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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6yrdu4 | how does credit score calculators work in the uk? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yrdu4/eli5_how_does_credit_score_calculators_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmq1mtv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"An ELI5 answer is simply:\n\nThe people calculating it will look at your financial past to try and guess how good your financial future would be.\n\nThey do this by looking at incomings (wages, shares etc) add savings or collateral, then look at how you spend money (mortgage payments, car loans etc) how often you use credit (overdraft or credit cards) and finally look at how well you pay these bills (do you pay on time or miss payment all the time)\n\nOnce they gather all your financial data (and probably a few other bits, age, sex maybe we dont actually know!) They plug it all into a formula and voila! Out pops your credit score!\n\nEdit: Oh also forgot they look at recent trends, are you applying for tens of credit cards suddenly? This is why applications can effect your score."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1zc388 | if nuclear fuel is mined out of the ground and refined, why cant we "de-refine" it with similar substances and just put it back? | As i understand it, uranium is mined from ore and turned into "yellowcake", then further refined into uranium metal/rods, then put to use in a reactor. after x amounts of years the uranium rod is "spent" and billions of dollars goes to building nuclear waste sites for storage in excess of 100 000 years.
Why not just take those materials/substances we removed from the uranium ore we dug out of the ground, and add it to the "spent" uranium and just put it back where we found it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zc388/eli5_if_nuclear_fuel_is_mined_out_of_the_ground/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfsclhm",
"cfscmb6"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The refined uranium, when it is reacted, changes into other elements. In a reactor you are actually splitting atoms into different, smaller ones that just happen to be bad. Even if we could put them back together, we would need to put in at least as much energy as we got out (and probably a hell of a lot more). It's similar to burning fuel, you can't just grab the CO2 and turn it back into crude oil.",
"Because of the nature of nuclear reactions, the uranium decays into other unstable elements. In a fission reactor, nuclei are split in two by neutrons. This forms two smaller nuclei - and therefore two new elements. This splitting reaction will release more neutrons, and go on to split more nuclei, [etc etc.](_URL_1_) The reason fuel rods \"run out\" is that they no longer contain enough Uranium-235 to keep the chain reaction going.\n\nSome of the new elements created will have a very long half life, some may be highly dangerous. [This page](_URL_0_) documents some of the by-products that nuclear fission can create.\n\nBecause of the change of the chemical structure, we can't simply add it back to the ground."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_products_\\(by_element\\)",
"http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FWDvgMlpQV0/TqA_b2PzH0I/AAAAAAAAAz8/IT5Iqtr7he4/s1600/fissionpic.jpg"
]
] |
|
1hozhu | kosher salt | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hozhu/eli5_kosher_salt/ | {
"a_id": [
"cawfepb",
"cawg8j8",
"cawk81p"
],
"score": [
48,
55,
12
],
"text": [
"It's not kosher, neccessarily. It used to be called Koshering Salt because it was used in kosher preparation of meat. It's just coarse salt.",
"Kosher food is food that meets the Jewish dietary laws. One of these laws is that all the blood is meant to be allowed drain from any meat before it is considered kosher. To drain the blood from the surface of the meat, it is covered in salt, which leeches fluid from the meat. \n\nLarge flakey crystals are used for this purpose because they provide good surface coverage of the meat, & so this type of salt is referred to as kosher salt due to it being used in the preparation of kosher meat. Most salt is considered kosher.",
"\"Koshering salt\" or \"kosher-style salt\" (also known as kosher salt in the US and Canada), is made up of the same compound as table salt, sodium chloride (NaCl). It is a course salt with no additives (such as iodine) used to treat raw meat so that the meat can be considered Kosher. The crystals of Kosher salt are flat, as opposed to cubic crystals of table salt, and the grains are usually much larger than table salt.\n\nIt is not to be confused with \"Kosher-certified salt,\" which is salt that has been certified as Kosher by the appropriate religious body, and is not necessarily \"Kosher-style salt.\"\n\nSources and more info: [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) and [Saltworks](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_salt"
]
] |
||
wg8av | modern day illuminati theory and "new world order" and why to be skeptical of them. | A close friend of mine has been reading a lot of Illuminati conspiracy theories on the Internet and is convinced that there exists a New World Order driven by globalization. Similarly, he's convinced that the Federal Reserve is basically the headquarters of these diabolical operations. I know the idea of a single governing body ran by a handful of individuals is absurd, but can someone please explain the basics behind this sort of thinking and why it's inherently wrong? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wg8av/eli5_modern_day_illuminati_theory_and_new_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5d2grs"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"People like simple answers to complex problems/issues - that's why conspiracy theories are so popular. It is far easier to understand a small group of powerful and motivated individuals controlling the world than to try and understand all the social, geographic and economic factors that actually contribute to their current situation.\n\nConspiracy theories are never true... you can't get a group of guys to agree on how to tap a keg, let alone how to control governments and minds. As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no real, demonstrable evidence to support NWO theorists."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1hwmse | why would landing too slowly be dangerous? | an airplane I mean. Doh. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hwmse/why_would_landing_too_slowly_be_dangerous/ | {
"a_id": [
"cayn2lv"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Planes generate lift by their forward thrust, which moves air over the wings. If a plane loses too much forward momentum, it stalls (meaning that it no longer has sufficient lift), and your plane retains all the flight potential of a fully stocked vending machine. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1x235z | why is breathing through your mouth generally considered "bad"? | I've always heard you are supposed to breathe through your nose, but why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x235z/eli5_why_is_breathing_through_your_mouth/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf7fpze",
"cf7mk1h"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"because breathing through you're mouth is gross, mouth breather. Jk\nYou're nose is meant specifically to prep air air for breathing by filtering partials and moistening the air. Breathing through the mouth can rot teeth and dry you out making you more susceptible to illness",
"Your lungs work best at 100% humidity. To help this happen, the air is \"pre-moistened\" by going through your nose rather than your mouth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
60xn5d | why do (some) scientists say there can be infinite universes? what's the reasoning behind it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60xn5d/eli5_why_do_some_scientists_say_there_can_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfa68h7",
"dfa7qf9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Multiverse theories (and there are many) are just plausible constructs without much substance.\n\n\"Plausible Constructs\" are a dime a dozen in cosmological physics. String Theory is one. Stephen Hawking's M Theory is another. They're plausible, but not proven (yet.)\n\nOne thing that seems to be alluring about multiverse theories is the opportunity to account for the many probabilities of particle action and interaction without considering quantum mechanics (thus avoiding higher math.)\n\nIMO anything that appears to be infinite is simply not being viewed objectively enough. So if I were an ant on a piece of string that measured three hundred inches long I might conclude that the string is infinite since it seems like I can walk forever on it. Viewed more objectively (from a distance) it would be easier to see the ends of the string.",
"The Multiverse Theory I am familliar with is used mainly to describe how Quantum Theory interacts with time. Lotta big words. Lets take it slow.\n\nQuantum Physics is a really different look at how the world works. It says that unlike the world we see, feel, and interact with there is a different way that things react. When you get small enough, things dont happen on an objective basis. You cant make an exact model of what's going on. Instead, it seems that what happens here is honestly and impossibly random.\n\nOn a different frame, we have no idea how time works. As far as we can tell, time is a fancy way to keep space from bumping into itself. It started when it expanded during the big bang and probably wont end. A question needs to be asked here: is there only one way this happens? Or do we experience one of many ways this could - and does - happen?\n\nHere, quantum physics tries and takes a side. Since the most basic interactions in the universe happen randomly and seemingly to chance, it breaks off into many universes. Every quantum interaction anywhere in the universe breaks the \"arrow of time\" into all possible branches of the universe, instantly creating more branches we may or may not be lucky enough to experience."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
x3i3t | what was the primary motivation for settling new cities throughout history? [eli5] | Hey, so I'm working on establishing a setting for a fantasy book series. So far I've got maps and modern day nations all drawn up, and a general play by play of the history for each of the nations and races and what not.
I am starting from very far back however, and most of my civilization begin in a single (typically suitable for habituation) location on the world, but I don't know how best to describe why people of each civilization would spread out and establish new cities.
My basic understanding is that they might expand outward for the acquisition of resources, or because individuals want to claim land for themselves, and that works for establishing how land is expanded, but I don't see how definitive cities could be established.
For example, in Game of Thrones, if the first men came from the north, what was their driving reason for claiming the south if they had plenty of land to satisfy their modest population in the north? And since they did move south, what helped them to determine where they would establish a settlement? A keep might be established to house men of an expedition, but what would bring thousands of smallfolk hundreds of miles to settle in a new area, where there's only a keep?
And if the current living situation of those smallfolk was sufficient, and everyone had enough food and supplies to get by, would expansion still occur?
Finally, what would a timeline for this sort of thing look like? If you had 10,000 people in a city, and there was reason to expand and establish a new city, how many would leave, and how long would it take to establish a new city? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x3i3t/what_was_the_primary_motivation_for_settling_new/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5iuiev",
"c5izkc4"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Trade, almost all history is the story of trade. People go places to get stuff they can't get at home, and people start colonies to get rich/powerful off the fact that new areas have stuff that people back home want to trade for. ",
"You are asking some great questions, and reminding me why I'm glad that I chose to be a Geography major. I still have plenty to go and learn. But from what I can tell you and things I've learned, which isn't a whole lot, are things to just add onto what you know.\n\nYes, people wanted to expand for resources. But it could have been to have control of a resource. If a group was to expand, they could find newer and better resources that sorted the needs of the group. There could be one resource in a different part of the country/region/world that had more suitable resources. When you take control of a resource, you could set up a trade route if there are cities setup already. As stated, people need certain things when traveling but they can't go back home for them. \n\nAlso, cities can be setup for the reason of part of the group seeing things differently than another part of the group. This was the main reason for the immigration of Europeans coming to the new world. They wanted to have freedom of and from religion. They wanted to live their lives the way they wanted. In a city established by YOU, you could essentially do whatever you wish, because who is to stop you when you're in charge. The ones in charge in the one city you live in, you would usually abide by those rules. \n\nAlso, with migrating, there could be better climate elsewhere. Maybe they are tired of being cold in the north all the time. A better keep with a better year round climate has been found.\n\nAlso, this link might help you a bit. _URL_0_\n\nHope this sheds a bit of light for you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I&feature=BFa&list=UUX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5gyeme-Q"
]
] |
|
25t6qu | if an artist has not released any song or album, how do people get their hands on it and then release it themselves? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25t6qu/eli5_if_an_artist_has_not_released_any_song_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"chkhpro",
"chkiewi"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Shared studio space, shared sound engineers, cached files, leaving a disc somewhere, secondary recording devices, general carelessness. \n \nOut back behind the venue in a car with some girls showing them your newest tune? better remember to hit eject on their CD player before your bus rolls off to the next town. \n \nedit - spelling - your newest tune not you are newest tune.",
"If you're asking about leaking one source is often people who work in media. Artists or bands often send their unreleased material to different magazines/websites to get it reviewed. And sometimes someone who works there or has access can't keep it to themselves."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7l5y9n | how does lactic acid form and just disappear? also how does it not harm any parts of our body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7l5y9n/eli5_how_does_lactic_acid_form_and_just_disappear/ | {
"a_id": [
"drjrsf5",
"drjuziz"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Cells make lactic acid when they don't receive enough energy. It is like the \"Plan B\" of the metabolism. \n\nFor example, during an intense workout, your muscles might make lactic acid to keep up. This is harmless in small amounts. \n\nThe problem is when there is too much lactic acid. This occurs in serious diseases such as sepsis (systemic infection). Too much acid in the body is dangerous and leads to a series of medical problems (metabolic acidosis). ",
"Lactic acid is produced in your muscles as a byproduct of prolonged anaerobic exercise. \n\nThe amounts produced are typically so small it can easily be removed through the bloodstream and processed in the kidneys, and do not present any danger.\n\nCertain disorders can cause lactic acid to build up faster than the body can remove it, and that can cause serious problems. Note there has to be something wrong with you for this to happen, it is not the result of too much exercise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
dje7av | why are celebrities net worths low when their annual income is so high? | Taylor Swift made $195 mil this year but her net worth is only $360 mil.
Michael Jordan makes $3 billion supposedly from nike annually but his net worth is $1.9 billion. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dje7av/eli5_why_are_celebrities_net_worths_low_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"f44iyse",
"f4554ae"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Michael Jordan does not earn $3B from Nike, that's what the Jordan Brand sub-brand of Nike makes in revenue. He gets some small cut of that, with the rest going to pay for manufacturing the products, marketing it, paying the designers and other corporate infrastructure of Nike, shareholder dividends...\n\nNot sure about the Taylor Swift numbers, but that could be something like ticket sales from a concert tour, but there are also all sorts of expenses like stadium rentals, travel, equipment, other performers (musicans, dancers), crew, insurance, and such.\n\nAnd for many celebrities, their net worth are complete conjecture. They're not publicizing it, and if they don't have large stakes in public companies that are reported to the SEC (which is the case with probably 99.9% of celebs) then there is no way of knowing. Often, the websites that publish celebrities' \"net worth\" add up their reported earnings from movies, TV shows, concert tours, and such, but have no way of knowing how much they've spent and how much investments have grown and such. Did they blow $10 mil on private plane charters and baller nights out in Vegas or did they invest it with a hedge fund that had 20% annual investment returns? Rarely, does the public know...",
"A lot of those figures aren't accurate. Basically only the celebrity knows how much he made. The rest is guesswork."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5lhh73 | why do mobile games suck, even though phones are more powerful than good handheld gaming systems like gameboy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lhh73/eli5_why_do_mobile_games_suck_even_though_phones/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbvpq8r",
"dbvpsgv",
"dbvq4h3",
"dbvzxmi"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This might be a snarky response but: have you purchased any 30-40$ mobile games?\n\nIf you can play a game for free, what you are playing is what someone could create on a fairly small budget, in a fairly small studio, and then sell to investors in order to produce. Most of these games are riddled with ads and microtransactions because those provide a source of income that is lost by not charging players for the initial purchase. Games with an initial charge make their money through game sales; those with very low costs rely either on volume or on other methods to pay for the costs of development.\n\nTriple-A hand-held games, like Pokemon, are developed and marketed by companies that are usually very large and have entire teams dedicated to promoting the game; they also cost more to buy up-front.\n\nFinally, note that while the gameplay may be limited in \"free\" games, the graphics and potential are much better than older handheld systems, with social capabilities that those older systems lacked due to the connected nature of smartphones.",
"Mobile gamer here. \nBecause of no grip for your fingers and the money the game developers make, the mobile gaming market is pretty bad but if you make a good research youll find good mobile games like Leos fortune, little inferno and many more. \nIm not offended by this post, i find this a really good question to ask, people told me the same a lot of times in my life.\n",
"I assume because most mobile developers want to make as much money as possible. This means the target audience are largely nongamers. The best games that anyone can play are simple and repetitive to get as many people as addicted as possible. Complex stories, concepts, and challenges would largely scare away nongamers.\n\nIn contrast, things like gameboy games need to be geared towards a gamer. Instead of just a way to spend $5 or waste 5 minutes, gamers want a deep and rich experience, something that will make you care about what's going on in the game world and get immersed in it.",
"touch-screens are horrible for most games. Gameboy is way better. A solid set of buttons for controls is how games are meant to be played and CPU power does not make the game. Style of game-play does"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c0vzg3 | how is a portuguese man o' war actually a combination of different animals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c0vzg3/eli5_how_is_a_portuguese_man_o_war_actually_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"er9fz1s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"[This](_URL_3_) is a sea anemone. Basically a pouch with tentacles, right? [Jellyfish](_URL_4_) are basically the same thing but upside down. This kind of animal is called a cnidarian. Many cnidarians are capable of reproducing by budding, as illustrated by [this hydra](_URL_2_). Basically a little replica grows off the parent and eventually pops off, becoming a separate critter. \n\nBut what if it never disconnects? Then you get a whole bunch of connected cnidarians. The most famous version of this is [coral](_URL_0_). Basically if you look closely at a coral, you'll find it looks a lot like a ton of teeny tiny little anemones all stuck together. There was an original polyp that produced a bunch more polyps through budding, but instead of splitting up and becoming independent they stayed stuck together. \n\nEssentially, this is how a portugese man O war works. Except while the polyps in a piece of coral all look alike, the ones in a man o war look different from each other. It's maybe easier to understand in some other relatives of the man o war which are more spread-out. [here](_URL_1_) is one such relative. First imagine a coral, but instead of the polyps being all in a kind of lump they are stretched out in a line. Then look, you've got some bell shaped ones on the top with a big body and no tentacles then behind it some ones that are mostly tentacles with a small body. Each specialized to do a job. [this cool video](_URL_5_) explains how they grow. Because a portugese man o war is all jammed together underneath the float, it's a bit harder to see the individual polyps, but [they are there](_URL_6_), lined up beneath the float. \n\nSo basically, it's a combination of different animals in the sense that it's built like a bunch of jellyfish or sea anemones stuck together to each other hanging off the bottom of a float, specialized for different tasks like catching food, digesting it, and reproducing. Don't get confused and think they are different species though, they are all genetically identical and budded off the first one in the same way that hydra is budding off the other hydra in the picture I showed earlier."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://res.cloudinary.com/dk-find-out/image/upload/q_80,w_1920,f_auto/SPL-C0197444-Leather_coral_eyjqll.jpg",
"https://wshg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/siphonophore-noaa.jpg",
"https://www.carolina.com/images/product/large/132804_la.jpg",
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/0b/be/520bbe450ddd90cdebe29e6e78489145.jpg",
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/09/b4/45/09b445ae81296108dcf2b8ede374bbe8.jpg",
"http://creaturecast.org/archives/2805-creaturecast-how-siphonophores-grow",
"https://images.slideplayer.com/38/10800681/slides/slide_61.jpg"
]
] |
||
51odz7 | how are bees able to produce so much honey that we can take some of it and they are still able to survive? what would a wild bee population do with the extra honey? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51odz7/eli5_how_are_bees_able_to_produce_so_much_honey/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7dji1i",
"d7dkoy6",
"d7dlvfw",
"d7dp0jy"
],
"score": [
16,
9,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Bees are hoarders. They would store it and store it. It lasts for a very long time in the right conditions. As long as they had room to put it up, they'd continue putting it up.",
"One reason commercial bees have so much extra honey is that the beekeeper makes sure they don't starve or freeze in winter, and their stores are protected from bears and other predators. Wild bees lose foragers to frost, so they can't get as much nectar until more are grown, and they have to live off their stores.",
"Bees are naturally inclined to store an excess amount of honey to deal with potential food shortages, such as due to an especially harsh winter. Like humans, they want to have food security. Apiarists protect hives from danger and provide extra food when necessary, so they can remove that surplus honey without endangering the colony.",
"Bees are fed a sugar water like substitute in place of honey. Some keepers take it all, some leave a little as well as nectar substitute, it all depends. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
avma94 | how are we not wasting oxygen when we breathe out carbon dioxide? | Carbon dioxide has oxygen in it, so isn’t it a waste to breathe it out instead of using it to supply oxygen to the bloodstream? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/avma94/eli5_how_are_we_not_wasting_oxygen_when_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehg7mna",
"ehg7xv1",
"ehgbm1g"
],
"score": [
23,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"We take in oxygen because when it chemically joins with something, it releases energy. We then use that energy to live.\n\nOnce it has done that, when it has joined with carbon to make carbon dioxide, its job is done, The energy available has been released.\n\nYou see, it isn't the oxygen we need. It is the chemical energy available in having oxygen and carbon/hydrogen as separate things - the carbon/hydrogen loosely bound into carbohydrates like sugar. \n\nIt is a bit like how a hydro-electric plant doesn't 'waste water' when the water that flows out of the tail race at the bottom of the dam. The plant didn't want water - it wanted the energy in that water being up there at the top. Now the generator has been spun, the energy caught from allowing the water to fall to the bottom, the job is done and the low energy water released.",
"Well, yes, Carbon Dioxide is a waste product.\n\nThe metabolism chemical reaction is: \n\nC6H1206 + O2 = > CO2 + H2O + energy\n\nYou eat sugar, breathe oxygen. The oxygen and sugar is burnt to create carbon dioxide, water and energy. Energy is used to power your body.\n\n",
" > Carbon dioxide has oxygen in it, so isn’t it a waste to breathe it out instead of using it to supply oxygen\n\nWater also has oxygen in it, how come we drown?\n\nSame reason; though H₂O and CO₂ have oxygen in them, it's not _usable_ oxygen; O₂ is the only combination that lungs want. Even ozone (O₃) is a no-go.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4si02c | why can you feel full after a 600 calorie proper meal, but not feel full after 600 calorie worth of junk food? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4si02c/eli5_why_can_you_feel_full_after_a_600_calorie/ | {
"a_id": [
"d59e2jz",
"d59e75v",
"d59ih32",
"d59jkad",
"d59jryh",
"d5a940n",
"d5ad5xd"
],
"score": [
150,
4,
4,
4,
51,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Calories don't make you full! Fibre, protein, bulky food that takes longer to digest makes you full.\n\nThink about 100 calories of celery vs 100 calories of bacon. you'll eat a heck of a lot more celery.",
"Your body doesn't have a calorie meter that counts how many pass your lips. The feeling of satiety (being full) is a combination of numerous things, such as stretch receptors/nerve signals in the stomach/gi tract/, hormones and other chemicals in your bloodstream, either produced by or released in response to, the digestive process, and psychology. \n\nThe calorie content of food itself is not directly responsible.",
"Feeling full is primarily about your stomach stretching to the point that you have trained yourself to feel full at. Calories have a minor effect due to blood sugar levels, but not much. ",
"Also I believe there is some evidence that fructose creates less of a \"full\" feeling than glucose for even an equivalent calorie count, and high fructose corn syrup is very common in junk food because it's cheap. \n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"There are lots of mechanisms involved in feeling full (satiety) and feeling satisfied and stopping eating (satiation), many of which have nothing to do with calories.\n\nCalorie density does have an impact, which is confusing because lots of junk food is very calorie dense but less filling. More calorie dense foods are more filling, *if all other things are equal*. But when all other things aren't equal, those cream glazed donuts scoffed in 30 seconds just aren't as filling as a steadily eaten plate of meat and veg. \n\nHere are some of the other factors* that feed (pun intended, sorry) into the question:\n\n1. Stomach distension: when your stomach walls are stretched, nerve endings fire off messages to the brain that contribute to feeling full. 2 donuts take up less space than a plate full of veggies, so don't trigger this mechanism as early as veggies would.\n2. Hormones are released or suppressed by a couple of mechanisms (absorption of nutrients in the gut is one) after eating, and some kinds of foods produce a bigger reaction. Carbs and protein are better per calorie at suppressing ghrelin (which simplistically is a hunger hormone) than fat. In the end, the nutritional make-up of your meal is going to have a big influence on how full it leaves you because of this, and evidently donuts don't fit the bill.\n3. Protein seems to be more satisfying per calorie than carbs or fat overall, even though we haven't found hormones that are released better by protein than other nutrients. So, we don't know why, but protein is filling. Donuts don't have much protein.\n4. 1-3 are all examples of \"episodic\" signals of fullness. To make things more interesting, your body also has a baseline \"fullness\" setting, influenced by so-called \"tonic\" signals of fullness. Amongst other things, body fat has a part to play in your \"tonic\" fullness. Now, your body is meant to be saying \"don't worry, chill, we have plenty of fat\", but unfortunately, there's some evidence that at some point the opposite happens. One simple example is that some \"fullness\" signal hormones like one called PYY are lower in obese people than lean people in studies. The rise in PYY after a big meal is also less in an obese person than a lean person. Plus, there's some evidence that obesity sets a person up so that their body is less sensitive to other \"fullness\" hormones. So, an obese person may be living with an internal setting of \"less full\" than a lean person, and when they eat, both not get as many \"stop eating\" hormones and be more impervious to them.\n\nIn addition to this, eating is a voluntary behaviour, and humans have been observed in the wild to continue eating past feeling full, particularly where portion sizes are large (automatically eating everything on your plate), you are distracted (e.g. watching the latest GoT) or the food is particularly delicious.\n\n*These are suggested by research, but not all solidly proven. Fullness is definitely a complicated reaction/sensation produced by many factors.",
"Take 600 calories of fresh fruits and vegetables and put it in a bowl. Now do the same thing for potato chips and candy bars. Which is fuller? \n\nJunk food is very calorie rich, with a high amount of kcal per weight and volume. Fresh food contains much more bulk of non soluble fiber and it's not made with concentrated sugars and fats so it has much more bulk and weight per calorie consumed. \n\nThe other thing is the healthy foods take awhile to begin digesting and increase your blood sugar slower and more steady, which gives you more steady energy rather than a sudden spike of sugar, followed by a glut when it quickly runs out, making you want to eat another. \n\nIt's kind of hard for us westerners to get an idea of what normal eating is like since highly processed foods and beverages are the norm, instead of special treats we eat once in awhile. \n\nSoda and candy are something that should be consumed in great moderation, but nobody bats an eyelash if you live off fast food and soda. \n\nI mean at the end of the day, the number of calories consumed are what ultimately matters, but most people will find they are more satisfied and less hungry if they get those calories from non processed lean meats, fruits, and vegetables. A 600 calorie meal of steak and broccoli can fill you up for the rest of the evening, where as that equals one cheeseburger that will not feel satisfying without the fries and soda or shake. \n\nThere are some processed foods that are pretty healthy though and make good snacks. I'm a big fan of greek yogurt which is cheap, and yet has as much protein as a health shake. It doesn't taste fat free either and it's stiff texture makes my mouth feel like it's eating far more calories than it is. If you try to consume at least 1000 calories a day of protein, you will find your stomach has less room for junk food. It's a good trick if you're trying to lower your calorie count without 'dieting' and you don't feel deprived. The other is like I said, meat and vegetables. Avoid potatoes, peas, corn, bread or anything starchy and eat lots of carrots, broccoli, lettuce, asparagus, fresh fruits, etc. ",
