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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7vgs6j | why are brass, copper, and bronze used in pluming? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vgs6j/eli5_why_are_brass_copper_and_bronze_used_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dts5e2i"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They're very corrosion resistant, considering the constant exposure to water. They're also very malleable (meaning they're easily shaped into tube and pipe) and not toxic, plus it is easy enough to be bent by hand rather than having to fabricate exact curves and lengths. In addition, the three metals are also resistant to the growth of bacteria and other microbes.\n\nBrass, copper, and bronze are all mostly copper. Admiralty brass, the type of brass you'd normally see in plumbing, is only 30% zinc. Bronze is typically no more than 12% tin. Keeping the metal mostly the same also helps limit corrosion. Typically you'll see copper tubing and brass fittings, because pure copper doesn't hold its shape very well under the higher stress at a fitting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
689ih3 | what happens to a file when it is uninstalled from a computer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/689ih3/eli5what_happens_to_a_file_when_it_is_uninstalled/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgwpxqi",
"dgwqnju",
"dgwuz2l"
],
"score": [
4,
21,
2
],
"text": [
"Your computer saves things by changing the ones and zeroes on disk. It doesn't matter what those bits were before you saved something, so there is no such thing as \"empty\" memory. As such, there's no point in \"deleting\" anything, as it would be equivalent to just saving random bits on top of the old ones.\n\nInstead of actually removing the data from the disk the computer just marks that part as free. Eventually, when something needs to be saved again, those bits might be used.",
"We tend to say the file is deleted. \nThe computer has a disk that acts like a like a filing cabinet. The computer keeps a list or table that tells it where the files is stored on the disk - similar to which draw on hanger in the filing cabinet. \nSo the table might say - file1 is stored at address 100 and is 40 pages long, and file 2 is stored at address 140 and is 50 pages long, file 3 is stored at address 190 and so on. \n\nIf you ask the computer to delete file 2 then it will just delete the name of the file from the table. After deleting the file the table might be - file1 is stored at address 100 and is 40 pages long and file 3 is stored at address 190.\n\nSo the file is still on the disk but the computer cannot find it from the table anymore. Next time a file is to be saved it might put it in the space the file 2 is using. If say file 4 is also 50 pages long then the computer might use the space file 2 uses and the table might be - file1 is stored at address 100 and is 40 pages long, and file 4 is stored at address 140 and is 50 pages long, file 3 is stored at address 190. File 2 has then been overwritten.\n\nUnlike real files the file on a computer is a row of switches that can be set to 0 or 1. When a new file needs to use the row of switches they are just switched to the new values.\n\nHope my analogy helps and doesn't confuse - the main point is that in most systems the file is not deleted, the index is deleted, and the space reused. \nThere are also other ways for the computer to manage the disk. ",
"Usually, \"installed\" implies many files that are associated with each other: an application (like Word or Photoshop; they are many files and settings, not one).\n\nModern applications, when they are installed, also include \"uninstall\" information, so that they can take themselves back off when you don't want them, and not leave much behind.\n\nWhen that happens, most of the files that were part of the application are marked \"deleted\", including the ones that tell the computer (and you) how to run the application in the first place.\n\nAs for the files themselves, your computer uses one of a few ways to know what a \"file\" is, and how to look at it. Commonly, a storage device is split into small (pretend) sectors and/or clusters. A file takes up a certain number of those, to store all its information--as many as it needs. When you make a file, a table keeps track of where the file starts. The file fills up a cluster, marks it \"used,\" and asks for another. The storage device gives it the next one it sees that isn't marked \"used.\" It fills that, marks it \"used,\" and asks for another, repeat until there's nothing else that needs to go in the file. **There are other ways to do this but they have similar results.**\n\nWhen you delete a file, a couple of things happen:\nThe clusters that the file has marked \"used,\" get marked \"not used.\"\nThe table that tells you where the file starts, gets told to stop telling you that file is there.\n\nThe data that the file put in each cluster is still there, so right away, you could mark it all back the way it was, and you'd have your file back. There are tools to do this.\n\nBut now that those clusters aren't marked \"used,\" the next time a file asks the storage device for a new cluster, the device might give it one of the ones from the old file. That old file is now \"overwritten\" and can't easily be restored anymore.\n\nWhen people talk about \"secure deletion,\" they're worried about this; that the clusters that had your data were only switched from \"used\" to \"not used,\" and the actual data is still there if you turn them back to \"used.\" Secure deletion, among other things, takes all those clusters, writes garbage to them, and then marks them \"not used\" again. This takes longer, and most files aren't secret.\n\n(Secure deletion also worries about shadows of your data in those clusters, like a TV screen still showing things a little while after you turn it off. So it writes garbage over and over till the only shadows are shadows of more garbage. This takes a LOT longer than just marking it \"not used,\" so people only do it when they're really worried about something)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
610nc0 | what are moments, skewness and kurtosis in statistics? ;-; | I've been looking around on the internet for a simple explanation and stuff like "a moment is a summary measure of a probability distribution" doesn't cut it.
I'm confused. I'm a little stupid. And I have nowhere else to turn to except for ELI5 to explain these foreign fancy terms to me like I'm 5.
EDIT:
I also need to understand the meanings of the answers.
High values and Low values for Variance
Negative and Positive and high and low values for Skewness
High and Low values for Kurtosis. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/610nc0/eli5_what_are_moments_skewness_and_kurtosis_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfasmq6",
"dfawfxt",
"dfaxnoj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Did you find this [article](_URL_0_) ?",
"Somewhat vague explanation: If you're familiar with the basic shapes of polynomial graphs ([example showing degrees 1-6](_URL_0_)), then you can think of each moment as \"how well does my distribution 'resemble' this graph?\" \n\nFor example, the graph of a generic third-degree polynomial (like y=x^3 - x) has an up-down hump in it, but unlike a degree-two parabola this hump isn't symmetrical. So when you find the third moment of a distribution it can tell you whether your distribution \"leans\" to one side or another the way a cubic hump does--which is why the third moment gives a measure of skewness. \n\nAlso in this example, note that a generic cubic graph has two asymmetric humps, one that leans left and another that leans right. Whether the moment is positive or negative depends on which of these two humps your distribution most resembles. Having a negative third moment = having more mass in the left tail than a symmetric distribution would = having left skew, for instance. (Note that this works because the moments are \"centered\" at the mean of the distribution, which for an symmetric distribution is usually in a different spot than the median.)\n\n",
"Moments describe various aspects of the shape of your distribution.\n\nM0 is the total probability which is always equal to 1.\n\nM1 is the mean which describes the *location* of the distribution. The center of gravity if you will.\n\nM2 is the variance which describes the *spread* of the distribution. The square root of the variance is the standard deviation (which you can think of as the average spread). High values are more spread out than smaller values.\n\nM3 is the skewness which describes the *lean* of the distribution. A positive skew means you have a left lean and a long right tail (a chi-square distribution is positively skewed). This means that the mean (center of gravity) is to the right of the bulk of your data.\n\nM4 is the kurtosis which describes how *fat* the distribution's tails are. It tells you how likely it is to find extreme values in your data. Higher values make outliers more likely ( the tails are fatter). This sounds a lot like spread (variance) but is subtly different. The student-t distribution has the same mean (0), variance (1) and skewness (0) of the standard normal distribution but has a higher kurtosis (it is lower and wider)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://funpsychology.wordpress.com/statistics-in-psychology/moments-skewness-and-kurtosis/"
],
[
"https://goo.gl/images/3IPLcm"
],
[]
] |
|
2f7xvy | stud finders / stud sensors | Are they really accurate? How? I would never place a bet on my stud finding ability. Please help! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f7xvy/eli5_stud_finders_stud_sensors/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck6qfgg",
"ck6qsej"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They are mini metal detectors. They don't have a long range and are usually fairly accurate unless the stud is buried deep or there's some other piece of metal that distracts it.",
"There are two types, one senses metal, the other senses density. _URL_0_\n\nNether one works well on lath and plaster, but both can work well with drywall. In many cases it helps to try and find both sides of a stud, and to check above or below if you have trouble getting a reading where you are."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stud_finder"
]
] |
|
nwaog | wittgenstein | I'm preparing for a exam the 3rd of january, but because I had to move to my new appartment at the same time I haven't had time to read about Wittgenstein.
I'm studying about HCI(Human Computer Interaction), focusing on the philosophy by Paul Dourish... Please help.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nwaog/eli5wittgenstein/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3cjzmx",
"c3cjzmx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I agree with the above post - you'd have to narrow down what you want to know about Wittgenstein. However, you're in luck! As there exists a comic book which explains various bits of Wittgenstein in a very simplified manner which I've copied below. Hooray!\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's mainly about Russell, but there's loads of stuff on Wittgenstein, I remember a very interesting section on his picture theory. I think it's mainly earlier Tractatus stuff when he arrived at Cambridge, rather than anything on the later Wittgenstein. Hope that helps.\nEDIT: typo",
"I agree with the above post - you'd have to narrow down what you want to know about Wittgenstein. However, you're in luck! As there exists a comic book which explains various bits of Wittgenstein in a very simplified manner which I've copied below. Hooray!\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's mainly about Russell, but there's loads of stuff on Wittgenstein, I remember a very interesting section on his picture theory. I think it's mainly earlier Tractatus stuff when he arrived at Cambridge, rather than anything on the later Wittgenstein. Hope that helps.\nEDIT: typo"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.logicomix.com/en/"
],
[
"http://www.logicomix.com/en/"
]
] |
|
23rz6r | how is it possible that our brain is able to calculate trajectory (e.g. throwing an object at something) so easily (especially if i'm so bad at math)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23rz6r/eli5_how_is_it_possible_that_our_brain_is_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgzzr0d",
"cgzzx85",
"ch01c02",
"ch0291n"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Thank your binocular vision, try to make the same shot with on eye closed.",
"what you are doing is what most physicists do when looking into new equations or formulas - \"first approximation\"\n\nyou aren't predicting the trajectory with a high degree of accuracy so the actual path it takes is always \"close enough\" for you to think you are getting it right\n\nbeing good at maths is more about getting it exact, and when not exact, knowing the amount of error, exactly\n\nand your brain has seen solid spherical objects interacting with gravity and air all it's life, the model is fairly simple and uniform - try watching footballs roll around the ground and see how good your guess is to its path :)",
"The ELI5 answer is experience. You've been doing similar things all of your life, gravity hasn't changed and wind/air density doesn't really change that much (and if it does it's difficult to calculate trajectory as easily as you say).",
"Practice. If I spent as much time on calculus as I did shooting freethrows I might have a job right now."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5lrp0l | why do we get that strange feeling in our head when something sharp and long is pointing right between our eyes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lrp0l/eli5_why_do_we_get_that_strange_feeling_in_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbxwvzo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Doesn't work for me. Maybe it's because I don't use my left eye? Maybe it's related to the Ajna chakra point (third eye) and I mediate almost daily? Can you explain the sensation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2rlmei | color wheel versus visible light spectrum | Sorry for the vauge title,but here's my question: Why is the opposite of red green on a color wheel, yet in terms of wavelength, red's opposite is violet? What is the difference?
I'm going to assume its about light vs shades (like how all the colors of light make white, but all the shades, like when mixing paint, make black) but still, why green and red? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rlmei/eli5_color_wheel_versus_visible_light_spectrum/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnh0x60"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"With visible light, red doesn't come after/before violet and violet doesn't come after/before red. On the color wheel it does because it makes finding relationships between colors easier than a straight line. Green being the opposite of red has everything to do with color theory in art and nothing to do with the wavelength of light. In chemistry or astronomy, any science that relies on visible light, you wouldn't note that something is a complementary color. Just like in art you don't really care that a color has a wavelength of 400nm and a certain frequency. And the violet in the visual spectrum is really more of a deep blue than what we typically think of as violet or purple. But the contrast with the cyan band makes it appear more purple. Really it's red and blue at opposite ends. \n\nRed and green are subjectively complementary. Just like blue and orange or purple and yellow. The color wheel is a circle, so there are no ends. Everything blends together. You can pretty much do what you want in terms of matching colors on a wheel. Traditionally it's a line from one side to the other to get complementary colors. A triangle for tertiary colors. A square for tetradic colors. You can keep going with a pentagon, hexagon, etc. It has nothing really to do with the physical nature of light. It's just about making color schemes that look good together. \n\nRGB light mixed makes white. RGB paint makes black. But you can make a color wheel that includes shades (darks) or tints (lights). So it doesn't really prevent you from including white just because it's a subtractive color model. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
237a2a | class warfare | Not really sure what to think about it. I see a lot of people that are "for" class warfare and "against" class warfare. What exactly takes place during class warfare and why do people either want it or not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/237a2a/eli5_class_warfare/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgu481i",
"cgu4djk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Class warfare is the idea that one class of people, usually the rich or well-to-do, either take action to prevent the poor from \"rising above their station\", or support policies which help suppress the poor, or are otherwise implicitly assisting in the suppression of those of a lower class, or are least complicit in it. \n\nThe converse, of course, would be action by the poor against the rich (vandalism, threats, property destruction, etc.) Very few people would, I think, claim to be \"for\" class warfare; but plenty of people deny it exists.",
"More or less when less affluent people point out that the extremely wealthy enjoy significantly more influence on legislation and thus tax and legal benefits that others don't it's \"class warfare\". \n\nBasically categorizing the rather obvious truth that inheriting wealth is not proof of one's effort or intelligence as \"class warfare\" serves to derail the argument. It's the recourse for those that have no other answer because they really think that being born on third base is the same as hitting a triple. They simply don't understand that they have a head start and hold a better hand. \n\nConversely, those that would demand that if Person A enjoys lifestyle of quality X so should they is just as foolish. Ultimately (to me) it comes down to the question of is there a level playing field. It's not class warfare to suggest that everyone should get a SHOT, not that they merit a guaranteed win. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3x1u5d | what is self-healing plastic and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x1u5d/eli5what_is_selfhealing_plastic_and_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy0vqea"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert but I believe that self-healing plastic is a typical long-chain polymer material that contains pockets of liquid plastic. When the material is broken, these pockets of liquid plastic get broken open and the liquid fills the gap created. The liquid then solidifies to heal the plastic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2l2on1 | what really happens when people die of "old age" or "natural causes" ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l2on1/eli5_what_really_happens_when_people_die_of_old/ | {
"a_id": [
"clqv5mw",
"clqw6ix",
"clqx7in",
"clqz018",
"clqzzmq",
"clr04jm",
"clr0tld",
"clr0xkd",
"clr1vdu",
"clr32sm",
"clr36f6",
"clr39yv",
"clr3n79",
"clr3rn2",
"clr3rqa",
"clr3tpi",
"clr4a2f",
"clr63w3",
"clr69fs",
"clr70l8",
"clr7tnb",
"clr80kg",
"clr89nz",
"clr8cmo",
"clr8gow",
"clr8tig",
"clr93iv",
"clr98cm",
"clra8gp",
"clranc6",
"clrb9po",
"clrbspt",
"clrc96z",
"clrcdax",
"clrcxio",
"clrdbm8",
"clrdvsz",
"clremsb",
"clrf5vu",
"clrfkqp",
"clrgasj",
"clrgnfi",
"clrh7h7",
"clrkl69",
"clrlq2u",
"clro5s1"
],
"score": [
2830,
368,
110,
10,
38,
6,
412,
51,
3,
6,
7,
2,
211,
4,
2,
3,
6,
2,
23,
3,
101,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2,
13,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
13,
2,
3,
5,
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"what happens is the family and doctors agree it is not worth determining what the actual cause of death was.\n\nactual cause is often heart failure, but frankly could be almost anything that isn't blatantly obvious from an external inspection.\n\nedit: stroke is another common cause. may actually be even more common that heart attack for \"old age\" deaths, as it can hit suddenly with less obvious symptoms.",
"Death as a result of internal malfunction (like a heart attack, end-stage cancer, infection) which is not in anyway influenced by external factors/forces (like an accident, suicide, homicide etc.).",
"No one dies from old age or natural causes, it's always some failing body part or disease",
"Many times it's a result of the arteries breaking down and leading to initially slow internal bleeding that progressively gets worse. It's a slow and often painless death and usually happens during sleep since the person will often feel fatigued (due to oxygen deprivation and hypoperfusion) and just drift off to sleep.\n\nHonestly, this is how I hope I go. Just get tired, say \"Ima take a nap now\" and just drift away. Very peaceful",
"A lot of people in this thread are putting the blame on telomeres.\n\nTelomeres are thought to have some affect on aging, but they are not the main cause of old-age/natural cause death. It's not like your last telomere is used up and your cells are all like \"that's it!\" Read [here](_URL_0_) for some more info on how telomeres are shortened and whether they cause aging.\n\n\"Old age\" and \"natural causes\" is another way of doctor and family saying \"we expected the death and it was not caused by something acute/unexpected\" (read /u/mlp-r34-clopper's comment)\n\nIt is still usually caused by some co-morbidity of being old such as congestive heart failure, stroke, heart attack, other vascular/atherosclerotic/issues of blood supply (ischemic issues), or cardiac arrest brought on by any number of unseen things, including but not limited to the preceding list. The fact of the matter is, something in the body is failing for any number of reasons.\n\nI actually read somewhere recently that \"old age\" and \"natural causes\" will no longer be accepted as a cause of death on death certificates, as it says nothing about the pathology of the patient's death. ",
"In most cases the thing that actually kills a person is simply lack of oxygen to the brain. This can happen through various ways, but in 21st century America, it is most often the result of heart disease, cancer, or stroke. With heart disease, the person will typically suffer a heart attack, in which blood supply to the heart muscle itself is cut off, causing the heart muscle to die and no longer be able to pump blood. With cancer, what happens is that a primary tumor metastasizes (meaning it gets into the bloodstream and colonizes new tumors all throughout the body). The metastatic tumors essentially starve other bodily organs of oxygen and nutrients, which leads to multiple organ failure and an inability to supply the brain with blood and nutrients. In a stroke, a blood vessel in the brain pops, and hence can no longer supply the brain with blood.",
"We actually get to see this very often in the cadaver lab at my uni. Most of the subjects who donate their bodies are elderly and almost all of them have died of heart failure or strokes. The other day while viewing the brain we actually found the stroke that killed a subject.\n\nIn my mind natural causes or old age is used to describe any cause of death that couldn't really be fought or predicted. If someone is younger, or the person developed a disease that was fought, or maybe from a dangerous surgery, the cause of death would hold more of an impact and is usually listed. It depends on the family as well, sometimes instead of listing that their loved one died of heart failure, they find it easier and more dignified to list natural causes. Also, like mlp said, there's no real point in discovering the cause of death if it was quiet, peaceful and bound to happen soon.",
"No idea, my grandpa woke up one morning at 90 something years of age, had his tea and frosted flakes like he had done for the past 40 years. ate it, threw up and was keeled over dead within an hour. no autopsy, no doctor to check him out. it was just listed as a natural cause and the funeral was 2 days later, weird stuff.",
"One of the major causes of death in 'old age' would be Aspiration Pneumonia (from the elderly/hospice patients) lying for long periods leading to very rapid deterioration because they have don't have the immune response they would have before. ",
"There’s a mental component that was very important in my father’s case when he passed away 3 years ago at the age of 86. He had fallen and was taken to the hospital where he was treated for some cuts and bruises; x-ray showed no broken bones. They also did a CAT scan of his brain which revealed that he had had a “silent stroke”. When we talked to the neurologist about this he assured my father that everything was OK in his ability to think and move. But it really bothered Dad because he had seen the results of major stroke in others in the skilled nursing facility and he did not want to be disabled mentally or physically. He wanted to be in control of the end of his life. He decided to stop taking his meds, he refused physical therapy and was combative towards some of the staff. I would get into shouting matches with him about this behavior until finally one of the nurses pulled me aside and said “it’s his choice to do this, you must let him go”. So I did, and over the next week we had some good conversations before he became unresponsive and slipped away. \nThe cause of death was listed as “failure to thrive”.\n",
"I am surprised this hasn't been referenced. The bodies cells are re-generated by stem cells. Stem cells are essentially like candles and eventually burnout and are no longer able to regenerate cells. a A few \"supercentenarians\" have donated their bodies to science and died in remarkably good health. They just stopped living. No heart disease, no cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. and what doctors found was invaluable. One Scandinavian perfectly healthy woman who expired with no illness in her body of any kind, upon investigation only had two functioning stem cells left in her body (you are born with 20,000!) In other words, stem cells, the cells that regenerate other cells had exhausted their capacity to function and simply burnt out -- burned down to the wick, so to speak.\n\n_URL_0_",
"For anyone looking for an answer more on the cellular level, most cells will contain DNA which are organised as chromosomes, and at the end of each chromosome are telomeres. Telomeres are junk sequences that aren't useful code. Ever time a cell divides, a bit of the telomeres are lost due to the way DNA replication works (telomerase in this case). As it is continually lost, it eventually reaches useful sections of DNA which causes problems.",
"I am developing an analysis engine for Reddit that I intend to turn into a bot. Here are some past Reddit discussions that it believes are related to this topic:\n\n* [ELI5 If our body is constantly producing new cells to replace old ones, why do we age?](_URL_1_)\n* [What exactly is dying of old age?](_URL_2_)\n* [On/Off switch for Aging Cells Discovered](_URL_4_)\n* [ELI5: Why do different species have different life spans? For example we live to a maximum length of years, yet a giant tortoise can live to like 170 years old? What determines this?](_URL_3_)\n* [Scientists discover an telomerase on/off switch for aging cells](_URL_0_)\n\nI hope this is useful, please let me know what you think.",
"So if dying of old age comes from mostly your heart failing etc. Would it be possible to significantly extend human life if there was a way to 3d print you new organs from scratch? Sort of like you can keep a car running forever by replacing parts it needs..",
"Cellular boredom. If people just used the Cellular Regeneration and Entertainment Chamber, they'd be fine.",
"In California, old age or natural causes is not an accepted cause for the death certificate, which leads to doctors getting creative with death causes to get the certificate to pass through public health. Public health proofreads and approves all causes of death in the state. \nI can't speak for other states or countries. \n\nSource: I work in the funeral industry. ",
"\"Old age\" is not considered medically to be a cause of death. The \"natural causes\" that they are talking about are defined by the CDC to be (numbers are deaths per year in the US):\nHeart disease: 596,577\nCancer: 576,691\nChronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,943\nStroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,932\nAlzheimer's disease: 84,974\nDiabetes: 73,831\nInfluenza and Pneumonia: 53,826\nNephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,591\nHope this helped!",
"I don't want to die bro. \n\nLife is awesome and not being alive would be total shit. \n\nAll of my neurons and neural synapses that contain everything that I am will rot into compost. \n\nThat is about the shittiest thing that I can imagine. ",
"Imagine a dam built of hundreds of thousands of bricks. When it was new, everything worked well together, and if any brick failed, the point of failure could be isolated, patched up, and put back together, and the dam could continue to work just fine.\n\nNow imagine a hundred years later, every single part of the dam has undergone some form of wear and tear. Bricks are popping out a lot more all over the place, other spots are just leaking slowly, other spots are structurally weak and going to turn into a problem any time now. You can keep plugging holes as long as you want, except each time you do you put stress on the surrounding regions too and might cause things to become even worse elsewhere.\n\nOld age and dying of natural causes is exactly like that: too many things are fragile, decayed, going wrong or about to go wrong, and the surrounding structure is too fragile to support efforts to continually plug the leaks. Eventually something or another gives, and instead of figuring out exactly what broke to send the whole thing crashing down, the family and the doctors just shrug and say \"meh\".",
"Just heart failure. Organs fail after cells divide too much. Telomeres could keep us young forever, but the ends of them shrink after time.",
"This may get buried but it's actually my field of expertise!\nWhen someone dies there are only two reasons: Natural or Unnatural. \n\n\nUnnatural refers to any sort of trauma to the body, be it physical (i.e. hit by a car, electrical shock, mauled by a bear) or chemically (i.e. drug overdose, poisoning, suffocation).\n\nNatural refers to anything that may happen to you as the result of natural disease processes. This can stem from a birth defect that kills quickly like ancephaly (born without a brain), or something like a clotting disorder that eventually causes a stroke or heart attack. As the body ages, its ability to fight infections decreases and you see a lot of pneumonia-related deaths or sepsis (infections that overwhelm the body and crash your blood pressure). The heart is essentially a big, dumb muscle. Notice how grandma can't pick things up like she used to? That's because her muscles have atrophied. Now picture her heart that's been beating 24/7 for the last 80-something years and you'll be able to picture how weak it has become and just can't pump like it used to. This causes a whole cascade of problems and \"backs up\" the plumbing of the body.\n\nEvery jurisdiction has different criteria for determining just what is considered \"natural\". But for all intents and purposes, natural just means there wasn't a nefarious root cause.\n\nSource: Death Investigator for a Medical Examiner/Coroner's office.",
"No one in the US has died of old age since 1957.\n\nBecause that is the year that option was removed from death certificates - now an approximate mechanism must be identified (heart or respiratory failure, etc.)",
"No one has died of natural causes since the 1930's. True story.",
"Im 27, I saw my grandparents today. My grandpa is so old and frail with dementia. I feel bad for him and my poor grandmother who cares for him everyday. They are so sweet. I love them.\n",
"Technically, all death is caused by brain death. In the case of old age, or natural causes, an organ fails in such a way that the brain is no longer able to function, whether due to lack of oxygen (lungs, heart) lack of energy (digestive, heart), or some other bodily toxicity (renal).",
"What happens is the cells just deteriorate. This is in fact because of a defense mechanism which keeps us all from getting rampant cancer. This is because we have a built in kill switch on our cells.",
"They 'forget' how to eat and drink and basically starve and dehydrate to death. \nOr, they might get lucky and get an infection and family (or they, them self) decide not to treat it and the infection takes them sooner. ",
"Not sure, but I have watched many family members wilt away and die of old age and terminal illness. I hope that by the time I get to the point of terminal, there is a Kevorkian Law that will allow me to be put respectfully to sleep. When animals are terminal it is called humane to put them to sleep so they will not suffer. Why can't humans have the same option?\n",
"\"Old age\" and \"natural causes\" are just old sayings that got stuck onto people's tongues. In modern medicine this is an euphemism for A Combination Of Chronic Illnesses That Cannot Be Cured, Only Supported To Minimize Suffering. a person's body usually degrades to this point if a person have not had a massive heart attack, a number of strokes, diabetes or Parkinson's(4 main killers). Usually then a person dies from pneumonia due to severely weaken immune system, thats what hospice and morphine 24/7 for",
"That term hasn't been used clinically in over 50 years.",
"Well, when my grandma was dying, I think we were just waiting for her heart to stop. Thankfully, hospice helped us through the process. ",
"This is an interesting one, as it is kind of impossible to die of old age. There will always be something that kills you. What dying of old age, or natural causes, usually means is that the person had reached a point where they were so weak, and their body had degenerated so much, that something like a simple cold (that they would barely have noticed as a healthy adult) could kill them. A cold, for example, has no obvious symptoms like a stroke or a heart attack would, so it would appear like they just passed away in their sleep. To explain this, it is easier to say they died of old age, giving the slightly deceptive illusion that they had hit their 'natural' expiration date.",
"As another person as said its the \"easy way out\"\n\nMy great grand mother died suddenly at the age of 101. Her cause of death? Natural causes...why? Well...does it really matter what part of her failed to cause her to die at 101? ",
"I am a bit wary of the term \"old age\" or \"natural causes.\" Most of my grandparents died in their 80s or 90s, generally from dehydration and eventual organ failure, many times in a coma. My grandfather decided to starve himself and stopped eating and drinking, and basically did himself in... after several days in a hospital. It was horrific to watch them slowly waste away like that.\n\nAccording to the [Journal of Patient Safety](_URL_0_), roughly 440,000 Americans die each year in US hospitals due to \"medical errors.\"",
"For one of my grandparents I was told it was heart failure. She picked up a spoon to eat her lunch and she just stopped. It wasn't dramatic, just looked like she had passed out as she slumped in her chair. We were told her heart just stopped beating and she wouldn't have felt a thing. We all say she died of old age.",
"This is a great example of reddit gone wrong. What is stated here is grossly oversimplified and frankly untrue.\nNatural causes almost always means pulmonary edema. The failure of virtually any vital organ system will lead to pulmonary edema, or fluid backing up into the tiny air sacks or alveoli in the lungs.\nThink of it this way, if the kidneys fail, the system overloads with fluid and the patient dies of respiratory arrest. If the heart becomes sufficiently damaged that it cannot pump blood effectively, the excess fluid again will back up into the lungs, causing respiratory arrest. Liver failure, derangement of fluid/electrolyte balance and overwhelming infection and/or inflammation can all similarly result in death by...Plumonary edema leading to respiratory arrest.\nWhile I'm at it, in America even with our shitty healthcare, most people still have decent enough insurance to get their diabetes sort of under control, get on a blood pressure drug or two and maybe a statin or a \"blood thinner\" if warranted. So those big dramatic fall to the floor dead kind of strokes aren't really all that common anymore. And when they do happen, people are far more educated and are thus able to get their loved ones emergency care faster. In the best of situations, this may buy them a dose of TPA that will bust the infarct causing clot and they could potentially walk out of the hospital a few days later not much worse for wear. If you are very unlucky, the TPA could cause bits of the clot to break off from the one lodged in your brain and end up in your lungs, causing you to hack up frothy, pink sputum. Fluid backs up, pulmonary edema sets it, respiratory arrest will probably follow because this just isn't your day.\nOn to the last point, fwiw. It's not that the cause of death isn't worth determining, it's that they already know it's respiratory arrest secondary to pulmonary edema. Otherwise, they are still going to want to cut you open and see what happened, you know, for science. \nI only took the time to type this because of that post in r/showerthoughts that said 99% of quality posts are never made because people kind of lose their steam and think \"eh, fuckit.\" Tonight I decided not to be that person. \nSource- Iama RN\nEdit*a sentence",
"I just finished my biology courses and from what I was taught was that dying of old age meant that your cells could no longer replicate and make up for the number of dying cells in your body. Your cells are constantly dying and being replaced by new cells that use your DNA to replicate. Each DNA strand can only replicate a finite number of times before the telomere's reach a point that the DNA can't be unzipped and tied of to another strand to make DNA. Your mitochondria also plays a part in cell reproduction. Once the \"power house\" as it is referred to loses that energy you see those signs of aging like wrinkles or sagging skin on old people who've never really had weight issues. \n\nTL;DR: you are born with a predetermined expiration date based on your genetic makeup. Blame your parents. ",
"The body is a complex system where thousands of things need to go right for you to keep on living. Sometimes when you die it's very obvious which particular thing failed so that thing is attibuted as the cause of death (e.g. terrible accident, heart attack, liver failure, etc.). \n\nWhen you're very old, what happens is that all your systems decline and multiple things fail at roughly the same time. So many things failed that it's a little silly to attribute death to only one thing. So it's sometimes euphemistically described as old age or natural causes.",
"The body is a complicated thing, over time the bodies ability to repair itself diminishes. \n\n Every accident, break, illness or injury leaves its mark on a persons body over a lifetime. \n\n As the bodies ability to repair itself gets worse the weak points from earlier injury(smoking say) are more likely to not recover as well. \n\n So you continue on as joints fail or are worn, ligaments become loose and skin becomes thin and takes a long time to heal. \n\n At the same time your muscles and senses start to become weaker. \n \nThings dont taste as good and your circulation starts to become weaker with the rest of your organs. \n \n Your brain doesnt work as well as it should as the digestive system \ndoesnt provide enough energy to the organs to process the nutrients your body needs to work efficiently. \n\n Your blood and lymphatic system start accumulating poisons as they dont get processed out quickly enough. \n\n Then something that your body could handle in the past happens, your body attempts to repair it but like a game of tetris the parts all pile up to end your fight to live.",
"nurse here. Hospice has a diagnosis called \"failure to thrive.\" Basically it means there is a gradual decline that continues so far that people die: your muscles are weaker when you're older, you sleep more, you move less. You lose your appetite. That becomes extreme: even with people spoon feeding food into your mouth, you might not swallow and aspirate. People start sleeping more than the cat. You kind of give up the will to live, or you don't even have the energy to do the things you need to do to live. Pressure sores develop, the muscles that help you swallow weaken, you become dehydrated and your immune system weakens. A natural cause could be a virus or bacteria. An elderly person gets a cold, but their immune system is weak and pneumonia develops and family/that person decides to not treat the infection with antibiotics. Little things that would just give a healthy person a day of malaise causes this person to pass away, and the quality of life is so low that treatment is not sought. Hope that helps!",
"At an advanced old age many factors come into play, it's a dice-roll that decides which old age-related disease finishes you off (or combination of old age diseases - you could for instance get a tooth infection that turns into pneumonia) ",
"Natural causes is a really broad term than can mean any disease or condition that occurs naturally and wasn't caused by another person. \n\nAs far as the elderly go respiratory failure secondary to a respiratory infection or they just lose the drive to eat and drink and stop swallowing is often a cause of death. One of those two plays a role in most deaths that don't involve an MI or stroke, things like cancer and Alzheimer's. Sometimes the person just gets so old they quit breathing or eating with no other cause. ",
"If you want to get to the genetic aspect keep reading:\n\nThere are things called telomeres, which are essentially sequences at the ends of chromosomes that protect the chromosomes from damage and from connecting with each other. Every time chromosomes replicate, these telomeres of shortens a little. This can cause bad dna to replicate, which can cause numerous diseases, most specifically cancer. Numerous studies have linked many \"old age\" diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and organ failure to shortened telomere lengths. Studies have provided evidence that environmental factors such as smoking, lack of exercise, and stress can lead to shortened telomeres but the exact mechanism for how these factors shorten them is currently unknown. Telomeres are being touted as the \"key to aging\" because they are a huge factor of determining when we die. Also, a not-so-natural possibility is that sometimes foul play is the cause of death but people may not care as much about investigating since the person is of old age.\n\nSource: I'm a genetics nerd and have done research about this. If interested in learning more, read [this](_URL_0_).\n\ntl:dr The ends of our genes expire and then so do we. Or people may not care to determine cause of death is person is around the typical age of death.\n\n",
"Our cells are constantly cloning themselves allowing for growth or repair however with each replication the telomeres which are the ends of the chromosomes (DNA) wear away. Usually when we are older this lack of telomere triggers some mutation to form in cells when they mutate increasing chances of diseases mentioned above such as cancer etc I hope this helps.",
"Speaking as someone over 70: Have you ever driven a really old car? One day the radiator hose splits because the rubber is worn out, the next day you have two blow-outs in the same afternoon, then the muffler fails and you have smoke billowing out the back, and finally a piston rod snaps and destroys the engine completely? Dying of \"old age\" is kind of like that. Various organs simply reach the end of their functioning span. They decay until they fail. Things break down and wear out. And all these physical \"parts failures\" pile up to the point that you can't keep up with them any longer.\n\nYou can die of a heart attack or a stroke, or something similarly dramatic (or at least definitive), but you can also just die in your sleep because your body says \"That's it, I'm used up, I quit.\" It's cumulative. If your body could regenerate key tissue and organs, there would be no reason your body couldn't last a few more centuries at least -- but then you would have to deal with a brain that wears out, too.",
"As you age, your body slowly degrades over time, this happens in just about every living complex organism (lobsters are a notable exception). When one or more vital systems deteriorate too much, the organism dies of \"natural causes\" The processes is called senescence.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Shortening"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/24/old-blood-new-science-115-year-old-womans-blood-suggests-lifespan-depends-on-stem-cells/"
],
[],
[
"http://reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2h45bi/scientists_discover_an_telomerase_onoff_switch/",
"http://reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hzvm1/eli5_if_our_body_is_constantly_producing_new/",
"http://reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gubiw/what_exactly_is_dying_of_old_age/",
"http://reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gga3h/eli5_why_do_different_species_have_different_life/",
"http://reddit.com/r/science/comments/2h4n0x/onoff_switch_for_aging_cells_discovered/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2013/09/23/stunning-news-on-preventable-deaths-in-hospitals/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/chromosomes/telomeres/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence"
]
] |
||
plg3r | how things such as albums and photos are leaked onto the internet. | Every so often I'll see something like "Scarlett Johanson Nude Pics LEAKED" or "LEAKED JK ROWLING CHAPTER!". I was simply wondering how things such as that are accessed, and just the general processed that shares such information with the internets.
