a green bandana, because the shooter was wearing green when you watched someone die. Or fearing the smell of sulfur, because the gun powder smelled that way.\n\nWe can also get so used to a dangerous thing that we no longer fear it. The first time you see a spider, you may scream! But if you become a bug breeder, and handle them enough, you can start making youtube videos of them crawling on your face and in your mouth to creep other people out.\n\nBecause we all have different natural genetics, and different Nurtured environments, our levels of fear and bravery towards different things can be drastically different from one individual to the next."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
710tgr | what actually happens in the brain when something is "on the tip of your tounge"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/710tgr/eli5_what_actually_happens_in_the_brain_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn7bjlb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: What is happening in my brain when I'm trying to remember something and I feel myself getting close? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5 When we experience that tip of your tongue feeling, how do we know we know the answer when we cant name it? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5: Why do we have those tip-of-my-tongue moments where we forget something we absolutely know? ](_URL_2_)\n1. [ELI5: What causes when a word is on the tip of your tongue but you just can't remember it? ](_URL_0_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fknfu/eli5_what_causes_when_a_word_is_on_the_tip_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23kyzq/eli5_what_is_happening_in_my_brain_when_im_trying/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r04it/eli5_why_do_we_have_those_tipofmytongue_moments/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27mqwp/eli5_when_we_experience_that_tip_of_your_tongue/"
]
] |
||
2u3oo6 | after all the cia has done in guantanamo bay, how isn't anyone in trial for war crimes or crimes against humanity? | Is **anyone** taking any kind of responsibility of what happened? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u3oo6/eli5_after_all_the_cia_has_done_in_guantanamo_bay/ | {
"a_id": [
"co4tm59",
"co4tro6"
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text": [
"1. The US doesn't consider what the CIA did to be war crimes or crimes against humanity. Rather, the people committing the acts were given permission by various offices of legal counsel and \"acted in good faith\" on those recommendations. The only comparison I can think of is if you are at a red light and a cop is directing traffic. If he is waving you into the intersection at a red you aren't running a red light per-se, as you are acting in good faith based on his position as a law enforcement officer. (I'm not justifying the actions, more just making a comment on the legal justification)\n\n2. Taking a US citizen, or a US government employee, to trial at the international criminal court would be a very big gamble. It could potentially harm relations with other member countries. Further, it would set a bad precedent for using the court to meddle in other countries affairs. The court was established to go after dictators and people for whom justice would otherwise be elusive. The assumption is that a nation like the United States is capable of policing its self.",
"War crimes aren't like civil crimes, because War is not a civil interest; it is an international one. War and war crimes are covered by the various international treaties and pacts and alliances that countries make with each other. \n\nFace it, Tuuli, War is the act of killing and maiming, death and destruction, until your opponent gives up trying to kill, maim and destroy you. \n\nWhile torture as part of war is unsavory, no International group 'polices' it. Foreign policy is VERY unlike the US or any other country's internal criminal justice system. Countries who don't like what another country is doing, puts them on economic sanctions or puts them 'on notice'. But not much more can take place unless you want more war between countries.\n\nWar is blood and death and disembowelment, body parts blown to shit. Nobody is going to tell you who was in on 9/11 or if there is more destruction and body parts or people burned alive, planned for the US, if you ask nicely, then ask nicely the next day, then ask nicely the next day, then ask nicely the next day, then ask nicely the next day. So I have to wonder if Guantanamo's less desirable War practices saved US citizens from more deaths, and are still doing so. \n\nThere are people doing the war for you: killing and maiming and blowing up of body parts, and shooting people's heads off into pink mist, and getting other people to tell them where future attacks may come from, and keeping them from making more attacks, so that you and I can sleep soundly at night. \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
71rlw1 | how can two trees joined by a branch exist?? | Here is the picture, may add another one later:
Two trees joined by a branch in front of my house _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71rlw1/eli5_how_can_two_trees_joined_by_a_branch_exist/ | {
"a_id": [
"dncwcj2",
"dncwdzi",
"dncwig5",
"dncwogl"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
15,
3
],
"text": [
"Aww, their holding hands :D\n\nTrees tend to grow toward light, but we build wierd shaped buildings out of funny materials, so UP isn't always the best place to get light from. Trees will happily grow around objects, almost consuming them given enough time. It looks like those 2 branches grew close to each other, started growing upwards and the 'stronger' branch won and consumed the other.\n\nSadly, I doubt the trees are aware of this, the 'losing' tree probably just thinks that branch grew into a dark place and stopped trying to grow leaves, and the winner has no idea it 'won' anything. It's possible that the 'losing' branch kinda fused into the winner, and maybe even passes water and nutrients to that 'shared' branch, but really it's not cooperating, just a happy accident.",
"Trees can grow around wires or poles. They are capable of doing the same thing with another tree. ",
"The term for when this happens is *inosculation*, and it's a really fascinating *branch* of dendrology that is most common in trees with very thin bark.\n\nThe two trees must grow close together, and they must each sprout branches that must then touch. When the two branches come together, they continue to grow under normal conditions, but the bark where they touch gradually abrades (gets scratched off). Once the inner part of the branch (cambium) is exposed, the trees can sometimes heal the abrasions in such a way that the bark covers both tree branches, and the inosculation is complete.\n\nYou can sort of force this to happen (if you like the way it looks) without causing any real damage to the tree. You just have to get in there and braid the tree branches together when they're very young and green and supple.",
"It's called [inosculation](_URL_0_). \n\nIt happens when two branches touch and by rubbing together wear away their bark. Once the inside of the branches touch they can stick together and grow as one branch.\n\nThis is possible because trees do not have an immune system similar to animals. "
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/gallery/dncLJ"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inosculation"
]
] |
|
6jiycy | how do ants and termites design such complex and sophisticated large-scale structures? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jiycy/eli5_how_do_ants_and_termites_design_such_complex/ | {
"a_id": [
"djem96u"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"A current belief for how ants create such complex structures is called [Stigmergy](_URL_0_). Essentially individual builder ants follow specific rules where if the environment meets certain conditions they will build in a specific way. So as a made up example, if a tunnel is x long then turns right an ant may use these conditions to build a separate branch to the left. \n\nAdd in some pheromones for communication and ants will work together to achieve simple tasks that result in complex structures. [Pheromones](_URL_1_) are basically specific chemicals that ants and other organisms can produce and react to. There can be different kinds of pheromones such as alarm signals, food trails, and mating signals. As another made up example if a lot of ants are squeezing through the same tunnel there may be a lot of pheromones lying around and builder ants could use those as a condition to make the tunnel wider. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone"
]
] |
||
1jybo9 | why is dmt so life changing compared to other "drugs"? alternative question in comments | You'd wake up knowing for certain that what you experienced was real, not just some hallucination you get from acid or mushrooms. Why is that? You can see and feel the energy of the entities you interact with. There seems to be a calm, mystical, godly component to it. Are we making contact with a different universe? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jybo9/eli5_why_is_dmt_so_life_changing_compared_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbjh4ap",
"cbjqcls",
"cbjrl7d",
"cbjxq3l",
"cbjzl5a"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
5,
3,
5
],
"text": [
" > Are we making contact with a different universe? \n\nAll signs point to 'no'.\n\nFrom what Wikipedia tells me about the compound it's so much more 'real' because it seems to influence all of the user's senses completely. Shutting off normal sensory imput and replacing it with the hallucination.\n\nYou get kind of a 'matrix' effect.",
"i think its cause there is no fuckin around with dmt. if you do it right and get a good dose then it changes your perception of the world in a half hour, aggresively almost but in a nonviolent sort of way. acid and shroomies can do that to but i think its harder to get the right amount and in the right setting. also the peak comes on slower. i believe if youve had a lot of experience wit hallucinogens then it isnt as earth shattering. ",
" > not just some hallucination you get from acid or mushrooms. \n\nIve had some very real epiphanies and profound thoughts on mushrooms. Ive had some stupid ideas that were silly the next day too, but don't brush off mushrooms power to have real effects on your outlook of life. \n\n > Are we making contact with a different universe?\n\n\nI'm assuming you don't mean this literally. If you do, LOL no. DMT is just an extremely powerful psychedelic. DMT, unlike a normal LSD or mushroom dosage, doesn't just change your sensory inputs, it completely replaces them with a psychedelic trip. For example, on mushrooms, you may look at your curtains and notice that they are a different shade of the color they usually are, and they seem to be flowing or moving when you know that they aren't. Smoke a breakthrough dose of DMT and look at the same curtains, and you don't see a distorted curtain, your entire visual perception is now entirely because of the DMT. Same with sound and to a slightly lesser effect touch and taste. This is why it seems to 'real', because you are experiencing the DMT trip just like you experience everyday life. It isn't a distorted version of something else, it is its own thing, and causes a profoundly 'real' feeling to the trip. ",
"My personal take: I find it hard to believe that DMT puts you into contact with different universes. I think the fact that a lot of people have the same trip, namely interacting with higher beings, is down to suggestion rather than genuine divine contact. Nigh everyone who takes DMT researches the chemical before hand, and it doesn't take much probing to hear about the common trip themes. I propose that, in the suggestible mind state that the substance induces, the subconscious recalls what one has read previously and guides the trip in that direction. \n\nThis, unlike the other universe suggestion, is empirically verifiable. Three groups could be given the drug, one group is invited to investigate online before administration, another group is told nothing beyond the fact that the drug will induce hallucinations, and the final group is fed a different premise altogether for the trip. If all three groups have the same, god-meeting trip as is commonly experienced, it would offer at least some validation to your suggestion.",