"**Your belly can't count the calories** before it has digested them, so when telling you if it's full or not it has to go by the **volume of the food.**\n\nJunk food generally contains more energy per volume than healthy food, so before you feel full of junk food you'll have consumed a lot more calories."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.webmd.com/diet/20121231/fructose-hunger"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1e6fci | electricity storage | what can be done if we wnt to store electricty on a large scale and then use it later on?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e6fci/eli5electricity_storage/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9x8335",
"c9x877j"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We can store it in chemical form, in batteries.\n\nOr we can use capacitors, storing it as changed-up plates.",
"As far as I know the only thing that works on a industrial scale is pumped-storage hydroelectric powerstations. \n\nYou basically build a dam but don't have a river that feeds it and instead you [pump up water when you have excess electricity and let it out when you need it](_URL_0_).\n\nWikipedia has a [list](_URL_1_) of large pumped-storage stations around the world.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/hydro-pumped-storage.gif",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations"
]
] |
|
a0ijzy | how is graphene a 2d material, if it's one carbon atom thick (z axis)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0ijzy/eli5_how_is_graphene_a_2d_material_if_its_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"eahvyxz",
"eahw1mi",
"eahw7cj",
"eahwox6",
"eai10l8",
"eaifpcb"
],
"score": [
38,
2,
5,
5,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Absolutely nothing in the universe is 2D, but graphene is pretty close. With a thickness of 0.335 nm it's basically as close to an infinitely thin plane as well get\n\nWhile not *literally* 2D, it's 2D for most practical purposes",
"Nothing is completely 2D because we are in a 3D universe, we just say it is because it is so thin that it looks like it is 2D to the naked eye but in reality everything is 3D. ",
"It's just a limitation of language. Like teaching that paper is 2D. It's more to help with the concept. ",
"The use 2D or even 1D in a colloquial speech and even in some techinal writing means that the effect/impact of one or more of the dimensions is negligible and can be safely ignored in the analysis.",
"Graphene is a 2D material because its atoms lie in a plane, and therefore its properties (most notably its electronic properties) are predicted by 2D equations. The electrons can move in the plane, but can't move out of the plane.\n\nBy analogy, consider if you were on the 100th floor of a skyscraper with no stairs or elevators. You can move around the floor, but you can't move up or down to the next floor. Everything you do can be described in terms of motion in the plane, so it's 2D rather than 3D. (Ignoring you jumping or lying down or whatever.)",
"We are not interested in excluding ourselves from *ever calling anything* 2D by adhering to a standard permitting literally no z-axis component."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3mla3p | why is it so frowned upon to pirate products, when buying them used is given a blind eye? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mla3p/eli5_why_is_it_so_frowned_upon_to_pirate_products/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvfw0ne"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The laws say that you can resell the product. In the US this is called the [\"First Sale Doctrine\"](_URL_0_). Basically you bought a product and if you want to resell it thats totally fine, you own it. \n\nPirating is different. You *never* bought the product in the first place, the original maker never got paid, you don't have the right to sell or distribute something you don't own.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine"
]
] |
|
f7c74l | why does cold chocolate not taste as chocolatey? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f7c74l/eli5_why_does_cold_chocolate_not_taste_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiaf3ux"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Chocolate taste is released generally when the chocolate melts which is just around body temperature so warm chocolate is close to liquid chocolate."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1nm0yu | what is a hadron and why do scientists need to collide them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nm0yu/eli5what_is_a_hadron_and_why_do_scientists_need/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccjt3gz",
"cck1wes"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"There are different kinds of Hadrons but the one you're probably most familiar with is the Proton. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons make up atoms, which are what most all of the familiar \"stuff\" is made up of.\n\nBut in order to better understand protons, and the things that THEY are made of (!) we hurl them into each other extremely fast. If we look very closely at what happens we can see whether our theories about how the universe works are really accurate. This is actually how we first found out that protons are made up of other things (quarks) which is pretty neat.",
"Particle physicists divide up their particles into a bunch of categories. Ordinary atomic matter has electrons, protons, and neutrons; the electrons are pretty light and the protons and neutrons are relatively heavy. The heavy particles are called hadrons (from a Greek word meaning thick or stout) and the light particles are called leptons (from a Greek word meaning thin).\n\nParticle colliders can be built for all sorts of reasons and to work with different kinds of particles. The LHC's purpose is to see what kinds of things happen at really high energies, and it's easier to cram a lot of energy into a small space if you're colliding heavy particles than light particles. Therefore, hadrons (protons in this case). It can also accelerate heavier nuclei (lead ions, according to its wikipedia page) which might be why they called it a hadron collider instead of just a proton collider."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
87w0hv | do objects on earth always have kinetic energy since they are on an orbiting planet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87w0hv/eli5_do_objects_on_earth_always_have_kinetic/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwfyvh3",
"dwg4rkv",
"dwg4w4p"
],
"score": [
11,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes and no. An object's velocity (and therefore kinetic energy) has to be measured relative to something. In everyday usage, we measure speeds relative to the surface of the Earth, so your cup would have a kinetic energy of zero. But if you measure relative to the sun then, yes the kinetic energy of your cup is rather large, since it's currently moving about 100,000 km/hr. ",
"My physics teacher explained it this way: it's nonsensical to talk about the absolute amount of energy-- any kind of energy --that something has. The only way to talk about it that makes sense is the energy that something has *relative* to something else.\n\nOur universe, as far as we can tell, has no center and thus no reference point that can be said to be stationary, but say you simulated a universe just to try this out. Say you put a planet at the center of this universe (just coordinates (0,0,0)) with no motion of any kind, and then sent a comet hurtling at it at 20,000 m/s. You would think the planet started with no kinetic energy, but as far as physics is concerned there's actually not anything special about coordinates (0,0,0); they're just a triplet of numbers like any other. From the comet's perspective, it's the planet that's moving and thus the planet that has all the energy. This is borne out by the fact that the physics would be exactly the same if you ran the simulation with the comet \"stationary\" at the center, and the planet hurtling toward it from the opposite direction.\n\nSo any given object has, at any given time, either a practically infinite amount of kinetic energy, or none, depending only on what you're comparing it to. I currently have no kinetic energy relative to my floor. Somewhere in the cosmos though, there are planets with respect to which I currently carry enough energy to destroy.",
"The \"kinetic energy is relative\" answer is right. From the reference of the sun (useful to astronomers/physicists and the like) the cup does have kinetic energy.\n\nYou could always choose to measure the energy of the cup relative to the table that it rests on, perhaps with a corner of the table as your point of reference (origin).\n\nFrom this frame of reference, the cup has zero kinetic energy. This makes it easier to think about for small, cup-related physical situations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
zax3b | was there a clinton surplus or not? | I've seen many websites say there is and many that say that there was never a surplus. They include a lot of terminology which a five year old like me can't understand. So explain in simple terms why there was or wasn't a surplus and why. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zax3b/eli5_was_there_a_clinton_surplus_or_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"c62zujy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There was a surplus, because the data shows that there was a surplus. Some people think that we should track the government's budget in a different way, under which there might not be a surplus, but that doesn't change the fact that under the standards which *are* used there was a surplus."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ao527j | besides shape, what is the difference between different media cables such as ethernet, hdmi, usb and others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ao527j/eli5_besides_shape_what_is_the_difference_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"efyaud3",
"efyb9ks",
"efybvwp"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"For the cables themselves, number of internal wires, shielding for those wires, standards for the gauge of wire. Within the confines of \"ethernet\" you have several different standards (cat5, cat5e, cat6, etc) which have different shielding and standards for the type and amount of data it can carry, and even within those subsets you can have variation (stranded versus solid core for example). Generally speaking, you'll have one internal wire for each pin/contact on the connector.\n\nFor the entire connection, the chipset on the sending and receiving end encodes and processes the data completely differently.\n\nEdit: If you want some more specific details, here's a decent, somewhat lower-tech comparison of all the different types of ethernet cables and the physical and practical differences between them: _URL_0_",
"Nothing spectacular. There are different standards for twisting wires into a cable, different standards for shielding (insulation), etc. Conductor sizes will be different, as will data transmission speed requirements. All wire is wire, but there are different types of wire, ranging from multiple small strands per conductor to single conductors of different size. Each type of cable has its own specifications and grades.",
"An interesting facet of these cables is how they deal with \"cross-talk\". Since you have a bunch of wires all carrying a current, and all conductors are antenna, and a current moving through a conductor produces an electromagnetic field, a signal on one wire might get picked up on another wire.\n\nEthernet solves this problem by twisting the wires. Enter physics, here - but suffice it to say, it somehow helps to cancel out this effect. The difference between Category 5 and Category 6 ethernet cable is in the twists."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/differences-between-ethernet-cables/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
12aga2 | how countries like germany and japan rose from ashes to world industrial leaders in less than 40 years? | Japan and Germany lost the war and were totally destroyed. In today's wars for example, in Syria, more than 1.5 million houses destroyed and that's not even a small portion of WWII. So how does a country not only builds itself up, but also become a leader in industry, economy, education...you name it.
Is it educational systems? Is it good leaders? Laws? Unity of the community? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12aga2/eli5_how_countries_like_germany_and_japan_rose/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6tha3f",
"c6thebo",
"c6tiyw6",
"c6tjor7",
"c6tlmq8"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"No substitute for hardwork. I dont think they took the easy way out of anything. Look at Toyota and Honda. 30 years ago, they didnt stand a chance in the states. Today, they're considered to be the most reliable vehicles on the planet. The Japanese work ethic and efficiency is impeccable (JIT - Just in time comes to mind). Same goes with German engineering - Bosch, Siemens, Mercedes, BMW, Audi etc. Absolutely on top of their game.\n\nPlus I think they arent as corrupt as the other nations (could be wrong here), so all political decisions are made in favor of the citizens.",
"In the case of Japan, USA and other countries helped them and Japan is used to restoring themselves. After WW2, Japan was \"forced\" to open up for trade and exchange which led to the exchange of idéas and knowlage. Japan has been through several devestating civil wars, and thus lernt to build society anew together.\n\nFor Germany, I think you could say tha since the nazis where wiped out, and the country so devistated, it was not in any other European countrys intrest to punish them any more. Instead, they helped restoring the country.",
"Both Japan and Germany were powerful countries before ww2, the germans had the world's most advanced technology and decades of experience with industrial production.\n\nThe wars took them to the ground but they always had a good foundation to rebuild the country.",
"When Japan and Germany lost the war, the world said they couldn't build a big army, and only have one to defend their borders. This is why you never hear about German / Japanese armies. \n\nThis means instead of focusing on developing weapons and recruiting people for war, they focused on the economy, and recruiting people to work hard at home. Instead of spending money on weapons, vehicles, and people that eventually get destroyed (in war) or decommissioned, they spent it investing in themselves, making better factories, training better scientists, etc. ",
"To ELI5, It's all about education, solid foundation. So, if the government invest $5 back into the local communities, they'll get $15 back in return. Now, in some countries, a government invest $5 and they won't get $5 back."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ic69g | how do people read their names in chinese? (explained in comments) | Apologies if you find this answer hard to understand due to my limited knowledge of Chinese. From what I know of Chinese, the written aspect of the language is not written like the Latin alphabets and Cyrillic but is instead a sort of "picture-graphic alphabet".
Nouns and what not are described as a character, that I can understand because a chair, more or less, has one common name. Chair. You read the symbol for chair and know you're reading chair. But in Chinese, how does someone read a name and know how to speak it? Because from what I recall of Chinese, you must learn the spoken and written part of a word separately and just have to remember to combine the two for future reference.
But with this Taiwanese politician, 阿扁, how do I know from reading this, how to say his name? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ic69g/eli5_how_do_people_read_their_names_in_chinese/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuf374y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"From right to left.\n\nAnd how you pronounce 阿扁? It's pronounced how it's written. \n\n > You read the symbol for chair and know you're reading chair. \n\nAnd it's no different in English: \"John Archer.\" \"Yeah, but Archer also means someone who uses arrows.....\" uh, yeah. \n\nSame with Chinese. You read it how it's written \"Chair horse tree\".\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3d3507 | it has now been a long time since the ice bucket challenge, where are we now in terms of curing als? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d3507/eli5_it_has_now_been_a_long_time_since_the_ice/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct1dqnw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's been about one year.\n\nMedical research takes a lot longer than that.\n\nIndividual research grants are typically awarded once a year and last 3 - 5 years - so probably most of that money raised hasn't even been awarded to researchers who have started working on it yet.\n\nThen, it takes many years to develop treatments for any disease, and many more years of clinical trials after finding something promising, before it can actually be used to help people.\n\nThe extra money for ALS research is fantastic, but we probably won't see results from it for several more yeras.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
66efp1 | what is exactly happening when our bodies feel a "wave" of dread/anxiety? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66efp1/eli5_what_is_exactly_happening_when_our_bodies/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgi75xf",
"dgi76lg",
"dgi76r9",
"dgi79d2",
"dgi7b6a",
"dgi7qb9",
"dgi8h18",
"dgi9bnd",
"dgi9xe0",
"dgiaijo",
"dgiak9y",
"dgiaqxp",
"dgiash0",
"dgibbkc",
"dgibdoo",
"dgibdyw",
"dgicopm",
"dgicxjx",
"dgiczd9",
"dgie7wh",
"dgieb57",
"dgihla2",
"dgimiyf",
"dgin5ar",
"dgio599",
"dgip7gc",
"dgitsf1"
],
"score": [
222,
191,
24,
32,
2346,
85,
3364,
8,
41,
2,
5,
16,
15,
54,
11,
3,
3,
2,
10,
7,
2,
2,
28,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"We are very advanced beings, capable of responding to innumerable stimuli, we are not aware of most of our responses to said stimuli. \n \nAlso, they can be both external or internal. Anything from a soft gust of wind that lightly caressed some hairs on the back of your neck, perhaps a random thought that you didn't even pay attention to, or perhaps Rhahadonx the one who preys is behind you in his astral form ready to devour your soul. (just kidding). \n\nBasically, something you were not aware of, triggered a surge of adrenaline/epinephrine and other hormones (cortisol?), preparing your fight or flight reflex; However since you are not aware of the cause you are filled with dread/anxiety. \nYou **know** an attack is coming, but you don't know from where, or when.\n\nLook behind you, NOW!\n \n ",
"The stomach drop? That's the feeling of your body diverting blood from digestion to your mover muscles, literally prepping you for the ol' fight-or-flight.",
"Panicking releases adrenaline into your blood and makes your heart rate and blood pressure go up so my best guess is it's related to your bodies fight or flight response. I imagine its a combination of your cardiovascular system and emotional response.\n\n\nI don't have any scientific background but I noticed there weren't any better answers.\n\n\nI have trouble with anxiety and panic attacks so I'm familiar with that feeling you're talking about, shaking hands, pounding heart, racing thoughts, hard sweating, shortness of breath etc fuck that shit",
"Your brain is trying to cope with reality by activating flee or fight mechanism but since there is no immediate real threat to you, it goes into 404.",
"The feeling of dread spreading through the body is the sudden release of cortisol/epinephrine (your stress hormones) in response to something you want to avoid. Its your body's way of alerting you shit is about to go down and to get you prepared for survival mode.",
"Parts of your brain take in information about your environment, like when you feel a small tickle from something you didn't see or hear a frightening sound, but your brain also stores memories of where you are and the context in which you experienced something. All these factors contribute to your brain reacting, which produces a fear response in a part of your brain known as the amygdala. When this happens, your amygdala sends signals out to other systems of your brain and body, which cause your heart rate to go up, certain hormones like adrenaline to release, and your body temperature to change in preparation for danger. This can happen even if the perceived threat is all in your head. \n\nUsually if you find you're not in danger, you will learn that the cues that made you feel fear and dread are no longer dangerous; it is possible that you do not learn this though, and the fear stays with you anyway for a variety of reasons (for example, trauma). This is how PTSD is believed to work, and is why it feels uncontrollable to people who have it. ",
"It's a primitive response to danger. Your body releases large amounts of adrenaline and triggers your fight or flight. Everyone will usually feel this in different symptoms. Some people get tingles in their feet, others get a really fast head rush, palpitations, etc. But basically your heart rate will elevate to pump blood to where ever it feels it needs to go in order to help you escape your situation and your breathing quickens to get that good sweet oxygen inside you and even you muscles will tense. \n\n\nThe feelings of dread or impending doom usually come before, not after the attack, and usually have to do with trauma or deep seated fears. Once you've had a triggered response, your brain will interpret other similar responses, and put you in full panic mode. Sometimes it doesn't even need to be that similar to a previous experience, but your brain will just assume it so. Remember that one time you felt sick after eating seafood on that really long car ride? Well now maybe just eating and being in a moving vehicle triggers your anxiety.\n\nIt's very common for people who have anxiety to also have obsession disorders, and it's a cyclical thinking that will continuously trigger the attacks. Can't sleep, but you know you need to, makes you anxious. Anxiety than in turn keeps you from sleeping. But you know you need to sleep, big day tomorrow. But you keep thinking about trying to sleep, more anxiety. \n\nThere doesn't even need to be external trigger either. There is a lot of evidence for people who are very sensitive and in tune with their bodies to get frequent attacks. There are lots of studies that the gut may have something to do with anxiety attacks. For example, having acid reflux, or bad gut flora. \n\nMostly though, everyone gets some sort of anxiety at some point in their life. The people that seem to get it the worst, and often enough to be a disorder, seem to be those more sensitive to internal/external factors, and those who have constant obsessive or obtrusive thoughts, in which case it really needs to be taken seriously and the person should be assisted. \n \nEDIT: words. Thank you. \n\nEDIT2: Been through it myself, and done a lot of research. For the people asking what you do in situations like this, people have mentioned them down below; mediation, but mostly just breathing. Focus on your breathing. As hard as it may seem sometimes because you have so much going on in your head, go back to your breathing and continue to focus on it until your body calms itself down. Like I mean really focus on it. Feel it go in and out of your body, take really deep breaths. 4 seconds in and 4 seconds out. It's a life saver. \n\nEDIT3: Hey everyone, just remember you're not alone in this and it's nothing to be ashamed or scared of. Find something that works for you and make yourself better! \n\nEDIT 4: Thanks for the reddit gold kind stranger! I hope this post is informative and helping others out!",
"At my peak, I described it as where you are flying high with a jetpack on that stops working the moment you think about falling",
"I can get panic attacks just by feeling my own heart beat. In a nut shell ill get some random pain over my heart and then freak out thinking I'm having a heart attack. Its sounds simple and stupid but its a snowball effect. Once it starts its hard to calm down.\n\nEdit:grammer\n\nEdit 2: (since i got some very nice feedback thank you) my situation was made a bit more complicated since i have had theses problems since i was in high school...and then made worse when i broke my ribs. So i routinely feel aches and pains based off the weather that in turn set off my anxiety attacks. As much as it doesnt make sense for it to be an heart issue its still what comes to mind during the attacks.",
"so the amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for emotions and the world is bad feeling. Its also pretty close to your hippocampus, so some people hypothesize that with traumatic experiences, the amygdala somehow tags the memories forming in the hippocampus to help avoid things that make you feel like the word is bad in the future. Disorders in the amygdala can cause some anxiety disorders.",
"When I would dread doing something (leaving my house for work, getting ready to take a test exe.) I would start gaging like I would have to throw up. Is the a stress response?",
"Ok related question. I'm sitting in the court waiting room right now and obviously feeling anxious. Head rushes and all that. But I just went to the loo and my dick has shrivelled like it would in very cold weather. It's quite warm in here. Why would this happen?\n\nEdit: I won not that anyone asked. Penis back to normal size. I.e. Still small just not fekin tiny",
"There's two general causes for the dread/anxiety. \n\n1: there's something physically wrong. Dread occurs as a symptom for several physiological abnormalities and emergencies. Ie: heart attack, stroke, \n\n2: psychological. Panic disorders, stress, phobias, seeing a spider or an ex girlfriend (not mutually exclusive) and well... Life can cause it. I heard that that \"a majority of people experience a panic attack in their lives\" from my psychiatrist. (sorry no data to back that up at this moment.) \n\nEssentially it starts off as a hormonal change (anxiety) and then becomes an adrenaline dump causing a panic attack. \n\nIt's your fight of flight response. - - you need to either fight for your life or get the fuck out of there. And sometimes you don't even know, but your body is totally ready for both. \n\nSources: trained medic with a panic disorder. I find myself self-assessing when I have a panic attack. Sometimes it helps, other times it's the damn cause. ",
"When I was young I always wanted to stay on computer and my parents put password on it. Ofc I cracked it and then I was scared shitless that they will find me that I know. So I always played when they were not home but when I heard ringing keys coming to our doors, I automatically turned off power on PC to shut it down instantly. I was always panicked and in rush so now I'm 23 years adult that get's anxiety everytime I'm on PC and someone is opening doors with keys.",
"Late to the party but have a question - I have IBS symptoms which dont seem to be connected to any particular food type. Could that be due to my anxiety? My mind is blown. ",
"Everyone is saying \"adrenaline\" and \"fight or flight.\" But aren't dread / anxiety very different than panic, which is different than aggression? At least qualitatively; they feel different.",
"Are some people predisposed to either fighting or fleeing?",
"Here's a simplistic breakdown that answers the question and a little more [Link](_URL_0_)",
"Anxiety & panic disorder here. Panic attacks make you feel like you're going to die. Soon. I could not run from a bear during a full blown attack. I would want the bear to eat me. Just to end it. ",
"When I was little I spent a week at my aunts and when it was time, my mom and sister came to pick me up by car. \n\nThat was very odd, usually my dad also comes and he always drives. So I asked, \"where's dad?\".\n\nMy mom said \"I can't talk about it now, I need to concentrate on driving\".\n\nI instantly felt energy leaving my legs like how water flows down during a shower, and felt they were shutting down. ",
"I always feel like that on Monday morning when I have to go to work.. I hate that feeling.. It's like an impending foreboding feeling.. ",
"Others may not know or even get this but I know my anxiety is coming when I start getting this really odd, almost metallic/mineral taste in my mouth. I can sometimes even smell it. Meditation and mindfulness definitely helps. Also acupuncture. And definitely speaking to someone about your fears. Let it all out. ",
"Others have described the initial \"fight or flight\" response. I would just add that as an episode of acute anxiety progresses, you have adrenaline pouring into your system. You breathe faster, and this changes the acid-base balance of your blood. You can break down the physical sensations into a few processes:\n\n-Adrenaline:\n\n*Your muscles tense, getting ready for physical action. You may also notice a \"lump\" in your throat and tightness in your chest.\n\n*You breathe faster, increasing oxygen flow in anticipation of action. You may feel like you can't breathe or are suffocating.\n\n*You may tremble, sweat, and have pupil dilation\n\n-Fast breathing / changed acid-base balance in your blood (because you rapidly breathe out carbon dioxide):\n\n*You start to feel lightheaded\n\n*You notice tingling, typically first in your hands, feet and lips\n\n*You may feel \"dissociative,\" like you are \"removed\" or watching yourself\n\n-Changes in activation of the Vagus nerve (going from your brain through your gut):\n\n*You notice \"knots\" in your stomach\n\n*In extreme cases, you may pass out (this is quite rare)\n\nThere are other signs and symptoms of anxiety. Mindfully recognizing and allowing these sensations to unfold can help nip an anxiety attack in the bud. For further reading, check out Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Russ Harris has written good books about this (The Happiness Trap, The Confidence Gap).",
"I have recently been stressed from moving to a new home and changing jobs, and over the last 4 weeks I get this awful sensation when I breathe in that I can feel a flutter in my chest, then my pulse pounding in my neck. I have been checked for all physical issues, and aside from lower than normal Vitamin D, I am fine. Went to see a cardiologist, had an EKG, all fine.\n\nIt isn't really triggered by any specific event, but I can feel it when it starts and it gives me such dread. I drink lots of water to make sure it isn't dehydration. It starts and last for a few hours, then disappears for a week or so. Then out of nowhere, right when I think I have passed it. Boom\n\nFuck you brain",
"Late but hoping someone will answer. \n\nHow about waking up with anxiety? The trigger for me seems to be sleeping. Guaranteed to happen if I have more than 3 beers or any amount of liquor. I wake up with this horrible adrenaline rush and sense of dread, like drowning in anxiety. I generally can talk myself down or have to do something like push ups to get rid of the feeling. Guided meditation will help too. \nSame feeling will occur during the day too, when an unpleasant memory asserts itself into my thoughts or situation is too stressing. I can control the response so know one is the wiser, still happening though.\nBut no one I know wakes with an anxiety attack. I don't know the trigger ( dreams?) so I can't stop it. How can sleep trigger anxiety?",
"Three doctors Diagnosed me with panic disorder. \nTook .5 ml xanax once a day for two months. It helped a lot. \nI am weened from xanax now and am able to arrest all pending attacks with success. These helped \n\nYouTube anxiety panic attack meditation videos.\n\nYoga-yoga-yoga! Learn the calming effects of purposeful breathing. \n\nKnowing that these attacks will come and will end. \n\nTrying to discover source of anxiety. For me it was my daughters constant fighting. \n\nBest thing I did was to ask for help. I know that's not easy. Just do it. \n\n",
"Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. Ive learned to love it. Used to be so scared of speaking in public and things like that but once i realized its potential ive been able to harness it and use it to my advantage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S62DBpjS1EI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1aifa2 | how do they film the everything-is-frozen-but-1 person scenes in film/tv. | Have been watching this 'House of Lies' show where they use it a lot, and I've seen this effect in some other movies and TV (but of course cannot think of any off the top of my head).