Oh yeah, and I'm 5. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/plg3r/eli5_how_things_such_as_albums_and_photos_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3qec0e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a good real world example of how a secret is something you tell NOONE. Once you tell anyone, it has a very good chance of not being a secret for long.\n\nAn imaginary scenario would be something like the chapter of a book sent to a lot of people during the process of publishing. If one of those just tells 2 close personal friends one of whom happens to tell their family who has a teenager that has a boyfriend that brags on a private forum read by 50 teenagers, one of which uploads it to 4chan.... and suddenly it's there for the whole world to see.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1zzjro | pluto's orbit | I've been digging around the internet for a few hours and I've yet to find a satisfying answer about WHY Pluto's orbit is so different from that of other major bodies in the solar system.
Why is Pluto's orbit at an angle? Why is it such a severe ellipse? What, exactly, is Pluto (or it's barycenter, at least) orbiting? How did it come to be such an oddball? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zzjro/eli5_plutos_orbit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfyp27k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pluto isn't actually an oddball. Most dwarf planets have highly eliptical, angled orbits. [see this side-view image of the solar system with several dwarf planets and kuiper belt objects highlighted](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/asteroid-orbits/dwarf-orbits-side.gif"
]
] |
|
l9u7s | why such widespread poverty still exists in the 21st century. | Also, I'm interested in knowing why the gap between rich and poor (both within countries and between countries) is growing rather than closing.
Also, I am very interested in this subject even though I don't know much about it, so feel free to suggest things for me to read/watch. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l9u7s/eli5_why_such_widespread_poverty_still_exists_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2r4o2c",
"c2r4o2c"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It has become institutionally acceptable for American Corporations to lay off literally millions of people and then ship those jobs overseas while paying maybe $3 a day.\n\nThe reason other countries accept these jobs goes back to the complicatd post ww2 cold war era of **de**colonization and subsequent **neo**colonization of these lands. This is the reason why Africa, one of the most naturally rich lands on the planet, faces famine and war; not by their own means, but by the corrupting influence of both the corporate west and communist east.\n\nyou should check out[This interview](_URL_1_) or [this one](_URL_0_) to gain a further understanding of modern empire and how that equates to our current paradigms of **dual economies**; the dichotomy of abject poverty and decadent opulence coexisting, side-by-side, in the same country. \n\nEdit: added John Perkins Interviews",
"It has become institutionally acceptable for American Corporations to lay off literally millions of people and then ship those jobs overseas while paying maybe $3 a day.\n\nThe reason other countries accept these jobs goes back to the complicatd post ww2 cold war era of **de**colonization and subsequent **neo**colonization of these lands. This is the reason why Africa, one of the most naturally rich lands on the planet, faces famine and war; not by their own means, but by the corrupting influence of both the corporate west and communist east.\n\nyou should check out[This interview](_URL_1_) or [this one](_URL_0_) to gain a further understanding of modern empire and how that equates to our current paradigms of **dual economies**; the dichotomy of abject poverty and decadent opulence coexisting, side-by-side, in the same country. \n\nEdit: added John Perkins Interviews"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdyLtFvzR9w",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdyLtFvzR9w",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8"
]
] |
|
1bwi5d | what philosophical assumptions does science make? what are the 'beliefs' inherent in scientific inquiry? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bwi5d/eli5_what_philosophical_assumptions_does_science/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9arxx9",
"c9as794",
"c9asx95",
"c9ate89",
"c9avoce",
"c9awurj"
],
"score": [
7,
24,
2,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"That induction works, which is a perfectly fine assumption to make. Generally we assume that our senses aren't lying and what happens today and yesterday and tomorrow will probably keep happening in the same way given the same inputs forever.",
"One of the bigger things is that we can never be sure of our observations 100%. If I flip a coin 4 times and it lands on heads all of those times, I would be wrong to say that it's always going to land on heads. I may have just been very lucky! If you think about this, there's no reason this doesn't apply to 10 consecutive heads, 100 consecutive heads, or 1,000,000,000 consecutive heads.\n\nThis applies to everything. Maybe the sun isn't going to come up tomorrow even though we the sun has come up every single day for the past 7,000 years of recorded history(?). We could have just been very, very, very lucky. \n\nWe usually assume that observation \"A\" is true if we can calculate that the statistical probability \"A\" being due to luck or chance is less than 5%. That is true for the biological sciences .. for physics it's more like 0.0000000034% or something.\n\nAnyway, yeah. Some food for thought.",
"One of the main assumption is that when you got out to prove something, you're trying to prove everything else wrong, not proving yourself right. As part of this, in your own experiments need to be designed to do the same. A famous is example is if you set out to prove all swans are white, you could find a 100 white swans and not be proved right, but if you find one black swan, then you've been proved wrong.",
"Everyone keeps pointing out that induction does not prove anything. Which is absolutely true, but also a basic principle of science. You do not set out to prove a hypothesis, merely to support it with further evidence. \n\nYou can disprove things, but that is using deduction rather than induction. All swans are white, this is a swan so if my theory is right it should be white. This swan is black, so my theory is false. ",
"Feynman pretty much nailed the long and short of it:\n\n > It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.",
"Science is based on [methodological naturalism](_URL_0_), which broadly is the assumption that natural phenomena have natural causes. In other words, any proposed non-natural (or supernatural) causes are out of the scope of science. This usually means that if the cause is not observable (or able to be studied) it is rejected as a scientific explanation. \n\nThis is not strictly a *philosophical* assumption because generally scientists don't claim that it is true. It's simply a useful assumption to make when trying to determine how the universe would work *if it were true*. Many scientists hold beliefs that are of a supernatural nature. For these people, a naturalistic approach is adopted purely for the purposes of doing science, whilst outside of their work they hold supernatural beliefs. This often leads to compartmentalisation or a god-of-the-gaps mindset.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism"
]
] |
||
vz4ip | warts. | I know they're a virus. But how are they spread? I have one on my finger and it appeared randomly. I have had one once before on my foot but that was 10+ years ago. How would I have gotten the one on my finger?
I guess this could pertain to genital warts, too but I just mean regular warts.
Also I have not been playing with toads/frogs (and I know this is just a wives' tale) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vz4ip/eli5_warts/ | {
"a_id": [
"c58v2ev",
"c58wr7b",
"c58x03c",
"c58xut8",
"c58xynx",
"c5915uh",
"c59354k",
"c593pw5"
],
"score": [
32,
11,
2,
5,
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can have the virus (HPV) on your body without necessarily having any visible effects of the virus. Not only that, but there are many different types of HPV that only affect certain parts of the body, so it's possible that your finger wart may have come from a different surface of your skin, where it was relatively harmless. Either that or you made contact with someone else who had the virus on the skin surface. The virus needs to penetrate the skin through a cut in the skin, and you may have unkowingly had a very tiny cut on your finger. Viruses are much smaller than a single cell, so they don't need a large opening. [Here](_URL_0_) is a link to the Wikipedia article. ",
"I had one on my elbow for more than 5 years, tried to use freeze and acid to get rid of it but it keeps coming back, recently I took a nail clipper and cut the top off, than freeze the exposed roots....hopefully it will finally go away, it's still in the process of healing so only time will tell. I am amazed how fast it grows back, usually after acid treatment the skin around would be damaged but the wart area grows new skin right away like nothing happened. ",
"[Mr. Derpleton has a pretty cool answer to this.](_URL_0_)",
"I had a huge one (like one inch in diameter) on my heel. When I went to the doctor, she said that it's just a small virus that gets in through the tiny cuts in the skin. I do remember that it first appeared shortly after we had a bare-foot BBQ party at a friend's place (he's got magnificent grass in the back garden, it was like walking on clouds or something). \n\nThe doctor said that an easy and painless way to get rid of them is to cover them with a bit of duct tape. It prevents the wart from getting any air, so it then gets softer and dies. There are various creams which work in a similar way, they cover the wart with a thin layer which doesn't let the air pass through. The downside is that they sometimes take months to work.\n\nMy wart was quite painful and it was getting difficult to walk, so I said \"Fuck it, let's nuke the bitch!\" and the doc got rid of it with liquid nitrogen, -196 °C (−321 °F). The wart got all black and fell off after a couple days. Nitrogen felt like liquid fire.",
"Serious question . Can you get HPV by getting a bj from someone already infected ? . same for HIV ?",
"When we were kids my dad used to buy our warts off us. He'd give us 50p and the wart would disappear. It could have been a placebo effect but there's also the possibility that he is a wizard.",
"I've had two on my hands, one disappeared after treatment, the other I just pulled out, hurt like hell for weeks, never came back though.",
"wow.. I had a planter wart a few years back.. It hurt so bad... I looked up homeopathic remedies. This is what I found, and it works.\n\n\n**older penny, made of copper**\n\n\n**a roll of duct tape**\n\n\n\nTape the penny to your wart. make sure it is air tight and doesn’t loosen. Gradually the tape will come off. When it does, change the penny and tape. \n\nThe copper from the penny actually causes an allergic reaction with your skin after a prolonged exposure. The reaction causes your body to actively attack the infected area, including the virus.\n\nAfter about 3 weeks, your wart should be almost gone.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wart"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qa005/eli5_wart_removal/c3w2i4h"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4h1a4f | how can a single strand dna hold almost a zettabyte of digital storage? | Single strand of*
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h1a4f/eli5_how_can_a_single_strand_dna_hold_almost_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2miuc8",
"d2mlrpw"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"i hate to sound flippant but the answer is that our current technology has storage density limitations that prevent us from doing the same thing our DNA does. Data does not inherently take *any* space really. at least, not any more space than the synapses firing creating the idea. \n\nChemical storage is something we're still learning to understand but our technology tree has been rooted in magnetic storage for a long time so getting to refined chemical storage like what our DNA uses will take some time.",
"Each base can store two bits of information, since it can have one of four different states - it can be A, C, T or G. A single bit on a hard drive is ~200-250 nm wide and ~25-30 nm long. In comparison, a DNA nucleotide is about 1 nm wide and 0.34 nm long, so it takes up a lot less space for twice the amount of data stored."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1rili0 | why do we still have single cell/simple organisms? | The theory of evolution, as far as I know, says that we evolved from single cells organisms. My question is why do those things still exist? If life all began at the same point, why haven't we all evolved into humans or fish, or whatever. I get the idea of random chance affecting it. But looking over billions of years I don't get why we still have bacteria. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rili0/why_do_we_still_have_single_cellsimple_organisms/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdnlyp8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Bacteria is the most successful thing on this planet with about 5*10^30 individuals. Some scientists estimate the total weight of bacteria exceeds that of both plants and animals. So a better question to ask would be why we are even here?\n\nYou have to keep in mind that evolution is not a straight line. It is a branching series of organisms that try something and either fail or succeed. Those that succeed make more organisms that repeat the process. So far, that incredibly branching process has formed a vast number of organisms alive today, each one of which has found a way to survive and reproduce in its own unique way. Simply because one animal has found another way to be successful doesn't mean that every organism adopts that same method in the same way that you don't munch on maggots just because other people have found it to be an effective source of energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
30xarj | why netflix's "recently added" column has all the newest releases, while it's "new releases" contains mostly movies that have been on netflix for months-years. | Über annoying in my opinion. Not for nothing, by I also wish they had a way to view traditional genres. It's a fantastic service, but their categorization kinda sucks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30xarj/eli5_why_netflixs_recently_added_column_has_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpwopho"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's based off of your recommended shows/movies so if you have a specific taste, the newest movie in that category might be a year old."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
959c4r | with the epa allowing asbestos again, what exactly is it, what are those commercials saying, should i be scared, and if so what can i do to prevent harm? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/959c4r/eli5_with_the_epa_allowing_asbestos_again_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3r0caw",
"e3r289j",
"e3r5cds"
],
"score": [
9,
26,
2
],
"text": [
"Asbestos is so dangerous because when it breaks, even just a little, it has a tendency to produce long, thin fibers of asbestos. These are *supremely* dangerous in how they can rack up lung damage with repeated exposure. Asbestos that easily produces fibers is called friable.\n\nBefore we took asbestos seriously, people didn't really realize this, so a lot of asbestos was in a friable form (and still is). Friable or not, asbestos is really only dangerous if it's being disturbed - it can't hurt you just sitting there, but moving it around, shaking it, rubbing against it - all these things can release the dangerous fibers.\n\nI have not heard about the EPA allowing asbestos again, but I would imagine there has been more efforts to ensure the use of non-friable or otherwise safer asbestos, as well as a greater emphasis on asbestos safety protocols. \n\nYou definitely shouldn't be scared. If you are in an area that has asbestos, you'll know it, because you will have been trained to know about asbestos. They generally don't just stick asbestos in places where untrained folks will easily have access to it. To reduce harm, avoid sneaking into off-limits areas, shaking/scratching/banging on every pipe you can find, then breathing in the resulting dust",
"Although this doesn't get to your question - the EPA isn't allowing asbestos again.\n\nIn 2016 Congress passed a revised version of the Toxic Substances Control Act which requires the EPA to periodically review certain substances to see if they should be banned or if existing restrictions on their use should be lessened.\n\nThe current news concerns the fact that in June asbestos was listed as one of 10 such chemicals that are undergoing review. As part of that review, the EPA is soliciting \"public comment\" on whether asbestos should be totally banned or granted a \"Significant New Use\" designation - in line with the review required by the 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Act.\n\nThis is not a \"rolling back\" of restrictions on asbestos. Even if it is granted Significant New Use designation - and its very unlikely that will happen - that still requires a company to jump through an extraordinary amount of regulatory hurdles before being able to sell asbestos. And even then, companies would be required to go back through the approval process again for each different asbestos containing product they wish to sell.\n\nAs to the public comment - what they are stating is that for the purposes of the public comment, they are not concerned with the long term environmental effects of asbestos and so you should not submit a comment on that issue. Rather, they are focusing on the health effects that asbestos has to those directly exposed to it, ie, those involved in asbestos manufacturing, installation, and removal, as well as those that might be acutely exposed, such as the occupants of an asbestos containing house that collapses in a fire.\n\nAnd again, the EPA is not doing this for fun or even because they want to. They are required under the 2016 revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act to perform this exact review. That revision was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.",
"Also, \n\nThe different types of asbestos stay suspended in the air for different lengths of time. One of them is basically forever, because it's so small."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3olwx0 | when driving does a change in air pressure determine how much fuel you use (mpg) etc.. | Ive noticed when I drive places, even though im doing the same journey and the same speed etc.. my fuel gauge will say different?? Really confuses me.. HELP! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3olwx0/eli5_when_driving_does_a_change_in_air_pressure/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvycbxf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes...but not very much. Also, fuel gauges aren't all that accurate.\n\nProbably the most noticeable effect on MPG, for the same trip at the same speed, is wind. Headwind or crosswind will decrease it, tailwind will increase it. Many other things affect MPG: Cargo/passenger in your car (more weight). Air pressure in the tires. Outside temperature. Air conditioner on/off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
j3szh | what does it mean when someone "itemizes" their taxes? also is this somehow related to deductions. actually, eli5 deductions as well. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3szh/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_someone_itemizes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28wgi1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When figuring out your taxes, there are certain things that the government has decided you don't have to pay taxes (or can pay less taxes) on. Because you're deducting them from the amount you have to pay, they're called deductions. They are for things like raising children or business expenses if you're self-employed - Generally, things that the government has decided will benefit the nation in the long run (well-raised kids, successful businesses).\n\nWhen you pay your taxes, you can choose to take a \"standard deduction\" which is a predefined amount set by the government. Doing this is basically saying \"Yeah, I have some deductions to take off, but either I don't feel like listing them all or even if I did it's not going to be more than the Standard.\"\n\nOr you can choose to *itemize* your deductions. This means listing every item/purchase/travel expense/whatever that you can possibly write off of your taxes. People do this if it means they'll save more money than if they just took a standard deduction, but it's generally a big hassle. Also, if you get audited by the IRS (I.e., they think you lied about your taxes), you need to have receipts for everything you listed available to prove you actually spent the money the way you said you did."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3sf652 | why do next gen video games all require downloading new content immediately after purchase? why can't they sell complete games out of the box anymore? | Have purchased three PS4 games in the last few months and each one has required time to download before playing the full game. Are games too fat to fit into one CD anymore? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sf652/eli5_why_do_next_gen_video_games_all_require/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwwn02u"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Printing discs, boxing and shipping take a while to do, and because games have to be shipped to retails days before the release in order to ensure that they have them available for purchase that day, this packaging process has to start early.\n\nYet the development of a game doesn't stop the moment they start packaging. Usually, developers work very hard closer to release getting any bugs fixed, or omitted features put into a patch. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
mksz5 | why small businesses are considered "good" | I always hear about small businesses on the news and whatnot and they always say how we should put money into small businesses and support them. I've heard various reasons why they are good/important but I'd like a concise answer. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mksz5/eli5_why_small_businesses_are_considered_good/ | {
"a_id": [
"c31qgrn",
"c31rjj0",
"c31si6m",
"c31t05q",
"c31t3c6",
"c31uopb",
"c31qgrn",
"c31rjj0",
"c31si6m",
"c31t05q",
"c31t3c6",
"c31uopb"
],
"score": [
24,
6,
3,
7,
2,
2,
24,
6,
3,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Keeping money flowing is what creates a good economy and the most direct way of doing that is by making sure the money you are giving out doesn't get stockpiled in some giant vault or sent out the country.\n\nIf you spend $100 at a local butcher that money is probably going to get spent elsewhere in the area. Your butcher will go buy bread from the baker, who'll go buy milk from the farmer who pays his employees who buy meat at the butcher and so on. The money doesn't leave and the constant exchange is what keeps everything ticking. \n\nIf you are that baker or butcher you are more likely to spend that $100 if you feel that the economy is flowing freely enough for someone else to come in and hand over their $100 to you. \n\nLike the current economic downturn. It's not really because suddenly a bunch of money has vanished. It's just that people and business' aren't sure if the money they pay out is going to get replaced any time soon, so there is a tendency to hold on to it. Which makes the problem worse. Which is why in times like this the Government steps in and injects a massive amount of money into the system to try and get it moving again, in the hopes that once it's all flowing freely we can take that money back without harming the system too much.\n\n(The flaw is we expect that flow of money to get faster and faster every year, but that is unsustainable. Eventually we reach a point where we think we are *too* free with our money and we slow down but we do it quicker than the system can react, it gets shocked and it crashes. The .com bubble was like that. Slowly over time more and more money was being pumped in. It got easier and easier to get investors and eventually business started relying on this easy money and were completely unprepared when that cash dried up.)\n\nIf however you spend that $100 at Wal-Mart it goes into the till and gets siphoned off to their big single bank account somewhere else. They pay their employees who are local obviously, but they likely put a lot of that money back into Wal-Mart. \n\nAnother problem is Wal-Mart are far more capable and far more likely of out-sourcing to other countries. Not just hoarding money inside the same country but shipping it out and greasing the gears of some other economy, from which it might never come back. \n\nAs Deadcellplus mentioned though the downside is cost. Wal-Mart can buy a million times the amount of mince your local butcher can at once and that means they get it cheaper per pound and they pass that saving on to you.\n\n----- \n\n'Course it's all a bit of a phenomena because we don't have any real sense of control over it at a local level. You might be hyper-local in your spending but if your butcher takes your money and pays his VISA bill with it instead of using it locally.. all your hard work is pretty much done for. It can only really be measured at scale and it's not universal, Even in depressed economies you get pockets of 'boom', little bits that somehow thrive in the conditions. ",
"Another issue that wasn't mentioned is competition. If there is one giant store in town, it doesn't have to try very hard to get all the business. If there are 10 or 20 smalls stores instead, each one has to do its best to get business -- lowering prices, getting nicer and better merchandise, etc.\n\nAlso, it distributes the wealth more evenly and keeps the money in the community. A middle class person can own a store if stores are small. Only a rich corporation can own a store if stores are huge. And if you just have Walmart a lot of the money from profit is going out of town.",
"There are a number of reasons why people feel this is the case. Three come to mind, I'm sure other people have more. One of them is that small business tend to spend more of their total revenue paying employee salaries. I found some data from the [U.S. Census Bureau](http://www._URL_0_/econ/smallbus.html), and made a pretty graph. (note! Scales adjusted to highlight differences.) [% of revenue spend on payroll vs company size](_URL_1_)\n\nAlso, job *growth* tends to be a bit faster in small companies. [Article describing employment rates by company size](_URL_3_)\n\nAnother reason is the \"too big to fail\" argument. If a large company with 10s of thousands of employees goes out of business, those people loose their jobs. On top of that, the whole supply chain supporting that company might go down too. If an automaker goes under, everyone who makes the components (car radios, locks, windshields, tires, etc) takes a dive too.\n\n**note:** To give the big guys a break, large companies tend to pay each employee more, even if they employ fewer people per dollar of income. (Same _URL_0_ source)\n",
"There is a block with 10 lemonade stands, they all do pretty good business. One day, Big Ass Mega Lemonade opens. The original 10 go out of business and the former owners get jobs working for BAML. \n\nThose 10 owners make a lot less money - and the owner of BAML, who happens to live far away, takes all that money and invests it in a massive boat. \n\nSmaller businesses distribute wealth more equally, and keep the wealth in the community.\n\n",
"Because the phrase tested well in Frank Luntz' focus groups.",
"Small businesses are job creators. They employ most people in employment and they create jobs by growing, whereas large businesses are generally stagnant or cutting jobs.",
"Keeping money flowing is what creates a good economy and the most direct way of doing that is by making sure the money you are giving out doesn't get stockpiled in some giant vault or sent out the country.\n\nIf you spend $100 at a local butcher that money is probably going to get spent elsewhere in the area. Your butcher will go buy bread from the baker, who'll go buy milk from the farmer who pays his employees who buy meat at the butcher and so on. The money doesn't leave and the constant exchange is what keeps everything ticking. \n\nIf you are that baker or butcher you are more likely to spend that $100 if you feel that the economy is flowing freely enough for someone else to come in and hand over their $100 to you. \n\nLike the current economic downturn. It's not really because suddenly a bunch of money has vanished. It's just that people and business' aren't sure if the money they pay out is going to get replaced any time soon, so there is a tendency to hold on to it. Which makes the problem worse. Which is why in times like this the Government steps in and injects a massive amount of money into the system to try and get it moving again, in the hopes that once it's all flowing freely we can take that money back without harming the system too much.\n\n(The flaw is we expect that flow of money to get faster and faster every year, but that is unsustainable. Eventually we reach a point where we think we are *too* free with our money and we slow down but we do it quicker than the system can react, it gets shocked and it crashes. The .com bubble was like that. Slowly over time more and more money was being pumped in. It got easier and easier to get investors and eventually business started relying on this easy money and were completely unprepared when that cash dried up.)\n\nIf however you spend that $100 at Wal-Mart it goes into the till and gets siphoned off to their big single bank account somewhere else. They pay their employees who are local obviously, but they likely put a lot of that money back into Wal-Mart. \n\nAnother problem is Wal-Mart are far more capable and far more likely of out-sourcing to other countries. Not just hoarding money inside the same country but shipping it out and greasing the gears of some other economy, from which it might never come back. \n\nAs Deadcellplus mentioned though the downside is cost. Wal-Mart can buy a million times the amount of mince your local butcher can at once and that means they get it cheaper per pound and they pass that saving on to you.\n\n----- \n\n'Course it's all a bit of a phenomena because we don't have any real sense of control over it at a local level. You might be hyper-local in your spending but if your butcher takes your money and pays his VISA bill with it instead of using it locally.. all your hard work is pretty much done for. It can only really be measured at scale and it's not universal, Even in depressed economies you get pockets of 'boom', little bits that somehow thrive in the conditions. ",
"Another issue that wasn't mentioned is competition. If there is one giant store in town, it doesn't have to try very hard to get all the business. If there are 10 or 20 smalls stores instead, each one has to do its best to get business -- lowering prices, getting nicer and better merchandise, etc.\n\nAlso, it distributes the wealth more evenly and keeps the money in the community. A middle class person can own a store if stores are small. Only a rich corporation can own a store if stores are huge. And if you just have Walmart a lot of the money from profit is going out of town.",
"There are a number of reasons why people feel this is the case. Three come to mind, I'm sure other people have more. One of them is that small business tend to spend more of their total revenue paying employee salaries. I found some data from the [U.S. Census Bureau](http://www._URL_0_/econ/smallbus.html), and made a pretty graph. (note! Scales adjusted to highlight differences.) [% of revenue spend on payroll vs company size](_URL_1_)\n\nAlso, job *growth* tends to be a bit faster in small companies. [Article describing employment rates by company size](_URL_3_)\n\nAnother reason is the \"too big to fail\" argument. If a large company with 10s of thousands of employees goes out of business, those people loose their jobs. On top of that, the whole supply chain supporting that company might go down too. If an automaker goes under, everyone who makes the components (car radios, locks, windshields, tires, etc) takes a dive too.\n\n**note:** To give the big guys a break, large companies tend to pay each employee more, even if they employ fewer people per dollar of income. (Same _URL_0_ source)\n",
"There is a block with 10 lemonade stands, they all do pretty good business. One day, Big Ass Mega Lemonade opens. The original 10 go out of business and the former owners get jobs working for BAML. \n\nThose 10 owners make a lot less money - and the owner of BAML, who happens to live far away, takes all that money and invests it in a massive boat. \n\nSmaller businesses distribute wealth more equally, and keep the wealth in the community.\n\n",
"Because the phrase tested well in Frank Luntz' focus groups.",
"Small businesses are job creators. They employ most people in employment and they create jobs by growing, whereas large businesses are generally stagnant or cutting jobs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"census.gov",
"http://i.imgur.com/74PIE.jpg",
"http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html",
"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577024382103973156.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"census.gov",
"http://i.imgur.com/74PIE.jpg",
"http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html",
"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577024382103973156.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5xawd4 | how do they declare certain aquatic organisms as extinct, when we haven't explored a huge majority of the oceans? | Apparently, we've only explored around [5%](_URL_0_) of the Earth's oceans. How do they declare some aquatic organisms to be extinct, when we don't know what lies in the unexplored regions?