"You're not making contact with a different universe, you're simply coming closer to the one we all know and love!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1zbaur | why do perfect squares and square roots seem to work out in many different physics equations? | From what I understand we map physics equations based on how matter operates physically. To me it seems strange that many different equations use a perfect square, instead of random exponents such as ^1.34 or ^3.62. Why is it that a perfect square works out so often? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zbaur/eli5_why_do_perfect_squares_and_square_roots_seem/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfs4urq",
"cfs7qkm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a bit of circular logic. Physics equations wind up with a lot of ^2 and ^3 because area and volume are squares and cubes. But why are they? Well, that's actually how we *define* squares and cubes.",
"A few reasons:\n\n- Equations dealing with changes over time often use calculus (derivatives and integrals). In most cases, these operations add or subtract an integer to an exponent. Integrating x gives 1/2 x^2 . A good example are the kinematics equations where integrating acceleration due to gravity twice gives x(t) =x_i + v_i * t + 1/2 * a * t^2 .\n\n- Equations dealing with physical systems often have factors like π r^2 for areas or 4/3 π r^3 for volume.\nFor example, the intensity of light scales like 1/r^2 because the light is spreading out over a spherical surface whose area scales that way.\n\n- Units in an equation have to match up. Density (measured in kilograms per cubic meter) can't be proportional to m/d^1.53 where m is a mass and d is a length. It must be proportional to something like m/d^3 . Things like 'watts per square meter' or 'kilograms per cubic meter' have physical meanings.\n\n- Expressions with non-integer exponents describe fractal geometries which aren't very applicable in most cases."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9m3476 | if the us purchased the land to then build the panama canal, why did jimmy carter give it away? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m3476/eli5_if_the_us_purchased_the_land_to_then_build/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7bjqx4",
"e7bkenu"
],
"score": [
6,
26
],
"text": [
"Because it was better than providing a flashpoint for anti-US movements in Latin America, which were a much bigger concern than maintaining control over the canal zone.\n\nPanama had a moderate left government but could have easily been pushed more toward Cuba had relations with the US deteriorated. Panama's economy was overwhelmingly dependent on the canal from which the US derived a lion's share of the value. Trading what, for the US was a relatively small economic asset for a stable Panama that wouldn't further inflame the ongoing crisis of Central American countries tilting toward Cuba was judged to be worth it. ",
"It's not that simple. The US wanted to control an area of Colombia that would make an excellent place for a canal. Colombia wouldn't allow it, so the US backed a war to make a portion of Colombia break away and become a new nation that the US could control. The US-backed forces won and the nation of Panama was created. The US-backed government then of course immediately (like, within days) made a treaty with the US to make a big chunk of territory within the country into a US territory, to be called The Panama Canal Zone, and which also gave a certain amount of control within Panama to the US. The zone was in the middle of the country, from coast to coast, so Panama was divided into two different sections. The US controlled it and had US military there. So basically the creation of the country was a coup led by a foreign power so that that foreign power could control a valuable resource. This is the kind of imperialist endeavor that is often frowned upon as being an abuse of power. The US paid the Panamanian government a small amount of money every year for it, but that doesn't take away the fact that the US only controlled it due to using coercive and violent methods, and that any nation has the right to decide how to use land within its territory and to negotiate its treaties. As time went on, the citizens of Panama were not happy with this arrangement and there were repeated protests and clashes. President Jimmy Carter was concerned about the unfairness of the situation historically and was willing to renegotiate the treaty and grant control of the canal to Panama."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5kdbaa | how much power does the pope have? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kdbaa/eli5_how_much_power_does_the_pope_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbn3q9f",
"dbnvgcl"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"He has as much power as people let him have. Millions of people listen to him and act on papal proclamations because their religion tells them to. But he has no power over non-Catholics.",
"In some countries the pope would have almost limitless power (okay I'm exaggerating but whatever.)\n\nFor example, over here in Ireland there were many abuses by the church (Child molestation, women such as unmarried mothers being sent to 'laundries' and forced into what was essentially slavery, in a lot of cases the babies(bastards) would be left to die and numerous mass graves of babies and women were discovered on the grounds of these laundries.).\nThese abuses would have been ignored by people within a parish due to fear of virtual exile due to the status of priests in Ireland from roughly 1800 to the early 2000's. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3pm0y8 | the back of my debit card says, "not valid unless signed". when would this ever matter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pm0y8/eli5_the_back_of_my_debit_card_says_not_valid/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw7fl3d",
"cw7fqvn",
"cw7gbn8"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"The use of these cards is partially governed by the agreements that the credit card transaction networks have with merchants. (Since your debit card probably has the option of using Visa, Mastercard or American Express for payment.)\n\n Under those agreements, a merchant isn't required to accept an unsigned card, and it's recommended to check an ID of the person presenting it. By contrast, merchants should not require IDs of people presenting a signed card, and just compare the signature on the back to that on the receipt if desired. This is a courtesy to the cardholder.",
"It just basically means a business could refuse your card if it isn't signed and you can't produce valid identification.",
"The cashier is suppose to check your ID and the signature each time you purchase an item. They rarely do this. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
50fonc | telecommunications spectrums or bandwidth sale | What is it? How is it used? Why does a telco need to buy this from national government? How is usage regulated? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50fonc/eli5_telecommunications_spectrums_or_bandwidth/ | {
"a_id": [
"d73owhy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The electromagnetic (EM) *spectrum* just refers to different frequencies of light. \n\nSome light has lower frequencies and longer wavelengths (like radio light and microwave light). Other types of light have higher frequencies and smaller wavelengths (like x-ray light and gamma ray light). The visible portion of the EM spectrum (plus infrared and ultraviolet) is somewhere in the middle.\n\nCertain frequencies of light are ideal for use in telecommunications.\n\nFor example, radio waves are invisible, they can travel very long distances, and they can pass through obstacles with minimum signal/packet loss. Microwaves are also very useful and have the advantage of working efficiently with smaller antennas (compared to radio light) but there is compromise on distance/range and ability to pass through large obstacles like walls.\n\nThe vast majority of telecommunications use radio light or microwave light because higher frequency light (i.e. infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma ray light) either has too many problems with interference, range, and obstacle penetration, or is too dangerous to use (in terms of human health/wellbeing).\n\nThe problem is that the spectrum is physically limited in terms of the frequencies available for telecommunication use. There are only so many radio and microwave frequencies that can be used to transmit information wirelessly.\n\nThe other problem is that if two devices in the same area transmit on the same frequency simultaneously, then it causes interference. This means only one device can operate at a time (reducing the bandwidth/performance for each device) or the 'loudest' device will simply drown out / jam the other devices.\n\nIn order to help minimize interference, different telecommunications companies, television broadcasters, and radio broadcasters, all need to be allocated their own block of spectrum/frequencies that they (or their customers) can use to transmit wireless signals on. Each block of spectrum provides a specified amount of bandwidth (which determines how many bits per second of data can theoretically be sent over that channel/block of spectrum).\n\nAs I said, these blocks of spectrum are a limited (and now quite rare) resource. Just about all of the spectrum has been already allocated/reserved for various different purposes (TV, radio, mobile phone/data networks, military use, emergency use, scientific/research use, industrial equipment use, etc.)\n\nSo basically each government heavily regulates the electromagnetic spectrum within their respective borders and decides what blocks of spectrum are assigned to which company or designated for what purpose/utility (e.g. Wi-Fi / consumer wireless networking devices).\n\nMany governments set up bids where blocks of spectrum get auctioned off to whatever company can pay the highest price."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fs1w4q | if wealth was equally distributed throughout a first world country, what would the quality if life be like for any given individual? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fs1w4q/eli5_if_wealth_was_equally_distributed_throughout/ | {
"a_id": [
"flz105h",
"flz17rk",
"flz4a5n",
"flyz53w",
"flyzfk3",
"flyzk9f"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"There is going to be so much misinformation, guessing and politics here I'm making popcorn already.",
"We'd have fewer gadgets and conveniences than we do now. Hear me out!\n\nNeat things like remote key fobs, spiffy phone features, etc. tend to be introduced on the higher end items, which only the richest can afford. \n\nThen, gradually, the manufacturing process is tweaked and they become more economic to produce. At that point, the feature that previously was available on a high-end car is now affordable on more affordable cars.\n\nI'm old enough to remember when cellphones first came out, then smartphones. Both were out of reach of most people when they were first introduced. The top end ones are still quite speedy, but reasonably cheap ones are available, too. There is not way the technology would have gone directly to affordable smartphone without relatively rich people able to spend unreasonable amounts of money on the first versions.",
"Other people have explained the effects well but I had some thoughts:\n\n\\- The difficult thing with this as an idea is that people are not equally able. If I am capable of doing a high stress, high effort job but I don't get paid more for doing it, what is my motivation to do it? Why don't I just get a low stress and low effort job and get the same reward?\n\n\\- All goods and services would essentially need to be produced and sold by the state so that wealth could be redistributed. Luxury goods would become pointless as the money spent would be redistributed to the buyers anyway. \n\n\\- Technological progress currently comes through seeking competitive advantage in a free market. This system would slow progress.",