Basically - everything is completely frozen except for 1 character who is walking around talking, and the camera is moving also. I've googled a bit, but not able to find anyone with an exact answer besides being related somehow to bullet time... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aifa2/eli5_how_do_they_film_the_everythingisfrozenbut1/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8xpq4e",
"c8xyd4c"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"I haven't watched House of Cards yet, but there's several different ways of doing it. In a nutshell (a very general nutshell), it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Things like particulates, suspended objects, fluids, etc. which are frozen are normally CGI which are composited into the shot. Otherwise, wire rigs or other support systems are used and digitally erased. For people, it easiest in most cases to have professional models/dancers lock into a position and maintain it. In some shots, where there are changes taking place in the environment along with the character, a motion-controlled camera system is used which will exactly repeat a given camera move. They shoot several takes with different elements and then combine them in post production.",
"Do you mean [this](_URL_0_)?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO2SirSH7Rg"
]
] |
|
16l383 | in the musical scale, what are the sharps and flats of a note. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16l383/eli5_in_the_musical_scale_what_are_the_sharps_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7x0axb",
"c7x0sjz",
"c7x1kz1",
"c7x3tnj"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A sharp is a half-tone up, a flat is a half-tone down. They are the black keys on a piano keyboard. \n \nSome notes don't have a whole tone between them on the scale we normally use in the western world, so a sharp or flat may not make sense in some places. For example, B and C are only separated by a half-tone rather than a full tone, so B-sharp or C-flat doesn't make much sense. Same thing between E and F. \n \nFor notes separated by a full tone, you can name it as either a sharp or flat. For example, A-sharp = B-flat.",
"Look at a [piano keyboard](_URL_0_).\n\nThe white keys are neither sharp nor flat. We musicians call them naturals.\n\nThe black keys are sharp or flat. If you look at the white key on the very left of the image, that is C natural, which we just call C. The black key up and to the right of it is C#, or C sharp. It is a higher pitch than C, but not as high as the next white note, D. There is a semitone between each of these keys.\n\n* **C** - > 1 semitone - > **C#** - > 1 semitone - > **D**.\n\nIf we go a semitone *down* from a white note, we get a *flat* black note. On the very right of the image, we have another C white note, and to the left of that, a B (natural) white note. Up and to the left of B, we have Bb, or B-flat. \n\nThis means that the black notes have two names. B-flat is the same as A-sharp. C# is the same as Db. In musical terms, we say that C# is the *enharmonic* of Db.\n\nWhy do we work in this crazy manner? Because of how the major scale works. There are 7 notes in the major scale. On the piano, the white keys form the scale of C Major.\n\n* C, D, E, F, G, A, B\n\nThe next note up is C an octave higher, sometimes notated C'. Then D', E' and so on.\n\nIf you count the semitones between those notes, it looks like this:\n\n* 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, (and 1 up to C' )\n\nBut what if we don't want to play in C Major? What if we want to play in D Major? Well, we start on a D note and follow the same pattern of semitones.\n\n* D, E, F#, G, A, B, C#, D'...\n\nAs you can see, we had to introduce sharps to arrive at the D Major scale.\n\nLet's say we wanted to play another scale, this time F Major. We'd start at F, and using the same pattern of semitones, get this:\n\n* F, G, A, A#, C, D, E, F'...\n\nThat looks ugly to me, because I'm a super-smart musician and I know my alphabet! We've got an A-something note in there twice, and no B note! Gross! But wait, A# has another name...\n\n* F, G, A, Bb, C, D, E, F'...\n\nMuch better! ",
"Basically, in modern/Western music, there exist 12 notes. However, we only gave letter names to 7 of them (A, B, C, D, E, F, G). The remaining 5 got wedged in between some of those notes for reasons that nobody knows or cares. So really, the 12 notes that exist are A _ B C _ D _ E F _ G _ \n\nSo you have to fill in those blanks somehow because those notes exist, but we didn't give them names (again, you'll have to overlook the fact that someone dropped the ball on this). So we give them names relative to the notes that they're closest to. Sharp basically means \"higher\" and flat means \"lower\".\n\nSo for A _ B, the blank can either be called A sharp (note that it's \"higher\" or to the right of A), or it can also be called B flat (note that it's \"lower\" or to the left of B)\n\nSo instead of giving unique names to these 5 notes, we've given each two names. It's as if your parents just decided not to give you a name and you either call yourself Sharp or Flat depending on who you wanted to be associated with.",
"Imagine a staircase, and give every other step a letter name. The first step is A, the third step is B, the fifth is C, and so on. The steps in between are your sharps and flats. A sharp essentially means \"above\" and flat means \"below.\" Using this method, if I say point at B flat it means below the B step. Thus you can deduce that it's the second step. If I say A sharp. You know it's one step above the A step, and can deduce that it, also, is the second step. Does that make sense?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.danielveazey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/keyboard.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1fqzeq | why do operating systems and programs on t.v shows look so fake? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fqzeq/eli5why_do_operating_systems_and_programs_on_tv/ | {
"a_id": [
"cacx18k",
"cacx8z3"
],
"score": [
2,
11
],
"text": [
"Because they normally need the screen to do something very specific,and making a program or making a screen that will do exactly what they want isn't as easy as having the art guys whip something up that gets drawn over the screen later.",
"What a real computer interface looks like on a 26\" CRT that you're sitting 10 ft away from:\n\n\n\n\n^^^File|Edit|View|History|Bookmarks|Tools|Help|More|Stuff\n\n\n\n\nWhat TV guys want:\n\n\n\n\n###SEARCH FACE DATABASE"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
90c1l6 | the an actor’s learning process of his lines | Title gore. Scratch that ”the”.
How many scenes can one be training for at once? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/90c1l6/eli5_the_an_actors_learning_process_of_his_lines/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2pndaj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Practice practice practice.\n\nYou say the line before (cue lines) and then your lines, over and over and over until your brain starts to form mental connections between the lines.\n\nYou know how songs your hear on the radio alot can get stuck in your head? If someone says the first line from the chorus of a song you'll automatically think the second line? Actors are doing the same thing just on purpose. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
31lmo4 | why are there so many rich, powerful pedophiles in the uk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31lmo4/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_rich_powerful/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq2pr0g",
"cq2ps4o",
"cq2qz82"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Money and power keeps people quiet. It's happening all over the planet. Only in the UK it's leaked out.",
"There will be some subset of the rich and powerful in every country who are pedophiles. The ones in the UK just got caught recently. ",
"I think it's more just that rich, powerful people are better able to find victims and keep it quiet long enough to commit horrible crimes, and then once it gets out people pay attention because rich, powerful people tend to be famous. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
vhg99 | what is happening when people "speak in tongues"? | I grew up in a christian household and saw people do this all the time at church. Sometimes the pastor would just start speaking in tongues during the service.
My friend told me a story the other day about her friend who was a born again christian. He was speaking in tongues one day at church and just thought - "this is bullshit". He walked out and never went back.
I'm an athiest now. I imagine people know they're not really feeling anything but go along with the process to fit in with the group - hoping one day it would "really" happen for them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vhg99/eli5_what_is_happening_when_people_speak_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c54j0fx",
"c54j68r",
"c54jhw1",
"c54jiqy",
"c54jsy5",
"c54l0jg",
"c54luw3",
"c54m72u",
"c54mhk3",
"c54nmjd"
],
"score": [
34,
14,
4,
6,
10,
38,
3,
6,
13,
22
],
"text": [
"Religious people believe that the Holy Spirit takes over the person and they begin speaking in tongues which is basically an unrecognized language of God.\n\nThe non-religious (or less extreme) tend to believe that speaking in tongues is entirely fake in the same way that exorcisms are fake.",
"Most likely there are two forms of \"speaking in tongues.\" When a church leader or someone in a position of power does it, it is probably a performance to excite the church audience. If you see people at a rock concert in a state of extreme happiness singing the same words as the rock star then the same thing is happening. \n\n\nIf someone that does not hold power or influence is performing the speaking in tongues they could potentially be doing it simply to fit in, because they have seen a trusted church leader do it, or they are simply a little crazy. \n\nIf you watch Bill Maher's *Religulous* (which I highly recommend), there is a good segment on this very topic which I have borrowed much of this from and will explain it even better than I could ever try to.",
"Christians believe that \"tongues\" are a [Spiritual Gift](_URL_0_) granted by God and the Holy Spirit to born-again followers (those who have accepted Christ and have the Holy Spirit living in them).\n\nEssentially this is an \"unlearned\" language that believers are blessed with as a sort of \"Love Language\" that allows them to communicate directly with God through this language that we, as humans, have never been exposed to through natural means. Some believe this is the standard language of heaven, God, and angels.\n\nIt is essentially put to use in two ways:\n\n* Used when praying alone as a \"coded message\" directly to God that cannot be interpreted by others (most notably: demons...which is getting too far afield from this post)\n* Spoken to groups of people as a form of empowerment or spiritual authority in certain situations (for example: praying over a person for health reasons or such...)\n\nAs a Spiritual Gift, it's not certain that every believer will be given this ability, and even less for others to be able to interpret tongues (a second, following Spiritual Gift). So many Christians feel extremely blessed when they become able to vocalize tongues aloud.\n\nOf course the most difficult part for an outsider, since this is all an internal process for the subject individual, is to determine if these folks really have this supernatural talent or if they're just spouting gibberish to be more socially accepted among their peers.\n\n**TL;DR -Christians believe \"tongues\" to be a Spiritual Gift of an unknown, heavenly language used primarily for prayer.**",
"It is possible, and actually quite easy to work yourself into an emotional frenzy if you think about something and believe it enough. If you want to talk in tongues and have enough of an emotional attachment to your belief then you can truly believe that you are talking in the language of god and have a very strong emotional experience.\n\nIt’s pretty much the same thing actors do in order to cry or have a strong emotional performance. They feel the emotion they are acting because they worked themselves up. The only difference is that actors know they are doing this and religious people don’t.\n",
"When I was in high school I witnessed glossolalia and it was very surreal. There was a Pentecostal traveling show that rented out the High School auditorium and my friend and I were there to setup the sound system. We snuck into the audience to see what it was all about. There was the usual preaching and what not and then everyone put there hands int he air and started to make nonsense noises. The entire auditorium. It felt like Invasion of the body snatchers. We made similar noises and then got the hell out of there as soon as we could. It seemed like the people where having a sincere moment of some kind, but I do not want a cup of that cool-aide.",
"If you actually look into the times speaking in tongues is mentioned in the bible. It says that the men that were speaking in tongues were just speaking a different human language that they had not learned. \n\nThe reason for this is because at that time there was very few Christians and very few who could speak another language. \n\nWhen the men who experienced this started speaking in tongues they were visiting a race that had never heard of God before. That is why the holy spirit entered them and allowed them to be understood by that other race. \n\nThere is nothing in the bible that says it is a language that only God can understand. It also says if someone is to start speaking I tongues there is supposed to be a translator for that language with him. \n\nIf someone in a Pentecostal church starts blurting out random noises and calls it speaking in tongues, they are lying because it will not happen today. ",
"The belief that I have discussed with members of my own church is that tongues in certain parts of the bible were used so people from different languages could all understand each other. The fact that usually only the pastor can translate it is a little sketchy to me. ",
"It's called \"[Glossolalia](_URL_0_)\".\n\nBasically, when some one gets very involved in prayer or meditation, especially in a group setting, they can go into a (sometimes very emotional) altered state of consciousness. \n\nThe actual speaking in tongues is a learned behavior that accompanies this state. Contrary to many posts here, they are not \"faking it\". They say they are not saying the \"words\" consciously - as if the sounds are just flowing out of them - and they feel very emotional and \"close to God\". \n\nBrain scans have indicated that this is very close to the reality. \n\nAnd yes, as was pointed out by other people, there are no elements of language in the sounds they are making, although the belief of many groups is that they are speaking the \"proto-language\", the language all mankind spoke before God split the tongues of men (the Tower of Babel story). ",
"Allow me to give you the \"typing in tongues\" equivalent...\n\n(7)*uoKIj0*y0*780Oih)o8yu()87)*7)(+)OPLKMOI6%^%%FgokjHiou867lLkj0-98-98PJllkm :OKIJp9)_(*0-9OPijOIu09 & *09uLKJi9pu0-8-(ui-(8-9*-98_ujpjlkjlkj8-",
"Part of my dissertation was about glossolalia. I hope I can distill some of that information into plain language.\n\nFor many years it was believed that glossolalia (speaking in tongues) happened during an altered state of consciousness. This idea was promoted mainly by Felicitas Goodman, who argued that glossolalia was an example of ecstatic experience. As it turns out, however, her research was deeply flawed, and subsequent investigators have been able to show rather definitively that there is *no* change in consciousness during glossolalia.\n\nGlossolalia is a learned practice. It is learned by an individual seeking to conform to a group that he or she respects and wishes to join. Sociological studies have shown that the practice of glossolalia tends to create fractures in the communities that exhibit it, between those that do and those who do not speak in tongues. It is very likely that this phenomenon (the fracturing) is what Paul is speaking about 1 Corinthians 14 - he was decidedly *against* the public use of glossolalia unless it was accompanied by plain language interpretation (which tends to mitigate the fracturing to some extent). He preferred \"teaching\" to speaking in tongues, and if he'd had his way, he likely would have abolished public glossolalia entirely.\n\nThe actual phenomenon of glossolalia is interesting. Speakers put together nonsense strings of syllables according to certain patterns that they've learned from their tongue-speaking teachers. It turns out, rather remarkably, that groups of tongue-speakers will tend to sound the same - and they will tend to sound different from other groups with which they are not associated (groups that are not in contact with them).\n\nTongue-speaking utterances generally have a rhythm to them, and have a limited set of syllables (limited relative to the diversity of syllables that the speaker's native language contains).\n\nGlossolalia is a deliberate act. It does not require (and in fact demands the absence of) altered consciousness, commonly understood as \"ecstasy.\" It may appear that the speaker is being ecstatic, but that is part of the performance.\n\nTongue-speakers tend to come from those sections of a particular group (congregation, church, etc.) that are disempowered. That is, they tend to not have a \"voice\" in the politics of the community. Glossolalia is a way to assert their power, to acquire a voice. In other words, glossolalia is fundamentally a conscious, political act."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
28il64 | dada | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28il64/eli5dada/ | {
"a_id": [
"cibahvl"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Dada was an art movement that processed the absurd horror of industrialized warfare (WW I) by attacking the decorative aspect of art and artistic sensibility. It was so influential that it even affects modern music (stuff like Devo and Lady Gaga)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2zsuxm | why does crunchy food becomes less crunchy over time? | When you leave a bag of crisps or cereal unsealed it gets kind of mushy, why is that so? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zsuxm/eli5_why_does_crunchy_food_becomes_less_crunchy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cplygis"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Moisture from the air is absorbed by the food."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
aoxvzf | when did we start using small denominations of time (sec, min, hour), and why is it so uniform between countries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aoxvzf/eli5_when_did_we_start_using_small_denominations/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg4pimp",
"eg53dy5"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Lets start at the front of the Question. The first clocks only hand the hour hand, you guessed the rest, circa 1600 +or-. {some should fact check the date of the earliest consumer clock, for accuracy}. By the 1700's the two hand clock appears, a bit later on the sweep\\[second hand\\]. Some clocks came with a calendar wheel, to show the date. The uniformity comes first with the railroads, and later with mass transportation. Most of the mad desire to 'know the time' comes with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the 'other revolutions' in progress, thereafter",
"Egyptians used a base 12 number system, possibly derived from their recognition of 12 lunar cycles in a year. Egyptian seasons were centered around the phases of the Nile, and they defined three such seasons, each with 4 months having 30 days each, with a final 5 days tacked on the end before the next year started.\n\n\nEgyptians made use of sundials for timekeeping during the day, utilizing their base-12 system for 12 segments of daytime hours, and at night they used a system whereby star goups rising on the horizon would mark a subdivision of the night. There were 36 such groups, and on a given night 18 of them would be visible in succession. The first and last 3 were during dusk and dawn, and the remaining 12 marked the passage of the night in roughly equal portions. About every 10 days, the Westernmost star group would fall out of visibility, now rising too early in the day to be seen, and the next group in the line of 36 would have its \"Heliacal rising\", where it would be visible just before dawn. Each of the 36 groups had a Heliacal rising each year, and certain ones marked the beginning of seasons, such as Sirius.\n\n\nEgypt was one of the world's earliest empires, and exerted tremendous cultural and societal influence on the ancient Near-East during its existence, thus propagating its own traditions and sciences to other cultures.\n\n\nBabylonia used a base-60 number system, though we still don't know exactly why, it's very possible they recognized its use as a very composite number. Given their extensive knowledge in mathematics in other regards, this is not an unlikely reason. Their astronomical observations were done in this base-60 system.\n\n\nBabylonia's history is closely tied to the history of Assyria and later Neo-Assyria, having been allied with or annexed by them for significant portions of time. Toward the end of the Neo-Assyrian empire, they controlled essentially the known world at the time, encompassing all of the Near-East within their territory. Babylonia's cultural and scientific developments would have been prevalent throughout the region and throughout Neo-Assyria during their existence, thus carrying on their traditions and definitions to all their peoples whom would go on to expand into later civilizations.\n\n\nLater, the Greeks would build on Babylonian mathematics by taking the circle and using the base-60 system to divide it into 60 portions to define latitude on the globe. Longitude was defined by subdividing into 360 degrees, with finer base-60 subdivisions so named \"minutae primae\", meaning \"first **minute**\", and \"minutae secundae\", meaning \"**second** minute\". These circular degree subdivisions of minute and second would later play a role in timekeeping when circular clocks with hands would appear, centuries later.\n\n\nHours themselves were not standardized in ancient or even classical times, and summer months had longer days, while still being portioned into 12 parts, resulting in hours that were outright longer during summer than they were during winter when daytime was shorter. Since hours themselves weren't rigidly defined, there was no need for a dedicated 1/60th subdivisional unit of time. Early clocks would mark hours in quarters or twelfths, but not in 60ths until much later when the hour itself became a more standardized unit of time, separate from the length of daylight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6rnq8u | how does buying a house "build equity"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rnq8u/eli5_how_does_buying_a_house_build_equity/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl6eqri",
"dl6eul5",
"dl6euu5",
"dl6ew9m",
"dl6eyht",
"dl6ftyv"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Lets say a house is worth 250K. You borrow 230K and put down a 20K deposit. You now have 20K equity in the house. It's the value of your holding minus your debt. As you pay down the mortgage, your equity percentage rises until eventually you own the house. If the prices have remained stable or risen, you've also gained a paper profit that you can realize when you sell. \nThe process of paying off the mortgage is what builds the equity. ",
"Equity is the difference between your assets (things that are worth positive money), and liabilities (things that are worth negative money). You're building home equity when you pay off part of the principal of your home loan, because the amount that you own and can borrow against (ie: the value that you've paid off) is going up, as the amount that you owe (the liability) goes down.\n\nThis is contrasted to rent, as your liability is perpetual on a rented property.",
"Most people can't purchase a house outright. That is, they don't have enough money to pay the market value of the house. Instead, they have to take out a loan (borrow money from a bank) to pay for the house. Then, over a period of time (15-30 years) they pay back that loan. \n\nOver time, the value of the house can change. Usually, in the long term, houses increase in value, but sometimes they go down. Over time, the amount of money owed to the bank for the house will go down, as payments are made on the loan. \n\nThe difference between how much is owed to the bank (the balance of the mortgage) and how much the house could be sold for (it's value) is called *equity*. Let's throw out some numbers. \n\nYou buy a house for $200,000, paying $40,000 of your own money, plus $160k you borrow from the bank. If you wanted to turn around and sell the house tomorrow, it would be work $200,000, of which $160k would have to go back to the bank to pay off the loan. You would have $40,000 in *equity* in the house. \n\nLet's say ten years have passed. You've paid back $80,000 of your original loan. You have the house appraised, and they say you could sell it for $250,000. The balance of the loan is $80,000, so now you have $170k in equity. \n\nAs long as your house doesn't drop in value, and as long as you continue to pay down the balance of your loan, the amount of value you can get out of selling the house will increase. ",
"It's making the assumption that the value of the house you buy goes up as you own it, or that you're making your payments while the home value doesn't drop.\n\nYou buy a house at $100,000 (and let's assume it was appraised at $100,000). 5 years later, let's say you've paid $5,000 toward the principal of the loan. If the house is still worth $100,000, you have $5,000 equity (because you can ostensibly sell your house for $100,000 and you'll end up with $5,000 in your pocket).\n\nIf you can sell your house at $110,000, then you have $15,000 equity (again, the amount of money you would have if you sold the house at that price)",
"Equity is value in the property that you own separate to the mortgage debt. So you buy a house for £200,000 by borrowing £180,000 mortgage and including a deposit of £20,000. At that moment you have \"£20,000 in equity\".\n\nRoll forward 5 years and 2 things will (likely) have happened. You've paid off £15,000 off the mortgage loan through monthly payments and the house price has gone up £50,000.\n\nSo the house value is now £250,000 and the loan you have against it is down to £165,000. That now larger chunk of value that's in the property (250 - 165 = £85,000) is your equity. You own it. If you sold the house and pay off the mortgage it's what you'd be left with. It's gone up alot from the £20,000 you started with. ",
"It's a function of contrast vs. rent. You have to live someplace, and generally it's going to cost you money -- if you choose to rent, you build no equity, you're just paying after-tax dollars. If you can buy, you might have similar cash outflows per month, but you get some of it back in the form of equity. It's also more tax efficient. \n\nThere are lots of calculators online for this sort of thing, though the actual decisions are usually a function of prices for rent and housing purchases locally."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3wfdtf | why does the quality of audio files suffer the louder you make it? | Why is it, that when you make a file louder than 100% it starts to sound worse and worse? How does this process of going beyond 100% volume work? (Hope my question sounds undestandable, lol) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wfdtf/eli5_why_does_the_quality_of_audio_files_suffer/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxvrehi",
"cxvrqth",
"cxvsifx"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I think it all depends on the headphones/speakers the sound is played through. For example, I'm currently running a file in VLC and turned the volume to 200%. It sounds alright apart from background noise (it's a live stream and my headphones are quite good). I can only assume it's the speakers/headphones who can't handle such a high volume. It might also be the same as movies: they are done for a certain resolution - stretching them out more than that will make them lose quality.",
"Because the noise also is increased, and its sound can often be noticed more because of the brain's desire to seek patterns in all incoming audio/visual stimulation. So when we hear noise our brain tries to focus on it to make sense of it, and it has significantly greater impact on our attention than the sounds we can pick up and lock-in on right away.",
"Each point in the audio signal is a number, let's say from 1 to 100.. so it eventually starts clipping, since you can't get over 100, all point that would need to go over that at that increase will stay at 100, so instead of what you originally had, you start getting something that looks more and more like a square wave.\n\nThis depends on the original file. Some are recorded with low volumes and some headspace so you can go louder before it starts distorting, others are already recorded as loud as possible so you can't really go higher before it breaks up, some are already distorted from the start to sound REALLY LOUD and will sound bad no matter what..\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
86itzm | why are some tribes still preserved in a primitive state? | The rest of the human race has advanced together relatively uniformly, but the tribes don't even have the basic fundementals of civilization. They have no technology beyond basic natural tools, no advanced government, no science, and no economy. Have they really been just hunter gatherers for the past million years?