> *Note that I'm talking about ancient and recent species here.* | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xawd4/eli5_how_do_they_declare_certain_aquatic/ | {
"a_id": [
"deglw0s"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The same way we do on land, really. It is basically the reasoning of 'if we haven't seen any trace of species X in a good number of years, most likely they are extinct.' Sometimes those assumptions are correct. sometimes they are very false. (Like with coelacanths) \n\nThough note that unexplored parts of the ocean don't necessarily have to mean you can't know if an animal species is extinct. Many species have very specific habitats they don't deviate from. If you have a species that can only exist in shallow water or tide-pools, for example, then the fact that the deep sea has not yet been explored is not really an issue. That is not where those animals could live in the first place. Additionally, you don't always need to have explored a region. A lot of this is based on traces of their survivals, but that doesn't necessarily mean seeing the fish in the flesh. Finding remnants of them in the stomachs of other fish, finding them in fishing nets, finding them washed up on beaches. all of that can count towards being able to tell a species exists still or not. And if there is a huge change in that (for example, we used to find X species frequently in the stomach of dolphins, but they haven't been spotted there in 30 years) that can be a good indicator said species is gone.\n\nAgain, not ever 100% and some species have clung onto life in places unknown to us at first, but still a reasonable guess. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html"
] | [
[]
] |
|
28uils | how would half the gravity on earth, and in another scenario double the gravity on earth affect us in everyday life? also, could we survive without any gravity at all? | Let's say Earth had the gravity of Mars (38% of Earth's) and in another scenario had the gravity of Jupiter (2 1/2 times that of Earth's). How would this affect us in everyday life?
What if there was no Gravity on Earth, could we survive? What would be different?
I got turned down in /askscience so maybe I can get an explanation here. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28uils/eli5_how_would_half_the_gravity_on_earth_and_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciemwbg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Not exactly an expert, but I'm an undergraduate Physics major:\n\nAssuming that Earth has ALWAYS had the gravitational attraction of Mars or Jupiter, it would affect us very little. Our bodies would have evolved along with all other life on Earth to match whatever the gravitation of Earth is. However, if Earth's gravitation were to suddenly \"change\" to that of Mars or Jupiter, things get a bit more complicated. \n\nLet's talk about the \"general physics\" of it first. Most people on Earth have a general concept of physics that applies to everyday life. We know things like how high we can jump, how close we can get to another car before we start braking, etc. As soon as you change the Earth's gravitation, those basic previous expectations about how things move in our everyday lives has to be thrown out the window. As a result, depending on how extreme the change is, there would be a lot of crashes, a lot of bumps, and a lot of bruises as we adjusted to the new \"rules.\"\n \nPhysiologically, there would be serious consequences to an extreme change in gravity. We run into this problem a lot with astronauts returning from long stays in zero gravity. Our bodies simply aren't built to be under gravitation that is not Earth's. People returning from space experience a lengthening of the spine, weakening of joints, and a huge loss in calcium. Basically, when placed in a zero-g environment, our body will try to adapt accordingly. If we don't use our bones and are floating around, our bodies will basically begin to get rid our bones. Now for us to be on the surface of Earth at all, there has to be at least a little gravity so we don't float away. Therefore, if gravity on Earth was reduced but not eliminated, people would get taller and we would have less calcium. Now the opposite would happen if gravitational attraction increased. People would be shorter, breathing would be harder, we would rely on our skeletons more so we would require more calcium, etc. Long term, humanity would adjust, but short term, there would be a lot of problems for a lot of people, especially the weak and elderly. \n\nNow I'm not sure exactly what would happen on the astronomical scale, but there would be even more serious consequences which would effect our daily lives. Gravitational attraction is a force between two objects. On the very basic level, gravitation depends on the masses of the two objects involved. (Mass is basically just a measure of how much stuff there is) More mass between the two = more gravity. Less mass between the two = less gravity. The situations that you have described deal with a change in mass of the Earth. If the Earth were suddenly half of it's mass, the Moon would begin to orbit further away, that is, as long as it wasn't \"slingshotted\" away (more likely). Also, we would begin to orbit the Sun further away, as long as we weren't \"slingshot\" out of the solar system (also more likely). Living further away from the Sun would cause widespread panic as our light from the Sun would diminish quite a bit. Plants and animals would die, famines if everyone wasn't frozen already, etc. etc. you get the picture. REALLY BAD STUFF. If the Earth doubled it's mass, the Earth and the moon would also most likely be \"slingshotted\" out of the solar system. But, if we managed to stay in orbit, our proximity to the sun would most likely burn most life on Earth. \n\n**TL;DR**: \nOverall - Our basic concepts about how things move in everyday life would change...Lots of crashes, bumps and bruises.\n\n1. No Gravity - We would all float away from the surface of the Earth.\n2. Half Gravity - We would all get taller, breathe easier, and have weaker skeletons because we wouldn't need them as much. The Earth would likely be \"slingshotted\" out of the solar system, or we would all freeze to death.\n3. Double Gravity - We would all get shorter, breathe harder, and have stronger skeletons. The Earth would likely be \"slingshotted\" out of the solar system, or we would all burn alive.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4kn48c | if networks cancel a show mid-season and have filmed the rest of the season, why aren't the rest of the episodes released online? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kn48c/eli5_if_networks_cancel_a_show_midseason_and_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3g6x5e",
"d3gatl5",
"d3gby7g",
"d3gbyxk",
"d3gc9wb",
"d3gdh6c",
"d3gdkhi",
"d3ge1gm",
"d3gek1p",
"d3geq0u",
"d3gf153",
"d3gf50t",
"d3gf5ju",
"d3gg9ga",
"d3ghfb7",
"d3ghxec",
"d3gi38v",
"d3gi4rr",
"d3gifuq",
"d3gil5l",
"d3gir1u",
"d3gisnk",
"d3gj6tx",
"d3gjd0p",
"d3gllcp",
"d3go6ha",
"d3gofl7",
"d3gp640"
],
"score": [
1357,
11,
101,
13,
345,
3,
16,
57,
9,
9,
4,
3,
2,
7,
2,
3,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
6,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well sometimes they are, so there is no rule/law against it.\n\nHowever the show makers often do not have the license / copyright to their own shows. So it´s not up to them to release the episodes however they want.\n\nThe network on the other hand who does have the rights, doesn´t really have an interest in releasing the episodes for free. They might have other plans for monetizing them or they just don´t want to release them at all for many reasons (out of spite, to not support a competitor, etc.)",
"If a show is cancelled mid-season, it's because few people watched it. And if that's the case, there's really no financial incentive for the network to spend money hosting it when so few people want to see it.",
"A strong reason is because of residual royalties. \n\nSay you film a show, and pay the actors/actresses and the directors, and the band that did the theme song, etc... You're not usually done paying. Usually, at least some, if not all of those people will continue to get a little tiny amount of money, every time one of those shows airs/is streamed/is bought on DVD/etc. The amounts are tiny individually, but they add up to huge amounts. Lots of actors/actresses can retire after a single popular show, and just live off of those royalties for the rest of their lives.\n\nSo your show is busted, and didn't get enough money to continue being a show... Why would you continue shelling out more money to make the show ready to air (there is a lot that happens after filming), AND to pay all of those royalties?",
"This actually happened to an old NBC show I liked called The Black Donellys. It got pulled midway through season 1 and the rest were only available on _URL_0_. At least until they got released on DVD.",
"Isnt this what lowkey happened to Avatar: the Legend of Korra on Nick? It wasn't a very successful show among the kids who usually watch Nick but had a huuuge following among the 18-25 demographic who watched Avatar: the Last Airbender as kids/teens, and they mostly watched online anyways, so they moved the show over to an online only format for the last season. ",
"Sometimes they do, I saw all of Kitchen Confidential on Hulu a few years after it was pulled early on its first season. \n",
"A situation like this really ticked me off a few years ago. They aired the entire season of Defying Gravity... except the last episode. It made no sense to me, they showed a rerun of some old show instead of just showing the last episode of the season. \n\nBut the last episode aired in Canada, so I was able to download a capture that aired there. \n\nThat never made sense to me. I can almost understand replacing a show on air if it's not doing good, but the last episode of the season? I mean... come on!",
"There are some practical reasons in addition to what others have said.\n\nAlthough the episodes may have been filmed, they have yet to go through post-production--music, effects, editing, sound editing, reshoots, etc. all still need to be done. If they released them, you would be seeing an incomplete project and often do not want to do that. They may be released later as a DVD extra or surface later in pirate circles, but are not released online often to the pure lack of quality to the episode. ",
"There is no benefit to the network, simple as that really. If it don't make 'em money they won't do it.",
"Wouldn't some of the reason be that the company that pulls the unviewed programs use them as a loss on their bottom line within a tax structure? Would the cans be worth more as a loss than if they were viewed, sold, etc?",
"Because generally when the first episode of a show airs the following episodes are still being worked on. If the show is canceled mid season, the budget is gone and production will immediately halt. They aren't going to just release half finished episodes. Post production accounts for the vast majority of time it takes for a tv show to be made: just because it was filmed doesn't mean its anywhere near completed.\n\nAnd the network still owns the footage, so even if some editors and producers wanted to try and finish the season with what they have, legally they cannot.\n\n",
"I'm sure the answer is money.\n\nI would like a clear separation of production and publishing companies again. Let them bid.",
"Because they need to sell ad time and if the show is bombing, the advertisers are not going to want to pay for ad time. And without ad time, they make no money and go out of business.",
" > If Networks cancel a show mid-season and have filmed the rest of the season\n\nBecause they almost never have shot the rest of the season (assuming OP is limiting this to the *broadcast* networks).\n\nThere's usually only a 2-4 episodes at most \"in the can\" ready to finish out post-production (editing, scoring, special effects). In some cases, while the season was intended to go 20-24 episodes the network only approved half that contingent on the ratings. In most of these cases of a show being cancelled, the networks usually go ahead and air the remaining episodes because they don't have something ready to replace it. Yet, sometimes they hold the episodes because they can try for better ratings and then \"burn off\" the episodes later. Some shows are moved to \"sister networks\" and aired there along with the rest of the show in a odd time slot (like late at night). \n\n",
"The legend of Korra got the Internet treatment. I think I read that the Internet ratings were higher anyway because the show was watched mostly by older generations",
"The first show I saw that done with was _Daybreak_ (2006) with Taye Diggs. ABC cancelled it after just 3 or 4 episodes, but it was a great show. They quickly pledged to try showing it online as they were just getting into that. Sure enough, they made good and finished out the 13-episode run online, thus giving reasonable closure (but also raising new questions) to that memorable show. Thank you, ABC!\n",
"It's actually rare for a show to be outright cancelled and completely removed from the schedule before all remaining episodes have aired. It would have to either be a serious ratings bomb or air something so offensive that they have to pull it entirely.",
"Any form of distribution triggers a lot payments- easiest way to think of them are completion payments. Residuals are also in there. \nStudios make back the majority of their costs by the licensing deal for broadcast. \nThus they'd be losing more money to just distro it online. \nIt's the same reason you don't see failed Pilots distroed online. \nSource: I work in tv production. ",
"not sure if this has been addressed but most *premiere* episodes that start off from the beginning of the new fall season usually get a six, ten, or 13 Episode order. They may elect, like already mentioned, to *burn off* the episodes at some point on a Friday or Saturday night. If they got a 13-episode order and get cancelled, odds are they will burn off whatever has finished filming, finalize post-production on any full episodes left, and burn them. Most of the time if six episodes are ordered and maybe one or two air and it gets cancelled, they don't bother wasting TV time to air them unless they decide to throw them on TV in the summer. Ten episode orders that get cancelled usually by six or seven get burned off this way.\n\nNBC has in the past where a series got a 10 or 13 episode order either burned the series off on Saturday nights or just uploaded them to _URL_0_ like they did *The Cape*.",
"Besides post production costs, there may be royalties to pay out if they release those episodes. ",
"That's exactly what they did with the TV show Selfie:\n_URL_0_\n\nThe second half of the season was thrown up on Hulu after gettign cancelled on ABC.",
"On the other side of the coin you get a show that films the rest of its episodes after it's been cancelled...\n\nPETER SAGAL: You tell this story - you talk about how you did this show called \"Lyon's Den.\"\n\nROB LOWE: Yes.\n\nSAGAL: It was supposed to be your big follow-up to \"West Wing,\" I think.\n\nLOWE: Yes.\n\nSAGAL: And you play this lawyer in this law firm, and the show didn't go well for a variety of reasons. And they canceled it, but they allowed you guys to finish shooting the season so they could sell it on DVD, right?\n\nLOWE: Yeah, this is - so the show is canceled. It's not on the air. It's over.\n\nSAGAL: Right.\n\nLOWE: But they say to me, you're still going to make 13 more episodes but nobody's ever going to see them. Maybe we'll release them on DVD in, like, Bratislava.\n\nSAGAL: Right.\n\nLOWE: So with that as the backdrop, the writers and I decide, you know what? To hell with it. We're going to burn the bridges. We're going for it. And so we decided to write my character as a sociopathic maniac who was revealed to be a mass murderer.\n\nAnd Kyle Chandler, right before \"Friday Night Lights\" is the mentor in the office who is always my rival. He comes in one night while I'm eating in the executive dining room and confronts me on evidence that I might be a mass murderer. I walk up, stab him to death with my steak knife, sit back down, eat my steak, wipe my mouth, go to the balcony and throw myself off. That's the end of the series.\n\nSAGAL: You know, even though I had read that story in your book, a tear came to my eye when I read it. That's so moving.\n\nLOWE: And this is how little the studio and the network cared about the show. When we told them we were going to write that, they were like that sounds great.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's not worth the effort. The show is being canceled mid-season because nobody is watching it. If they release the rest they then have to pay the actors royalties on episodes that nobody is going to watch of a canceled show. \n",
"I've gotta say, from reading all these comments it must suck to be a hardcore TV fan. Good shows get taken off the air because they're too niche, and shows with lowest common denominator mass appeal are the only ones that usually survive.",
"Just because the show is completely shot, does not mean it's finished. There are still costs associated with Editing, Onlining, Coloring, Sound, VFX, ADR, Mixing, etc... So, it's not like the show is just hanging around and \"finished.\" If the show flopped hard enough to cancel it, why spend more money on it?",
"Still waiting on those extra episodes of The Cape to come out?",
"That's not generally how it works. Sometimes it does, but more usually the following happens:\n\nNetwork likes the pilot and orders say... six episodes. Those six get made. They don't do well in the ratings. The show gets 'cancelled' however all episodes that were made have been aired.\n\nIt's not very often that a network has 12 episodes of something that haven't aired yet and then they cancel a show. They would usually let that play out without telling anyone the show is cancelled since they already 'bought' those shows, or paid for the production. They're not going to promote that show any longer and they may move it to the crappiest timeslot they have and not really tell anyone, but it's something that fills time and sells some ads. ",
"I still want to see the rest of Megan wants a millionaire but that one creep had to go and kill someone or some shit and the network never aired the rest of the episodes... "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"NBC.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"NBC.com"
],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3549044/"
],
[
"http://www.npr.org/2014/05/10/310985369/not-my-job-brat-pack-member-rob-lowe-gets-quizzed-on-bratwurst"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2v03mz | why was synth used so much in 80s music? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v03mz/eli5_why_was_synth_used_so_much_in_80s_music/ | {
"a_id": [
"cod83tc",
"cod8r7t",
"cod9cd1",
"coddbwv"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Simply put, because it was new, it became popular very fast, and people liked it.",
"Synthesizers became popular very quickly due to their marketed ability to 'create the sounds of any instrument imaginable'. Up to a certain extent this is true. A synthesizer is one big piece of math hooked up to the most accessible musical interface at the time: a keyboard.\n\nA synth is programmable by tweaking faders, knobs, etc in order to modulate/create sounds as you please. You can mimmick a lot of instruments using synths, plus you can create sounds that are otherwise hardly accessible.\n\nIn the 80s, synths gained massive popularity because of some clever innovations in the interface. The synth controls were simplified and easy to understand for any music enthousiast. Companies marketed their synths big time, and included digitally stored presets so the synths came with a bunch of (now very well known) sounds out of the box. You could also save your own sounds to the internal memory so you wouldn't have to write down all the settings.\n\nMIDI helped as well. Most synths came with a MIDI port, enabling the users to hook the synth up to their other equipment. \n\nAll this made synths very capable of doing a lot of different tasks in an easy way. But more importantly: Synths were cheap and easy compared to buying and maintaining/storing a bunch of 'real' instruments. And for example playing a guitar and a trumpet both takes a lot of practise each time to learn these different instruments; where a synth just has the keyboard.\n\nAdd to that the very popular synth sounds of the 80s, which turned out to be the sound of a decennium. Lots of reasons for musicians to hop on the synth-wagon, up to this day.",
"And you hear it far more than today because they were developed further",
"Technology and affordability. \n\nSynthesizers used to be (and the best still are, arguably) analog. Meaning, it houses modules that use control-voltages and triggers to *physically manipulate* electricity to make sounds. These were your Minimoogs, your Arp Odysseys, etc. They were used a lot in Prog Rock in the 1970s - however, they were all handmade and very expensive. Only wealthy studios and bands could afford them. \n\nThe advent of digital synthesizers (ROMplers, FM Synthesis, etc) pushed the sound of the 1980s. Instead of using analog components, they used mass-produced, affordable microprocessors to *somewhat simulate* what was going on inside their analog forefathers. Suddenly - bands could afford what was seen as a *luxury* device - the most popular of which was the Yamaha DX7.\n\nThe advent of the standardized MIDI (musical instrument, digital interface) protocol in 1983 also really helped - it meant that different brands of synthesizers could communicate with each other and sync up! Yay! \n\nAnd here's why many albums of the 1980s sounded similar: \n\nHere is an analog [Prophet 5](_URL_0_). MSRP: $4,495 in 1978, which is about $16,500 in today's dollars. \n\nHere is digital [Yamaha DX7](_URL_1_). $2,000 in 1983 or about $4,500 in today's dollars.\n\nSee the big price difference?\n\nNotice something else? The Prophet 5 has individual knobs to control every single aspect of the sound, hands on, *as your playing it*. \n\nThe DX7 uses buttons and 1 slider to control the sound (the other slider is volume).\n\nThis means that the DX7 cannot easily be manipulated *as you play* because it requires an incredible amount of menu diving. \n\nMost musicians of the 1980s weren't familiar with menu diving, (computers weren't exactly household) so they relegated to the DX7's *presets*. That is, they all used the same bank of like.. 20 sounds!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://static.gearslutz.com/board/imgext.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsynthparts.retrosynth.com%2Fp5rev1new1.jpg&h=d0a5028b6ffc6c9b9b06b4beffc7213b",
"http://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/yamaha_dx7_lg.jpg"
]
] |
||
28f1i8 | why is the us police force becoming more militarized and more powerful? or is this a misconception? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28f1i8/eli5why_is_the_us_police_force_becoming_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciabjzr",
"ciadhw6",
"ciae032",
"ciae8sb",
"ciaek0j",
"ciaenb4",
"ciaf7dz",
"ciaffl7",
"ciafnpu",
"ciafpb0",
"ciafwf3",
"ciafwti",
"ciag3pi",
"ciag4nx",
"ciagsbh",
"ciahceu",
"ciahist",
"ciaiadd",
"ciaigyy",
"ciairaw",
"ciais95",
"ciaj3kp",
"ciajc86",
"ciajcmd",
"ciapf11",
"ciatq9x",
"ciauc4u",
"ciavcrn",
"ciavmkx",
"ciavmy0",
"cib2jl2"
],
"score": [
567,
18,
8,
52,
7,
2,
6,
16,
2,
6,
7,
12,
51,
5,
22,
16,
7,
2,
6,
2,
5,
3,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm a cop. Its hard to argue that police isn't becoming more miltarized but I think its vastly over rated. Two agencies in my county have a bearcat (like a tank with no big gun) but it it rarely used and all the agencies borrow it when needed. Aside from a taser, I have received no new weapons since I started 15 years ago. \n\nEdit: Some good comments, I'll just edit this post instead of responding to each one.\n\nI don't have access to anymore equipment than I did 15 years ago. Well I suppose we have .40 caliber pistols now instead of 9mm but besides that and the taser, everything else is the same. \n\nGenerally the bearcat is used for barricaded and armed subjects. I work in the SF bay area of California which is extremely liberal and has very tight gun control. I pulled an AK-47 and an illegally modified shotgun off a suspect two weeks ago. Criminals are now heavily armed and the police need to be able to match them in firepower. The bearcat would have been eventually been used if that suspect had barricaded himself in a house. We can use it to provide our SWAT teams with mobile cover to either take the house or launch non-lethal ordinance at the house (gas, stun grenades, etc).\n\nI have read about SWAT teams being used unnecessarily. My contention is that sometimes the news outlets don't have all the facts. Don't forget that a **judge** must authorize no knock warrants. However, there are probably a good number of search warrants being served by SWAT teams than is truly necessary. I just don't have enough facts to talk about specific cases. I will note that any search or arrest warrant involving the sale or manufacture of illegal narcotics is pretty much an automatic SWAT call out. Major dealers and producers can make $25,000 a week and they usually have guns.\n\nSWAT teams and the rise of police firearms training is to counter the evolution of the way the criminal element does business. 40 years ago, officers didn't have shotguns or vests because they weren't really necessary. Today, pulling a handgun off a felon is not rare. Being attacked is not rare. Like I said earlier, I pulled an AK-47 off a suspect recently. A shotgun and pistol cannot counter an AK-47. If I have to respond to an active shooter situation, I want the weapon that can deliver the most rounds, with the most accuracy, with the least reload time and that is my M-4. I have an M-4 in my patrol car. I actually remove it for calls maybe once a year. I have never had to fire it outside of the training range. But if that active shooter crisis happens at your children's high school, you'll be glad that I'm trained and armed to deal with the threat. They waited for the SWAT team at Columbine. That shit can never happen again.\n\nEdit2: I'll also just note that I have been a soldier and a cop my entire adult life except for 4 years of college and a few years tooling around the white collar corporate ladder. I have never been issued a fully automatic M16 or M4 at any point.\n\nEdit 3: Some people have argued that we don't need patrol rifles (M4). As I've said earlier, I pull it out maybe once a year. I have pointed it at one person in 15 years and have never pulled the trigger outside of the range. If it is taken away from me it will have pretty much zero effect on my day to day activity. However, if someone starts shooting at the high school I will not be going in. I'll secure the perimeter and wait for people who have the proper weapons and training to arrive. This can take anywhere from 45 minutes to 3 hours.\n\nEdit4: I'm going to bed. Thanks for the great discussion everyone. A few last thoughts. There is only three things I really need to do my job: my gun, my vest, and my radio. If you take away the rest you just reduce my options and flexibility. Sure some cops think they're navy seals when they go through rifle training but the rest of us know that the weapons we carry are a responsibility to protect and serve and not a booster for our egos. I don't think its a good reason to hamstring all of us.\n\nI'll say in closing that we're human just like you. Most of us are married (some formerly) with kids. If crime ended tomorrow and we got paychecks for helping old ladies cross the street then we would be happy. \n\nGot up to pee. Holy shit GOLD!!! Thanks!!!!!",
"Well back when [this happened](_URL_0_) a lot of police forces started forcing the carrying of assault weapons for regular beat cops. The police were wholly unprepared for this tragedy.\n\nThen, after 9/11, [this started](_URL_1_ Homeland Security Program (SHSP).\n\nAnd recently you're seeing all of this surplus military equipment being sold to police departments. But I don't see the cops rolling around in tanks, so you tell me.",
"Read 'Rise of the Warrior Cop' by Radley Balko.",
"Generally they aren't. Police forces have been matching the uniform and weapons of the military since early 1900's. Think back to prohibition when they were rolling around with Tommy guns. Officers now are just using more effective and modern gear. Patrol rifles are generally more useful than the shotguns of old, yes they're black and the military uses similar ones but officers do not walk around carrying them while on routine patrol. As for the MRAPs and stuff, they're just vehicles. They are not armed, they are simply for protection from small arms fire. SWAT teams have increased because there are dangerous situations out there. And departments have realized that it is better to train a small squad of exceptional officers with more advanced gear than it is to send in standard equipped officers. Militarization is just a buzzword and it's what is popular to say right now for people who don't like or understand law enforcement.",
"If anything, we can look at it as a further funneling of wealth to 'authority'. Starts with expensive wars against imaginary enemies. Trickles down to the police we pay to then raid our homes military style over some marijuana.\n\nBecause it is not being used just yet against a people who would not have it, does not mean it won't be. There are plenty of power hungry officers out there that would happily get in one of those and exert their 'authority' on a people.",
"Using the [military](_URL_5_) for riot control is a [fairly old](_URL_0_) concept. Having a police force for riot control is a fairly recent thing, at the earliest being seen in 1925 in [Shanghai](_URL_4_) before arriving in the US in the 60s and 70s as SWAT. If you read any of those articles it becomes apparent that force is needed for crowd control when you're trying to suppress a full blown riot. That's not to say these organizations should be free of criticism, because that is what's keeping them in check. Because of anti-violence campaigns since the 70s we now have [much lower](_URL_3_) [death counts](_URL_1_) than [historical conflicts](_URL_2_) often ended with.",
"[This Vice video explains how some agencies aquire and use thier military style equipment.](_URL_0_) Also explains how some people use thier willingness to show up in force as a prank.",
"People don't know what a tank is. An MRAP is not a tank.",
"There is an overwhelming amount of military grade vehicles and weaponry from the wars in the middle east that were over produced. These goods are being purchased by our police forces much cheaper than normal because manufacturer's need to cover their loses. It also gives smaller police forces to acquire machinery like a MRAP where normally it would not be possible. Do they NEED it? Probably not.",
"The vast majority of comments in this thread should give you a rather broad hint about why the US police force is becoming more militarized and powerful, and *most likely* ( :( ), why not a goddamned thing will happen to stop it.\n\nThose in power always want more power.\n\nGuess who controls the purse strings... *that's right kids*, it's those in power.\n\nIt's kinda' like defining rape in the military. If you're able to define it away... *it never happened*.\n\n... and according to the vast majority of the comments in this thread, it's just a misconception...\n\nIt never happened.\n\n:(",
"Because we have been at war for 13 years. When you have long wars you have lots of veterans. Police departments love hiring veterans. Every police force in the nation gives them preference in the hiring process. They don't simply forget their military experience when they become cops, they apply it to their job here. The weapons, tactics, etc. are symptoms of the problem, not the cause.",
"It is most certainly not a misconception. Entire books are being written about this.\n\nPolice departments all over the country are being outfitted and trained with military gear and tactics. SWAT teams, which were originally for exceptional circumstances are being used pretty much routinely now in some places...and we're talking about a bunch of guys in intimidating black tactical gear, armed with automatic weapons, who are being used to bust down doors for the most penny-ante of suspected crimes: barbershop back-room poker games, suspected pot smokers, anything.\n\nHowever, although these units are getting military gear and receive a superficial amount of military-like training, the rigid command structure and chain of accountability of the military are largely absent. Indeed, it's almost a cliche that cops are never held responsible for ANY actions they take. \n\nHere are a couple of recent articles on the subject:\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n",
"**American citizens, by and large, still have better guns than the police.**",
"Clearly you have no idea what was happening in the 1960s and 1970s? Police were far more violent. I cannot believe that not a single person in this thread has even touched on that.",
"Some of this is the fallout of the infamous North Hollywood shootout: _URL_0_. Basically, cops got in a shootout with well-armed and armored criminals and it went to shit. That lead to police departments across America dramatically upgrading their armaments. This makes some sense given that the criminally insane can buy an assault rifle.\n\nAmerican police departments also have a lot of seized money to throw around. Basically, if cops suspect your big pile of cash was ill-gotten they can seize it and the onus is on you to prove it was earned legitimately. Such monies, along with the proceeds of convicted criminals’ property being sold at auction, is retained by local police departments. The police departments blow a lot of this money on toys like riot gear and armored troop transports because they can.\n\nAnd there’s good old corruption involved. The companies that make this stuff make campaign contributions and in exchange elected officials rain “homeland security” funding on police departments that gets spent on a lot of absurd shit they’ll never need. New York city is notorious for this; some police precincts literally have storage containers parked on the street to store all this stuff they don’t use, right next to multiple specialized vehicles they never use.",