"You’d have equally skilled, educated people creating equally valuable production or services. \n\nOr are you talking about communism? In that case, see USSR or North Korea. Despotic poor country.",
"If you were to take the net wealth of the top 5 billionaires in the US as cash and distribute it evenly across the population every American citizen would get around $1300.\n\n100+ Billion dollars is an insane amount of wealth for a single individual to have, but when you spread it across a population of 330 million it doesn't amount to all that much.\n\nHistory has shown that if you're looking at an idealized Marxist state where the workers run/own everything and everyone gets paid and treated the same then you tend to end up with Communism. An oppressive regime with limited productive capability where the intellectual elite are eliminated for talking bad about the state and trying to improve things.\n\nWhen you talk about wealth inequality it's better to look at the social problems in the US and try to address those instead. Like the wide difference in pay grade, taxation and benefits.\n\nBillionaires and Corporations have the resources to take advantage of loop holes and to change the rules (lobbying) in their favor. Their armies of accountants find ways to pay as few taxes as possible, while taking advantage of government funded programs to supplement their own workforces.\n\nThere is a phenomenal divide the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans.\n\nThe minimum wage in the US is not currently a living wage. If the minimum wage was increased to a sustainable level then a huge number of people would have their lives improved. A huge percentage of minimum wage earners have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Having more pay means they can work a single job, that leads to more free time, better child care, lower crime, and a chance to educate themselves to get a better job. Similarly it's good for the job market because it frees up jobs for other people.\n\nAnother thing is lowering the cost of living. Rent + housing in the US is currently outrageously over priced, particularly in urban centers. \n\nHealthcare and insurance in the US is outrageously expensive, and is only getting worse. Switching to single payer healthcare would drive costs down a lot and result in a generally healthier and more productive workforce.",
"Conceptually, basically identical for the average income level.\n\nFor extremely wealthy people only a small proportion of their wealth is in the form of amenities. An expensive mansion can really only house a few people in total, they only have so many clothes, etc. Spreading them over the entire population does effectively nothing.\n\nMost of their wealth is ownership of companies or property, and distributing that ownership doesn't do anything for people's standard of living. Shuffling who owns the factories around doesn't make *more stuff exist.* It might seem that an individual could sell their stock and increase their standard of living, but who is buying in this situation?\n\nIn short this entire concept is premised on a shallow and incomplete understanding of wealth, money, and the economy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8vxnfs | why is letting your car run close to empty "bad for the fuel pump"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8vxnfs/eli5_why_is_letting_your_car_run_close_to_empty/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1r5lnd",
"e1r7vkm",
"e1r8q6s",
"e1rjc6z"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"It depends how low you're talking about. But think of it this way - if something is made to pump liquid and there's no liquid there (or there's a much denser liquid than it's made for) then you could overwork the pump. ",
"In some cars the fuel pump is in the fuel tank and uses the fuel as coolant. If you run the tank dry then the pump will be working but with no cool fuel around it or running through it to cool the electric motor. This will cause it to start overheating which can burn out the motor causing the fuel pump to fail.",
"The fuel pump uses the gasoline it pumps as both coolant and lubrication. Since you can't turn the pump off (its always running when the ignition is on) running the tank dry can damage the pump.",
"The fuel tank is not always super clean and the filth lowers to the bottom. If you run close to empty these small peaces get sucked into the fuel pump. If you do this often it met get clogged or not run as efficient. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1sv0l5 | why did someone pay $43.8 million for this barnett newman painting? | [This](_URL_0_) is the picture in question. Things I've found out -- paraphrased --
* The central line is called a "zip". The zips define the spatial structure of the painting, while simultaneously dividing and uniting the composition. (wiki)
* The painting part of "Onement series" by Newman, who thought that he reached his fully mature style with that series. (wiki)
* 'Onement' is a derivation of the word 'atonement', meaning, "the state of being made into one." The zip does not divide the canvas, but merges both sides, drawing in the audience to intensely experience the work both physically and emotionally. (says [this link](_URL_1_). I thought atonement meant 'making amends for a wrong')
Questions --
* I don't find the painting sublime. Should it be seen in person to 'get'?
* Is the $43 mil not about the painting at all, but about something else? Like perhaps the artist is very famous and there're no more paintings of his available to buy?
* Is it purely a status thing? If so, isn't it too *transparently* so?
* Is it some money laundering scheme? (If it is, I think it won't be so attention-catching.) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sv0l5/eli5_why_did_someone_pay_438_million_for_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce1i4zn",
"ce1i8yl",
"ce1iolc",
"ce1uvn7"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This could be explained by Thorstein Veblen (1899, 'The Theory of the Leisure Class'). He proposed the idea of conspicuous consumption.\n\nRich people tend to spend money not on things that they desire, but on things that prove that they are rich. Society is structured in such as way that displays of wealth bring people status and a feeling of importance. When people visit the home of the buyer, they'll remark that the painting is very expensive.\n\nAs for the transparency of it all, I think that's where the obscure meaning comes in. It's all deep and thoughtful and stuff. No-one can question the validity of the painting, as they'll just be accused of \"not getting it\". Unlike a gold necklace, which can be acid tested, or weighed or measured, the true worth of the painting can never be known. As an artifact notionally worth $43m, it's safe from criticism.",
" > I don't find the painting sublime.\n\nThat's fine. Just a matter of taste I guess.\n\n > Should it be seen in person to 'get'?\n\nI've heard his paintings are best viewed in person from a fairly close distance. I don't want to go all deep into it or whatever (because I don't think here is the right place) but it's essentially about the painting covering your entire field of vision, engulfing you in it. That's what I think of his paintings, anyway. I think his painting called [*Anna's Light*](_URL_0_) would give you an idea of what I mean.",
"1. You're also paying for the thought, and for the conversation. Anyone can do what the artist did, but it takes discipline to only do that, and giant balls of steel to present it as a piece to others. Both traits are valued in corporate. \n\n2. It's much larger than it looks, and it provides a zen focus to the viewer. For the right kind of mind, it can be an out of body experience. While it can be duplicated, it would merely be a knock-off of intellectual property, rather than a trophy of something conquered. \n\n3. But yeah, those only explain why it's a status piece. [Relevant.](_URL_0_)",
"I can't tell you why somebody paid ~44 million precisely for this painting but the reason why some paintings are insanely expensive is the art collectors. When somebody starts collecting artists X paintings, they might cost him something like 50K/painting. The collector keeps on buying more and more of these paintings until he has something like 20-30 of them. Even though he might still be able to get additional paintings for 50K, he starts upbidding prices. Instead of 50K, he pays 75K for the next one. Then 100K, 150K and so on. The reason why they do this is that when the new record price is set for artists X painting, all of his paintings become more valuable. So instead of having a collection worth of 30x50K=1.5 million, his collection is now worth something like 30x100K or 150K=3.0-4.5 million. And I know, this doesn't make any real sense but that's the way the art markets work. \n\nCheap and easy finance is another factor inflating these prices. Who ever bought this painting didn't use his own money but got a cheap loan through the auction house. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/arts/design/record-auction-price-for-barnett-newman-at-sothebys.html",
"http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/barnett-newman/onement-i-1948"
] | [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/OfPmAyJ.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich"
],
[]
] |
|
3eu2r4 | the mechanics of stock market selling and buying | I have a basic, theoretical understanding of the stock market. What I always wondered about was the actual mechanics of selling. For instance, in a situation where prices are high and everyone is selling - who is on the other end buying? Is there a situation where shareholders want to sell their highly priced stocks and cannot find buyers? What about short sellers? Who is on the other end of a short when a company is obviously nose diving? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eu2r4/eli5_the_mechanics_of_stock_market_selling_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctie6rm",
"ctih9xm",
"ctihh0w"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"who is buying? other people. \n\nif there's no buyers, there's no sale. until some holder realizes this and lowers his sell to a lower price. or some buyer realizes the buyers aren't budging and raises his price.\n\n",
" > who is on the other end buying?\n\nAnother person or institution that wants to own the stock. There is never a situation where literally everyone is selling, otherwise there would be no sales being made. It may be just one person or institution (with lots of money) buying up the shares as everyone else sells but the HAS to be a buyer or no trade will occur.\n\n > Is there a situation where shareholders want to sell their highly priced stocks and cannot find buyers?\n\nYes. This is much easier to observe in a low-volume stock (not a lot of shares moving around on a given day). [Here](_URL_1_) is the summary for a little biotech company, ARCA Biopharma. Currently the Bid price is $1.08 and the ask price is $1.21. That means that someone wants to buy the stock for $1.08 per share and someone wants sell it for $1.21. The Bid price is the current highest price that anyone is willing to pay for the stock. The Ask price is the lowest price that anyone is willing to sell at. So, right now there is someone who wants to sell that is unable to sell, and similarly someone who wants to buy who is unable to buy. Bid price will always be less than ask price, otherwise a trade will occur and those offers to sell and buy will be taken off the table. For higher volume stocks like [Apple](_URL_0_) there are a lot of buyers and sellers looking to buy or sell the stock at different prices, so the difference between Bid and Ask tends to be small (in the case of Apple right now only 2 cents per $122.77 share vs. ARCA at 13 cents per $1.13 share). As a result it is typically easier to quickly buy and sell a larger, higher volume stock. \n\n > What about short sellers?\n\nShort selling is the act of selling stock without first buying it. To do so you must borrow the stock, typically it is borrowed from your brokerage. A long (normal) stock position is opened by buying a stock and then, after some time (could be seconds or years) closed by selling it realizing a gain or loss in the process. A short is opened by selling the stock (which you borrowed) and then closed by buying it (in order to return it to whom you borrowed it from). Any decrease in price translates to a gain for you, since you are able to buy it back cheaper than you sold it.\n\nShort selling more tightly restricted because it is more risky for two reasons. First, the market tends to go up in the long run, so on average, a short sale is betting against the market. Second, short sale losses are potentially unlimited. If you sell a stock for $100 and it shoots to $1,000,000 over night, you are on the hook for the million with only the $100 dollars you got from selling in your pocket. When you buy a stock, worst case scenario is it goes to zero and you lose everything you paid for it.\n\n > Who is on the other end of a short when a company is obviously nose diving? \n\nAs with the first question: someone is buying it. When you buy a stock, you have no idea whether the person selling it to you is short selling or not.",