What about untouched tribes is different from the rest of the world? Why did the rest of us advance from our suroundings and they seemed to stay? No population growth? No explorations or wonder?
If the environment in its natural state is too difficult for small tribes to manipulate then how did the first civilization even begin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/86itzm/eli5_why_are_some_tribes_still_preserved_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dw5ewjv",
"dw5f8ye",
"dw5frwl",
"dw5gngj"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"Why do you assume they have no technology, government, science, or economy? Medicine in the 1800's was giving people heroin or opium for pain relief. Is it so hard to believe that people living in a forest are simply doing the best they can to survive? If you had to chose between staying in your village or trying to venture further into the potentially dangerous jungle on your own, would you not instinctively chose the safer of the two options?\n\nMy long-story-short answer is that people do not change unless given reason to. If deforestation machines started reducing these tribes' habitat to the point that they were unable to forage or hunt successfully, they would either perish trying to preserve their ways or adapt and overcome.\n\nThis might be a pessimistic view on human civilization, but why not compare us to what we could be as well? Why are we not already on the moon? Why aren't we establishing bases on mars? Hell, why haven't we achieved renewable energy for the whole planet? The answer is the same regardless of the time period or technology level: because the ability to transcend your current way of life requires a lot of work and goes against your evolutionary instinct to simply survive and propagate. Why waste resources on going to the moon when you could spend them developing Netflix instead? One is a challenge that people don't see the need to achieve and the other is a comfort that people don't see risk in.\n\nRisk-reward is a great thing, huh?",
"The answer to \n > Why are some tribes still preserved in a primitive state?\n\nie why we don't contact them is because we know today the the common result is often devastating for the tribes. They likely know something about the outside word but choose to not contact it.\n\nTo quote [Uncontacted peoples](_URL_0_)\n\n > Uncontacted people, also referred to as isolated people or lost tribes, are communities who live, or have lived, either by choice (people living in voluntary isolation) or by circumstance, without significant contact with global civilization. Few people have remained totally uncontacted by global civilization. Indigenous rights activists call for such groups to be left alone, stating that contact will interfere with their right to self-determination.[1] In addition, isolated tribes may lack immunity to common diseases, which can kill a large percentage of their people after contact.[2][3]\n\n\nWhy difference societets develop at different are not strange. You have to to consider that modern humans have existed for 300 000 year or more. Agriculture started a bit before 9500 BC so say 15 000 years ago. So modern humans have existed 19 times longer without agriculture then with it. Large inventions like that primary spread around the world instead of develop in multiple places. So today they have been hunter gatherer for less the 5% longer then all other humans.\n\n\n\nSo it is not that strange ideas spread slow in jungle areas where hunter gatherer have no large problem in getting food compared to people in other climates. So the need or use for technological advantage is less for them.",
"It's a very hard ethical issue.\n\nOn one hand, we don't want to destroy their culture and bring risks such as diseases and alcoholism into it.\n\nOn the other hand, who are we to deny them stuff like schools, modern medicine (is it fair to let their children die in diseases we could easily have treated), modern conveniences (just modern sewage management and clean water would be a huge improvement), our culture (music, movies, art, litterature) and all that, and, basically, keep them as living museum exhibits.\n\nMy guess is that the decision to not contact them is based on several reasons:\n\n* We can't really ask them, because once we give them the option, the can of worms is opened. They wouldn't really have much choice anymore, once they know.\n\n* Some misguided \"natural is good\" idea.\n\n* Racist reasons. \"They can't handle the truth! It'll destroy them!\"\n\nMy personal view is that they should be contacted and given the option. There are downsides, sure, but they'll be manageable and gone in a genertion, and it'll let their coming generations live as civilized humans.",
"This is a testament to the fact that human interaction has been responsible for almost all major human growth in technology. Over thousands of years we have taught or killed those who didn't want to learn, how civilized society lives. You either conform or are at a great disadvantage. In one generation you could have college graduates out of most of these entire civilizations. They choose to not do this. I'm not sure there is an ethical way to even inform them of the possibilities of human ingenuity. The thing is, aside from medical, electrical, and structural advances, I'm not sure they would be any better off. More longevity, environmental security, and the conveniences of electricity do nothing for the morality or social homogeny of these tribes. They probably have less crime, greed, and social catastrophes that plague modern day society."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
20byyk | how do the authorities locate and arrest the idiots who shine laser pointers at airplanes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20byyk/eli5_how_do_the_authorities_locate_and_arrest_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg1qujt",
"cg1s8ac",
"cg1vlaa",
"cg1xuwa"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
12,
6
],
"text": [
"A lot of times the dummies just stay where they are. Other than that good old fashioned police work. ",
"TIL you can do this.",
"Green laser pointers are stupid bright and can cause disorientation and temporary blindness, especially to night adapted sight. Laser pointers will be refracted by aircraft windscreens and could hit anybody in the eyes with part of the interference pattern generated. This is super dangerous because these aircraft at the altitudes this happens at are on final approach, things are happening fast in the cockpit, and they need to concentrate.\n\nAs far as searching for the morons who do this, there is an immediate report to the tower. Aircraft position is noted and an area is flagged. Additional reporting can narrow down the search area. Beyond that it comes down to the usual methods of finding someone... they're still doing it, people locally witnessed it, etc. And they're pretty serious about finding the people that do it as it's a serious Federal offense. The FAA don't mess around when it comes to pilot and passenger safety.",
"I'm going to take a stab at both parts and explain the difficultly for us to receive sweet justice:\n\nShort answer: They don't. Crimes such as these are difficult to trace. There is only so much PF/PNF can do. Pilots can report their given position and report the incident to the nearest tower. But Pilots aren't completely powerless:\n\nFrequency of incident reporting can help *strengthen* a zone of interest.\n\nCommunity efforts can pin the offender - \"loose lips sink ships,\" e.g. little timmy and his friends like to brag about their new laser. \n\nBut here we have another problem - assuming the offender is under the age of 18 (varies by state), juvenile delinquency is handled differently than the adult criminal court system. We have to consider (yet again, it depends on the county and state) little timmy's \"track record,\" and again, assuming authorities can locate him. \n\nThe police have options when witnessing or being told of a crime committed by a juvenile: 1) issue a warning, citation, confiscation of materials, and let the offender go 2) summon the parents/guardians of said youth and 3) or take the youth into custody. \n\nIf the youth is arrested (which he/she will be), the youth is referred to the juvenile court *system*, not to a judge right away. Intake occurs. Information is gathered by an 'officer of the court' (usually a probation officer), the arresting officer and possibly the family and representatives are present. The Intake process is highly controversial as it may involve photographs, fingerprints, etc taken of a minor (Shoemaker, 2013:311). The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow fingerprints of a juvenile to be admitted as evidence in court. \n\nOnce Intake is complete, the officer of the court (just like the arresting officer on the street) has three options 1) dismiss the case 2) hold the case for review (which will be passed to a probation officer), or 3) refer the case to a juvenile judge as a formal referral, also known as a petition. The youth will be either released with a formal court hearing date set, or will be held in a detention center to await said trial if the youth is deemed unfit/unsafe to the public. The officer of the court makes this decision based on 1) age 2) record (highly controversial as well, record is/should be destroyed once youth either reaches adulthood or is waived to an adult court and committed) 3) crime. Age is the dominate factor taken into consideration. \n\nYou can how easy it is for little timmy to walk away. In fact, there's a 45% chance. In 2009, the percentage of cases petitioned to juvenile judges was 55% (Shoemaker, 2013:314). \n\nConsidering the severity of little timmy's crime, assuming the arresting officer detains him and the officer of the court petitions his case, little timmy's court judge could find little timmy \"delinquent by fact\" during the adjudicatory hearing (the actual court, which is closed off to the public and sans jury). The key here is to remember that juvenile courts don't use guilty or not guilty because of 1) tradition and 2) philosophy of the courts to seek the best interests of the child on trial without placing direct blame on his/her actions. \n\nAside from the actual crime, little timmy's fate relies on his age, his record, and the \"social history.\" I keep bringing this up because a youth's social history is multifaceted: social history takes into account the youths family situation, school information, and his criminal record (ignore the redundancy). You can figure out the micro-components of each of the three sections. \n\nSo, arrests occur 15% of the time during contact between an officer and a youth (Shoemaker, 2013:311). 45% of those youths processed during Intake have non-petitioned cases (Puzzanchera et al., 2012:58). of those 45%, 26% receive probation, 41% are dismissed, and 33% receive \"other sactions\". \n\nSo, this is the scary or blood-boiling facts, depending on who you are: either a concerned parent or victim. 55% of cases are petitioned to the juvenile courts, but only 1% of cases are waived to adult courts. I don't have the statistic, but cases waived to adult courts can be waived back down (and even waived back up - yo dawg). That 55% is broken down into further trees with placed programs, probation, short term (local), long term (state), dismissed, etc. \n\nStatistically speaking, a little timmy is most likely going to be released on the street, or the youth will receive probation if arrested and processed (60% of adjudicated cases petitioned to the courts). \n\nUnless he hits that 1% waiver chance. \n\nThat said: there are too many variables, and there is a lot of information regarding little timmy we just don't have to make a realistic conclusion, just a rough statistical one. \n\nI keep changing my tenses since some of the facts are the most recent facts I have available, so I am writing as if little timmy is waiting on the chopping block. \n\nI have no idea what happens if little timmy was actually 45 with a beer belly. I'm assuming offenders who commit this crime are youths with nothing better to do, which I can attempt to explain little timmy's behavior using several theories in another section. No one theory can explain all delinquency.\n\nReferences: \n\nPuzzanchera, Charles, Benjamin Adams, Sarah Hockenberry. 2012. *Juvenile Court Statistics, 2009*. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. \n\nShoemaker, D. J. 2013. Juvenile delinquency. (2nd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.\n\n\n\n\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bdc84o | since the city of denver is a mile high, why isn’t it under heavy fog on cloudy days? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bdc84o/eli5_since_the_city_of_denver_is_a_mile_high_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekx7ilh",
"ekx8ovq"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[Sometimes it is.](_URL_0_)\n\nBut often the clouds are just higher up.\n\nSometimes the clouds are actually lower, and Denver is *above* them.",
"A lot of it is because the things that cause clouds are relative to the surface. I grew up at about 10,000 feet and we never had fog, clouds were always above us. Fittingly this was just about 30 min west of Denver.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nLike, you may be at 10,000 feet, but the water still rises to meet colder air to form a cloud."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://303magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1-DENVER-MIST-RISING.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
3sjmhl | why does it seem that cattle always lay down just before it rains? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sjmhl/eli5_why_does_it_seem_that_cattle_always_lay_down/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwxs2c0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Cows will often sit/lay down when the temperature is colder, like when it rains, to preserve their body heat and energy. They will stand when it is hotter to dissipate the heat and lower their body temperature. When cows are too hot, their milk production suffers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1q35tg | why do rappers like to name drop cities in their music? | I am familiar with the concept of product placement in rap, where rappers include brand names for money. But why do rappers randomly include names of cities, like this from Kanye's *Good Life*?
> The good life, it feel like Houston
> It feel like Philly, it feel like D.C.
> It feel like VA, or the Bay, or Ye
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q35tg/eli5_why_do_rappers_like_to_name_drop_cities_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd8pe33",
"cd8pk5i"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"if your from there you relate and buy their music",
"I don't listen to much rap, but the impression I get from what I *do* listen to is that rap/hip-hop songs are heavily influenced by the artists' past experiences (especially compared to other genres). Because of this, things such as city names, past events, fellow artists' names, etc, are often explicitly named in the lyrics, as opposed to vague thematic references to those things (as you might find in other genres).\n\nSo, for the example you gave, Kanye is simply communicating that he had an extremely good time in all of the above cities, so now he can use those cities to describe what \"the good life\" feels like. For those who have been to one or more of those cities, they can relate. For those who haven't been to any, they can at least make the connection and imagine what the big-city good life must be like."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2b1941 | what is the difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism? why is there a difference? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b1941/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_an_act_of_war/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj0sbki",
"cj0sc6r",
"cj0u6zd"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"An act of war is an act of violence or an insult done by the government of one country to another that is severe enough to prompt military response, thus starting a war. \n\nA terrorist act is an attack done against civilian populations with the intent to cause fear and panic but without an actual military or governmental target. These also often cause great injury or death. These can be done by individuals, organizations, or governments. ",
"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.\n\nWar is declared between countries and fought between armies. Terrorism is normally carried out by groups who oppose a reigning power or are seeking independence through causing damage or loss of life to civilians, politicians, and military personnel.\n\n\n\n",
"Terrorism is the use of violence or destruction, especially against civilian targets, to instill fear or terror in the population so that you can enforce change, be it political or other sorts.\n\nAlso states and nations can commit acts of terror.\n\nAn act of war would be directed to targets of military value.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
vkpob | why when you listen to the sound of a single note for a long time, it sounds like the pitch is fluctuating? | Pitch? Tone? Not sure, but it doesn't sound uniform. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vkpob/eli5_why_when_you_listen_to_the_sound_of_a_single/ | {
"a_id": [
"c55h382"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe this can be attributed to the transfer of sound waves from one medium to another. In your ears you have an eardrum, which though the use of 3 small bones, transfer sound waves into a mechanical motion which then transfers sound waves into the fluid in your ear. As the mechanical motion and sound waves in the ears approach resonance (basically when they begin to match frequency, which is allowed due to the sustained pitch) the amount of force applied to the fluid should increase. This is normal and is called the gain (or amplification) of the sound however, since we can treat the mechanical motion as a spring, and assume that it has a constant \"springyness\" there reaches a point where it can no longer keep up with the increasing force due to gain. At this point it begins dampening the force which can change the frequency of the sound we here, but as it dampens, the force can increase again. The system then goes into a simple harmonic spring system and this i believe produces the characteristic \"oscillation\" you are describing. \n\nHope some biophysicist could correct or even refute this, since this is speculation due to my experience in undergraduate biophysics and math. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2p886f | does the north pole rest on the earth's axis or at the very top of the planet? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p886f/eli5_does_the_north_pole_rest_on_the_earths_axis/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmu8buk",
"cmu8gzq",
"cmu8he2"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is on the Northern Most point of the Axis. It is not the top of the planet as the planet's axis is tilted.",
"It really depends on what you mean by \"top\", which is all going to be relative when you talk about space.\n\nThe North Pole is at one of the axes of the Earth, yes. However, there is the concept of the \"ecliptic\", which is the disk that gets drawn out as the Earth goes around the Sun. In that sense, the North Pole is not at the top - that'd be any point on the Earth on the Arctic Circle, depending on the time of the day.\n\nAlthough, the choice of top versus bottom was arbitrary, so you could also think of the Arctic Circle being the bottom of the Earth.",
"What do you mean by \"top\"? \n\n1. The north pole is either referred to as the axis itself, but sometimes referred to as magnetic north. They are not in the same place (and magnetic north moves a fair bit).\n\n2. We need an orientation to determine \"top\". I'm not sure what you're asking about. Do you mean \"the place that is perpendicular to the path the planet takes around the sun?\". In that case, the axis is tilted relative to up. But...we'd need you define \"up\", since this planet is roundish and floating in space...."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
uic7j | mlb draft. | Can someone explain what it is and why they do it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uic7j/eli5_mlb_draft/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4vmig5",
"c4vr6b4"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Drafts in general or the MLB one specifically? Drafts provide a way to fill up teams' rosters fairly. Each year, teams take turns picking amateur players (usually ~2-6 rounds), most of whom will go on to play professionally. Some players go undrafted though.\n\nThe MLB draft is massive, with many many rounds. Unlike in most sports where drafted players usually go on to play professionally the next season, MLB draftees go to the Minor leagues first for development. It usually takes around 2-6 for this process. Many can't make it through the minors which is why so many are drafted in the first place.\n\n* What it is: teams choose the amateur players they want to play in the minors and eventually for their team\n\n* Why they do it: fair way of distributing talent throughout the MLB since its a draft\n\n\n\nThat answer your questions?",
"MLB draft\n\nRound one- Just like any other draft\n\nSupplemental round- additional draft picks gained by the MLB team from losing a player during free agency\n\nRound 2- end of the draft- similar to any other drafts.\n\nSupplemental round explained in more detail.\n\n\n\nLets start with progression of the player.\n\n1- player is drafted\n\n2- player moves up through organization to big leagues\n\n3- once in Big league player starts their contract and runs through allotted arbitration time\n\n4 player reaches free agency period.\n\n5 player signs with same team or any other team during their free agency time\n\n\nIf a player leaves the original team during step 5, the original team receive draft picks based on ranking of player.\n\nAll free agent players are ranked\n\nType A or Type B-\n\nType A- the new team must forfeit Top round draft pick and original team additionally receives supplemental round pick. So original team gets two picks for this player\n\nType B- original team receives supplemental round pick. New team doesn't lose any pick. Original team only gets supplemental pick.\n\nIF YOU UNDERSTAND ABOVE CONTINUE READING BELOW-\n\nBaseball has another completely unrelated draft-\n\nThis Other draft is a RULE 5 draft.\n\nDraft is for players who have spent 4 years with the minor league affiliate of a MLB team.\n\nIf a player is drafted in this draft they MUST be added to the 25 man roster of the big league team and MUST stay their for an entire year.\n\nIf the player does not stay on the 25 man roster his is put on waivers and then offered back to original team.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
8tmrel | why is it hard to hear people during a plane flight? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tmrel/eli5_why_is_it_hard_to_hear_people_during_a_plane/ | {
"a_id": [
"e18nyg5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There is a constant whoosh in the background from engines and ventilation. And the air's a bit thinner. And sometimes your interior ear canals (Eustacian tubes) get a bit blocked up too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
df4x7g | how does blood interact with organs/skin if it stays inside veins/capillaries? | Do you understand what I mean? I understand that blood is pumped through the veins to all parts of the body, bringing with it oxygen and other goodies and is then recycled back through the heart. But... how exactly do those goodies get from the blood to the skin, for example? Wouldn't the blood have to leave the tubes (veins, capillaries, etc) in order to make contact with the skin? How does this work? Does this make sense? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/df4x7g/eli5_how_does_blood_interact_with_organsskin_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"f30w4yg",
"f30x10t",
"f31kkk1",
"f324cn5"
],
"score": [
36,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"the blood cell doesn't have to directly interact with our structures. our capillaries have several capabilities that allows blood to exchange stuff with our cells. capillaries are very, very thin. so thin, in fact, that some stuff on red blood cell such as oxygen can just diffuse through the capillary and go to the cell (while dissolved). other stuff can also diffuse if they're small enough, but some capillaries also have little holes called fenestrations. these holes allow larger stuff to pass through them. for example, in your intestines, when you eat food, the capillaries there are extra hole-ridden to allow carbs and proteins to be absorbed (fats are a different story). these nutrients are carried not by the red blood cell, but rather dissolved in the serum (the watery portion of blood), which allows them to be distributed all across the body",
"Oxygen and nutritients are transported by the blood to various tissues. They all follow a concentration gradient, meaning if there's more oxygen in the blood than in the tissue, oxygen diffuses from the blood (the hemoglobin to be more exact) to the tissue. Same goes for nutritients and also metabolites like carbon dioxide, which have an inverse gradient and thus diffuse from the cells to the blood. This happens continously in a 'flow equilibrium', meaning the concentration of various substances in the blood and cells are stable and therefore the gradients too.",
"When you drive down a capillary tunnel there are lots of little doors with guys who let things pass through them on the side.",
"Various types of capillaries (specifically fenestrated in most cases) have little holes that allow for diffusion. This allows molecules like oxygen to be delivered to tissues through the blood. Blood is reoxygenated in the lungs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ccn56 | why is the question of gay rights so popular and debated these days? | For a year or so, the question of gay marriage and adoption rights to homosexual couples has been raging here in France, and i know it is also extremely vivid in other european countries and in the United States. It is litteraly everywhere, in the media, the politics, advertising etc, and i feel all of this happened all of a sudden, i don't recall this "problem" being discussed everyday, everywhere and by everyone before 2012
What i am asking here is why/how did this issue become so popular and widely spread today? Was there some sort of trigger? (like the situation on gun control in the US following the mass killings)
Why are so many people openly in favor of the gay rights now when there was such little fuss about it a few years ago?