"I don't think it's misconception. I remember when the SWAT cops started wearing ski masks and wondered WTF?\n\nNow I served as a university police officer for a year, that was backed up against a bad area of town. Our job was to protect the students, and prevent general lawlessness on campus and all that came with that. We interacted with adults, students, parents, pimps, drunkenness, thefts, drug use and occasional real bad man on campus, etc.\n\nWe were denied billy clubs due to 'aggressive nature' of their appearance and/or use, slap jacks were prohibited, and the aluminum flashlight became in vogue. Rule of law, voice command presence, prideful follow up to required duty is what ruled the day. For anyone who wears a badge, expect on any day someone to try shoot you but it wasn't armament that saved you then, or now. I turned down a position on the cities metro force because I felt the mode of cops changing to be extremely badge heavy, and quite frankly, pushy as hell. There are cops, and regular people too, who can't wait to get up the next day and push around, or bust their heads. Again, I saw this way too much in how the police were evolving, and this has expanded over the years, right up instream with all the military equivalent armament and clothing.\n\nNow, I was ahead of my time in weapons and carried a 9mm, or 45 ACP semi auto, but other than my physical size, the more industrial mace that was eventually watered down, that was it (had military training as well, by the way, so the command voice thing was well engrained).\n\nI personally cringe when I see any police in anything other than standard blues, or if county, browns, and I don't want any involvement with the police due to the reasons I have expressed above. \n\nI guess clearing a warehouse with an AR seems better, but I had to clear darkened buildings without them on several occasions when escapes from the local nut house got out and fled. One such individual with a large knife was taken down by officers without firing a shot by distraction and wrestling him down, whereas, today he would have been shot to pieces. I took down weak knife threats, swinging chain holders, club carrying people with mace, judo, fists, etc. No one wants to be a hero, but you just shouldn't snuff people out without due cause, which I feel there isn't much due cause needed today. For the old, lame, crazy, mad, just back off and wait them out and don't get bent out of shape because they didn't immediately bend to your presence.\n\nI, personally, don't put any faith in there being many honest, no self serving police officers, having on one occasion nearly been shot for having a metallic object in my hand while standing on a sidewalk looking at used cars, and two officers come up, for lack of a better word, to roust me. As I identified my the object in my hand, I explained it was just a marketing device, and wondered why they could not recognize a red Coke can, which is recognized in every corner of the entire Earth.\n\nIf most police were honest to tell, they would tell you, avoid contact with the police in every way you can. \n",
"There's a few major factors. For one thing, a huge amount of our population is armed, especially people that believe that the cops might arrest them. Such as people in drug trafficking or any kind of contraband industry that gets automatic huge sentences. Then there's also the large percentage of our population that want them. So a lot of the time, police officers arrest someone and find a weapon. Or they get into a scuffle of some kind and out comes a pistol. The police, in response, are arming themselves heavier and using better protection against guns. It's like the scene at the end of the Batman Begins, where Commissioner Gordon explains escalation. Police have guns, so people that fear them get guns in response. Enough incidents happen and the police arm themselves better. The people that were afraid are now more afraid and arm themselves even better etc. etc.\n\nAnother major factor is the military sector in the United States. Producing weapons of any kind is one of the country's largest industries, it may be the largest after farming. I haven't fact checked that one. Every year, the Pentagon buys billions in new equipment from the weapon industry and re-arms the military, keeping them the best armed they can be. However, re-arming means that there are tons of extra military grade equipment laying around. Some of it ends up overseas, being sold for profit to allied or friendly nations at a discount. Enough of those weapons have ended up in hostile forces, or decades later the country you sold to is now our enemy. Iraq is a good example, the Republican Guard was armed with United States military weapons which is a primary reason they were so dangerous. This has happened enough that there has been a ton of bad publicity from American weapons ending up in the hands of our current enemies. So they have, in response, been selling or giving them to police and law enforcement organizations at deep discounts. It plays well because of how much Americans love guns and is a pipeline for getting rid of all these extra weapons. Do local police departments need assault rifles, full body armor, re-commissioned tanks, or any of the other stuff they have? Not really, but the guys in the uniforms seem to love it for many reasons. \n\nAn underplayed but relevant factor is that police officers are feeling increasingly like soldiers or are in fact former soldiers. A local police officer in a quiet town is going to have a very different response than someone that comes back from a foreign war where they've been in mortal danger for months on end. If you have a good military record you're at the top of any list to get a job working as security or for the police and other law enforcement. The ATF is famous for this, they handle so many potentially violent and dangerous situations that they are stocked with ex-soldiers and people trained to deal with those situations. Sensible reasoning, why wouldn't you want somebody to keep the peace that can actually take down people? Well, in recent years it has been going the other way. Lots of officers, especially those that participate in raids, let their paranoia or adrenaline get the better of them and they end up shooting first because they are scared. Not scared in a monster under the bed way, more of a flight or fight response way. They've seen how bombs could be around every corner, how every cute kid could be holding a grenade or a gun behind their back, dogs trained to attack instead of being cuddly fur balls. Then it has a cascading effect, bad situations happen and innocent people get killed or firefights get out of hand from police abuse. So they arm themselves better, get more training in combat instead of peace keeping, and the problem is getting worse. Also it really doesn't help that officers that do this kind of stuff are rarely punished. Officers stick together because they have to, but they end up protecting violent, deadly people who need to be in jail or re-assigned. I want to be clear, this is a small minority. Most police officers couldn't be less interested in becoming domestic soldiers that walk around heavily armed. But there are some that are, and they are perpetuating a cycle of violence with the criminals they should be trying to stop.\n\nThe final, and most troubling point is that it has nothing to do with the police at all. At high levels of government, lawmakers have to appeal to their voters. A lot of voters in this country are in favor of mass weapons in some odd suicide pact with the \"bad people\". You know, the \"if they have a gun I want one too!\" argument. When re-election comes around, politicians need money and votes. The defense industry is happy to oblige so the government officials section off large parts of police budgets for military grade weapons which plays well with their voter base. It's not hard, politicians have for years been overspending on the military and defense budgets because it's an easy way to get money for their re-elections from the defense industry and pick up points by saying \"Look, I voted for your defense and making the police better equipped against the bad people\". You just have to look at our nuclear arsenal, we have had enough nuclear missiles in the past to reduce every inch of land on the planet to radioactive dust several times over. That's not for practicality, it's a show of force for voters. The militarization of local police forces has been for a while now a much easier and safer way of accomplishing the same goals. ",
"This isn't ELI6 Jeez",
"It's all of that sweet sweet homeland security money.",
"I'm late to this party. dgaf. Because the government wants to disarm the public and promote tyranny. The government should fear the people. Not the other way around.",
"Well the LAPD are getting cams to wear, personally I like that.",
"As far as I know it's largely that they get a lot of leftover military surplus gear... not really a conspiracy or anything, it just sort of happens. \n\nOf course, there is the viewpoint that the police exist to protect the rich from the poor. ",
"I would think that the simple answer would be that drug cartels are arming themselves more and more.\n\nCops have had the average US citizen outgunned and out-trained (more important than most people think) for a while now.",
"Very disappointed in the answers to this so far. I know it's ELI5 but the answers are treating you like an idiot. \"Bad guys have big guns so we need big guns too!\"\n\nOP, if you really want to know read \"Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.\"",
"_URL_0_\n\nPart of Reagan's war on ~~poor bla..~~ drugs.",
"If history is any guide, the militarization of the domestic law enforcement is a response to the government having concerns for insurrection and revolt. Every nation I could find had a surge in arming their police forces prior to confiscation. After confiscation... things don't go very well.",
"There is a difference between how patrol and SWAT operators are trained. sWAT operator's training is more \"militarized\" because we deal with situations which are beyond the scope of what patrol can handle, whether it may be a hostage situation, barricaded gunman or a high risk warrant. We have more tools and training to get the job done more efficiently and safer than regular patrol. \nIn my experience, due to their budgets, most departments patrolman are criminally undertrained. In my department, if you are a patrolman, you are lucky to go for a training class a couple of times a year, if that. However, being on SWAT, I train every month, sometimes multiple times a month.\n\nAnyways, becoming militarized isn't all bad. Yes, we look scary because we have armored vehicle and big guns,but we also become far more disciplined and aware than regular patrol. \n\n til;dr...SWAT teams are militarized out of necessity.",
"In a sense, high level criminals are also becoming more militarized. I'm not a fan of US police, but to makes sense that they much match the firepower of their adversary. ",
"My perspective as a \"citizen\" - just watch the TV show cops from the 80's and compare to a current edition- you can see in everything from a cops demeanor, dress, equipment, vernacular and even haircut is much more militarized. While anecdotal at best, it is a startling when you actually see it. \n\nCauses: \nwar on drugs - military terminology and an US v Them mentality. \n\nProliferation of SWAT to even small town police forces- this brings military tactics, hardware and training. Once this is in place, excuses are found to use it.\n\nCourt rulings creating many exceptions to citizen rights that police can exploit. From stop resisting, to a furtive move, to I am searching you for officer safety, or a drug dog that responds to a handler creating probable cause. \n\nVery similar to military- there is a police industrial complex- people get rich and therefore have a built in desire to promote a militarized police.\n\nLax enforcement of police ethics, many documented cases of police abuse , many jurisdictions police feel they are above the law( they probably believe they are protecting us from the \"scumbags\" but this is a very slippery slope) \n\nThat being said, I have only had fairly reasonable interactions with police, but i am an upper middle class middle aged white man - and realize this is not the case for many. \n",
"Of all my interactions with cops most have been very negative, some pretty bizarre and a few terrorizing for the public. With one good one. I am not a big lawbreaker and have no felonies and have never been arrested. But I still have observed corruption, abuse, harassment and intimidation towards myself and the public on the part of the police. I do not think that all cops are bad. I just think that if you are a good cop then you probably wont get promoted in a culture like that. ",
"Because illuminati. thats why."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Grant_Program#State"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots#The_riots",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Thirtieth_Movement",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ziLjOPCQwg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html",
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/09/war-comes-to-pulaski-county-indiana/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civilian_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Act"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
627tzs | why does the us model of the samsung galaxy s8 have a different processor than the global model? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/627tzs/eli5_why_does_the_us_model_of_the_samsung_galaxy/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfkeymw"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Qualcomm owns many many patents in the US basically forcing any company to use Qualcomm's modem to connect to wireless signals. Companies are free to use any SoC (System on a Chip) they want, the Galaxy S6 used the global SoC version but used a Qualcomm modem. The big issue is Qualcomm prices things in such a way that the 'deal' a company gets from using Qualcomm's modem and SoC makes it economically stupid to use your own SoC and Qualcomm's modem.\n\nEdit* Qualcomm is not competition friendly. There is a big reason why r/fuckqualcomm is a thing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9z5yc7 | how exactly does the us "cut someone off from the dollar market" with sanctions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9z5yc7/eli5_how_exactly_does_the_us_cut_someone_off_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea6kwh7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The US tells banks that they cannot do business with \"someone\" if they want to do business with US regulated banks or the electronic funds transfer network. This doesn't exactly prevent them from spending dollars, but they have to do it with bundles of currency. As many a drug cartel discovered, Dollars are not compact or light at scale. To work at scale you really need your money to be numbers in a bank computer, and the US can cut off access to that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7vxpf1 | animals with rabies live normally but infected people die in a week? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vxpf1/eli5_animals_with_rabies_live_normally_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtvvzru",
"dtvw0kp",
"dtvzojx",
"dtwcxa3"
],
"score": [
6,
13,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Animals die from rabies too.\n\nPeople will show symptoms of rabies after being bitten anywhere from weeks to months. ",
"Animals with rabies typically *don't* live normally. It is generally a disease with rapid deterioration and usually fatal. ",
"Rabies can kill a person in a week, but [1-3 months is more common](_URL_0_)\n\nIf you get bitten by a rabid dog, it sometimes gets in the blood, but it usually travels slowly inside the nerves toward the brain. A bite on the foot takes longer to reach the brain than a bite on the hand, or face.\n\nInfected animals don't live normally, they become something rather similar to zombies from fiction. [Somewhat disturbing video of a rabid raccoon](_URL_1_). Some mammals appear to be more or less immune- opossums very rarely get rabies in the wild, although it is possible.",
"With diseases, it's not evolutionarily advantageous to kill your host. If you do, then you kill yourself, too, since you were living off the host. So a disease that kills the host will generally die out before spreading very far. More successful diseases spread quickly and take awhile to kill, or don't kill at all. That way, they can survive for a long time. So with something like rabies, which is in effect 100% fatal (only a handful of cases have not been fatal in humans), it wouldn't be very successful. It would kill all of its hosts and therefore die too. But what you have with rabies is that there is another animal species that is the true host of it. The animal carries the rabies around, infecting others, while not dying itself. So the animal hosts have evolved over time as rabies has evolved, so both live. Humans haven't evolved with rabies affecting us since we're not the main hosts, and therefore it's much more deadly in humans."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs099/en/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guYU1JDE_jM"
],
[]
] |
||
4zod1t | how does the acid in lead acid batteries not consume the lead? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zod1t/eli5_how_does_the_acid_in_lead_acid_batteries_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6xfhqv",
"d6yhey9"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It does- in fact, that's how it works. It turns it into lead sulfate, and when all the lead has been so turned, the battery is dead. Charging a battery gradually turns the lead sulfate and water back into lead oxide and sulfuric acid.",
"It does! The lead in a charged battery gets dissolved by the acid as the battery discharges. The dissolved lead takes the form of Lead Sulphate. Then, the battery can be charged up, and this reaction undissolves the lead sulphate turning it back into lead metal and acid."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6aoqql | how come people say "drinking the kool-aid"when referring to cults? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aoqql/eli5how_come_people_say_drinking_the_koolaidwhen/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhg84eh",
"dhg872o",
"dhg8h2z",
"dhg9awg",
"dhgdw4k",
"dhgdxgg",
"dhge6ca"
],
"score": [
6,
39,
177,
43,
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a reference to a famous cult that committed mass suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. (IDK if this is known outside of the US but \"Kool-Aid\" is a sugary drink that kids like.)",
"In the late 70s a cult committed mass suicide when about 1000 people intentionally drank poisoned koolaid (actually it was flavoraid but sometimes being the most popular brand of something works against you in marketing when people only know one brand of something and call everything that) ",
"The Jonestown Mass \"Suicide\" where over 900 members of the Peoples Temple (a cult) drank cyanide laced kool-aid. I take the term to represent how people involved in cults are willing to do anything and believe everything the leaders tell them.\n\nJim Jones told the members to drink to kool-aid and nearly 1000 people drank the kool-aid.\n\n_URL_0_",
"No one has said this yet, but specifically (and most horrifically), someone captured audio of the mass suicide in question, and a mother can be heard telling her wailing child to \"drink the kool-aid\".\n\nI think that's where the literal term came from, not just the fact that they all drank poisoned Kool-aid.",
"I'd wanna add that in all the info I've read on jonestown, many of the individuals who \"drank the koolaid\" were actually forced to drink via syringe as there were armed guards preventing most of the members from escaping, this or children were forced to drink first and their parents would follow due to the overwhelming despair of the situation. So it was more so a mass murder.",
"If you feel like wanting to go through a wave of emotions from sad to anger to depressed, go find the audio that was recorded and hear the main dude tell all the parents to feed the children first... If I could bring back one person to let them rot in an old school dungeon, it'd be that fucker.",
"A large cult group poisoned themselves by drinking look aid a while back. The phrase 'already drank the kool aid' means the subject is invested/believe in an idea or ideology and can't/won't back out. Kinda like someone who already drank the poison. Usually this phrase conotates insanity... obviously."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
svjid | atlas shrugged | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/svjid/eli5_atlas_shrugged/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4hbwdh",
"c4hbwok",
"c4hbx87",
"c4hcdyv",
"c4he5oz",
"c4hgr34",
"c4hgvqf"
],
"score": [
11,
48,
4,
4,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Rand is generally disliked by Redditors but Atlas Shrugged is a great book and I would wager that at least 80% of those who bash the book and it's author have not read it.\n\nBefore I launch into something here, have you read it and are looking for some clarification? Are you considering reading it? Please ask a more detailed question.",
"Reply stolen from Hapax_Legoman in [this post](_URL_0_).\n\nThe basic plot of the book is actually in the title. Atlas (yeah, like the book full of maps) is a figure from Greek mythology. He's what's called a Titan, a race of very old, very powerful god-like figures. They gave birth to another generation of god-figures called the Olympians. The Olympians fought a war against the Titans, and won. Atlas, for his part in the war, was sentenced to stand at the edge of the world and hold the sky on his shoulders. That was his punishment for being on the losing side.\n\nExcept in art, over the past few thousand years, Atlas has often been depicted as holding the Earth on his shoulders. This isn't really what the original myths said, but it's become so widely recognized that it's how Atlas is generally thought of today.\n\nWell, the title of the book is \"Atlas Shrugged.\" Which, if you imagine a god holding the world on his shoulders, should be a pretty evocative image.\n\nAs far as the details go, the book is set in a world that's running down. Industries are being nationalized, people are apathetic and unambitious. But a couple people aren't happy about that. There's Dagny Taggart, who runs a railroad, and Hank Reardon, who runs a steel foundry. They both feel really strongly that people should work hard and do important things. Dagny wants to expand her railroad to move freight around the country, and Hank has just invented a new metal alloy that's going to make really good rails for trains to run on. But each of them encounters resistance along the way from people who resent their ambition and their drive, and they have a hard time of it.\n\nEventually, prominent industrialists and business leaders start to disappear. Like literally disappear: it's like they've been kidnapped or something. Their companies are gutted, their business commitments abandoned … it reaches the point of being a real national crisis. Imagine if the heads of companies like Wal Mart and UPS and Home Depot and a bunch more just shut down their companies all on the same day, and left millions of people out of work. It'd be a catastrophe a lot like the one depicted in the book.\n\nDagny and Hank end up stumbling across an abandon invention. I forget the details, but it's something really important, like a perpetual-motion machine or something. Just left laying in the corner of some abandoned factory. They start to wonder what the hell's been going on, and whether this has anything to do with the disappearing business and industry leaders. So they go on a hunt. This part of the book is basically a mystery story, as Dagny and Hank try to track down the person who invented the perpetual-motion machine, and see if they can get to the bottom of the disappearances.\n\nDagny follows the trail of clues, but ends up crashing her small plane in a valley way up high in the mountains. There, to her surprise, she finds all the \"kidnapped\" business leaders, and more. Scientists, artists, engineers, all kinds of brilliant, ambitious people. They've all created this new town there, organized by a guy named John Galt. Galt explains to Dagny that he got fed up with the way the world is going, so he decided to try to do something about it. He went, quietly, to all these smart people and persuaded them to quit. Just quit. Just walk out on their jobs, their companies, their families, everything, and come start this new town with him.\n\nSee, Galt figured that most of the good things that go in the world are the result of the hard work of a pretty small number of people. It's what they sometimes call the \"80/20 rule.\" Eighty percent of the work gets done by twenty percent of the people, that kind of thing. Well, Galt didn't think that was a very good idea, so he decided to change it. His plan was to get all of those \"twenty percent\" people to join him in withdrawing from society. Once all those people quit, the world would just grind to a halt, because everybody who was making important things happen would've stopped. After everything collapsed, Galt and his friends would come out and start building from scratch, with the intention of creating a more just world where everybody contributes and nobody slacks off.\n\nSo that's what he did. He convinced all these smart people to \"go on strike.\" Only it gets ugly. The government, panicked at the economic disaster, starts trying to nationalize industries. They seize companies, force inventors to give over their ideas, basically try all these completely wrongheaded ideas, never understanding the real cause of the problem. Eventually they track Galt down and arrest him. They torture him to try to get him to call off the strike, but he doesn't give in, until his friends manage to rescue him and take him back to the valley.\n\nAnd then everything just goes downhill. The big turning point in the book is the moment, right at the end of the story, where the electricity supply finally quits, because there was nobody to keep the generators running. And all at once, the lights of New York City go out.\n\nSometime later, having weathered the collapse in their valley, Galt and his friends decide it's time to go back out into the world and start rebuilding.\n\nPeople love to complain about the book and make fun of it for political reasons. I always wonder whether the people who do have ever actually read it. Cause while it's got flaws, overall it's a really cool story.",
"[Here is a great rundown](_URL_0_) by Hapax Legoman.\n\nLegoman stopped posting months ago because well, his posts never really agreed with [the reddit hivemind](_URL_1_).\n\nIf you want to learn about finance, or just a number of topics in general, I would suggest reading through his comment history.",
"The book had so much potential to be great! But the way the books characterizes its villains is terrible. Rand had a skill for writing, and some of her descriptions of the settings are vivid and wonderful. The concept of the novel is intriguing! But the villains were so wooden. \n\nThe good guys are fleshed out and nicely portrayed. But Rand did nothing to hide her ax to grind with her villains. They were against her philosophy, so she portrays them as illogical in stupid ways, and she constantly reminds us that the people under the competing ideology were “dead-eyed,” like they were zombies or something. She makes her socialist opponents into the kind of offensive caricatures that would make WW2 propagandists proud. \n\nWhat could have been a brilliant argument for her philosophy turned into a pathetic crucifixion of straw men.\n\nI don’t know where I am politically anymore. The socialists have as much work to do persuading me as the capitalists do. But I can’t stand a poorly plotted story.",
"Other people have gotten into the political aspects of the book, but nobody's touched on the literary part. As far as books go, Atlas Shrugged is not great. It's excessively long and repetitive. Ayn Rand spends hundreds of pages hammering home the same ideas, over and over and over. At the end she even has a character give a 75 page speech summarizing her beliefs. There's a reason most writers don't have 75 fucking pages of uninterrupted monologue. It bores the reader to tears.\n\nAlso, her \"characters\" aren't real people so much as sock puppets with which she demonstrates how right she is about everything. Different characters would talk in the book, but everybody spoke with Rand's voice.\n\nTo be honest, it's a rather difficult book to read. It's long, boring, and tiresome for reasons other people have already mentioned. Ayn Rand does show occasional flashes of brilliance through clever wordplay, but as a whole her writing is not very good. ",
"The original title was \"The Strike\" \n\nThe book is an answer to this question: What would happen if the people who do the most important work in the world went on strike both because their work was not appreciated... and politicians were punishing them for being successful?",
"Atlas Shrugged is a book about a woman named Dagny Taggart. Dagny works at a very successful railroad, and wants to work hard and make money. Her brother Jim owns the company doesn't think that he should have to work hard in order to make money. Since his railroad company is the best already, it shouldn't have to do anything to stay the best.\n\nDagny wants to make new rails for her railroad with a special kind of metal. A man named Hank Rearden makes the metal, and Dagny wants to buy it. Jim's friends who make the steel that they use for the railroad don't want Dagny to use Hank's metal, so they try to make it against the law.\n\nDagny decides to buy the metal from Hank and makes the railroad anyway. Everyone (except Dagny and Hank) expect that the rails made with the special metal will be unsafe. They build the railroad though, and it works! Hank and Dagny build a special railroad line to their friend Ellis, who owns an oil refinery. \n\nDuring this time, Dagny and Hank find out that lots of smart people who like to work hard and make money have been disappearing. More of Jim's friends who make oil don't like that Ellis is so successful, so they get their friends in the Government to make it harder for Ellis to make money. Ellis is upset, and he disappears just like all the other smart people Dagny noticed.\n\nDagny and Hank start looking for all the missing business people. They can't find them. In the mean time, the Government is trying to make laws that will keep people from deciding to stop making money, and stop paying taxes.\n\nDagny searches and searches, and eventually she crashed a plane into a secret Valley. She meets a man in the Valley called John Galt. John organized what he calls a \"Strike\". A strike is when workers get together and decide not to work because they feel they're being treated unfairly.\n\nJohn went out and talked to all the smart, productive people he could find, and tried to convince them to \"go on strike\", or to stop working at their jobs and leave with him. He did this because he felt that they were being treated unfairly. They were being forced to do things they shouldn't have to do by the government. He asked them all to come live with him in a secret town where they could work and make money, and not be forced to do anything they didn't want to.\n\nJohn gets kidnapped by the Government because they want him to tell everyone to come back and work. John refuses. His friends come and rescue him. Hank, Dagny and John all go back to the secret town and live there for a long time. Eventually they decide to come back out of the town and help other people.\n\n*This isn't a perfect synopsis by any means, and ScrewedThePooch's synopsis is much more detailed, but I figured I'd give it as much of a LI5 shot as I could. My version here skips over significant, important parts of the book.*\n\n*The book characterizes people who are productive, and characters who live off the productive. Atlas Shrugged is primarily about the individuals right to themselves, their labor, and their agency. Villains in the book are characterized as people who deny those things. I enjoyed it. I think it's worthwhile reading, but you should take what Rand writes with a grain of salt.*\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jt3r4/eli5_the_plot_of_atlas_shrugged/"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jt3r4/eli5_the_plot_of_atlas_shrugged/c2exh5i",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/svjid/eli5_atlas_shrugged/c4hbmk9"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
m7ex6 | why is it cold during summer further up north if over there the sunlight lasts longer? | I try to think of how earth would be positioned, and doesn't the fact that the day last longer somewhere mean that that part is actually closer to the sun? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m7ex6/eli5why_is_it_cold_during_summer_further_up_north/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2yp68f",
"c2yp68f"
],
"score": [
27,
27
],
"text": [
"The reason it's cold in the north, even in summer, is about the angle that the sunlight hits the earth. Far north the sun is in the sky for a long time but it never gets very *high* in the sky. In the far north the sun barely gets up over the horizon for much of the day. The sunlight is shining on the earth there sideways instead of straight down, so it's the same amount of energy spread out very thinly over a large area, and it doesn't heat that part of the world up very much.\n\n\n ___\n ` < ----- Rays here are spread over a wide area\n \\\n Earth | < ----- Rays here are striking head-on (Sun is over here)\n /\n ___-\n\nEdit: Also physical distance to the sun doesn't make any real difference. The sun is so immensely far away that even moving closer to it by the diameter of the earth would have basically no effect.",
"The reason it's cold in the north, even in summer, is about the angle that the sunlight hits the earth. Far north the sun is in the sky for a long time but it never gets very *high* in the sky. In the far north the sun barely gets up over the horizon for much of the day. The sunlight is shining on the earth there sideways instead of straight down, so it's the same amount of energy spread out very thinly over a large area, and it doesn't heat that part of the world up very much.\n\n\n ___\n ` < ----- Rays here are spread over a wide area\n \\\n Earth | < ----- Rays here are striking head-on (Sun is over here)\n /\n ___-\n\nEdit: Also physical distance to the sun doesn't make any real difference. The sun is so immensely far away that even moving closer to it by the diameter of the earth would have basically no effect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2vh4f4 | would an oil heating system use more oil keeping a house a constant temperature all day or turning it off and bringing it back up to temperature? | I don't know how simple or complex of an answer this has. My wife and I keep our house at 70 degrees fahrenheit and have been turning the heater off during the day. When I get home from work the house is down around 55 - 60 degrees fahrenheit and often takes most of the evening to get back up to temperature.