"Imagine a city (stock market) Now there is a street called Giraffe-street, (=Apple stock)\nAll the people who want to buy Giraffes (=Apple stock) gather there every morning and decide how many gummi bears (=money) they are willing to pay for a Giraffe (=Apple stock)\n\nJosh is willing to pay 3 gummy bears (=money) for a Giraffe.\nAndrew is willing to pay 5 gummy bears (=money) for a Giraffe.\n\n(So people on the stock market are willing to pay 5 dollar for a share of the company Apple.)\n\nThen Rachel enters the street with a Giraffe (= Apple stock)\nAnd announces she is willing to sell her Giraffe for a minimum of 4 gummy bears.\nAt that moment the Andrew steps forward and buys the Giraffe.\n\n(There is a difference in price 4 and 5, this is called the Ask-Bid Spread)\n\nBased on what people are bidding/asking in the Giraffe street is what the price of the stock will be.\n\n(Almost always there is a buyer, because there are always people looking for a good priced stock.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_ylt=AhRPrdYtttKchmwbiGP2DbWp_8MF?uhb=uhb2&fr=uh3_finance_vert_gs&type=2button&s=aapl",
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=ABIO"
],
[]
] |
|
1asv5m | what are taxes, why do i have to pay them, and how do i pay them? | That's one of the many crucial life skills i never learned in high school. I'm glad i know the Pythagorean fucking Theorem though. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1asv5m/eli5_what_are_taxes_why_do_i_have_to_pay_them_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c90fitt",
"c90ik7c"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Why? Because you constantly benefit from things that are provided by the government, so you have to pay to support those things.\n\nTaxes are paid by the average person either through sales tax, which is tacked onto may purchases you make, or income tax, which is normally taken out of your pay automatically.\n\nIn April you need to file your tax return which basically means you fill out some forms saying what you've earned and some of your purchases this year. That let's the government know what you **should** have made this year. If the amount paid out of your income was more than that amount, you'll get some back, otherwise you'll have to pay enough to make up the difference.",
"A slightly different take:\n\n**What**: taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to a government to pay for things the government wants to pay for. An economic textbook will tell you that these things are essential *public goods* - things that are under-provided by the private (business) sector but are important to a lot of people e.g. parks, roads, healthcare, police etc. This isn't always the case, imperfections in democracy often means taxes are used to pay for things the voters didn't really want e.g. middle-eastern wars. Taxes can take many forms - they can be deductions from your paycheck, or a percentage added on by a store whenever you buy something.\n\n**Why you *have* to pay**: Because the law says so. The law is a bunch of words written down by people you probably will never meet, and is justified by the democratic authority bestowed on them. You *have* to pay because you are subject to government [coercion](_URL_0_), and face financial penalties and/or restrictions of your freedom (prison) if you don't. This applies whether you agree with what the taxes pay for or not. The reason why you *have* to pay is different from the reasons why you *should* pay, but that's not what you asked.\n\n**How**: Varies from country to country. If you're in a normal job, your employer will most likely deal with it for you. If you work for yourself, you'll probably have to fill in a lot of forms and calculate what you owe them based on your country's tax rules. These can be complicated, and it is often best to seek professional help because if you get it wrong, you can face the same penalties described above."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"
]
] |
|
93vrc2 | why are receipt printers so much quicker than "normal" printers you find in offices? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/93vrc2/eli5why_are_receipt_printers_so_much_quicker_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3gc4ts",
"e3gfubj",
"e3guc8r"
],
"score": [
56,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"They use a whole different technology to print to paper, called \"thermal printing\". It has it's pros and cons. For example, you can *only* print to thermal paper using a thermal printer. Also, you trade quality for velocity.",
"Printer printers use either ink ribbon or inkjet printing (sometimes called laserjet, which admittedly is slightly different, but not important for this discussion) where ink is deposited onto whatever it is you are printing onto, paper generally.\n\nWith receipt printers, the vast majority of the time it's thermal printing. Thermal printing is much faster, at the cost of durability and quality. It's also cheaper by a pretty wide margin, which is one reason it's so common.\n\nThermal printing requires special paper (receipt paper) which changes color when pressure or temperature are applied. Try taking your fingernail and pressing it into your next receipt and rub back and forth. You can probably draw on it. \n\nThermal printing paper will denature and fade to unreadability in a matter of months. This is why big ticket purchases and receipts intended for records (like bank statements) do not use receipt paper. \n\nAnyway, the printers are quirky because they use a different printing method. Rather than deposit ink onto the paper, they just punch and/or apply heat in specific spots. Very different mechanism, therefore, very different machine.",
"They have a printhead that does not move - it just covers the whole line, one dot high (sometimes several dots with slight offsets). The head does not need to move, only the paper moves below it, with a speed equal to a normal inkjet printer moving its head left and right.\n\nBut there are actually \"normal\" printers with that technology, inkjets with fixed, paper-wide heads. And they are *really* fast, as in 50+ pages per minute."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
35qzks | how do computers translate electrical signals into instructions? | From my relatively rudimentary understanding, at a base level computers translate these signals into binary. Depending on whether or not a signal is present, the machine will interpret a 0 or a 1. How does that then become an action that the machine takes? How does it know what to do with that information? I imagine the simple answer is that there are programs that tell the computer what to do, but I'm looking for an explanation that's a step or two deeper. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35qzks/eli5_how_do_computers_translate_electrical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr6yhyu",
"cr6yqry"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"If you have a really big number of \"0 or 1\" switches that all work one after another, you can really do marvelous things: those switches are called transistors, they can change state lots of times per second, are much thinner than the edge of a paper sheet and there are millions of them in your pc.\n\nFor example, every letter and character you can write on your pc can be encoded with just 8 states: 8bits, or 1byte, which has become the base unit of computation. It seems like a lot, 8bits for a letter, but again we have millions (if not billions) inside a small processor.\n\nIt's not like the pc \"knows\" what it is doing, it is simply turning on and off switches following the instructions of other switches. You can think of it as a switchboard operator: he does the operations that make the passage of the information possible but does not know what information is passing.",
"Actually, the machine can only perform three logical operations and two mathematical operations on digits: **Logical** are: NOT, AND, OR, and the **mathematical** are: invertion (flip a 0 to 1 and vice-versa) which is the same as the logical function NOT, and addition (binary addition of two digits). Subtraction is just inversion followed by addition. Multiplication is just repeated addition. Things get a little bit more complicated for division.\n\nThen what you need to do is derive more mathematical (power, root, etc.) and logical (XOR, NAND, etc.) functions from these, which can all be derived from each other, and just keep mixing old functions to create new ones. In the end you'll get a set of operations that can actually be called \"instructions\", you hard wire it into a ROM and connect it to a processor. \n\nI apologize for not going deeper but I only really understood how computers work when I programmed a processor to switch on and off traffic lights. It was a mundane task but done at the most basic level, with Assembly language. I didn't go deeper than this in college so I hope someone could add more and actually explain this."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
27byjw | tapering download speed | How is it that when I start a download my download speed climbs up to 800 kb/s then after a few moments of plateauing around that speed it steadily decreases all the way down to 50 kb/s? No one else is using the internet from my router at the time of download either. I'm calling shenanigans.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27byjw/eli5_tapering_download_speed/ | {
"a_id": [
"chzcrpc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Several of the megacorp ISP monopolies do it. They call it names like \"SpeedBoost\" or other garbage somehow implying that they are giving you a bonus for the first few moments.\n\nThe PR department calls it a boost up front. In reality, they are just throttling your content after 5 seconds or whatever the time is. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5iutto | what would happen if you placed a light bulb inside of a box composed of one mirrors? | I thought of this as kid and have wondered since | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5iutto/eli5_what_would_happen_if_you_placed_a_light_bulb/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbb3p5h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The light would bounce around, but mirrors aren't 100% efficient. Some of thay every is absorbed as heat with each bounce. So you wouldn't end up with a light bomb. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
c9w2ua | what they do to make icebreakers so much tougher than other ships | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c9w2ua/eli5_what_they_do_to_make_icebreakers_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"et3ic2l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because they only have one job. They don't need to be fuel efficient to make long sea trips economically feasible. They don't need massive storage capacity for transportation of goods. They don't need amenities for passengers. They need to be good as smashing ice. If you made other ships good at smashing ice, they'd be less good at their actual function."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7t5lnd | why didn’t the pace of roman technological advancement continue to present day? | The education system failed me, as the only history I learned was 1940-present and pre-recorded-history history.