No judgement here of course, I'm just really curious
*and please forgive me for my english :)* | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ccn56/eli5why_is_the_question_of_gay_rights_so_popular/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9f8hfa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Social media probably has a lot to do with it. The wide availability of the internet and the communication it facilitates between individuals around the world means that many more people are exposed to different opinions and lifestyles. \n\nBefore the internet, it was much easier to pretend that gay people didn't exist, or at least that no one you knew was gay. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3q2w89 | where did the stereotypical heart shape come from, considering it doesn't look like an actual heart? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q2w89/eli5_where_did_the_stereotypical_heart_shape_come/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwbl2d5",
"cwbns2z",
"cwboy41",
"cwbp5g8",
"cwbpq00"
],
"score": [
3,
20,
5,
2,
38
],
"text": [
"Unclear. But I like the following hypotheses:\n > Various hypotheses attempted to connect the \"heart shape\" as it evolved in the late medieval period with instances of the geometric shape in antiquity.[5] Such theories are modern, proposed from the 1960s onward, and they remain speculative, as no continuity between the supposed ancient predecessors and the late medieval tradition can be shown. Specific suggestions include: the shape of the seed of the silphium plant, used in ancient times as an herbal contraceptive,[5][6] and stylized depictions of features of the human female body, such as the female's buttocks, pubic mound, or spread vulva.\n\n[Wikipedia](_URL_0_)\n",
"There was a great sourced post about this in /r/askhistorians the other day: _URL_0_",
"This is very frequently asked, and it baffles me.\n\nThe stereotypical heart shape *does* look like an actual heart. Can you explain why you think it doesn't?",
"Not an art historian here, but the sterotypical heart looks surprisingly like the heart of a fish or a bird. I wonder if people just started making hearts look this way because they had experience butchering birds and fish that you could easily catch in the wild? That wouldn't explain why people couldn't model the \"art heart\" off of mammalian species with a four-chambered heart like ours, though...",
"Loads of bullshit answers here that are incorrect. The \"heart shape\" as popularly used today is based on...surprise...the shape of an _actual_ heart. It first appears in the middle ages in medically related contexts as noted in the [askhistorians post](_URL_0_). I know this is the boring answer and not the sexy one, but that doesn't make it less correct.\n\nSpecifically a link to some relevant images [here](_URL_3_) and [here](_URL_2_). These are both medical drawings from the 1300's and 1400's quite clearly drawing _organs_.\n\nAnd if you look at the heart drawing, it looks like an [actual heart](_URL_1_)! Especially like cattle (the one in the picture) or sheep hearts any artist would have been familiar with from seeing at a butcher. Hearts _do_ have two humps at the top (the auricles) and they do come to a point (the apex). It's at _least_ as accurate as the other organs drawn in those pictures. You may _think_ a heart shape doesn't look much like a real heart, but that's because you haven't seen many real hearts. Instead you have seen stylized reproductions of hearts that emphasize different elements of the organ than the \"heart shape\". For starters, nearly all modern illustrations include all the arteries and veins attached to the heart, which obscure the double-humped shape at the top. Now I'll freely admit the resemblance isn't perfect, but it's like a stick-figure or smiley face is to an actual human. \n\nAnyway, there's no documented connection between classical \"heart shape\" shapes (which may have indeed illustrated leaves) and later use of the heart shape a _thousand years_ later to illustrate hearts. And other explanations related to other anatomical parts are stymied by the fact that hearts were used to represent the organ _before_ they came to represent love (or lust as the case may be)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_(symbol)"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3og1dv/how_did_the_come_to_be_identified_with_love_and/?ref=search_posts"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3og1dv/how_did_the_come_to_be_identified_with_love_and/?ref=search_posts",
"https://www.whitman.edu/oldimages/ACD7C460-A3CA-DB38-3B533F1A6209B9E0_def.png",
"http://www.art-bin.com/bilder/gravida1491.jpg",
"http://www.naturalmentescienza.it/ipertesti/visione/images/guidodavigevano.jpg"
]
] |
||
bysn16 | why is it painful to fully extend a sore muscle? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bysn16/eli5_why_is_it_painful_to_fully_extend_a_sore/ | {
"a_id": [
"eql3d4y"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"So when your muscle is sore, that means the fibers that make it up are torn. That’s how muscles are built, you work out, tear the fibers, and they are built back bigger than before. So when you extend the muscle, you’re tearing more fibers in the muscle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
55orly | wikipedia says that the iss orbits the earth "at an altitude of between 330 and 435 km". why is the altitude not fixed? | In the [Wikipedia article] (_URL_0_), it's said that:
> The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km (205 and 270 mi) by means of reboost manoeuvres
Why is there a range of its altitudes instead of a particular height? A difference of 5-10 kms might still make sense, but why is the altitude range so big, i.e. more than 100 kms? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55orly/eli5_wikipedia_says_that_the_iss_orbits_the_earth/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8ccsdz",
"d8chaae"
],
"score": [
24,
3
],
"text": [
"At that altitude, there is actually still a little atmosphere and so the orbit will slowly degrade (get closer to the ground). Every once in a while they use boosters to raise it back into a higher orbit. The range of altitudes given are the range of altitudes that are considered okay.\n\nPlus, orbits are not perfect circles. They are a little bit elliptical so there is a high point and low point in every orbit.",
"Why don't we just build a moonbase instead of dealing with a degrading orbit?"
]
} | [] | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bsxf7h | why do cold feet always sting when you enter a hot tub? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsxf7h/eli5_why_do_cold_feet_always_sting_when_you_enter/ | {
"a_id": [
"eornlur"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your skin is covered in temperature sensitive cells. They are what tells you that something is too hot or cold. But the way they do so is dependent on the temperature your body has been at recently. If it goes too far in either direction, these things start going off like alarms.\n\nThe sudden change in temperature from cold to hot makes your body think you're touching something you shouldnt be, something too hot. The stinging / burning sensation is your body trying to make you stop doing that.\n\nEventually though the cells establish a new base, safe temperature for the situation, and you stop feeling the stinging because it doesn't detect any problems.\n\nWHich is also why jumping into a cool pool immediately after a hot tub causes the same sensation.\n\nA semi-related bonus fact: this is the same reason why alcohol burns when you drink it. The alcohol confuses those temperature sensitive cells and reduces their threshold, so your own body heat is enough to set them off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4ope5b | why do spinning objects appear blurry when you stare, but when you change your focal point the object appears to "skip" or "freeze" for a split second? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ope5b/eli5why_do_spinning_objects_appear_blurry_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4egngy",
"d4ej9do"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Because your sensory memory has a very very short life. It lasts only an instant, really. So when you move your eyes away really, really fast, you only remember the last instant and it pretty much fades from your short-term memory really fast unless your brain decides that it was important. And if you noticed something interesting (as you did) you will think about it more and it'll go into long-term. ",
"Saccadic eye movement. Plenty of good youtube videos on this subject. Basically when your eyes move, your brain takes the final image you see when your eyes stop and focus, and uses that image to replace what you saw while your eyes were moving. If we couldn't do this, we would see a blur of motion everytime we moved our eyes. This is also why sometimes when you first glance at a clock's second hand, that first second you notice seems to be longer than the ones that follow. Chickens, among other birds, do not have this ability. This is why their heads bob quickly before they take each step. This way their heads remain still for a short time while they move, making it easier for them to notice potential predators. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
29bxkn | whats going on in our brains when we "snap" and go crazy? | To expand what exactly is happening to the brain of a person who normally behaves in a normal manner but then snaps and goes crazy maybe violently attacking others or themselves or going on a rampage? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29bxkn/eli5whats_going_on_in_our_brains_when_we_snap_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cijfhib",
"cijfixz",
"cijgcuw",
"cijgi59",
"cijgl3l",
"cijgyu8",
"cijhjkx",
"cijiibf",
"cijkbzo",
"cijkomk",
"cijxcnx"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
3,
2,
106,
49,
19,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd like to preface this by saying I have never given in to my rage in this manner.\n\nWhen I get really mad, I feel some sort of twinge in the back of my head, I guess where my neck starts and my skull stops. In this moment, I can't help but think the nastiest thoughts possible in the given situation. Things like verbally tearing a fresh asshole into the person/people who pissed me off. It only lasts an instant, long enough for me to realize what's going on in my head and regain control. It's a very unsettling feeling, knowing just one more small push could send me over the edge in a full-fledged temper tantrum, for lack of a better term.",
"That question is almost too broad to be answered meaningfully.\n\nBroadly, you've got mentally ill people that are acting out and \"normal\" people that are under stress failing to cope with circumstances. There's no solid line separating to two - there's a lot of grey area between the two.\n\nEven under the best circumstances, you can't really explain \"what's going on I.side their head\" in the same way you'd explain how a virus gives you a cold. There's a lot of hand-waving going on when explaining how childhood abuse leads to an adult believing they're surrounded by demons or how somebody can get wrapped up in a religion far enough to strap a bomb to their chest.",
"It's a fairly common metaphor in the field of psychology to [compare willpower with muscle](_URL_0_). For example, they both require energy (when you're tired, you have less willpower), using willpower temporarily reduces how much willpower you have available for other tasks, but regularly exercising willpower will make it stronger over time. Notably, like muscles, willpower is stronger when [blood glucose levels are high](_URL_2_). Glucose, or sugar, is the easiest fuel for cells to use - muscles take up a lot of glucose when they're in use, and the brain actually does too.\n\nWatch [this video](_URL_1_) of a boy's weightlifting attempt. When his muscles fail, they pretty much fail all at once - he doesn't have time to navigate the dumbbells away from his nuts because he has no more strength left. One might even call it a 'catastrophic' failure, though in this case the consequences of failure were (relatively) minor - he'll be icing his genitals for a while, but at least nothing broke!\n\nNow, I am not an expert, but I always imagine that people who just 'lose it' have a catastrophic failure of willpower in the same way that kid had a catastrophic failure of strength. Someone, or something, has been wearing their self-restraint out until they just cannot hold back any longer. Maybe the readily available blood glucose ran out, or maybe the 'willpower muscle' is just tired.",
"I had an ex who claimed he would \"snap\". Turned out, there was a definite build up to the behavior. He just lacked the insight to recognize it. I think when people claim this, it's usually bullshit. Even my bipolar best friend has a lead up to her behavior.",
"Sounds a bit like an [Amygdala Hijack](_URL_0_).\n\nIn the case of an Amygdala Hijack, what happens is that the brain sends sensory input to both the Amygdala and the Neocortex. The Neocortex is the thinking part of our brain, and the Amygdala handles a bunch of emotional things.\n\nNow the Amygdala will check if it's in a Fight or Flight scenario, and when it finds a match it will hijack the Neocortex, overriding anything it comes up with, and go off on an adventure itself.\n\nThe brain essentially goes into red alert panic mode, shuts down all non essential thinking processes, and focuses completely on survival alone.\n\nI'm not sure if this is the same thing as the snap you're talking about, but it sounds familiar.",
"One thing to add on to this (and I'll try to avoid wild speculation here) is that your \"reality\" is always just an internal model of the world, constructed by your brain. More disturbingly, this model is not nearly as constrained by logic or reason as we hope it would be.\n\nHave you ever had a dream where you were *convinced* that you needed to do something random or illogical to accomplish some unrelated task? (For example, I once dreamed that I had to compress people like ZIP files so I could send them over the internet.) Or just dreamed about something that was really odd, like books being made of mashed potatoes? In your dream, that's just as real to you as anything else. But eventually you wake up and your higher level thoughts take over and you realize it was silly. But the point is that your reality is whatever your brain tells you it is at that moment.\n\nSo if your brain tells you that your spouse has been replaced by an impostor that looks and sounds like her, but is really part of a huge conspiracy, and everyone's in on it, because they're trying to kill you... you'll believe it. And if your brain is telling you that you NEED to kill all these people with a rifle to prevent Obama from turning us all gay, you'll believe that too. Everyone *thinks* that they would never be fooled by their brain; that they would reason their way out of it, or that *their* brain would never have those thoughts because they're just not that kind of person, but that's just not always the case.\n\nAs for *why* brains sometimes do this, it could be any number of things. They're highly complex machines that require constant maintenance and exact combinations of chemicals to function properly. Small things (like malfunctioning or overworked chemical producers/receptors, low blood glucose levels, or small tumors) can have a butterfly-effect like impact on the brain's functioning. Many people who snap have a history of mental illness or depression, which means they probably already had malfunctioning brains, probably due to chemical imbalances or psychological trauma. Others, like the clock tower shooter, have brain tumors or other physical things which are disrupting normal function. And some others may have perfectly functioning brains, but just decided that killing a bunch of people is what they wanted to do with their life. There's nothing preventing a human from *choosing* to be a mass murderer. Although it's definitely a less orthodox lifestyle choice.\n\nOther posters are right, it varies widely by person, and you're not going to find a single definitive answer. But hopefully this gives you an idea of how it could come about, and how it ~~can~~ will happen to you.",
"The idea of people \"snapping\" is largely a myth. Usually violent behavior is a progression that starts early in life and ends up getting worse, but not all of it is obvious to relatives and friends, or they are in denial so when the offending person commits a violent act, they say it \"came from nowhere,\" when really it could have been predicted. Just think of most of the violent crimes that get major media attention - any time they actually start digging around, they find plenty of past behaviors that led up to the violent act(s). \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe only thing I can think of that might be an example of \"snapping\" is in individuals with PTSD. In that case, a person with a history of normal behavior could get triggered and be mentally transported to a time when they were in extreme danger. They will then go into fight-or-flight and could potentially attack a person seemingly out of nowhere. ",
"The problem with all such things is that people who usually never had such experiences try to understand them, which is a little bit like trying to understand a color you can't see.\n\nAlso, as I see it, there's a myriad different ways of \"snapping\" - the word is not really well defined.\n\nA choleric might \"snap\" at every little challenge. A person with strength but not so much self control might lash out against anyone who can't defend themselves and actually regret it. A criminal might have absolutely no scruples keeping him from criminal acts.\n\nThose don't seem to really be what you mean, though.\n\nWe also use this word on people where the brain actually works perfectly fine, who just happen to hate others so much, through religious, political, social, or other stereotypes, that they want to kill these, and eventually put their plans to action.\n\nPeople who do that within the limits of the law to people who are unpopular might even be considered perfectly normal by us.\n\nSimilar in a situation like war - no-one considers a berserker crazy, because if you \"snap\" when you are allowed to, it's completely ok. I suspect part of the reason why some experimental drugs are used in some militaries are side effects like reducing inhibitions.\n\nI had a lot of situations where I became aggressive - usually in self defense, and only where a fight was unavoidable due to the action of others. I'm actually a very peaceful person, but some people see that as a sign of weakness and think they can push me. However, I was always in full control of these emotions and easily able to stick to limits of what was acceptable (not necessarily what was popular).\n\nOnce, however, my brain went pretty much on autopilot. After years of rather bad situations, socially, economically, and also with people being aggressive against me, and deliberately sabotaging my education and career - the price of being an outsider - I suddenly regained a sense of self-worth.\n\nThat caused an unbelievable rush of emotions, and, with that, a lot of anger at the people who had constantly done everything to harm me, to insult me, or to harass me in other ways. I was completely overwhelmed by these emotions, and if any of my tormentors had been around, I'd be writing these lines (without any regrets) from a jail cell.\n\nThe rage was even visible in my eyes, anyway how calm I tried to act. Which was obviously not too much of a career boost, and therefore quite a blow to my newly found self-worth - which fueled my anger even more.\n\nToday I see it as part of a healing process however - and I also see it as necessary to fight against the kind of injustices I was facing, especially when people don't leave you a choice. Or in other words, I'd get aggressive much sooner to avoid things from escalating. However, at the times leading to that, there was nothing I could possibly have achieved with more aggressiveness. I was in a trap, and my subconsciousness understood that my situation wasn't normal ironically when I was just getting out of that trap - and nearly kept me from staying out.\n\nMy experience might be a little like that of a young lion who, after years of being kept away from the pride by force, manages to get on top of the pride and runs around killing cubs and roaring the lionesses into submission.\n\nDuring this time, btw, my brain was actually working at full power. It was just constantly fantasising about what I could do to get revenge, like a big aggressive adrenaline rush. But apart from that, I could well control what I would do when. I could also function normally in society - despite people being quite wary of me, which meant I needed to change jobs after I calmed down.",
"\"Snapping\" is generally not as much of a thing as people believe it to be.\n\nWhen people lash out or go on rampages, their behavior doesn't just come out of nowhere. There is generally warning signs often years in advance before they act out. The problem is these individuals often grow adept at hiding the signs because they recognize others won't react well to it aside from the general problem of people not recognizing or ignoring them.\n\nOther instances can be attributed to something called a \"[fuge state](_URL_0_)\" which, is basically a form of amnesia where you are disconnected from who you are and is often connected to instances of extreme stress; your brain literally cannot handle how stressful a situation is so it dumps you into a state of mind where the stressor and you are no longer connected.\n\nThe movie image of the perfectly normal person (spoiler: no such thing exists) suddenly going crazy and killing people is just that; a movie image. It basically never happens that way without some precipitating event or long history of symptoms leading up to a break, often as a result of stress.\n\nHead injuries can possibly create this kind of behavior but it would be rare. The damage would have to be severe enough to compromise parts of the brain that govern your active behavior yet not severe enough to immobilize you or jeopardize your life.\n\nTL;DR- Nobody \"snaps.\" \n\nSource: I work in mental health, we deal with stuff like this constantly.",
"The following is in no way totally accurate:\n\nBasically, in your head there is your brain, your cerebellum and your brain stem.\n\nYour brain stem connects with the rest of your body through the spinal cord. Your cerebellum and brain are both connected to your brain stem.\n\nThe brain has the higher functions (doing math, speaking languages, emotions), your cerebellum has lower level stuff (such as muscle memory) and your brain stem deals with the most basic (yet important) stuff, such as the fight or flight response, breathing and having your heart beat once in a while.\n\nWhen you snap, or go crazy, your brain doesn't act as a filter for the raw desires of your brain stem, you act on instinct. You can see it as your primordial brain taking over to deal with an especially stressful situation.\n\nSo yeah, my explanation isn't scientific (or accurate) at all, but I guess it explains the situation in simpler terms.\n\n\nEDIT: Go read what xzbobzx said.",
"I think Chris Rock said it best when one of the Bengal Tigers that was owned by Zeigfield and Roy attacked. The media stated that the Tiger went crazy and attacked Roy. Chris Rock said the media was wrong, \"That Tiger didn't go crazy, that Tiger went Tiger\". Human beings are in fact still animals at their core. The primal regions of the brain are still intact within every persons cranium. Every single person on the face of the planet has the inherent capacity to \"snap\". The higher functioning frontal lobes and cerebral cortex that reason in logical and socially acceptable behavior, hold back the floodgates of the driving forces of the primal regions. That's what seperates humans from the aforementioned Tiger. However, on a good note, those Tigers, for the most part, were tame and loving animals. Does this help clarify your question? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0019486",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlyeMRWlKSM",
"http://psr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/303.abstract"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack"
],
[],
[
"http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/threat-management/201003/the-pentagon-shooting-they-don-t-just-snap"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugue_state"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
40qwum | when oil was $120+ per barrel, gas was ~$4 /gal, now oil is < 25% at under $30 per barrel, but gas isn't 25% the price. why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40qwum/eli5_when_oil_was_120_per_barrel_gas_was_4_gal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cywe3z5",
"cywe9km"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"There are still what are called fixed costs involved in operating a business. The fixed costs don't fluctuate, they remain constant. In order to pay for those fixed costs, certain items need to remain at a certain price. If they lower the prices so they can no longer cover those fixed prices, they are losing money. \n\nGas Stations still need and want to make as healthy profit as possible in a very competitive market. Usually the market will dictate how low the price of gas will go. If the station down the street is selling gas for $1.90, why would I want to undercut/vary from that same price?\n\nGovernment taxes also factor into this substantially. Gasoline is heavily taxed compared to other commodities. ",
"TL;DR Raw materials are cheaper, but the associated costs have remained the same. \n\n/u/NRD-HRD3 is partially correct that it's because you're still buying gas and can't avoid it, so they've no incentive to reduce it that much. \n\nAs I said though, that's only partially correct, as the other factor is the price of turning oil into petrol. I don't know the exact numbers, but think of it this way: You need eggs, flour and milk to make pancake batter. These total 3 dollars, while the gas/electric involved with your cooker and the pan cost 2 dollars. That's $5 to make, and you sell these for $6 to make a profit. A couple of months later, the pancake ingredients have fallen to 1 dollar. Your gas and pan still cost 2 dollars though, so the total is now $3 instead of $5, and to keep the same profit margins you now sell for $3.60, compared to $6. Even though the ingredients have fallen by 66%, you've only reduced your prices by 40%. That's the same with oil. The refinement plants, the wages, the transport, etc. have all remained the same, even though the oil has dropped in price. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
qhcyq | why didnt the us and nato kill or kick out sadam hussein during the first gulf war? | I mean they defeated his army. They didnt like him and they could have put a pro-Western government in. Today that would seem like an obvious reaction, why didnt they do it back then? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qhcyq/why_didnt_the_us_and_nato_kill_or_kick_out_sadam/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3xm8iu",
"c3xscb3"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The coalition they put together included a UN mandate and broad Arab support. They only supported a no fly zone, repelling Iraq from Kuwait, and destroying military institutions inside the border so we couldn't invade and occupy Iraq. \n\nAlso, by US law it is illegal to kill a foreign leader.",
" > why didnt they do it back then?\n\nBush Sr is smarter than he is popularly given credit for. He well understood what a full military occupation of Iraq would mean. It would mean that the USA would be stuck with the bloody and unbelievably expensive task of attempting to govern and reunite a bitterly divided country, that none of the various Sunni, Shia, or Kurdish factions had wanted to be part of in the first place.^1\n\nIn his own words:\n\n > Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in \"mission creep\", and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome. \n\n- _URL_1_\n\n-----\n ^1 The modern state we know as \"Iraq\" was created from absolutely nothing by the British Empire in the 1920s when, along with the Ottoman Turks, they invaded and occupied the area of the middle east where it now exists. See _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#20th_century",
"http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush"
]
] |
|
3duayd | why are child protective services so notorious for taking children from their allegedly abusive/neglectful parents, only to place them in another similarly abusive/neglectful environment (i.e., situations where physical/sexual abuse is also likely)? | I was watching Wild Bill today and a CPS representative tries to incentivize a neglectful parent to get his act together because children don't "do well" in group/foster homes. If (I'm assuming) the entire point of CPS is to prevent kids from growing up in abusive environments, why doesn't the system make a better effort to put them into a safe environment after taking them away from their parents? Especially since it's in society's best interest to create well adjusted children who don't extend that cycle of abused people having abused children. (Higher crime, more poverty, lower median income, etc.)
I'll admit, my assumption that group/foster homes are a rough place for kids is anecdotal, so if that's just a generalization, let me know. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3duayd/eli5_why_are_child_protective_services_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct8ow6s",
"ct8t3jx"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"CPS does the best they can but they have very very limited resources. There are only a limited amount of group homes and people willing to foster, and CPS is overworked to the point where they cannot make check ups and follow up on things as often as they'd like. It's not like CPS just throws up their hands and goes 'lol, lets just put these kids with the first random guy we pluck off the streets'. \n\nFor this all to change, what CPS needs is a lot more manpower and a lot more funding. Sadly enough there are too many people who basically go MAH TAX DOLLAHS about any sort of money going to government institutions. ",
"Its because when CPS does a good job no one hears about it. but the .5% when a child is beeing abused because CPS effed up it turns into national news. Make no mistake CPS cant just TAKE someones children without serious neglect that they can proove in court. My parrents had a child placed at them by CPS, his mom took heroin and washed him in bleech (he is black and his mom is white) CPS had to fight in court for years to keep him from his mother so if someone you know said that CPS is taking peoples children for very little cause. Just know they are bullshitting you and some serious neglect/abuse has happened"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1d6amr | on day 1, i search for picnic blankets on a website. on day 2, that website is advertising picnic blankets to me on my facebook. are they somehow spying on me? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d6amr/eli5_on_day_1_i_search_for_picnic_blankets_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9naqhi",
"c9nb0s7"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"You are being tracked, yes. It happens to everyone. Where you go on the web often dictates what type of \"personalized\" ads you see.\n\nYou've never noticed this before?",
"Yup. \n\nGoogle takes your search history and uses it to tailor advertisements for you. Facebook is also known to sink its hooks into your browser and record what you are looking at in other tabs. \n\nI noticed it recently when an add for Cafepress showed a shirt based on a very specific game I played, one that is in no way common or mainstream and one that I have never posted about on Facebook. It was one of the only times I got the big brother vibe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2lynms | my compsci professor said if anyone ever solves the p vs np problem there would be "chaos in the streets". i've tried to learn it before but it never stuck. can anyone explain what it is and why it's so important? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lynms/eli5_my_compsci_professor_said_if_anyone_ever/ | {
"a_id": [
"clzch96",
"clzci56",
"clzio6v",
"clzrxkc"
],
"score": [
20,
15,
5,
166
],
"text": [
"First of all, there are two* \"solutions\" for P v NP. One is that P = NP, the other is P != NP. Which of those you proves is a big deal, and is one of the most fundemental unsolved problems in computer science.\n\nSo...\n\n* You just proved P != NP. Most people suspect this, but it hasn't been proved. The result would allow us to stop wasting time on problems which don't have certain fast solutions. Those solutions would be proven to not exist and we could focus efforts elsewhere. That being said, since most people already expect that P != NP, this wouldn't really change research massively, as most have already treated it as the case.\n\n* You just proved P = NP. This is a HUGE deal. This would mean that problems which we assumed to be \"hard\" to solve actually are much simpler, and any proof likely provides such a solution, or a path towards it. So what's \"hard\"? Cryptography. It's easy right now to verify if you broke a password, you try it. But it's VERY hard to break a password. If P = NP, the solution could be almost as easy to find as verifying it. This is a BIG deal. Basically this would mean that every single economic transaction over the internet has a flaw that we expect is within reach to find. There are other effects but this is the big one. I'm not sure this would cause \"chaos in the streets\", as we have alternatives for cryptography that could get around this. But it's not impossible.\n\n\\* well, three, see [below](_URL_0_)",
"Very roughly speaking, P=NP would mean that anything that's easy to check is easy to compute. In this case, \"easy to do\" means \"doable in a number of steps polynomial in the size of the input\": so if you put in an *n* digit number and it'll take n^2 + 2n - 6 steps, that's something you can compute in polynomial time.\n\nIt's widely believed that, in fact, P does not equal NP. That would mean there are some functions that are hard to compute, but easy to check. Such functions are useful for cryptography, and most of the secure communication on the internet relies on the assumption that a certain mathematical problem (for instance, factoring a very large number) is too hard to be practical.",
"P v NP is something that is not easily explained to the lay person. It's a marvelous counterexample to Rutherford's Law. Any explanation that can be easily understood by a layperson will probably be technically incorrect.\n\nI don't really understand it either, but since I've spent a lot of time trying to figure it out, I'll take a crack at explaining it.\n\nThere's an entire class of problems where the search for whether a problem CAN be solved is essentially the same as searching for the solution itself. Determining whether a very large number is prime is an example of this. There's no quick and easy way to do it, you just get to factoring.\n\nIf P equals NP, then there IS a quick and easy test to see if a very large number is prime, and we just haven't found it yet.\n\nIf P DOESN'T equal NP, then there is not a quick and easy way to test for prime-ness.\n\nNow, what does this have to do with rioting and total social breakdown?\n\nALL modern cryptography is based on extraordinarily large prime numbers. If someone talks about \"256-bit\" encryption, that means that a prime number 256 characters long is part of the key. I'm not 100% sure what the technical details are, but a number like that is EXTRAORDINARILY big, and can take a very long time to factor, and factoring those numbers is part of modern cryptanalysis. As I understand it, modern cryptography is not about unbreakable or not, it's about how many mathematical operations it will take to break the code, and thus how much computing time it will take. If it's done right, a good encryption algorithm will produce a code that will take every computer on earth working 24/7 until the sun dies to decrypt. Or something like that.\n\nIf P equals NP, then that means that there is a quick and easy way to factor very large numbers, and therefore a quick and easy way to break modern cryptography. Since everything of any consequence (banking, finance, facebook, government secrets, etc) is encrypted with these methods, that means that if P equals NP, ALL of those things are now cryptographically insecure. That's bad.\n\nI think.",
"(This may not be addressed specifically to you, this is a more general answer)\n\n---\n\nOne of the basic things we do in Computer Science is classify different problems by how \"hard\" they are. And by that we mean: how fast is the best known solution? We measure this speed not in terms of seconds, but in terms of how the solution scales as the problem gets bigger. If the problem gets bigger but the solution stays relatively fast, then this is an easier problem than one where the solution gets slower. Example time!\n\nAdding is easy. We all know the method: line up your numbers, add the ones' column, possibly carry a 1, and repeat. Keep going down the line until you get to the end. How does this scale as the problem gets bigger? If I take the numbers and make them around 10x bigger, that's only 1 more digit and only 1 more step. 100x bigger, 2 steps. A million times bigger, 6 steps. A trillion times bigger, 12 steps. The numbers get massive, but there's not that much more work to be done. The amount of time it takes to add two numbers is proportional to the number of digits, which is the log (base 10) of the actual size of the number. This is very easy.\n\nHere's a harder problem: I give you $100 and show you some items for sale, and ask you to spend all of the money exactly. What combination of items totals exactly $100? Uh... There doesn't seem to be a good way to tackle this problem. Unless you get really lucky and the numbers are favorable, all you can really do is try various combinations until you either find something, or exhaust all possibilities. There's no way to tell whether or not a particular item is part of the solution or not (well, unless it's over $100), so there's no way to cut down the search. This would be hard enough at a small street vendor with 10 different things for sale, and if I let you loose in WalMart and deviously set the prices so there was no solution, you'd be there forever. The amount of time it takes in the worst case is proportional to the number of combinations, which is 2\\^(number of items). This scales miserably, and this is hard.\n\nBut here's an interesting observation: If I come to you and say, \"aha! I found the solution, it's this shopping cart full of stuff!\", that would be easy to verify. All we have to do is add, and adding is easy. So this problem is hard to solve, but easy to verify. Note that any problem that's easy to solve must also be easy to verify, because you could always verify it by just solving it again.\n\nThe set of problems that are easy to solve is P. The set of problems that are easy to verify is NP. If we draw a Venn diagram, it won't be the standard \"MasterCard logo\" diagram--since easy-to-solve means easy-to-verify, NP is a big bubble and P is a small bubble completely inside of it.\n\n---\n\nOver time, we've found some problems that we used to think were hard (NP), but eventually people found better methods to solve them and they moved inside the inner bubble to P. That got people thinking, maybe all of the NP problems are in P, and we just haven't been smart enough to find faster methods. That would mean that P=NP. If that's not true, and we can find an example of an NP problem that provably can't be solved faster (according to the strict definitions that I won't get into here), then P != NP.\n\nSo far, nobody has been able to prove this either way. It may be the case that it's impossible to prove either way. At any rate, a lot of very smart people have been searching for a long time to try to find faster methods for all sorts of problems, and we've hit some total roadblocks, so most computer scientists just assume that some problems aren't solvable any faster and that P != NP.\n\nThe \"chaos in the streets\" is that cryptography is based on the assumption that some problems are hard. It's easy to do some simple math and encrypt a message, turning it into unreadable goop, but very difficult to unscramble it unless you have some secret information. If P = NP, then it would be easy to do that unscrambling without the secret info."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lynms/eli5_my_compsci_professor_said_if_anyone_ever/clzj4d5"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
53ug1w | why does this occur? pic in description | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53ug1w/eli5why_does_this_occur_pic_in_description/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7wbi36",
"d7wd62c",
"d7wo3bk"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on where the image is from. Could be two bodies of water intersecting (temporary) in a dead zone: _URL_0_\n\n",
"This photo was reportedly taken at the Gulf of Alaska. \n\nGlacier rivers in the summertime are like buzzsaws eroding away the mountains there. In the process, they lift up all this material — they call it glacial flour — that can be carried out.\n\nOnce these glacial rivers pour out into the larger body of water, they're picked up by ocean currents, moving east to west, and begin to circulate there. \n\nThis is one of the primary methods that iron — found in the clay and sediment of the glacial runoff — is transported to iron-deprived regions in the middle of the Gulf of Alaska.\n\nThe iron sediment filled glacial runoff has a greater density than that of the ocean.",
"For the same reason you need a blender to blend things.\n\nAbsent a blending force like turbulence things can only mix by diffusion.\n\nSo lets say you have two similar materials, like chocolate and vanilla soft-serve ice cream. And they are coming out of a pair of nozzles right next to each other. You get a half-and half stream. Right where they touch you get a mix, but left-and-right of that you've got pure one or the other. \n\nWater is less thick than ice cream, but it is still pretty thick, and that's a heck of a lot of water.\n\nSo there are several places where \"bodies of water\" meet in various ways, and until external or cumulative forces cause blending, or enough time passes to allow diffusion, you'll see this sort of seemingly stark boundary case.\n\nThere's two rivers in (in the amazon basin, if memory serves) where one is black and opaque from peat and plant material, and the other is very clear glacial/mountain water.\n\nBut this also happens in other scales and many locations.\n\nHere is a [LOT of pictures](_URL_0_) that give you better visual context.\n\nGoogle image search \"bodies of water meeting\" for even more examples."
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/a/Ozg5U"
] | [
[
"http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html"
],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=image+mississippi+river+mix+with+ocean&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOtMXZvqHPAhUK12MKHZ7PBlkQ_AUICCgB&biw=1600&bih=914"
]
] |
|
agezsr | when someone gets hit by a bullet, wouldnt the pain cause them to pass out or am i getting something completely wrong? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/agezsr/eli5_when_someone_gets_hit_by_a_bullet_wouldnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee5po64",
"ee5ppu5",
"ee5r3gy"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Yea, it certainly can do. It also might not. A random person on the street would probably pass out for a few seconds from the pain because they aren’t expecting to be shot. But a soldier on a battlefield is filled with adrenaline and is subconsciously expecting imminent pain, so is quite unlikely to pass out until they lose enough blood that the brain cant keep the lights on. Thats why soldiers commonly stay conscious even through violent crippling explosive damage, never mind bullet wounds.",
"Grave injuries can cause people to go into shock and dull their sensation of pain temporarily. Sometimes significant nerve damage occurs that causes numbness for a time rather than pain.",
"It depends, and not always. People have different pain tolerances, and different bullets impact you in different ways. Some people won't even be aware they've been shot.\n\nInterestingly, the whole \"falling over when you get shot\" thing is a learned behaviour, coming from movies. People don't fall over until they realise they've been shot."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1p1wxi | what causes baby booms? | EDIT: Marked as explained. Oddly, the explanation my high school teacher gave me—that the human race collectively feels a subconscious need to repopulate the Earth after devastating events such as wars—doesn't seem to have come up. Thanks for the responses, guys! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p1wxi/eli5_what_causes_baby_booms/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccxvvyg",
"ccxvyo9"
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text": [
"All the men went to war for several years. You then had a large group of men who had no contact with women, and a large group of women that had no contact with men.\n\nWhen the war was over and the men and women finally got back together, they had sex. Lots and lots of sex that they couldn't have for several years during the war.\n\nSooooo much sex.\n\nAlso, post war America was extremely prosperous, which made it easier to start a family.",
"Baby Booms are generally caused by rapid increases in quality of living or when a large number of SO's spouse has been away for a long time (such as war).\n\n1. War. \nAfter both the first and Second World War baby booms occurred because well, millions of young men were gone for a long time and had just survived a war and came back to their SO's.\n\n2. Increased Wealth/Living conditions.\nIn periods of poverty/poor employment people are much less likely to have many or any children at all. However in periods where country prosper and unemployment falls baby booms follow. These are periods when the future seems secure and income is growing for everybody.\n\nHope this helps!\n\nSources:\n-My geography class (fun!)\n-_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_baby_boom_happen#slide4"
]
] |
|
7966y5 | why is everything imported from china? how does this affect american engineers and workers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7966y5/eli5_why_is_everything_imported_from_china_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dozirsd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Its a by product of globalization and it has its pros and cons. On the upside american corporations still own the their products being created in china so money is still coming in. It decreases labor costs and profit increase because of it. The economy grows due to businesses growing and america gets to be proud of a nice GDP. On the other hand the working class american workers are now out of the job. Wealth inequality will continue to grow as we see manufacturing jobs shipped overseas decreasing the amount of well paying working class jobs. Overall its good for the country and really good for the rich not so much for working and middle class. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
epo2mc | why is baseball such a huge deal in america when it's hated in almost every other country? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/epo2mc/eli5_why_is_baseball_such_a_huge_deal_in_america/ | {
"a_id": [
"fekm10e",
"fekmtkp",
"fekn0vg",
"feknk5u",
"feknv9m",
"fekpydd"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Isn’t it a huge thing in japan?\n\nI used to love baseball, now i can’t stand to watch a single game. I think organized pro sports are declining in general. At least in the sense of watching it at home.",
"I've been living in Russia and Ukraine for over a decade. I wouldnt say baseball is hated. It's simply unknown.",
"It's very popular in many countries in Central and South America, as well as Japan. Its popularity is more wide spread than American football, and likely on par with basketball.",
"The US sporting scene evolved independently from the rest of the world, in part because it was a pain in the ass to get anywhere from North America for the longest time, and in part because the US is isolationist in character. Thus we like weird sports.\n\nAlso not everyone hates baseball; most of the Caribbean loves it, as well as Japan and South Korea.",
"I wouldn't say it's hated in almost every other country, it's huge in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. A large portion of MLB players come from places like the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Japan, South Korea, and others. Roughly [28.5% of MLB players come from outside the US] (_URL_0_). I believe the reason it has not achieved popularity in more places is due to the massive popularity of cricket in many countries, which shares a number of similarities with baseball. It also just may not be as easy to pick up for the average person globally as football, and its slower pace may just not have the same appeal to many.",
"A friend of mine theorizes that baseball grew as a radio era sport.\n\nAs recreational commercial radio was spreading around the US baseball presented itself as a great sport to talk about.\n\nThey had crappy communications back then (by modern standards) but you could easily transmit vital statistics about a baseball game as it was happening. You could also hand the score sheet to an announcer after a game and they could announce it as if it were live.\n\nA good announcer could take a few numbers and basically reconstruct the game inning by inning and tell an exciting story about it.\n\nIn a baseball game that can even make it better than watching it live since you get to skip all the parts where the batter ambles out to the plate, the pitcher warms up his arm and so on.\n\nBy contrast, by the time other countries were catching up from getting all their stuff blown up in WWII TV was getting much more popular. That opened up a bunch of sports where you really want to see the individual movements of the athletes.\n\nTo many people who haven't grown up with baseball it's just boring. Too much standing around and you can't even plan for anything after a game because you don't know when it will end. If you have nostalgia for it, if you're following a team out of family tradition or if you grew up in a foreign country and still associate \"Yankee baseball\" with all things good and wholesome about the USA you might be interested.\n\nCost is an other factor that seams to go across a bunch of sports. Poor kids can play soccer, basketball or baseball with a minimum of equipment. American football and hokey got a lot more popular when more people could afford all the gear that you need to play them. Except for people who live near a slope, skiing regularly just doesn't fit into most people's budgets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rosters-feature-251-international-players"
],
[]
] |
||
1ozi5b | what's the difference between what cispa would allow, and what the nsa revelations showed the government is already doing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ozi5b/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_what_cispa/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccxc528"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It would give them permission to do what they're already doing.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
axlbo7 | how is old time currency being valued compared to the currency we have right now? | For example, I just heard on the radio that to build Versailles it is estimated to have a cost of $2-3 billion. How do they estimate it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axlbo7/eli5_how_is_old_time_currency_being_valued/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehu7yne",
"ehu80dm",
"ehuy92v"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They compare prices of common items. A loaf bread cost X then, and Y now. A ton of bricks cost X then and Y now. Etc",
"Well, it's a very rough estimate.\n\nThe precise amount of money (as in, 17th century French money) spent on the project is uncertain.\n\nThe value of that currency compared to contemporary ones can be estimated, but is obviously based on spotty data.\n\nGiven both of these dimensions of uncertainty, $2-3 billion is really not much beyond an educated guess.",
"To look at this in a different way construction projects are estimated for their value all the time. There are thousands of Estimators working at construction companies doing just that. Versailles could be estimated in that way either in detail or by budget methods.\n\nI looked it up and the Versailles Palace is 721,206 SF while the grounds are 230 acres. Would not be hard to take that level of building construction and grounds and multiple by a cost per SF and Acre to come up with an equivalent price in today dollars."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15zitl | what's with america and guns? are gun statistics exaggerated/twisted? is it as bad as what foreigners think? | I'm from Australia. The only guns I've ever seen in my life have been on the hips of cops and in films. We've all seen easily consumable graphs on facebook etc about how terrible gun related deaths and the correalation of ownership is in America.
In Australia we've been lead to believe that Americans are dumb hicks who want guns so the government can't turn against them but I'm sure that can't be right. Can someone explain in a broad scope with no political bias why there's such a strong gun culture, is there is a correlation between gun deaths/ownership? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15zitl/whats_with_america_and_guns_are_gun_statistics/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7r9hdd",
"c7r9kz2",
"c7rac77",
"c7rc12p",
"c7rdkw7",
"c7reots",
"c7rhd0b"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
13,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Guns are thought of as a last line of defense against tyranny in the US. The second amendment, in extremely simplified terms, states that that the US citizen has an individual right to own a firearm and to use that in the defense against tyranny. Now the US clearly isn't in a position of worrying about foreign invaders but at the end of the day that is why we have and cherish that right. \n\nIIRC there is something like 3 guns for every citizen of the US if all the guns were to be distributed evenly. Wikipedia says that there are 88.8 guns for every 100 citizens. So basically Americans as a whole are armed to the teeth.\n\nFrom what I recall areas of high gun ownership in the US tend to have lower levels of violence. States with strict gun control, i.e. Illinois and Maryland, end up having some of the highest murder rates in the nation. I'm sure someone will chime in and explain this better than I can right now. \n\nI'm sure due to the descreipency in murder rates from city to city that our violent crime rate has less to do with the proliferation of firearms and more due to other soft factors like poverty, racism, and gang violence. People make a huge deal about these mass shooting but they frankly a recent development and don't really change the murder rate at all. There is clearly another reason other then the availability of firearms that these kind of things have been happening lately. \n\n ",
"honestly, it's pretty simple: i got my first bb gun when i was about ten or eleven. maybe a year or so afterwards i graduated to my great-grandfather's bolt-action single shot cock-to-fire .22 rifle. he paid five dollars for it when he was a kid. after i'd been shooting the .22 for a while i graduated to a .30 m1 carbine, then various shotguns, revolvers, and my dad's .40 glock 27. during these many hours of plinking, i was hanging out with my dad getting advice and praise based on how well i was shooting. plus i got to blow shit up. what's not to love? \n\ntl;dr: male bonding\n\noh, and i've heard several arguments about population size vs gun death and how if you look at the ratios we (U.S.) are not that far off from other western countries like the U.K. or France. personally, i'm pretty conflicted about gun control. i don't think civilians need ARs and i think that most gun lobbyists like the NRA are pretty nuts, but at the same time i refuse to give up my second amendment rights. i hope one day i can raise a son or daughter and teach them how to handle and shoot a gun safely. it's a wonderful experience.",
"Most people that own guns **legally** will probably never use them. People buy guns for the same reason that they buy an alarm system, a way of protecting themselves that they hope they will never need to use. Although, there are people who use them on a regular occasion such as hunters or police officers. \n\nThe real problem is the people who own these weapons illegally. Putting new gun control laws in aren't really going to stop these people since they are already circumventing the laws put in place. You can think of this in the same way piracy laws work, the people who see the FBI warning at the beginning of movies are the ones already doing the right thing. \n\n\nAlso to answer another part of your question, yes gun statistics are very twisted in order for the media to get their point across. In [this](_URL_0_) article you can see how twisted the statistics most people see are.",
"There's a strong gun culture because our second amendment basically says, \"You get guns.\" The reason why they put it there is if another nation tries to attack us, or if our own government tries to take over the public. \n\nFor the gun deaths/ownership thing, most of the people who were shot by guns, the shooter probably got the gun illegally. ",
"Sam Harris had a very good post examining this the other day:\n[Here](_URL_0_)",
"Southern-U.S. citizen here. It's really not as bad as it sounds. People who legally own guns generally don't use them outside of recreation. People who use them for bad things will obtain them, legally or otherwise. I plan to buy a gun for protection.",
"_URL_0_ \n\n \nUSA is #10 with 10.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2009. El Salvador tops the list with 50.36 deaths that same year."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate"
]
] |
|
9rvniv | why do falls break human bones so easily? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rvniv/eli5_why_do_falls_break_human_bones_so_easily/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8k04z6",
"e8k0gxb"
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the landing portion of a fall produces massive amount of force... First we are accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 right? So after 1 second you are moving at 9.81 m/s and after the second second you will be travelling at around 19.6 m/s\n\nNow if you weight 70kg then your momentum after 2 seconds will be 1372 Ns... Now let's say you hit concrete (nice and hard) and stop in 0.1 seconds that will produce a force of 13720 Newton's, most bones break with around 4000 Newton's.... To put this into perspective, the average femur could support the weight of multiple pickup trucks on top of it without breaking.\n\n\nAnyways, since the landing portion of falling happens so quickly it acts as a force multiplier, the longer you draw out the landing the lower the force will be... However, the more time you spend in the air, the higher the momentum. With only 1 second in air you only have ~700Ns of momentum and as such if you increase your landing time (say by langing on your feet and being your knees) to around 0.2 seconds (one fifth of a second) then you will only receive ~3500 N of force which might not break any bones.\n\nHowever if you again had a really short landing time of 0.1 seconds then you would receive nearly 7000N of force.\n\n\nThis is ignoring things like air resistance and such because the calculations are just so much easier that way.\n\n\nBy the way, to fall for 1 second you would need to he about 10m up, to fall for 2 seconds you need to be something like 30-40 meters up. ",
"There are actually a lot of factors in play. In the case of a fall, what matters the most is the force of their weight, the direction where the force is applied, and the applied force per area. For example, if you trip and fall on a sidewalk and your arm contacts the ground, you might get bruised or scraped up. Odds are you won’t suffer any broken bones though. Now let’s say you tripped and fell and instead your arm hits the corner of the sidewalk. Now all of a sudden the same amount of force (the earth pushing back against your weight) is applied in a relatively tiny area—all perpendicular to your arm. That amount of force in such a small, specific area can easily cause it to snap or fracture. This same concept is essentially how a blade works, by concentrating all the force of you pressing down in a small, concentrated area."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
dcfa67 | in economics growth is good and we want growth. but does that mean the only way for economies to be successful is to continuously get bigger and bigger ad infinitum? to me that will always seem destined to fail. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dcfa67/eli5_in_economics_growth_is_good_and_we_want/ | {
"a_id": [
"f27x4lq",
"f27zazz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are right about growth. Nobody found a way to keep an economy or a society in an unchanging state, so it's either growth or decline.\n\nit is not \"destined to fail\".\nGlobal economy has been growing for several centuries now. There were quite a few growth pains, and we did \"run out\" of quite a few resources. But democracies keep creating laws to that limit negative impacts of free markets, and free markets are really good at dealing with resources running out: we either change technology to use less of resource, or find a different way to meet the same need. \n\nE.g. in late 19th century, whales were a very important economic resource, their fat was the raw material for lubricants, candles, and all sorts of other products of chemical industry. Well, as whale numbers declined, we learned to make same stuff from oil. And when oil runs out, we will get bacteria to make the same polymers for us.",
"It might not be good to visualize a \"growing\" or \"expanding\" economy as something that becomes *physically* larger. An economy can expand both by becoming \"larger\", but also by becoming \"better\".\n\nWe tend to measure the size of an economy by its production - such as with the Gross Domestic Product. Essentially, you're taking the price of everything being produced, *subtracted* by the price of how much went *into* producing everything. \n\nSo, for example, let's say Bob the Baker produces 10kg of bread. He sells the 10kg of bread for 100$ total, but before all that he had to buy 10kg of flour as an ingredient, and that cost him 70$. So Bob the Baker didn't add 100$ to the economy from the price of his output, but only 30$, because you have to subtract the cost of the input. 100$-70$=30$. This is roughly how we calculate GDP - just do this for every part of the economy and sum it all up.\n\nOkay, so, let's say we want to grow the economy. We want to grow the economy because we have scarce resources, and humans *hate* scarce resources - we want to have a better life tomorrow than today, and that takes more resources. \n\nBob could do this in two ways. The first way will be obvious: he could buy more flour and make more bread. Let's say he buys 20kg instead of 10kg of flour, and as such makes 20kg of bread instead of 10kg of bread. Then the math says 200$-140$=60$. By doubling input, he has doubled output, and his part of the economy has grown from 30$ to 60$. So far so good - but obviously, this *did* cost us more (raw/input) resources to do.\n\nBut there is a different way to grow the economy, which is equally and often more important: quality can be improved. Maybe Bob the Baker notices that bread that is formed as a ball develops a more delicious crust than one made in a square form, or he uses a better type of yeast, or let's the dough rise for longer. Whatever the case, Bob found a way to make *better bread with the same resources*, and now people *value* his bread more a result. The price for 10kg of his bread is now 130$ instead of 100$ because of this, but he obviously still uses just 10kg of flour. So the math is 130$-70$=60$. Like before, his contribution to the economy has grown by 30$ - but without additional input.\n\nNote that in both cases 30$ of value has been added to the economy, but in different ways. People value both quantity and quality, and will pay for both. This is the case with all goods - even down to things like vacations or healthcare. Quantity and quality are both part of the economy.\n\nThere is a third way to grow the economy for Bob the Baker. Maybe he can use less flour to make the same amount of bread. Perhaps his friend has given him a new automatic dough-mixer with a closed top, so less flour spills out and is lost during mixing. Then, perhaps, he can use just a liiitle less flour to make 10kg of bread, and then the math could be something like 100$-65$=35$ (if he saved 5$ of flour). In this case, since input has been reduced but output is the same, the economy has grown again. This is the impact of technology - using less input for the same (or more) output.\n\nAs you can see, as long as we can improve quality of our products, or use increasingly efficient technology, we can continually grow the economy, even within a single planet. So far, this seems to also be the case in practice - we are producing more and more PER PERSON, even as we become more people. We also generally use less resources to produce the same things now than a few decades ago. There might be a limit far into the future, but that is seemingly very, very far off - we will only reach it when we have exhausted humanity's capacity for innovation. \n\n(Mathematically, we could *technically* grow an infinitely large economy on an infinitely small amount of resources. We just need endless efficiency. This is obviously irrelevant, because we don't have endless efficiency, but I mention it anyway to make it apparent that math and logic ALONE does not disprove an continually growing economy any more than it proves it. We need real world considerations to make a judgement)\n\nI hope this helps!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2egntr | what is the chain of command to launch a nuke from the usa? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2egntr/eli5_what_is_the_chain_of_command_to_launch_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjzbmw1",
"cjzd3lf"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"1. The president of the united states and secretary of defense, or their sucessors in the cause either is dead agree to launch a strike\n* They direct the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to launch a nuclear strike using the contents of what is called the 'Nuclear Football' (a briefcase which contains all current launch codes for the entire arsenal)\n* An Emergency Action Message or Emergency War Order is sent to all US Nuclear Forces. Additionally the order is sent to the Alternate Miltary Command Center inside in Raven Rock Mountain, and an airborne command center. This is done to ensure the orders are delivered in the event the chain of command gets nuked or dies in the process\n* The order goes down the chain of command to the launch site(s)\n* Two people in charge of launch of the weapons both agree to the authenticity, arm the weapon and launch.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"Nice try Vladimir"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan#Executing_the_SIOP"
],
[]
] |
||
srza3 | how the united states presidential primary system works. | I've been watching the West Wing and following Romney's run, but I still don't entirely understand what's happening. Who are these delegates? Does every state get to participate? What happens at the convention if a clear winner hasn't been decided? The whole process is a bit of a mystery to me.
Edit: I'm Canadian. I've grown up with the simplicity of a parliamentary democracy. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/srza3/eli5_how_the_united_states_presidential_primary/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4gh37z",
"c4ghacv",
"c4ghb87"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Let me start by saying the primary system is something that isn't included in the constitution, so it has essentially been made up, mostly by the institution of political parties, and kind of based off the Electoral college. Essentially every state has the right to put whomever they want on their ballot but because of major political parties, usually the parties choice gets put on the ballot. This is how that works:\n\nNot every state has the same process, there are primaries and caucus' (caucus' I don't understand too well). Each political party has a number of delegates and in order to be chosen as the Presidential candidate of the party, you have to receive at least 50%+1 of the delegates. This process can technically differ from party to party, a political party may choose their representative however they want, but this is the way most do it. The point of the primaries is to have a candidate by the time of the convention of the political party, and unfortunately I'm not really sure what happens if there hasn't been a clear decision.\n\nI'm not sure how well I did at explaining it or if I went far enough in explaining what you wanted to know, but this [video](_URL_0_) will probably explain it to you pretty well. ",
"The delegates are people who are chosen by each states party, usually through a popular vote, to cast their ballots in favor of one candidate at a national convention. Every state and territory of the United States participates. At the convention, if one candidate doesn't receive the required number of votes then the delegates keep casting ballots until someone does get the required amount of votes, usually by having the delegates of one candidate making a deal to vote for another candidate in exchange for positions of power, like a position in the cabinet or the vice-presidency.",
"Okay first of all, I've looked at a parliamentary democracy (The UK), and it doesn't seem simple whatsoever. That said...\n\nI want you to imagine a government founded on the basic, and mostly correct, theory that the majority of the population is full of bad, stupid, people. For that reason, we decide that they shouldn't get direct control of the government, so we set up the government so that they send the (hopefully) smartest people to the capital to govern them, and make things altogether smarter and more efficient than a bajillion people talking all at once to try and make a decision. We call this a republic.\n\nNow, a republic has a lot of advantages, but a downside of it is that if you have the most powerful person (the president) be elected directly by the people, they may just decide to elect someone who is dumber than they are, and is just really tall, or handsome, or is popular for reasons that don't mean they'd be good people in power. So, we decide to put a separator between the people and the actual election of the president. We call this the \"electoral council\". The electoral council is actually a group of people that are appointed by individual states, who are able to cast a \"vote\" as to who should be president. Each state has a different number of people who get to vote in the electoral council, but that's because when the United States was first made, big states had to make a deal with small states so that the big states couldn't entirely run the whole thing without any input from places like itty-bitty rhode island.\n\nAnyways, when people vote for who should be president, they participate in something called a \"general election\". Political parties like to choose their candidates for the general election as if it were a real one, and these elections are called \"Primaries\". For that reason, (as I understand it), each state has the same number of \"delegates\" as they do members on the electoral council, but each political party has separate delegates from each other. So, each political party holds a primary in each state leading up to the election, basically holding a general election in very very slow motion, to see who would be the candidate that would win the best in a general election.\n\n Now, it didn't used to be this way, but before a political convention (when members of a party meet with each other), the clear nominee will have been decided far in advance. If there isn't a clear nominee, then the delegates will haggle with each other as to who they think the best candidate will be, and eventually a deal will be made where they choose who will be the best candidate for the party platform. Once the best candidate is chosen, he'll (not a woman, its almost NEVER a woman candidate just because of how things work) choose a vice presidential candidate, who is generally chosen to \"balance the ticket\" so they have a hope of winning more states than they normally would have gotten. Think Barack Obama (the young inexperienced idealist) choosing Joe Biden (the old, experienced haggler) to balance out the ticket and keep people from saying he wouldn't do well as president. After the president and vice president candidates are chosen, its a simple matter of the people voting on election day, to pick who the best person would be."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/american-civics/v/primaries-and-caucuses"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tl8lw | how can my student loan apply literally no money toward principle and only toward interest? doesn't this mean my loan will basically never be paid off? | My loan provider shows how much is applied to principle and how much is applied to interest, and the principle is always 0%. How is this possible/legal? Why is it done this way? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tl8lw/eli5_how_can_my_student_loan_apply_literally_no/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx7327k",
"cx732wa",
"cx738nb",
"cx73eqn"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The loan is structured so that your payment is first applied to the interest, and then to the principle. If you only pay the interest, then yes, the principle will never reduce and your loan will never get paid off. It sounds like you need to make larger payments to your student loan.",
"If you make the bare minimum payment, all you're doing is paying down interest, not principal.\n\nOf course it's legal. You signed the agreement. You weren't coerced in any way. \n\nThe solution is to make more than the minimum payment. ",
"Zero principle payments are usually the very bare minimum companies will accept without your loan going into a non-payment status. It's usually considered a temporary arrangement when you can't make larger payments. ",
"If they're federal loans they'll be forgiven after 20 years. But if private you're stuck?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
35luki | why are humans attracted to gold, diamonds, and other valuable materials? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35luki/eli5why_are_humans_attracted_to_gold_diamonds_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr5l0rw",
"cr5ld81",
"cr5ldx2"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"gold is shiny, malleable (makeable into jewelry, etc), and doesn't lose its luster. in modern times, its a good conductor of electricity. who doesn't love a material like that?",
" > Kinda hoping for an answer that isn't linked to \"their value\"...\n\nIn fact, the reverse is true. Gold and gems are valuable (in part) **because** people tend to be attracted to shiny things. If diamonds were drab and ugly, no one would want them (beyond practical industrial uses) and thus their value would drop.\n\nThe jury's still out on the actual cause, but there is a hypothesis that humans are attracted to shiny things as a kind of byproduct of the biological drive to seek out water to drink. Water tends to be shiny, and experiments show that people who are thirsty rate shiny objects as being more attractive than people who are not thirsty.",
"Sorry to disappoint you but that is the answer for why we are attracted to them *now*. \n\nA better question though is how they became valuable *in the first place* - what attracted us to them when we first got them.\n\nThe answer to that is a mix of several things: parental influence, visual or other appeal, rarity or difficulty to obtain, association with power, and sales pitches. \n\n* Kids grow up in a society that regards things like high-class convertibles or gold necklaces on their tribal shaman as \"valuable\". Mom thought it was valuable so I do too.\n\n* Pretty looking things like exotic birds or old liquors in wooden showcase boxes are more appealing and often increase the level of attraction. Gold glows, diamond sparkles, and so on.\n\n* If everyone has one, it's not valuable. So rarity, either natural in the case of stuff that's hard to find or artificial such as companies like DeBeers having a monopoly on diamonds, helps determine value.\n\n* A lot of people crave or at least desire power or celebrity, and sometimes you dress a certain way when you are powerful or are a celebrity. So a lot of people want to emulate the way they look and dress, and their designer clothes or other things they're associated with gain value as a result.\n\n* Marketing and advertising often drives up the value of stuff. Convincing people that something is worth more makes people pay more to get it, driving up its cost and its value. Beats by Dre is a really good example; they're not really that much better than much cheaper other brands.\n\n* It's sometimes a self-fulfilling prophecy when someone says \"buy this because only the rich can afford it!\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
87qdz1 | how come lighting a candle helps not to cry when cutting an onion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87qdz1/eli5_how_come_lighting_a_candle_helps_not_to_cry/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwex23s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Onions contain lots of sulfur-based compounds, and lighting a match or a candle helps to burn those off, so they don't irritate your eyes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ailv7u | how did ice get on the moon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ailv7u/eli5_how_did_ice_get_on_the_moon/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeomsbw",
"eeomuid"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Most likely from water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteors that pummeled the moon for billions of years. Enough water was deposited in craters that don't get direct sunlight over time for it to accumulate and freeze.",
"Same way earth and everything else got most of its water: comets hit them enough times and add up enough water on the surface.\n\nUsually with other moons or small planets, it boils right away since there's no air to keep it pressured into a liquid, and so it doesn't take much temperature to make it evaporate.\n\nWith the moon, it's always cold where there's deep craters near the poles, so any ice that crashed down there got to settle in"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3qbg24 | is it possible to die of thirst while submerged in water up to your neck? (assuming you can't drink water through your mouth) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qbg24/eli5_is_it_possible_to_die_of_thirst_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwdp7nw",
"cwdqax5"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes you would die, your skin can not absorb anywhere near enough water to hydrate you. \n\nSomeone else posted you need the water in your stomach, but this isn't necessarily true. You can survive through a saline IV drip (and in cases of extreme dehydration this is considered a better route for treating it) but definitely not by skin absorption.",
"Yes, it is possible. Your skin is designed to be as waterproof as possible, so you don't swell up like a sponge when you go swimming, or soak up toxic chemicals when you step in a puddle.\n\nHowever, it's also possible to survive. While you need to drink, you don't need to drink through your mouth. You could... *relax your bottom* and take in some water that way to rehydrate yourself."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7zsp84 | the only two species of alligators are in the usa and china, but nowhere in between. how is this possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zsp84/eli5_the_only_two_species_of_alligators_are_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"duqgjrm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Earth has changed a lot since alligators first got going. The basic alligator body form is well upwards of 60 million years old.\n\n60 million years ago North America, Europe, and Asia were all one huge landmass covered in big giant angry lizards. As they moved apart and the climate changed most of those bigass lizards died off. However the proto-gators continued to thrive in a few locations where the climate and terrain was friendly to them (warm and swampy). \n\nBeing separated for millions of years the American gators and Chinese gators evolved separately to fit their environments until they split into different species. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4274ht | if some veggies are bad for cats why does cat food have them in it? | Consensus says that most vegetables are bad for cats. Why does cat food contain then contain some vegetables in it? "Garden greens" are commonly advertised but reading the label all that even resembles vegetables are variations of corn and some rice near the end. Why is this so? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4274ht/eli5_if_some_veggies_are_bad_for_cats_why_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz83z2y",
"cz84dul",
"cz84ih3"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Corn is mostly indigestible by mammals (including humans, hence why your poop looks like a corn cob). It is used in cheap pet food as a filler. Better than sawdust I suppose (which also appears in cheap pet foods). ",
"\"Most\" vegetables aren't actually *bad* for cats, they just aren't necessary or even particularly beneficial for them to eat. That said, /u/slash178 is right that they're used as filler.",
"Garden greens aren't bad for your cat. Many pet stores will even sell little pots of cat-safe grass (the lawn type, not the smoking type), and cats will naturally nibble on them. They don't eat grass for nutrition, they eat grass because the fiber helps their digestion. \n\nOther vegetables may be added for nutrition or for flavor, or even for bulk (since obesity can be a problem with house cats). Remember, cats in the wild will eat the stomach contents of their prey, so it's not as though all that vegetable matter tastes or smells bad to them.\n\nWhat is true is that cats are obligate carnivores, and cannot survive on a vegetarian diet. I suppose there might be some carefully crafted ones, but in general cats must have meat regularly. That doesn't make veggies bad. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4fit4g | how do waves transfer energy | Im talking about Tsunami waves.
How much energy does it transfer? Where does it come from, where does it go?
How fast do they move? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fit4g/eli5_how_do_waves_transfer_energy/ | {
"a_id": [
"d295gfz",
"d29pj4k",
"d29txb8",
"d2a0770"
],
"score": [
15,
18,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"thermal energy in earths magma below crust > kinetic energy in tectonic plates (earthquakes underwater) > kinetic energy in water. the energy is then lost in a lot of ways, im guessing, at a fundamental level, because work is done against gravity as it moves out of the sea, but also friction with everything the tsunami contacts\n\naccording to this link _URL_0_\nthe 2011 tsunami in japan had an energy ~1.3x10^14 Joules (as a low estimate)",
"Tsunami waves like all ocean waves occur because two molecules can't be in the same place at the same time. This is a basic fact of fluid dynamics. \n\nSo when waves 'move' the water is mostly staying in the same place because it moves very little. But it bumps up against the water molecules around it giving up their energy and stopping as they've given it up. But whatever molecules they just bumped into now have the energy and so they move a short distance, bump into something, give it up and stop etc. \n\nIt's like those desktop toys with the metal balls clanking back and forth. The balls themselves don't move, or they move very little. They mostly act as a conductor of energy. \n\nSo a tsunami originating in Japan travels as an energy wave 'through' the water. The water itself doesn't move so Japanese water stays in Japan even if the tsunami is moving towards Hawaii. \n\nThis is also the reason why at sea a tsunami is not even really noticeable. The energy is spread out immensely from top to bottom, so you have a huge mass of water bouncing around but the wave is only centimeters high. It still has energy because of how much water is in play though. \n\nAs the wave approaches shallower depths, the energy stops being spread out among large masses of water, and starts being concentrated, by the decreasing depth, and the wave starts growing taller and taller. This focusing of the energy also causes the waves to slow down in speed, and increase in height. In the open ocean a tsunami energy wave travels incredibly fast, like jet speed fast. As it comes up onto shore though it's much slower, but much taller, and at that point water is moving not just acting as a conductor. The slow waves at the coast, with fast waves coming in behind it, causes a surge, pushing large amounts of water near the shore so not only do the waves get tall, but the local sea level also rises. This is why the water on land looks like it's risen and flooded instead of just immediately washing back out to sea. \n\n",
"So, think of it this way, little Tim-Tom-Mathis-Tong, our planet isn't exactly solid. We float on these big plates of rock. Think of them exactly like dinner plates, except much much bigger, so they could hold at least 10 times more of your Mom's disgusting meatloaf. So these plates are just floating on top of liquid magma, and every now and then the plates collide or separate. When this happens, those plates actually moving sends a huge shock wave out into the water. The thing about liquids is that they act like they're composed of a bunch of little bouncy balls. Now, what happens if you push one bouncy ball in a stack of bouncy balls? The other balls move. So, when this plate releases this huge shock into the water, it creates a \"wave\" of movement that emits from wherever the center point of those plates touching was. As the balls keep moving away they dissipate that energy, or speed, to each other ball. But as the energy wave goes closer to land, it has less and less balls to push. So that energy becomes more concentrated, and it becomes so concentrated that it creates a massive wave of water! AND BOOM! IT KILLS GODZILLA!\n\nYeah, what a jerk wave, right?",
"Let's use sound waves as an example. A sound wave is simply particles bumping into other particles, pushing them in a direction, and then those particles bump into the next particles etc.\n\nPhysical waves are just a macro-scale phenomena created by micro-scale objects bumping into each other and reacting as you would expect them to. Any time you push on a macro-scale object, all of the particles that make it up need to bump into each other for the whole object to move."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.geologyinmotion.com/2011/03/how-much-power-in-japanese-tsunami-of.html?m=1"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3mx7qk | when people say the universe is expanding, do they mean the observable universe, or the entire universe? | If its the entire universe, what happens at the edge of the universe? If there is no edge, then does that make it infinite? What is it expanding into? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mx7qk/eli5_when_people_say_the_universe_is_expanding_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvixukw",
"cvj03wu"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"While studying the Universe, Hubble discovered that all of observable space was red shifted, this observation supported Freidmann's previous predictions of space. This discovery like I said was only for the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, however the observable universe is limited by the speed of light and it is theorized that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light, evidence for this are things like background microwave radiation left over from the big bang. This BMR is located outside of the \"observable universe\" which identifies that there must be some kind of empty space in which the universe is expanding.\n\nSource: Im a year 12 physics student.\n\nP.S. Don't take my word over someone with a better knowledge!!",
"The entire universe is expanding. It has no edge. That doesn't necessarily make it infinite, since it could curve around on itself like the surface of a sphere or loop around like a game of asteroids. It's not expanding into something; distances are just getting bigger."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2tv84u | is it more or less efficient to close heating vents in rooms i don't use in the winter? | Does it save energy by making other heating vents blow more hot air? Or does leaving some rooms cold make my house colder overall.
Just trying to save a few bucks on my heating bill. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tv84u/eli5_is_it_more_or_less_efficient_to_close/ | {
"a_id": [
"co2liy7",
"co2lqza",
"co2lrbc",
"co2m00y",
"co2n4tj"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"closing the vents and the doors to these rooms should save you money by leaving just those rooms colder. If you leave the doors open it kind of negates the effect due to those rooms cold air more easily mixing with the rest of your house.",
"If you section off a part of your house that you don't intend to heat, it will certainly save you money. Be careful not to close off too many areas, as your fan will be strained by not being able to move enough air for the entire house out of the remaining vents. \n\nAnother efficient way to heat your home is to lower your thermostat to an uncomfortable temperature, and then use a space heater to heat the area you are in. If you are alone in the computer room, you could turn the air to 60º or 55º and just heat that room by itself. You can also make use of blankets.",
"The worst case scenario is\n\n- you close the vents\n\n- warm air from other rooms leaks into the cold rooms, warming them up anyway.\n\n- therefore you have heated the whole house.\n\nThis is the same outcome as heating the whole house to start with. So you can't possibly be losing money.\n\nIf you shut the doors, the cold rooms will stay colder and you'll end up saving money.\n\n",
"But always be sure that the temperature in the rooms does not drop too low, like under 12°C or something, because this will cost you a ton of money in the long run.",
"Other people answered very well, but left off one important detail. In very cold climates, you risk creating local frozen spots in your walls and under floors where the pipes run, freezing and possibly breaking your plumbing. Same problem exists with turning the temperature down very far in the whole house."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fdqtc8 | were people hundreds of years ago, able to view stars at night clearly on a regular basis? how much clearer was it compared to now with all the smoke in the air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fdqtc8/eli5_were_people_hundreds_of_years_ago_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjja5rr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Simple answer, yes they would. The smoke /smog etc isn't even the main difference, it's the ambient light. All the street lights, house lights, neon etc etc creates a much brighter world than there was back then.\nThis light that we have all around us makes it harder to see any celestial bodies. Centuries ago this wasn't anywhere near as much of an issue.\n\nIf you travel anywhere less populated these days you will see a huge difference in the night skies compared to any built up area."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
19r5uj | college. | Ok, so I know this sounds dumb, but I literally have no idea how college works. I'm a sophomore in high school right now, and I have no idea when I have to apply, how to apply, or what all these "college terms" mean, like undergraduate, early assessment, all that stuff. I'd ask my parents, but they both went to college in Poland, so they don't know how it works here in America. Any help at all is appreciated. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19r5uj/eli5_college/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8qkvtx",
"c8qx6ee"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Okay, it's really pretty simple. Your senior year is where the magic happens. You'll usually take your standardized tests like the SAT and ACT junior year, then in the fall of your senior year you apply. Most colleges have an online application you fill out, and most of those use what's called the Common Application. It's an application that's standard so you only have to fill it out once, and a lot of colleges accept it, but not all, so check first. You'll have basic stuff on your app like name, age, year of application, etc. then stuff like your extra curriculars and service projects. Most applications will also have some form of essay. Then you will go to your assigned guidance counselor and ask them to mail a copy of your transcript to whatever colleges you are applying to. This has all the info about your grades and class rank. Then you just wait for a decision.\n\nTo answer your second part: an undergraduate is a college student working towards their first degree, usually a bachelor's. A graduate student already has their undergraduate and is working for a second degree like a master's or PhD. Early assessment could mean a lot of things, but I think what you mean is when colleges \"scout\" you for scholarships. Any other questions, feel free to ask :)",
"Just to let you know, there is a counselor in every high school who has the knowledge to help you. That is their job. Depending on your high school, there might even be a \"career counselor\" who has pamphlets and incredible amounts of information on colleges near you and out of state. They are also the ones who can help you fill out a FAFSA (government money to help you with college) when you need to do that (senior year). If you have any other questions, let me know. I am an academic adviser at a university."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
q0bov | lovecraftian lore | A lot of posts on reddit allude to Lovecraft in some way, almost to the extent that it's its own type of Godwin's Law. So I was wondering, could anyone explain a brief overview of what Lovecraft wrote about? From what I've picked, it seems very hard to organize if you aren't very into it (lots of gods and different writers), so starting from any writer from any god or deity would be an appreciated and interesting read!
Thanks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q0bov/eli5_lovecraftian_lore/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3to9jn",
"c3tqxug"
],
"score": [
13,
12
],
"text": [
"Lovecraft is basically the father of modern horror. Whereas most Victorian horror had to do with ghosts and witches, lovecraft was the first tot deal with space aliens, beings from other dimensions and existential dread.\n\nExistential dread is the main theme of his horror. It's the horror at realizing that mankind is unimportant and dwarfed by cosmic forces that don't care one way or the other. Consequently lots of his stories involve people confronting incredibly powerful beings who shrug them off or kill men without even thinking about it.\n\nThe stuff about evil gods is the logical extension of existential horror: it's the idea that there are these super powerful entities out there, they have the power to destroy earth, and our whole universe, and they honestly don't care if we live our die. Even worse, we can't even understand what the hell motivates them! Scary stuff.\n\nAll of lovecraft's work is in the public domain. Go download it and read it!",
"Our version of reality, with its predictability and morality, is just a veil we pull over our own eyes to protect our minds from how uncaring and cruel the forces of the universe really are. Humans are like insects compared with some of the things living out there - we will never understand or comprehend them, and they could destroy us in any moment without a thought. There are creatures called the Great Old Ones, who are basically ancient minor gods who visited Earth long, long ago. Some still remain here, hidden from view. Cthulhu is an example of a Great Old One.\n\nThen there's the Outer Gods. Ruled by the Blind Idiot God Azathoth, they exist outside what Lovecraft called ‘angular space’, or what we now call space-time, but can still influence or manifest themselves in our universe.\n\nThese entities come complete with their own feuds and rivalries, and humans could be wiped out at any moment by their actions. Humans who bare witness to these cosmic creatures have their world view shattered so hard they usually go insane. [Can't imagine why](_URL_0_)... The beings are so completely beyond our experience they are impossible to comprehend for humans. This horror style is called cosmicism.\n\nThe reason there seems to be multiple authors in the mythos is that Lovecraft had only a small fan following during his own time, many of whom were budding horror writers themselves. Lovecraft actively encouraged and assisted in the authoring of more stories using his characters and world - basically helping his fans write fan fiction.\n\nImportant words you'll hear a lot on the internet:\n\n**Cthulhu:** *‘Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!’*, members of the Cthulhu cult chant. ‘In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.’ Cthulhu is a Great Old One, lying dead but dreaming beneath the sea in the terrible city of R'lyeh. In his dreams, he calls out to other dreamers to awaken him again. Cthulhu is the most popular Lovecraft deity, probably because he's like the classic sea monster but a hundred times worse.\n\n**Necronomicon:** Written by the knowledgable but mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon is a fictional grimoire: a spell book. It contains information on many ancient magics and on the Ancient Ones. Fills people with dread when they read it.\n\n**Arkham:** A fictional city in Massachusetts, Arkham features in many of Lovecraft's stories. It is the home of Miskatonic University, which seems to be where a large amount of research is done into the strange Necronomicon and other supernatural things.\n\n**Dream Cycle:** The Dream Cycle is a collection of Lovecraft stories set in the Dreamlands, an alternate world only accessible through sleep.\n\n**Nyarlathotep:** An Outer God who exists in many recognisable humanoid forms, a being with a thousand Masks. He is generally smarter than the other Gods, but obeys the will of Azathoth without question. He seems to be the only deity who, rather than the destruction of humanity being a by-product of mindless actions, actively seeks to torture humans.\n\nNote: spelling and pronunciations of these words and creatures are often as close as humans can come to comprehending alien vocalisations completely unlike sounds we usually perceive. Our senses and mind are not at all capable of comprehending these beings, in a similar way that an ant could not comprehend the movements, sounds and behaviour of people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://images.epilogue.net/users/megaflow/shub-niggurath.jpg"
]
] |
|
5evwb2 | if the us post office is funded by the government, why do they charge us to ship something from them? | I asked my dad and he said that would make us Communist and we can't have that =/ not sure if that's the answer I'm looking for. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5evwb2/eli5_if_the_us_post_office_is_funded_by_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dafin9t",
"dafiqyk",
"dafjbwb",
"dafn7ix"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a government department. So is the DMV. They still require you to pay for stuff, marriage licenses, fees for pretty much anything you do, all government, all still require you to pay.",
"The Post Office does not work like other government agencies. USPS works as an independent organization and is allowed to operate as a business. When every other department was spending more than their budget the USPS was creating a surplus. So it works. At one point it almost tanked but they partnered with UPS and bounced back.",
"The Post Office is a government agency only in the sense that the government owns it and it's protected against failure because it's a critical service that we can't afford to let fail (or at least has been historically if not now), but in most respects it is run like a private company. \nThe US Government pays for services with tax revenue. They'd have to increase taxes a significant amount in order to fully fund USPS for free use to everyone (which would make demand for postal services skyrocket. Think about it, if it were free to mail letters and ship packages, people would abuse it). \n\nWhile tax dollars do fund some services that not everyone uses, postage is one that would be particularly large and unfair one to charge you for if you don't use it. \n",
"As others have mentioned, the USPS operates like a private company with the government guaranteeing it doesn't go bankrupt... but even with regular government services, there are many where people have to pay for accessing the service. Getting a passport costs money. Flying means paying TSA security fees as part of a ticket's price. There are admission fees to National Parks, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ehv4pb | what causes television/computer screens to look so bad when recorded with a camera? shouldn't it look closer to what we see? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehv4pb/eli5_what_causes_televisioncomputer_screens_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fclrezz"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"It's called the moiré pattern.\n\nBasically, you might have known that a TV screen is a grid of dots (pixels), each pixel is made of 3 primary color dots. The digital camera also captures a grid of dots. Now when you try to map your TV's grid to your camera's grid, it almost certainly won't line up perfectly. That means, one pixel on your camera might be capturing two halves of two separate pixels on the screen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2m1vco | how do surfers survive wipe outs on enormous waves? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m1vco/eli5_how_do_surfers_survive_wipe_outs_on_enormous/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm07aov"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They relax until the wave lets them go then they head for the surface. By relaxing they don't get an elevated heart rate and can manage to hold their breath just fine. Remember, huge waves break into deep water so you're not going to get pile driven into a reef like at Pipeline and Teahupo'o\n\nPretty much the longest you'll get held down for is 30 seconds (double wave hold downs and such) so you do have to be in pretty good shape physically"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4m1lab | transcendental numbers. can these numbers not be represented by any rational numbers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4m1lab/eli5_transcendental_numbers_can_these_numbers_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3rrvsh",
"d3rryw2",
"d3rsc90"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"No, because every rational number x = a/b is a root of bx - a = 0. Thus, the rational numbers are algebraic, and so by definition, cannot be transcendental.",
"Algebraic numbers are numbers that can be a solution to a polynomial equation whose coefficients are all integers. For example, the solutions of the equation x^5 + 12x^3 - 8x^2 - 100x + 20 = 0 are all algebraic, and √2 is algebraic because it solves the equation x^2 - 2 = 0. \n\nTranscendental numbers are numbers that are not algebraic. Pi and e, for example, are transcendental.",
"Transcendental numbers are by definition irrational. They are defined as numbers which are not algebraic, and rational numbers are a subset of algebraic numbers. So nope, you can't represent them using any single rational number.\n\nHowever, you can approximate them as closely as you like using decimal expansion, which is how we write pi, for example. pi = 3.1415926535...\n\n3.1415925435 is a rational number, and what my statement means is, pi is somewhere between 3.14159265350 and 3.14159265360. It's not exact value, but at least you have now pretty good idea what I mean when I say \"pi\".\n\nIf you use infinite number of rational numbers, you however can pinpoint any irrational number.\n\n1. 3\n2. 3.1\n3. 3.14\n4. 3.141\n5. 3.1415\n6. 3.14159\n7. 3.141592\n8. 3.1415926\n9. 3.14159265\n10. 3.141592653\n11. 3.1415926535\n12. ...\n\nThis sequence will, in infinity, pinpoint what pi really is. But since we can't type out infinite sequences like that, it's a bit pointless. However, with irrational numbers, that's generally all we really have to work with. That's also why pi is a named symbol. We can't type it using numbers, so we need to name it to be able to talk about it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
63o2hk | who decides the names of generations? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63o2hk/eli5_who_decides_the_names_of_generations/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfvr0tn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People would sometimes name cohorts of people in the 20th century, but there wasn't a real rationale for it. This changed in 1991 with the book \"Generations: The History of America's Future\" by William Strauss and Neil Howe. While competing names continue to exist for generations, the ones they chose are most likely what you are used to hearing about:\n\nLost Generation (1883-1900) coined by Gertrude Stein\n\nG.I Generation (1901-1924) also \"Greatest Generation\" coined by Tom Brokaw\n\nSilent Generation (1925-1942) coined by Time Magazine in 1951\n\nBaby Boom Generation (1943-1960) coined by the New York Post in 1951 (\"Baby Boomer\" not being used until the 1970s).\n\nGeneration X (1961-1981) probably coined by Douglas Coupland also \"MTV Generation\" coined by Steve Greenberg\n\nMillennials (1982-2004) coined by Strauss and Howe, also \"Generation Y\" or \"Echo Boomers\" derived from the above.\n\nHomeland Generation (2005-present) coined by Strauss and Howe, but more popularly Generation Z, I think.\n\nI personally think Strauss and Howe are given far too much significance and that better names for Post-Millennials will shake out in time. While I don't like the word \"Millennial\" I do think it is better to name a cohort after one of its own traits rather than for its relationship to the previous generation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
bksvkc | how is matt stonie’s stomach able to handle 16+ pounds of food at once? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bksvkc/eli5_how_is_matt_stonies_stomach_able_to_handle/ | {
"a_id": [
"emjg6du",
"emjlbqj",
"emjlzye",
"emjt4iu",
"emk3wqq",
"emkf5s4",
"emkpox2",
"emkpsoa",
"emkxwdr"
],
"score": [
1279,
99,
4,
9,
37,
9,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Constant stretching just like any muscle. Many competitive eaters use grapes tp help. They are easy to swallow, they come in large quantities, and are easy to digest.",
"+ How does he not gain weight?",
"i remember reading an article about people who mukbang. basically their stomach expands to a huge size and ends up displacing some of the other internal organs.",
"A better question would be, how does he stay so skinny eating 16+ pounds of food at once?",
"The stomach is an incredible machine. What you’re born with definitely helps.\n\nJust like with any event where you have to put a major strain on your body, you have to train to competitively eat, too. So they don’t get fat, eaters will stretch their stomachs out with lots of water instead of food. Some may clean themselves out before an event to maximize the amount of room as well. \n\nThe stretching is a big one though. It’s a way to train your stomach to tolerate that kind of load. They also have to figure out how to eat, so they may practice various techniques (one example is dipping a hot dog in water before eating, so you don’t have to chew the bun). They also have to have crazy strong jaws, otherwise they won’t be able to eat like that for such a long time. \n\nIn a way training to eat against someone like Stonie, or Joey Chestnut, is like training to sprint against Usain Bolt. Anyone can run a 100m dash, but nobody can do it as fast, and if you legit try you could hurt yourself unless you train.",
"I dated a girl who dated a professional competitive eater. \n\nThey actually train with water more than anything, or at least did back then. They consume huge amounts to stretch it out, and then vomit it back up. And repeat.\n\nObviously they also practice with food, but water is the more common thing.",
"Is he the world champion? I thought the world champion is a petite girl that got famous not so long ago",
"I’d imagine at that quantity, a lot of the food is passed through him undigested. Lots of stretching though. \n\nI also wonder how he eats on a regular basis. Like what’s his average day. Not eating 16000 calories I imagine. His poor toilet.",
"He goes on a weekly diet to balance his calorie intake so his overall intake is normal. At least thats what he used to do. Believe it or not he went to school for nutritional science. Source: I was his roommate a long time ago."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
aepggh | what goes on during the aging process of alcohol, like wine and whiskey, that can’t be replicated with modern day technology’s? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aepggh/eli5_what_goes_on_during_the_aging_process_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"edrdq08",
"edre3dj",
"edrghs3",
"ee314iz"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your question is confusing. We *do* make these products using modern-day technologies. If you go to a large winery or distillery, you'll find a lot of modern equipment.",
"I believe the reason you wouldn’t want to make alcohol synthetically is more of an economic question. Synthesizing alcohol in a lab takes very direct work and a lot of things would need to be controlled to get it so that it is both flavorful and safe to drink. However, aging in barrels in its own way is very much a science in its own right and like previous commentators have said we do in fact use very modern technology in regulating brewing temps and alcohol levels while still using barrels and natural sources to add flavor and such. Its not so much that we use old methods , we’ve just improved on old ones. ",
"Basically the raw juices of say grapes or agave is digested by yeast which excretes the alcohol. Then it is distilled and refined into what would be a harsh alcoholic drink( think of a blanco or silver tequilla) then the barrels impart the flavor and color to make it rich and palatable.",
"I can speak for wine, as I own a winery in Northern California and am a career winemaker, with a university degree in winemaking (Viticulture & Enology).\n\nWhen wine, especially red wine, ages in barrel, there is a very slow diffusion of oxygen from the slightly porous oak staves into the wine. Since wine is acidic (reductive), it takes up oxygen pretty well. The oxygen causes very slow reactions to take place, amongst components created during fermentation, or extracted from the grapes. Many of the components which take up oxygen are phenolics, and the reactions are polymerizations. Others are esterifications, where an oxygen bridges an organic acid and an alcohol. Then, over time, these products created by the slow incorporation of oxygen react with themselves, called second order reactions, then third order, etc. This takes time, and very slow uptake of oxygen. In proper winemaking, you can't really speed this up with technology - if you heat the wine up, or saturate it with oxygen, all you do is oxidize the wine and create vinegar. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
64csqy | the supreme court taking on issue of gerrymandering with regards to 1st amendment | Saw some of this in the news lately and was hoping for a good overview. Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64csqy/eli5_the_supreme_court_taking_on_issue_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg1cgkz"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"So the skinny you've probably heard is that federal judges slapped the hand of Wisconsin's congressional districting boundaries and said it was a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments with a vote of 2-1. Specifically, in regards to the 1st amendment they stated the congressional lines were drawn in such a way as to give benefit to a particular political party and in doing so they claim it violates people's rights of freedom of association because it impedes the effectiveness of their political affiliation.\n\nSo some background here. States are allowed to draw up their Congressional lines, meaning they get to decide where the boundaries are for their Congressional districts. These boundaries constantly change because people move within the state and the population of the states change and with that change the number of districts they have to carve out causing a complete rework of the boundaries. Previously the Supreme Court has ruled that states have to *gerrymander* their districts to provide African American/black voters a Congressional district when possible. The idea behind this was that they wanted to increase black representation in Congress. So you're not allowed to draw your Congressional lines in such a way as to reduce the impact of black voters, in fact, you often have to draw them in ways to increase their representation. Now this gets weird, because some states can easily carve up their black populations neatly (or not neatly) into one or two Congressional districts and basically give away that seat to Democrats while reducing their voting block for the surrounding districts and help ensure they remain Republican or give Republicans a better chance at winning them. So if they do that, the courts can rule against them for race based gerrymandering, which is a very contentious issue because the Supreme Court has already mandated that they have to gerrymander in ways that discriminate against non-black/minority voters. So those rulings and legal battles get very interesting where they have a very tight line they have to balance on and intent can play a role.\n\nHistorically, most of the challenges to gerrymandering has been in regards to these race based lines. Either too much preferential treatment towards minorities, or not enough. The Wisconsin case that is going to the Supreme Court is a little more unique because the judges ruled that it isn't a racial thing, it's a party affiliation thing and that they intended to disenfranchise voters of a particular political party. They are saying this violates the 1st and 14th amendment by drawing lines based on presumed party affiliation. If this is confirmed by the Supreme Court we can assume that the minority party in many states will file suit against their state for politically biased districts since essentially every state's majority party who gets to draw the lines does this. And Republicans happen to have the majority in the most states so it could have greater impacts on their ability to hold seats in the House of Reps. It could also have some impacts on the highly influential Congressional Black Caucus who have been reaping the rewards of gerrymandering for some time now.\n\nThe interesting thing about gerrymandering is that Democrats win the majority of the most gerrymandered districts. But, Republicans are more likely to have drawn those lines. As an example, check out one of the most gerrymandered districts: [NC 12th District](_URL_3_). This district was drawn in such a convoluted way which gave advantage to a black female Democrat like [Alma Adams](_URL_2_) to win this seat and she sits as the chair of the NC Legislative Chair of their Black Caucus. Black Americans make up ~20% of NC, but they make up nearly 50% of this district. Is this district highly gerrymandered? YES. Was it illegal or where they just following the guidelines by the Supreme Court to give advantage to black representation? Up to a court to decide. But if this district is redrawn you'd potentially lose Alma Adams, the Black Caucus chair and people would say Republicans were racist for changing it. As you can see this can be hotly debated and quite fascinating in my opinion.\n\nAnother great example of gerrymandering is the Louisiana 2nd district. This district was purposely gerrymandered to great a \"majority-minority\" district to protect against race based gerrymandering in the 1980s. Ironic, yes, but that's the law and what was done. This seat is occupied by Cedric Richmond. He is the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for the federal government. If the Supreme Court decides against Wisconsin and Democrats start attacking Republican gerrymandering to their benefit, will Republicans attack districts like Cedric Richmond's which was purposely gerrymandered for race/political biases to get a black politician elected? And if they do, what would be the race relations from such a move? Again, high stakes and tremendously interesting.\n\nSome more race based gerrymandered districts:\n\nBrenda Lawrence - [Michigan's 14th](_URL_0_). CBC Secretary.\n\nJohn Conyers - [Michigan's 13th] (_URL_4_). CBC Member, Dean of House of Reps\n\nElijah Cummings - [Maryland's 7th] (_URL_1_). CBC. Ranking Member of Congressional Oversight and Reform Committee\n\nSheila Jackson Lee - [Texas 18th] (_URL_5_). CBC. Thinks Neil Armstrong planted a flag on Mars, complains Hurricane names are too white, thinks the constitution is 400 years old, thinks Congress writes Executive Orders for President Obama, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://wdet.org/media/daguerre/2016/05/25/53c6d8296e7eeb63f3ad.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_7th_congressional_district",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Adams",
"https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/districts-02.png&w=1484",
"http://wdet.org/media/daguerre/2016/07/14/aa6b7df6843a25b6bf0d.png",
"http://www.texasgopvote.com/images-upload/TX18.JPG"
]
] |
|
cx8gxi | how did a country as geographically small as england go on to own like 95% of the planet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cx8gxi/eli5_how_did_a_country_as_geographically_small_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyjjbs6",
"eyjjsxs",
"eyjk5gs",
"eyjkmut",
"eyjly17"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"An extremely strong navy and well trained ground forced coupled with being an island nation. They were very difficult to invade successfully and thats if you go through their armies and navy first. Theres a reason afterall that its called the \"English\" channel and not the \"French\" channel. \n\nBecause of this they were able to continually gain holdings abroad generally by virtue of military might. \n\nBut as the US shows us, that strength had its limits.",
"They didn’t own it, they administered it.\n\nMostly went after natural resources (ores, oil etc) , and grew stuff that Britain needed. Tea, coffee, sugar, fruit.\n\nCreated the infrastructure to make it work, education to save having a brain drain from Britain, used the huge navy (left over from the napoleonic wars) to help with transit of goods and for exploration.\n\nCapitalisation of the unwashed.\n\nPlus the church took full advantage.",
"By being benevolent...sort of....the British built ports, railroads, hospitals, libraries, schools, and roads, and so forth. They brought cricket and plied the natives with tea and scones.\n\nIn contrast, the Spanish brought repression and brutality, and didn't do jack for the indigenous peoples, except enslave, brutalize, and rape them, and after all that, they still had to make their own corn tortillas.",
"Back then there weren't any cars, machine guns, internet, cell phones, planes. Land mass and overall population isn't a big issue when you have technology.\n\nThe British had warships with cannons and soldiers with guns going up against paddle canoes and natives with spears and arrows.\n\nIt's easy to subjugate a population when you have or at least appear to have overwhelming force.",
"By making their priority aggressive expansion and naval dominance. The first was important to spread their influence worldwide and the second was important to maintain the empire. Just to prove how much naval dominance and protection of their empire was, they demanded a navy that was stronger than the next 2 strongest navies COMBINED."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20yrz2 | how did twitch plays pokemon actually manage to beat the game? | I know with an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of typewriters may manage to write Shakespeare's entire works, but TPP was beaten in 16 days with 70,000 people on at times. It's a great social experiment, but how is it possible it got beaten in a relatively short amount of time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20yrz2/eli5_how_did_twitch_plays_pokemon_actually_manage/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg7ztaq",
"cg81yli",
"cg83x5g",
"cg84h4i",
"cg85xdl"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Infinite moneys isn't a correct analogy, since it assumes that the monkeys have no idea what they're doing.\n\nTPP was many people giving directions to one computer. The people giving directions know what the objective is and they know how to get the computer to perform them, they're also working towards the same objective - beat the game.",
"Lets see here, suppose I want my monkeys to write, \"To be, or not to be, that is the question:\", including uppercase \"T\" and \":\" assuming we are using a alpha-numeric + special characters(only the ones from 0-9,`,~,-,_,=,+,[,{,],},;,:,',\",,, < ,., > ,/,?,and ), the probability would be:\n\n26(lowercase alpha) + 26(uppercase alpha) + 10(0-9)+ 20(special char)= 82 number of key out\n\nSo using the formula \"probability = events/number of outcomes\" we would get:\n\nProbability = 1 event/82^41 which is \n\n3.41... × 10^-79 chance.\n\nThings are not looking quite so good for the monkeys.",
"Trolls have to sleep sometime.",
"Because you could vote in democracy where people would vote for what move they wanted. So at times it was not completely random. (I think?)",
"It is a form of controlled chaos. People have the same goal and however it is a pain in the ass to get things done, people have the same goal and will press the right buttons eventually because they are all trying to press the right buttons. If you would make it completely RNG it would probably take forever. Oh and they used the democrscy thing so thats kinda cheating."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
74lsfc | why do some places consider people over 55 as seniors while in general 65 is thought of retirement age or seniorhood? | If 55 is a commonly accepted age to be senior, then most politicians I know and professors I had would all be senior citizens | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74lsfc/eli5_why_do_some_places_consider_people_over_55/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnzbusy"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Those \"places\" are typically businesses that are offering something to appeal to older consumers. They decided to expand the category to attract more consumers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
zk3mz | why this government debt - household debt analogy is horribly wrong | From a National Review [article](_URL_0_):
> **Why S & P Downgraded the US:**
> U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
> Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
> New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
> National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
> Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
> .
> **Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:**
> Annual family income: $21,700
> Money the family spent: $38,200
> New debt on the credit card: $16,500
> Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
> Budget cuts: $385
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zk3mz/eli5_why_this_government_debt_household_debt/ | {
"a_id": [
"c65at7a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Basically, if you walk into your bosses' office and say, \"I feel like a raise, start paying me more money,\" your boss doesn't have to obey you. Whereas if the government raises taxes people have to pay more. Also, you can't take money out of your pocket, photocopy it, and double your money, whereas the government controls the mint and can print more money whenever it wants. \n\nAlso, if your company starts selling more stuff you don't automatically get a raise. Whereas if the economy grows the government automatically starts taking in more in taxes. \n\nPlus, in a 100 years, you'll be dead, the government will still be around. \n\nFor all of these reasons, the government gets charged way less interest by all of its lenders and can handle more debt that a person can on a credit card, since the government has eternity to pay it off. What becomes a big problem for governments is if their debt payments start eating up the budget, that is, if paying the monthly minimum on their card takes up too much of their salary, that can start a bad cycle. We do have a lot of debt right now so we should work on paying it off, but the interest rate the US government gets is the lowest in the world so the monthly minimum's not too bad. \n\nPeople who worry a lot about the debt worry that that could change, that lender could get nervous about us and start charging us more. But interest rates have stayed low for years and years yet people are still buying the debt, so other people think we don't need to worry too much. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277873/bringing-budget-numbers-down-size-carrie-lukas"
] | [
[]
] |
|
3p9moh | why aren't there more asians in mma and ufc in the western world? as the birthplace of many martial arts, you'd think there would be a much higher participation by asians? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p9moh/eli5why_arent_there_more_asians_in_mma_and_ufc_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw4cl3d"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"a couple reasons. Number one, talented Asian fighters stay in fight in Asia. They make more money and have better prestige there. Also, Asian fighters are actually pretty well represented in the lower weight classes, but they don't fight far below their weight like a lot of other fighters do, because, well, they can't. They are already at the lowest weight class. It's not a racist thing to say that Asians are generally smaller than black or white people. So, what happens is a lot of the other guys fight well below their natural weight and perform better. \n\nAs a side not, martial arts have rarely even been used as a method for actual combat. They are more like dancing in that respect. Even in Asia, you're not going to see two fighters break out Tae Kwan Doe unless they are specifically fighting in that style."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.