Is turning the heater off during the day (when no one is home) more efficient on oil usage than just leaving it running to maintain the temperature? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vh4f4/eli5_would_an_oil_heating_system_use_more_oil/ | {
"a_id": [
"cohksr1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A lot depends on your home. The size, type of heating system, amount of insulation, how tight the house is all play a factor. With that being said, I can't ELI5 but I have a lot of experience in home building/home performance. It's what I do. I typically recommend setting your away at work tstat temp no more than 5 degrees lower than where you have it when you're home. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1397l2 | i thought jordan had a constitutional monarchy, yet it appears that democratic movements have flaired up in the region. eli5 | I was under the assumption that king Abdullah had managed to avoid falling victim to the Arab spring by enacting economic and political reforms in recent years. Is this untrue, or are the revolutionary elements just extremely radical? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1397l2/i_thought_jordan_had_a_constitutional_monarchy/ | {
"a_id": [
"c71wy8y",
"c71y1ln",
"c71zs9x"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Good question. If you don't receive an adequate answer here in ELI5, you might try /r/middleeastnews or even /r/islam",
"Jordan does have a constitutional monarchy, and the king has been enacting democratic reforms in the past year or so.\n\nThe thing is that most constitutional monarchies are not actually democratic on paper. For instance, the queen of the UK nominally has the power to fire Parliament, veto laws, and a bunch of other antidemocratic things. But she never *uses* these powers, so nobody complains. In Jordan, the king does use the powers constitutionally granted to him, so even with the reforms some people find his existence problematic.",
"Edit: I know this isn't a ELI5 but it isn't a ELI5 question :p If you want to talk more, reply and i'll be glad to respond :-)\n\nI am Jordanian and have been living here for 21 years. All the riots you are seeing now happening all across the kingdom is mainly because of the government's recent decision to lift the aid they provide for oil, diesel, gasoline...etc. This was done in order to help the country pay for its increasing debt, if this action was not taken, the value of the JD (Jordanian Dinar) will collapse and the whole country will be in shambles. \n\nAlso, these \"economic and political reforms\" that the king implemented are mostly just a way to shut the crowds up. If you get into the nitty gritty of it, nothing has changed. In fact, economically, things have gotten much worse. \n\nJust like at the beginning of the Arab Spring when there were protests asking for reforms and the overthrow of the monarchy, these protests were not started by the Muslim Brotherhood. They were started by regular low income folk (who make up about 70% of the population) who now can't find a way to bring food to the table. But today, the Muslim Brotherhood slowly started to seep into the protests and ask for the overthrow of the monarchy. I live fairly close to one of the \"hotspots\" for the protests in the capital and pass by there almost daily. When I went to see the protests today, there was a significant portion of the crowd that was from the Muslim Brotherhood and other tribal members that are well known to be against the monarchy. I can only imagine that number will increase. \n\nOverall however, there is a general disdain for the people who are calling for the overthrow and in my opinion, the monarchy will continue to exist. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
355pik | why do i drive down the road and sometimes people flash their headlights once or twice before we pass? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/355pik/eli5_why_do_i_drive_down_the_road_and_sometimes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr187jx",
"cr187p5",
"cr187ul",
"cr187y8",
"cr19bu8"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
2,
12,
5
],
"text": [
"There are cops behind them, don't do anything stupid.\n\nOr you are already doing something wrong, like not having your lights on at night.",
"Here in South Africa some people do it to warn people of Traffic Police, Roadblock or an Accident / obstruction ahead.",
"It could be you forgot to turn on your lights, it could be that there's a police car up ahead or just any general hazard you should be aware of. Sometimes they just flash them for no reason.",
"Either your driving like a loonatic or more likely its just a slight bump in the road. Dimmed headlight point down and if the car moves up slightly theyre pointing straight ahead, so it looks like they're flashing you but they're not :P",
"Its one of the following:\n\nRadar trap\n\nDanger like fog or animals ahead of you\n\nYou have no lights on and can barely be seen\n\nYOU GOT YOUR HIGHBEAM ON AND I CAN BARELY SEE SHIT !*§!§$*%!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
de9n3h | how does slag glass form? | How does slag glass come to be? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/de9n3h/eli5_how_does_slag_glass_form/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2u2zdp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Slag is a byproduct of metal refining. It's essentially impurities in the metal that are removed and is often kinda glassy. Originally slag glass had slag mixed into the glass to give it the appearance. However, later multiple colors of molten glass were mixed together to get a similar effect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5nudv5 | how do you build synthetic molecules? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nudv5/eli5_how_do_you_build_synthetic_molecules/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcekkjh",
"dceyw9d"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The best way I can explain it is to think of going on a road trip. To get from A to B, there are several routes you could take. You want to stop at a particular tourist attraction on the way, so that eliminates some of the possibilities. Another route is notorious for constant traffic jams, so that's out. Eventually, you come to one route that gets you where you want to go pretty efficiently, and that's the route you take.\n\nSynthetic chemistry, particularly synthetic organic chemistry (yes, that's a real thing) works the same way. You start with a pretty simple molecule, then perform reactions to add specific new parts to the molecule until you get the desired product. Like the road trip, there are usually many ways to accomplish the goal, although there's usually far more options for the chemist. In fact, there are so many different groups and different ways to add them that I doubt any one chemist knows them all; that's why sometimes, companies will bring in a guy from outside to see if they can work out a more efficient process.",
"Basically, there are known reactions for adding and breaking molecules at desirable points in a chain. Typically these are multi-step additions, and you don't get 100% of what you want. Your left hand and right hand look the same, but they are mirror images. The same thing happens in chemistry. Adding carbons or chains can result in mirror image molecules, but only one might be the desired product. There are co-products from side reactions, and a lot of characterization and purification to get what you want.\nThe how really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. But simple examples might be substituting a hydrogen with a gas like chlorine, sometimes all you need is light to start the reaction. Building something is not too difficult (but can be deadly), building and purifying the right thing can be a real challenge, often involving many reaction steps to get the right big thing. Often a big molecule B will be added to another molecule A, so that in the next step, molecule B acts as a bouncer blocking the door, so only a specific part of A can react with C. Then B gets knocked off. There is art in synthesis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2yfcjs | landfill. surely it's a really really bad idea to fill holes with a partly rotting, gassy, mix of crap? won't we run out of places to put it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yfcjs/eli5_landfill_surely_its_a_really_really_bad_idea/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp8z4l9",
"cp90zqx",
"cp9135b",
"cp93i5m"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The landfills here get filled over and then holes drilled in to the rubbish. Then they put pipes coming vertically out of the rubbish to vent the gas.\n\nSo I suppose in a few hundred years or less the rubbish disintegrates and the gas escapes. ",
"Generally speaking no. Landfills are actually quite small even for large cities.\n\nI mean yes, eventually if we did nothing to recycle or reclaim things I guess we'll fill the planet with trash ... but at our current rates no.\n\nIn parts of the world (re: asia) where you see garbage line the streets it's more a question of a) people litter all the time and b) nobody picks it up ever.\n\nIn Western countries we greatly organize our garbage for pickup and then compact and store it. So we use less land area than them even if we actually throw out more mass per capita than other countries.",
"According to a Penn and Teller Bullshit I watched a while back (so take these numbers with a grain of salt) A 10 mile square modern landfill could hold a century worth of America's garbage. It would be an awful place noone would want to live near but there is a lot of barren wasteland in the Desert that could be used.",
"No, it's a reasonable way to dispose of solid waste. There is far more land than is needed to support solid waste disposal for hundreds of thousands of years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
q0jlq | linear alegbra: what the difference between linear independence and linear dependence is. | I have a test tomorrow and I feel that this is really essential. I can't figure it out :(:(
Thanks!
EDIT: it makes sense but now I need to grasp if a unique solution is linearly dependent or independent | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q0jlq/eli5_linear_alegbra_what_the_difference_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3tq1vl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Let's say I give you a set of vectors. If any one of those vectors can be constructed as a combination of any of the others, then the set is said to be \"linearly dependent\". If the set isn't linearly dependent, we call it \"linearly independent\".\n\nOne way to check for linear independence is to write down a matrix where the columns are the vectors you've been given. If the determinant of that matrix is zero, then the vectors are dependent. If the determinant is not zero, then the vectors are independent."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2vu2ib | what is mega doing? why do i have to wait forever twice? | I first have to wait for MEGA to start the download, and then it takes forever to download to my computer. What is going on here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vu2ib/eli5what_is_mega_doing_why_do_i_have_to_wait/ | {
"a_id": [
"cokxv34"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of complicated encryption.\n\nRemember Megaupload? It was a site for hosting files on for download, based in New Zealand, much like Mega, but it was quicker. Unfortunately for them, US law deemed it illegal because it had lots of copyright-infringing files on it, and had the New Zealand police go shut them down.\n\nThe founder, despite having legal action pending over Megaupload, went and made Mega, its followup website. In order to avoid the law being able to easily \"see\" what's on the site (I believe their official mission statement about it is to \"maintain user privacy\"), it's all encrypted.\n\nAll the encryption is what takes time when it's downloading. It's the tradeoff to having a website the police would find it *very* difficult to legally take down.\n\nIf you want an ELI5 of what encryption is, imagine your file is a finished jigsaw puzzle. Encryption is the act of jumbling up the puzzle and making sure only certain people have a copy of what it's supposed to look like when it's put back together. While it's stored on Mega's servers, it's only there in jumbled up form. The delay is from that jigsaw being put back together when you download it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3xevxt | why do the skeletons of people that died hundreds of years ago have perfect white teeth but mine will yellow within days without brushing? | I always thought it was strange that photos of ancient corpses or skeletons from (literally) ages ago are dug up by archaeologists and seem to have great teeth! And yet i have to brush twice a day and mouthwash to maintain "kinda" white teeth.. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xevxt/eli5_why_do_the_skeletons_of_people_that_died/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy419tl",
"cy41alj",
"cy48h6v",
"cy4bfh8",
"cy4j2uy",
"cy4ks1i",
"cy502eh"
],
"score": [
14,
135,
6,
3,
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because those skeletons aren't maintaining an active bacterial culture in their mouth. Your mouth is warm and moist and constantly intaking nutrients and those nutrients feed a munch of bacteria that also damage your teeth. Also those skeletons often died young in a world which didn't have the same quantity of calorie rich sweeteners that cause tooth decay.",
"You are alive. You are constantly exposing your teeth to food and other habits that can stain them, and you are providing a nice, warm, wet environment perfect for bacteria growth which can lead to plaque and cavities.\n\nSkeletons are, well, dead. They are not constantly eating. Their mouth is not a nice warm wet environment. Bacteria cannot really survive long in that environment. ",
"They aren't, they just look like it in comparison to the rest of the bones, especially the skull because other bones are more porous than teeth and stain more easily.",
"This post reminded me of an article I read a bit ago. Some scientists believe it's due to diet; notably lack of large quantities of sugar. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Your teeth are supposed to be [slightly yellow](_URL_0_). So the white of skeletons is bleaching of the bone and enamel, not a sign of healthier teeth. \n\nYour bones aren't white when they're still in you, either, they're yellowish and pinkish until a while after you're dead and the fat and blood residue degrades away.",
"One word:\n\nJunk food.\n\nOur foods today are much more processed than even a century ago. Also, many people had bad teeth throughout history. That smiling skeleton only accounts for a very limited number of cases.",
"As palcatraz pointed out, you are alive and continually using your teeth. But teeth also appear whiter when they are dry. This helps to explain why those bone dry dead guys have some seriously nice smiles. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/"
],
[
"http://m.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-yellow-teeth-stronger"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3mgu1q | why doesn't america join russia fighting isis in syria on the ground? | Wonderful opportunity to build trust with Russia and challenge ISIS. Would be a dream _URL_0_ hardened Syrians with a new found confidence. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mgu1q/eli5why_doesnt_america_join_russia_fighting_isis/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvetdmf",
"cvets9g",
"cveu0hc"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"It's dirty fighting and I don't think any western country wants to get that deep just yet. It's very expensive, the largest cost being soldiers' lives.",
"* Russia is not fighting on the ground, they are providing arms and support and are starting to fly air sorties. \n\n* The US does not want to support the Assad regime, which is what Russian action is really all about, not fighting ISIS in particular. Western governments maintain that Assad must step down and refuse to work with him.\n\n* Russia is attempting to pose as a \"good partner\" in Syria and in the Iran deal to take the diplomatic/economic pressure off of them over Ukraine. Aiding Russia in supporting Assad and legitimizing their strategy should only come with real concessions from Russia on Ukraine, such as turning over control of the Ukrainian border back to the government in Kiev.",
"The events of the last 15-or-so years illustrate, fairly clearly, why the USA is reluctant to put \"boots on the ground\" in the Middle East. It was their intervention that (at least partly) caused the rise of ISIS in the first place.\n\nSo now the Russians have clearly taken a side, supporting the Assad regime (Shia) against the Saudi-backed ISIS (Sunni). That's right - it'd fundamentally a Islamic sectarian conflict, about which has the \"correct\" version of Islam. \n\nLet's imagine the USA did as you suggest, and the \"dream team\" took on ISIS. What would it take to \"defeat\" ISIS? We're no longer in 1812, back in the days when the armies lined up against each other on a field, and the winner of the battle also won the war. ISIS consists of people who think the ends justify the means, who have no qualms about hiding in people's homes, using them as \"human shields\". (They don't exactly obey the 3rd Amendment over there.) "
]
} | [] | [
"team..US/Russia/and"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3rx8bt | how does new york have a service economy when the rent is so high? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rx8bt/eli5_how_does_new_york_have_a_service_economy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cws3370",
"cws63pc",
"cws943e"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't live in Manhattan or Brooklyn... they live in the less expensive boroughs like the Bronx or Queens. And they cram more people/family members into apartments than elsewhere.",
"A waiter or cook at a nice NYC restaurant can make damn good money. For everyone else, they have multiple roommates or live in the burbs and take the sub in.",
"There's 100s of thousands of people who commute from New Jersey and Connecticut. Not to mention the lesser boroughs, the people in the service economy don't live in Manhattan.\n\nThe public transit in the tri-state area is actually pretty decent compared to most of the country.\n\nThat said, I would love to live in NYC for a few years, specifically Manhattan, but that could be a while lol."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5blgzi | when using virtual reality devices like the vive or rift, how do our eyes focus on 'distant' objects when they are really only centimetres away? | Do our eyes react in the same way as they do in the physical world? Or is there some trick being played? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5blgzi/eli5_when_using_virtual_reality_devices_like_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9pf8u8",
"d9pfrid"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The lenses in VR device put the image at a distance. Early prototypes used infinite distance because reasons(similar how stars are essentially infinite distance away as far as your eye focus goes), it didn't really affect immersion, but now I understand the distance they use is less than that, not sure by how much.\n\nSince the entire screen either is or isn't in focus, and there's no reason for eyes to shift focus distance, this may have been a problem. Turns out, it wasn't. Brain doesn't seem to use focus distance when deciding what the world is like, it's just a mundane task eyes do.",
"Your eyes don't actually know how far the light they're receiving has come. They figure that out by comparing the image from each eye. \nThe difference between each eye's picture tells the brain what the angle between the eyes and the object is. That tells it how far away the object is. VR uses two pictures to make it seem like the light is coming from a certain angle, and therefore farther away. So your eyes focus the way they normally would to make sense of the images."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
39x3bm | why was dragon ball gt considered so bad compared to dragon ball and dragon ball z? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39x3bm/eli5why_was_dragon_ball_gt_considered_so_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs77m1v",
"cs77w7b",
"cs7bvap"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know what the general criticisms are, but, personally, Z did a better job building tension and had far stronger villains/plot arcs. GT felt like a hokey pseudo-parody of Z. Then again, I was quite a bit older when I watched GT as well.",
"People generally criticize GT for being too much of a retread of Dragonball and Dragonball Z. The first arc has whole episodes with plotlines ripped straight out of Dragon Ball. The Baby Saga is basically the Cell Saga. Etc.",
"Real arguments (fact based rather than opinion based) come down to the fact that GT wasn't based on the manga like DB and DBZ were. Although the studio and staff did get the blessing of Akira Toriyama, the series' original creator, input from him was minimal.\n\nAlthough, I believe that due to recent news, GT isn't part of the main timeline anymore, so that should appease everyone. \nAs an FYI, they're apparently saying GT was a 'possible future' that would've happened if Battle of the Gods and Resurection F (and future official works) didn't happen when they did, or at all. Think of it like future Trunks' timeline. Although he 'saved' the main timeline, when he returned 'the future', his timeline was pretty much as he left it. For a non-DB fan, think of it like the Star Trek reboot movies. The whole original timeline still happened (and is happening in the games, mmo, novels,etc), but the movies, due to the time travel, are now set in the 'Alternate Timeline', where basically everything that happened still kinda happen, but five years after when compared to the original timeline, so the scenarios play out differently."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4n8csp | are the acid levels in the hot springs at yellowstone park enough to dissolve a human body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4n8csp/eli5are_the_acid_levels_in_the_hot_springs_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"d41orzi",
"d41otub"
],
"score": [
4,
10
],
"text": [
"The [pH of the water in the acid springs is in the 2-3 range](_URL_0_ ), that's in the lemon juice-vinegar range. This will not dissolve a human body for a very long time. Many of the pools and geysers have underground storage chambers, where the water is heated, from which a drowned human can't be easily extracted. That's why the search ended.",
"It's not so much his body was dissolved, it's more that his body was swept into the massive system of underground rivers flowing under Yellowstone.\n\nI'm wondering if he could end up being blown out Old Faithful while school kids look on... It would make an epic field trip - or find a place in the plot line for a great horror story."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Yellowstone_Acid_Pools"
],
[]
] |
||
bkaubt | if a helicopter were to hover 12 hours without moving forward, would it be on the other side of the world? | Ok I know it sounds dumb. But I came across a flat earth thing that people are making fun of that said “if the earth really were spinning, a helicopter could hover in one spot for 12 hours and be on the other side of the world.” Why is that laughable? I don’t know how the physics of that works, but it feels like a helicopter actually wouldn’t spin with the earth if it were hovering high enough. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkaubt/eli5_if_a_helicopter_were_to_hover_12_hours/ | {
"a_id": [
"emf9nhg",
"emfa9r7",
"emfadxc",
"emfadxm",
"emfandr",
"emfaxtb",
"emfggh1",
"emflz1e",
"emfqreu"
],
"score": [
28,
3,
8,
5,
5,
7,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"No.\n\nAll of the air in the atmosphere is spinning with the Earth. If it wasn't there would constantly be very fast wind always travelling West - but there isn't.\n\nJust like how the air moves with the Earth, a helicopter moves with the air.\n\nThis is a good watch which is kind of on topic (10 minutes): _URL_0_",
"The sort of lag you're thinking of is related to the Coriolis Effect. When very long-range shells are fired, the rotation of the Earth under the shell has to be accounted for to accurately target something. However, friction forces drag the atmosphere along as the Earth turns, so this limits the effect you're thinking of. Absent any other winds, a helicopter hovering at high-altitude for 12 hours (would likely run out of fuel and crash, but whatever) would drift a little east or west from their liftoff point depending on whether that point was in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. In reality, you're not likely to get zero winds for 12 hours, especially at high-altitude, so this effect tends to be relatively minor.",
"The atmosphere is part of the Earth and spins with it. Otherwise there'd be 1000mph winds at the equator.\n\nThat's like saying if you jump in an airplane you'll rocket out the back at 600mph.",
"The atmosphere is a fluid just like water but less dense. By this person's logic if you spun a fish tank the fish wouldn't turn.",
"The Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth. Think about it this way; If you throw a ball straight upwards in a moving vehicle, the ball will fall straight down relative to you. An observer outside the vehicle would see the ball move in a parabolic motion, which is a combination of its vertical and horizontal motion. This is due to momentum, as it leaves the Earth's surface it still has the same momentum and will continue to have that momentum unless acted upon by an outside force. That is Newton's first law in action, \"An object in uniform motion will continue that motion as long as it is not acted upon by an outside force.\"",
"The earth's circumference is about 25,000 miles. If what you said was true, we would perceive the helicopter moving at a speed of over 1,000 miles per hour. Every time a basketball player jumped up for a slam dunk, he would be flung through the air at this speed. Obviously this isn't happening.\n\nThe laws of conservation applies here. The helicopter is moving with the ground before the point in time that it takes off. This motion is not lost when it leaves the ground, because as Newton's law points out, \"An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by another force.\" So what that means is, in order for the helicopter to end up on the opposite side of the planet 12 hours later, something must act upon it to negate the motion that was imparted upon it by the ground.",
"No. The helicopter is suspended in the air and the air moves with the rotation of the earth. Kind of like if you put a floating ball in a cake pan full of water and slowly moved it across the counter, the ball wouldnt remain stationary, it would move with the water and pan.\n\nA better question for the flat earthers is \"What does exist that will remain stationary while the earth rotates around it?\" \n\nA gyro scope remains stationary to a point in space so if energized for 24 hours it would make one full rotation.",
"It's like tossing a ball and it coming right back down in a moving car and not flying backwards",
"Its also true that when you take off, you already get a lateral velocity of the rotation of the earth to begin with. So its not like you have to reinitiate all that kinetic energy again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/K0-GxoJ_Pcg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1olsf3 | why is hitting your child legal (corporal punishment) when hitting an adult isn't? | As a young adult who was constantly abused physically and emotionally as a child/teenager, I've always wondered how it can be illegal for an adult to strike another human being without consent, yet it is legal for an adult to physically strike their child, who is incapable of retaliation or self-defense.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1olsf3/eli5_why_is_hitting_your_child_legal_corporal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cct6v0e",
"cct7fou",
"cctctuw"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"the fuzzy gray line lies around intention to discipline not intention to inflict harm. ",
"I've only spanked one of my children maybe three times in 19 years. Every single time it was over something that could have gotten her kidnapped, raped, and/or killed. The punishment had to be something that would leave a long lasting impression. The \"sit-down talk\" or grounding have been sufficient for everything else. We have always set very clear rules and boundaries and we do not change them without good reason. All of the children we have raised have always known exactly what was expected and where they stood with us. Discipline is not about abuse. It is about reminding your soon-to-be adult that the real world has rules and consequences.",
"Exactly!! Kids are people too, and more vulnerable. Whatever they go through in their childhood sticks with them. I was hit as a child for \"discipline\"- I lived in fear of my dad. I will never ever hit my kids."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
32p4ql | how does edward snowden's protection in russia work? | (Sorry if I can't explain myself very well - english isn't my first language)
I was wondering how can Russia give him asylum and not have the US come get him. I know and understand how refugees work, and that Snowden technically didn't commit any crime, but I'm interested in knowing how can Russia protect him and how it all works around what the US can and cannot do with him there. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32p4ql/eli5_how_does_edward_snowdens_protection_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqd9g1k",
"cqd9giz",
"cqdyvvr"
],
"score": [
42,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"* Russia is not the US, so US law doesn't apply there. They can't just invade Russia and take him.\n\n* The US must ask for Russia to \"extradite\" him (meaning to willingly turn him over to US authorities). Russia can choose to say no.\n\n* They're saying no.",
"Russia isn't really a friend of the United States, and Russia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the United States. That means that Russia isn't obligated to send Snowden back to the US just because the US wants him. \n\nAlso, if Putin does what the US is asking, there's a chance that Putin could look weak in the eyes of other Russians. \n\nFinally, international law states that a request for political asylum is more important than a country's request for extradition. Russia may also look at Bradley Manning, who like Snowden, leaked US secrets. The US kept Manning in solitary confinement for 9 months, which may be considered a type of torture by some people. \n\nOh, and also, for extradition to work, the crime must be considered a crime by both the US and Russia. Things like rape and murder are pretty much illegal in every country, but stealing or leaking US secrets isn't a crime in Russia. ",
"Giving Edward Snowden a visa to remain in Russia tickles President Putin. He knows the USA wants him and can't have him so that alone is so much fun for Putin he can't even believe he got that lucky. Ultimately Edward Snowden is a political pawn that likely will be sacrificed when the time comes. At some point Putin's going to need something from the USA and he's going to hand over Edward in return for that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5z76m3 | when financial companies "buy" commodities, how are they stored? or they buying "rights" to have them at that price? | I've recently read about this fund company possessing more $2.3B worth of sugar and I was wondering how are they stored? Is it up to the financial company to pay for storage for such goods? How does it work?