I’ve heard that Romans had a lot of advanced technology but that technology failed to progress for a long time. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7t5lnd/eli5_why_didnt_the_pace_of_roman_technological/ | {
"a_id": [
"dta08pa",
"dta1tm0",
"dta2dr7"
],
"score": [
6,
13,
5
],
"text": [
"Because the roman empire collapsed... They were no longer in a societal position to continue that advancement in infrastructure that they did so well.\n\nDid your school really skip the dark ages entirely? and the renaissance? and the roman empire? all of it? where do you go to school?",
"Rome collapsed in the 5th century, cutting off the long distance spread of ideas and the vast manpower reserves and trade routes needed to build huge monuments.\n\nThe actual growth of technology continued on a more local scale though, the dark ages weren't as \"dark\" as the historical myth says they were.\n\nThere were a lot of developments in agriculture, sailing, metalworking, architecture, economics, and warfare between 500 and 1300.",
"[This is a complicated question, so take my answer with a grain of salt and recognize I'm only skimming the surface on one perspective on this subject.]\n\nFirst, let's look at what's required for technological advancement to happen at a rapid pace:\n\n1. People need to make enough food so that people have the ability to spend time doing things other than just hunting and gathering. There has to be a surplus in food supply to support specialist fields. If there's something like a major famine, people spend more time worrying about food than they do with worrying about how to advance technology. \n\n2. People need to be able to communicate with others pushing in the field. While there are examples of great thinkers coming up with revolutionary ideas on their own, most great discoveries and advances are an extension of existing ideas. If great thinkers don't have a way to learn from other great thinkers (even if it's just access to books or other writings), they won't advance as much. \n\n3. Society needs to accept change. If you have a great idea but government/the church/society in general doesn't accept your idea, it won't lead to advancement. \n\n4. The technology needs to persist. If the only people who know how to make concrete are conquered and oppressed by an army that doesn't know how to make concrete, the ability to make concrete to die out. \n\n5. You have to have an educated class of people. To be on the cutting edge, you have to know what's already known in your field. \n\nIn modern times, people in modernized countries may find it hard to believe that ideas can die out. We have libraries and universities around the world that are full of our best ideas, so even if one society falls their knowledge can live on. We have so much surplus food and wealth that it seems inconceivable that we wouldn't have specialists researching the cutting edge of technology instead of working a farm or hunting for survival. We have a communications network where a discovery on one continent can be observed in real time by someone across the world. \n\nBut imagine that you lived 2,000 years ago. People in China weren't aware of advances being made in Europe. Something like the plague or a famine were legitimate threats to kill a majority of people in even the biggest and most advanced cities. Conquering armies could come at any time and sack your libraries, and literally burn away the collective knowledge of your society. Some of the smartest people that live will never reach their potential because they never get a formal education or the chance to share their ideas. If you had an idea that was counter to church or government doctrine, you could be imprisoned or killed for sharing that idea. \n\nLooking at those factors, it's easy to see how technological advancement could just stop and even regress. One bad war could cut all of your gains. One crazy ruler or one powerful church could intentionally kill development. One famine or fire could crush your society. \n\nThings like that happened throughout history. Societies progressed and regressed for reasons listed, and technology followed that progression. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
11xr5v | the eu debt. who did the eu countries borrow money from and where did they get the money to lend in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11xr5v/eli5_the_eu_debt_who_did_the_eu_countries_borrow/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6qgh4c"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"First thing - the EU refers broadly to pretty much every nation in Europe under a series of agreements, with quite a few rules to make life easier in the continent (27 nations). It was intended to keep peace after WWII (it even got the peace prize this year for it). They don't all use the same currency. The Eurozone refers to those nations who use the Euro as their currency - the prominent players there are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, etc. (17 nations).\n\nSo \"debt\" with most sovereign nations is due to bond sales. Bonds are how pretty much an entity issues debt - it's an IOU of sorts. This is the same way we have debt, by the way. Countries and private entities, including ordinary citizens, have purchased these government bonds which promise to pay back our initial loan plus interest after anywhere from 6 months to 30 years, generally speaking. Today, I can lend the US $900 and get $1000 back in 30 years, for example (that isn't the exact number, it's just an example). \n\nCountries only need to borrow money when they outspend their revenue, which is mostly taxes and tariffs. The EU, therefore, incurs debt because their revenues can't keep up with their spending.\n\nIf you're interested in why this is a problem for the EU right now, let me know - that's a longer explanation.\n\nHope that helps."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
65o1f4 | why do we treat people we don't know or like with more respect than people we love and like? | Speaking to a stranger, you use words like sir, madam and such and try to be polite, whereas with a friend you can just say "hi" and so on. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65o1f4/eli5_why_do_we_treat_people_we_dont_know_or_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgbtpt9",
"dgbtq97"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When we are more comfortable with familiar people, we will tend to be more relaxed, and hence our normal selves. With unfamiliar people, we will often put up a front until we find ourselves in a comfortable place.",
"You don't know those people, and thus our lizard-brain instincts associate \"unknown=potential threat\". People naturally keep their guard up until they're in a safe space and/or with people they're familiar with."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
aod8qt | how harmonious music notes work explained in frequencies. (hz) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aod8qt/eli5_how_harmonious_music_notes_work_explained_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg03uqm",
"eg1s1wy"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Different notes make the air vibrate at different frequencies. When more than one note is played, the beats of the frequencies will line up and form a specific pattern. Our war percieved this as a harmony as the beats are extremely fast. \n\nMost fundamental intervals and chords contain frequencies that are simple ratios to one another. Generally, simpler ratios sound better together. If you slow down any chord enough, you will begin to hear it as a rhythm of beats. Simple chords will have a fairly consistent and easy to follow rhythm. \n\nThere is a lot of stuff on the internet about this. Just look up polyrythyms if your interested and that should give you the kind of info your looking for. ",
"musical intervals are exponential and not incremental, at least not normally. Meaning, that the space in frequencies between notes will be a multiple, or a ratio. So, the difference in frequencies from a lower octave A to D for example is going to be less than the difference between a higher octave A to D, because at that point, since the frequencies we are working with are higher, the difference between them is also higher, albeit the same ratio. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4wk0z2 | digital data storage. how do physical aspects of the system translate into meaningful information? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wk0z2/eli5_digital_data_storage_how_do_physical_aspects/ | {
"a_id": [
"d67m12b",
"d681eiv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"How exactly it is done depends on the specific system, but it all comes down to having something where there is a small, discrete unit that can be in one of two measurably different states, which can correspond to the 1s and 0s of binary (for example, the orientation of magnetisation on a magnetic tape or a hard drive, or the long and short pits on a CD). These produce a signal when read, which is then translated into a stream of 1s and 0s.",
"It's all about electricity. \n\nYou have a component that is sensitive to another. Let's say, you have a component that is sensitive to magnetic fields. Than, it sends a weak current when spot a negative magnetic field and a strong electric current when the field is positive. \n\nSo, you have 0s and 1s. 0 is a weak signal, when the medium has a negative magnetic field somewhere and the 1 is the positive field. Now, you attach this circuit to another that will process that 0s and 1s and send them to a video monitor. Boom! You have a computer capable of reading data. \n\nThis video explain this better: _URL_0_\n\nI also recommend watching this: _URL_1_\n\nBTW, modern hard disks works pretty much the same way, you have a metallic disk spinning and a neddle sensitive to the magnetic fields there. \n\nAlso, to spot where a file starts and ends, you use something called *headers*. They are binary sequences specially designed for this. Let's say the starting binary sequence of a jpeg is \"001100110011001100\", so when the processor receives that sequence from the hard disk, it will know that it spotted a jpg image. Than, if you click to open that image, it will read it, starting on the 0s and 1s described above until it reaches the known sequence that is at the end of a jpeg file, the ending header. \n\nIt works pretty much the same way to folders and every kind of file. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/EHRc-QMoUE4",
"https://youtu.be/_9SM9lG47Ew"
]
] |
||
1xa9jc | why does it feel like the "air" changes when i am alone in a room and i can tell that someone has walked in? | It's that feeling of intuitively knowing that you no longer are alone in a room, even if you haven't seen or heard anyone walk in. It's like the frequency of the air around you suddenly shifts. What's up with that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xa9jc/eli5_why_does_it_feel_like_the_air_changes_when_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf9iwua",
"cf9kglk"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Confirmation bias.\n\nEither you have seen or heard them come in (albeit not consciously) or you are only counting the times when you looked and someone was there (ignoring the thousands of times you look around and nobody is there).",
"Essentially you answered your own question. \nTheres ambient noise in every environment, and your ears (as a pair) are really good at discerning what direction a sound comes from and how loud it is. You can call this a sound profile. \nWhen somebody comes up behind you, the sound profile around you changes slightly because the sound waves react differently with a person than they do with air, and your ears pick up on this change. \nDo note this is more reliable with quiet rooms as you detect small changes better there because more significant compared to the original. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1vli14 | what's the difference, internally, between a spike of adrenaline and a spike of caffeine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vli14/eli5_whats_the_difference_internally_between_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cetfc2a",
"cetffhu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't want to overstate this, but I know caffeine works to temporarily increase an uptake of endogenous chemicals, chiefly epinephrine (adrenaline). So, essentially, nothing in a way except your body doesn't produce caffeine-it is a psychoactive substance. So, as I said, I don't want to overstate this, but as far as I know caffeine essentially makes epinephrine more widely available to our bodies for short periods and the energetic effects we feel are largely the adrenaline, not the caffeine itself.",
"Caffeine is a stimulant drug that acts on your nervous system. Basically, it stimulates your brain (and also interacts with other chemicals in the brain) and reduces the feeling of fatigue, can increase heart rate and respiratory rate, making you feel more alert. \nAdrenaline is a hormone and neurotransmitter produced by the body, and acts on almost every tissue in the body to regulate function including your response to stressful situations (fight or flight response). When someone has an \"adrenaline rush\" it can almost instantly affect heart rate, blood pressure, vasodilation (circulation), breathing rate and muscle tissue so that they can \"escape\" and focus on fighting or running away from a perceived threat. \n\nHope this helped- these two are not as easy to compare as I thought! \n\nEDIT: forgot to include sources! _URL_1_ _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine"
]
] |
||
6cz5mx | epistemology | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cz5mx/eli5epistemology/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhyk4fj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Epistemology is the study of knowledge acquisition. How do we know that we know something and that it's correct? It defines knowledge as something that we believe, that is true, and that we have justification for believing its truth.\n\nI'm not an expert on the subject, but a lot of study goes into things like methods of acquiring knowledge and how reliable they are. Example: It studies problems in inductive logic (if the sun has risen every day I'm alive, can I be certain it will rise tomorrow?) and deductive logic (A implies that B is true, but how can we know that A is true?)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2e0kqk | why does a bottled water cost more than a 16 ounce beer if beer contains tap water (which is what most bottled water is) and more ingredients than water. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e0kqk/eli5_why_does_a_bottled_water_cost_more_than_a_16/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjuvs74",
"cjuvsd0",
"cjuw38m"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I know of no place where this is the case.\n\nSince you are probably talking about a specific example, it's almost certainly a supply vs. demand thing.",
"Because you're only going to buy bottled water when you really need/want it. Therefore they can mark it up without anyone caring ",
"Where is this? I've never seen it. At my local stores, the most costly I've seen water is for a dollar per bottle.\n\nUnless of course it is distilled or reverse osmosis, which means that most of the impurities have been removed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
39jkm9 | why do new gen console games require such big installation downloads? | For example the games on the Xbox one sometimes have installation downloads that are around 40 gigabytes. Why can't I just put in the game and play it right when I get it without an install? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39jkm9/eli5_why_do_new_gen_console_games_require_such/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs3wsvk",
"cs3ykqq"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Games have gotten bigger, processors have gotten faster, but blu-ray drives are the same speed. Without installation downloading, you'd have insanely long loading screens for everything, as the game wouldn't be able to load enough info off of the disc in time.",
"Hard drives are faster than Blu-Ray drives, so the game performs a one-time load so that future load times are smaller.\n\nBasically, the same reason you have to install a game on your PC to play it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7rtcnh | how does netflix take up so little mobile data compared to other streamers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rtcnh/eli5_how_does_netflix_take_up_so_little_mobile/ | {
"a_id": [
"dszey0c",
"dszeyvj",
"dszjg6p"
],
"score": [
21,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Some phone plans let you stream Netflix for free. I have mobile and can watch Netflix constantly and it not effect my data usage",
"Really good compression, though i think you overestimate the data consumption of youtube and underestimate how much data you've used\n\n[Netflix estimates](_URL_0_) data consumption for each quality setting, even at Low(~480p) you're looking at ~300 MB/hour so you either watched a short season of Breaking Bad(one of the 8s or the 7) or you've miscalculated the data consumed. A 13 episode season of Breaking Bad at 42 minutes per episode should consume 2.7 GB of data\n\nIf you were to watch youtube videos in 480p for the same amount of time it would consume roughly the same amount of data, but you likely watch your youtube videos in higher resolution which means more data and gets you a skewed perception on data usage\n\nFor the most part, two videos of the same quality streamed from two different places will consume about the same amount of data. The same quality is the keep phrase in there, if you have something streaming 4K and something streaming 480p then it won't be close to even.",
"Can I pose a tangential question?\n\nHow is Google play music so insanely inefficient at streaming podcasts? It absolutely chunks my data. It's something like 100 mb/h despite me putting it at low quality. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://help.netflix.com/en/node/87"
],
[]
] |
||
esg5rp | what is happening when our pupils dilate? | When the pupil expands or opens wider, what is happening to the rest of the eye, like the colored part? Does it just move out of the way? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/esg5rp/eli5_what_is_happening_when_our_pupils_dilate/ | {
"a_id": [
"ff9q81p",
"ff9qc4r",
"ff9vvel"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The pupil dilating _is_ the iris moving - it's a ring of muscle that expands and contracts to open and close the pupil.",
"The colored part is called the iris, and it is actually a muscle sphincter, just like your anus! When it dilates, the iris muscle is contracting to open the hole (your pupil) wider and let more light into your eyeball.",
"The iris is like a scrunchy band of tissue, and when it contracts it gets narrower - making the inside hole (the pupil) wider."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
44yfbt | the difference between pantheism, panentheism, and deism. | In pragmatic terms, please. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44yfbt/eli5_the_difference_between_pantheism_panentheism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cztslf0",
"cztt9do",
"cztu86x"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Pantheism - THE UNIVERSE IS GOD. GOD IS EVERYTHING.\n\nPanentheism - God is not the universe, but God is everywhere and permeates everything. \n\nDeism - God's existence is provable by studying the natural world, usually combined with idea that God created everything, but doesn't affect our daily lives or involve itself in our biz.",
"Pantheism: Nature and God are one and the same. There's no personal God, no old man with a beard - but the natural universe is divine in a religious way.\n\nPanentheism: God is a part of every fiber of the universe, but still exists as a separate entity. Some people consider this as a personal God (the white bearded kind, for example) or as a cosmic \"force,\" but either way, it's something different from the natural world, yet inseparable from it.\n\nDeism: God is like a Divine Watchmaker. He put all the parts of the universe together, wound it up, then stepped back and watched it work. In Deism, God is a personality capable of creation, but doesn't interfere with its operation after he creates; things like prayer and ceremony are therefore meaningless.",
"Pantheism - the Universe is God, God is Universe.\n\n(We can not prove God's existence. We need something \"non-God\" to separate \"God\" from it, and there is no \"non-God\".)\n\nPanentheism - the Universe is a part/aspect/manifestation of God, God is more than the Universe.\n\n(We can (in theory) prove God's existence. We need to know 100% about the Universe, and, if our theory is 100% correct, everything that is not explained by it is God.)\n\nDeism - God created the Universe and *may* or *may not* influence it now.\n\n(We *may* or *may not* prove God's existence.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2bs48b | why do different groups of animals have specific names (like pod of whales or murder of crows) is this scientifically useful? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bs48b/eli5_why_do_different_groups_of_animals_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj8dg22",
"cj8dkle",
"cj8dpv3",
"cj8dxc1",
"cj8hed5",
"cj8i2yq",
"cj8ibdd",
"cj8ijct",
"cj8izkf",
"cj8jc5f",
"cj8jjcm",
"cj8jnp5",
"cj8jzkl",
"cj8k28y",
"cj8kgot",
"cj8kl3n",
"cj8kmio",
"cj8kvuc",
"cj8l0ke",
"cj8l2sq",
"cj8l5ai",
"cj8lfi7",
"cj8lypr",
"cj8o34l",
"cj8p1ik",
"cj8p3rw",
"cj8popz",
"cj8ppf8",
"cj8qhih",
"cj8qid6",
"cj8qsly",
"cj8r71j",
"cj8s0f4",
"cj8s4fe",
"cj8svqr"
],
"score": [
2,
1222,
110,
24,
36,
72,
2,
5,
10,
5,
3,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
4,
11,
3,
9,
9,
5,
2,
5,
7,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
16,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I was actually wondering the same thing a few days ago... A gaggle of geese, a school of fish...",
"They're called Terms of Venery, and it all started in the middle ages when hunting for sport became popular. The English imitated the specialized vocabulary of French hunters, and developed more specialized words. [They did this largely because it was fashionable.](_URL_1_)\n\nAll the really different names don't really serve a purpose nowadays, but the tradition has stuck. Although words like pack, herd, school, flock, swarm, and team are useful and common descriptors, despite their etymology. \n\n[We use specialized names mostly because it's fun and we can.](_URL_0_)",
"They are called Nouns of Venery and they are essentially a centuries old linguistic game from Aristocratic Anglo-Norman hunters. There is no scientific use because they didn't originate for science, but rather as a in-joke among the well-heeled young men in the late Middle Ages and Early Modern era. Writers took a fancy to them and recorded the terms and they've been passed down over the centuries even though the aristocratic hunting tradition is mostly dead (Fox Hunting still endures among some upper class people in Maryland and Virginia). There were hundreds at one time for all kinds of animals and it was used much like slang is today, to determine who is \"in\" and who is \"out.\" If you knew the latest Venery terms, you were cool. Writers promoting the lifestyle caused some of the terms to pass in the common use.\n\nWords like flock or herd, while also collective nouns, are more rooted in the speech of actual shepherds and farmers. Terms of Venery are usually(but not always) derived from French or directly from Latin because Latinate vocabulary was the mark of the upper classes. They typically contain some sort of \"joke\" or comment on animal so a Parliament of Owls because owls are wise, a business of ferrets because ferrets are \"busy\" and run around, a flutter of butterflies, a murder of crows since crows are associated with death, and a pride of lions since lions are regal and noble.",
"A raft of ducks. A covey of quail.\n\nAnd the old joke - a group of crows is a murder, but only one or two crows is an attempted murder.",
"A lot of these words mean a type of group of any kind of being, and use of the term tells \"what kind of group.\" Geese can be in a gaggle (walking) or a skein (loosely flying) or a wedge (tightly flying.) Teenage girls move in gaggles, but aggressive thugs roam in packs. Crowds swarm over goodies, or move in a herd when confused but united.",
"Why isn't a group of squid called a squad ?",
"Clowder, Cludder, Clutter kendle or kindle of cats, 1801; a group of cats. _URL_0_",
"Its for when askreddit threads ask for \"one happy fact\" everyone can reply with these. \n\nEdit: There is one of those threads today, and the majority of it is about animals. ",
"This is the best ELI question I have seen in a while",
"This is somewhat related. James Lipton (host of \"Inside the Actors Studio\"), appeared on Studio 360 (NPR) and discussed his affinity for nouns of venery. It has some great new ones, it's worth a listen. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Nope, people just like to name things. No scientific advantage to the word \n\"Gaggle\"",
"As a joke, some English comedians used the phrase 'a flange of baboons' in a comedy skit on TV and the phrase passed on, possibly tongue-in-cheek, into academic journals.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou may recognize the gorilla once he starts talking. ",
"Or a kaleidoscope of butterflies! ",
" Wait..a group of crows is called a murder? So Murder of Crows isn't just a cool name for a spell in WoW. It's an actual term. Interesting.",
"[Relevant and funny](_URL_0_)",
"My friend told me it was a savage of butterflies \nFor years I have told others. \nThe shame. ",
"Clif Fadiman mentioned that a group of ladies of the night has been called a flourish of strumpets. edit, I see somebody already repeated that.",
"Fact: A group of unicorns is called a \"blessing\".",
"If you're interested, I animated a series about a bunch of the different terms. If you appreciate 50 hours of work dedicated to puns, check em out [here.](_URL_0_)",
"In an important sense, most of these groups of animals *do not* have specific names. That is to say, for the vast majority of users of the English language, a group of owls is just called, \"a group of owls.\" Or maybe a family, or a population, but in any case definitely not \"a parliament.\"\n\nSo, from the point of view of *linguistic descriptivism,* (that is, the school of thought that says that correct language is determined purely by how people use the language) the word for \"a group of owls\" is non-specific, and indeed if you look up \"parliament\" in the OED, you won't find this usage listed (although it *does* list \"A gathering, meeting; a conference or convocation; a legislative body suggestive of a parliament; a multitude.\" as one \"extended usage.\")\n\nIt's worth pointing out that this is in marked contrast to words like \"flock\" or \"herd,\" which *are* used by ordinary speakers of English.\n\nSo, if there's no such specific name speaking descriptively, what about prescriptivism? In other words, are there linguistic authorities who say that these terms of venery are the correct ones? Well, not really. As lots of people point out, they were invented in the middle ages basically as a joke, and were never seriously put forward as real or useful terms. Books dedicated to these terms will list them, but you don't learn about them at school, or when learning English as a foreign language, or in a dictionary.\n\nSo, a good question to ask might be, \"why do we continue to *claim* that groups of animals have specific names?\" I don't know for sure, but I'd firstly suggest it's because they appeal to some desire for things to be *nice* - the idea that the name for a group of owls *really is* a \"parliament\" appeals to us because it's funny. However, I also think there is a rather worse reason at work, namely that learning these names makes us feel clever - the idea that *I* know the real name for a group of owls and lots of other people don't can be appealing. And when I can relate that fact (which is also fun) I get a double dose of feeling good because it feels clever and it feels like English is *so cool!*\n\nSo now I get to the end of my post, I can reveal that I really *detest* it when people talk about these words as if they worth anything!",
"A bunch of arseholes",
"When someone starts dropping those animal group names I think \"Oh, you're internet smart.\" I have quite a few friends that have degrees in things like nutrition science (or whatever the correct name is for that) or aerospace engineering and they speak very differently from my friends that know that cows have best friends. It enjoy that there are two different kinds of \"intelligent\" now.\n\nMe? I'm the guy saying \"It's actually called a clowder of cats. Fun fact right there. Oh, what's that? Yes, I can leave.\"",
"I like the term \"Mischief of rats\". My friends and I made one up when we were teenagers, a \"Dashboard of Emo kids\". ",
"Fun fact: There are collective nouns for animals that are notoriously solitary, i. e. they will never form a proper group.",
"A Game of Thrones",
"These days the only reason we do it is so people can get internet points every time they find out a group of pugs is called a grumble",
"Here comes a douching of blog trolls",
"my favorites.\n\nprickle of porcupines, bloat of hippos, wisdom of wombats, and a nope of spiders",
"\"Coven of Republicans\".",
"A school of fish.",
"A murder of crows? That sounds metal as fuck. ",
"Since no one has said so yet, look up a book called [An Exaltation of Larks](_URL_0_) for more classic and a lot of nouveau ones.",
"I think most of the collective nouns for animals were created for poetic purposes, rather than scientific. As far as I know, the most common word for groups of animals that is used by the scientific community is \"group.\" Some of the more commonly known names (herd, gaggle, flock, school, etc.) may be used but there is no difference from using those names to just saying \"group.\"",
"Kaleidoscope of butterflies is my favorite.",
"A Cram of Dildos. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collective_nouns_in_English",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_collective_nouns_of_venery#Terms_of_venery_.28words_for_groups_of_animals.29"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"thefreedictionary.com"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/367588"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCYGm1vMJ0"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/rgxi9DZ.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/II6DI-gv6zs?list=PLuazvFYEdy6iRzVb2n4iFGo2OPkgE7UhI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/An-Exaltation-Larks-Ultimate-Edition/dp/0140170960"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6cesih | how come the potus security for one weekend at mar a lago costs 3.7million? | If anyone could break it down for me as it such an insane figure to me? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cesih/eli5_how_come_the_potus_security_for_one_weekend/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhu3o80",
"dhuoyc2"
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text": [
"Security is just one component of it. Dragging along multiple Secret Service agents is expensive. Food and lodging is another component. Now that the President brought his entourage with him, where will they stay and what will they eat? Travel is possibly the last component. It's not paying for tickets or such, but rather for fuel and maintenance afterwards, if that is part of the bill. What's even more hilarious is that Mar-a-Lago is Trump's property, so the Federal government is paying Trump to allow security personnel and VIPs to stay with him while he takes his weekly vacations.",
"The source of the specific amount doesn't necessarily mean this is all directly being paid out of pocket, some news sources include the opportunity cost of lost economic activity of an event when they mention a \"cost.\" As for why:\n\n1) When the president moves, an enormous state apparatus moves with him. He is bringing advisors, security, etc along and they need to be fed and housed for the time he is there. As opposed to staying in Washington, where they are responsible for their own accommodations. \n\n2) Security must be established for a number of threats. Roads are closed and those are staffed with local police, often working overtime because they still have to perform their own duties as well. There is always a no fly zone over the president, and when that moves it has to be enforced - rerouting planes. closing runways, etc. The Palm Beach airport is almost completely shut down when he is down there because it's not large enough to keep everyone else the required distance from Air Force 1. Secure areas have to be created for the President to review and discuss confidential information. Escape routes have to be planned.\n\n3) Businesses in the area lose business because of the hassle of traveling through security checkpoints to patronize them. As I mentioned, sometimes this is included in the costs when they are published. \n\nOver time, these things get cheaper as the organizations get more efficient. But the major complaints are that Trump owns the properties where he stays, so tax money is going right back into his pocket, and that there are already very comfortable places like Camp David on active military bases that are already secure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
22eswn | how do we detect eye contact? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22eswn/eli5_how_do_we_detect_eye_contact/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgm4144"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People's eyes naturally gravitate towards other peoples' eyes as they portray a general mood and attitude, as well as being the 'mirrors to the soul'. Eye contact comes when two people do this to one another, what more are you looking for? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4p5j0a | biologically speaking, why is there such a variance in breast sizes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p5j0a/eli5_biologically_speaking_why_is_there_such_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4i8gvt",
"d4ia3fs",
"d4iaekv",
"d4ialqh",
"d4iansu",
"d4iaxy4",
"d4ib2gn",
"d4ibe9w",
"d4ibiq7",
"d4ic0i6",
"d4ictri",
"d4id2s4",
"d4ievir",
"d4ii1sj",
"d4ii5v6",
"d4ijkfv",
"d4ijplg",
"d4ik31n",
"d4ilp6f"
],
"score": [
74,
3,
388,
6,
39,
25,
41,
2,
7,
1723,
5,
5,
3,
10,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Also don't underestimate the randomness of each individual humans development. Everything isn't hard coded. ",
"Sexual selection. Humans like all other organisms will select based on preference. Some men prefer larger breasts the same same way other animals select a mate based on their physical fitness and sexual displays. The breasts have a biological function but a sexual secondary function which is attractive to males. As a result male preference will drive the selection of a mate with what he wants. As a result of the different preferences in sexual selection we end up with variation. Other animals will select a mate for fitness. Humans select mates for a variety of different reasons. If you want to know more read Desmond Morris. He has a number of books on humans. The naked ape is his first and best. ",
"Because larger or smaller breast size has had no bearing on ability to have children, or feed those children... therefore, there's been no evolutionary pressure in either direction.",
"groups of humans were more geographically isolated in the past and thus more genetically isolated as well. Some cultures placed more emphasis on mating with larger-breasted women (Europe) than others (Asia). Thus the trait would be prevalent in some but not all cultures. Now that we are intermingling more, the trait seems random as we cross pollinate cultures. At least that's what I came up with and I've been to college, so there. ",
"Because unless a certain culture selected for larger or smaller breasts, than it was unimportant to finding a mate and it basically just does whatever. Basically anything you have to ask \"why do we have this\" I.E. male nipples, male baldness, variation in penis sizes, etc. It's because it was never selected for and has no effect on our fitness to our environment. ",
"Guys fuck girls with big boobs. Guys fuck girls with small boobs. Both make babies, both types of genes continue. ",
"You basically answered your own question.\n\nIt is precisely because certain traits have no advantage or disadvantage that they're sort of left out of the evolutionary cycle that eventually standardizes some things and not others.\n\nThere's been research that shows breast size does not significantly affect the amount of milk a mother can produce, so it doesn't matter on the one front that breasts are actually of supreme importance.\n\nIt's likely that it hasn't been standardized because despite a tremendous glorification of larger boobs some cultures seem to have, men aren't going to refuse to mate with a woman simply because she has B cups as opposed to D cups.\n\nEDIT: All I'm saying is I would do things to Natalie Portman. Awful things.",
"As /u/twocentspoorer said, breast size doesn't have a direct effect on raising children. I won't say that I'm an expert in the history of human anatomy, so I unfortunately can't give a much better breakdown of the question without spouting off some random hypothesis to try and explain it.\n\nHowever, you ask, \"Why hasn't evolution standardized the size?\" I think you are vastly overestimating what evolution can achieve over the course of a few tens, or hundreds, of thousands of years. Humans have continually moved and gathered together all over the world. We haven't sat in the same spot for hundreds of thousands of years. We have random mutations causing small changes constantly, but humans also cover, and have covered for a very long time, virtually all of the land space in the world. Especially in modern society, we are used to the idea of being a big amalgam of traits from different mutations.\n\nAlthough, look at Japan. They have always been a very xenophobic country and the average person shares more traits because of how many generations of similarity there have been.",
"I would think (not a scientist) that it is similar to things like curly or straight hair etc. Its not so much an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage, just a variation due to genetic mutations. Genetic mutations that give someone an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage will often been bred in or bred out of the species accordingly. Therefore, if they make little to no difference at all in the success of a species, then those with that mutation will continue to breed just like the rest and then simply become a standard variation of that species. ",
"Geneticist here! There's a mix of right and wrong answers in here, so let me try and clear things up a bit.\n\n**The real ELI5 version:** Because we fall in love with, marry, and make babies with people because of their inner beauty, not because of how big any physical characteristic happens to be, we get children with a wide range of sizes of different parts. \n\n******\n\n**The more scientific version:** Breast size is under a type of selection known as [balancing selection](_URL_0_). This means that there are a range of sizes which are all equally optimal, while extremes are discouraged. \n\nLooking at the population, we typically don't see many cases of insanely large or small breasts. While a few individuals have very large breasts, there's no evolutionary advantage, and several disadvantages (back problems, muscle strain, sexual harassment lawsuits). Small breasts don't have similar problems, which is why our balancing selection curve covers the area from small to fairly large as \"optimal\".\n\n[Breast size doesn't impact milk production](_URL_1_), so there's no advantage to larger breasts in terms of providing nutrition to the child. In addition, while studies are contradicting, there's a lack of clear evidence suggesting that larger breasts lead to an increased risk of cancer. (Studies currently suggest that, while a larger breast doesn't necessarily increase cancer risk, it may make detecting tumor lumps more difficult.)\n\nSo overall, there's not a ton of selection influence on breast size, aside from selecting away from the extremes. Some males will prefer smaller-breasted women, while others prefer larger-breasted women. Because there's no selection working to push towards one specific size, we maintain a fairly diverse range of sizes.\n\n**TL;DR:** There's a range of breast sizes because no standard size offers an evolutionary advantage over another. Humans maintain a diverse range of breast sizes because there's no negative selection pressure pushing us away from large (or small) sizes.\n\nEDIT: Obligatory \"yowza, my inbox\" comment. There's definitely been some great discussion, and lots of curious questions. Feel free to PM me or ask me about other genetics questions you might have! I also comment a fair amount on /r/genetics, where questions about this sort of stuff is welcome.",
"Like most sex-selected traits (one sex selecting attributes of the other sex) there are costs and there are limits. To examine this it's useful to imagine the sex-selected trait becoming more extreme and also asking what advantages an individual would have that didn't show that trait at all.\n\nLarge breasts are a somewhat efficient location to store fat, but not *as* efficient, mechanically, as the abdomen, hips, thighs, and buttocks. Also, when storing fat is not an advantage they become a straight-up disadvantage to the fitness of the individual. One could imagine a long journey on foot with ample food but taxing and dangerous terrain. Breasts would do anything but help in that situation.\n\nSo, in cases where natural selection is being harsh on a population, there's a small chance that large-breasted women will suffer more than small-breasted ones. That is, *natural* selection tends to select against morphologically and mechanically inefficient designs.\n\nBut, on average, women with larger breasts have more offspring because the trait is sex-selected by males (if not for other reasons as well).\n\nBecause there is a constant tug and pull between these selective pressures, variation succeeds as a general trend even while selection operates on specific individuals in particular directions according to their circumstances.\n\nGenerally sex-selected traits increase in the \"size\" of their expression (length of tail, size of eyes, vibrancy of color) until they cannot expand anymore without severely compromising the fitness of the individual. A peacock with a tail 50 feet long just can't move. However, populations always* show variability in the degree of expression precisely because they're generally not good for fitness outside of mate selection. When other selective pressures come knocking, it's the less extreme individuals that survive to reproduce, then sex-selected pressure begins again.\n\n*For non-binary sex-selected traits.",
"Every trait always has natural variance. Evolution doesn't exactly standardize. It finds a local optimum, but it's always exploring nearby options.\n\nFor a simple example, take one gene (one locus, the place in the genome that has a gene) with two alleles (different versions of a gene that can go in a locus). Call the two alleles A and a. Suppose a parent with the genes AA (because everybody has two copies) breeds with aa. In the first generation, all the kids will have Aa, one of each, because they get one from each parent. In the second generation, it's random again. Each parent randomly contributes either A or a, so the kids are a mix of AA, Aa, and aa at a 1:2:1 ratio. There's two ways of making the Aa genotype, so it's more common. (This is a [punnett square](_URL_0_))\n\nConfusing, right? The point is that even in a simple example with two options, the mixing from breeding does result in an average, but also variance around it. Genetics doesn't produce a 'mixed average' of traits like mixing paint. Genes are 'lumpy', and when shuffled, variance always pops back out.\n\nEvolution is defined as change in gene frequency in a population over time. Maybe A goes from 10% to 11% of the total. That would be based on the success of both AA and Aa type people, but it doesn't make the whole population into people like that. It very slowly adjusts the average, and there will still be high variance in each generation.",
"Breasts in general helped babies nurse after we lost our snouts. Breast size itself became a secondary sexual characteristic. Some people like them larger, some like them smaller, and the body changed based on those sexual evolutionary desires.",
"Apart from evolutionary explanations in this thread, I would like to point out that mere fact that a biological trait exists does not mean that it is evolutionarily optimized or even advantageous. There seems to be a common misconception that ALL biological traits must have evolutionary advantage. Adaptation is only one factor in evolution. Genetic drift (random fluctuation of frequency of a feature) plays an important role. \n\nEven if a specific breast size had an evolutionary advantage, it would not mean that 100% of women today would have that breast size. Adaptation takes time. An advantageous mutation that occurs today would take 10000 generations on average to spread to whole population, if it ever does. (Average time to fixation is 4 x effective population size. I took effective population size from [here](_URL_0_) This is current human population. Population size would have been smaller in the past, thus mutations would fix faster. I cannot find an effective population size estimate for 10000 years ago.)\nBreast size probably depends on more than one gene. That would also make 100% fixation very unlikely and take longer.\n\nAnother thing is breast size might not be completely genetically determined, and maybe influenced by environmental factors. This would also lead to a variation of sizes depending on an individual's environment. ",
"But no other body part varies as much in size for people of the same height and weight. One woman's Breasts can easily be 5x the size of another woman's of the same general size. Ears, fingers, noses etc. don't vary nearly this much. Why?",
"I remember Mythbusters testing the correlation between breast size and tips. Apparently the bigger breast size the more tips. What was odd was that women tipped better with breast size then men did.",
"Can I propose an alternate genetic explanation? What if at the dawn of human history there were, after we left the great rift valley, two basic groups of folks: nomads/nomadic-game hunters and village/farm/domestic animal farmers. The nomads would likely genetically select smaller mammary glands since motion with a higher center of gravity would be \"locally\" hurtful and reduce mobility over time with back muscle issues. Village types since they don't walk as far or as often would want larger to store milk until feeding time. The only fly in that ointment would be the science that would prove that whether large or small, production is about the same in quality and quantity. I have no study that says there is a norm for milk production...whether A or DDDD?",
"Why is my wiener so much smaller than other wieners? ",
"There's likely more going on under the hood than simple evolutionary pros and cons. \n\nBreasts size is largely dependent on the fat stored there. Your body doesn't have a schedule or prioritized fat distribution system. It is very likely that some women get fat stored there by random chance, likely around the time of growth spurts like during puberty. \n\nThere's probably hormonal factors at play as well as some other things. \n\nUltimately it is a game of chance whether you will be well endowed or not. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/32020/loewe_negative-f1_FULL.jpg",
"http://www.babycenter.com/404_is-it-true-that-moms-with-small-breasts-produce-less-milk_10310185.bc"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnett_square#Monohybrid_cross"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832099/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ntr13 | why is a possible heart attack often a "tight sensation in your chest that travels up to the jaw", what is physically going on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ntr13/eli5_why_is_a_possible_heart_attack_often_a_tight/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkcnnwv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A heart attack is caused when the heart doesn't get enough oxygen from blood. The lack of oxygen causes muscle tissue in the heart to die. This causes the heart to send pain signals to your brain. These \"pain signals\" are electrical impulses sent through nerves to the spinal cord, which then travel to and are processed by your brain. The reason that pain is commonly also felt in the jaw and left arm is a phenomenon known as referred pain. The nerves sending signals from the heart, left arm, and jaw converge very close together in the spinal cord. The simple explanation is that when this signal travels to your brain, your brain can't tell exactly where its coming from. It causes you to feel pain in other parts of your body in addition to the chest/heart that didn't actually send the signal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2r7eyf | why don't cell phones have easily accessible interchangeable batteries? | Like AAA, C, 9-volt, etc. A similar standard of designs for flat rechargeable lithium batteries. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r7eyf/eli5_why_dont_cell_phones_have_easily_accessible/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnd4zos",
"cnd54dh",
"cnd7nax",
"cnd86em"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The manufacturers want you to go to their \"professionals\" and pay them to replace the battery.",
"If you were a cell phone company, and you paid a lot of money into researching and developing a newer, more efficient, higher-storage-capacity battery, you would be able to advertise that your phone has a battery life that exceeds the competition by X amount.\n\nFor a lot of people, battery life is a HUGE selling point of a phone. ",
"Except phones are changing size dramatically each generation. And yo compete in the market you can't waste any space by putting in a battery that's too small.",
"One reason is the manufacturers would have to design the phones around the standard battery dimensions. There is almost no free space in a modern cell phone (or any modern compact electronics) so everything must make the most out of the space available. Batteries happen to be one component that is relatively easy to redesign into whatever space you need to fill. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4tts95 | how do we send objects to travel through space so precisely? | Using Juno as an example, wouldn't a seemingly insignificant error compound into a huge discrepancy as it travels through space? Jupiter's over half a billion kilometers away! It doesn't seem possible that we can account for every factor... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tts95/eli5_how_do_we_send_objects_to_travel_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5k7ags",
"d5k7eu9"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"You're absolutely right that a tiny error results in missing orbital insertion.\n\nThe short answer is that spacecraft measure their location very precisely and make course corrections using thrusters.\n\nThis was historically done mostly by remote control - the spacecraft would just transmit information about its position and NASA would send it a command to fire certain thrusters for a certain amount of time.\n\nMore often, now, spacecraft can do these course corrections entirely autonomously.\n",
"Most (if not all) modern probes have the ability to make minor trajectory adjustments using thrusters that can be manually fired if the spaceccraft is too far off course.\n\nThat being said, the massive cost of these types of missions includes very precise mathematical calculations that generally succeed in placing the spacecraft very close to where it needs to be from the beginning. The Solar System is almost entirely empty, so the main thing you need to account for is the gravity of the sun and the planets. These are the only objects massive enough to be likely to significantly knock the craft off course, and their motions are extremely predictable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.