Source: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z76m3/eli5_when_financial_companies_buy_commodities_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"devstk8",
"devt340"
],
"score": [
3,
11
],
"text": [
"They are buying \"futures\". These are contracts for a ton of soybeans in 4 months. Speculators buy them in hopes the price will be high and someone who needs soybeans to make their product will buy the contract for more than they bought it for.\n\nMany suggestions have been made that only firms capable of taking delivery of the goods should be able to buy futures, but speculators add liquidity to the marketplace so such laws have not been passed.\n\nSometimes markets go away. There used to be trading in Pork Bellies. It was my favorite investment name, bacon ... . However, the pig raisers don't write futures contracts any more because they think they can make more money by not hedging their production risk and simply selling hogs on the spot market.",
"no, sugar spoils anyway, you would never store it as an investment.\n\nThey own the future rights to buy sugar at a future date (hence why the contract is called a future). \n\nwhen that date comes, they *could* demand physical delivery. This might make sense if we were talking about Delta airlines and they had a jet fuel future... Yes they could take and use the jet fuel, but due to logistical issues of such a thing, its almost never happens. They will settle in cash and the commodity will end go through the most efficient supply chain based on its location, delta will buy its fuel on the open market based on where it needs it.\n\nNow, in other cases, like a Gold ETF, they may actually own gold. of course this is different, it doesnt spoil. in these cases, the gold is held in bank vaults around the world, NY, Zurich, London, ect. They spread it around to minimize risk."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/futures-trader-goes-on-sugar-binge-20170308"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4bc8cu | what happens when a person such as myself, who's maybe worth $18,000 on a good day, gets sued for $10 million? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bc8cu/eli5_what_happens_when_a_person_such_as_myself/ | {
"a_id": [
"d17t3z1",
"d17t56h",
"d17t7uv",
"d18ejhm"
],
"score": [
13,
53,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Lawyer here.\n\nThe trial goes ahead to determine two things: Have you wronged the person suing, you, and if so, how much money do you owe them to make it right?\n\nLet's say a court orders you to pay someone $10 million. This is called a judgment debt. You don't have that money. The other person (called the judgment creditor) has a few options to try to get that money out of you, that vary based on jurisdiction. Where I live (Canada), they can point the sheriff to any bank accounts or liquid assets that you own, and the sheriff can go and seize those, and apply them towards the judgment debt. The sheriff can also seize other assets: vehicles, furniture, clothing, anything of value, which are then sold at auction, and the proceeds applied to the judgment debt. A hilarious news story of this happening against Bank of America can be seen [here.](_URL_0_) It's well worth the watch.\n\nSheriffs can also seize land, and basically do a foreclosure just like a mortgage, but that is often a more complicated process and can take a long time.\n\nThe sheriffs can also garnish your wages/salary, so that $X off each paycheck goes to the judgment debt.\n\nThere are limits, depending on where you live, that limit what can be seized. The courts don't want sheriffs to come into your house and take the food out of your fridge, or the clothes out of your children's dressers, for example. If you're a plumber, it makes no sense for sheriffs to seize and sell your tools, because that prevents you from earning a living and paying the debt. And there are similar limits on garnishing paychecks; they want to make sure that you can still feed yourself, and have some incentive to work.\n\nIf all this doesn't work, you may need to declare bankruptcy. That's governed by different laws, again depending on where you live. Generally, it's a declaration that you cannot pay your debts. A trustee is appointed who doles out to the various creditors what he can, out of the things you own and money you are owed, and then after a certain time the debts are erased and you are \"free\".",
"You retain an attorney and defend against the lawsuit. If you cannot afford an attorney, one may be willing to help you for free--there are legal aid societies dedicated to this, and American Bar Association asks all lawyers to donate some of their time each year. Defendants in highly publicized cases often receive donations from people who believe in their cause. You may be insured against (some kinds of) lawsuits, as found in many homeowner's insurance policies--if so, that'll come in handy now.\n\nYou could try to a settlement with the plaintiff. He is probably willing to slash his claim if it means he avoids the difficulty of a trial and the associated legal expenses for himself. Then, your payment is entirely according to your agreement with him. Let's say you believe yourself quite innocent, though, and go to trial--what if you lose, and are ordered to pay a large sum? (Not necessarily the amount the defendant originally asked for.)\n\nYou will typically establish a payment plan based on your ability to pay, slowly working to pay off that debt. If you do not pay as ordered, the plaintiff could ask for garnishment, meaning your employer would be required to withhold part of your wages. The court may transfer possession of your property to the defendant to help satisfy back payments, though state law protects a basic amount of property like your primary residence and retirement funds.\n\nAt the end of the day, though, perhaps you will never be able to satisfy the debt. People can cause a lot of damage and be liable for more than they expect to earn in a lifetime. Wise plaintiffs know this, and don't sue people who won't and can't pay--such people with no accessible assets or income to speak of are sometimes called \"judgment proof.\" If there is an outstanding balance when you die, the plaintiff may recover it from your estate (the inheritance), potentially having access to assets that were legally protected during your lifetime. If the estate does not cover the bill, the plaintiff is out of luck and simply has to accept the loss of the remainder.",
"Mainly, you're not going to get sued for that kind of money, they know they'll never get it from you.\n\nWhat happens when you get sued:\n1) you get a letter telling you you have a court date\n2) you show up at court for arbitration FIRST\n3) if you guys cannot agree to something, then an actual court date is set\n4) you go to court and a judge (small claims) or a jury will decided who gets what.\n5) its then up to the person suing to collect the money. there is no way they can Force you to just pay the cash, they can sell your debt to somebody else, they can garnish your wages (and this is really state dependent), if you own property, they can put a lien against it so when you sell it, they get paid some money, and they can harass you for the money. \n\nTo be sued, people have to know that their efforts would be worth it. So unless you have a million+ in hard assets (property, and cash/cash based investments) The likeyhood of you being just randomly sued is very low. Now if you owe somebody money, they might sue you for that, but if you drag it out as much as possible there is a chance that you'll cost them more money than they'll get from you. ",
"Depends on what you're getting sued for.\n\nIf you hit someone with your car, and you have insurance, then you're simply going to notify your insurer and they'll take it from there. You might have to provide testimony at some point in the process. Your rates will go up, but that's about the only hit you're going to take."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ctLEGrOmf4"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9jtv46 | why do computers have a shutdown process instead of just cutting it's own power? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9jtv46/eli5_why_do_computers_have_a_shutdown_process/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6u7lel",
"e6u7mft",
"e6u811j",
"e6uas4m"
],
"score": [
20,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For the same reason that people generally lie down before going to sleep instead of just falling over: To avoid damage. \n\nAt any given time, a computer is running a lot of programs in the background, and they need to be safely closed before the computer shuts down. Many of them also save their state during their shutdown procedures, so they can resume where they were when the computer comes back on. These programs can be extremely important to the operation of the computer, and if things don't add up when it comes back on, the operating system itself won't run anymore. ",
"The shutdown process does a series of things from safely stop the OS (as not to corrupt the memory) along with the kernel and bios along with powering down each device in a sequential order as not to damage hardware.\n\nPurely cutting the power can cause hardware damage along with corrupt any software that was loaded into the memory at the time of power down. ",
"Computers have a lot of various processes from many programs going on at anytime.\n\nShutting down politely asks them to halt before cutting power.\n\nIt's like the difference between being asked to leave the bar at closing rather than being physically removed ",
"You COULD simply cut the power, and it will usually be fine. However, do it often, or at the wrong time, and the operating system will be corrupted.\n\nThink of the computer like somebody building something in workshop. While you're working, you have the tools you're using close at hand, current materials and project right in front of you, and the like. You don't put a tool away in it's assigned space **every single time** you grab a different one. You'll clean up at regular intervals, or when you know you're done with a tool or bit of material.\n\nNow, when you're finished, you put all the tools and materials away in their proper place, and do some basic clean up so the workshop is ready for it's next usage. This is what a computer does during shutdown. Simply cutting power would be like walking out of the workshop mid process. The area is a mess and many tools aren't where they belong.\n\nOn top of that, computers to a lot of caching and deferring of operations that don't need to happen right away, especially if it involves reading or writing from a much slower interface (like the hard drive, network). It's usually much more efficient to do a bunch of these operations in one massive batch than several spread out here and there. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1mvyaz | internet infrastructure. | I have a decent laymans understanding of it but I thought this could be a good ELI5 question anyway. In other words, I know how the internet works, how does it REALLY work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mvyaz/eli5_internet_infrastructure/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccd4j0m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Inside your computer is something called a NIC (Network Interface Card). It has two main jobs - send data, and receive data.\n\nHook it up to another computer via an Ethernet cable and you have a simple network. Your computer's send is hooked up to the other's receive and vice-versa.\n\nWhat if you want another computer? You add something called a Switch. All three computers now plug into the switch, rather than each other. The switch's job is to take data from one computer's \"send\" wire and send it to another computer's \"receive\" wire. To do this, it remembers the MAC Address of each NIC connected to it. (Every NIC has a unique MAC address set at the time of manufacture).\n\nSo now we have a basic network. Your neighbour John has done the same thing, and he now has his own network. You want to connect them together. Your Switch isn't going to want to have to remember every MAC address of every NIC being connected to and disconnected from every network, so...\n\nEnter the Router. The Router does what it says on the tin - it routes traffic across networks. A router is like a computer with more than one NIC. (In fact, you can use an actual PC with two NICs as a router). One NIC will connect to the switch on your network, the other will connect to the switch in your neighbour's network.\n\nThe router will be set up with something called a \"routing table\" which is just information about the networks, now using IP (Internet Protocol) addresses rather than hardware MAC addresses, and where they are located - ie. Which NIC do I use to get traffic to John's network? (IP Addresses are structured for larger networks that NICs - ie. given a 'subnet mask', the router can work out which network an IP Address belongs to. So Routers tend to think in terms of networks, whereas switches tend to think in terms of Devices).\n\nSo when you send data to one of your neighbours computers, your computer will know that it's on a different network and will send it to the Router to deal with. Your computer doesn't know anything about John's network or how exactly to get there, and it doesn't need to. It just knows that the Router will take care of it. The router will look at the destination address, and send the packet to John's switch to be relayed to the destination.\n\nKeep adding switches, routers, computers and other devices and the network gets bigger and bigger. As is the case with the internet. Also, the networks might not be directly connected together - data might have to travel across more than one subsection of the network to reach its destination.\n\nAlso, in a network the size of the internet, every router won't know about every other router on the network - it will only know about what it's connected to. To get data all the way across the internet, each router only needs to figure out the next 'hop' until the data gets to it's destination. You can see this happening by opening up a command prompt and typing:\n\n tracert _URL_1_\n\nThat will show you the 'route' to the internet to get to _URL_1_. (Mine took 11 hops). Each entry in that list is a router. You'll probably find that the first one or two belong to your ISP.\n\nThe other thing is that routes can take different paths depending on many factors, such as if a segment of the network goes down, the routers can intelligently find alternate routes around the problem.\n\nIf the destination simply can't be reached, for example if [some old woman cuts the underground cable connecting America to other parts of the world](_URL_0_), the packets of data will just bounce around different routers until it times out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/06/georgian-woman-cuts-web-access",
"www.google.com"
]
] |
|
1svgsy | why do we not have a universal chatting (im) service/client? or do we? | I started using the internet around the time when MSN was big in the US and Yahoo! everywhere else in the world. If I'm not mistaken, the two could not talk to each other. Even if they could, fast-forward to today.
Today we have--in no particular order--Google Hangouts (or Google Talk if we backtrack a bit), Windows Live Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, Facebook Messenger, iChat, Blackberry Messenger, Kik Messenger, Skype, Xfire, etc.
that work very well internally. A Yahoo! user can communicate with another Yahoo! user with the *Yahoo! Messenger* client, but not with someone who primarily lurks on Skype.
And then there are multi-protocol clients like Empathy, eBuddy, etc. that let you use all of your IM services simultaneously. This seems more like a workaround than actually talking from one protocol to another.
So the question is **why has this been the case**. Is it a technical issue? I understand that ftp and http are two entirely different things that serve entirely different purposes, so maybe even "translating" between them is a foolish idea; is this the same for IM?
Or is it a security issue? A money issue? Or are companies just being dickish with their closed-sourced services?
Still, it seems highly stupid to be unable to send PLAIN TEXTS more liberally. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1svgsy/eli5_why_do_we_not_have_a_universal_chatting_im/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce1msrg",
"ce1mvnz",
"ce1ni8h"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically [this](_URL_0_). To expand, each messenging service does well enough on its own to allow for its continued existence. Furthermore, most of them have some feature that makes them better for certain tasks. Skype is the king of video chatting. Facebook Messenger is, well, tied to Facebook. iChat blends seamlessly with your text messages. \n\n > So the question is why has this been the case. Is it a technical issue? I understand that ftp and http are two entirely different things that serve entirely different purposes, so maybe even \"translating\" between them is a foolish idea; is this the same for IM?\nOr is it a security issue? A money issue? Or are companies just being dickish with their closed-sourced services?\n\nI think you are looking at it the wrong way. It's not that companies are conspiring to make you use 5 different IM services. It's just that they don't see a good reason to work together to produce a universal solution. ",
"It's not a technical issue. XMPP (also known as Jabber), an open standard for instant messaging, has been around for quite a while now. But unfortunately, the big players didn't want to use it openly - for reasons one might just speculate, probably because monetisation is easier within the own realm. Pre-Hangout Google-Talk used it, but dropped support for it with the dawn of Hangouts - it's still possible to use XMPP for messaging with other Hangout users, but not with the outside world. Same for Facebook, you can use it to access the Chat with a XMPP-Client, but communication with other domains is not possible. I use XMPP daily, but the amount of people having such an account compared to ICQ/MSN/Skype etc. is still very low.",
"None of the IM providers wanted to make a standard because they wanted to lock their users in. SMS is basically IM and now that so many people have phones that do SMS a unified IM will never happen (Jabber aside)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://xkcd.com/927/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2qzdgx | can masturbating make your muscles bigger? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qzdgx/eli5_can_masturbating_make_your_muscles_bigger/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnaze4g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To grow muscle you need to do few reps with high exertion. Masturbation is the opposite of this. You will improve muscular endurance in this way but that does not make your muscles bigger. That's why weightlifters are bulky and marathon runners are skinny."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2wotg9 | why do so many free wifi hotspots have a gateway page? | People advertise free wifi all the time - but 99% of the time, I need to use some sort of gateway to get to it. Why don't we just have open wifi hotspots at things like hotels? Isn't it much more convenient than constantly having to sign back in?
I understand that they don't want people to poach free internet - but firstly the gateways often don't require authentication. And secondly, inside a big hotel, is this really an issue? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wotg9/eli5_why_do_so_many_free_wifi_hotspots_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"coss5ec"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are concerns that if you use a wifi connection and you commit computer crimes, libel or harassment the owner of the wifi connection could be held liable. The boilerplate text provides a mechanism for the wifi owner to disclaim liability for your actions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
35iifk | why bodybuilding competitions are not considered eating disorders? | I've been watching my roommate this year prep.
I'm all for eating healthy and working out and having goals. Being dedicated is great.
But I'm having trouble understanding when people are prepping right before competition and only eat very little carbs or drink very little water to look lean, this is not considered an eating disorder.They get upset or feel insecure about muscle development when in reality they look great for an average person.
Why is it that if someone puts working out/ eating right before work or school, it is commended rather than raise concern? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35iifk/eli5_why_bodybuilding_competitions_are_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr4p89w",
"cr4pl2h"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"One of the defining characteristics of any mental illness is that it negatively impacts the life of the sufferer. \n\nIf your friend feels compelled to live in this style, against his wishes, then it may be a disorder. If it adversely affects his health, but he can't stop, then it may be a disorder.\n\nIts a gray area, but it is something that he has to decide on privately, or with the help of a doctor.",
"It *can* be a disorder. There is a specific name for it: Muscle Dysmorphia.\n\nThat said, disorders are patterns of thought, not single occurrences. It has to control your entire life, not just occur one day every once in a while."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3djjr1 | how come some peppers "burn" your skin if you touch them, but your mouth doesn't get burned if you eat them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3djjr1/eli5how_come_some_peppers_burn_your_skin_if_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct5r88w"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"So it depends on the pepper, but it's not a burn like a fire would cause.\n\nWhen it comes to spicy peppers, the reason you get the spicy sensation in your mouth is because of a chemical called Capsaicin. This chemical opens up the calcium channels in your tongue which tricks your body into thinking that it's on fire (the tongue has a hard time telling the difference between actual fire and capsiacin).\n\nIf the levels of this chemical are high enough in the pepper, the same thing will happen on your skin."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
26o0qp | how can thailand go through a military coup when the same king is still in power, and has been for so many years? | How is Thailand experiencing a military coup when the point of a coup is to seize control? Is the king of Thailand for or against this coup since the point of a coup is to destroy the party in charge the king has been through various coups since his assent to the thrown but remains in power, correct? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26o0qp/eli5_how_can_thailand_go_through_a_military_coup/ | {
"a_id": [
"chsudi7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The King of Thailand doesn't have any real power. Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, just like England. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2wnqly | why does water taste worse when our throat is sore? | Seriously, I can't drink water when I have a sore throat, I don't even want to. I prefer to drink something else as my waft isn't so good and the water makes this sensation a lot worse. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wnqly/eli5_why_does_water_taste_worse_when_our_throat/ | {
"a_id": [
"costf3t"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not a doctor but I get the same thing, and I would say it's because the throat is infected and you're getting teh bacteria into your mouth and on your tongue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
29goe1 | why does football go by scores of 7 instead of 1 ' s like hockey and soccer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29goe1/eli5_why_does_football_go_by_scores_of_7_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"cikqgg7",
"cikqibu",
"cikrvod"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't \"go by scores of 7.\" There are different ways to score points, and each type of score is worth a certain amount of points. Some are only possible in certain situations. A common misconception is that a touchdown is worth 7 points - it's actually worth 6.",
"because many ways to score; touchdown = 6, points after touchdown = 1 (kick thru uprights) or 2 (run or pass into endzone fm 3 yd line), fieldgoal = 3 (kick thru upright w/o touchdown), safety = 2 (tackle opponent in their own endzone.",
"There are five different ways to score in football with four different scoring values -- one, two, three or six points.\n\nThe reason that different scoring plays have different values is because rugby does, and football has its roots in rugby."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8b23ba | why are some viruses shaped like an icosahedron? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8b23ba/eli5_why_are_some_viruses_shaped_like_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx3c9zp"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Most likely because it's a compact shape that can be built easily (make a triangle of protein 8 times, join them together).\n\nViruses hijack the cells of other creatures (or bacteria) to reproduce, so they need to keep things super simple."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
16j649 | why is gasoline sold per 9/10 gallon? | This has confused me since I was old enough to notice. We can pretend that that age was 5, so someone please explain to the child in me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16j649/why_is_gasoline_sold_per_910_gallon/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7wiq4q",
"c7wk098",
"c7wkg0s"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"Marketing. It makes the price sound a cent cheaper than it actually is.",
"It's actually 9/10 cent. So you see prices like 3.39^9/10 what that means is \"3 dollars, 39 and nine tenths cents.\" It's all about being able to get the most money from the consumer. You're more willing to pay what looks like $3.39 instead of what looks like $3.40. ",
"That is not 9/10 of a gallon. It's 9/10 of a cent.\n\nWhen you see the price \"$3.78 9/10\", that's really $3.789 per gallon, not $3.78 per 9/10 of a gallon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
16xf92 | what's all the fuss about megaupload? do that many people really need file storage? | With massive hard drives on home computers is there really that much of a need for offline storage? Is there something else it's used for? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16xf92/eli5_whats_all_the_fuss_about_megaupload_do_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"c808tvz",
"c8092su",
"c809tek",
"c80a6ka",
"c80axab",
"c80b8zt",
"c80c6z4",
"c80csc0",
"c80d2g5",
"c80ddhp"
],
"score": [
147,
31,
14,
17,
8,
6,
5,
2,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Online storage is generally seen as the way of the future. If you have a fire at home and your hard drive is destroyed, what happens to your data? If you collaborate with people on many projects, how do you keep your files in sync? If you work at home and on the road and in the workplace, how can you keep your data in check? All of these are solved by online storage. \n\nEdit: also pirating. ",
"A lot of people use it as a way to give copyrighted content to the masses.",
"Sharing uncensored anime he tai... I mean, yea, sure, storage",
"ELI5 what is the difference among MEGA, Dropbox, Googledrive, etc ?!",
"FYI OP, MEGA is Kim Dotcom's new site that we are all discussing here. Megaupload was his previous one that got taken down 1 year ago. The fuss is because the FBI raided his mansion in Australia or New Zealand (can't remember which) without proper cause. His site was legal, it just had a lot of illegal content. Not like other services don't have illegal content, he just had a lot of it. Regardless, it was very much BS the way it was handled.\n\nHe has been teasing everyone about his new MEGA site for a while now. That is why the fuss. Hype has been built and our attention is caught. He launches the site with 50GB of free storage space (much more than most services offer) and teases features involving movies and document editing. That is why the internet is paying attention to this.",
"Moving large amounts of data over the internet is one of the most difficult things to do - particularly for people who aren't especially computer savvy. If your grandmother had 40 GB of pictures of dogs and she wanted to send it to your mother, it would be a very long and complicated process. MegaUpload may not be the most efficient way to move that data, but it certainly would be the easiest. ",
"fuss about megaupload like you're 5:\n\nwell, they were told off for doing bad things, and that meant they went on the news. this made it so that lots of people know about them. now that everyone knows about them, it means that if they do something, alot of people know. and because they are going from \"bad things\" to doing \"very good things\" everyone is interested.\n\nfuss about cloud storage like you're 5:\nbecause people move around alot, and use the internet while they are going around, they want to be able to see their home things while they aren't at home. people did this already and it was used by a few people, then big companies like microsoft started to use it, so now you have loads of different types. also, people have started to do jobs in teams over the internet alot more, so it's really useful for them, because then they don't have to have one person look after it, and they can all see it.",
"Why is it that when you're using Megaupload it's called \"storage\" but when you do the same thing on Amazon it's called \"the cloud\"?",
"When megaupload was shut down it removed **5% of the worldwide internet** traffic (possibly only counting the public part for personal use of the net)!\n\nMost internet service providers measured a 5% decrease of total client data traffic after megaupload got shut down.",
"The main fuss about Megaupload (and the new Mega) is the way Kim Dotcom was treated. \n\nMegaupload was never that famous before, it was a dubious ad-filled site that let people upload and share any files. It's supposed to be users own files, but they let people upload anything including copyrighted films and music. Rather than automatically blocking copyright files like Youtube, Kim did the minimum required by law which is to remove files that companies request to be deleted, except that the US government told him to save some of the files because they were to be used as evidence in trials.\n\nThen, despite basically following the law, the FBI raided Kim's New Zealand mansion in a very over the top way on very dubious evidence, such as his \"refusal to delete files\" that the US government had previously told him not to delete.\n\nBecause of this he became an internet celebrity against government heavy handed copyright policing, especially in tech circles as if raids like this are allowed almost no websites are safe, as even YouTube could have been raided for the same reasons.\n\nIt's mainly because of this that his new Mega site is getting so much attention. Mega's also a little different as unlike other services the data is encrypted by users so no-one, not Kim or anyone else, can see your data. This is unlike even Dropbox who can unencrypt your data if they want."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4b4t1n | since all digital memory has to be stored as physical hard copies, will we ever have an information technology crisis? | This is an age of crisis, where we are running out of fossil fuels, influencing climate, warfare, hunger etc. that we humans have to deal with. So the question arises as to how the Internet and digital memory (what we take for granted in this day), might one day become harder to achieve or keep up with.
I am not very familiar with the subject, so my question might sound half-baked. But I would appreciate an explanation to how a IT crisis may occur, where we aren't capable of handling our burgeoning data (because all technologies come with limitations and will plateau at some point in time)? Also what new technologies in memory storage and transferring are prospective saviors in the future where such a crisis may happen. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b4t1n/eli5_since_all_digital_memory_has_to_be_stored_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"d161m6j",
"d161nj4"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"We're going to have a lot of other problems before we run out of computer storage. Silicon is one of the most commonly occurring elements on Earth, and it doesn't take all that much to create a flash drive or solid state drive. Plus we can make storage out of other things too, like plastic (CD/DVD/Blu-Ray) and aluminum (hard drives). \n\nThe more likely problem is that we'll have too much data and no fast way to search through all of it. ",
"I don't believe that there is going to be any sort of Information Technology crisis occurring that is related to data usage. Over time, computer storage has gotten larger, faster, and more reliable. The real Information Technology issues that we should be worried about is cyber security and encryption as those are some serious issues right there. Currently data storage in and of itself isn't a major problem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
el7qqx | how do machines calculate body fat percentage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/el7qqx/eli5_how_do_machines_calculate_body_fat_percentage/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdg4cfy",
"fdg667q",
"fdg8b6a"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually scale use two electrod under your feet and use Tiny Ac current. By measuring the impedance and frequency responce of the human body they can deduce the ammount of fat and water.",
"The accuracy is a bit rubbish to be honest. \n\nExample. Hand held device - electrical pulse is sent out of one hand and recorded in the other. As you already know from lots of other things electricity will try to find the shortest or easiest path to ground/form a circuit ( the thing your holding in the other hand ) and that shortest path is usually up the arm across the chest and down the other arm. You've missed out a huge part of your body.\n\n\nExample 2. Floor scales. Even worse pluses goes up one leg to your crotch and down the other leg. Missed out entire upper body\n\n\nSome devices make you stand on a floor scale and also hold connected hand things. These are better because you're getting a more realistic reading because it's measuring more of the body.",
"Different body tissues have different conductivity, meaning electricity passes through some parts easier than others. The machines pass an electrical current through your body and use the information to estimate how much fat you have. Lots of things can throw off this estimate: any artificial body parts (like a joint replacement), how hydrated you are, if your limbs are longer or shorter than average, how much food you have in your stomach. They aren't that accurate. The more accurate ones are the seats with grabbing handles you might see at a gym. Most of these have instructions for ideal use conditions, usually hydrated and on an empty stomach. \n\n\nSome scales just have a setting where you input your age, build, height, and weight, and it gives you a BMI (body mass index) number. In this case, no measurement is actually being made, the scale is just letting you know how your weight compares to average health standards. \n\nHigher accuracy methods include a \"bod pod\" or the water displacement method. These aren't available at home, though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6rqrkz | when you mix the same quantity of cold and hot water in a bucket, is the result the average of the two temperatures? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rqrkz/eli5_when_you_mix_the_same_quantity_of_cold_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl71v6m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In a perfectly closed system with no loss of temperature to the air or buckets, yes. A 50 degree bucket and a 100 degree bucket will make a 75 degree double bucket. \n\nIn reality it will be slightly less than 75 as some heat is lost to the bucket and the air. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2flkgl | what is the point of having the marine corps and the army separated? | I understand the separation of navy and airforce, but why are both infantry based marines and army seperated? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2flkgl/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_having_the_marine_corps/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckae9o7"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"The missions of the Marine Corps and the Army are entirely different, those differences came out of design and necessity. The Marines are a department of the navy, operating as their own entity and are constantly defending why they exist.\n\nThe Marines are referred to as \"America's expeditionary force in readiness\", they are always forward deployed ready to go into hotspots around the world. Generally Marines are sent first to gain a foothold of beachheads, ingress routes, supply lines, etc. Following that same general thought process, again generally they're meant to get in and get out fast and then transfer authority to a much larger force, like the U.S. Army who can better maintain a protracted conflict. However that has not been the case in recent wars/ conflicts.\n\nAlso the Marines are the only force that be called upon to react to conflict and or go to war or really do anything without the authorization of congress, the President holds authority over the Marine Corps and can \"send them in\" at his own discretion. \n\nAlso the Air Force was born out of the Army and was originally the Army Air Corps and didn't become its own branch of service until 1947.\n\nThe Army is responsible for land based operations where the USMC is responsible to maritime operations... soldiers of the sea. Their mission is as follows, from wikipedia: The United States Army serves as the land-based branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. §3062 of Title 10 US Code defines the purpose of the army as:[8][9]\n\nPreserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States\nSupporting the national policies\nImplementing the national objectives\nOvercoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States\n\nAlso can confirm stuff about Marines, am one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1vqcuo | why does it seem like the large majority of movies from the 80s were set in either chicago or illinois in general? | Bit of an odd question. It's just that it seems like every other 80s movie that I watch just happens to be set in Chicago. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vqcuo/why_does_it_seem_like_the_large_majority_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceurpye",
"ceusnt0",
"ceuvh4m",
"ceuwubu",
"ceux9eh",
"ceuxmfd"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"John Hughes was arguably the 80s movie king, and he filmed most of his stuff in and around Chicago.",
"Often it has to do with licensing costs and union obligations. New York is extremely expensive to film in, so Chicago provided an alternative that was probably less expensive but still provided the \"big city\" feel. Similarly, New Orleans and Atlanta are used for modern filming because they are cheap to film in and you can find non-union crew members in these locations fairly easily.",
"John Hughes mostly and the fact that a majority of your most popular movies were comedies at that time. Chicago is home to Second City improv the feeder company for Saturday Night Live. So with Hughes being located there, the city being cheaper to shoot in than NY or LA, and The actors being comfortable in the city where they trained to become actors... It seems like a natural win win for everyone involved. Plus it was a closer city to fly to from LA as opposed to cross country one way or the other. ",
"Live literally right next to the scene where Kevin talks to Santa.",
"Because Illinois is awesome. Suck it Indiana.",
"Not really. New York and L.A. have always remained in the top for all films. Now it's parts of Canada, and Atlanta, Georgia."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
70jv3o | what keeps people who work at kfc/coca-cola from stealing a sample of their secret recipes, reverse engineering them, and then selling them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70jv3o/eli5_what_keeps_people_who_work_at_kfccocacola/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn3o93o"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Not a huge amount, really. We already pretty much know what's in these products (I mean, with Coke, you can basically just read the label). The difficulty is only getting the exact formulation and mixing right. For most people, the prohibitive part of that is not knowing how it's done - it's having access to the kind of production chain that can produce that product consistently and cheaply.\n\nNobody buys KFC because their recipe is so much better than anywhere else. They buy it because it's convenient and consistent. Stealing or even improving on the recipe isn't (relatively) difficult, but entering the market as a competitor is."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2pj5b1 | how do manufacturers get the little "pop/freshness seal bubble" on the tops of jars to stay down? | And why can't I do it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pj5b1/eli5_how_do_manufacturers_get_the_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmx5u03"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You can. /r/canning\n\nYou boil what is inside so the steam pushes out all the atmospheric gasses. Then when the can cools the water vapor condenses (mostly) back to water and leaves a vacuum."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6d0bpl | how do teeth know how to grow in the pattern so they fit together when you bite down? | How to teeth grow a certain way to fit to themselves? As in upper and lower teeth? And also, What causes teeth to grow crooked and not fit together? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6d0bpl/eli5_how_do_teeth_know_how_to_grow_in_the_pattern/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhyxct5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They don't \"know\". Your body starts out with some stem cells. These are basically cells without an assigned function. They don't know where to go and what to do yet. They just divide. When your cells divide functions do get assigned to the new cells that form. This is done based on what it says in your DNA, which is basically a script. It'll tell a cell \"you are part of the eye\" or in this case \"you are part of the jaw that's responsible for growing a tooth\". \n\nSo the cell now knows where to go and what it's supposed to do. There is a rough pattern, but nothing like your actual teeth. While growing and through movement of your mouth pressure will be placed on each seperate tooth causing it to move. Not immediately, but like with braces this is a gradual process. The one tooth pushes the other to the side to make room, etc.\n\nThis isn't an overnight thing. Over many, many years the script (your DNA) has been refined enough to get to the point where we are now, with teeth sort of in a usefull position. But it's not hard to imagine that the first humans with teeth had horrible teeth with all sorts of issues, like soft enamel or issues like falling out because of a badly written script that left a lot of room for interpretation.\n\nTeeth are still not perfect though. Many people have issues that influence how their teeth grow. Wisdom teeth for example are something that will probably dissapear at some point. They serve no function and often cause infections. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
de4x3u | why doesn’t isopropyl alcohol damage electronics? are there other liquids that also don’t do damage to electrical components? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/de4x3u/eli5_why_doesnt_isopropyl_alcohol_damage/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2ryo8x",
"f2ryx9h",
"f2s2vls",
"f2u3nje",
"f2uf3q4"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"it's neither corrosive nor conductive, so it doesn't dissolve or short anything. it also evaporates at low temperatures, so cleanup is a nonissue\n\ncandle wax shares the first 2 properties, but not the 3rd. this means letting a candle drip into your PC won't destroy it, but requires careful cleaning as it traps heat",
"If you use it while the power is off, it's fine. It evaporates very quickly without leaving a residue so there's no chance of it shorting anything out. \n\nI can't say for sure if its conductive while in liquid form, but it sure as hell **is** flammable!",
"To answer your second question, oil is non-conductive as well. Back in the day before active cooling and radiators people used to fill their gaming rigs with cooking oil. Any liquid that is pure and contains no conductive properties will work.",
"Electronics are mostly plastic, copper, silicon, and solder. Alcohol neither corrode nor dissolves any of these things. It also evaporates without leaving harmful gunk. There are plenty of other liquids that won't hurt electronics, some of which are used for things like cleaning.",
"plastics are very choosy about what they dissolve in. Almost no plastic dissolves in IPA, so it wont mark any surface. It also evaporates quickly and doesnt leave a residue, or corrode metal, doesnt smell bad, and is non-toxic. It is better at dissolving oils and fats and other organic stuff than say ethanol (normal alcohol), and so good for cleaning. Acetone is just as good as cleaning, but more plastics are soluble in acetone, so not used. Other possible fluids (petrol, kerosene, turps etc) either smell too bad or might slightly dissolve some plastics."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1mx316 | how does fingerprint authentication store the fingerprint information? | I know how regular password authentication works: the password, "hunter2", is stored as a hash, 2ab96390c7dbe3439de74d0c9b0b1767, then you re-hash and compare when the password is entered.
But fingerprints have way more information and also you may be working from a subset of that information, as if you had "unter2" or "hunte" as the input. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mx316/eli5_how_does_fingerprint_authentication_store/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccdfyy0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Fingerprint scanners are basically capacitive touchscreens minus the screen part. Fingerprints are made of ridges and valleys. When you press your finger against a scanner, it registers what parts of your finger are ridges and what parts are valleys based on what touches it. It then takes several parts of this information as markers. The next time you scan your finger, it looks for these parts. For example, just as your fingerprint is unique, so too is the upper half of your fingerprint, or the bottom left corner, or a random square millimeter. All sufficiently large segments of your fingerprint are as unique as your fingerprint itself. Therefore all the scanner needs to see is one or more of those parts. That's how it deals with not having the exact same scanned section each time. It doesn't need the entire fingerprint."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2tt8jz | would 2 equally loud noises combine to make a louder sound? why or why not? | Like if i dropped 2 of the same object and they hit the ground at the exact same time...would it be louder than dropping one object? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tt8jz/eli5_would_2_equally_loud_noises_combine_to_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"co243ld",
"co29t7p"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on where you're standing. Sound waves can add or cancel as they mix together.\n\n(That's the science behind noise canceling headphones, which actually create a sound that is opposite in phase to the noise it's cancelling.)",
"Sound travels through air much like ripples in a pond. What would happen if you dropped 2 pebbles in a pond at the same time? You would get spots in the water where the waves would cancel each other out and then some spots where there would be a wave that is twice as big. (see: _URL_0_ with some nifty information). You can think of the crest as the part of the sound wave that is compressing the air and the trough as the part of the sound wave that is decompressing the air. \n\nSo, if you dropped 2 things at the same time, it would be either twice as loud or silent depending on where you were standing. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://community.emc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-3215-27965/interference_water_waves.jpg"
]
] |
|
3qow2p | since essentially everything nowadays causes cancer, should we just assume that we still don't really know what causes it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qow2p/eli5_since_essentially_everything_nowadays_causes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwh1eu9",
"cwh1j5c",
"cwh1zhg",
"cwh7a8w",
"cwh7kfo",
"cwh7pyr",
"cwh80v0",
"cwh821r",
"cwh8x8a",
"cwh958f",
"cwha80v",
"cwhail2",
"cwhb9cw",
"cwhbdkx",
"cwhblf3",
"cwhcvpv",
"cwhd3e9",
"cwhejkw",
"cwhg21g",
"cwhhea3",
"cwhhtfw",
"cwhicbi"
],
"score": [
2398,
107,
3,
43,
3,
6,
216,
6,
3,
12,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Here's the thing with cancer: at its most basic level, whether or not you get cancer comes down to statistics and randomness. Cancer happens when you get a combination of mutations that cause a cell to reproduce continuously, avoid cell-suicide, infiltrate other tissues, etc. All a carcinogen is is a substance believed to increase the odds of such a combination of mutations occurring. Thing is, you could be a lifelong smoker, eat tons of processed meats, regularly get exposed to radiation, and yet never develop cancer just because you were lucky enough to never have the right mutation combination in the same cell at the same time. Conversely, you could do everything right and still get cancer due to a simple transcription error during cell reproduction. \n\nBecause of this inherent randomness, it's *extremely* difficult to predict and understand which substances actually create a significantly increased risk of developing cancer.",
"What? No, we should not assume that. We know exactly why cancer starts. \n\nOur bodies can fight off cell damage that becomes cancer... ususally. Cancer is only a problem when the backup plans our cells have fail to work correctly. \n\nStuff we identify as carcinogenic (cancer causing) are things that damage cell DNA, which is the mechanism for cancer. The more damage sustained, the more likely our cells won't be able to deal with the damage. \n\n",
"Basically cancer is when a chemical reaction damages a chunk of DNA in such a way that it causes flawed cell copies to be created which no longer self terminate.\n\nThe problem is damn near everything causes chemical reactions. We are creatures of chemistry. Things are determined to be carcinogenic by a larger than normal tendency to cause the sort of chemical reactions that could conceivably lead to the wrong sort of cell damage.\n\nBut you could eat tons of carcinogenic stuff, and not get cancer (like the smoker who lives to 110), and you could eat very little carcinogenic stuff, and get cancer. There are a ton of random factors involved.",
"You've stated two poor assumptions as well as a false relationship between them. We know precisely several mechanisms which cause or contribute to cancer development, e.g. loss of immune surveillance, disinhibition of growth factors, etc. There are numerous known carcinogens, but not all substances are thought to cause cancer, and some actually reduce its incidence. There must also be considered the matter of degree. Daily intake of processed meat increases incidence of colorectal carcinoma by about 20%, whereas daily smoking increases lung cancer risk about 3000%.",
"\"Cancer\" is not just one thing, one \"it\": _URL_0_",
"I don't really get the logic of why you think your assumption follows your premise. Also, it's not like nowadays everything causes cancer, it's just that we only know about it now.\n\nHere's what I think you are trying to say: since essentially everything is now known to cause cancer, should we just do whatever we want because avoiding all of the risk factors would be too restrictive on our daily life choices?",
"Cancer, despite most people's impression of it, isn't actually one disease. It's HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS, of diseases. It's like...a greyhound and a chihuahua are both dogs, but if someone called them the same type of dog, people would LOL. Cancer researchers and oncologists LOL a bit at the whole \"cure cancer\" thing because of this. We can and have cured *some* kinds of cancer, but there's probably never going to be a single cure for *all* cancers.\n\n\n\nAny cancer, though, as u/notmiefault explained, is ultimately the result of *some* kind of series of mutations. Just one mutation is not enough. Most people carry mutant genes that put them at increased risk of cancer, but barring *subsequent* mutations, or epigenetic/environmental shenanigans, not everyone with the risky mutant genes will develop cancer.\n\n\n\nThe \"everything nowadays causes cancer\" should really be looked at as \"this specific thing is linked with developing this specific cancer.\" And, since a lot of cancers are rare and/or not a lot of people have underlying risks of that particular cancer, the risk of getting it could go from 0.0001% to 0.001%. Media would sell this as \"coffee drinking increases risk of cancer ten-fold!\" But that's really misleading, because it was rare to begin with.\n\n\n\nTo answer your question, though, we *do* know what causes cancer. Mutations in a cell's DNA that lead to the cell: \n\n\n* Replicating faster than other cells of its type \n\n* Becoming resistant to death and the body's attempts to kill it\n\n* Gaining the ability to move from that cell's normal area in the body and take over in new types of tissue (metastasis - lung tissue shouldn't be able to set up shop in bones, but lung cancer can). \n\n\n\nSome cancers are defined specifically by which genes go wrong (retinoblastoma = retinoblastoma protein, lots of leukemias = specific chromosomes got squished together in ways they shouldn't, aka a chromosomal translocation). Other cancers, there are several possible mutations that lead to basically the same outcome/kind of cancer, or the same mutation can lead to different cancers depending on which cells it springs up in.\n\n\n\nThen, some cancers are caused by viruses getting freaky with cells' DNA - HPV and cervical cancer, for example.\n\n\n\nSo, we know what causes cancer in basically most cases, or we can figure it out. The really interesting questions, though, and the ones people looking for treatments and cures to specific cancers are interested in, are:\n\n\n* If in two people with the same underlying risk, one develops cancer and another doesn't, what protected the cancer free person, and can we apply it to other people? \n\n* Not all cancers of the same type, like breast cancer, are caused by the same mutation, so can we tailor drugs specific to the mutation the individual has, and get better outcomes? \n\n\n\n**Edit:** Formatting",
"What? Your question is so... \n\nOK, basically it is the complete opposite of what you are suggesting. \n\nThe more we find that causes cancer, the more we know about what causes cancer.\n\nDo you see how obvious that statement is?",
"It's an interesting debate and i see that \"random factors\" are mentioned as possible triggers and pollution is also a factor. I would postulate that these \"random factors\" are of increased significance due to environmental changes and man made factors. The most obvious being the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons prevalent last century. I'm curious if there is a correlation between that activity and cancer rates worldwide? Does anyone know if cancer rates increased dramatically after World War 2 or if they have stayed roughly similar between the pre WW2 non-nuclear and post WW2 nuclear ages?",
"Cancer is not one disease.\n\nCancer is a group of diseases which have in common that a mass of cells in the body is \"freeloading\"\n\nThey take space and nutrition without contributing to the bodies functions, eventually causing problems for other important systems which wont function properly anymore.\n\n\nAnother thing that can be said in general about cancers is that they are mutated cells which do not get removed by the bodies own immune system.\nYou have mutations everyday, millions of them, but your body can handle it fine.\nOnce your body cannot handle the load of mutated cells, a mass which we named tumor develops.\nIf those are masses are growing fast, they are dangerous. Also called malign tumors.\n\nNow, for some types of cancers we know the causes as there is a correlations with specific infections for specific types of cancers. \nFor example a certain HPV virus strain is responsible for ovarian cancer.\n\nFor most cancers we dont really know what the cause is since the huge amount of processes in the body are to complex and manifold to be permanently monitored and measured during their regular daytoday routine. Hence a direct correlation is difficult to observe and verify.\n\nCausally we have established links with certain types of substances which our bodies cannot dispose of easily. We named those substances carcinogens as exposure to them statistically increases risk of developing various types of cancers.\n\nCertain types of radiation directly damage chromosomes which leads to mutations when cells divide. Some of which cause malignant tumors.\n \nSo we know, but we dont know.\n\nFurthermore..\n\nRegarding cancer therapy, the new best bet are targeted therapies, but those are far from becoming \"mass market\" standard medical therapies which you will get in your insurance covered hospitals.\n\nThey differ in method and application and are still labeled as experimental. Sometimes even made specifically for the patient from their cells. Which makes them expensive.\n\nAs of now, the current state of standard cancer therapy does not even involve testing the various chemo therapies to the specific individual cancer in question before they are given to the patient.\nRendering them ineffective for many patients...\n\nTherefore targeted therapies are really far away for the regular person/patient/aka consumer without a large war chest of money and competent consulting to even be able to navigate through the huge amount of effective and ineffective therapies available.\n\nThere is no doctor or researcher on this planet who is educated on them all, even if an oncologist would never admit to that fact.\n\nSo that's the overview in short.",
"At this point in history, *life* is cancer. Cancer is the uncontrollable replication of cells, right? Well. 7 billion people in and we still haven't learned.",
"What I don't understand is why everyone feels this need to \"rebel\" against the silly WHO.\n\nThere has been so much criticism while the message is clear.\n\nThe regular consumption of red meat causes a small increase in the chance of getting certain types of cancer, the risk to the individual is in most cases relatively minor, but to large groups of a population it is significant.\n\nIt's just another small bit of evidence that as a society reducing the amount of meat we eat carries a multitude of benefits, not that meat will kill you and we should all become vegetarians or vegans.\n\nThe other thing people seem upset is the WHO's classification system which may be unintuitive, but is not very complicated and when supplemented with additional information is quite helpful.",
"What is cancer - SEVERAL diseases sharing the common trait of rapid cell multiplication.\n\nHow does this happen? - in general when a cell's life cycle comes to an end it enters a stage where it splits (thereby creating new cells). Normally it resumes its intended role in the body (skin, etc) but sometimes the restart button doesn't work and it stays in replication mode - this is now a cancer cell. Luckily our cells also have some kill switches just in-case this happens, nearly every person has cancer cells being destroyed daily by these kill switches. problem arises when just like how the re-start button didn't work, neither does their kill switches - This is when you have what most people consider Cancer.\n\nWhere do carcinogens play into this? well as you see there are a couple steps that turns normal cells into uncontrollable cancer, therefore anything that - reduces cell life cycle, or disrupt the DNA kill switches (among a few other things) are considered carcinogens. The reduction in life cycle is \n\na carcinogen example (numbers are for illustration only not accuracy)- say in theory - all lung cells replicate simultaneously, a normal life span is 1 month, average cancer cell per replication is 1. -- If you are a smoker, the smoke makes the cells in your lungs work 2x as hard, thereby cutting their cell lives in half. instead of a normal 1 lung cell per month you are now dealing with 2 cancer cells a month. In this case you are now doubling you chances of developing cancer. It also helps explain why a person who quit smoking long-term has a similar lung-cancer rate. the cells are no longer stressed and are now replicating at the normal rate.\n\nTL;DR - Cancer is a multi-step process and anything that affects a step in the process, to increase the chance of contracting Cancer is a carcinogen.",
"In addition to other posts, it isn't so much that 'everything nowadays causes cancer,' it more like we are now able to detect that certain things make cancer more likely than if you weren't exposed to them. Cancer isn't new, it has been around and killing people for a very long time. Its just that we are now at a point where we know what it is.",
"We know what causes cancer, mutated DNA that causes a cell to multiply continuously. There isnt only one mutation that can cause this to happen, and eating a banana is enough to cause it. (bananas are radioactive)\n\nI would say we see a great increase in cancer because:\n\nA. We know the cause of death now\n\nB. Widespread increase of carcinogenic chemicals (pesticides, paints, car exhaust, x-rays etc)",
"**tl;dr:** You can safely ignore any claims that a substance tested positive as a carcinogen.\n\n**Full version:** The [Ames test](_URL_1_) uses bacteria to test if substances are mutagens, but it is extremely sensitive and has lots of false positives. On top of that [about two thirds of cancer cases are caused by random mutations during cell division](_URL_2_), so eliminating all carcinogens will only prevent about a third of cancer cases.\n\nAlso, meat being on the list of positives is nothing new. [Here is an old interview with Dr. Ames in a clip about the test's propensity to make us worry about minor issues](_URL_0_), and he mentions hamburgers at around the 3:48 mark.\n\n**tl;dr addendum:** If you want to not get cancer, then don't smoke. If you otherwise want to live a long and healthy life, eat a reasonable balanced diet and exercise regularly.",
"Cancer is inherent as said, its a waiting game. You technically COULD have cancer but cells are removed before or kill themselves (apoptosis) to avoid futher spread and you would never even know. Mutations occur. Accumulated mutations may end up TOGETHER causing a cell to become cancerous. Accumulations may occur by themselves or may be aggravated by exposure certain chemicals and agents. Mutagens as these are called, may affect specific processes in the cell, and these interruptions can be temporary or permanent mutations that can accumulate if not fixed. We do have certain ways of fixing mutations but sometimes it doesnt work or there may be too much damage.\n\nELI5: You get cuts and scrapes, if you dont clean them out and let them accumulate, you can get sick. If you aggravate these wounds by rubbing in dirt, germs, or anything else that isnt to clean the wound, they will only get worse, and eventually you can get really sick or beyond normal fixing of the wounds and need surgery/etc ",
"It's not that *essentially* everything causes cancer.. it's that *literally* everything causes cancer. Just being alive is the primary cause of cancer. \"Cancer\" is mutated cells. It's a safe bet that every person has some \"cancerous tissue\" in their body. Mutated cells are created naturally and constantly through cell division. 99% of the time, your body knows that the cancer doesn't belong and destroys it in favour of creating healthy cells. Sometimes your body doesn't fix the problem and instead duplicates the mutated cells. That's when you \"get cancer\".\n\nStrictly speaking, a person without a single cancerous cell is extremely rare. I have some cancer, you have some cancer, pretty much everyone has some cancer... kinda like how pretty much everyone has some manner of birthmark.\n\nWe should just assume that it's out of our hands and that our time comes when it comes.",
"See, essentially everything doesn't cause cancer. This is not a problem of medicine, it's a problem of the media. \n \nWhen the media talks about cancer as if it's one disease, they're completely wrong. When they talk about something causing cancer, they're also wrong. [Cancer is a whole crapload of different diseases](_URL_0_) that are all cells reproducing uncontrollably. If you get a melanin producing cell doing it, it's melanoma, and completely different to a bone cell (osteioid) doing it, where it would be osteosarcoma. If it spreads to other parts of the body, its behaviour is still like that of the original cancer cell. If you get skin cancer spreading to your brain, it's still skin cancer, just in your brain. However most media still talks about it like it was all one thing, with one cause, which obviously gets confusing. \n \nIf we talked the same way about something with a similar range of causes, and similar variety of treatments, you'd be talking about scientists looking for a cure for \"I've hurt my arm.\" \nIt'd show up how insane some statements are. They might figure out how to deal with a broken bone and the media could report the great advance we've made in curing \"I've hurt my arm\" and be completely oblivious to the fact that this doesn't apply to everyone they've grouped together. They could get completely confused about how smacking your arm with a plaster cast could actually CAUSE \"I've hurt my arm\" as well as curing it, and claim these so called 'scientists' don't know what they're talking about. \n \nSuggesting a cure for cancer makes around as much sense as a cure for \"I've hurt my arm.\" You need to cure hundreds of different things, many of which work in massively different ways. \n \nThe other big isse is that the media cannot describe risk. \n \nThey will say that benzene causes cancer, and say that bacon causes cancer. Rarely do they reference the details of the actual studies, so they give no context that while both increase risks of certain cancers, one of them does so with immensely more potency than the other. Even worse, some things can give increased risks of some cancers, and reduce others. Some things can interact with other things which changes the risks further. In a day you come into contact with a lot of chemicals, especially because [everything is chemicals.](_URL_1_) The media can't fit this into a headline that sells papers, so it flat out ignores most of it, creating the impression that we don't know anything about cancer. \n \ntl;dr We know a lot about what causes it, but it doesn't fit in a headline.",
"Cancer isn't an \"it\" - it's a number of reactions that all amount to unregulated cell growth and division. That's why saying \"a cure for cancer\" is like saying \"a cure for sick\".",
"Short answer: No.\n\nCancer is a disease in which a cell gets a mutation in a critical gene, it reproduces and all of its progeny all contain the mutation, one of those progeny down the line gets a mutation in a second critical gene, now its progeny have mutations in two critical genes, one of those progeny cells acquires a third mutation in a critical gene, etc, etc, etc, until you have an N-th generation cell that has mutations in a minimal set of genes that results in the phenotype (observable behavior ) that we call cancer: 1) sustainable uncontrolled cell growth (i.e. the cells are able to grow into large tumors which can establish their own blood supply and invade surrounding tissue boundaries); and, eventually, 2) the ability to move to different locations in the body (what we call metastasize). \n\nSo, for a given type of cancer, you have to acquire a cell line that contains all of some minimum set of mutations in a critical list of genes.\n\nCancer, therefore, is driven by several things:\n\nIf you ARE BORN with mutations in certain critical genes (for example, one of the genes on the critical list, or another set of genes that are involved in repairing DNA damage) then it will be easier for you to acquire the remaining mutations that result in cancer. Some forms of cancer are driven by a very large extent on heritable genetic factors, some to a lesser degree. Heritable genetic factors usually play a role in forms of cancer that affect young children and in families that have a high incidence of one form of cancer or another.\n\nIf you expose yourself to things that are known to cause a higher rate of DNA mutations, you increase your chance of getting cancer. We all know this. It's why people who spend huge parts of their life in the sun have high rates of skin cancer, why heavy smokers have high rates of lung cancer, and why heavy drinkers have high rates of esophageal/stomach cancer. \n\nYour DNA acquires mutations (damage) even when you live a healthy lifestyle. It's a simple fact of statistical mechanics (i.e. probability-based events that occur at the molecular level). This is why AGE IS THE SINGLE LARGEST RISK FACTOR FOR CANCER. I'll say it again: AGE IS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE RISK OF ACQUIRING CANCER. I'll say it a third time: THE LONGER YOU LIVE, THE GREATER CHANCE YOU HAVE OF GETTING CANCER.\n\nAs to the risk of getting cancer:\n\nThe largest driver of cancer rates is AGE. Everyone seems to obsess over the minor contributors (pollution, radiation, etc.) while ignoring (or not understanding) the single largest contributor. The reason we see more cases of cancer today than we did 50 or 100 or 200 years ago is because WE LIVE LONGER. \n\nWe all know the major risks associated with cancer: Smoking, heavy drinking, exposure to sun, poor diet, obesity, physical inactivity. \n\nAs to \"essentially everything nowadays causes cancer\":\n\nFirst, anything that causes DNA mutations can, theoretically, contribute to an increase risk of cancer. And you can show - in a dish of cells, in a mouse or rat - that nearly everything (in a large enough amount) causes DNA mutations and/or cancer. Here is a list of things that have been known to cause cancer when administered in a large enough amount: mushrooms, sugar, nitrates (found in bacon and cured meats), ingredients found in toothpaste, shaving cream, and soap, naturally-occurring fungi found on most grains, acetaldehyde (found in most fruits and vegetables), etc.\n\nThis is the crux of toxicology - it's not important that \"nearly everything\" can cause cancer, it's important to understand, what - in in the context of normal everyday living - can realistically contribute to a significant increase in your risk of cancer. This fact is lost on most people. \n\nFor example, you probably read in the news this week that bacon causes cancer. Well, that's true, but consider the following. If you are 18 years old, choosing to smoke a pack of cigarettes per day for the rest of your life will raise your risk of getting lung cancer by 2,500%. That is a big increase in the risk of lung cancer. If you are 18, choosing to eat two slices of bacon each day for the rest of your life raises increases your chance of getting colon cancer from 5% (no bacon) to 6% (2 slices bacon/day). \n\nUnderstanding this risk, you wouldn't view eating bacon as the same as smoking, would you? Sure, both can be shown to cause an increase in the risk of obtaining cancer, but that isn't what is important - is the degree to which each can raise your risk of getting cancer. So while it's true that \"nearly everything [including bacon]\" can cause cancer, it isn't true that \"nearly everything can cause the same risk of getting cancer\".\n\nUnfortunately, both the media an the general public are TERRIBLE at understanding statistics and risk. ",
"A simple metaphor I remember:\n\n > Cancer is like a shitty lottery, but in this lottery everything that can cause your cells to degrade can give you a ticket, but you could have a million tickets and never get a whiff of cancer. Or you could get one ticket and \"win\" immediately. \n\nCancer is, as far as we can tell, caused by cells degrading and the error checking built into the immune system, instead of destroying and replacing, will keep making broken copies.\n\nOversimplified, I know, but close enough."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://cisncancer.org/cancer101/what_is_cancer.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/2gI0QqqkfHs?t=2m41s",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test",
"http://consumer.healthday.com/cancer-information-5/mis-cancer-news-102/random-mutations-responsible-for-about-two-thirds-of-cancer-risk-study-695065.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MA9NKooSk"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a18tq2 | why are tickets (to concerts, sports events, etc) purchased through third parties (stubhub, ticketmaster, etc) as opposed to directly from the venue hosting the event? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a18tq2/eli5_why_are_tickets_to_concerts_sports_events/ | {
"a_id": [
"eanz7uk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Back in the day you had to buy directly from the venue. You had to get in line and buy paper tickets often having to campout overnight for best seats or for high demand shows. Buying from a ticket seller is much easier for everyone. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4nw02z | us federal income taxes | I realize tax law is vastly complicated. I have heard that there are seven tax brackets, but all of your income is not taxed at the same rate? Or if you get a raise you are taxed more?
Can someone explain the general mechanics behind income taxes? How much of your income is taxed and how is this decided? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nw02z/eli5_us_federal_income_taxes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d47dh4d"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It is complicated, but the part that throws most people is the progressive tax rate. Think about it that instead of you specifically being taxed at one tax rate, each individual dollar you make is taxed at a changing rate. Let's say the first 10,000 dollars aren't taxed at all, dollars 10,000-20,000 are taxes at %10, and dollars 20,000+ are taxes at 20% (these are made upbrackets).\n\nAmy makes $9,000. The first 10k is not taxed, so Amy owes nothing. If she has been having money withdrawn automatically from her paycheck, she will get it back as a refund.\n\nBob makes $15,000. The first 10k isn't taxed. After that, he has 5k left, which is taxed at 10%, so Bob owes $500.\n\nCharlie makes 25,000. The first 10k isn't taxed. The next 10k is taxed at 10% = $1000. The remaining money is taxed at 20%. 20% of 5k also - $1000. So Charlie's total tax bill is $2,000.\n\nDebbie uses deductions to her total income. She makes $25,000, the same as Charlie. However, she is able to make $5,000 of it tax deductible, which means it is not taxable income. So instead of $25,000, the IRS treats it like she made $20,000. As we saw above, the first 10k is untaxed, the next 10k is taxed at 10%, so she only pays $1000."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1sfqd3 | the negative effects of the industrial revolution | (I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit, feel free to redirect me) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sfqd3/eli5_the_negative_effects_of_the_industrial/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdx55fx",
"cdx5c5b",
"cdx5g10"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Immediate or long term?\n\nThe immediate negative effects was the lowering of living standards (today we have higher living standards because of it). Working hours increased, deaths due to injury increased, pollution shot through the roof.\n\nLong term is, well, still the pollution. ",
"There were unsafe working conditions. \nDramatic rise in urbanization. \nLiving conditions were awful. Diseases spread like wildfire. \nRidiculous environmental degradation.",
"Thanks, I know that all of these happened in America from books about it, but I forgot to mention that I'm curious about the effects on Britain and the rest of Europe. Did this negative effects still effect Britain?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
34m8up | why are motorcycle helmets so heavy when the human neck is comparatively fragile? | Whenever I've worn a motorcycle helmet, I've often been surprised at how heavy it was compared to my neck which keeps it up. I've imagined that if the helmet spun around, the weight of it would snap my neck. Why aren't they made just as durable but lightweight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34m8up/eli5_why_are_motorcycle_helmets_so_heavy_when_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqvzblq",
"cqvzcyb"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Now think about what happens in a car wreck. The body is fastened to the car via seat belt so in an accident, the neck is the moving part which gives you whiplash. In a motorcycle accident , your entire body is in motion as you flail across the horizon to your new destination. So there is no worry of whiplash in a sense. Easy way of putting: most people prefer a heavy helmet that can cause a neck injury over your head being split open and brain matter all over the road. ",
"The point of a motorcycle helmet isn't to be durable, it's to protect the skull from impact. It does that by providing extra space between a person's head and the road, slowing the deceleration. It needs a lot of material to do that. Also, they're usually designed to break on impact, in order to absorb energy during a crash.\n\nI recently listened to a presentation on motorcycle helmet safety testing, and it seems that neck injuries like you describe are less of a cause for concern than protecting from impacts at different angles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4w395y | how did bugs such as bees and ants come to have "queens"? how did physiologically different creature originate but remain the same species? why is there no "queen" human? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w395y/eli5_how_did_bugs_such_as_bees_and_ants_come_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d63mh0t",
"d63n1ib",
"d63oszn",
"d63pvnp",
"d63qjj0",
"d63r5uj"
],
"score": [
64,
26,
5,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Efficiency!\n\nA small number of specialized *breeding caste* is enough to supply eggs for the whole hive. Keep in mind the queen is not *in charge*, she is just another specialized caste like workers or soldiers or drones. \n\nWorker bees can override and evict a queen if circumstances require, and some ant nests have multiple queens.\n\nThere are other sorts of bees or wasps that live in much smaller groups, like a bumblebee queen that only has a nest with half a dozen brood cells or hunting wasps that make a nest for one baby at a time.",
"In some ways, _all_ human females are \"queens\", because the queens are the fertile ones that do the reproduction. It's really the worker class that is the unusual innovation of bees and ants.",
" > Why is there no \"Queen\" Human?\n\nElizabeth II, Margret II, Margaret (a different one), Máxima, Mathilde and a bunch of others would like a word with you. \n\n",
"Here's a better way to think of it:\n\nAnts are cells with legs.\n\nYou have many types of cells -- muscle, skin, brain -- that comes from the same genome. Ants do too, but they divide their energies into lots of units that can walk around, whereas we kind of make one big mobile colony and walk it around.\n\nKind of a trip, but humans and ants actually weigh about the same, in terms of the sheer mass of life on the planet for each.",
"There's one thing that still needs to be answered, how come we don't have queens.\n\nQueens are dedicating to producing offspring, this is all they ever really do. Fundamentally, this is because sex-determinism in ants and bees is very different from humans. Human males have both an 'X' and a 'Y' chromosome whereas females have two 'X' chromosomes, but males are similar to females in all other aspects. On the other hand, male bees however are Haploid, meaning they only have half the chromosomes that females have.\n\nEvolutionary, your only objective is to propagate your genes, create as many offspring as possible. Haplodiploidy means that female bees are more closely related to their sisters than they could possibly be to their own children. Thus it makes sense for them, evolutionary speaking, to invest resources in raising more sisters rather than raising children of their own. This is why we don't have queens.",
"This basically comes down to how you reproduce: Here's a quick overview of the different options:\nFirst, we have cell division or asexual reproduction. This only works for organisms that consist of one cell. They copy their Genes and other parts of the cell and then simply split into two identical cells(if no mutation happens). \n\nThen we have sexual reproduction, what all multicelled organisms do. You take two members of a species and each provides a random half of their genes to form a new set of genes.\n\nHow exactly you go about the second one can vary greatly. We humans are pretty simple: Any member of the species is fully sexually developed after a few years and can reproduce at basically any time. Most other animals, especially mammals, can only reproduce during certain timeframes(You may have heard people talking about a cat or dog being \"in heat\", that means the animal is able to reproduce). Animals like ants(So-called eusocial animals) go about this in a more complicated way. At certain periods, fertile male and female ants are produced by feeding the larva a certain way and thus influencing their development unil they are grown up. These fertile individuals have wings and all go out to mingle at the same time. Femals find a male and collect and store a large amount of semen. Then they find a good place to found a hive and begin producing eggs and fertilize them with the semen they've stored. These eggs produce females who are infertile by default, and these become workers. The queens job from now on is only to produce eggs, which the workers take care of. Eventually, some of these eggs are given special food that makes them become potential new queens. Remember, the eggs and their genes are identical, it's the special treatment that makes these eggs become queens. How are males produced? These happen when the queen lays eggs but doesn't fertilize them. These dudes are only there to provide semen to queens and then quickly die off.\n\nSo to sum up, individuals of the same species can come out differently because of their different development due to outside factors such as food. This happens to any organism, to some degree: If you're not fed enough while you're young or if your mother smokes while she's pregnant, you're going to come out differently, even though your genes didn't change at all. These types of animals simply use this to their advantage.\n\nBonus fact: There's actually a mammalian species that's eusocial: The naked mole-rat. Not much to look at, but they also have a \"queen\" that produces kids while keeping other female members of the hive infertile.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8a588c | what makes deer/moose antlers symmetrical? | Straightforward question, since they’re like bones I was wondering why they don’t grow asymetrical. Also, they’re probably not exactly symmetrical but at first glace they are, and that is what I mean. Thank you | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8a588c/eli5_what_makes_deermoose_antlers_symmetrical/ | {
"a_id": [
"dww5dbe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A symmetrical set of antlers are called typical, as opposed to a set of non typical which are not symmetrical. Antlers are \"shed\" and regrow every single year, a mature rocky mountain elk can grow 1 1/2\" in mass a day during the peak. What trips me out about antlers... during the antler growth they're covered in skin and hair with lots of blood, the antler can become injured creating a deformity in the antler. This deformity will recur every subsequent year! The DNA for the shape of the antler changes and remembers that injury, how the heck does that happen! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3amojp | why is the prices of games going up in canada even though the dollar has remained the same for about a year. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3amojp/eli5why_is_the_prices_of_games_going_up_in_canada/ | {
"a_id": [
"cse15pj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is an ever increasing competition between game makers, and the cost of development is increasing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4wp1qe | if i try to hit a small insect, e.g. a fruit fly, with my hand at high speed, will i hit it or will the air which my hand pushes in front of it will save the insect? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wp1qe/eli5_if_i_try_to_hit_a_small_insect_eg_a_fruit/ | {
"a_id": [
"d68sflo"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The air in front of it will actually be hitting it itself if you swing hard enough. Of course this is way faster than your hand can really go on its own. So it depends on what you mean by 'high speed'.\n\nThat's why the space shuttle coming down from space catches fire. Not from friction, but by pushing the air so hard in front of it that it hits more air hard enough that it glows and gets super hot.\n\nIf you had some kind of superhuman punch the force from the punch could hit the fly with air molecules hard enough to kill it well before your fist made contact.\n\nHave your punch go fast enough and you could turn the air into superheated plasma that would vaporize the fly. But at that point your hand has become a fist shaped weapon of mass destruction. As you'd be vaporizing everything in a vaguely cone shape for a large distance.\n\nOf course, with a slow enough human hand speed, the air currents are likely pushing the fly away, because you're not moving the air fast enough to make it damage the fly. And your hand isn't moving fast enough to damage the fly. And because the fly is so small it will absorb way less kinetic energy from your hand than say, somebody's face.\n\nAt THIS speed, the air is doing you a disfavor, and that's why the air holes in a fly swatter help it snap down fast enough. But even a fly swatter hitting a fly will often not harm it. It's the impact against the fly swatter and the wall the fly is on that crushes it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4927xa | in a microwave, can i heat my food on half the heat for twice the time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4927xa/eli5_in_a_microwave_can_i_heat_my_food_on_half/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0og8bb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty much that is what you can do. You can also in a sense turn it into a slow cooker if you set the power low enough. I do not know if your power level goes low enough, or why you want to do this at all.\n\nI use mine to prepare fine chicken soup inside ten minutes using things from the refrigerator and freezer. Frozen vegetables do well this way as do noodles kept at room temperature. Seven minutes in the microwave at regular setting and I have better soup than Raman ever made."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1kq15k | how do throttleable rocket engines work? | How are liquid fueled rocket engines able to produce variable thrust? Why can they only do this within a certain range? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kq15k/eli5_how_do_throttleable_rocket_engines_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbrgi8d"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Simply put you alter the fuel flow using pumps on the fuel line. More fuel means more thrust being generated in the combustion chamber.\n\nDue to the inability of the pumps to work arbitrarily fast and the inability of the combustion chamber to handle all fuel combusting simultaneously you have an upper limit on how much you can put out per unit time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5m76k4 | why does shaking (like in a train or bus) and rocking a baby's crib help us sleep? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m76k4/eli5_why_does_shaking_like_in_a_train_or_bus_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc1cygs"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I am going to take a dig at this. I think the exact word you are looking for is \"Rocking to sleep\".\n\nAs to why Rocking helps us sleep, it is a matter of brain waves.\n\nFirstly, we have been put to sleep a hundred times since our birth by gentle swinging motions of our parents. Hence our **brain associates these gentle movements to a relaxing environment**. As a result, we feel a little less stressed and calm, the perfect conditions for inducing sleep.\n\nNow comes the question: Why do babies rock to sleep in the first place? I read about it a while back, so I might not be accurate here. It is still poorly understood, but the bottom line is, **any sort of slow rhythmic movement is sleep inducing**. The reason is that our brain is made to respond to any stimuli. This is an evolutionary trait, and is one of the most important traits in our survival as a species. While observing a slow rhythmic movement, our brain functions at a much slower rate than if it was observing a random fast paced movement. Since there is nothing much new to intake, that means nothing much new to process. *Same input, same output, less processing*. This applies to all the senses: sight, hearing and so on. Hence our brain functions at a slower rate, which is the ideal condition for sleeping.\n\nAnother reason is that, rhythmic movement **calms down our Amygdala - the part of the brain which responds to fear**. Since Amygdala is a key element in the sleep-wake cycle, calming it down is one of the foremost tasks before sleep.\n\nSo there it is. Hope I have remembered it well.\n\nNote: Rocking does not only put us to sleep, it also helps us to sleep deeply.\n\nP.S. This is my first comment on Reddit, please be gentle.\n\nEdit: The article I read was probably about this study: _URL_0_. You can check this out. It more or less states the above."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00539-2"
]
] |
||
l5y7v | why couldn't you lose weight by just not eating until you were thin? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l5y7v/eli5_why_couldnt_you_lose_weight_by_just_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2q1kqw",
"c2q1nf6",
"c2q1kqw",
"c2q1nf6"
],
"score": [
2,
22,
2,
22
],
"text": [
"Your body can't produce all of the various things it needs to function properly on it's own. That's why we eat: it provides us with energy, as well as vitamins, proteins, etc, that we otherwise wouldn't have (but still need). If you simply stop eating, you're starving your body of that fuel. You'd become very sick, mainly because your body would start shutting down non-essential functions as it switched into starvation mode. Your immune system would be compromised, and it'd become very easy to get ill on top of your already ailing body. \n\nYou'd definitely lose weight, but become very sick in the process, and it's very dangerous. Safer to just stick with calories in < calories out. Your body NEEDS at least 1200-1500 calories a day (depending on the individual).",
"Because of the starvation response.\n\nYour body is meant to be digesting food pretty much all the time. It's the constant digestion of food that supplies your brain with glucose.\n\nIf you go without eating at all long enough for your digestive system to stop producing glucose — anywhere from six to twenty-four hours, depending — your body will start metabolizing something called glycogen. Glycogen is a substance your body stores in your liver and your muscles and which can be broken down in your liver to make glucose.\n\nWhen the liver starts breaking down glycogen, your body notices, and the regulatory endocrine system starts releasing a variety of hormones that get picked up by your liver and your digestive system in general.\n\nThis *hurts.* It's very unpleasant, like feeling hungry only more so. Headache, muscle and joint pain, irritability and generally feeling extra-emotional … it all adds up to a *profound* urge to eat.\n\nBut you can ignore it. It's not crippling or anything; it doesn't leave you writhing in agony. It just puts getting some food at the very top of your list of priorities, is all. If you choose to ignore it — or if you have no choice, because you don't have access to food, like if you're on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean or something — your body initiates what's called the *starvation response.*\n\nWhen your body gets to the point where no more glucose is available from the digestive system or the liver, anywhere from a day and a half to three days after last eating, your *body* switches over to metabolizing fatty acids, and your *brain* switches over to primarily metabolizing ketone bodies. Your metabolism as a whole slows down because less energy is available — fatty acids and ketone bodies aren't as good a supply of energy as glucose is — which also has the effect of conserving what energy reserves you have left. Your body does begin digesting your own adipose tissue deposits — that is, at this point you do begin losing weight — but it happens *very* slowly, much more slowly than it would happen if the starvation response hadn't kicked in.\n\nBut there's a bigger problem. See, your body is now *mainly* running off fatty acids and ketone bodies, but it still needs a trickle of glucose to stay alive. Ordinarily, when your metabolism is normal and you aren't starving, you need about 200 grams of pure glucose a day just to live. After the starvation response kicks in, that requirement drops to just about 30 grams a day. Your body can synthesize glucose out of the byproducts of fatty acid metabolism, but that only adds up to about *20* grams a day. You still need ten more … and to get it, your body begins metabolizing proteins. Proteins are long chains of amino acids, and your body can make glucose out of amino acids in your liver. So your body begins eating its own core structures.\n\nTo synthesize one gram of glucose in your liver, your body has to break down about three grams of protein. While in starvation, your body needs to make about ten grams of glucose a day from protein, so that means your body loses about 30 grams of protein a day. This mostly comes from your big skeletal muscles.\n\nSo yes, by starving yourself you are indeed losing weight … but not in the way you wanted to. In addition to burning off body fat, you're also breaking down and digesting your own muscles, which *hurts!* It's *extremely* painful! And because your metabolism as a whole is slowed dramatically by starvation, you just have to endure that discomfort *longer* to lose a given amount, in pounds, of body fat.\n\nSo yes, you can in principle just stop eating to lose weight. But it's the slowest and most agonizingly painful way to do it.",
"Your body can't produce all of the various things it needs to function properly on it's own. That's why we eat: it provides us with energy, as well as vitamins, proteins, etc, that we otherwise wouldn't have (but still need). If you simply stop eating, you're starving your body of that fuel. You'd become very sick, mainly because your body would start shutting down non-essential functions as it switched into starvation mode. Your immune system would be compromised, and it'd become very easy to get ill on top of your already ailing body. \n\nYou'd definitely lose weight, but become very sick in the process, and it's very dangerous. Safer to just stick with calories in < calories out. Your body NEEDS at least 1200-1500 calories a day (depending on the individual).",
"Because of the starvation response.\n\nYour body is meant to be digesting food pretty much all the time. It's the constant digestion of food that supplies your brain with glucose.\n\nIf you go without eating at all long enough for your digestive system to stop producing glucose — anywhere from six to twenty-four hours, depending — your body will start metabolizing something called glycogen. Glycogen is a substance your body stores in your liver and your muscles and which can be broken down in your liver to make glucose.\n\nWhen the liver starts breaking down glycogen, your body notices, and the regulatory endocrine system starts releasing a variety of hormones that get picked up by your liver and your digestive system in general.\n\nThis *hurts.* It's very unpleasant, like feeling hungry only more so. Headache, muscle and joint pain, irritability and generally feeling extra-emotional … it all adds up to a *profound* urge to eat.\n\nBut you can ignore it. It's not crippling or anything; it doesn't leave you writhing in agony. It just puts getting some food at the very top of your list of priorities, is all. If you choose to ignore it — or if you have no choice, because you don't have access to food, like if you're on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean or something — your body initiates what's called the *starvation response.*\n\nWhen your body gets to the point where no more glucose is available from the digestive system or the liver, anywhere from a day and a half to three days after last eating, your *body* switches over to metabolizing fatty acids, and your *brain* switches over to primarily metabolizing ketone bodies. Your metabolism as a whole slows down because less energy is available — fatty acids and ketone bodies aren't as good a supply of energy as glucose is — which also has the effect of conserving what energy reserves you have left. Your body does begin digesting your own adipose tissue deposits — that is, at this point you do begin losing weight — but it happens *very* slowly, much more slowly than it would happen if the starvation response hadn't kicked in.\n\nBut there's a bigger problem. See, your body is now *mainly* running off fatty acids and ketone bodies, but it still needs a trickle of glucose to stay alive. Ordinarily, when your metabolism is normal and you aren't starving, you need about 200 grams of pure glucose a day just to live. After the starvation response kicks in, that requirement drops to just about 30 grams a day. Your body can synthesize glucose out of the byproducts of fatty acid metabolism, but that only adds up to about *20* grams a day. You still need ten more … and to get it, your body begins metabolizing proteins. Proteins are long chains of amino acids, and your body can make glucose out of amino acids in your liver. So your body begins eating its own core structures.\n\nTo synthesize one gram of glucose in your liver, your body has to break down about three grams of protein. While in starvation, your body needs to make about ten grams of glucose a day from protein, so that means your body loses about 30 grams of protein a day. This mostly comes from your big skeletal muscles.\n\nSo yes, by starving yourself you are indeed losing weight … but not in the way you wanted to. In addition to burning off body fat, you're also breaking down and digesting your own muscles, which *hurts!* It's *extremely* painful! And because your metabolism as a whole is slowed dramatically by starvation, you just have to endure that discomfort *longer* to lose a given amount, in pounds, of body fat.\n\nSo yes, you can in principle just stop eating to lose weight. But it's the slowest and most agonizingly painful way to do it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9qk271 | why is airplane fuel measured by weight instead of volume? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9qk271/eli5_why_is_airplane_fuel_measured_by_weight/ | {
"a_id": [
"e89rpuu",
"e89rshv",
"e89rskc",
"e89sz5j",
"e89x53j"
],
"score": [
50,
4,
2,
8,
7
],
"text": [
"Many aircraft are limited by their “maximum gross weight” for takeoff and/ or landing. It makes the math easier when you don’t need to multiply the gallons by the specific weight of the fuel / gallon. Make sense?",
"Volume changes with temperature. By using weight you can calculate everything better, from mass & balance down to fuel flow and therefore endurance, fuel required, everything pretty much.",
"When it comes to flying, weight is directly correlated to the distance you can fly. They even calculated fuel usage in lb or kg per min/hr. Therefore, they can calculate the distance you can fly vs. the weight of fuel directly.",
"Volume doesn't really impact the flight capabilities of the aircraft; any fuel it is carrying will obviously fit into its tanks, and it isn't like the aircraft can swap out fuel volume capacity for anything else. How much weight the aircraft is carrying is important though because for example it impacts how it can safely land, or how much fuel it burns to stay aloft. So weight is much more useful and relevant than volume.",
"Aircraft are regularly weighed because their weight affects the aircraft's performance, especially during take off and landing, the aircraft needs to be within the Maximum Take Off Weight allowed for that specific aircraft. The fuel is measured into the Take Off Weight, and it is much easier for the fuel to already be in weight units. \n\nWeight is also a better unit of measure when dealing with fuel because it is an indication of mass which is more relevant when considering it's chemical energy. \n\nAnd finally, volume changes as temperature changes, but weight will not, and therefore weight is a more accurate measure of how much usuable fuel there \"really is\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3jwah1 | why are some photographs considered art? | Some photographs by certain people are worth a lot of money but others of almost the exact same thing are worth anything at all. Why is there a difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jwah1/eli5_why_are_some_photographs_considered_art/ | {
"a_id": [
"custnmg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"From google:\n\nart\n\nnoun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts\n\n1. the expression or application of human creative skill **and imagination**, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.\n\nThe ELI5 answer would be that most people agree that photography meets that definition."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ettnl | what's happening in our brain when we're looking for an object, but we're actually holding it in our hand? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ettnl/eli5_whats_happening_in_our_brain_when_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"daf4gwj",
"daf6h16",
"daf7bte",
"daf8dfe",
"dafn1wa",
"dafquv7",
"dafsbon",
"dafzr0v"
],
"score": [
3,
25,
4,
10,
6,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can think about the brain working in 2 modes, one is the Subconscious mod (or auto-pilot) and the Conscious mod. Due to evolution the brain is mostly relying on the \"auto-pilot\" when we do simple tasks like walking or breathing.\nWhen we do something like talking on the phone and looking for the phone to use the flashlight, the brain thinks about the phone and the flashlight as 2 separate _URL_0_ that moment our brain being on auto-pilot doesn't realize that until we think about what we are doing, which consumes energy, that why sometimes the brain makes mistakes trying to conserve energy.",
"Sensory information is represented in 'maps' in your brain. Meaning a certain small area in your brain (eg if you poke the back of your head, your primary visual cortex is around that area. If you poke the top of your head your primary somatosensory (skin sensations) is located around there. So zoom in to the top area on your brain, like really zoom in until you start to see cells. The cells are arranged in a sheet. If you move along a certain direction on the sheet of cells, the activity of those cells represents a continuous area of skin sensation on your body. These sensory cells then send signals to other areas of your brain (approx around top of forehead) which have 'goal related' brain cell activity. As in some cells are active and that represents the goal that you have, like 'i want this object'. \n\nNow ultimately your behaviour (for example searching for an object) is just a sequence of muscle movements (for example to move your eyes, visual search. Or arm muscles to make reaching/grasping). \"Attention\" has to do with specifically what sense signals are used to program a movement. So maybe the object is in your hand. But the physical area of sensory cortex being investigated isn't the correct position of the object. So in this example. Maybe the cells in your frontal cortex (responsible for your goal of 'i want this object') is looking at the vis sensory cells in more detail than the sensory cells that represent skin sensation). So takes a bit longer to \"find\" the object in this particular event. ",
"Focus Blidness, google it. Your brain is so focused on finding the item where it must be, that you fail to actually \"scan everything in the surrounding environment\".",
"There is too much information coming through our senses at any given time for our brains to process.What we refer to as 'attention' is our ability to focus on some aspects of sensory input at the expense of others. When we miss something that might seem obvious because attention is elsewhere, we call it 'Inattentional blindness'. There is a famous experiment where most people miss a Gorilla walking though a basketball game! [ref](_URL_0_). In the sace of your keys, your attention is focused on vision and not on on touch. ",
"Sometimes this is related to habit \"subroutines\" we have created. For example, one of my habit routines is to grab my keys, wallet, phone when I walk out of the door. I do this without thinking about it, but if I'm on the phone when I go grab my wallet and my keys I might have a hard time finding my phone because my subroutine is used to it being there. Then my conscious brain has to take over and figure out that I'm an idiot and that the phone is already in my hand because I'm talking on it. ",
"Sensory Adaptation. For example, when you go looking for your sunglasses but they are already on your head. After the sunglasses have been sitting on your head for a while, you may not feel them because you adapt to the sensation of the sunglasses weight and pressure. My prof, said after a short period of time the brain will adapt and then disregard the sensation as a way to save energy and focus for other things.\n\nSource: recent lecture in a sensation & perception class at university.",
"I read something about that once. The brain starts to ignore things that you see, but aren't looking for. By accident it can ignore the thing you're actually looking for.\n\nI don't have any source for it, and I have no clue whether it's true or not. It makes somewhat sense though.",
"the real answer is completely ELu5. \n\nNo one knows how the brain works to that degree you're asking. They barely understand any aspect of it's function."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"objects.In"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1zgkoh | what makes elevators so safe? seems like few deaths occur on what seems like a potentially dangerous machine. | Uberfacts' Twitter account shared a statistic that there were ~12,000 stairs-related deaths every year vs. only 27 for elevators.
Edit: Thanks to all for the explanations. I had an inkling that fail safes were in place but I was unawares of how they worked. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zgkoh/eli5_what_makes_elevators_so_safe_seems_like_few/ | {
"a_id": [
"cftg4s0",
"cftg5eo",
"cftg8ka",
"cftgtu5",
"cfth0ul",
"cfthlcc",
"cftl63u"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
7,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Elevators have many safety features built in whereas stairs, well, there's no accounting for stupidity. How hard is it to walk up and down stairs? ",
"There are usually triple redundancies on elevators. i.e. far more than one cable holds the weight, so even if one snapped it would still be absolutely fine and would just be closed for maintenance. People are just stupid on stairs.",
"Almost all elevator-related deaths happen in movies.\n\nThere are numerous safety features, including friction brakes that are independent of the motor drive. Inspection of elevators is a regulatory issue in many areas, which means a scenario where an elevator car goes into some kind of free fall like you see in movies is almost impossible, save for sabotage.",
"Many elevators have a built-in failsafe: the weight of the elevator hanging from a cable keeps the brakes from being deployed. If the cable were to somehow break or become detached from the elevator car, the brakes would automatically push out against the sides of the shaft to stop the descent of the elevator. \n",
"I know most elevators have more than one cable. Big cargo elevators have around 7 if I remember. Each cable can support the weight of the cart with a full load. So even if a cable breaks, there are others to hold it. Also the brakes would prevent it from free falling. ",
"Modern elevators are supported by 6-8 cables, any one of which can fully support the weight of the fully loaded elevator. Plus they have a breaking system that can stop the elevator if all of the cables break. So the only feasible ways to get killed by an elevator are to be a maintenance worker in the shaft, or being stuck between the elevator and the hallway after the elevator starts moving.",
"\"And what of the elevator doors on a given floor,\" I hear you cry. \"What prevents an electrical glitch or something from causing them to open when there's no car there and somebody not paying attention to walk through and plunge to their death?\"\n\nForget failsafes and triple-redundant systems for this one: it's physically impossible. Elevator manufacturers twigged to that possibility almost from the start, so they simply took the door-opening motor *off the doors* and put it on the elevator car.\n\nThe doors are held closed with a powerful spring and a latch. When the car comes into position, it trips the latch, then the motor in the car opens the doors.\n\nIt *is* possible to FORCE open an elevator door with no car present, but it takes some determined work. It absolutely cannot happen by accident.\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
325mzk | numbers and letters on processor model? | Ex: Core i7-4710HQ @ 2.5 GHz
What does that all mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/325mzk/eli5_numbers_and_letters_on_processor_model/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq83zcf",
"cq842tf"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"For starters, that's an Intel Chip. \n\ni7 is the product line. i3 is entry level, i5 is a step up, i7 is higher end.\n\n4710HQ is the model, which is assigned to that specific chip.\n\n4=4th generation (the current generation of the \"i\" product line)\n\n710=model number (the specific chip from this generation and product line)\n\nHQ=suffix, a feature code. Specifically, that's a \"quad core\".\n\n(K=unlocked, as in, you may change the speed of the processor. S and T are low-power versions (gen 2, gen 3, respectively). R means it has Iris Pro Integrated Graphics. M is for standard dual-core mobile (laptop) processors.)\n\n2.5GHz refers to the speed of the cores. \n\nThe other big name in processors is AMD, a common processor is an \"FX-8350\".\n\nFX is the product line (FX is high end desktop, A are mid level processors, E/C series are low-power).\n\n8350 is the model.\n\n8 is series, which means, it has 8 cores. (A 4-core would be a 4350)\n3 is the generation (3rd gen).\n50 is the model number (tied to speed, so an 8350 is faster than an 8300, but both are 8-core 3rd-generation)",
"Core i7 is the marketing name for Intel's current high end processors. A model number in the 4000s means it's part of the 4th generation of processors marketed as Core i(3/5/7). The \"Q\" at the end means it's a quad core processor. \"H\", \"M\", \"U\", or \"Y\" tells you that it's mobile- the H are the highest powered chips, they tend to use more power but also support the most features. \"M\" is a normal laptop chip, \"U\" is a low-powered chip designed for ultrabooks, and \"Y\" is an even lower-powered chip designed for tablets (you sacrifice speed to get the lower power). I've never been able to figure out what the third and fourth digit in the processor number mean but the second number tells you roughly where in the current series it falls. A 4800HQ is almost certainly faster than a 4700HQ.\n\nThe 2.5GHz is the only number that actually has meaning outside of Intel's marketing department. It tells you how many times per second the processor's clock ticks. Higher numbers are better, but you can only really compare processors with the same design. So a 2.7GHz fourth generation quad-core with hyperthreading Core i7 processor is strictly faster than a 2.5GHz fourth generation quad-core with hyperthreading Core i7 processor, but you can't compare clock speeds between a 2.5GHz fourth generation Core i7 and a 3GHz first generation Core i7 (By any realistic measurement, the fourth generation processor is faster despite the slower clock speed)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
8ywy5p | why is mouth breathing bad for humans and why are we able to do it? | Some of youtube videos I listened to recently said that mouth breathing cause facial problems like a recessed chin and sinus problems. Some guy named Dr. Mike Mew even claims it causes crowding in the teeth. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ywy5p/eli5_why_is_mouth_breathing_bad_for_humans_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2ebw9h",
"e2efrxi"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"They don’t really say that mouth breathing is bad it’s just that breathing through your nose is better... the hairs in your nose “filter” the air hence why you get boogers(they are the “bad” stuff in the air)",
"Breathing through your nose is better because your nasal passages filter out some bacteria and other germs but not all. Breathing through your mouth is actually bad and less efficient because a lot of times you end up swallowing the air you need. Also, prolonged mouthbreathing leads the physiology of the mouth to change (meaning they shape and “environment” of the mouth is also changed. Most noticeably people who mouth break for a long time develop an openbite meaning the natural state of their mouth is open. It doesn’t happen to everyone but to a lot. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6dun97 | why aren't more uplifting, good news (the ones that put faith in humanity) shown in journalism? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dun97/eli5_why_arent_more_uplifting_good_news_the_ones/ | {
"a_id": [
"di5h17u",
"di5h3gt",
"di5hai6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It is not really wanted by the public. Good news, while uplifting is not entertaining to the majority of people. If it is not entertaining then fewer people will buy the newspaper, watch the news broadcast, or click the internet link. The journalists simply do more business and therefore make more money focusing on the things that are bad news. ",
"Because they don't sell. \n\nEditors want their medium (website, newspaper, TV channel) to gain as much range as possible, you can't do that using good news.\n\nI can't explain the psychological aspects of it, but humans \"enjoy\" bad news, and they enjoy more news and only the latest, juiciest stories.\n\nRemember Panama Papers? It's not fresh and hot anymore, thus nobody reports on it.",
"Longtime communications person w/ a journalism degree and a lot of feeling about this topic.\n\nSpeaking to American journalism specifically, the vast majority of outlets are for-profit (as opposed to non-profit), so they have to try and generate revenue through their reporting to stay afloat. Think NY Times, FOX News, etc. \n\nThere's a saying in reporting: \"If it bleeds, it leads.\" This means that media outlets put all your negative/sensational stories at the front of the broadcast/on the front page because its what peaks people's interest and keeps their attention. In a consumer-driven market, the consumer's interest dictate what outlets report on.\n\nConversely, if the entire country stood up and \"All I want are tella novellas and cooking shows on TV!\" and - here's the important part - ACTED ON IT by not consuming any other kind of media, we'd have nothing by tella novellas and cooking shows on TV by this time next week. So people can bitch and moan about the low quality of reporting, but if they don't act on it, there's no incentive for the outlet to change their reporting style. So its ultimately the consumer's fault.\n\nMeanwhile, you look at non-profit/public reporting outlets, you tend to see much more measured, thoughtful reporting about things that actually matter.\n\nTLDR: In for-profit journalism, the outlets are forced to pursue revenue, which in turn makes them publish stories that people respond to. People like sensational stories, so outlets publish them because there's no motive to publish stories people aren't going to read."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b6x6m8 | how do you explain that depak chopra and other woo woo new age pseudo science/medicine is bogus to someone that is deeply invested in them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b6x6m8/eli5_how_do_you_explain_that_depak_chopra_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejnlrm0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sounds like it is trying to take advantage of the placebo effect, a real phenomenon. Honestly, people who are deeply invested in these pseudosciences usually will not listen to reason and they will reject any evidence that doesn’t support their belief, much like a person who is delusional with a psychiatric illness. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits