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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7fyyrs | how can the fcc enact laws w/o public comment period? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fyyrs/eli5_how_can_the_fcc_enact_laws_wo_public_comment/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqfcq3k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There was a public comment period. They let people voice their concerns and publicly thanked them for contributing to the discussion, then binned all the messages and did what they wanted.\n\nResponding to an issue by going 'this is not an important concern' is still a *response*, and fulfills legal criteria. If you want to get into what the law demands they do, you need to have an understanding of legal compliance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ao98q0 | how come when your nose is stopped up, it seems like the snot gets dissolved when you stand? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ao98q0/eli5_how_come_when_your_nose_is_stopped_up_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"efz623z",
"efzdpvc"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I hope I understood your question properly.\n\nThere’s this life hack saying if you do 5-10 quick push-ups you’ll end up “unstuffing” your nose. This happens because doing such a thing requires a lot of oxygen intake, and your body tries to make it easier to breathe it in through your nose.\n\nBasically, your sinuses stop trying to make mucus that blocks air supply into the nasal cavity.",
"I've learned that when horizontal my mucous membranes tend to swell and thus can feel like congestion. It is not snot, just engorged (full) vessels in your nasal passages. I've been told by my ENT that this is mainly due to the fact that when lying down, your blood pressure in your head is higher (not working as hard against gravity). \n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
d9t89n | why do the mid-late roman emperors only have a coin portrait of themselves, but not statue like the earlier ones? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d9t89n/eli5why_do_the_midlate_roman_emperors_only_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1l84vo"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Several overlapping reasons:\n\n* Some didn't rule long enough to commission and complete statues.\n\n* Some had too many problems to care, but coinage attached to them personally was a necessity.\n\n* Artistic skills declined, so statuary became less flattering.\n\n* Of the statues that were made, there were fewer of them, making their survival to the present less likely.\n\n* Recent statues in the late Empire were liable to be destroyed in a short time by new regimes.\n\n* In many eras and places, Christianity looked askance at the implicit idolatry of Classical statuary, and some late Roman / Byzantine rulers wishing to seem pious may have preferred to avoid a lot of grandiose depictions of themselves.\n\n* Statues lost political relevance as the Empire became ever more tyrannical and less aristocratic. Public opinion of the Emperor meant little, and he was protected from it mostly by keeping him as an unreachable mystery rather than an idealized man as in the Principate (early years of Empire)."
]
} | [] | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors"
] | [
[]
] |
|
28wqg4 | why are cancer survivors at a higher risk to get cancer than anyone else? | Okay, this might seem like a simple question, but I have actually been thinking about it for a while, and require someone's knowledge.
So, if cancer is always within us (it's just a mutation of the cells, and they cannot undergo apoptosis), and through surgery, the doctor can take away all of the cancer to essentially make this person 'cancer-free', why is it that they have to regularly be checked up upon for cancer, when they should be back to stage one with the rest of the people.
So, let's just say there are three patients: A, B, and C.
Patient A has gotten cancer removed and is now cancer free.
Patient B does not have cancer.
Patient C will get cancer in his future, but no signs at the moment.
How is it that you can say Patient A is more at risk, than B or C when all three are 'cancer free' but one has had it, and one *will* get it (obviously we can't know this).
Is it more they are correlating it as 'if it did happen, it could happen again?' or is something actually changed in cancer survivors that make them more likely to have a cell mutation again?
Thanks in advance. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28wqg4/eli5_why_are_cancer_survivors_at_a_higher_risk_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cif7ezz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because patient A still has cancer. \nIt's never so simple as removing all of the cancerous cells; what has actually happened is that the physicians have removed all of the cancer *that they are able to find*. The conditions in their body remain favorable for cancer, so they are likely to advance through the stages more rapidly than someone who has never yet had it. \nConsider also that cancerous bodies must start out from a single cell or a tiny group of cells. Currently, doctors cannot see these cancers to cure them until they have grown to the size of hundreds of thousands or millions of cells, and this creates a certain inescapable risk of metastasis for any cancer patient. We can't reduce that risk because our technology isn't good enough yet. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5eh6zn | why is peeing in the sink frowned upon when it conserves water | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5eh6zn/eli5_why_is_peeing_in_the_sink_frowned_upon_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dacd1va",
"dacdcgo"
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text": [
"I'll humour you with an answer. Your sink and toilet have a waste trap that holds water in it to seal your house from the sewer. You can see this in the toilet as the water you piss into. When you flush the toilet you swap that now pissed in water for fresh water. Now, if you piss in the sink it's trap will have your piss water in it and will also now require flushing with fresh water. It won't save you any water and you just pissed in the same place you brush your teeth.",
"The sink is a place to clean your hands and other things. Peeing into contaminates it thus making it near useless to clean. It also saves no water if you are rinsing out the sink enough to get the urine out of the traps or to decontaminate the bowl. If you plan on not washing it way just pee in the toilet and not flush. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
sprtm | why do subreddits get more homogenous as they get more subscribers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sprtm/eli5_why_do_subreddits_get_more_homogenous_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4fxvwk",
"c4fyxb3",
"c4g01jw"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"As you get more people in a subreddit the power of upvotes and downvotes becomes more pronounced. People with popular opinions get upvoted much more and people with unpopular opinions get downvoted (this is against reddiquette and you're not supposed to downvote people because you disagree with them but people do it anyway).\n\nAs you get more and more people the majority becomes more and more powerful and people with opinions different to the majority get downvoted more and more. This causes the people who get downvoted to leave because their voices do not get heard. That way the majority gets bigger and bigger and the people who disagree with them just all leave.",
"Statistics are quite relevant for this.\n\nWith small random populations, there will be quite large variations beween individuals. Chances are high that a few extremes could end up in a small population, \"skewing\" the sample. Each individual's unique behaviour will be more notable in a small population than in a large population.\n\nAs you add more and more people, the group will be more representative of the larger general public. Each individual's unique behaviours wll \"drown in the flood\". Random variations in one direction will be countered by people varying in the other direction.\n\nWhat you first notice in a big group is often the average behaviour. All the extremes counter each other to a larger degree. So people seem to be more similiar.",
"Psychology concept called [group polarization](_URL_3_). When people of a belief system get together and discourage people of opposing belief systems, the members of the group feed off each other. An [echochamber](_URL_2_). The more they feed off each other, the more extreme their beliefs become. Opposing groups are reduced to stereotypes (i.e. \"otherization\"), because there's no one in the opposing group to say \"Wait, that's not right....\" Often the group becomes extremist and often not only view the opponents as wrong, but often view it as an outright conspiracy. Sometimes it becomes about [the end of the world](_URL_0_).\n\nOn reddit the problem is made worse with the downvote system. Humans are [conformists](_URL_1_). No matter how anti-conformity you think you are, almost all of us automatically are inclined to believe the majority over the minority. On a subreddit, people *do* downvote others for their opinions. No one gives a fuck about redditquette. And when you see a comment in the negative, you're automatically primed to view it as a negative comment. I've seen this result in people *completely* misreading not only the tone of the comment, but the actual literal meaning. \n\nSo pretty much we have a culture of downvoting people below viewing threshold here on reddit. This results in those people going \"Well fuck those people\" and rightfully so. They leave. Those who are left rarely have no problem with the system....they agree with the beliefs as well. And so the problem gets worse and worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/panichistory",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization"
]
] |
||
45qn31 | why soldiers tap their magazines on their helmet before loading their rifle. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45qn31/eli5_why_soldiers_tap_their_magazines_on_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"czzirsn",
"czzl6kz",
"czzlcqw",
"czzlv0j",
"czzm7gj",
"czzn4b2",
"czzod3h",
"czzorfb",
"czzr3bm",
"d00nwpa"
],
"score": [
942,
11,
96,
55,
15,
7,
5,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"USMC infantry Marine here, we do it in real life, it's to ensure all the rounds are seated all the way back in the magazine. It helps properly feed the rounds into the chamber avoiding any jamming. Technically you shouldn't do it on your Kevlar, or helmet, but whatever works.",
"I can't speak for today, but in ww1 and ww2, they would tap the empty cartridges on their helmets because then the enemy would think they were reloading and pop their heads out from cover. ",
"it's not only in the movies. we do that in real life too. it's to ensure that the rounds are properly seated to the back of the magazine to prevent jamming. \n\nanother way is to hit it against your palm after you have loaded the rounds into the magazine, before inserting the mag into your vest.",
"Veteran here. It is not good practice to use anything hard to re-seat the ammo because those magazines are aluminum and doing so breaks/cracks/bends the spot welds and causes magazine separation, leading to a misfeed. You don't want this in a gun battle. Magazine care is extremely important. If you need to do this, use your boot, palm, or thigh. ",
"Your cartridges have a flat back side and a pointed front. When I was in the army, when your round was too far for ward on top it would stop you from reloading and the you would have to tediously, in the heat of it all. Fix that one stupid round in order to load your rifle. So instead I learnt that banging it on your helmet seated them perfectly. Not preventing jams, but actually getting the mag in to the rifle.",
"Army Infantry here, we were always told that was hollywood bs and to just simply slap the mag against the palm of your hand to seat the rounds",
"You're supposed to do it on your hand which won't damage the magazine but it's so the rounds are seated in the rear allowing more appropriate feed into the chamber and thus minimizing the chance of a very untimely jam.",
"It seats the rounds all the way to the rear of the magazine for ideal feeding. Don't do it on your helmet, though. One day you're going to need to load your weapon, but you won't have a helmet on, and a loaded magazine to the head is not pleasant in the least. As far as I know, all instructors these days are supposed to teach the alternative of smacking the magazine against your palm, but when you've got a rifle in one hand and a magazine in the other, and you need to know that your weapon isn't going to jam it's a hell of a lot easier to smack it on your helmet than to let go of your weapon. Plus you're not supposed to let go of your weapon in the first place. It's a vicious circle, really.",
"It's already been answered, but if you wanted to see what the difference once, here is a picture of my pistol's \"unpacked\" and \"packed\" magazine.\n\n[Unpacked vs Packed](_URL_0_)",
"Just to clear up a few things, yes you're most likely not going to crack your Kevlar in half by hitting your magazine against it. We were just taught that your Kevlar protects your grape so don't smack shit off of it. Also, its muscle memory for me to tap the first mag i insert into my rifle while going condition one, i also tap the fuck out of the forward assist even if it isn't needed. Lastly, when i was in Iraq actively engaged and firing, when i shot the last round of the mag and the bolt locked back, all in one very fluid motion, my off hand would grab a new mag from my pouch and then for the briefest of a split second my finger would leave the trigger to release the empty mag which my off hand was grabbing while simultaneously inserting the fresh one, then I'd hit my bolt release and you're back in action, I'd put the empty mag in my drop pouch on the fly. Always retain your mags! I know this sound like a mouthful (haha) but if you've ever been a grunt you know what i mean. All this was exhaustively practiced over years, i assure you it can be done all in one seamlessly fluid motion and very fast."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ICvK9W7.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
31885r | mapp v. ohio | What was the case about? Like the facts on what happened. Also why is this case so important? They were searching for a felon and found other things? I don't really understand the case at all and it's been keeping me up... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31885r/eli5mapp_v_ohio/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpz85ci"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Importance of the case: Before Mapp v. Ohio, the 4th amendment applied to just the federal government, not state and local police forces. In their decision, the Justices applied the 14th amendment to the 4th amendment, essentially extending the limitations of the 4th amendment to state and local governments.\n\nIn a practical level, this made it so that illegally obtained evidence wasn't allowed in court, regardless of the jurisdiction that the case was being held in."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
39363y | why aren't there customization colored car tires for car enthusiasts when rubber is so easily colorized? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39363y/eli5_why_arent_there_customization_colored_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"crzybyf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Tires are going to get extremely dirty, extremely quickly. Any color but black is going to end up looking like shit. They'd literally only be useful on show cars that aren't actually driven."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8b7x8a | what is the difference between china's "creepy" social credit system and the us' credit score system? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8b7x8a/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_chinas_creepy/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx4m3uc",
"dx4m6wl",
"dx4mm72",
"dx4ooj7",
"dx4udml",
"dx4uo6g",
"dx528g0"
],
"score": [
20,
2,
6,
3,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They seem to have the same mechanics, but they measure different things. Do things or exhibit behaviours that the key stakeholders want and your score goes up. Do otherwise and your score goes down.\n\nIn the credit score system the stakeholders are creditors and lenders - your score evaluates how risky you are to loan money to. Or how financially responsible you are in a way.\n\nIn China's social credit system the stakeholder is the state and what they want is for you to exhibit model Chinese citizen behaviour. Take public transit instead of driving (because of greenhouse gas emission reduction) - your score goes up. Criticize the government on social media - your score goes down.",
"The idea of the China social credit concept goes well beyond keeping records of how a user has utilized lines of credits and using that information to make leading decisions. The news on the subject may be a little stretched beyond reality, but it appears that many more factors will be collected, such as minor criminal offenses, item purchase history, etc will be used for many more decisions, such as allowing people to purchase travel tickets.",
"The Chinese system is run by the government, not some company, making it much more \"official\". The Chinese system also deducts for expressing opinions which do not agree with government policy, which is a complete violation of the concept of free speech. \n\nUS credit scores are not \"official\", endorsed by the government, and they are not even always the same from the 3 companies that report them. US credit scores are completely insensitive of the person's political opinions.",
"Well, for one, the government doesn't impose penalties on you like denying you the use of mass transit ir air travel if your consumer credit score is bad. ",
"In short: the credit score systems used in North America attempt to measure the risk that you will fail to repay a debt. The \"social credit\" score system being launched in China is attempting to measure *your worth as a human being*.\n\nMany people find this objectionable.",
"For one, it's possible (though somewhat difficult and frustrating) to live without caring about your credit score. It's usually used for credit applications, so as long as you avoid credit you can do without it. The average American really only needs credit to purchase a house and maybe a car, so one you've got both (or alternatives), you're in the clear.\n\nThe recent trend of some organizations using your credit score as a proxy for a \"reliability score\" is both frustrating and somewhat creepy, but it's at least not (yet) as bad as China's system that was purpose-built to be used as such.",
"China's is used to punish political dissent and behaviors they strongly dislike. They being the communist government.\n\nA credit score in the us is a financial well being score. It has nothing to do with your social skills, your political opinions or most of your behavior. Pay your bills on time, get higher score.\n\nCredit scoring isn't a system made by the govt to manipulate behavior, it's one financial organizations use to avoid poor financial decisions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ajhtd | why do certain textures cause some people irrational discomfort? | For example, whenever someone rubs their hands on their jeans or denim, I cringe hard and have to look away. It has the same effect on me as someone running their nails across a chalkboard. A friend of mine is the same way with people rubbing silk. Yet, these textures are not unpleasant to feel and are not harmful, so why do I have this reaction? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ajhtd/eli5_why_do_certain_textures_cause_some_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"csd7vg9",
"csdaq89",
"csdg77i",
"csdjd9f",
"csdjr5q",
"csdody3",
"csds3ml",
"cse191a"
],
"score": [
52,
33,
9,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To my knowledge, it's a trait that is inherited in a minor part of the population, mostly autistic people, but not necesarely autistic people only. It's enhancing some senses in your body (be it sound, touches, smell etc) that make you \"extra\" aware of the texture you are experiencing, which therefore can cause discomfort.\n\nDo correct me if I'm mistaking, this is from the top of my head.",
"Keywords relevant to this thread that are worth exploring:\n\n- [Misophonia](_URL_1_)\n\n- [ASMR](_URL_2_)\n\n- [Mirror neuron](_URL_0_)s\n\nBy \"relevant\" I mean *extremely interesting reading*.",
"Much of what's been mentioned in this thread falls under the broad title of Sensory Processing Disorder/Deficits. There isn't a single agreed upon cause but here is some good reading: _URL_0_",
"For a lot of people it is \"sensory integration disorder\" or a sensory processing disorder. It is not so much the sensation itself as it is the way a person's brain interprets it. A lot of times it is because it is a sudden uptick in sensory information and your brain gets freaked out by how much information it has and can't process it. Denim is very rough and coarse-textured and hands are very sensitive so even the idea of other people rubbing denim can trigger the idea of how it feels to rub denim and that can be overwhelming. Silk is very smooth so it also produces a unique sensory response. Personally, whenever the sound level in a room goes above a certain point I totally shut down and start to feel very claustrophobic. The only exception is if I'm in a place that is intentionally loud where I don't have to think, such as a concert or a club, and even then, it requires effort. That is more of an auditory processing issue, where what you described is more of a tactile- physical touch processing issue, it seems? ",
"I hope I'm not too late with this - I have a number of hearing issues and in /r/misophonia someone recently posted about the book \"Too Loud Too Bright Too Fast Too Tight\" by Sharon Heller (_URL_0_). \n\nIt's all about sensory processing / integration disorders, and how to fix them, or alleviate the symptoms. I am almost halfway through it (not yet at the fix-it part, stupid e-reader book!) and some of the information is mind-blowing. Problems I have had since childhood, which were put down to me being \"fussy\" or \"overreacting\" actually appear to have their roots in balance and touch processing issues, among other things.\n\nI am praying the rest of it doesn't turn out to be \"sit under a pyramid in a tinfoil hat and clear your chakras\" type stuff. I would give a lot to be able to get past some of these issues, they can be quite restricting and debilitating.\n\nAnyway - hope someone finds it useful.",
"oh man, love this thread. i can't handle unpainted wood like popsicle sticks, and construction paper makes my arms flail.",
"Chalk or anything with a texture like it, I get goose-bumps and the quivers. Even a chalkboards texture freaks me out. Clipping my nails is another one... Ugh I just got the willys thinking about it.",
"I feel that way about sponges and foam textures like egg crate bedding. Never really understood the conncection or knew that it happened to others."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misophonia",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_processing_disorder#Causes"
],
[],
[
"http://sharonheller.net/tooloud.php"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
40e0id | "laces are in" in american football | In American football, when the commentators say "the laces are in" when a kicker is making a kick, what does it mean and why does it matter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40e0id/eli5laces_are_in_in_american_football/ | {
"a_id": [
"cytg1ri",
"cytgm0h"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"It meas the laces on the football are facing the kicker and kicking with laces in is more difficult than with them out assuming you are talking about the Vikings game the last kick the laces were in a during the last kick and that could be why he missed ",
"Laces being in can hit the kickers foot and cause it to go off course. Kickers can sometimes get under it but regardless it messes with their mental mindset. Also go watch Ace Ventura. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2fepub | what does it mean to format a flash drive/hard drive, and what exactly is happening? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fepub/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_format_a_flash/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck8jb6b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pieces of information are stored with little flags that say \"here is a piece of information, do not touch this part of the disk\".\n\nSome format options just remove these flags, so programs can then store data in those place without any problems. A really \"hard\" format can set each individual bit (=smallest data storage unit) to 0, effectively wiping everything off the disk."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2elmhb | why will a fly take off anytime i come near it, but when it's on the other side of a pane of glass even murderous gestures with my hand a millimeter away won't phase it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2elmhb/eli5_why_will_a_fly_take_off_anytime_i_come_near/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck0nr62"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm no authority on the matter, but I assume it has something to do with the movement of air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
699y8k | how can politicians pass bills etc but exempt themselves from been included in said bills? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/699y8k/eli5_how_can_politicians_pass_bills_etc_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh4y1tr",
"dh4y4ga",
"dh56k8k"
],
"score": [
6,
15,
3
],
"text": [
"Is that a procedural question or an ethical question?\n\nProcedurally they have that power. Their salaries are f.ex decided by passing of law - by Congress.\n\nEthically? Republicans don't let ethics restrain them. Many examples demonstrating that they use the low bar of criminal law as ethical guidance.",
"Are you asking how they can do it mechanically or how they can do it politically?\n\nFrom a mechanics point of view it's pretty simple. Congress can pass bills relating to itself, or even to specific people (passing bills for specific people was more common in the past than it is today). So there's no problem with Congress passing a bill saying \"States can opt out from the Obamacare mandates, except that Congresspeople from those states will always be protected by those mandates\".\n\nPolitically is another story. They're just rolling the dice that their constituents won't be so angry about this that they will not be reelected.",
"One argument for said practice is that important people in the government need certain privileges to keep the government functioning properly. If the president didn't have private security he could be killed (or assaulted, kidnapped, etc.) and that would let a criminal make decisions that affect the whole country. An establishment like congress might say they need healthcare, privacy, and good pay, to reduce the chances of bribery, blackmail, or personal matters interfering with how the country is run. \n\nAlternatively, with privileges rather than exemptions, they might argue that many people get (for example) healthcare through their place of employment, from that perspective it isn't entirely unreasonable or hypocritical for them to get these benefits even if they don't believe in universal healthcare. \n\nIt's more plausible to know they are involved in intricate political battles, it's never that straight forward, parties have leadership so they can pressure members into following suit. Most politicians live their lives and do their job mainly for themselves, like everyone else, occasionally taking personal liberties when it suits them. \n\nThe public can't do much, they don't get to vote on bills, at worst they can become another meaningless protester in the street. It's not as catchy so the media and public don't talk about it for long. Things like this don't overrule which ideology people vote for. They can get away with it. There is always an excuse to deflect criticism..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2pfkcl | how can there be no center of the universe if the big bang started from a point smaller than an atom. | I understand the center of the "known" universe is earth. But if spacetime didn't exist before and and it is expanding now, what would be the origin point. And if there cant be an origon point how can I visualise the expansion other than from a single point?
Edit - I'm referring to the known universe as the observable universe. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pfkcl/eli5_how_can_there_be_no_center_of_the_universe/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmw8b03",
"cmw8jmb",
"cmw8tzv",
"cmw8uop",
"cmwbgid",
"cmwbz33"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The universe didn't explode outwards in every direction from the big bang, it exploded outwards like a wave or a cone and since its expanding the midpoint of this irregular shape is always moving.",
"Put very simply,\n\nEverything, moves away from Everything else in any given direction all the time. \n\nit's beautiful chaos. ",
"Yeah technically everything is the center of the universe because it is infinity (as far as we know) in every direction from any given point",
"The further something is away from another object, the faster that object is moving away from the original. \n\nSo no matter where you are, things are moving away from you, and things even further out move away in a manner that is still away from you, but also away from all other objects. ",
"I find the ballon analogy good for this. When blowing up a ballon, where is the point on the surface that is the 'center' of the expansion. None of them are (or they all are). Now the trick is you have to imagine that the surface of the ballon is all that exists. There is no \"inside\" to the ballon that it is expanding away from (nor is there an outside that it is expanding into). That is the universe. ",
"You are thinking \"Single point\". You are thinking \"Here is a dot, it started from here\". But, instead think \"EVERYTHING was here in this dot and everything is expanding\". You may ask \"From where\" and that's an awesome question. Get the answer right, and apply for a Nobel. We have confirmed things are moving away. But moving away from what? Instead think of it more as \"Everything was an infintesimal speck\" and it started expanding outwards. Not from a point. Just proportionally. What was 1cm away is now 1.1 cm now. Everything. Every point is expanding away outwards from everything else. \nA better question is and always will be \"What are we expanding into?\" I don't know. Insert guesses..... Here."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5hc6ld | on a molecular level, why does it hurt when we come in contact with boiling water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hc6ld/eli5_on_a_molecular_level_why_does_it_hurt_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"daz3kns"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In your skin you have c fibers (type of neuron) that respond to heat/temperature. The neuron will then fire more action potentials as a response to the noxious stimulus (in this case heat). The c fibers synapse onto nerves in the spinal cord which is then sent to the brain, which interprets the nociception as pain. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
b43lv5 | why are big eyes considered "cute"? (especially in anime/cartoons & animals) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b43lv5/eli5_why_are_big_eyes_considered_cute_especially/ | {
"a_id": [
"ej3wwc2"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"It's an example of something called \"paedomorphism,\" or the quality of an adult organism to retain features of its younger state.\n\nIn humans, the eyes stay the same size, which means that in a child's face, the eyes take up a larger amount of the available space. Things with larger eyes therefore tend to appear younger, and since humans are hardwired to perceive young things as cute in order to induce a protective instinct, big eyes have come to signify cuteness."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3355rc | why do states like missouri choose not to accept medicaid expansion funds set aside by the federal government to help cover health insurance costs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3355rc/eli5_why_do_states_like_missouri_choose_not_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqhm1dw"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"To get those funds, the states have to both spend their own money and expand their programs (and long-term liabilities). Many states do not believe that the federal Medicaid funds will be around long-term and don't want to stuck holding the bag when the federal government makes inevitable cuts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2v2ka7 | if i am in an elevator, and i hit the down button, and i jump the second the elevator starts moving, will i fall a greater distance than i originally jumped? | Also, If I am in an elevator that is moving down already , and I jump will I fall farther? I feel like my body would be moving at a constant rate, down with the elevator and, me jumping would would just make me fall the same distance? Anyway, this has been hurting my brain now for hours, anyone care to explain?
Edit: Wow I might even be more confused, turns out, your weight is less in an elevator moving down, and more in an elevator moving up, so you can get a better jump in an elevator moving down!
also, if the elevator is moving down, and you jump up inside of it, you are essentially subtracting the speed of the elevator falling from the speed you jumped.... i think?
lastly its all about frame of reference. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v2ka7/eli5_if_i_am_in_an_elevator_and_i_hit_the_down/ | {
"a_id": [
"codwg3x",
"codwhg7",
"codwj00"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes you would free fall a greater distance, under the assumption falling is when you're feet are not touching the elevator compared to when your feet are touching the elevator you are just going down, not falling. Technically in both circumstances you are falling. \n\nIf the elevator was moving fast enough, you could actually fall the entire length of the building.\n\nIf you need proof, go look at kate uptons photo shoot in the airplane. ",
"If you jump before it begins moving, and it moves before you land, then yes, you will fall slightly further. In your own reference frame you're following the usual parabola of an airborne object, but the elevator floor has moved down. Probably not by a meaningful amount, though.\n\nIf you're within a moving (at a constant speed) elevator, however, the speed of your jump will be relative to the moving elevator - part of the \"up\" of your jump is consumed counteracting the fact that you're already moving downward, from the perspective of an external observer. You'd jump identically as in the stationary case.",
"When you jump your velocity (which varies throughout the jump) is equal to your initial velocity plus acceleration multiplied by time.\n\nV = Vo + At\n\nSo if you jump with an initial velocity of 3 m/s and gravity is accelerating you at - 9.8 m/s^2 then we have\n\nV = 3 - 9.8t\n\nAs you can see, as time proceeds from t = 0 you velocity gets increasingly negative until it passes 0. When V equals 0 you are at the apex of your jump and when velocity becomes negative you are moving downward.\n\nIf, in an elevator, you jump right before the elevator starts moving then with respect to the building your velocity function is\n\nV = 3 - 9.8t\n\nHowever, if we use the elevator as a reference frame instead then we get a different result. If the elevator suddenly begins moving at 1 m/s downward at the precise moment your feet leave the floor, then it is the same mathematically as saying you have an additional boost of 1 m/s velocity.\n\nV = 3 - 9.8t + 1\n\nV = 4 - 9.8t\n\nSince your initial velocity with respect to the elevator is higher, your jump will be higher with respect to the elevator."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8i6l2j | in gaming, why does it often take as long to go back to menu screen as to load the actual levels? | This always bugs me, even games with seemingly basic main menu graphics can often take quite long to load. I don't refer to the initial startup of the game, when I assume some general assets may need to be loaded, but when going back from a level to the main menu. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8i6l2j/eli5_in_gaming_why_does_it_often_take_as_long_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyp9agx",
"dyp9zzx",
"dypb8xg",
"dypp139"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
" > I don't refer to the initial startup of the game\n\nBut that is essentially what's happening. When you start the game (load the level, as you put it), all the resources being used are released so that the game engine itself can use them. When you exit the game to go back to the menus, all that stuff has to be reloaded into the device's memory.",
"Memory real estate is a real thing. For something complex like a first person shooter, all the textures that are needed are definitely not insignificant.\n\nIf you leave the menu loaded while you're in a match, that just lowers the amount of memory you can use per object (meaning you have to use lower detail models), or it increases the minimum requirements of your game, lowering your target audience.\n\nBy releasing the objects used on the main menu, you are sacrificing the time you need to load them back later in order to maximize memory efficiency while in a match.",
"Depending on the game, it may be saving your progress or doing other tasks to properly *stop* gameplay.\n\nThese may either be handled before beginning to load the main menu, or simply take up a lot of resources (processing power, disk access) that would otherwise be needed to load the menu. ",
"It takes processing power to free things from memory. For instance, if you have a browser open with a lot of tabs, you'll notice your computer runs sluggishly even after you've closed it; it needs to free up all the memory it was using. Basically the same thing is going on with games.\n\nI imagine it would be like if you were a server carrying a lot of plates; it takes time to set them all down (nicely) and free up your arms to do other things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2037o8 | why do some foods(such as pizza or eggplant parmesan) taste better the day after(once reheated) rather than the day they are made? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2037o8/eli5_why_do_some_foodssuch_as_pizza_or_eggplant/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfzd5ej",
"cfzd7rw",
"cfzebru"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Or even cold?",
"I know a bunch of recipes that are better the day after! I think a lot of this is the same reason that marinating something makes sense. You give it time for spices and flavors to really blend, also perhaps lettings things like acids break down some of the food. \n\nI know my lasagna especially is good the day of, but the day after the meat sauce really has a much richer flavor and is noticeably more tender / smoother to eat.",
"Whose to say it tastes better the day after? This is a very subjective quality. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
280k38 | if the coriolis effect dictates which way a hurricane spins, does that mean a hurricane traveling from south america to north america changes its rotation? | Does that kill off a hurricane, or does it not change? Is there some reason Hurricanes don't travel up the coast to the US? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/280k38/eli5_if_the_coriolis_effect_dictates_which_way_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci674fl",
"ci67i5v"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Hurricanes generally do not do so, for exactly this reason. Hurricanes do hit the US plenty, though.",
"I don't believe that any hurricane has ever crossed the equator as far as we know. The Coriolis force is zero at the equator, which means there's nothing to make the air spin around a low pressure center. Also, the change in Coriolis force as a storm approaches the equator actually causes them to veer away, even when there aren't any steering currents."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1ixdoe | civil suit payouts | Let's say one individual sues another individual in civil court for $500,000 and wins. Does the plaintiff ever see that money? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ixdoe/eli5_civil_suit_payouts/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb8zdn1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Does the plaintiff ever see that money?\n\nIt depends! If an individual is suing a corporation, and they have that money in assets available, it's likely they'll get it pretty quickly. However, if the plaintiff is suing an individual without enough assets to cover the suit, they might need to pursue payment through things like court-ordered wage garnishment or seizure of property."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7crvc7 | why can’t aluminum foil burn under just an open flame? | More specifically why can’t it catch fire is what I mean. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7crvc7/eli5_why_cant_aluminum_foil_burn_under_just_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"dps5vtc"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Aluminum is not flammable. When it reacts with oxygen (like a rusting or burning sort of thing), the aluminum oxide quickly forms a protective coating just a few molecules thick, protecting the rest of the aluminum."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2nhidm | how does a nail/screw get into a tire? | When a nail/screw is on the road it's generally laying flat. How does it maneuver itself into a tire?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nhidm/eli5_how_does_a_nailscrew_get_into_a_tire/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmdmzlg",
"cmdobkw"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"From my experience it's mainly the rears that pick up punctures from road debris due to the from tyre flicking the nail/screw in the air, then the rear catching it at the right angle to puncture it.",
"When you roll over an object with a wide base and narrow top from top to bottom, you tend to push the wide base downward and the narrow top upward, thus having the potential to pierce the tire. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2j26xi | what is that earpiece that a lot of musicians wear while on stage? | [Example of what I mean](_URL_0_)
What does it actually do? What's played through it? How does it benefit the artist on stage? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j26xi/eli5_what_is_that_earpiece_that_a_lot_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl7o9oc",
"cl7ofh1",
"cl85ddp"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's an in-ear monitor. It allows them to hear their own voices and instruments, so they can hear what they are doing. If you can't hear what you're doing, you'll sound terrible and you won't even realize it.",
"You'll often see speakers at the front of a stage, pointing back toward the performers. This helps them hear themselves properly, rather than have the audience sound bounced back at them all distorted and out of time. These speakers will often carry different signals depending on who they are in front of - one for the singer, one for the guitarist and so on.\n\nA great improvement is the ear-piece which helps block out most of the ambient sound so that you can concentrate on the sound being fed to you - which will likely be YOU plus a semi-muted general signal so that you can hear everyone else too.\n\nIf you're playing in a band, it can be *really* hard to hear yourself over everything else.\n\nSorry for the scrappy answer - I'm tired !",
"The question has been answered, but you might be interested in the product pages for the most commonly used systems: one by [Shure](_URL_1_) and one by [Sennheiser](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/cd0YMXt.png"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en-uk.sennheiser.com/wireless-microphone-live-monitoring-system-ew-300-iem-g3",
"http://www.shure.co.uk/products/in_ear_monitoring/psm200"
]
] |
|
ajlm2i | how gorbachev came to the conclusion that the soviet union needed to be dissolved. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ajlm2i/eli5_how_gorbachev_came_to_the_conclusion_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"eewj4of",
"eewt5u5"
],
"score": [
5,
9
],
"text": [
"The soviet republics have startet to leave the union. First one was Lithuania, the last - Russia. At the end there was a union without any members. It was pretty complicated and bloody, sparked several civil wars.",
"Your premise is incorrect. Gorbachev did *not* want to dissolve the USSR. He simple recognized that it was de facto dead already. Soviet republics were declaring independence left and right, and rebellions and uprisings were springing up faster than they could be put down. Moscow had lost all authority and control. Even the Russian SFSR was in open rebellion against the Soviet government. There was simply no path forward. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2968qw | the holy trinity | Can someone break down the whole concept of the holy trinity for me? I have a hard time conceptualizing it and I don't really understand how God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are supposed to one thing.
Also, was God supposed to have a separate consciousness/mind when Jesus was on the Earth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2968qw/eli5the_holy_trinity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cihtxhs",
"cihues7",
"cihuhk6",
"cii8y0i"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"They are separate wholes which are simultaneously aspects of each other. It doesn't make logical sense, but it doesn't have to because it is religion.",
"It's like a video game, you can't exist inside a video game right? In the same way, God can't exist inside of our universe.\n\nSo you have Jesus, which is like your player in the game.\n\nYou have the Holy Spirit which is like when you enter cheat codes into the game. You can feel the presence of the cheat codes, but the player in the game can't see the cheat codes.\n\nAnd you have God The Father, who is outside the game looking down at all the sprites.",
"A couple analogies:\n\nThe Bible teaches that when a man and woman are married, they become one person. Obviously this isn't meant to be literal, but rather a depiction of how they should join together as a single unit emotionally, sexually, and work together.\n\nAbout 20 years ago, Dr. Harold Willmington (Liberty University) shared an analogy he had heard with his students, comparing the Trinity to a book. For example, a book has length, width, and thickness. The length is not the book’s width, the width is not the book’s thickness. These three dimensions can be described separately, yet they are connected together. If you remove one dimension, you are no longer describing a book. In the same way, the Godhead has three separate members that are connected together, and if you try to remove one you no longer have the Godhead. (stole that one from a Google search.)\n\nBasically they are separate individuals, as the Bible clearly describes them as such: they have different names, different functions, and seem to be in different \"places\" (Father in heaven, Jesus on earth and then at the Father's right hand in heaven, the Spirit in heaven and then sent to earth as a \"Comforter\" in place of Jesus.) While some folks believe and teach that they are actually one person in their triune being, I don't think that is supported by scripture. Instead, it seems that their oneness comes into play as they are of a single mind, seek the same purposes, and there is no disagreement between them. \n\nI hope that helps explain it a bit. If you're still curious, try reading the book \"The Shack\" by William Young. It does a good job of providing a modern allegory for this concept.",
"Here's the core issue: the Bible states that only God has certain divine qualities (omnipotence, essential goodness, etc.) and that there's only one God. The Bible then goes on to attribute these divine qualities to three different entities. Most Christians believe that the content of the Bible was influenced by God, and that this apparent contradiction therefore cannot be an error. So to reconcile all those statements with each other, we theorize that there is some kind of overlap between the three - that they are one person for purposes of being God, but distinct in other ways.\n\nObviously, it's the ways in which the three are different which complicate things. God himself is the great King in Heaven, maker and ruler of Everything. Jesus was a human, who lived on the earth during a certain span of time. He's probably easiest to relate to, which is appropriate given his primary role as an ambassador between Humanity and God. The Holy Spirit is the most mysterious - his job is mainly to help people get to know Jesus, and to become more like Jesus, and the Bible doesn't have much to say about him personally.\n\nAs to how this works out mechanically ... that's really hard to picture. Many Christians are fond of the \"water\" analogy - to say that you can freeze water, or thaw it, or vaporize it, and it will still be water; and that God is like water, in that he can assume these different roles but still be Himself. Elegant analogy, though it doesn't tell you much about what conversations between the three would sound like.\n\nWith respect to having a separate consciousness / mind between Jesus and God, the Bible doesn't say much about how the three relate to each other, but we can make some inferences. Jesus clearly has times in the stories where he speaks to God, and times where God speaks back. There are times where its obvious he doesn't know everything, and one time where he asks God for something and God essentially says \"No\". So there's clearly some kind of difference there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
24sa75 | how are super pacs not a run-around of election laws to prevent bribery? what is the legal rationale for allowing them? | My understanding is that if some corporation or billionaire wants a favor, they can't just dump millions of dollars into a senator's campaign fund.
But they CAN set up a Super PAC for people who are sympathetic to their cause and lobby aggressively for those Senators who do what they like.
So it's not that they're "coordinating" with individual campaigns, it's that if Senators know that they will get millions of dollars of campaigning if they vote a certain way, then that seems like a run-around of contribution limits and election rules to prevent influence peddling.
So what is the argument on the other side? The "money is speech" argument doesn't make sense to me, because we don't allow bribery as protected speech, and not all speech is protected. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24sa75/eli5_how_are_super_pacs_not_a_runaround_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cha5mcc",
"cha5rll",
"cha5uez",
"cha5xyt",
"cha5znd",
"cha6130",
"cha63rr",
"cha6c5w",
"cha7qcw",
"cha8cf9"
],
"score": [
5,
25,
2,
16,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"How are super PACs and lobbying not legally bribery? Lobbying has become \"if you do this for us, we'll fund you\" opposed to what it used to be \"we're doing this so fund us.\" ",
"There will be better explanations, but simply put, you're right. That's exactly what super PACs are, and they're destroying the democratic process. ",
"It's not classed as bribery because the money is not, strictly speaking, going to the person or campaign involved. They might be in support of a *candidate*, but that was ruled as protected political speech.\n\nPersonally, though, I would agree with you.",
"You already answered your own question. The Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that money is a form of speech. It's not viewed as bribery. Unless there is a specific agreement for a quid pro quo situation, money donated to super PACs is not considered a bribe. It's why the super PACs must maintain separation from the actual candidate's campaign. Does it actually work that way? No, of course not. But you're unlikely to see any documented cases of a provable bribe. The politicians and people giving the money generally know how to keep from appearing to cross that line, despite what actual practice may be. ",
"A super PAC is a way for a wealthy person to not give directly to a legislator - as that's direct bribery. \n\nInstead, groups of wealthy people get together and agree on what they want done - and they are generally really decisive on what they want. They then can incorporate this group or label it as a lobbyist group and funnel all of their contributions into the group for a given candidate. \n\nThere are a couple of influences here:\n\n1) Running for any given office takes piles of money. If you lose the contribution of these super PACs you essentially are forfeiting. You wouldn't have the exposure that you want/need to get to the position you want. \n\n2) These super pacs have a lot of money. Even if you didn't need the money, they could invest into other candidates against you, they could invest money to paint you as an unfavorable candidate (slander), or anything else. This is actually more devastating for candidates in office. If there is an incumbent who is backed by a super PAC and that legislator doesn't do as they ask, it's really a matter of money for that super PAC to paint that candidate as, say, weak on crime, or indecisive, or anything else that's almost sure to cost them re-election. For this reason, generally legislators vote along the lines of their super PAC backers. \n\n\n**ELI5:** Wealthy people realize they can't bribe a candidate alone so they bribe a candidate as a group and it's a generally silent threat to do what they say or they will lose office. ",
"The people who are in charge of making the laws that should prevent this are benefiting from it.\n\nAnd this is where ~~someone~~ a lobbyist responds and tells us all how there are lobbyists for good causes like underprivileged unicyclists, and medical research, etc. Which is true, there are lobbyists for good causes. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the vile scum who are buying and selling legislative hadjobs. ",
"You are exactly right. It is a thinly (and very poorly) disguised bribe. Speaking of disguises, one of the primary intents of the Super Pacs is to disguise the names of the donors, so the candidates don't have to be publicly identified with particular individuals or interest groups, for whatever reason. It's also a way for the deep-pocket donors to get around caps on political contributions. In the final analysis, it's just another way our representative democracy has been sold to the highest bidder; in this case, the corporate oligarchy.",
"Bear in mind a few things: \n\n* Super PACs are prohibited from making contributions directly to candidate campaigns or parties. They can raise and spend unlimited funds, but must make any expenditures independent of the candidates or political parties. This is important because \"money is speech\" is not the only rationale being considered by the Supreme Court.\n\n* In many campaign finance cases, the Court is principally concerned with corruption or the appearance of corruption. Because Super PACs cannot coordinate their expenditures with the formal actors in the political process, there is no danger of corruption. Thus, according to the Court, some other, incredibly compelling justification for regulating their speech (read: money) must be articulated. Of course, depending on how you feel about the current state of campaign finance laws, this may not be satisfying to you. \n\n* Finally, be very careful with your analogies between \"money is speech\" and bribery. One of the most incredible things about the American political process is that groups are free to discuss their views and opinions through the media. The Supreme Court erred on the side of caution with respect to protecting speech. Sure, some Super PACs may support a candidate because they expect a quid pro quo sometime down the line. Others, however, may simply want to voice their opinion about a particular issue. To curtail that ability would be to silence a voice in the democratic process. This is especially true in today's world, where a 30 second tv advertisement is too expensive for the average person to afford. Thus, average people may have to band together, pool their money and resources, and cooperate in order to espouse their message. ",
"You guys are missing the initial legislation. It was Valero vs. Buckley, in the 1970's. In it the Supreme Court upheld the ruling that it is in violation of the candidates first amendment rights to put any restrictions on individual efforts to raise money. Citizens United came along long after the super PAC culture was instilled in America.\n\nSource: Political Science ",
"This has been answered many times on ELI5. I suggest searching \"bribery\" and \"lobbying.\"\n\nThe short version is that with bribery, the money ends up in the pockets or bank accounts of the politician. He can directly get rich off of bribes. Super PACs cannot do this. They can donate to the politician's campaign fund to help him get elected, but if they give money to him directly, he and the person making the bribe will go to jail. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1hglnc | would it be possible to stimulate or stop pain by using chemicals or electricity? | I'm writing a short sci-fi story and I'd like it to be as grounded in science as possible.
Would it be possible to cause pain (without causing damage anywhere outside the nervous system) using an electric device? How would this device work?
Would it be possible to block pain using artificial inhibitory neurotransmitters? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hglnc/eli5_would_it_be_possible_to_stimulate_or_stop/ | {
"a_id": [
"cauaeuz",
"cauhywx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We already stop pain chemically. You probably have acetominophen in your medicine cabnet right now.\n\nIn a more serious answer (preface: I have no formal neurology training), everything you've suggested is feasible. The transmission of a pain response involves both chemical and electrical pathways (electrical at the nerve tips where you \"feel\" the pain, and then chemical where those signals are transfered between nerves). If you could make a clean connection to the nerve tip and apply the correct amount of electricity, you could simulate (really cause) pain extremely accurately, and this happens to an extent every time your get shocked electrically, though that comes with some collateral burn damage which you sense in a slightly different way. You could also make the electrical connection in the spine or brain stem, though at some point you'll likely get too invasive and risk upsetting other brain processes, but you can magic that away in sci-fi. For the chemical side, I don't actually know. The root of the electrical charge is actually the presence of particular chemicals, and the charge is a result of them undergoing reactions under specific conditions. While nerve cells can be extremely long, they eventually do connect, and those connections facilitate repeating the reaction in the presence of the additional electron from the beginning. I believe, in the brain, the specific chemical that gets released by a reporting nerve is different from the chemical which the reporting nerves used with each other. You could simulate general pain by releasing appropriate synthesized chemicals into the correct portion of the brain (consider nanobots as a delivery device if you want to get very specific locations), and as I said above, we already use chemicals to prevent that. Those chemicals, like aspirin, occupy the receptors for the pain-inducing chemical without triggering the same reaction within the brain cell and block the receptor from getting the chemical it's built for.",
"Generally speaking, any electrical stimulation of the nervous system is (or can be made to be) at least unpleasant and at worst painful. Simple example: biting down on a piece of foil will make your teeth hurt because an electrical current is generated (assuming you have old amalgam fillings). However, there's not really any \"damage\" to the nervous system to speak of as a result. \n\nAs for a device which stops pain, there have been investigations into stimulating a region of the brain called the [periaqueductal grey](_URL_0_) as a means of pain management. This works via the release of enkephalins, so whether you'd call it an electrical effect or a chemical effect is rather a quibble over semantics...\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periaqueductal_gray"
]
] |
|
8h8j48 | how do we use the silk from insects to create silk based clothes and other items? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8h8j48/eli5_how_do_we_use_the_silk_from_insects_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyhu6zx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The worms make silk to form a cocoon around themselves. Humans then kill the worms and unwind the silk from the cocoon into long fibers. The fibers are spun into thread and then the thread is woven onto cloth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1419t6 | why is america still at war? how have these reasons changed since when we first invaded? | May sound fairly stupid but I am not very knowledgable on this topic. Thanks to anyone who responds! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1419t6/eli5_why_is_america_still_at_war_how_have_these/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7924cn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When we went into Afghanistan we took what was already a pretty unstable regime out of power. This meant that there was already a fair amount of instability to begin with, and we just added to that. \n\nOn top of that instability generally means a lack of infrastructure. It's hard to develop things like power plants, hospitals, schools, and roads when you're fighting to keep control of a country. (assuming the Taliban even wanted that) In addition, war tends to do a lot of collateral damage to what infrastructure there is. \n\nLastly that instability didn't magically go away when the Taliban lost power, for that matter neither did the Taliban. So now the groups that were fighting amongst themselves are still there, and the Taliban is there working against the new government too.\n\nThe US getting involved in Afghanistan didn't made the situation worse in the immediate time frame and it's not really fair to the people of Afghanistan for us to go in, break all their things, depose their government, and create a lot of internal conflict and then leave. We're still there because we're trying to make sure that the new government will be able to run the country effectively and that the people of Afghanistan will have the means to move forward and improve their quality of life on their own."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6lxzd1 | why isn't amazon being looked at for anti-trust issues? | Thanks everyone for your insightful replies. One question, a few of you have said as long as they don't stifle competition...but they are destroying segments of industry...fully taking down large swaths of retail. How is this good for a healthy economy? Why are we now as a society just ok with "disturbing" segments of industry right off the face of the planet? How is this good for us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lxzd1/eli5_why_isnt_amazon_being_looked_at_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"djxg9es",
"djxgghq",
"djxgi9u",
"djxgltp",
"djxhhp5"
],
"score": [
33,
8,
12,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"There's nothing illegal about a company having their fingers in many different things, so to speak. Companies are allowed to do business in whatever marketplace they see fit, and as long as there is no monopolization it's not something the government would generally have a problem with. Anti-trust laws are in place primarily to stop different companies in the same marketplace from colluding to prevent proper competition through price fixing or some other type of conspiracy to work together at the detriment of consumers. Amazon is not doing any of those things. ",
"Anti-trust laws don't attack companies for being too big, they attack them for using sketchy business strategies.\n\nThat being said, while Amazon does indeed sell everything, this is because manufacturers allow it to sell everything. If Apple wanted to stop Amazon from selling iPhones, it would be very easy for them to do so.",
"First off, anti-trust doesn't apply to being in many categories, it applies to dominating/controlling a specific one. And Amazon has plenty of competitors in all their categories, both online and brick-and-mortar\n\nSecondly, Amazon's wide breadth of products is no different than Wal-Mart or Target, or how Sears in the past. And Wal-Mart's revenue is about 4x what Amazon's is ($485B vs $136B). So why not ask that question of Wal-Mart? If anything, the claim has much more merit with them, as they've basically killed off small retailers in many small towns across the country. Anybody with access to Amazon still has equal access to all the other options, while small town shoppers in many cases lost all options except Wal-Mart.\n",
"The point of anti-trust laws isn't to keep companies \"in their lane\", it's to ensure that monopolization doesn't occur.\n\nFor example, Amazon buys Whole Foods, but that doesn't eliminate competition in the grocery store market - there are still a ton of competitors in that market.\n\nNow if Costco had tried to buy Whole Foods, that might raise some anti-trust issues.\n\nAmazon's reach into different sectors doesn't really upset competition in those sectors.",
"There is confusion regarding the term monopoly, at least as it relates to US Antitrust laws. There is no law against being a huge company. In fact, most people don't realize that having a completely dominant market position (actually being a monopoly) is not illegal.\n\nWhat is illegal is using that market position to prevent others from entering your market or colluding in a way that is seen as anti-competitive to that market.\n\nFor example, when Intel was cited, one of the issues was that they were forcing customers to agree to not carry AMD as a condition of selling Intel. A clear anti-competitive tactic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2r1vhv | how did normal western culture attire switch from semi-formal to informal over the last few decades? | We always hear this, "why don't men wear suits or hats anymore?" But honestly, what brought about the lax appearance in dress? It seems from the post Renaissance times up until the mid to late 1950s, a coat, shirt and trousers were the agreed upon look? When did it start becoming okay to wear blue jeans instead of pants? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r1vhv/eli5_how_did_normal_western_culture_attire_switch/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnbn1xy",
"cnbnim1"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's simply the way culture moves. What was once a fad becomes a permanent fixture in society, and what was once permanent fixture simply fades away. The way I see it, teenagers find some new way to dress, which is released into the public somehow. Then it picks up steam.\n\nBut for this specific one, it's probably due to the lessened importance of status. Having a suit meant you were important or wanted to look important, and people just stopped caring. I'm sure if I told my friend I was above him he'd just laugh. But, cool fact: jeans were actually invented in the 1873. They were mostly worn by cowboys and miners starting in the 1950s, but it was (unsurprisingly) teenagers who made it a normal look.",
"Hippie culture of late 1960s made radical changes in perception of fashion and appropriate clothing.\nOrigin of \"no shoes, no shirt, no service\". \nDraftees from unpopular war returned to reject existing uniform approach to clothing.\nBirth of modern individualism where \"do your own thing\" was an acceptable goal.\n\nAlso, androgeny of 1990s office encouraged less formal wear... women quit wearing dresses because they were dressing equally to men.....men responded with dockers and polos as the office norm. As soon as we started using \"jean Friday\" as a charitable fundraiser, the bar dropped to the bottom."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3qs7pr | why can a minor consent to sex with another minor, but not an adult? | When two 13 year olds decide to have sex, no one bats an eye, but if a 13 year old decides to have sex with a 40 year old, then the minor is a victim and can't consent. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qs7pr/eli5_why_can_a_minor_consent_to_sex_with_another/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwhvoid",
"cwhwfx5",
"cwhwjlx"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"In some states, they can't, and if two minors have sex they are both guilty of statutory rape. In those that they can, it's because of the difference in power. Basically, two young people are on a level playing field, whereas an older person is de facto (though not always, I think I'm using the right term...) in a position of power over the youngling.",
"Basically, the idea isn't to stop minors having sex, as much as it is to stop them being preyed upon by people who are in the position to abuse their immaturity for sexual gratification. Sure, most people think that kids should be of a certain age/maturity before having sex, so that they are making informed safe choices, but that's not *the* point.\n\nA person who is substantially older is usually in a position where they are able to manipulate an adolescent in ways that that adolescent's peers usually are not - a minor will often feel pressured to comply with the requests/demands of an adult by virtue of the usual dynamic between adults and non-adults.\n\nThe other part of it is that before ~insert age here~, adolescents aren't deemed to have the emotional maturity to make an informed decision to enter a sexual relationship. We don't charge peers for having sex* because despite the potential for harm, there's not an aspect of predation and locking up the slightly-older party is pretty arbitrary, and potentially more harmful than the relationship itself.\n\nIn the case of an adult and a minor, there's a stronger case for predation and the adult is presumed to know *exactly* what they're doing. Ie, they should know that they shouldn't be doing it, and are more culpable.\n\n^(*Sometimes we do, especially in the US. In many places, there are sliding scales that allows the law to account for otherwise-consensual relationships between people of a similar age.)",
"I'll use boxing as an analogy:\n\nLet's say two rookie boxers step in the ring. Neither of them really know what they are doing, but they are eager to put on the gloves and fight. One of them gets carried away and seriously hurts the other, but the \"offending party\" doesn't suffer any consequences outside of his own guilt because neither of the rookies understood the risks. \n\nNow let's say the offending party is a boxer of around 6 years experience. He's had a good deal of experience and fully understands the risks and inherent dangers. He's friends with the rookie boxer, who wants to have a friendly spar. The experienced boxer gets carried away as in the other case and seriously hurts the rookie. This time, the offending party is brought up on assault charges and reckless endangerment. He understood the risks and the dangers and understood that his actions could have serious consequences, so he is considered liable for the harm he caused. He can't use naivete as an excuse because he should have known better. Even though the rookie wanted to fight, he didn't understand the risks so he was coming into the fight with a major power disadvantage.\n\nNow substitute fighting with sex and injury with STDs, pregnancy, and emotional capacity. Supposed, a legal adult has a major power advantage over the minor because he or she is supposed to better understand what they are getting into. They know the risks and a minor may \"know the risks\" too, but theoretically wouldn't truly understand the risks because they are young and stupid. Following that logic, the minor can't really consent to sex because they don't know what they are getting into, while the legal adult does. Because of the adult's power advantage over the teenager and because the teenager can't legally consent, the act of sex would always be rape even if both parties gave the okay. \n\nThat is the legal logic, anyway. It's not perfect logic and some of the flaws are obvious. There are plenty of sexually experienced and knowledgeable 17-year-olds and sexually naive 18-year-olds and one could argue that the large experience gap between an 18-year-old and a 60-year-old would make their sex a rape as well. But the law wasn't made with them in mind. It was made to protect younger participants (minors) from dirty old men who want to take advantage of them and to protect them against the sexual advances of an authority figure, like a teacher or a boss.\n\nEdit: see comment below"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
11b41g | why is abortion something politicians talk about? | I don't understand why views are even discussed if the one person who is (maybe?) against it has come out saying he won't change the law. Doesn't that make it a null issue then? Please explain, like I'm five. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11b41g/why_is_abortion_something_politicians_talk_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6kwae2",
"c6ky96c",
"c6kyljj",
"c6kzb2x"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Abortion is very polarising and emotional to many people whether or not it directly affects them (abortion doctors have been shot by protesters in the past as an example). So much so that it is likely that this and similar issues allow politicians to instantly gain some peoples loud support by stating their stance on the issue regardless of any other policies. ",
"Because it gets them elected. There are a lot of people who will vote for a candidate solely based on his position on abortion.\n\nAnd even if he can't ban abortion, there are other things he can to do fight it. Like by cutting funding to health organizations that include abortion, instituting waiting periods, or pass laws that protect doctors and hospitals who won't present abortion when it is a legitimate medical option.",
"It's used as a [wedge issue](_URL_0_), basically one party pushes a controversial issue that people have strong opinions about to try to divide members of the opposing party as this can make the opposing party lose votes and generally drown out other issues that party is trying to talk about.",
"You know when your mom asks if you've cleaned your room and you haven't cleaned your room, you try to change the subject to how your brother didn't clean *his* room so she'll get mad at him instead of you? It's kinda like that.\n\nPoliticians - specifically politicians of a certain faction - made a lot of decisions and laws that made them and their friends very rich, but made everybody else poor. They'd really rather not talk about those decisions or how they were bad for everybody but them and their friends, so they do their best to change the subject to things which don't affect them (or their wallets). Abortion is a good topic for them because a lot of people get *really* upset about it. They get so upset that they stop asking about all the money that they don't have anymore and focus on *just* abortion. They get so upset about abortion that they'll vote for anybody that agrees with them about that one issue, even though that politician would vote against those people's best interests on every single other issue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue"
],
[]
] |
|
8bdcai | how did humans end up developing allergies to synthetic substances? | Things like latex allergies and such confuse me | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bdcai/eli5_how_did_humans_end_up_developing_allergies/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx5ud30"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you develop an allergy, it has nothing to do with whether the allergen is found in nature or not. All that matters is that it is something not found inside your own body. \n\nAn allergy is your body's immune system reacting to something harmless as if it were something bad, such as a parasitic worm. A lot of the methods your immune system uses to kill germs work by killing anything alive, so that is why it hurts your cells as well. This is acceptable because if your immune system didn't do this, you would 100% for sure be dead. But this is where the bad symptoms of allergies come from. \n\nWhen your body develops an allergy, immune system cells such as T cells and B cells react to it. B cells (they produce antibodies) and T cells react to anything that isn't made by your own body, which is how they can react to things like latex. Your body has to purposefully suppress them in the digestive tract for example, so you don't have an allergic reaction to literally every food. If something goes wrong with the suppression of immune responses to things that are harmless, you get an allergy. Because once the B cells have detected something that matches the antibody they make, they will stick around in your body for decades, if not your whole life. If it were a disease that caused it, this would be good, because it stops you from being infected a second time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
99ceov | how does your stomach maintain its acidity when you eat and drink all day long? | Follow up question: Where does your body get the acid from since it's considerably more acidic than anything you eat or drink throughout the day? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99ceov/eli5_how_does_your_stomach_maintain_its_acidity/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4mnn7z",
"e4mseh1"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"You have parietal cells in your stomach that create hydrochloric acid, caused by the hormone pepsin. I think this keeps the pH of the stomach around 2. Your pancreas then releases pancreatic juice after coming out of the stomach, which is alkaline and makes it neutral ",
"Just like your blood, the stomach has a buffer system using certain glands to keep the stomach in a certain range of acidity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
47w4r7 | what is the effect of waiting 10 or so seconds after turning a computer off before turning it on again? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47w4r7/eli5_what_is_the_effect_of_waiting_10_or_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0fw7bh",
"d0fwom0",
"d0g2b05",
"d0g2k01",
"d0gbtfg",
"d0gd80n"
],
"score": [
13,
530,
19,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It used to be because you needed to let the hard drive spin down. I don't think it's much of an issue anymore. ",
"It takes a few seconds for capacitors to fully discharge, so the extra wait can help to make sure that you're really doing a complete restart. That is rarely an issue, but tech support is interested in reducing the number of variables they have to check.",
"Capacitor discharging. You can sometimes speed it up by unplugging the power and then press the power button with the cable disconnected.",
"Today I learned that I'm supposed to do this! Thanks guys! Hopefully my computer will be nicer to me after a reset now.",
"The primary reason is to discharge stored energy, as stated by most posts. \r\n\r\nAnother reason is to ensure that a disconnect is seen at the other end of some communication equipment that is designed to handle short breaks in circuits. For example, DOCSIS cable routers can require a couple of minutes to make sure the other end gives up on you and purges all the session data.",
"The electricity in the circuits and capacitors doesn't fully discharge all the way.\n\nIf you unplug your computer and press the power button, oftentimes you will see the fans give a false start and the lights give a brief blink. This is the discharge of all the residual electrical energy.\n\n\nSo in other words, the computer might be \"off\" but because there is still electricity is present, not all components are reset to null/ready state. The ram for example might still have some old crud in it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a0nuwb | why are there so many abandoned washing machines, tires, refrigerators, shopping carts, etc. in the middle of the woods/the desert/the middle of nowhere? do people actually haul these items to desolate places just to dump them or is there another phenomenon going on here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0nuwb/eli5why_are_there_so_many_abandoned_washing/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaj2vpq",
"eaj2zzz",
"eaj3hl2"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Sadly it’s a lot easier for most people to dump off those items somewhere instead of the hassle to deal with them properly. Lots of landfills, especially busy or full ones, will charge you by the pound or kg or even item to drop it off there. If you’ve just had to replace an expensive big appliance, it may be hard to spend anymore money even if it’s just $30 to leave the old item at the dump.",
"Depends upon the country, sometimes there is a charge for disposing of these items and sometimes people will paid privately to take these items to a legitimate disposal site. Sometimes in an attempt to save fees at disposal sites or fuel for the transporting vehicle they will dump the item in a remote location.",
"That about it. Trash is expensive to dispose of ($60 minimum at my dump), and things like tires and tvs can't be taken at all. In fact, in my town, there is no known legal way of dumping tvs. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9m5fcu | what is the process for movies to film scenes at major sites that are usually crawling with activity? | Film crew of reddit how are scenes filmed like in 28 weeks later when the two kids are traveling across the bridge and there’s no other cars or even boats moving for that matter? Or another example is the amazing spider man 2 fight scene in Times Square. Just curious how hard it is to do this and what’s the process to do this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m5fcu/eli5_what_is_the_process_for_movies_to_film/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7c066n",
"e7c09hv",
"e7c0vy1",
"e7c2b7o",
"e7c4tc6",
"e7cfkcg"
],
"score": [
17,
11,
2,
8,
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Money. They just pay into the local economy and get to shoot there. The city area will get notified in advance. City workers help close off the area needed while filming as everyone flocks to watch the filming happen. Win win for all.",
"You file a permit with the city and pay them tons, heaps of money for the right to film (which the city is happy to have free money), and you generally film in the early morning daylight when traffic is lower, if possible. The city and police along with you will block some of all of the area to shoot then reopen it as normal. \n\nThere’s nothing too intense about it, cities have very standard stuff in place and are used to doing this. ",
"The stuff from 28 days/weeks later was done in peak summertime at like 4/5am. Other than that they’d have had permits and that to shut off certain streets.",
"I addition to the other comments, which are all correct, another trick they use is to find a street that looks similar to what you need, and dress it up until you hit the 12 foot level and then do CGI above that.\n \nI read about that technique being used on the HBO series \"The Deuce\" which mostly takes place in the seedy version of Times Square in the 1970's. Since it's all cleaned up and a shiny friendly tourist spot now, there was no way to shoot there even if they did rent it all out.\n\nSo they just found other areas of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, etc which had the same 1970's look and then CGI'ed the tall buildings.\n\nCGI is getting better and better every year and it's gotten to the point where you can't really spot it anymore in scenes with buildings, etc. It's usually still painfully obvious however when they try to do animals or people or anything moving. \n\n",
"For Hollywood movies in big cities they do pay. However, in smaller cities sometimes you can just ask and the city will effectively pay YOU to shoot in their city. \n\nMy dad makes movies as his hobby (SUPER low budget) and he got a city in his area to block off a street, give him access to (parked only!) police cars with the lights on, and access to a few normally restricted areas for his latest movie. \n\nAll he had to “pay” was to give the city manger a 5 second cameo. \n\nAs with all things real estate, it’s just location, location, location. ",
"For 28 Days Later where they filmed in the middle of downtown London ([_URL_0_](_URL_0_)) They filmed at 4 in the morning before major traffic hit. They also blocked off all their places, shot a take, let a bunch of cars through, re-blocked, and over and over again. So they only really have like 30 seconds at a time. They were also able to use multiple small cameras to get multiple angles in one take which cut down on production.\n\nIt helped in that specific film that they were shooting on MiniDV cameras so they didn't have to spend a million years on setup, they could go quickly and nimbly from shot to shot without doing a bunch of lights. Contrast that to the opening of La La Land where they had to wall off the freeway AND put a bunch of cars there and a crane AND shoot a massive musical number. That took 3 days of shutting down a major LA freeway.\n\nIf you are thinking that that is insane because the city loses major traffic arteries etc, you're right! The locals just deal with it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdRFMp8Xwo"
]
] |
|
7uhvuo | why does super moon looks much bigger in usa than here in nepal? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7uhvuo/eli5_why_does_super_moon_looks_much_bigger_in_usa/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtke0on",
"dtkfr63",
"dtl7u5x"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Photos are misleading. You can make the moon appear as big or as small as you want it to be, depending on which lens you are using (specifically depending on the focal length). If you zoom in it makes the moon big, if you zoom out it makes the moon small.",
"A common optical illusion that makes the moon appear much larger that it appears much larger when it is close to the horizon. When it is the only thing in your field of view, you see it as it is and it appears small. When you look at it in the background of the horizon containing trees, buildings, mountains etc. your mind subconsciously recognizes that it is farther away than all those things, and increases you perception of its size because of that.",
"It doesn't, the super moon thing is much ado about nothing.\n\nThe super moon is not noticeably larger to the casual observer. [It is only about 6% larger than an average moon, and 12% larger than the smallest moon (minimoon)](_URL_0_). If you didn't know it was a super moon, it likely wouldn't appear any different to you. \n\nWhat is happening is people are more aware of the moon, and more likely to see it near moonrise or moonset, where they are subject to the well known moon illusion. The moon **always** looks bigger near the horizon, super or not. If you don't have a clear view of the horizon, the moon illusion is not as prominent.\n\n > I saw photos of yesterday's super moon\n\nWhen you use a zoom lens, the moon appears much larger, super moon or not."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Lunar_perigee_apogee.png"
]
] |
|
82yhkp | relationship between hypertonic and hypotonic cells or solutions - osmosis | I'm still having trouble grasping the concept of the difference between hyper and hypotonic. For example, if a dialysis bag with a 0.5 M solution inside the bag were placed in a 0.25 M sucrose solution, would that gain or lose water? I tried googling for answers but it still doesn't quite make sense to me. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82yhkp/eli5_relationship_between_hypertonic_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvdq7gq",
"dvdslh2"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Hyper = too much.\n\nHypo = too little.\n\nConcentrations of gas, liquid, or dissolved solid mixed in any gas or liquid (provided they *can* mix) will naturally flow towards equilibrium. So if you put a bunch of saltwater over *here* and a bunch of freshwater over *there*, the saltwater will flow towards *there* and the fresh towards *here* until there is nothing but one large body of brackish (half-way salty) water.\n\nIf you stop the solute (the thing dissolved in the other thing) from moving - say, with semipermeable membrane that allows water to flow through it, but not dissolved salt ions or sugar molecules - then the solvent will still attempt to create equilibrium in the system. That means the liquid will flow from where there is a *low* concentration (hypo) to a *high* concentration (hyper) until the concentration is equal on both sides of the barrier.",
"Things will flow down a concentration gradient towards equilibrium. If there is more of a thing outside the bag, water will flow out while the thing flows into the bag, causing it to shrink. In this case, the bag was placed in a *hyper*tonic solution. \nHyper: more. \nHypo: less \n \nTypically hyper/hypotonicity is used to refer to the solution, relative to what is placed inside of it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5xg7by | what makes snapchat worth so much? | 28 billion $ pal. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xg7by/eli5_what_makes_snapchat_worth_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"dehttgl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Social media are giant advertising networks as much as they are used for us to send stupid videos to each other.\n\nFilters that advertise something, actual ads in app, companies paying to send snaps to everyone, and so on are what contribute to Snapchat's revenue and overall value. The number of users that use Snapchat determines how much advertisers will pay for it, and Snapchat has a pretty large user base (~100 million users).\n\nHere's a better source: _URL_0_\n\nTo quote them: \"[T]he broad strokes of its business model are well-worn: marshal a captivated audience, sell advertisements against it, profit.\"\n\nEDIT: Adding to this, a company's value is figured in one of three ways.\n\n1) As a sum of their overall assets.\n\n2) By comparing to similar companies and creating an estimated worth based on the worth of those companies.\n\n3) Based on overall cash flow. This is most likely what they're using for these valuations.\n\nCash flow is figured by looking at how much a company makes and spends to put it simply. It is usually measured over multiple years, and a \"discounted cash flow\" is figured out. There is a lot of fancy math involved in figuring discount rates out, but it is usually inverse to the cash flow and includes such things as the industry growth rate and hazards associated with your specific company such as one person being so involved the company would fail without them, diversity of customers, and so on.\n\nIf a company is left with say $600,000 at the end of the year after taxes and expenses and is calculated as having a 30% discount rate, they are found to be worth $20 million at that point.\n\nTo bring this back to your original question: Snapchat's industry has projected growth, there is no one person who completely runs the show at Snapchat, they have a diversity of customers, and they have demonstrated staying power. This likely gives them a decent discount rate, and they pull in hefty amounts on each advertising deal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://fortune.com/2015/02/19/snapchat-worth-19-billion-more/"
]
] |
|
71g9i7 | why can ionic compounds not conduct electricity, but aqueous ionic compounds can? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71g9i7/eli5_why_can_ionic_compounds_not_conduct/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnajx2x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Ionic compounds cannot conduct electricity as a solid. The ions are in a strict crystal lattice and there is no ability for electricity to easily flow through it.\n\nIf you melt the ionic compound, it conducts electricity even better than it being dissolved in water. \n\nDissolved in water the ions are allowed to separate. This separation (and breaking) of the crystal lattice is what makes it conduct electricity. The ions are allowed to move and flow as they desire and can take and give extra electrons more easily. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
34qpcb | why do boxers such as mayweather/pacquiao who are supposedly the best in the world, not compete in the olympics? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34qpcb/eli5_why_do_boxers_such_as_mayweatherpacquiao_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqx5dio"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Floyd Mayweather was in the Summer Olympics back in 1996 in Atlanta, where he \"only\" won the bronze. Only amateurs, which Mayweather was back then, are allowed to compete."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3naaqy | how can i estimate correctly the space between my car and the ones around it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3naaqy/eli5_how_can_i_estimate_correctly_the_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvm93m7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Honestly the only way to get better at estimating is experience. There's not exactly a way to fix your estimation abilities through a text post."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
69xk7h | many conservatives, when arguing against islam, cite surveys that claim that a significant number of muslims support suicide bombing, stoning, jihad, and all other sorts of scary-sounding things. how valid are these claims? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69xk7h/eli5_many_conservatives_when_arguing_against/ | {
"a_id": [
"dha3p90",
"dha58un",
"dha5gsi",
"dhamycm",
"dhaxa64",
"dhb04nl"
],
"score": [
30,
16,
5,
7,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"While I'm not really in a position to judge these claims myself, their source is [this](_URL_2_) collection of surveys done by the Pew Research Center, which, judging from a quick look at their [methodology](_URL_0_), seems largely reliable and unbiased.\n\nSome more in-depth opinions of a few Redditors that are more educated than me replying to [a similar question that was asked elsewhere](_URL_1_) confirm this.",
"Along with the surveys and research, why do mainstream muslims consider reform movement upstarts \"uncle toms\".\n\nThere is a serious problem with Islam and it is incompatible with the west. \n\nReform is needed",
"They are surveys done within Islamic countries using the same methodologies as domestic surveys. They're generally pretty accurate as far as surveys and polls go. Some thing to note is that supporting a behavior doesn't necessarily mean that the individual acts in that manner. \n\nSupport for different views changes by country, region and sect. But in some places such views we would consider radical and unethical are quite common.\n",
"It's not just conservatives... it's anyone who values facts over feelings, and that includes a large number of (true) liberals like Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and Dave Rubin. Pew is a reputable polling organization. I'm not sure who did the follow-up study in the UK, but their results were similar.",
"It's worth pointing out that what is most important is to critically ponder over said claims, regardless of the political orientation of the person making them. \n\nFor example, in the [Pew](_URL_1_) study (note: this is not intended to be a jab aimed at Crepitor), 71% of muslims in Jordan support Sharia law...but then 94% view ISIS unfavorably. Since ISIS supports a severe, radicalized implementation of Sharia Law, including stoning and beheading, does this mean that the Muslims in Jordan don't support stoning? \n\nThe answer is we don't know based on this information, *and* we don't know if all Muslims in Jordan view stoning the same way-thinking they do is a [logical fallacy](_URL_0_). Perhaps Jordanians are horrified by the brutality and view Sharia law differently, or perhaps some of their citizens have been similarly brutalized and they have disavowed ISIS. This has not stopped individuals on either side of similar arguments from taking similar facts and running with them, and ultimately everyone loses.",
"All surveys have bias. The way one asks a question csn influence the answer. E.g. Do you think women are vad at science? This reinforces a particular viewpoint (women are bad at science when they arent). \n\nIn the Qur'an is specifies that \"killing one person is like killing all of man kind\". I.e. the sin of killing 1 person is the same as if you killed every person you ever exist. Which is astronomically massive. \n\nMany political commentators are highly ignorant about Islam and what is stands for. \n\nJihad:\nJihad is only justified in exceptional circumstances like the crusades or in wars e.g Pakistani-Indian war. The soldiers who died on the Pakistani side did a jihad as they were protecting their religion and country. They were fighting to protect people not killing needlessly like terrorists. \n\nThe terrorists that we hear about all the time are also ignorant about Islam (just as much as conservative commentators). They subscribe to a sect of Islam called Wahabbi Islam which is hypocrtical and is not classified as true Islam by many scholars. SUPRISE Saudi Arabia is the one who exports this cr*p. They are literally brainwashing their population with this disgusting form of Islam. \n\nThe rest of Islam (Sunni and Shia) is peaceful. (Many Wahabbi's pose as Sunnis which causes confusion across the world and in the media)\n\nStoning: \nStoning is a part of Islam I will not deny that, but the circumstances in which they are permissible are so strict that it never happened before the rise of Saudi royal family and the consquencal rise of Wahabbism. 700AD to ~1950s\n\nSuicide Bombing:\nThe only Muslims that support the share Wahabbi' s\nBut Many Muslims view Hamas bombings against Israel to be justified as they are an apartheid state. They view it as a reaction to oppression and a lack of basic human rights like water and shelter. But this is an exceptional case. Millions of mosques condemn terror attacks and have programs to help educate Muslims about what Islam truly is (A religion of peace)\n\nSharia Law:\nOnly applies to Muslims even in an Islamic country. That is the Islamic law - SUPRISE they accept it\n Not exactly radical is it? They always ignore the fine print and context of the situation. Translations also remove loads of meanings which complicates things further. The poverty rate in the Arabian peninsula during the Ummayadd empire was 0%. Thatvwas true Sharia.\n\nMany errors can occur in surveys. Be it clerical, language barriers or the people answering not understanding and just saying \"yes\" without understanding. Or even questions e.g. can jihad ever be justified? All of this can be manipulated. \n\nTL;DR - not fully valid as biases exist. Conservatives are ignorant about Islam and know literally nothing about the history and are selecting information that suits their agenda. NOT the truth. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/international-survey-research/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/3sv9a0/is_pew_research_a_reliable_source_of_information/",
"http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg",
"http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/"
],
[]
] |
||
1ndfud | why is the world war i called a "world war"? | My History class started studying the subject, and the teacher mentioned that the US didn't want to get too involved when punishments for Germany were being discussed because the war took place in Europe. But that got me thinking, why is it called a "world war" if pretty much all the fighting was done by European countries? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ndfud/eli5_why_is_the_world_war_i_called_a_world_war/ | {
"a_id": [
"cchj6fm",
"cchjdpw",
"cchkjxz",
"cchljkb"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"The fighting happened all over the world, but \"World War\" is undoubtedly a very Eurocentric name. There isn't really any logic to it, they just sort of considered \"all the major powers\" to be \"the whole world\" whether it was fair or not.",
"I'm not at all an expert here, but bear in mind that when the UK went to war, it brought with it its colonies and dominions, so Canada, Australia, India, and big chunks of Asia and Africa all became at least nominally at war in WW1. I don't think there was fighting in Canada, Australia etc, but there were certainly Canadians, Australians etc in the fighting. France had overseas colonies too, as well as Germany, The Netherlands etc, and the whole Ottoman Empire went in as well. A really huge part of the world was politically part of one of the european nations involved in the war.\n\nEdit: [Here's an map showing which countries were involved](_URL_0_). Green and orange countries participated, grey ones did not. There's really not a lot of grey on the map.",
"Fighting wasn't just localized in Europe. There was an entire theater of war in the Middle East as well (ever heard of Lawrence of Arabia? Or the battle of Gallipoli? These are all significant elements of WW1 taking place outside of Europe.). Also, virtually all of Africa and much of Asia were under colonial control by the European powers, so these colonies became quantum participants as colonial forces battled each other. \n\nSide note: If one defines a World War as \"a war where different sides fight each other in different theaters\" then World War 1 wouldn't be the first \"world war.\" For example, back in the 18th century, the Seven Years' War, also known as the French and Indian war in America, was fought by powers in Europe and their overseas colonies. ",
"Because fighting happened everywhere, and involved people from the vast majority of the world. \n\nJapan attacked German Colonies in the pacific and in China. And China did actually join the allies and sent significant resources (as labour) to France eventually. \n\nThe British Navy fought off south america against german squadrons, and eventually Brazil joined the allies. \n\nThe German colonies in africa were occupied by the Commonwealth (and France). \n\nWorld war 2 was a bit more world, even though it was basically the same people fighting (with allegiances shuffled around a bit). \n\nThe US didn't want to get involved for a lot more reasons than it being a primarily 'european' thing. In 1914 US trade was basically under the thumb of Britain, as the Royal Navy controlled the oceans. So entering on the side of the Germans could have been... problematic. But the US is ethnically more german than British, and the Irish in the US were decidedly anti british. The natural US alliance was really with Germany, not with Britain and France (the latter of course has been the Americans ally from the beginning generally). \n\nThe US partly didn't want to get involved because it didn't think it could get anything it wanted out of it. Trying to take Canada (again), would have likely brought France and Russia in against the US, and the same goes for Pacific colonies owned by Japan. The US was happy colonizing Mexico, but no one was rushing to mexico's defence, so there wasn't really any impediment there.\n\n\nArguably the first real 'world war' were the napoleonic wars, where there was fighting all over the globe. But the fighting in Asia in the napoleonic wars basically didn't matter much to anyone. \n\n\nIf you actually drew a political map of the world in WW1 (_URL_0_) the list of places not directly involved is quite limited. And to add to that map, both the stuff that has become Saudi Arabia and Iran were involved but not fighting, and Argentina was involved but not fighting (as a 'neutral' port for German ships). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090605040957/nations/images/4/4f/WWI-re.png"
],
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/WWI-re.png"
]
] |
|
6yki3q | how do we live so long? there are so many things that can kill us. how do most of us end up living 80+ years? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yki3q/eli5_how_do_we_live_so_long_there_are_so_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmo2sym"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There's no complex concept here. \n\n1. We're good at healing when injured.\n2. Our brains are good at thinking ahead and deciding what things are dangerous.\n3. Sometimes we just get lucky.\n4. As a social species, we tend to protect each other."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cxt13v | the core of the earth is radioactive. why can't we despose our radioactive waste in very deep magma? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxt13v/eli5_the_core_of_the_earth_is_radioactive_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyn867n",
"eyn9f3o",
"eyna9gt"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"AFAIK we currently do not dig that deep and storing waste in vulcanos would be risky. Imagine an eruption where on top of lava and ashes the volcano also throws up plutonium into the air.",
"Basically: we can’t get there. \n\nIt’d be more feasible to launch it into space but then you run the risk of the rocket exploding and spreading Chernobyl horror all over your expensive launch site.\n\nSure to go down you don’t have to fight gravity - you just have to fight literally millions of tonnes of rock that block your path. The deepest we’ve ever managed to drill is about a third of the way through the crust - 7.6 miles - with a nine inch drill. At that depth it kept overheating. So to make a hole deep enough to deposit our nuclear waste down, we’d need some very advanced, as yet uninvented, technology. \n\nVolcanos are no good either - they erupt. Same as a rocket. If it blows up, then not only do you have an ash cloud to deal with, it’s radioactive too. \n\nIn Britain they go halfsies - they use disused mine shafts where the earth will absorb the radiation. They encase the waste in glass, drop it in a nice deep hole, smooth it over and call it good.",
"(1) The distance to the outer core is about 2,900 km from the surface of the Earth (and another 2,250 km to the edge of the inner core - nearly the same again, the core is huge!). The deepest we have ever drilled is about 12 km or so into the crust and that was just a tiny narrow borehole to see how far we could get. We will never ever have the capability to reach the Earth’s core simply due to the heat and pressure (any opening immediately wants to close back up), let alone be able to transfer stuff to/from down there. \n\n(2) The Earth’s core is not magma, and it’s not particularly radioactive. It is molten metal, whereas magma is molten rock - you don’t need to go anywhere near as deep as the core to find magma, most magma is formed at specific melt generating regions near the very top of the mantle. When the core formed, it was mostly Earth’s iron sinking towards the centre, taking a few other elements with it. Funnily enough, it did not take many elements with a significant proportion of radioactive isotopes. The core is still hot today because the energy from planetary accretion and core formation liberated a lot of heat, and because it is somewhat insulated by 2,900 km of solid rock. \n\nConcerning radioactivity, the mantle is where the Earth’s radiogenic heat comes from, though the crust is actually the most radioactive layer of the Earth per unit volume (it’s just that the crust is so comparatively thin that it doesn’t contribute much to Earth’s overall heat. But a cubic kilometre of crust will generate more radioactive heat than a cubic kilometre of mantle). \n\n(3) “So what about magma? What about volcanoes? Why can’t we send our radioactive waste there?” I hear you ask. Well firstly the thing is - just because something else is radioactive, doesn’t mean we want to put radioactive waste with it. What we want is to be able to contain that waste as it decays, so that those particles it emits which would be at a harmful rate to nearby life cannot mess up the ecosystem or get into the food supply. \n\nAs for chucking stuff in volcanoes (any kind of waste) this is much less practical than you may think. Firstly, volcanoes are typically in fairly remote areas, or even when close to cities they do not have the infrastructure for varying stuff up and down them. Many of them are actual mountains too, it’s hard enough just trekking up and down them without trying to take humanity’s products up there on an industrial scale. Secondly, what do you do with it all once up there? Volcanoes are not the conduits to the inner Earth that people assume. They are blocked up with the rock formed from the previous eruption. There is only a literal handful of volcanoes *in the whole world* (about 6) which have an open lava lake. Even so, here we have a pool where material is coming out of the Earth, not going in. How are you going to reverse the flow and get it to take all your rubbish with it? Hint: you can’t.\n\n**Edit**: [Bonus video for making it through my comment](_URL_0_). So I’m pretty sure this is Erta Ale volcano in Ethiopia - one of the lava lakes I mentioned. Some of the scientists at the end of their camping nearby to research it decided to throw their propane canister into it and record what happens. It agitated the lava lake a bit, wouldn’t be a good idea to try and throw as much waste as you could in there!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2BMJwM0_MA"
]
] |
||
21fngs | journalism ethics | How does it work? If a source says "off the record", what's stopping the journalist from naming the source? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21fngs/eli5_journalism_ethics/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgck3je",
"cgckde6"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"Nothing, really, other than never ever being able to get a source to go off the record ever again, and also making it very hard for other reporters from their organization to do the same.\n\nThere is great value in off-the-record statements, and they help immensely in putting together a comprehensive story. There's no upside to burning a source, unless you're happy with this being the last story you ever write.",
"Took a Journalism Ethics class as a part of my LitJ degree.\n\nA lot of what makes a Journalist good is your ability to access sources. If you can't get access to source material, you can't get a good story. Or at least its a lot harder to.\n\nIf word gets out that you are the kind of Journalist that can't be trusted with 'off-the-record' remarks, then you are going to lose sources.\n\nThat said, what was suggested to us was to *ask*. If the subject says something really important, come back to it later and ask. Comprimise and discuss and find a way, if any, to get it into the story. But if you go over your subjects head, it will probably come back to haunt you.\n\nLegally speaking, journalists do not have to reveal sources. [More details](_URL_2_). The US only has state-level [Shield laws](_URL_0_) that will vary from state to state. But some journalists might feel that what the source said was too important to ignore and take the chance anyways. [Judith Miller](_URL_1_) is a good example of how, especially in a case involving the federal government, not revealing sources can be an issue.\n\nIt's a big risk, but generally speaking, a good journalist will try to avoid it when possible. Having long-term access to a source is very valuable.\n\nExample of working it in:\n\nYour source says, 'off the record,' that their boss is a massive asshat.\n\nRather than attributing the quote directly, you work it into the story and describe the boss as a massive asshat, independent of the source. You might still run this by the source to make sure they are comfortable with the way you have worded it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States#State_laws",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Judith_Miller",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources"
]
] |
|
1nqsvf | must money circulate? why? | I often hear that it would be bad for the economy if people save their money under their mattress instead of (indirectly, through banks) loaning their money. This doesn't seem to make sense to me, as the deflation created by stuffing the mattress should counteract the "lack of" circulating money. So essentially, is it bad for the economy of society if people save their money under their mattress? If so, why doesn't deflation counteract that? If not, why have I heard that it is bad?
Edit: Ok, I guess it wouldn't work in the US, which is the only country in the world according to you. :P | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nqsvf/eli5_must_money_circulate_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccl54zj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you put money in a bank, the bank can use that money to make a loan. Loans include business lines of credit, mortgages, etc. By allowing other people access to this money, it increases economic activity. This increases money circulation, which is good for the economy. Money changing hands is usually good for an economy. \n\nIf you put the money under your mattress, no one can access your money. This has the impact of reducing the number of dollars in the economy, which creates deflation. \n\nDeflation is bad for the following reason. Let's say I am interested in buying a car for $20,000. In a deflating economy, I know that this car will cost me less in a month or two. As long as I don't desperately need a car, I will not purchase today. Deflation reduces the incentive to buy today. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2auf4g | why would i use a vps server? | Why do people have VPS servers? What do they do/ what can one do with it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2auf4g/eli5_why_would_i_use_a_vps_server/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciyv381",
"ciyvb5v",
"ciyxo9h",
"ciyyg8s",
"ciz3cyo"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A VPS server is similar to a regular server, running its own OS (Operating system, like Windows/Mac OSX/Linux). However, unlike a regular server, A VPS(Virtual Private Server) is like a partition of the regular server, so many people can use the server, except your data is kept privately. It is usually slower than a usual one because the load comes from multiple people. It can run almost all applications that are made for that OS.",
"A VPS is a private, virtual server that exists on a much more powerful physical machine. But unlike shared hosting, you have a guaranteed allotment of system resources that only you have access to. So, even if there is a much bigger website than yours on another VPS, hosted on the same physical machine, that won’t matter: you’re always guaranteed the system resources that you’re paying for. Think of it like one big computer, running lots of little computers inside of it.\nThis means that provided you don’t overload your VPS, your website will perform much better. Plus, once your website grows, you can easily upgrade your VPS to a more powerful one in a matter of minutes – no migration required.",
"VPS can also be set up for to be more reliable. By having the OS removed from the hardware if a hardware failure happens it is possible to have the virtual server be automatically moved to other hardware with only a brief pause to the VPS. Although most people don't have a personal need for this reliability companies do and it can be very expensive.",
"I assume you are looking for one.\n\nThere are three main types of hosting; shared hosting, VPS, and Dedicated Server.\n\nIn shared hosting your web application is on the same physical and logical server as everyone else. Your application is ran by the same web server process (usually) as everyone else but just as a different vhost.\n\n**Pros of Shared Hosting**\n\n* Cheap\n\n\n**Cons of Shared Hosting**\n\n* You can't customize it or install anything. You are just another user on a shared box. If you need to install special software (Rails for example) you will need to get the host to do it. \n* You are at the mercy of other users. A single user with a process running amok or filling the disk will impact you.\n\n* Insecure. Since you are on the same box as everyone else, if the server isn't configured properly one users compromised web app can your data (make sure you lock down your configs).\n\n* Oversold. Hosts often charge $2/mo for shared hosting with \"unlimited everything\" and pack 900 users onto the box. When one acts up they ban them.\n\nA VPS is the next step up. A VPS is kind of like your own server where you have full root access to your own little sandbox. It's basically a Virtual Machine. You can install whatever you want(well kind of). There are two types of virualization technology. One, such as OpenVZ, has a shared kernel (and shared CPU and perhaps memory). Another such as Xen, VMWare, VirtualBox gives you your own isolated environment. The second is more expensive than the first.\n\n**Pros of VPS**\n\n* You can install whatever you want (more so in hypervisor type VMs like Xen).\n\n* Cheaper than a dedicated server.\n\n* More secure than a shared host\n\n* Basically a dedicated server\n\n\n**Cons of VPS**\n\n* OpenVZ type VPS are typically heavily oversold. They promise you some crazy Xenon but it's shared with many others. I believe memory can be Oversold on OpenVZ as well.\n\n* You won't be able to install custom hardware (such as a hardware RNG or GFX card for mining).\n\n* In OpenVZ type VPS, a user's process can take over the CPU and impact you.\n\nRemember some dedicated servers (or whats sold as a dedi) is actually just a VPS in a VMWare environment. It's hard to tell the diff unless you know what to look for.",
"People use VPS's for the same things they use normal, dedicated servers - put a website on it, run a filestore/FTP server, cloud file storage, video game servers, media servers - I've run all of those and more."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9c2mtz | if a human child was somehow raised up by animals, would the child be able to communicate with the animals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9c2mtz/eli5_if_a_human_child_was_somehow_raised_up_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"e57iilc",
"e57ilt0",
"e57io6x"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Only as much as an animal can communicate. And they usually only communicate things like \"I'm angry\", \"I like this\", \"I want to put my dick in you\". And they use body language a lot. No verbal communication, other than some noises.\n\nPlus, humans can't do certain things animals can. We have no tails or flappy ears, we can't piss a little bit here and then a little bit there, we can't make most of the noises animals can, other stuff...",
"Short answer is yes. \nAn instance is John Ssebunya, from Uganda, was a toddler when his mother died. Instead of going into a care facility, he went to live with vervet monkeys. For two years he learned how to forage and travel. The monkeys protected him in the wild. When he was around seven years old, he was bought back to civilization. The only form of communication he could do was cry, and he was described as always wanting food. Some considered him “wild” and “scary.” And of you find communicating with monkeys a Grey area you Can read about Oxana Malaya was an eight-year-old girl who lived with dogs for six years. She was found in a kennel with dogs in 1991. She was neglected by her parents who were alcoholics. The three-year-old looking for comfort crawled into the farm and snuggled in with the dogs. Her behavior imitated dogs more than humans. She walked on all fours, bared her teeth, and barked. As she lacked human contact she did not know any words besides \"yes\" and \"no\". Upon adulthood, Oxana has been taught to subdue her dog-like behavior. She learned to speak fluently and intelligently and works at the farm milking cows, but remains somewhat intellectually impaired. Years later, Oxana admitted on a Russian talkshow that her story was slightly less dramatic; neglected by her parents, she sought out the company of the dogs and learned to imitate them as they were more responsive then her parents.",
"Nah. At least not really. \n\nFirst, we don’t really have a clear idea of how animals communicate. We know that some use sounds, some use odours, some use gestures, etc.\n\nWell, humans can’t change their physiology so they wouldn’t be able to make the monkey cry that says ‘get up the trees snakes are coming’ and they wouldn’t be able to emit the pheromones that ants use to signal dangers (though the thought of a human baby being raised by ants amuses me greatly). \n\nI assume that they would be able to understand and reproduce to a small extent some of the gesturality by wolves for instance, but without great precision ans mostly as a ‘natural selection’ sort of thing (humans that don’t learn get killed).\n\nNow, we don’t have a great many examples of people being raised by animals. There was this girl called Jenny who was then rescued but her story was tragic as she was exploited by everyone around her after her rescue for research or media attention. I don’t think we really know if she was able to communicate with animals (likely she wasn’t, or only very small basic things that she learnt by imitation), but we do know that she never managed to learn human language. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9ksshk | why is easier to separate paper if my fingers are wet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ksshk/eli5_why_is_easier_to_separate_paper_if_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"e71j3vj",
"e71j655"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Paper on paper has more fiction than paper on skin. So if you rub two sheets of paper with your finger, your finger will slide. \n\nPaper on wet skin has more friction than paper on paper. So of you rub two sheets with a wet finger, the sheets will slide off each other. ",
"It increases friction / grip between your fingers and the paper because of the adhesive properties of water - it \"sticks / clings\" to many substances, including your fingers and the paper.\n\nThis assumes, of course, that your fingers are only slightly damp, not soaking wet, which would soak through multiple layers of paper and cause the papers to stick together as well (for the same reason)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3d2sab | if you were in a space ship traveling at the speed of light (or extremely close to it) could you walk or even move in the direction of the space ship's motion? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d2sab/eli5_if_you_were_in_a_space_ship_traveling_at_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct19r00",
"ct1aiap",
"ct1b0ny",
"ct1blq8",
"ct1egmo",
"ct1ic5n",
"ct1mjw5"
],
"score": [
98,
6,
2,
2,
48,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. From your perspective, it would appear to work normally.\n\nLet's say light speed was 60 mph just to make it simpler.\nSay you also have Alice standing still outside the ship watching it go (with a telescope, so she can still see it when it's really far away), and Bob standing still inside the ship.\n\nAlice sees your ship going at 59 mph. You walk forward. From Bob's perspective you're going forwards at 3 mph. Nothing weird. You keep walking for an hour and go 3 miles (it's a big ship!).\n\nFrom Alice's perspective, you're going forwards at 0.3 mph\\* inside the ship. You keep walking for 10 hours and go 3 miles. From what Alice can tell, your time is going slower - this applies not just to walking, but also the clocks inside your ship, your ship's computer, everything in the ship. This is time dilation.\n\n\\* Not a calculation, but a made up number in the right range.",
"Yes, as far as relativity is concerned, your ship is stationary. It's as easy for you to move yourself as it is when the ship is sitting on some planet. All of the weirdness of relativity is when you look out at other things. \n\nYour ship is stationary, it's Earth or whatever, that's moving almost lightspeed away from you. But when you're going that fast, acceleration isn't additive like we're used to thinking about. There's some odd things at play with length contraction and time dilation to compensate and make all the math work out.",
"As long as the acceleration period was finished, and the space ship was at a constant speed, it would seem like you are walking on the sidewalk. ",
"All motion is relative. Your ship is moving at the speed of light in relation to some other object, or group of objects. Let's say it's two objects: Earth and another planet Mecatol Rex, 100 light years away from Earth (for the sake of this explanation let's assume that Earth and Mecatol Rex are stationary with respect to each other).\nAs your ship accelerates towards the speed of light, the time perceived by you on the ship becomes different from the time on Earth. The quicker the ship moves, the bigger the difference.\nOnce your ship gets to the speed of light, the rest of the trip is instantaneous to you.\n100 years have passed on Earth, but 0 seconds were seen by you, on your journey to Mecatol Rex.\nSo you see, there wouldn't be any time for you to walk towards the front of the ship; if somebody was observing you from Earth for 100 years, you would look frozen, mid stride.",
"Your question is best answered by saying \"when you say `3 miles per hour`, who's measuring the hour?\". Because of time dilation, 'per hour' has no absolute meaning. ",
"If you were traveling at the speed of light, no. If you were close to it, yes. At the speed of light, time for you would stop. If you were merely traveling close to the speed of light, time inside of your ship would appear to pass normally and you could walk about without at issue.",
"1) yes. Physics in objects that are not accelerating is the same as physics in objects that stand still.\n\n2) The ship can go at any speed. If you have the energy and somehow survive the acceleration (both very theoretical) you can go to the Andromeda galaxy within minutes. The only thing is, everything will have aged by millions of years when you arrive. Others will see you as going just under light speed while becoming very heavy. A massless object can (has to) go at infinite speed which is seen by outsiders as light speed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
o5hie | why do so many people believe in the illuminati? | Despite the fact that Illuminati believers are always going on about how the Illuminati are 'hiding' themselves, a lot of people seem to believe in them. I don't get it. When did it become so common to believe in them? And why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o5hie/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_believe_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3eimok",
"c3eioqk",
"c3ejtz5",
"c3ek1nv",
"c3elb5v",
"c3eoff7",
"c3eofmg",
"c3eoswb",
"c50qi6g"
],
"score": [
29,
2,
11,
52,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"People often want someone to blame for their problems. \"It's not my fault I'm in debt, it was that Jewish banker who gave me the loan!\" means you can be anti-Semitic and not take responsibility for your problems.\n\nOf course, then you actually meet a Jew and realize they can be pretty nice people, they can be hardworking, they might have to release their quarterly numbers for the banks, etc etc, and you come to understand that blaming them for your problems is dishonest (Well, hopefully. Obviously not the case for everyone).\n\nBut what if there was a group you could blame that you *couldn't* meet? That *couldn't* be shown to not be the cause of your problems? Well, then you really could blame all your problems on some conspiracy theory, and if someone tried to disprove you, all you have to do is point out they're a secret group!\n\nGranted, this doesn't usually happen consciously. A lot of people don't want an internal locus of control (ie, they don't want to believe they are responsible for their place in life) so they come up with an external locus of control (someone else is responsible for their place in life). Of course, life being what it is, there are internal and external factors in everyone's life. \n\nThe illuminati, like the bilderburg group and the trilateral commission, have some basis in real life - even better from a conspiracy theorists point of view.",
"The same reason people believe in the New World Order, 9/11 conspiracies, man on the moon cover ups, and Ron Paul. They're a little nutty.",
"People like to feel smart...and the easiest way to feel smart is to know something the other guy doesn't.\n\nConspiracy theories feed into this desire to be smart. Whether it is JFK assassination theories, or fluoride in the water, they know the \"truth\", and that allows them to feel smarter than all the sheeple who don't believe.\n\nReligion works the same way.",
"Because it's easier to believe that a small group is working against the interests of humanity than it is to believe that humanity is inherantly flawed.",
"Because it's to depressing to accept that most of the mess we're in now is the result of ordinary stupidity, greed, dishonesty, laziness and lust for power, so many people would prefer a more romantic or exciting explanation.",
"The Illuminati and other secret societies *have* existed historically and worked in private to achieve their own shadowy aims, for good or otherwise. It's no stretch of the imagination to believe that such an organization still operates, though in the information age I find it unbelievable that nobody has managed to actually find real evidence of their continued operation. That in itself is reason to doubt the conspiracy theories. \n \nWhat's far more likely, in my opinion, and far more terrifying, is that any collusion that exists among the very powerful is likely not so much *conscious conspiracy* as it is *built into the system*. Huge corporations, for example, aren't chaired by bald supervillains with cats and quirky henchmen, but they are so large and tethered to the financial systems that hold them up that, as the system is right now, in order to thrive within that system they MUST suppress transparency, stifle competition, and maximize profit in any way they can get away with. If they can get away with *any thing* and it makes them money, they *will do it*. Moreover, they will do it in a way which keeps their leaders' hands clean. \n \nThese circles operate like superorganisms, independent of the puny humans that comprise their inner workings. The ultra-competitive environment of supercapitalism has created a sort of financial ecosystem that operates according to Darwinian principles. The organizations that best manipulate the system make the most money, and the organizations with the most money are then better able to manipulate the system.",
"I ask myself the same thing regarding god.",
"Well there is evidence that groups like this exist and have been trying to influence this or that throughout history, but I refuse to believe that any group has actual \"control\". That is the most cynical position to take and it robs you of your political/social agency. What I think a lot of conspiracy type thinking actually is is a popular theory or model building tool for lay people outside of the intellectual, theory making pool of professionals in society. Its a first attempt at theory, but not subject to the rules of logic and evidence and therefore subject to viruses of language and thought that can make it appear crazy to those who try to uphold such standards. That said, most of what conspiracy is supposed to be is just business (as usual), but it seems so horrendous to those outside of business or war or religion that it takes on ominous proportions of malice.",
"Because they are either high or incredibly stupid."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2505c2 | what exactly do photons do? | All I know is that they're an elementary particle. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2505c2/eli5_what_exactly_do_photons_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"chcdo9j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Photons are particles of an electromagnetic phenomena, in other words, photons=light, microwaves, X-ray, UV light,Gamma ray and infrared light."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5m9a36 | what is executive order 13673, fair pay and safe workplaces? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m9a36/eli5_what_is_executive_order_13673_fair_pay_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc1sgya"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It sounds like the part that applies to you is part II of the order: \"The second part of the Order creates new paycheck-transparency protections for workers on Federal contracts. This part, section 5 of the Order, contains two separate requirements. It requires contracting agencies to ensure that certain workers on covered Federal contracts and subcontracts receive a wage statement that that contains information concerning that individual's hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and any additions made to or deductions made from pay. It also instructs covered contractors and subcontractors to inform individuals in writing if the individual is being treated as an independent contractor, and not an employee.\"\n\nOverall, it sounds like the order requires Federal contractors to be explicit about when and how they break Federal labor laws, and also clearly explain on pay stubs how the employee is getting payed.\n\nYou should be seeing some more detail on future pay statements is the very short version."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cp4hvq | how does data storing works? how exactly does a piece of metal and plastic hold all my movies and pictures on it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cp4hvq/eli5_how_does_data_storing_works_how_exactly_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewn4y8f",
"ewn8rjp"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"Depends on what method you use, the farther you go the more complicated it gets.\n\nAn early method i know how to explain is the phonograph. Basically if you wanted to record a piece of music you would set a disk spinning and have a pin connected to another tube from which the music will be recorded, the vibrations will go from the tube to the pin and the pin would engrave the sounds on the disk which can be read again by another pin.",
"CD/DVD: there is a spiral track that contains bits that are either shiny or rough. A laser shines on them; the shiny parts reflect back, the rough parts don't. Your player can interpret those as 1's and 0's. \n\nHard disk: similar to the CD, but the bits are tiny magnets that are either pointed north side up or north side down. They are read with another magnet. This method is also used for old fashioned floppy disks and tape drives\n\nFlash drive: There are a bunch of small pieces of metal. Some of these pieces are given a small charge, then disconnected, others have no net charge. Solid state drives work in a similar way"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3ranqt | why are flat cords supposedly tangle proof? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ranqt/eli5why_are_flat_cords_supposedly_tangle_proof/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwmg9u5"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Cords that are round are equally likely to bend in any direction. Flat cords do not bend as easily in the longways directions, so the likelihood of tanglage is greatly reduced. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8rfrzd | why can municipalities not just convert garbage programs into recycling programs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rfrzd/eli5_why_can_municipalities_not_just_convert/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0qyrk9",
"e0qytkp"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They certainly can. It takes labor, equipment, and money. Most municipalities don't have extra workers, equipment, and money sitting around.",
"Many municipalities offer both garbage and recycling programs. But not all garbage is recyclable. And adding a recycling program when you don't already have one takes money that the municipality might not have."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5o4xjo | why does mold grow on "dead" fruits but not on the ones still on the tree? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5o4xjo/eli5_why_does_mold_grow_on_dead_fruits_but_not_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcgq0p6",
"dcgtmeb",
"dchp6u7"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"It does grow on the ones still on the plant. You just don't see it as much, because you have a lot more experience with picked fruits than you do with those still on the plants. Go strawberry picking towards the end of the season sometime ;)",
"Mold doesn't grow on living things because living things have immune systems. Fruits on a tree are being kept acidic by the physiology of the living tree. Mold spores that land on them can't survive. When the tree severs it's connection to the fruit it will start to change chemically, even if we can't see it. Without the tree maintaining a chemical resistance the fruit become a habitable environment for mold.",
"Unless I'm mistaken, mold actually DOES grow on some fruits \"on the tree\", most notably grapes. The most known being Botrytis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bpwnfe | how rms (root mean square) works in audio production. | I'm a video editor with a moderately decent understanding of how audio editing works, but I've recently been tasked with trying to put some audio recordings on Audible and got stumped (like really stumped) with two of Audible's requirements:
Each file must measure between -23dB and -18dB RMS.
& #x200B;
Each file must have a noise floor no higher than -60dB RMS (root mean square or "average level).
& #x200B;
Can anyone ELI5 this or, conversely, point me in the direction of a good subreddit to post in? Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bpwnfe/eli5_how_rms_root_mean_square_works_in_audio/ | {
"a_id": [
"enye44m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"RMS is a way of measuring AC level. The alternates are numerical average level of the absolute value (not often used) or peak level (peak=1.414 x RMS). RMS is useful in power electronics because 1 V RMS gives the same power in a resistor as 1 V DC. A 120 V incandescent can be run on 120V DC or AC RMS and have the same wattage. Most AC meters are calibrated to be RMS reading for a sine wave. The requirement of -23dB and -18dB RMS probably refers to the \"average\" loudness in decibels below full scale (0 dbFS).\n\nThe noise floor is the level during silent periods."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3ehxd5 | when people find "unfinished" bits of code in a videogame, why was it left there in the first place? | To expand, I always hear about people finding unused character animations, sounds, etc. in the codes of games. Wouldn't it save a lot of memory to just delete these things altogether? Why are these unused things still left in there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ehxd5/eli5_when_people_find_unfinished_bits_of_code_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctf3v9x",
"ctf3w0y",
"ctf46dy"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In short, some are because they like to leave \"easter eggs\", most are because Software Engineers and Computer Scientist are lazy, and the rest are because the second one turned into the first one because they didn't want to seem lazy.",
"You make a sandcastle, oh no you messed up or you are running out of time. You have about 2 options rebuild or just build around it. Most times it's just easy to build around it.",
"You would think so, but: \nNumber one: Unfinished stuff doesn't really take that much memory. High-res textures, rendered Videos and detailed models take a lot of memory, but unfinished stuff usually don't really have those. It is usally just a rough mapping of what it might have become.\n\nNumber two: Programmers are lazy and don't have unlimited time. If you have a dead-line and you have enough to do, nobody will start 'cleaning up' things as long as they don't affect the game's performance. Plus nobody feels a hundred percent comfortable deleting something in a later developement stage ;)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1yib98 | why can't cgi create a realistic looking person? | It doesn't make sense to me. Obviously, I know there's something I don't understand about cgi, but it just seems to me that this should be possible. Is it the textures? Is it the resolution? Even old SD video has a low resolution and humans look like humans at that resolution. We can even make photoshopped digitally altered 2d pictures of people with disproportionate features who still look human. It seems even if you did a CGI of a face with max detail and hours of pre-render time, they still have a look of unnatural looking colors and details. What is it about CGI that makes it difficult to render the detail needed in 3d?
Edit:
After reading a few of the responses, I appreciate the explanations. I think what I'm actually wondering about is, does anyone know why we can't make realistic looking low res models? I mean if you look at this video:
_URL_0_
you can tell all the people are real, and this video has low resolution. So why can't we make low res 3d that looks real? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yib98/eli5_why_cant_cgi_create_a_realistic_looking/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg68yg6",
"cfkrjhw",
"cfkroqw",
"cfks7ei",
"cfkvvov"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
13,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I came to ELI5 to ask about this. Good thing I used the search function. I wanted to ask about it die to a new video game trailer. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Skin is exceptionally hard to mimic right. Watch demo reels from 3d artist and you will occasionally find one who pulls it off.",
"Uncanny Valley.\n\nWhen the CGI of humans is highly stylized (Like in most Pixar movies, Frozen, Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, etc), they look pretty good.\n\nBut when you try and make a realistic looking person, your mind tends to exaggerate the subtle movements and picks up on all the little things that feel \"off\" about it. \n\nLike, say they decide to make a CGI movie of a giant robot. Have you seen this giant robot in real life? Nope! So your mind has an idea of what a giant robot looks like, but there's some leeway in there. \n\nBut if they try and make a CGI film like the Polar Express where they completely mimic real-looking humans, you know what a human looks like. You are one. And the leeway for mistakes is really really low.",
"It's due to the [uncanny valley](_URL_0_) effect.\n\nIn simple terms, humans are *really, really* good at precisely identifying other humans, far better than we are at identifying anything else. If a model of a dog looked slightly wrong, most people would never notice it. If a model of a *person* looked slightly wrong, we'd definitely notice it.\n\nOur current theory is that humans evolved this ability in ancient times as a defensive mechanism. If a person looked slightly *off*—for example, they had some sort of disease—it would be immediately noticed by others, and those people would be shunned from tribes.\n\nIn order to make a realistic-looking CGI face, a modeller has get it absolutely *perfect*, enough to fool our brains that have been specifically designed over thousands of years to detect faults. Perfection is extremely difficult.",
"I think we are at the point where it's possible to create convincing humans in CG still images. Especially at low resolution.\n\nWe're not there when it comes to motion though. There are so many subtleties in the way people move. Even with the best motion capture equipment we can't quite replicate it exactly. It's not quite close enough for people to be convinced it's real. In that Arnie video I bet it's mostly the motion that would give it away if someone tried to recreate it with CG. A company with good enough CG skills could probably recreate still images from it that would look convincing."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw97LIBGbR4"
] | [
[
"http://i.imgur.com/BlJMrV0.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley"
],
[]
] |
|
40g51j | what's the deal with "laces in"? | As a non-American who occasionally watches NFL (and has seen Ace Ventura), I've always wondered what the big deal is about having the laces out.
Topical today because of the Seahawks game. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40g51j/eli5_whats_the_deal_with_laces_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cytwd0z",
"cytwg2h"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Are you referring to Football?",
"It's from the movie 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective' where a shamed former kicker who missed a game-winning field goal placed the blame on the star-QB/kick-holder because he didn't rotate the ball to be 'laces out' (facing away from the kicker).\n\nThe idea is that kicking the laced area may affect the trajectory/path/rotation/distance of a kick because it isn't as smooth as the rest of the ball. The preferred area for a place kicker to kick the ball is on the smooth portion of the football."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
57v3bc | why is youth unemployment in spain so high? | Is it because of technological unemployment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57v3bc/eli5_why_is_youth_unemployment_in_spain_so_high/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8v919w",
"d8vcn7x",
"d8vfrvb"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Education is not that good compared to other European countries, foreign languages learning is an issue. Spaniards loved to buy houses and get mortgages that lead, together with global subprime problem, to a big big credit crisis. \n\nSpanish economy is mostly built on tourism and construction and there are very poor regions suffering form the economic downturn. Finally there's also a cultural thing ongoing: Corruption is an issue but nobody bats an eye.",
"It isn't just Spain - Italy, Portugal, Greece and France all suffer from the same problem. It largely stems from the cronic mismanagement of their economies by local politicians, eagerly encouraged by the EU government. The entire EU economic ideology is broken and has been since the introduction of the Euro, at that time economists all round the world said fine - but balancing the EU economies and introducing total fiscal union within ten years was an absolute necessity. None of that happened. The EU ploughed trillions of Euros into infrastructure and construction projects which added nothing of economic benefit.\n\nThe global economic crisis pushed the whole thing over the edge, since 2008 EU zone GDP has gone precisely nowhere, all the gains made by Germany have been written off by the shrivelling economies of southern Europe. Economic stagnation brings high unemployment and, as always, it's the least capable and least experienced who bear the brunt.\n\nThe EU's answer was quantitative easing on a grand scale, this artificially pushed up the value of the Euro, but when an economy is struggling it needs a weak currency. The southern european countries cannot devalue their currency therefore everything they make or do is grotesquely overpriced and there is no feedback into their treasuries. Essentially they're stuck in a big hole without a ladder.",
"Hi!\nIm Spanish and this is so annoying... Im an engineer student, the fact is that here, we have a lot of engineers and diplomated people. The education system is bad(and fucking expensive) but the youngsters are really prepaired for work. But here, in this fucking lovely country, the busineesses dont want to have any kind of \"danger\". They only want YOUNG people with EXPERIENCE, which is kind of impossible, cause if they dont give us any opportunity, we wont be able to be young and with experience... thats why we are jobless. \n\nI personally meet 3 people (1 of them my sister..)that already are engineers and they are jobless 3 years ago. They dont have experienxe, so they are fucked up. The only job we can get is shitty jobs where you earn 2€/h and illegaly... The \"only\" way to get a \" good\" job(which actually means a shitty legal job) is to make contacts... So yep, thats why students from university are always takin a look in another countries... \n\nI hope u ve understood me, my english isnt perfect, \nsee you!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5z772k | why does the air above a campfire always look wavy and distorted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z772k/eli5_why_does_the_air_above_a_campfire_always/ | {
"a_id": [
"devsz05"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"4 Years old post, but it is due to refraction and differences in air density apparently\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15bskg/eli5_why_does_heat_distort_light/"
]
] |
||
bdunqc | how do transoceanic fiber cables transmit such massive amounts of data coherently through one cable? even telephone lines for that matter. | So there are obviously main highways and branches, but how can all that data from many sources come coherently through a single main cable at once without getting jumbled up with other data trying to do the same?
My understanding is that it's transmitted with light/electricity in binary, so with so much source data transmitted, how can so many individual points of contact come though coherently?
Or are fiber cables masses of cables with many individual strands? But even if so how is that kind of bandwidth possible? I hope my question is clear. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bdunqc/eli5_how_do_transoceanic_fiber_cables_transmit/ | {
"a_id": [
"el0traj",
"el0v15r"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, for starters, an Atlantic cable is indeed multiple individual strands.\n\nLook at one strand first. What you send into it is a kind of light. Often on a frequency that you can't see with your eyes. But also on frequencies that you CAN see with your eyes. Because light at different frequencies will not interfere with each other. You can send them at the same time and receive them at the same time, if you just manage to make equipment that only cares about it's own type of light.\n\nThe idea is sort of that you have one receiver that listens for the red light only, one that listens for the green light only and one that listens for the blue light only. Effectively giving you the tripple capacity in that strand.\n\nIn reality, that was a very simplified explanation. But that is pretty much how it works. But often with several more carriers than just three of them.\n\nYou can also go wild and...say...send red light towards the west, and let the western sender send red light back. So that they can with certainty coexist in the same strand, despite that both of them are light flashes.\n\nAnd...once you have reached the max capacity of one strand, you just make use of one extra. Your cable is damn long and was awful expensive to lay out, it's pretty likely that you \"upgraded\" to several hundred strands in that cable. More than you ever anticipated needing yourself.\n\nSo, in reality, you probably only use 20 or so of them in the beginning. And charge monthly rent for others who want to have access to a fibre strand that happens to run between whatever two cities you endpoint in. You and your customers don't really interfere with each other, and really have nothing to do with each other, as long as the cable is fully functional.\n\nAdding to this reasoning, the cable will of course need something that decides what information that goes in the cable. And receives it in the other end. That equipment is very likely to be a router. A kind of specialised computer that receives traffic from several other incoming cables and queues it up in a memory so that the heavily loaded long distance cable is always used at a capacity that is as close to it's full capability as possible. And quickly looks at everything it has coming in and decides in which direction it should be sent off.",
"Wavelength division multiplexing. \n\nImagine a prism on both ends of a beam of light. All colors diverge into one beam of light at a prism at one end and then break back out into multiple colors at the prism at the other end."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3l6qxx | if the technology were to come about where you "insert your consciousness into a computer program" in order to live forever; it wouldn't actually be you right? rather it would just be a copy? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l6qxx/eli5_if_the_technology_were_to_come_about_where/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv3m82i",
"cv3oiow"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically what such a machine would do (hypothetically) is read what's in your brain and encode it in software. You're correct that it would not be the consciousness currently mediated by your human body.\n\nWhen you download something, you're not taking a physical object from somewhere and moving it to your hard drive, you're copying information down that is stored elsewhere onto your drive. The original data is still the original data and is *not* your copy.",
"Well you would wake up in the machine... but you would also wake up in your normal body. Imagine if someone cloned you in your sleep and murdered the \"original\" you. When the clone woke up in the morning would it know? No, it would wake up thinking it was you as if nothing happened. How could you really know that every morning you wake up you are the same person that went to sleep the night before?\n\nSo yes, \"you\" would wake up in the machine thinking \"huh, I was just human a second ago, now I'm a machine\". \"You\" would also wake up in your body thinking \"huh, nothing happened\". It's weird to think about but there's really nothing to distinguish between a \"copy\" and the original. Copying your consciousness and destroying the original is functionally identical to transferring your consciousness."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3h8gv4 | if speed is relative, why does the twin in the spaceship comeback older than the twin on earth? aren't they both moving at the same speed from the perspective of the other | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h8gv4/eli5_if_speed_is_relative_why_does_the_twin_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu562ne",
"cu56s3p"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The twin in the spaceship has to accelerate to leave and come back. Acceleration isn't relative.",
"Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the key point is *acceleration* or speed *change* relative to the observer.\n\nThat is, imagine you have two spaceships, A and B, traveling side-by-side at 50% of the speed of light relative to a nearby star. Their clocks are synchronized. Spaceship A decelerates to be stationary relative to the star, and then accelerates to re-join spaceship B. To people on spaceship B, calendars on board spaceship A are behind their own, due to its acceleration. That includes the *de*celeration, though. \"Acceleration\" and \"deceleration\" are really the same thing, it's all about frame of reference."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
pysa9 | why copyrights should expire | It seems to me that since intellectual property is well, *property*, it should last forever. Physical property doesn't expire after 70 years. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pysa9/eli5_why_copyrights_should_expire/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3tarxs",
"c3tdd0g",
"c3tde8y"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's say you're in kindergarten and you draw a picture of a purple bunny rabbit. The bunny rabbit is popular, so you can sell copies of your drawing. Obviously, if Timmy down the street were to copy your drawing, he could sell it instead of you, and you'd lose money. Based on this, you think copyright is a good thing. \n\nBut what if Johnny has a good idea for a story about how your bunny fights dinosaurs? Under copyright, he can't sell (or even give away) that story. Maybe it was a really good story and people would have loved it. Too bad for Johnny. It's your drawing and you aren't letting people tell stories about it (unless they pay you off).\n\nWell, years come and go, and eventually you die. And your spouse dies. And so do all of your children. Now Jimmy comes along and sees your painting. He wants to write a story about the bunny fighting aliens. Should he be prevented from doing so because he's not the one that drew the picture 100 years ago?\n\nThe basic idea is that while only one person can use a physical object at a time, anyone can use intellectual property at the same time. The goal of copyright is to allow people to profit off their work so they can make money and continue making art. But if you're forbidden from working on something even though the creator is long dead, then copyright starts *preventing* people from making art. In general, we want to allow people to make art, so we want to have copyright but also have it expire after a reasonable time.",
"Protecting intellectual property was supposed to foster innovation. To encourage people to come up with new ideas, because new ideas would be profitable for a while (the term of the copyright).\n\nHowever, giving limitless copyright terms causes the opposite effect: Nobody innovates or comes up with new ideas, because when copyrights last forever, hording existing copyrights is far more profitable than coming up with new ones.\n\nThus, non-expiring copyrights actually cause the opposite of the intended effect. They discourage innovation, instead of encouraging it.",
"Ideas spawn from the works that came before it. If copyrights were indefinite the ideas would be locked away and no one but the copyright owner could ever use them again. For example nearly all the famous Disney movies (Pinocchio, Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and many many more) are based on other people work. Does that make them any less of a piece of work? We grant people a limited term monopoly on their ideas because it allows them to make money, which encourages them and others to continue to create new works, for the benefit of society, not just the copyright owner. Lastly, the constitution dictates that copyrights should be limited term."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
rr21x | what actually is snot (nose mucus)? | I have a cold and have expended a vast quantity of tissues and made me wonder what the stuff coming out of my nose actually is. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rr21x/what_actually_is_snot_nose_mucus/ | {
"a_id": [
"c47xzop",
"c47ycdk",
"c47z3s0",
"c480h5z",
"c4817xt",
"c4834wl",
"c486qaw"
],
"score": [
3,
431,
9,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I also wondered about this and if whatever makes the snot makes other bodily discharges too...?",
"Your body is only really capable of producing a few substances, in different quantities... so things like mucus, wax, sweat, semen, saliva, or milk tend to be made up of varying concentrations of salts, sugars, proteins, antibodies, other cells, and water.\n\nNow, *mucus* is produced by special cells in your body (not any one gland). It is mainly a mixture of water and glycoproteins (which are proteins that make the mucus viscous).\n\nThese mixtures also have salts that make it unfavorable for bacteria/fungi to grow, enzymes designed to eat away at viruses/bacteria/fungi, antibodies, and some other immune-related proteins.\n\nSo mucus is basically a sticky solution created by cells as a part of the immune system to protect you from bacteria and viruses and coats sensitive areas of the body, like the throat, nose, lungs, vagina, etc, etc.\n\nNaturally, the respiratory system (mouth, nose, throat, and lungs) need a lot of mucus because it has to deal with the most outside invaders... all the bacteria and fungi that you inhale. When the cells in your body realize that you've gotten sick, they produce more mucus to expel the invaders of your body... you end up coughing up lung mucus and dripping nose mucus because your body is removing bacteria to make you healthy again and prevent you from getting more sick.\n\n**TL;DR If bacteria was in an adventure story, mucus would be a cross between quicksand and a piranha pit... not only is there no escape, but you get eaten while you're trying.**",
"Really glad you put nose mucus. I was baffled as to what this 'snot' concept was...",
"Ever since my head tumor surgeries, I conditioned myself to hold in/suppress my sneezes, even when I'm sick. Is this keeping bad stuff in or is that a myth?",
"yeah, being sick isn't all that bad unless you're like me and have over-productive mucous glands...so clogged nostrils and coughing up stuff all year round? fuck yeah. it's kinda like my body is a hypochondriac, since it pretty much overreacts to every little particle that enters my nose...",
"So if mucus is trying to protect us, is it in our best interest to stay away from medicines that reduce mucus? ",
"Saved for the next time my 4 year old asks me this\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1o47g9 | why are women more likely to have an irrational fear of rodents and insects in-doors? | Although not a black and white rule, I tend to find women are more likely than men to have an irrational fear of seemingly harmless rodents and insects when they are found indoors. Why is this so and is this a cultural or genetic trait? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o47g9/eli5_why_are_women_more_likely_to_have_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccoo04w",
"ccopo3k"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" I'd say educational. If a person is not taught what is harmless and what is not, they can easily be scared by a harmless spider. Also, if other adults show fear of say cockroaches, the child growing up who sees this fear displayed is more likely to develop the same fear.\n Rodents also have an undeserved reputation of having horrific diseases which can be spread to humans in a heartbeat.\n \n\n I've also read that it's not a case of being afraid *of* the mouse it's being afraid *for* the mouse cause once a mouse is spotted,something has to be done and it's not going to be nice (for the mouse.)\n\n I also blame horror movies which distort what animals and insects are capable of and make them appear far more threatening than they really are. ",
"I think it is nurture rather than nature. My mom is nonplussed and so is my whole family.\n\nBut I find that men are just as scared of bugs and rodents. They might fake it more being raised to be \"Not a weakling\"\n\nThere is also a difference of familiarity. People who grow up in the country vs people who grow up in Urban environments. Or sterile Suburbs.\n\nI think we do have a reflex to that feeling when a bug crawls on us. If I am looking forward to it though, it is supressed. Its the surprise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
aiuj5d | if an atom is so profoundly tiny that only recently we could actually "see" them, with even sem's being nowhere near powerful enough, how were we able to confirm sub-elementary particles such as quarks existed, aside from inferring their existence via mathematics? can we "see" them now, too? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aiuj5d/eli5_if_an_atom_is_so_profoundly_tiny_that_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeqlywn",
"eeqq08c"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Quarks pop out of the math. They are far, far too small to be probed (\"seen\"). In fact, quarks exist only in the sense that the Standard Model requires them, but if the SM is supplanted by another, more complete theory that didn't include quarks (or, put more directly, supplanted by a theory that made better predictions than the SM or made both all the predictions the SM can as well as additional predictions it can't and such a theory did not include quarks), then the existence of quarks would be seen as unnecessary and quarks would no longer \"exist.\"",
"Everything that you \"see\" is just a representation of stuff that interacts with other stuff.\n\nIf you see a cup with your eye, what you are \"seeing\" are sensed light particles that are emitted by a light source that bounce off of the cup towards your eyeballs, which are then sensed by nerves in your eyeballs. Your brain processes this sensed data into a reasonable estimate of the object that light bounced off of, although these estimates can be a bit off sometimes (e.g. the light bounces off of a mirror before being sensed by the nerves in your eyeballs, the light refracts through a curved/angled lens before being sensed by the nerves in your eyeballs)\n\nIf you see a silhouette of a person, what you are \"seeing\" is the *absence* of light particles that are emitted by a light source behind that person, which are blocked by that person when those light particles fly towards your eyeballs, and when your eyeballs sense those light particles, your brain then puts together a reasonable estimate of where there is an *absence* of light particles hitting the nerves in your eyeballs. Again, these estimates can be a bit off sometimes (e.g. the light source is not consistently bright, or if there are multiple light sources at different angles behind the silhouette)\n\nIf you see an atom with a machine, what the machine is \"seeing\" is some particle (e.g. photons, electrons) that are emitted by a radiation source that bounce off of the atom and then are sensed by machine sensors, which typically sense the particles imperfectly, as electrons behave as both a solid and a wave, and then mathematics are used to estimate attributes of the object that would create that refractory pattern, so that a computer can create a model using those estimates. Since the attributes of electrons have been studied so much, these estimates have gotten more and more accurate over time, and thus the models we have now are quite accurate, even though the raw data of what is sensed typically looks like a muddled mass of confusing data. (e.g. an electron field that looks all wonky and irregular) Estimates and models need to be used since the laws of physics appear to act differently on smaller particles than on the particles we can see with our eyes. In reality, the laws of physics are consistent, but the mathematical formulas that we use to estimate the laws of physics change depending on various properties of the object we are analyzing--mainly because we are using different sensors. Visible light acts differently than electrons.\n\nIf you see subatomic particles with a machine, what the machine is \"seeing\" are some particles (usually electrons) that are emitted by a radiation source that *reacts with* another particle that is typically *exploded* (e.g. using a particle accelerator). Explosions are preferred since that will scatter the particles about a volume of space so that there are only a few particles per unit of volume to react with, which greatly simplifies the math. (e.g. figuring out the magnetic pull of a single magnet frozen in a cube is easier than figuring out the magnetic pull of 20 magnets frozen in a cube) Molecules can only explode so many different ways, and so, by reproducing these explosions over and over again against the same molecules, scientists analyzing the data can eventually figure out the properties of the particles that are reacting to one another.\n\nThe thing to note is that at every level, from looking at light with your eye, to analyzing electron bounces with an SEM, to analyzing *reactions* of subatomic particles in a particle accelerator--they're all fundamentally estimates of sensed particles that have been perfected via repeated experimentation. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
fb1o15 | how do isp's sell your data and why | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fb1o15/eli5_how_do_isps_sell_your_data_and_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"fj1obnr",
"fj1ohwg"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It’s incredibly useful for anyone interested in marketing anything, tells any company interested in the data exactly who their target audience is.",
"As of 2019 they could sell \"non-identifying\", haven't checked since. But data is useful to targeting adds, even if it's not directly identifying."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
uo34b | cramp. | How does cramp just happen? I get it in my feet and thighs quite often. How can I stop/prevent it from happening so frequently? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uo34b/eli5_cramp/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4x1nnd",
"c4x2stz"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The muscle contracts and sticks that way. \nStretch, drink more water and eat bananas. \nYour muscles need to be trained to work together, they need lubrication, and they needs certain chemicals to control movement. \nIf it keeps getting worse, see a doctor. There are nervous disorders where chronic cramping is the first sign of the failing communication in your system.",
"Skeletal muscle cramps have a number of possible causes, the most common one occurs when the body loses a large amount of interstitial fluid through sweat. The average person has 11 liters of interstitial fluid in their body which is made up of water and table salt. \n\nThe main function of this fluid is to preserve the osmotic balance of muscle cells. Potassium is a charged ion as well as table salt, when you exercise for extended periods of time you sweat out salt, which compromises *the osmotic balance of your muscles*. \n\nMany people will tell you to eat bananas(for the potassium) but very rarely are skeletal muscle cramps the result of low potassium, the majority of the time it is because of *low salt*. So, drinking some electrolyte infused drink during exercise is the best solution to preventing cramps. Stretching to improve your flexibility will also help.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9jkkd3 | how can you gain weight from drinking coca cola zero if it contains zero calories? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9jkkd3/eli5_how_can_you_gain_weight_from_drinking_coca/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6s7eo4",
"e6s7fat",
"e6s7hpv",
"e6sc0fh"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"You can't gain weight from the drink. However, some studies suggest it will increase your appetite for other sweets, leading you to eat more sweet stuff and gain weight.\n",
"The addiction to sweetness. Sugar is known to have just as or stronger addictive properties than hard-core drugs. Substituting fake sugar makes the addiction worse;l makes you want sweet food. ",
"The sweet taste causes your digestive tract to kick in and start producing digestive juices to begin the digestive process in anticipation of sweets/carbs, then when it doesn’t provide any calories to burn or nutrients to absorb your body’s hunger signals get tripped. It makes you feel hungry when you wouldn’t otherwise. It also changes your taste receptors to prefer/expect sweeter flavors causing you to indulge in more sugary/carb-laden, high calorie, low fiber, basically poor quality foods. ",
"One factor not mentioned, although it is negligible, is that \"zero-calorie\" drinks do not generally contain zero calories. Requirements will vary country to country, but in the US, for example, [a food or drink can be called zero-calorie if it contains no more than 5 calories](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.60"
]
] |
||
2i41rx | why does holding a spoon in my mouth stop me from tearing up when cutting onions? | When my father-in-law suggested I place a spoon in mouth and hold it there while cutting onions, I thought it seemed like a dumb old wive's tale.
But I did it, and it worked.
WHAT IS THIS SORCERY? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i41rx/eli5_why_does_holding_a_spoon_in_my_mouth_stop_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckylo9d",
"ckymf0f"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Either it's the placebo effect or you're a wizard",
"In one hour: \"LPT: Hold a spoon in your mouth when cutting onions to stop yourself from tearing up.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5wp7x3 | why does the body allow us to sleep in positions that cause us pain in the morning? such as waking up with sore necks, arms, etc.? | Shouldn't we unconsciously realize that it is uncomfortable and re-adjust? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wp7x3/eli5_why_does_the_body_allow_us_to_sleep_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"debyl84",
"dec2ics",
"dec4wlx",
"dec5e62",
"dec9tsy",
"dec9wff",
"decbh3v",
"dechxeu",
"deckkqq",
"decmopb",
"decr6da",
"decve39",
"decwagj",
"ded6pfe",
"ded8v8x",
"dedanpw",
"dedb0a7"
],
"score": [
59,
8,
35,
580,
4,
1285,
175,
4095,
7,
2,
5,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The reason it hurts isn't because the position is uncomfortable, rather it's because moving AWAY from that position is. While you sleep your body subconsciously keeps you from moving in the particular way that hurts, but once you're up you're much more aware and therefore it's much harder to not move a certain way, hence the pain. ",
"Typically in this situation, it is not the position that causes the pain or else you would indeed wake up. Almost always the pain is related to something that happened to the body during the day and then when you lay down to sleep the inflammatory/healing process settles in and results in pain upon waking up. But there are of course exceptions.\n",
"Many positions can be comfortable for your body for a short period of time, but after a few minutes can cut off circulation or strain a muscle or tendon that causes numbness or pain. Your body moves into one of these awkward positions because it feels great at the time, and it's not until you regain some level of consciousness that your body will adjust.\n\nYour brain is in sleep mode and is not thinking through \"what is the most comfortable position I can sleep in that won't cause me pain when I wake up.\" Your body is just finding a position that feels good right now, and does it for you to deal with the consequences later.",
"Why should we?\n\nSleep is important, maintaining that bit of extra awareness of our comfort is taxing. Consider obstructive sleep apnaea. This is essentially your body occasionally just waking up just enough to move slightly and correct your neck's position so you can breathe clearly. \n\nBut it's a serious sleep disorder that can cause all sorts of performances issues during the day. And it's all caused by being minorly woken up due to a condition that would otherwise cause you to suffocate. \n\nNow, with being unable to breathe, yes, we do wake up, readjust and don't die in our sleep. But it has a huge toll, and a pretty obvious trigger. Are we becoming hypoxic? Ok, then trigger something to rouse us a bit and gasp for breath.\n\nIf our body were to do that every time we got uncomfortable, first of all, it's much harder to define discomfort, especially stiffness that isn't obvious until you actually get out of bed. Secondly, it would ruin our sleep quality almost every night. \n\nSo we fall asleep in a position that is comfortable when we fall asleep, and unless we have some other sleep issue, we don't move around too much when we sleep. We wake up with minor aches maybe if we were in a weird position, but we walk it off. \n\nThe alternative is to wake up constantly in the night and never sleep properly. As someone who suffers from sleep quality issues, I would always take a better night's sleep over a few aches in the morning every time.",
"Imagine waking up every single time your body moved into a position that might \"ache\" a bit after a nice 8 hours of sleep. Sometimes I wake up with my arm completely numb because I slept on it. So i grab my arm with my other arm to lay it on my stomach and let blood flow back into it after a few minutes because I literally can't move it haha. But things like that make my calm sleep worth it. And the occiasional neck pain is worth it too eh. ",
"People don't necessarily notice an uncomfortable position when conscious. Have you ever unbent your arm after a long telephone conversation?\n\n(Oh god, do people even still have long telephone conversations?)",
"Something that I do not think has been mentioned and is based on science and not conjecture or anecdote is the fact that the brain releases the equivalent of a paralytic when humans sleep, particularly during REM sleep. It was initially thought to be caused by the neurotransmitter glycine, but is now thought to be two types of GABA (also neurotransmitters). Basically, they effect the muscles, preventing movement during sleep. This is probably a large part of the answer you are seeking. Sources: I'm a neuroscience student",
"I have been waiting for this moment my whole life. Sleep Expert here.\n\n The reason one does not feel pain while they sleep is because when you sleep, “most neurons in the brain stem immediately above the spinal cord, reduce or stop firing.” The brain stem is composed of the medulla oblongata, pons, and midbrain. The brain stem is in a way, a highway where the motor and sensory system passes through to the brain. Therefore, while awake, the nociceptors, which is a type of sensory neuron which is active when there is tissue damage, and is what causes the pain sensation, is traveling from the point of damage through the brain stem to the brain. So, while asleep, there is no brain stem connection to the brain from the sensory neurons, ergo no pain perception. You can think of it as connecting Christmas lights. When you connect one series of lights to a second series of lights, it will allow electricity to flow through both sets. If you disconnect the second series of lights, then the flow of electricity will only flow though the first series of lights. As opposed to 1998 when the undertaker slammed mankind through the hell in the cell on a 16 foot drop. \nAfter which my dad beat the shit out of me with a pair of jumper cables.\n\nEdit: this also explains why they knock you out for certain surgerys\n\nEdit: TFTG. Also, side note of fun. You guys remember the trick of putting a sleeping persons hand in warm water and it makes them piss themselves?",
"I know no one asked but I can't sleep unless I put myself in a very specific position. That really annoys me because I'd love to know why, if anyone is competent on the subject and feels they can conquer this task, please let me know why.\n",
"The fact is the body has a process that requires you to shift from time to tome. If not, the muscles kinda lock in place and it takes stimulation to get them loosened up. This could be a stretch, a massage, a light warm up, but something.\n\nMost of the time you wake up having slept in an uncomfortable position you were sleeping in limited space. On the couch, an airplane seat, or the like. Maybe whoever you were sharing the bed with didn't give you the space to turn over either.\n\nAnother factor is drugs and alcohol. Anything that stops you from adjusting to get comfortable can mess up your sleep.",
"Who knows. The body is weird. For example, while I was in the womb my head was stuck tilting / turning to the left until I was born. To this day, I still have much greater ease looking to the left than right, and always end up with my neck craned to the left while sleeping. My neck always hurts.",
"When your body enters REM sleep your muscles completely relax like a ragdoll and you might settle into an awkward position that you wouldnt have intentionally positioned yourself in.",
"Why wouldn't it? When normally conscious, people commonly fail to notice they are in an uncomfortable position, so why would it be any difference while *un*conscious?",
"Was going to post about why we stretch when we wake up and what does it do for the body and saw this. Everyone has sleep on their mind today",
"every fucking night i keep sleeping with my ear bent against the pillow and wake up and my ear fucking hurts. sometimes its asleep. im getting pissed idk how it keeps happening because when i go to sleep i make sure its not bent in half against the pillow",
"Sleeping is like politicts. Sometimes you want to sleep on your side, when you get tired of that, you sleep on your other side, once that get boring, you sleep on your back. Other times you sleep on top of your hand and you knot yourself like a pretzel.",
"I know my comment will be lost in oblivion, as I am HELLA late to this party...but the timing is just TOO good for me not to comment: I *literally* woke up this morning with **the** worst neck pain I think I have ever had from sleeping wrong! heh, and one of my first thoughts was to post to reddit (though I woulda put it in /r/askscience :-P\n\nAnyways...cheers! And I hope all of our necks heal soon! Dammit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8bbhtd | what determines the number of eggs a woman is born with? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bbhtd/eli5_what_determines_the_number_of_eggs_a_woman/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx5edby",
"dx5fsfg",
"dx5xlsg",
"dx67dxn"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are born with far more eggs than their body can ever use. About two million actually. ",
"It's around 2 million, but if you are looking for the exact number, it is just genes and luck.",
"As others have said, women are born with a huge number of eggs. Running low on eggs in later life is more due to events a woman is exposed to during her lifetime. For example, women who smoke go through menopause earlier than average because smoking can damage eggs. Likewise a woman might have a long-term infection that can kill some eggs; or if a woman has a hysterectomy (uterus removal), then this generally damages the ovaries and will usually cause earlier menopause. Or women who have experienced low nutrition for a long period of time can go through menopause sooner. Chemotherapy can kill a lot of eggs, too.",
"A woman is usually born with more than 1.5 million of eggs.\n\nHowever, once she reaches puberty, she only has 300 000 left.\nOut of those 300 000 left, only 300-400 will lead to a mature egg that can be feconded and lead to a baby.\n\nThe rest just die because the body kill them, and the killing starts even before birth, at 5 month old, a female human fetus has about 7 millions potential eggs cells.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
48kurh | why are stellar objects on a plane | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48kurh/eli5_why_are_stellar_objects_on_a_plane/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0kf832",
"d0kfgey"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"2 reasons. Orbits occur around a single point, and rotation occurs around an axis. \n\nWhen something orbits, specifically when many things orbit, they all orbit around one point, the center of mass of the system. So, lets imagine for a moment that you have multiple planes of orbit. They would all have to pass through one point, thus intersect. Now, the interesting and important part is what happens at the intersection. Back in the early solar system and galaxy, everything was primarily a bunch of gas and dust. If there were multiple planes, they collided where they would intersect, causing the two planes to crash and level out until they merged into one. \n\nThis does not hold all that true if you go further out in the solar system. As in the early solar system, there was far more gas and dust than there is now, all the smaller parts were blown out of the solar system when the sun began fusion and began to shine. But at the outer solar system, this cloud wasn't as thick and there weren't that many places to collide in, which is why things like comets have irregular orbits.",
"From [wikipedia](_URL_0_)\n > Conservation of angular momentum causes the rotation to increase as the nebula radius decreases. This rotation causes the cloud to flatten out—much like forming a flat pizza out of dough—and take the form of a disk. \n\nsomewhat same applies to galaxies, but there are exceptions. there are some known spherical galaxies. Also Oort cloud is spherical."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk"
]
] |
||
4dvvn0 | the difference between dynamic, condenser and ribbon mics? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dvvn0/eli5_the_difference_between_dynamic_condenser_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1utscr",
"d1utwsy",
"d1uu2wk",
"d1uv0qa",
"d1uvb9i"
],
"score": [
8,
113,
2,
15,
5
],
"text": [
"Dynamic - has a small Diaphragm that is moved by sound pressure levels. Usually the most durable mic. Not great for capturing high frequencies.\n\nCondenser- diaphram has an active 48 volt charge, which helps sound pressure move the diaphram much more easily, picks up more frequency information. \n\nRibbon - uses a very thin sheet of metal as a diaphram, typically does not capure crisp high end frequencies. Is the least durable mic.",
"Dynamic mics are like the opposite of speakers, the sound you are recording moves a diaphragm connected to a coil of wire through a magnetic field to produce a signal. See [electromagnetic induction](_URL_1_). Dynamic mics are usually fairly cheap and have poor [transient](_URL_0_) response and poorer high frequency response because it takes more energy to move the coil of wire.\n\nCondenser mics use [capacitance](_URL_2_) to generate a signal. Basically, a charge is held between two barriers. The sound you are recording moves the top barrier up and down which changes the amount of charge held between them. This produces your signal. Condenser Mics need whats called \"Phantom Power\" to work. This is a +48 volt charge carried across the mic cable to power the capacitive charge in your mic. Condenser mics can be a little more expensive than dynamic mics. They generally have great high frequency response.\n\nRibbon mics are similar to dynamic mics, but instead of a big heavy coil of wire they use a small light ribbon. Sound waves can move the ribbon more easily than the heavy wire, which changes the response characteristics of the mic. Generally, ribbon mics are clearer in the higher frequencies and have great transient response. \n\nEdit: Some common applications of each:\n\nDynamic: live performance. As mentioned below, they are usually built like tanks and are incredibly reliable, plus because they can handle incredibly loud sounds before being damaged or feeding back they are perfect for almost everything in a live application; guitars, drums, vocals, whatever. They still get some studio use for sure, especially close mic-ing drum kits and electric guitar amplifiers. The Shure SM-57 is a dynamic mic that's staple of every studio I have ever recorded in. \n\nCondensers: lapel mics that you'll see in interviews or people giving speeches are usually small diaphragm condensers. You may see them as drum overhead mics in some concert applications. In the studio you'll see them used for vocals, acoustic guitars, pianos, drum overheads, anything where clarity and good high frequency response is needed. \n\nRibbon: you usually won't see them in live applications because they can be very fragile. The ribbon that produces the signal is very thin and can be damaged if not handled properly. Generally you will see them in the studio to record stringed instruments like violins, wood winds, even electric guitars as they can capture high frequencies without sounding harsh or brittle like some condensers can. They are commonly used as room mics to to capture the sound of an instrument at a distance. Generally They aren't used as vocal mics",
"In brief:\n\nDynamic mics are possibly the most popular variety out there. They're generally cheap, rugged, good-sounding, and they don't require additional power. You'll see Shure's SM57 and SM58 dynamic mics pretty much everywhere, and they're used for pretty much every thing. \n\nCondenser mics can be a step up in terms of fidelity. They're generally a little more expensive and they require additional power (which can further increase costs) making them a little less accessible. They're more sensitive to capturing audio detail, which can be a good or a bad thing depending on your view and on what you're recording, as sometimes, the extra sonic detail can just sound harsh and unpleasant. They're not as sturdy as dynamic mics, so you generally won't see them in live settings. They're also used for most tasks. \n\nRibbon mics are the most sensitive of all. They're also the most expensive, and most fragile. They're not especially popular, and are unheard of outside of studios, but they do offer some very good sound quality. I've never owned one personally, but I've a friend who swears by them for capturing room ambiance and guitar amps. ",
"I'll give you a less technical explaination. \n\nDynamic - Great for recording louder sounds. The sm57 has become a standard for snares, guitar cabs, and much more. These are less sensitive, meaning off axis or distant sounds won't be picked up well making these great for avoiding feedback in live applications and room noise in less ideal environments. \n\nCondenser - These are more sensitive mics than dynamics, meaning they can pickup much more than a dynamic in terms of dynamics, frequencies, and room noise; however, many mics will let you adjust the polar pattern to allow you to change how these mics react to noise coming from different angles. These tend to be the standard for vocals, guitar, room mics... \n\nRibbon - These are the least common mics and can often be fragile. DO NOT USE PHANTOM POWER ON THESE - this can literally cause the diaphragm to fry (some newer mics protect you from this.) They tend to have a warmer and sometimes 'vintage' sound and can work nicely on vocals, piano, and guitar cabs. These don't do to well on louder sources. \n\nIf you're a newbie - grab a Condenser for your first mic. They are great for pretty much anything and a decent one won't need much fixing in post. \nI've got a couple condensers on hand and my favorite so far is my cad m179. ",
"Each type is built differently. Dynamics and ribbons work by placing a piece of wire near a magnet. Magnets can make electricity happen in wires just my moving the wire around near the magnet! When sound (moving air) hits the microphone, the wire moves and the sound is changed from air to electricity. The main difference between ribbons and dynamics is that in a ribbon mic, the wire itself (which is quite light) is moved by sound, in dynamics, the wire is attached to a cone (which is heavier than just a wire alone) which collects the sound. Condenser microphones work without magnets, and the piece which moves by being pushed by sound is lighter than both the ribbon and dynamic.\n\nEach type is used to capture different types of sounds. Generally (definitely not always) condensers are the most sensitive, ribbons are second, dynamics are the least sensitive. A condenser is very good at picking up very quiet sounds, like a person whispering or even just the sound of someone's lips moving. A dynamic microphone won't pickup those small details. On the other hand, dynamic microphones are very good at withstanding very loud sounds, ribbons and condensers not so much. You wouldn't want to place a condenser or ribbon microphone inside of a kick drum, that's a job for dynamics.\n\nDynamics are the most durable, ribbons and condensers tend to be delicate. Microphones that have to travel a lot, like those used with a traveling band, tend to be dynamics because they can handle moving and being dropped. In a music studio, where microphones can be locked away safely in a case until it's time to use them, any type of mic is ok.\n\nCondensers are the most expensive, ribbons second, dynamics are cheapest. This isn't the case so much any more, as you can find cheap condensers and expensive dynamics. Still, you are unlikely to find a $5000 dynamic mic, but condensers can easily get there. \n\nThere are exceptions, but there ya go."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://goo.gl/TEFdo0",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
45phn1 | how does light and spacetime work? | Given all the buzz surrounding the LIGO experiment I started looking more into geavitational waves. I understand how the interferometer works, I understand that when space in stretched or compressed they would expect to see a change in the phases of two waves. I get that. What I don't get is why this is happening. Mind you, I don't mean why the space is stretched, but why does the light knows about it.
Let me explain what I mean. Say I was in a room, that I measure to be exactly 10 feet in length and all of a sudden te space time around is compressed. My question is, do I from the inside notice that? If I start measuring the length of the room again, will it still be 10 ft from my perspective? Cause from my understanding it should, It's space itself that is compressed.
So, what I don't understand about ligo is why does the beam of light say it travelled less distance? From it's perspective shouldn't the distance be the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45phn1/eli5_how_does_light_and_spacetime_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"czzex03"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are many previous posts covering this topic, and I strongly encourage you to try the Search function. You may find that they sufficiently answer your question.\n\nHowever, I've approved this post since it is a slightly different emphasis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
71i4ve | what is the dirac's equation, what is it for, and what do all the symbols mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71i4ve/eli5_what_is_the_diracs_equation_what_is_it_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnawn14",
"dnaxrkp"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I doubt that you really can give an ELI5 answer to this question (as defined in the sidebar), but I'll give it a try. I am a physicist, and I have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics in particular and relativity in general, but there are probably physicists on here with a better understanding of both.\n\nDirac's equation is basically a relativistic wave equation. I guess you could say it is a modified version of Schrödinger's equation in order to be relativistic (\"classical\" quantum mechanics are not relativistic).\n\nWhat is it for? Mainly for solving the wave function of spin-½ massive particles I guess (according to wikipedia). I am actually taking a lot of the info from wikipedia. It seems like this equation also predicted antimatter for the first time, which later was found out to actually exist, so that is a pretty big deal.\n\nAs for all the symbols:\n\nc is the speed of light.\nThe weird h is just the planck constant divided by 2pi.\nm is the electron rest mass.\nThe function that is there with the greek symbol is the wave function.\nThe p:s are the components of the momentum, or actually the momentum operator.\nThe alfas and the beta are 4x4 matrices of some sort, which have to do with the relativity part I guess.\n\nI really recommend that you take a look at wikipedia, since you can't really go ELI5 on this one anyways...\n_URL_0_",
"The Dirac equation is a relativistic wave equation. It's the equation of motion for spin-1/2 particles like the electron. The symbols depend on which form you're looking at. Take [this form](_URL_0_).\n\ni is the imaginary unit, ~~h~~ is the reduced Planck constant, the gamma matrices are four matrices with some interesting properties, the curly d symbol is a partial derivative (specifically this is a four-vector of partial derivatives with respect to time, x, y, and z), psi is the fermion wavefunction (or the electron field operator in QFT), m is the fermion mass, c is the speed of light, and there's just psi again.\n\nThis is a first-order partial differential equation (actually it's 16 of them, because these are really 4x4 matrices)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation"
],
[
"https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.207059937.3139/flat,800x800,075,f-c,0,75,800,331.u1.jpg"
]
] |
||
d2zy81 | how do you do metric conversions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d2zy81/eli5_how_do_you_do_metric_conversions/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezxt8fs",
"ezxtgd9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You’re doing it backwards. Start thinking in metric as it’s the SI standard. All US measurements are measured against their official metric equivalents. They are stored in lookup tables for the common unit types.\n\nUse your phone to do rough conversions, but for chemicals you should always be using containers and masses in metric.",
"You multiply or divide by factors of 10, that's the beauty of the metric system. However there are exceptions to the rule, which are tabulated and you can easily Google, or memorize, whatever floats your boat. \nFor instance, if you want to go from meters, say 100 meters, to kilometers, you divide by 1000. And it works the other way around. 1 kilometer is 1000 meters.\nThe prefixes are the same throughout. 1 kilogram is 1000 grams.\nLet me know if that quenches your thirst for knowledge."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8c2zts | why does gasoline pricing produce such acute price sensitivity in consumers, despite the negligible differences in totals over filling an entire tank? | Edit: To clarify, the question is about why people travel further to a distant gas station for a few cents per litre saving in gas, when those savings are mostly offset by the extra time, effort, and fuel used to get there. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8c2zts/eli5_why_does_gasoline_pricing_produce_such_acute/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxbosuy",
"dxbplpc",
"dxbw5nz",
"dxc56vz",
"dxc5g41",
"dxc5r8h",
"dxc6ad2",
"dxc85cc",
"dxc8gms",
"dxc8iss",
"dxc8z6x",
"dxc9kml",
"dxca6je",
"dxcc1n6",
"dxccpca",
"dxckivp",
"dxd12bi"
],
"score": [
6,
196,
13,
48,
520,
6,
63,
14,
16,
3,
846,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have come to believe that it starts with hyping that metric (the price of the gas) for consumers so that they experience economics on a level that they can understand (because everybody gets gas and its a fairly large weekly expense.)\n\nit's a very misplaced metric. American consumers don't pay retail for gas already and the people that get hurt when gas goes up are professional drivers and their companies (truck drivers, delivery companies, etc.)\n\nif it wasn't a standard hype-line on the local news people would forget about it.",
"In regards to why consumers are concerned at a macroeconomic level, imagine the average American family with two cars - a van and a truck - that's about 45 gallons of gas that needs to be filled roughly every week. \n\nOver the past three years, the lowest average price of gas has been about $1.70 (in Feb 2016) and the highest average price of gas has been about $2.70 (in June 2015, and now).\n\nThat's a difference of $45 extra dollars, on top of the ~$80 a week that they are already spending on gas. Over the course of a year, that's an additional $2500. For the average American family making ~$70,000 a year, that increase alone is over 3% of their entire yearly income. \n\nIn regards to consumers at the individual level, why do people care so much and go down the street for the extra 5c savings? Well, people are like that with everything. Some people don't care and go to the gas station closest to them, while some people like to save as much as possible. Those are the same people that go to the grocery store on the other side of town to buy fruits when they are on sale. It's just what the people value - convenience vs. cost. It does make a difference though because even in one area, there can be a 10-20c difference in price, and that average family buying gas for 20c cheaper every week would save them about $400-$500 a year.",
"Just to add the price of gas also affects shipping costs of everything so a increase there leads eventually to everything increasing in price. Food \n, electronics, books you name it us all..shipped using gas. And firms can't shield consumers from price increases forever.",
"I’ve often thought the same, but then I calculated it. \n\nWe put $50 fuel in our car per week. We don’t use a lot, so these numbers could be massively scaled for families which do use a lot. \n\nIf it’s 1.49/l (our closest station) we get 33.55l. If my wife fills up on her way home from work at the discount place it’s 1.19/l and we get 42.02l. \n\nOver the course of a year (assuming prices remain steady) that’s an extra 440.44l of fuel - or nearly 7 free tanks of fuel. Our car gets approx 9l/100km, so that’s nearly 5000km of free fuel. \n\nIf we had to drive 10km out of the way to buy that fuel, then that’s 5200km extra and therefore not worth it. \n\nI’m not sure whether the price discrepancy is this bad in other places, but it is where I live. We go to the discount place because, while it’s out of the way usually, it is part of the wife’s route to and from work, so we don’t need to add distance / spend money to save money. ",
"It's interesting. So this is called elasticity. Every product has an elasticity to pricing. Gas stations have the smallest gap. This is why they are constantly changing their prices to stay within a small margin of the comp set. Each station has the ability to solicit a percent of demand (customers) if they stay within 2 cents of their direct 3 comps (gas stations). Greater than 2 cents they will lose too much demand And although they make more money at higher prices the revenue goes down with less customers. The goal is to find the perfect balance. \n\nSource: I am a revenue analyst by day. Lonely dorky redditor by night.",
"Because they change it every damn day, if not more often. Most products have more stable prices but gas companies advertise the prices in huge signs out front that are designed to be changed daily, most are now electronic just to change them easier.\n\nWhen I worked at a gas station as a cashier, some times we would change prices multiple times in a single day depending on what other gas stations in the area did. ",
"It always annoyed me how my parents would expend effort trying to find a 5 cent difference, so a long time ago [I calculated that a 5 cent difference costs me $1,500 in total over my entire lifetime](_URL_0_). This is squarely in DNGAF territory, I don't even look at gas prices. The worry and mental energy literally isn't worth it. I need gas, I get gas anywhere at any price. It's totally inelastic to me. ",
"I'm 100% with you OP.\n\nI sometimes specifically go to gas stations that are \"pricier\" (barely) because they're less crowded.\n\nIf I want to save money, I'll buy cheaper groceries or eat out less.\n\nPricing differences for gas are negligible and not worth my time.",
"In part because people have this weird tendency to not think about their free time as having any significant value.\n\nWhich is really fucking weird. It's one thing if you're living hand to mouth, but lots of \"normal\" people seem to value their free time at cents per hour, and they view those who don't feel the same way as \"lazy\".\n\nIf the best thing you can think of is driving out of your way to save pennies, go home by the fastest route instead and go for a short walk, maybe stop by a library and pick up a book or two, or something...",
"Well personally I think it depends on where you live. For example, I live in Santa Barbara and gas can vary drastically between gas stations. There is a gas station by my university which sells gas at a $4 rate usually. If I were to drive a little further it drops to $3.16 sometimes, but usually in the $3.33 zone. But there are also other gas stations in the area which have a $5 minimum price for a gallon. I would much rather travel a couple miles to save on gas than stop right at that moment. But this is my situation, I live in California so everything seems expensive. ",
"I assumed the answer would be down here somewhere and just stopped by to upvote. Unfortunately it isn’t, so here you go in true ELI5 fashion:\n\nA long time ago a man had a gas station and wanted to sell more gas (and soda and chips) than everyone else, but he needed a way to get people to notice his business. Of course, he could’ve taken out advertisements in the newspaper, filmed commercials for TV, and even had someone dance on the street corner with a sign advertising his gas station, but all of those would be expensive. And besides, his competitors had more money and could do even more advertising than he could. \n\nBut the man was clever and he knew two things for sure: people love to get a good deal and he had the cheapest gas in town. So the man posted a giant sign in front of his store with his (lowest in town) price. Now when people went to the other gas stations, they felt they were being duped and business started to roll in. Of course, the other gas stations had no choice but to lower their prices, but by this time everyone in town assumed that the man with the giant sign MUST have the best prices since he HAD A HUGE FREAKING SIGN with his gas prices posted outside. So of course all the other gas stations built their own signs as well.\n\nAs with many changes, this one had consequences that no one thought of at the time. Because by advertising price above all else, the man with the gas station had accidentally taught his customers that everything else was irrelevant and that clean bathrooms, good food, and better quality gas were simply gimmicks designed to distract them from the lowest price which was (they were sure) the only thing that mattered. And now all gas stations must advertise their prices, for fear of being seen as the “rip-off” option in town, and since most people aren’t sure how much good gasoline might save them in the long run, and they have difficulty putting a price on any of the other features of a gas station, many still choose their gas the way they were taught to all those years ago by that first man with a sign. (/ELI5)\n\nThis is a subject taught in any marketing school as a cautionary tale about choosing how you compete in your market. Once you teach your customers that price is the only important decision factor, it’s hard to unteach that. A great example of this is airlines which for years only showed their price and not amenities, seat space, or tv screens when shopping for flights. As a result, customer unfriendly practices took hold and Spirit airlines was born.\n\nSo how much does gas shopping actually save you? The people in this thread referencing differences of $1 during the year are only fooling themselves (I can’t buy gas at July prices in January no matter where I go). So excluding truck stops (whose high prices tend to reflect a less price sensitive community who value other amenities provided and who aren’t paying the bill themselves), how much do you actually stand to save?\n\nThe average American car gets roughly 25mpg and the average American driver drives roughly 1,125 miles every month. Let’s also assume a relatively liberal difference among quality gas pumps (discount gas is another issue you can read about [here](_URL_0_) ) and say you can save 5 cents per gallon. Thats 45 gallons of gas for a grand total of $2.25 in savings for the month. \n\nHaving worked in the field of marketing for a decade, I can tell you with confidence that there are VERY few industries that inspire the same kind of constant research and brand switching to get a $27 savings on a purchase which totals over $1,300 yearly on average. But customers have been trained to make this decision on price, and with electric cars becoming more and more common, I suspect the gasoline industry will die altogether before anyone can change the dynamic. \n\nLight at the end of the tunnel: check out Buc-ee’s. I don’t know how widespread they are, but they are all over Texas and they will change what you think about gas stations. \n\nEdit: Spelling\nEdit2: Can’t say that I’m surprised my first Reddit Gold contains a Buc-ee’s reference. Thank you kind stranger. ",
"where i live now(in Switzerland) ,believe it or not, gas costs 1.60chf/L...or $6.27/Gallon. This on the cheaper end of european gas prices also. personally i just stopped caring and never even look at the price. whats the point? save 1$ by driving all over town looking for the cheapest gas station? its stupid... my wife on the other hand constantly checks the prices..",
"Not a scientific or technical viewpoint but personally I do this and it comes down to principal for me. If everyone just used their closest gas station (fuel station here in France) then we wouldn't be promoting healthy competition. I think of it as rewarding the business with my money for lowering it's prices. Hopefully this results at some point in the closer gas station lowering it's price also.\n\nAs an example of the consumer benefits, here in France we had a lot of competition in the last ten years for mobile phone contracts which has resulted in being able to take out a simple only contract with no contract, unlimited minutes, SMS and MMS and with a 50GB data package for anywhere between 2 and 25 euros. (2.5 to 30 USD).\n\n",
"It's because most people are fucking morons and cannot analyze even the simplest scenario if it involves mathematical reasoning. I used to live in a small town that consisted of basically just one main street about 3 miles long with gas stations at each end of town. Most of the time these gas stations had the same price on gas. Occasionally one would have gas a penny or two cheaper than the other. This would be the talk of the town. People would actually *DRIVE* across town to \"save\" the extra penny per gallon. I don't recall a single person ever having an epiphany when I told them that you are wasting way more in gas to drive across town than you are saving via the price, not to mention the cost of your time.",
"Canadians can drive 10-15 minutes for a border crossing , and save 40%.\n\nIn some areas, going to native (FN) gas stations where its tax free, it can be 15c / litre cheaper for under 5 minutes of extra drive... so in some case its worth it. The natives make the extra $$ as well vs the \"evil central government\"",
"I have a slightly different answer than those posted. Gasoline is a treated by consumers as a true commodity. This means that no one values one brand of gasoline over any other, they’re completely interchangeable. Other commodities that people buy are either electricity and water, which they can’t really shop around for, or types of food, which is generally branded with a perceived quality difference and bought in a larger store alongside other items. Since households don’t buy many other raw materials very often, gasoline is kind of the only product that is bought alone and where price is the sole differentiator. Sorry if this was more ELI15 than ELI5",
"It's because of this thing called the Price Elasticity of Demand (PED), which depends of 4 factors: substitutability of product, frequency of consumption, proportion of income spent on the product and time period.\n\n\nDemand for gasoline can be highly elastic due to its high substitutability (alternatives to any one gas station) with there being multiple gas stations in an area. Therefore it follows that, ceteris paribus, if the price of gasoline falls at an alternative gas station, consumers would flock to that station. However, since the savings are very tiny compared to the consumer's income, the PED of gasoline is dampened which makes it less likely for consumers to flock to a station with lower prices.\n\n\nHowever, this analysis has limitations which account for your observations. It assumes that all consumers are rational when in reality, some people aren't the brighest and fail to account for additional costs in getting to a distant station.\n\n\nAs to why even slightly lower costs are so attractive, it is due to 2 factors. Firstly, gas stations compete in a close to perfectly competitive market structure so the price of gasoline is the main determinant of demand. Secondly, gas stations openly and obviously-in-your-face display their prices, which trains consumers to focus only on the price when deciding where to shop for gas.\n\n\nThis is high school econs so forgive me if I got anything wrong lol"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P2RSlt7ccg45fvygb0ztpqSCT8zi912wuQYjYd4DGqY/edit?usp=sharing"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/autos/aaa-cheap-gasoline/index.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2i9z0t | what is a coma and can it be fixed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i9z0t/eli5_what_is_a_coma_and_can_it_be_fixed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl08hhx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Coma is a very broad term in the usual lay-men usage, but a common way to put is that it is a state wherein a person is unconscious for more than six hours. They can't be awakened and unable to respond normally to light, pain, and sound. The state their brain activity is in does not also show what is considered the normal sleeping pattern.\n\nMedically, we have the [different levels of altered state of consciousness](_URL_1_), or the [Glasgow Coma Scale](_URL_0_), or other tools/scales to be more precise or objective in describing the comatose state the person is in or just how severe their condition is.\n\nAs for if it can be fixed, that really depends on the cause or nature of the coma and the person as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_consciousness"
]
] |
||
7u6zke | why do news anchors/cameramen still use bulky shoulder mount cameras when camera technology has advanced so far with things like gopros and their video quality? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7u6zke/eli5_why_do_news_anchorscameramen_still_use_bulky/ | {
"a_id": [
"dti3f9x",
"dti4odk",
"dti7dzw",
"dti7w8v",
"dti92k4",
"dti9tan",
"dti9x2c",
"dtia0dp",
"dtiahxn",
"dtiai9o",
"dtiapek",
"dtiaudu",
"dtiazae",
"dtib41g",
"dtib72n",
"dtibmau",
"dtibmho",
"dtibq9g",
"dtibrgd",
"dtibrqs",
"dtibyf6",
"dtibz3h",
"dticie2",
"dticiq3",
"dtick2r",
"dtid32i",
"dtid9f6",
"dtidcm2",
"dtiddk2",
"dtidix9",
"dtie2h8",
"dtie4if",
"dtie98z",
"dtie9oh",
"dtieie8",
"dtiexx1",
"dtif5n5",
"dtigezj",
"dtigut0",
"dtigxy6",
"dtiihco",
"dtiiox2",
"dtiipab",
"dtij9vj",
"dtikzhn",
"dtil2io",
"dtim49e",
"dtin1p2",
"dtinjj3",
"dtinth5",
"dtipu30",
"dtitvzg",
"dtizx2g",
"dtjlbr7",
"dtjootz"
],
"score": [
329,
16616,
3091,
4245,
148,
8,
484,
41,
16,
96,
43,
2,
81,
13,
28,
76,
14,
6,
5,
48,
3,
5,
21,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7,
7,
6,
4,
2,
2,
8,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because that technological advancement has also been made in the shoulder rigs making them even better. Every advancement made in the small cameras has an equivalent in the big so the big are always going to be of higher quality, and so the better choice unless you specifically need a small camera. ",
"While camera \"bodies\" are getting smaller, things like high quality lenses, professional cabling interfaces, microphones, operator controls, and viewfinders/monitors are still the same size since improving their technology doesn't always mean decreasing their size.\n\n",
"There are a number of reasons:\n\n* Stability--shoulder mounted cameras are much more stable than small handheld cameras). The difference is significant enough there is a cottage industry making shoulder mountings for those tiny cameras.\n* Controls--gopros have a fixed fish eye lens) large cameras can often zoom like [this](_URL_0_). While news cameramen don't often use the zoom lens in a shot, they often use the different focal lengths available. \n* Battery life--The large shoulder mount allows a battery that powers the camera for several hours. \n* Storage--The large camera allows storage of several hours of high quality video.\n* Video quality--While both might shoot a 1080p signal, the news camera keeps [most of the data](_URL_1_). Cheap cameras drop most of the captured color data (like the image on the left while the large one can keep an image like the one on the right. For viewing footage, both are usually good enough, but the images on the left will show if they are heavily edited or color graded (made to exactly match colors of other footage).\n\nThere are also some nice to have features like better mikes, better cabling, and much better viewfinders that all require more space. ",
"Retired camera op here: There's still the matter of mass. While smaller, lighter equipment is great for less effort packing around in the field, a full size-ish camera has the advantage of increased mass which makes for smoother, steadier image capture when you're working handheld.\n\nAny little movement shooting with a lightweight rig will tend to result in a shaky picture. With a heavier camera the small movements are somewhat cancelled because of the effort to move the larger mass.\n\nNewton's First Law: An object at rest wants to stays at rest.",
"Smaller cameras aren't as good as you make them seem. There are numerous visual artifacts that don't appear in larger ones. Plus larger cameras are easier to shoot handheld.",
"I’m certainly no expert with regards to this, but my father works as an engineer at a local news station (he’s the one who fixed the cameras and other stuff when they break) and over the years the cameras have definitely gotten smaller and lighter. \n\nWhen I first started tagging along with him to work in the early 2000s one of those portable field cameras would have been bigger than me if you stood it up and probably weighed at least 20-30 pounds (I was too small to even try to lift one so I’m basing this on seeing adults struggle to lift them). The cameras they have there now are about a foot long with the standard lens, weigh 5-8 pounds and record to dual SD cards. \n\nLike others have said, it’s easier to get a steady shot with a shoulder mount camera than with a handheld so that’s why they’ll probably bet progressively smaller, but not necessarily shorter. ",
"Those bulky cameras also have a lot more features that smaller cameras don't always have, eg. The ability to have 4 different audio channels, SDI out for live hits, dedicated toggles/switches/buttons that allow the operator to quickly adjust settings on the fly. They are also fairly robust and hold up better to abuse when you have to use them everyday. Plus it gives you more of a presence when out shooting news, cops and fire are less likely to give you a hard time when you have a big news camera with you.\n\nSource: shoot news for a local TV station.",
"I’ve never seen a GoPro with manual iris, focus and zoom control. Or one that can be white balanced. \n\nEdit: two users have shown me evidence to the contrary. The more you know.",
"Because the smaller cameras and GoPro devices are not broadcast quality. Lenses aside they shoot in a more lossy format. Where as a Sony fs7 or Ursa Mini Pro shoot much better 4K and HD",
"It's a question of ergonomics, flexibility, and quality.\n\nFirstly, it's easy to carry around something on your shoulder all day. Your body is taking the weight. Holding a little camera up by your arm would leave you aching after about ten minutes. You also want a viewfinder that covers your eye, so you're not having to shield an LCD screen from the sun all day.\n\nSecondly, gopros are quite limited in what they can do, and how fast you can do it.\n\nThink about what a news cameraman has to do on an average day, and how fast they have to do it. There's something right in front of them that they need to capture. Suddenly there's something 30 metres away they need to grab while it's still happening. Now they're following someone inside a house, and the lighting is changing dramatically.\n\nThe camera operator has to continually adjust their camera to get the best image in those scenarios, and you can't automate those things and get a good result. There's the big obvious one of zoom, but you're also manually focussing, and there's also a bunch of things that will change the exposure (iris, gain, ND filters, etc). Some of those you can't even do on a gopro, let alone quickly.\n\nThink about having controls they can reach up and use blind, versus a little camera with a fiddly little on-screen menu system. One of those things can happen in less than a second, and utilise muscle memory. The other one might take 30 seconds, in which time you've missed the bad guy running out of court.\n\nThirdly, gopros aren't actually that great for video quality. Video quality is about a lot more than resolution - the physical size of the sensor and the lens are the big differentiating factors.",
"I had a professor in film school that said if you want to work with the most cutting edge equipment get into sports. If you want to work with stuff that uses duct taped to stay together, get into the news broadcasting",
"Some news broadcasters are starting to use iPhones a lot more for live broadcasts. For example, Sky News in the UK often use iPhones with a selfie stick and an attached microphone for breaking news, where the reporter has to be on the scene almost immediately. [Here's](_URL_0_) an article about it.",
"Am a camera op.\n\nSomething that hasn't been mentioned as a reason why a live broadcast might choose to use older/bulkier equipment: they work and they can take a beating. \n\nThis is very important for live broadcast.",
"Australian Cibrian John Safran once said he has a friend who is a cameraman and he uses a big one because when he arrives at a shoot with a little handicam the client usually thinks he's not a professional without a big one. So he purposely uses a big one for the look. ",
"There’s also the “these guys must be pros with a camera like that” factor.\n\nIf you’re going to give an interview and your walk up to a bunch of journalists who are you going to go to? The person with the expensive pro looking kit, or the GoPro?",
"Getting all the right pieces required to make professional video for news requires certain things: high quality lens, plug-ins for video and audio on separate channels (ins and outs), a decent viewfinder that actually shows an image of what you’re recording accurately...\n\nBut the most important is a shoulder-mount ENG (electronic news gathering) style camera. \n\nThe reason shoulder-mount is still the most popular is because of the improvisational nature of the news. You have to react to anything at any moment. A DSLR gives a film look with a creamy background when shooting video, but the controls are laid out to be more still photo-friendly. This makes it so quick adjustments I can make with my ENG camera are often buried in menus on a DSLR. And without more expensive and time consuming gear, shooting with a DSLR without a tripod is not exactly steady video. With an ENG, my shoulder and my body can stabilize my shots and I can keep shooting while adjusting settings and keeping my shot stable and in focus. This feature is a must for live TV whereas I can’t look down at my DSLR settings in the middle of a live shot while zooming and pulling focus.\n\nWe use DSLRs, but as a second or third camera for big interviews. I honestly use my tripod as much as I can, but there’s several key moments where you NEED to shoulder the camera or tripods are not allowed. And without a tripod/mount, any smaller cameras are inferior to ENG shoulder-mount cameras in live situations, sports, improvising, and any time where major adjustments to settings have to be made while walking backwards (confrontations, perp/court walks, politicians). Those examples are the bread and butter of news. So, don’t expect to suddenly see DSLRs out in the field with news crews. Shoulder mounted is king.\n\nSource: Shot news since 2008 and also some production work.",
"Lots of great answers below. One thing I didnt see mentioned in much detail is the balance of the larger cameras. Something that is a real problem with smaller cameras made these days.\n\nENG (Electronic news gathering) style cameras are extremely well balanced. Maybe a little front heavy so that when it sits on your shoulder you can operate all day without getting too tired. A improperly balanced camera will wear you out in 5 minutes flat.\n\nMost new cinema cameras (RED, C500, Blackmagic) are just sensor brains and electronics that you plug a bunch of crap into and have a crap balance to work with. The ARRI Alexa / Amira are balanced right to the sensor and when you add a lens you can adjust the slide plate quickly and get awesome balance quickly. It a large bulky heavy camera but wont wear you out nearly as quickly as a RED that is half the size and weight.\n\nThat said, the new C700, Ursa mini, varicam are heading in the right direction.",
"Key grip with a journalism degree here, the news guys have cameras that are built out by the manufacturers to a price where a camera op can have a bag with batteries and media and shoot all day. That means a zoom lens with a built in zoom control ($$). the media outlets have standards of quality (mbps) and the codec needs to be something you can edit quickly to meet deadlines. \nThe big advancements in digital cinema cameras (arri,red,Sony, black magic, Panasonic, canon have I missed any?) are in the sensors and brains of these little square boxes. If I were to go and buy a RED dragon with a whopping great sensor to shoot news I would need a laundry list of crap that go with it just to be able to give media to the poor editor who has to deal with the workflow.\n\nRed lenses (which are all primes I think)$$$$\nA follow focus with rings for each lens $\nRed batteries $$\nA red battery charger $\nA red monitor touchscreen thing\nA little arm to hold the monitor\nA handle for the camera\nA dovetail plate to mate to the tripod\nA rail system to hold the dovetail\nHandles that attach to the rails\nA shoulder pad thing so I can hold the camera \nPelican cases for All the pricey gear\nA camera assistant to label media, grab batteries, swap lenses, and berate on occasion.\nOh yeah, and a sound guy who can monitor and mix audio, cuz there’s too much going on for a camera guy to mix a lavalier, handheld, and/or shotgun mike while pulling focus, iris, and framing a shot. \n\n\nP.s. A pair of cuffed skinny jeans and brown leather boots so you can call yourself a DP like the reality hacks. \n\nP.s.s. Also dont buy a red. They don’t get skin tones right without a bit of color correction from the DIT first. \n\nP.s.s.s. Also, If you do get a red, and I’m your key grip, I’ll hang a pair of white Oakley’s on your camera cart. \n\n\n",
"Video resolution alone doesn’t define overall picture quality. Just take into account that the highest resolution that cable TV can bring to any television set (whether it’s an old tube TV from the 50s, or a fuckin 8K Smart 4D Vizio Samsung Disney Phat Raptor) is still to this day majorly only 720p, not even 1080. Professionals use professional equipment because there are *endless* specific controls on those cameras that consumers don’t want or need to worry about. Trust me, you’d notice if one day, all the news stations started shooting with GoPros and iPhone cameras. You couldn’t quite put your finger on it, but you’d know the quality was lacking in some way.",
"You don't have to worry about batteries. In college I covered sports for the paper. Got to know all kinds of photographers/videographers/sound guys/cable guys/broad cast etc. \n\nI needed 4-6 go pro batteries to cover a game, several SD cards, and since it wasn't my primary camera running one added a lot of work.\n\nBroadcast cameras can run off multiple batteries so you can hot swap them without stopping recording, Multiple card slots, some take SSDs which are needed when you have to offload footage ASAP and get it published. You don't want to wait on a dinky little usb 3.0 card reader and a micro SD slot. You need to Ingest, organize, cut and publish that footage 15 minutes ago.\n\nThey can hook into a variety of audio sources, work either wirelessly or wired. Most live broadcast use wires since they're not prone to failing or interference the broadcast cameras get a specific line on the field they get to use so their cables are mostly out of the way but it's something that you just work around and respect.\n\nGopro's suck in low light they have tiny sensors you just can't compare a 1/2.3-inch 12mp sensor (GoPro) to a dedicated 2/3\" 2.2mp (Broadcast) camera. You might think that only having 2.2mp is a bad thing its not. \n\nThe camera natively captures 1920x1080 it's got massive pixels with more surface area to collect light compared to the tiny pixels crammed into the smaller 4096 x 3072 resolution sensor.\n\nBroadcast cameras don't need digital zoom or need to take stills they only need to shoot 1920x1080 video. Yes there are higher resolution cameras for film/broadcast but 99% Are 1920x1080 if it's for TV. \n\nSome/most also utilize 3 separate CCD sensors instead of one CMOS chip to capture video. \n\nHaving those large physical controls makes shooting a lot easier you don't have to fiddle around with any touch screens or tiny buttons you can just let muscle memory takeover.\n\nThey wouldn't be spending [$40,000 on a single camera](_URL_0_) if there was a cheaper option that did the same job.\n\nAlso the infrastructure that all these broadcast cameras plug into has been around for ages and isn't changing very fast. When you travel from stadium to stadium with various cameras and gear. When you get there you need to be able to plug in get set up and start filming. Not dicking around with adapters and unfamiliar infrastructure.\n\nWe do see smaller cameras in use on things like the pylon cams and that's awesome. The NHL is also putting cameras on the Refs for some killer shots. But a small camera is just the only option there.",
"You may enjoy this YouTube series where Vox explains how the BBC films Planet Earth II by explaining the history of their cameras and the effects they wanted from them:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\nI also found this article when looking for it, where National Geographic talks a little to the Verge.\n\n_URL_1_\n",
"And why does security camera footage still look like I’m watching something out of a gameboy? It’s always so grainy, why can’t they fix the quality on security cameras?",
"Watch the barrel scene in the second hobbit movie The Desolation of Smaug. It used GoPros and you can instantly tell the quality is not as good as the rest of the film which used higher quality and bulky cameras as you said. \nOther posts have good technical explanations but this should serve as a good simple explanation. ",
"In addition to what’s been mentioned: broadcast cameras are designed for live broadcast. They have outputs for connection to a switchboard and for voice communication between a director and the camera operator. Consumer cameras like a GoPro or a DSLR don’t have these outputs, and wouldn’t integrate with a live broadcast infrastructure. \n\nAnother reason is that drastic change to an industry doesn’t occur quickly, especially when that industry has been around for awhile. People and systems are set in their ways, and it’d be expensive and risky to make such a drastic change, even if in the end it’s cheaper (a broadcast camera can exceed $100,000, and operators are paid several hundred per day here). \n\nSource: camera operator and videographer",
"Honestly, it’s for social license. \n\nSomeone steps on-scene at an accident to get footage with a small, high quality DSLR or something like that, the impression is, oh, this is a citizen journalist or a YouTuber, they have no right being here.\n\nThe big camera rig somehow legitimizes their presence, if only physically.\n\nI shoot breaking news with a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera from time to time for my current job at a broadcast news station. I am asked “can I help you?” by first responders very often.",
"One detail people haven't mentioned is that the cameras also have to be able to be tied directly into a news van for live broadcast.\n\nHowever, that being said, there *are* news stations where reporters are being sent out with nothing more than their cell phones to take basically \"liveies\" of a scene.",
"I think people here aren't differentiating between broadcast and normal cameras. There's a big difference. The battery capacity is huge, they have beefy communications gear, usually wireless, they need to take HD imagery from the sensor and convert it on the fly to a format that is small enough to be immediately useful. That means big fast storage held on the camera, not sd cards think something the same form factor as an ssd in your pc, then put it in a weather sealed, temperature controlled case. Most importantly your gopro or even a DSLR can do a lot of things but you have to go through a menu to do it. A broadcast camera needs a button for every single control you might ever need. ",
"Because mostly of 3 things :\n\n- Audio input (via XLR cables)\n\n- The cost of new equipment (why change your equipment if it still does the job?)\n\n- The use of the camera. (White balance, iso, etc... Both cameras do not work the same way at all. And cameramen will need extra training to understand the new equipment that works mostly with a photographer vocabulary.) \n\n\nIn essence, in 5 years time I have no doubt in my mind that news anchors and such will use lighter cameras. Especially when moving around doing lightweight journalism. The mirrorless cameras are only now more easily integrating XLR inputs for their equipment (like the GH5 from Panasonic) and old equipment is becoming more and more obsolete. \n\nI talk a lot about XLR and it really is the golden standard in journalism for high quality audio input. \n\nAnd people don't talk about it much but seeing someone with a big burly camera looks more *professional*.\n\n\nIt is for me an accumulation of all these factors that is making TV kind of late compared to youtubers for example. \n\n",
"In addition to the top comments, professional video cameras work differently than cameras you see at the store. Professional cameras have three chips that read the colors red, green and blue separately, instead of one image sensor responsible for all the colors. This is particularly important for studio productions, which frequently use green screens (superior isolation of green). Because they have three chips, they need a larger body to accommodate them and the prism that breaks up the light to each chip.",
"Stability, stability, stability.\n\nEven a professional SLR used for video is light, and so the human body can swing it around with very little effort.\n\nA heavier camera takes more intent to move, which is desirable, because the human visual system only really compensates well for its own head bobbing. We have accelerometry for ourselves, not for the guy holding the camera.\n\nThis is getting addressed with digital filters, but not as quickly as you'd think.\n\nAlso, if you want a camera to be able to get any sort of zoom, the physics sort of require larger lenses. But that just explains why they're not camera phones, not why they're not SLRs.",
"The kinds of cameras you see used on the news are call eng (electronic news gathering) this is a design type of camera they are also packed with features that allow a very high quality recording by one person. \n\nTechnology had come along way and independent camera people will and so shoot on dslr and large sensor cameras but most mainstream news company’s still buy their crew eng cameras as it is guaranteed to do the job it’s a purpose built tool. Dslr cameras are a lot smaller but have bad audio can not record longer than 30 minuets and have short range lenses. \n\nAn eng camera uses a lens with a servo and a zoom range of around 18-200mm if not more with a fixed aperture this kind of lens dose not really exist in the small body camera world and when shooting news flexibility is everything. \n\nSource- I am a filmmaker who used to work in news, now I use smaller cameras and shoot corporate films. \n\nEdit- auto correct purpose was porpoises. ",
"Actually there is a slow shift in movie productions towards smaller cameras. But it's slow and not as extreme as using gogpros.\n\nThe gopro actualy is a bad example. You cant attach audio, can't zoom and the quality and distortion is still pretty awefull. But there are prosumer cameras like the Lumix gh5s or Sony a7r3 which are very small and offer without doubt far better quality than needed for TV.\n\nBut there are a lot of reasons for the established, bigger cameras. Btw, the image quality is often not that important factor. \n\n1. more, faster, more reliable Connections. Especially on TV you need a good video out, like SDI. Hdmi cant be as long and the port is not sturdy.\n\n2. better audio interface, you can use multiple mics with XLR inputs (which is widely used) and record and level the audio in camera. Audio is extremely important. \n\n3. things like bigger batteries, wifi connection, bigger battery, BIG ZOOM RANGE etc can be included. They are also very stable on the shoulder, compared to a handheld device (there are lots of rigs for small cameras to get the advantages of big cameras). Sensor stabilisation cant achieve the same. Also enough space for bigger storage like dual SSDs which are faster and better for higher quality video feeds with less compression. \n\n4. bigger cameras can manage heat from the sensor better for longer recording. They also tend to be mkre sturdy (but this could also be achieved with smaller cameras, so that's not a reason for big cameras) \n\n5. it gives you credibility on scene. You can't go and film an accident with a dslr. \n\n\nBut the most important thing is reliability. This is greatly undervalued in the amateur sector. If you are live on TV (or any professional movie production) you just can't deal with unreliable, overheating, not weather sealed, small prosumer cameras. And you don't want to hassle with extra cables or adapters to get a working audio/video feed. \n\n",
"I once worked with an industry DP (using Arri Minis for his cameras) who stated that he didn't believe DPs or camera operator would have jobs in the future because the cameras would be able to capture EVERYTHING and it would be up to the director/editors to decide everything in post.\n\nI certainly don't think he's entirely right, but it was interesting to hear an opinion like that from the source. The truth is that at a very high level (i.e. in high budget films, and to a lesser degree in network programming) the camera operator is functionally similar to a dolly grip (who holds on to the cart that pushes the camera) and is functioning less and less like a photographer as camera technology advances.\n\nHowever, this is not at all true when you are talking about other types of camera. One reason news \"shoulder mount\" cameras are big and bulky is of course cost; even a pretty standard nowadays Sony FS7 still costs upwards of $10K US, so you're probably going to hold on to your cameras as long as you can, especially if you're not trying out new styles, which news shows rarely do.\n\nAnother big reason they are \"bulky\" is because making a camera (even a small camera like the FS-7) portable, battery operated, and connected to the DIT, focus puller, and gaffer adds a LOT of weight and size to the base unit. [This image](_URL_0_) of a rather small camera only has half of the modules attached to it that I am used to seeing on a network TV show. The lens attached is a nice one, not one you'd typically see on a news camera, but news cameras can have large lenses at times, too. The battery is obviously one of the biggest problems if you want to be running around and not have to worry about losing power.\n\nSo, why not just use a go pro then? I think the main kicker here is in the dynamic range, to be honest. The sensor in even the most expensive go pros is more similar to a cellphone camera than it is to a professional camera sensor because a lot of it's use has been predetermined by the manufacturer. Production level cameras generally provide the camera operator/gaffer (and more importantly the editor) with many more stops of dynamic range. This is important for many reasons, but mainly, it allows you to worry less about exposure and getting a correct image when you're in the field, because you can shift the exposure compensation on the fly/in post without losing any colour detail. It is absolutely *imperative* in news to be able to capture usable images in all sorts of lighting conditions, from volcano eruptions to night-time bar fights. So consider the difference between a jpg and a bitmap file. In production we use raw files. You can use raw files with many modern cellphone cameras, and I think the new gopros can too, but without an appropriately high dynamic range it doesn't really matter. So this is what the DP meant when he lamented that camera operators and gaffers wouldn't be needed anymore. Because he saw a future where cameras would be able to capture ALL of the light almost perfectly, and you would be able to change everything in post, which is simply something that a cheap camera is nowhere near good enough to think about doing right now. \n\nLastly, and while this might not sound like a big point, to me, it's HUGE! Consider the movement of a camera. If you're into movies at all, you know what I mean when I say that the *movement of the camera speaks to you*. News cameras are shoulder mounted because *that's the way we want them to be*. We want our street reporting to be... well... street! The perspective and shake of a shoulder mounted camera is VERY hard to replicate. I've seen overweight industry camera ops go to insane lengths (think *millions* of dollars) to try to implement technological \"bobble\" devices to replicate the particular balance of organic bumpiness to stability that a typical shoulder mounted news camera gets you, and FAIL. It's super easy to spot a fake, if you're looking for authenticity. So ultimately, don't expect to see vlog style videography from your news casters, because vlog style is a style that they aren't interested in. They're into \"news\" style, and that involves shoulder mount cameras.",
"Also, money. One of the local news stations are using SD cameras from at least 10 years ago. \nI was the cammo there for about a month, and everything is much older than it needed to be. All the editing PCs were still on windows XP. While the journos have vista machines. \nNo joking. ",
"\"Relatively\". With optics as with electronics theres one of those pyramids where you can only choose 2/3 options. The options are size, price and performance. But additionally with optics you're dealing with variables like the diameter of your lens and thus how much light it catches. If you dont have enough light and you dont have the ISO to bump your exposure without ruining your footage (like your phone does in the dark), all that is left is a bigger diaphragm and if that isn't enough you just need a bigger lens that catches more light.\n\nFor short: you try shooting a triple A rated movie on 16k or some shit on a gopro. Yeah nah, theres a reason those shoulder mounted photon receptor cannons cost tens if not hundreds of thousands.",
"GoPros are crap. They are amazing for being small and generating fairly decent images on full auto, but they don't offer much in the way of manual controls, lens options, frame rate options, etc. And the video quality is only good because they do more than they should for being so small, but compared to professional cameras they look awful and are barely functional. The excessive rolling shutter artifacts alone are pretty appalling.\n\nThey are also difficult to hold steady for long periods of time. And then there's the part where its difficult to view a live image to see what you're shooting.\n\nProfessional cameras are designed to sit on your shoulder, which takes all the weight and allows you to focus on moving the camera with your hands and arms instead of supporting with your hands and arms. They take professional lenses, which zoom and focus manually, where a GoPro has a fixed wide angle lens and that's it. Pro cameras have controls laid out such that the operator can control it without having to look at any of the controls: everything can be done by touch. A GoPro has a couple of buttons and a somewhat complex menu structure. A pro camera can be operated quickly. The only thing you can do quickly with a GoPro is start and stop it. Everything else takes more time than a news cameraperson can afford.\n\nIn other words, tiny cameras are great for specific things where you can get away with setting them up once and letting them roll on the same shot while on complete autopilot. That results in a certain look. It's not a tool you would use while chasing someone down the street, or interviewing an individual, or covering a fire from a distance.",
"Some really great answers here. One of the biggest things is the speed in which a news camera op may have to react to something that is happening. Consider this situation....you are interviewing a prime minister or a politician, out in public, someone who has a dislike for that person confronts them, TV news gold, you need to be able to quickly derig your camera from the tripod and go off the shoulder, so you can capture the whole scene, adjust your iris, zoom and focus, and if there are raised voices, you need to adjust your audio levels on the fly so your audio won't peak, all in a matter of seconds. A news cam op can do all of this on a broadcast camera, while you have your eye looking through the viewfinder. It becomes instinct, you know what each button does just by touch. ",
"There's a few reasons, beyond the main ones I've seen people post here which is weight for stability and peripherals.\n \nAs an ex-ENG (news) cameraman, I can tell you that a GoPro was a constant piece in my arsenal, but it really only came in to use maybe 5% of the stories I shot because shooting news stories is mostly a reactive skill, not a proactive one, and the set-up time for smaller cameras doesn't lend itself to shooting news often. \n \nShooting with DSLR-type cameras and mini-cameras typically require you to change the environment to suit the shooting style of the camera (for instance in a nice, controlled studio). With a GoPro you need to scout a location that will give you the shot you require, set-up the camera, and either check the set-up or hope you've gotten it right. Most news sotries are evolving as you cover them, you often don't have the luxury of stopping filming to set up a camera for a single shot. \nDSLR's are not good at rapidly handling shifting environment changes (light change as cloud pass overhead, going from indoors to outdoors, even just light level changes room-to-room), and many of the smaller cameras rely on servos, which have a delay time. \n \nNews cameras are specifically set up to be as quick as possible in reacting to changes in environment, they are designed to change to suit the environment, rather than changing the environment to suit the camera. This, however, requires fairly large lenses and the body needs to be large to match.",
"truth is that industry standard news cameras are slowly making their way to being more compact. A lot has to do with storage, lens, battery life, cost and quality.\n\nThe great thing about cameras is that they are one of the few retail products that are still being produced at a decent quality. Wana know why profits for GoPro fell? Because a Hero3 works as well as a Hero5 and theres no huge need to upgrade. As such, the typical trusty news camera is a quality piece of equipment and only really needs to be upgraded as video formats and storage progress.\n\nAnd that storage and format **is** progressing. It will be another four or five years before we see news in 4K (there may be a few broadcasts already doing this, but im unsure), and some regional broadcast are still dealing in standard definition. News cameras will need to follow suit.\n\nTo compensate with the slow move to high definition, cameras are moving away from tape (I hope to god no other newsrooms are still using tape) and XDCAM discs (encased Bluray discs; easily slotted into most Sony/Fuji industry cameras. Bulky, but efficient). Obviously the problem with tape was most editting based in real time; vision had to be play to edit software. Tapes were also extremely bulky. XDCAM discs can have codec and transcoding issues, and the storage is not a widely used means. This storage is also costly. Other *smaller and faster* storage is fast catching XDCAM. SxS cards are being used in industry today and will be more widely used in the future. These are about double size of a USB.\n\nLastly, auxiliary equipment and battery packs do take up a substantial amount of room on the camera. There is always a need for a mic set up or some level of extra screen. The batteries are still making there way to being smaller (a fact for most industry technology).\n\n**TLDR**: Newsroom camera's are built too well to get replaced every year with the latest, smallest technology. But as video quality increases globally, the cameras will continue to shrink and become for efficient and portable.\n\nSource; I work in a newsroom",
"Architecture photographer / wannabe DOP here:\n\nThose shoulder-mount and studio cameras are so big because they’re stuffed with features that studio cameramen need. There are timecode inputs/outputs to perfectly sync cameras in a multi-camera setup like an interview, there are advanced playback options and footage analysis features (focus peaking, exposure zebras, etc) to make sure you either did or did not get the shot you needed without having to come back a different day, there are mounting options for high-quality directional microphones, there are a ton of I/O ports for making sure your footage goes where it needs to, et cetera. The camera’s packed with features to ensure you can do *as good a job as possible* in as few takes as possible. \n\nAdditionally, larger cameras output higher-quality footage. A camera like an Arri Alexa or a RED Weapon has indisputably better quality than a GoPro due in large part to the physics of a larger sensor size. A larger sensor will always produce better-looking footage with better low-light performance and dynamic range. Also, these cameras have bulky lens mounts meant to hold on huge cinema lenses that give indescribably sharp yet smooth-looking footage, and allow the attachment of a follow focus, which is an extremely precise manual way of adjusting the focus of a lens. \n\nNo matter how much camera technology advances, studios will use bulky cameras. Using something small and cheap with very few studio-focused features would be utterly maddening for a cameraman. ",
"Mostly for ergonomy, reliability and handling.\n\nYou can pick up any ENG style camcorder, put in a big V-Mount battery and film for a full shooting day without worrying about changing the battery. My record with my universities Sony PMW-350k is 9 hours constant power on with an LED panel attached and powered by the camera battery.\n\nFor every thing that you might possibly wanna change during shooting (white balance, ISO, audio controls), there are physical buttons. While the DSLR shooter still digs through his menu to set up audio, the ENG cameraman already has finished filming.\n\nYou don't need to buy a separate shoulder rig, which makes your smaller camera bulky again anyway. A viewfinder is also included in the camera. There are also lots of attachment points for mic receivers, lights, wireless video transmission etc.\n\nThose cameras also have professional audio inputs, unlike DSLRs or action cams, along with professional video outputs (SDI) for using in a live environment.\n\nTV lenses are a different category to your everyday normal DSLR lenses also. While not designed for a large sensor, they have crazy zoom ranges at constant apertures and cost up to several dozen grand. The very big ones used for sports and big shows can sell for more than a house.",
"High quality equipment, especially in lenses and in sound, are still pretty big... but also, all that mass provides enough inertia to stabilise the camera quite a lot without needing additional gimbals. ",
"Lens quality, XLR inputs for professional mics, ability to attach to a camera control unit back in the van so the technical director can adjust settings. The cameras themselves are heavier and provide for more points of contact with the camera operator for greater stability. \n\nPlus, at the end of the day, news is a business. If the cameras are still working and the reporters are able to use them easily and meet their deadlines, there’s no reason from a business standpoint to upgrade. \n\nA local station here still uses Panasonic cameras that save to antiquated (albeit somewhat more stable) P2 camera cards. A whole 35 minutes of 720p video can fit on a 16 gig P2 card. ",
"A small handheld camera *can* get good images if the lighting is right. It can give you a stable shot with optical and digital correction, or with a rig. It can do a lot of things well with the right setup and due care and attention. ENG cameras, on the other hand, are designed to get good shots, be tough, easy to hold and stabilize on a shoulder, run for hours, have multiple redundant systems to make sure that you get your shot, and allow the operator to tweak many of the options without having to sift through menus or take their attention away from the event.",
"You may get a 1080p output from that gopro but the image quality will be garbage. A lot of what makes a good quality video comes from a decent sensor, and smaller space means less room for one. Optics also play a good part in this, the glass the image has to pass through tends to be larger to capture more light etc and this leads to larger cameras as a whole.\n\nIn terms of stability, DJI are a good example of smaller version of stabilized video. They make a small gimbal called an osmo, camera itself is about the size of a golfball, it self balances, is on a rig you can hold easily in one hand. But filming on a camera that small doesn't produce the kind of quality you want for broadcast. \n\nWe simply haven't compressed all the components any better in recent times and sizes won't really change that much until the way we practice cinematography elements takes a redesign, if even possible.",
"No one has mentioned that the smaller and lighter the camera, the less steady it is, the more shaky it is. When you're 'running and gunning' in an in-the-moment situation like a building fire a tiny GoPro or even a HandyCam will end up looking like the Blair Witch Project.\n\nFor this reason, when [ENG](_URL_0_) camera manufacturers came out with the first memory card based cameras, they literally kept the same form factor and replaced the internal tape assembly with a dead weight.\n\nThat said, at my station we use both full-size cameras and medium-sized HandyCams, but we use GoPros and now drones for special shots. It really depends on the nature of the shot you're getting, the piece you're producing, and whether the reporter has to go out in the field solo and shoot themselves. Our reporters even have a phone app to use in a pinch, if say, they coincidentally end up proximate to a breaking story while off duty, etc.",
"I can believe that the top comment is defensive. They don't use go pros or new cameras because news stations are cheap and don't want to buy new stuff. \n\n\nI went to Sheffield Institute for the Recording Arts. We videotaped things for the radio station 98 rock. They had us using top of the line cameras. For things that were going to be on their website. ",
"Control room operator here. We use traditional camera technology along with new (i.e. cellphone, GoPro, drone) we mainly use the latter for in-the-field reports if we have exhausted all resources or can't bring a full crew to the location. In-house for anchor reads, we actually use cameras that are literally small boxes with professional lenses. Our studio still uses shoulder cams for uses around the building because the cameras a still reliable, provide great picture, and can be adjusted with camera control units in the control room.",
"Hey, video journalist here. As they said below it's the lenses, viewfinders, mics, etc that are staying the same size, even though the bodies can get much smaller. Camera's are getting a lot lighter though. There was a big shift in the news when we switched from betamax tapes to HD (this was MUCH more recent than you think, it takes a lot of time and resources for an entire network to switch over their entire camera/editing set ups). \n\nHowever, as someone that has shot a lot on big shoulder mounted cameras you need a bit of that bulky weight to balance our the weight of the lens, which is basically just glass and metal in a plastic case. Also I tend to find the shoulder mounted cameras a lot easier for running and gunning (shooting while walking or moving around quickly) than a lot of smaller cameras with hand held or strap on stabilizers, but this could also just be what I'm used to.",
"It's been answered to death but I'll add to it. I'm an engineer for live television so this moves out of the record and store area but still relevant.\n\nA number of factors work in here just on the camera end alone. The cameras need to accept power, data and incoming video from the truck. We need to be able to adjust lighting, shading (colouring) remotely. We have to accept multiple video feeds to the camera. There are up to four camera returns (Any video feed being sent back. Often program, a similar camera, the game camera and something else). There are two prompter feeds usually as well (which we often cheat and use as a confidence monitor). These signals all come in on ONE line (Often fiber these days but we still use all copper in some buildings). The camera needs to sort through these signals and delegate them accordingly. Additionally, they need to covert and send its own video, and it needs to get it back to the truck with as little delay as possible.\n\nAdditionally, audio needs to be attached to the signal. We have two mic inputs into the camera which have their own settings. That adds to the size. There is also not one, but two intercom channels that you can trigger from the camera head and need to attach a microphone to. Each channel can be independently controlled. There is also program audio pumped to the camera at all times and is also independently controlled.\n\nAll of these little add-ons add to the size of the camera. When you open up a camera head, it's well layed out and organized for easier on site fixing as well. We can get to each board, replace components as needed and get it back out, without having to send back the camera every single time. Modern cameras are designed to be compact and you as a consumer aren't supposed to get in there. \n\nHigh end cameras don't use single chip sensors for incoming light data, like most modern cameras. Instead they use a three chip system that gives it a much greater range of light and colour butt also takes up more space.\n\nNow, granted when you see some of the \"hard\" cameras on TV, they have a massive 86x or 100x lens on them to give them a massive range of zoom and focus control. Those lenses attach to the same camera body as the ones the guy on the sideline is using. It fits into a \"sled\" which allows the camera to be operated with hand held controls. Same camera head, completely different footprint. \n\nOddly enough though, our ENG shooters (the guys who run around pre-game and get people cheering and such) shoot on whatever they got. You never see a Canon 5Di because they need the body to work with. They need the independent microphones built into the camera. But it's still quite a bit smaller than our on air cameras due to the lack of processing I mentioned above. They play out into an EVS machine and leave. Done. \n\n\nHope that helps some. Thanks for letting me be a nerd about my job.",
"This will probably get buried but here goes:\n\nI've worked in broadcast television since about 98\n\nThe cameras you are describing are known as ENG cameras.\n\nThe main reason people are still using them is the expense, those things cost close to 20k and the lens can be twice that\n\nWith that kind of investment, they get used for a long time. My current job has 5 that are reaching the end of their useable life. (XDcams)\n\nWe have purchased some new cameras (FS7 and Z150) that are about 1/3 the size. This is where the tech is nowadays. With that size comes the issue of camera guys that are used to shoulder mounted cameras so we have to buy these wacky, expensive rigs for them to use. \n\nThe top comment mentions \"high quality lenses, professional cabling interfaces, microphones, operator controls, and viewfinders/monitors are still the same size\"\n\nThat's not true, all of that is shrinking as well. It is true that that lenes can be quite large they are not usually used for news videography \n\n\n\n",
"I worked in the news as a photographer for a little while and I can tell you, we constantly asked ourselves the same question. I think the news has a standard operation procedure and there's cameras are just part of the culture. Also, they have technical capabilities that are just streamlined at this point for the news setups. It's more difficult to completely overhaul and change to a new system than it is to just haul around a big ass camera.",
"Can I answer this? I am a camera operator and a loader on major motion pictures.\n\nWhile it's true that the cameras are getting smaller, and their sensors are becoming more compact and capable of higher resolution, the same can not be said for the ancillary equipment used to assist us in the production.\n\nItems like the cinetape on the top of the camera body, the anton bauer battery packs on the rear of the camera (that go about an hour or two on some cameras and they often need to be changed) along with the whip, or the follow focus receiver along the side, (which is something the 1st AC would be utilizing) quickly add to the bulk of the camera. \n\nThis doesn't even include the handles for the operator, the shoulder mount and rest (to counter balance almost 34 pounds) and the requisite cabling which is often sort of heavy due to the nature of the material.\n\nAll of this is attached to a cage or a coffin, as they once said to me in New Orleans (a coffin is usually a case for the camera BODY) that can weigh a lot. \n\nSo yeah, just like the movie itself...you need a ton of people to make the picture, and you need a ton of pieces to capture the picture correctly as well.\n\nAlso read about the other positions and the myriad of equipment they bring with them. I didn't even mention half the stuff on set that you'd see when there's a CGI team involved.",
"Because size matters.\n\nYour cell phone camera sucks in low lighting (indoors) or in dim or dark lighting. You can't beat physics, when it comes to light capture.\n\nAlso, there is more to a camera than just the size of the lens. There is also the quality of the sensor. A good sensor will have less \"static\" variation (aka, grain).\n\nA good sensor will also have more accurate color representation.\n\nMiniaturizing a sensor though, drives up the cost dramatically. And it makes sense in a cell phone, because it HAS to be small. But when your lens is huge anyway, it is less of an issue. You do not have to miniaturize your sensor because the camera is bigger anyway. Thus, cost of equipment goes down.\n\nFor in-studio recording, the cameras don't have to go anywhere - they are ALWAYS pointed at the anchor desk or the green screen. This relaxes the required features even further, so that they do not require batteries, and do not have to be made of ultralight materials, because there is zero need for portability.\n\nFinally, as someone else has already mentioned, a heavier camera results in a smoother video experience. A tiny camera would vibrate and jiggle at the slightest bump. Those kinds of bumps will affect a heavier camera much less though.",
"(TV camera op) The biggest benefit of larger cameras for me is the weight. Being much heavier means I can swing it around and get a much steadier shot than if I was holding say a DSLR or GoPro. \n\nAlso, having a third point of contact on my shoulder is invaluable to stability. When the camera is on my shoulder it feels more like an extension of my arm than something that I have to hold out in front of me. \n\nWhen working in a high pressure live broadcast nobody wants to dig though layers and layers of menus to change a setting, so pretty much every control possible is given a physical button or dial, and that takes up space. \n\nAnother thing to mention is that there’s a lot more to consider when talking about image quality than resolution. While a GoPro might be be able to shoot 4K video, it’s not capable of keeping every bit of data, so you end up with terrible compression. Larger cameras can also house larger sensors, which improve low-light performance and help get a shallower depth of field (a way to measure how much of the image is in focus). Larger more expensive cameras also have better dynamic range (a measure of the camera’s ability to display dark things and light things in the same frame), which makes them more versatile in the field. \n\nHere’s a fun fact: even though they shoot in 4K, most live shows still broadcast in 720p, and most people are never the wiser. \n\nTL;DR: Bigger cameras are more stable and have more buttons. Also, resolution isn’t everything. \n\nThis video is only mildly related but useful and entertaining. _URL_0_\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bos2ZTGNZc",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Colorcomp.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/mobile-journalism-sky-news-reporters-broadcast-ready-in-90-seconds-/s2/a555282/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619430-REG/Sony_HDW650F_HDW650F_HDCAM_Camcorder.html"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/qAOKOJhzYXk",
"https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/9/4604876/national-geographic-living-with-lions-serengeti-robot-drone-photography"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cinegearpro.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/650x650/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/f/s/fs7rig10.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_news-gathering"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/fuSJ5k1orBk"
]
] |
|
5v6gb9 | what degree of regulation does the financial sector currently have after the great recession? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v6gb9/eli5_what_degree_of_regulation_does_the_financial/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddzmujb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'm going to assume you largely mean the U.S. , since responses vary greatly by country.\n\nBy far the biggest change was the introduction of the Dodd-Frank Act (for now, anyway. The current administration is looking to repeal it. If it does get repealed, we'll essentially be back where we were just before 2008).\n\nDF is a really complex law, so I'm only going to hit the highlights: Dodd Frank\n\n\n\n* instituted higher capital requirements for \"too big to fail\", including so called shadow banks like GE's finance arm (more capital means less leverage, which means they're less likely to overextend)\n\n* created the \"Volcker rule\" to limit proprietary trading (banks using deposits from consumers to trade with), which can be risky\n\n* created a \"wind down/living will\" procedure for big banks, so in the case of a crisis they won't threaten the rest of the economy. Basically, they need to have a plan if shit hits the fan (and ideally thus no bailout)\n\n & nbsp;\n\n all of the above are audited to insure compliance\n\n & nbsp;\n\n* created the CFPB- the SEC's sister orgnanization(the SEC only protects investors, not consumers), whose goal is to protect consumers (they were behind the big Wells Fargo fake account bust), mainly by consolidating regulations that were already on the books in various agencies, but not a priority\n\n* required derivatives to be traded through a clearing house, which improved transparency/collateral.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThere's various other components. As far as preventing another 2008, by far the most important are probably the increased capital standards/scrutiny \n\nYou can read more [here](_URL_0_)\n\nLike i said, there are a lot of little pieces that come together to make different things safer\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act"
]
] |
|
dq6t4s | why are we more likely to survive a heavy impact while fainted than when we’re conscious? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dq6t4s/eli5_why_are_we_more_likely_to_survive_a_heavy/ | {
"a_id": [
"f60vddm",
"f60vlkf",
"f60w411",
"f613zws"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Because while you're awake your body will brace for the impact. Where as when you're unconscious your body basically forms around the impact.",
"When you're unconscious, your body isn't bracing for impact, it's just limp. A lot of injuries in car accidents and falling comes from rigidity of the muscles, which when there's a force stronger than the muscle can take, it tears. A limp body is less likely to fight against the impact, which will help it survive it, spreading the damage more equally and in a way that your body wants it to. When you see things that you try to prepare for, your conscious body might fight against physics to prevent injuries, but in reality, you're only making it worse, whereas when you're unconscious, you'll have no physical urges to fight the impact, so you'll just take it, often times in better condition than conscious you.",
"So follow up question: Why does our body tense up if it only causes more injury or death?",
"A former coworker of mine was in a bad wreck, flipping her jeep over the railing on a bridge and she fell asleep prior to the impact. She walked away with a scratch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
y4vx9 | how come we are legally adults and we can be tried as adults if we can't still buy alcohol? | Just wondering that always puzzled me | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y4vx9/eli5how_come_we_are_legally_adults_and_we_can_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5scnfb",
"c5scw7r",
"c5shdaa",
"c5t254x"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's some evidence that alcohol abuse is still significantly more harmful at 18 than, say, 30. Because of this, the federal government made a large amount of highway funding contingent on states setting their drinking age to 21, and every state agreed.",
"It's worth noting that the drinking age typically varies from 16 to 18. Only the USA, Egypt, and one or two other outliers have a 21 drinking age, and India has state laws varying up to 25. ",
"Here are just a couple of reasons. Let me just preface these reasons with this: if you do not agree, that is fine. They're the governments reasons for them.\n\n1) Scientific studies have proven that the decision making part of the teenage brain is not developed yet.\n\n2) A lot of mothers decided that teenagers were dying too much, and they wanted their young people not to die as much. They thought that restricting alcohol to only adults would help because some teenagers decide to drive while they're drunk. \n\n3) The reason why people can be tried as adults, smoke, and join the military is that 18-20 year-olds are not children and can control their actions. Smoking, the army, and trying someone are all actions that they choose to do, and there is no accidental killing someone (like drunk driving can do). \n\nThese are just some opinions. ",
"Basically, to keep it out of high schools and prevent upperclassmen from buying it for lowerclassmen. (Most) 18 year olds are still seniors in high school. It's not uncommon to have 19 and 20 year olds in high school. It is rather unusual to have 21 year olds in high school. Yes, I know.... older brothers, sisters etc... I didn't say it made perfect sense.\n\nLook at colleges. It's no problem at all for 18, 19, and 20 year old college students to get alcohol from the 21 year old students. In fact, it's almost universally accepted that they will drink and we generally have no problems with that.\n\nI'm not saying that I agree with the laws, but it generally does what was intended of it, keeping alcohol away from high school students."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
92crdm | if it costs you points of credit for businesses to pull your reports how do credit monitoring services offer this without affecting your credit score? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92crdm/eli5_if_it_costs_you_points_of_credit_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"e34oirb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are two types of credit pulls - \"soft\" pulls are those that get you the pre-qualification offers, etc. and they don't affect your credit scores. These are the kinds of pulls that monitoring services not owned by the three bureaus use. (The three bureaus can obviously see their own scores.)\n\n\"Hard\" pulls are those that happen when you apply for a line of credit - too many of those in a short time are a negative indicator (this person is trying to get a lot of credit quickly, so they may be a risk)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1wuprh | why fruits get juicier after ripening after they have been cut off the tree | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wuprh/eli5_why_fruits_get_juicier_after_ripening_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf5knyv",
"cf5sp2p"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Many fruits do not need the tree to ripen; they have their own energy store (their sugars and starches) and the chemicals necessary to ripen are already present. ",
"Well usually the fruit has a seed and the rest of the fruit is to provide nutrients to the seed. When the fruit ripens, it slowly starts to feed the seed by slowly becoming sweeter with the sugars forming and the fruit ripens and then decomposes. Hence, after being cut, the fruit gets sweeter and then after that stage is over ripe and starts to go bad.\n\nIts actually much more fascinating if you dig further into the details and every fruit is different in some sense as to how they behave after being cut. There is hydrolysis of storage polysaccharides mainly starch occurs into shorter, water soluble molecules such as fructose, glucose and sucrose. Starch itself has no sweet taste but these smaller sugars do and hence the fruit tastes sweeter.\n\nSource: I did A level Biology but being so low on credentials, here a link I thought could help you further:_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-fruit-ripening/"
]
] |
||
3tewg1 | why aren't films pirated by random cinema employees that have access to the hard drive? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tewg1/eli5why_arent_films_pirated_by_random_cinema/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5k1ap",
"cx5lgap",
"cx5m9rx",
"cx5tlu3"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The financial profit of doing so is little to none, and the risk of being caught is pretty high. At best you would lose your job and at worst you get sued. In other words the risk to reward ratio is not very good. ",
"Because they'd get caught and put in prison and there would be no money in doing so anyway, so why bother?",
"Aside from it being all risk and no gain, there's also the fact that the films are encrypted and only playable by the projector machine for a limited time using a one-time password. Extracting them from the hard drive is nontrivial.",
"I have worked at theaters for 10+ years. All digital projectors display watermarks on screen. The MPAA can actually apply filters to see theater location, which auditorium and what time. This pinpoints who is on staff. Then they find the pattern and set up surveillance without staff knowing. We have caught customers this way, but same works for catching staff. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1qpfl7 | what would happen if google, or a similarly sized company, were it to say 'no' to nsa requests? | Any outright shutdown of a corporation that large would result in way more attention to the issue than anything else, which can't be a good thing for anyone. What would happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qpfl7/eli5_what_would_happen_if_google_or_a_similarly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdf3kel",
"cdf3suu",
"cdf5ghy",
"cdf5tq9",
"cdf5zyt",
"cdf6ebj",
"cdf6huc",
"cdf7ujn",
"cdf7x6g",
"cdf8xx4",
"cdfbojp",
"cdfd1vc",
"cdfh6s6",
"cdfinu0",
"cdfj90h",
"cdfjugu",
"cdfkilv",
"cdfmkz8",
"cdfnjp5"
],
"score": [
186,
6,
48,
14,
2,
5,
6,
6,
11,
3,
4,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Judging from how the NSA has handled [Accessing googles' internal stuff](_URL_0_), if you say no, NSA will just find another way around it.\n\nIf they can't find another way around it, they will probably go to a court and get a subpoena for the data that they require. In the case of subpoena, if the judge issues a gag order as well, Google wouldn't even be able to talk about the request - I believe the issue with Lavabit is similar, insofar as the owner could not provide a lot of information as it was sealed under court order.",
"The NSA will just pre emptively tap the fiber lines the businesses use which has already been done. \"Lol, what privacy laws\" -the NSA",
"Ask former Qwest CEO Joseph Naccio, who did just that. \n\nGoogle his name + NSA. (Sorry, on phone, won't paste). \n",
"This may be an idiot question, but can someone tell me why not one goddamn case is filed against the NSA for violating the our amendments?",
"It is worth noting that no law in the world forbids a company to lobby against, say, the Patriot Act's gag clauses if you were against them. Google for instance also used their homepage to lobby for Android in the past. (And no, I'm not saying it will be *natural* for commercial enterprises to lobby for our rights... though it is also true that losing our trust means they may lose some commerce along it.)",
"Googles top employees go missing one at a time.",
"They will trump up charges and throw the CEO in jail like they did with Quest (link). _URL_0_ there are so many laws and provisions that the gov can take you into custody and hold you forever. If you don't believe me just look at what they did to this guy who the current administration tried to cite as the source of the Benghazi attacks. _URL_1_ ",
"NSA gets a court order, Google defies the court - > contempt of court\n\nPotential Legal Consequences:\n\n* enormous fines for each day of non-compliance\n* jail time for relevant employees\n* shareholder suit against Google for endangering the company's profits\n\nOther Negative Consequences:\n\n* Google can say goodbye to lucrative further deals with government and lobbying influence\n* NSA steals the data some other way (with its agents inside google or outside hacking)\n\nThe best bets are not collecting/storing the sought-after data in the first place, being a zero-knowledge system, or fighting it in court (not ignoring the court's judgment - judges hate that).",
"It will be interesting to see the result the first time a large corporation openly tries to defy a government order, particularly if it has more presence outside of the US (or whatever government it defies) than inside.\n\nFor now, it remains less expensive, or at least not a lot more expensive, to lobby for what they want and go along with the laws than to flaunt them openly. Until that changes, this isn't likely to happen.\n\nMy guess, though would be much like what happened with Syria recently. Assuming neither side relented along the way, I think it would go something like this:\n\n1. A general state of shock for a few days.\n2. Numerous \"diplomatic\" messages, getting more and more strongly worded with threats of stronger legal action (like with Lavabit).\n3. Threats of physical action of a non-violent nature (shutting down power and other utilities, blockading their facilities).\n4. Other large companies banding together to either support, arbitrate, or denounce Google and the government.\n5. Other countries doing the same, particularly those with a financial interest in Google.\n6. Non-violent physical action as threatened above.\n\nI figure at this point, they'd either back down or most of their employees would leave, and they wouldn't have anyone to run things any more. However, if not...\n\n7. General populace showing support for Google in the form of live and Internet protests.\n8. Police/other domestic agencies force a physical conflict at their domestic facilities--facilities are invaded and shut down, employees arrested, all data and hardware is confiscated. As a public company, it would be divided up into different subdivisions initially run by people the government picks or auctioned off to other corporations.\n\nBeyond that is anyone's guess. It would pretty much depend on other countries' views on the conflict. If Google continued to fight back and had lots of support outside the US, it could turn into a full-blown war. If they didn't have the support and continued to fight back, they'd probably be shut down in nearly every country.\n\nOr:\n\n8. Police force a physical conflict and discover that the company they're fighting have armed themselves and it turns into a battlezone around each facility--which isn't far-fetched if the company (presumably not Google) is run by drug cartels or other organized crime.\n9. After a few days' thought and debate, the country declares martial law and the army steps in.\n10. < boom > \n\nBeyond that, we get into science fiction and conspiracy theories.\n",
"Question, why doesn't Google just found their own country? But some territory from the United States government and claim to be their own country for data hosting.",
"My guess; either a series of warrant will be issued to take the data piecemeal, or they will manufacture exigent circumstances to justify an illegal seizure. Also, judging by the way the IRS has been used in the past as a weapon against opponents, Google would be getting a massive audit. ",
"I'm pretty sure Google did say no, and the NSA decided to illegally search their databases anyway.",
"Based on the transparency graphic which Google has released, 62% of the \"requests\" between January and June 2013 were in the form of a subpoena. \n\nA subpoena, properly issued, creates a legal obligation for a response.\n\n If Google or anyone else ignores a subpoena, the attorney who requested it goes into court on a motion to compel compliance. \n\nIf Google still does not respond,the attorney asks for a rule to show cause why Google should not be held in contempt of court.\n\n\nIf Google cannot explain why they should not be considered in contempt of court, the judge finds that they are in contempt of court. He/she can fine them and put them in jail until they comply.\n\nThis is a simplification insofar as a corporation is concerned. There are things Google could do to push back. In general, that would start with a motion to quash the subpena which in essence asks the judge to rule whether the information has to be turned over.\n\nThe process is fairly common though. This is the same thing as when the cops want a reporter's sources and the reporter refuses to identify them. It is mid November 2013 right now. The Fox News website has a reporter who is at risk of going to jail for failure/refusing to respond t a subpoena.\n\nYou might have noticed that the person's whse information has been subpoenaed is not mentioned.Depending on the procedure and the statute used, that person may not have been notified of the subpoena . They don't have to be.\n\nSource: I'm a lawyer.",
"They would not get the NSA's money, which are really our taxes, and they will need to start paying regular tax rate with no breaks, so they would go back to the free market situation and eventually go broke.",
"Google is a defacto arm of the US state department. If they said no they would lose the patronage of the government. The government would no longer promote Google's interested with foreign governments because the deal would no longer be worth their time.",
"The NSA would sue in a secret (FISA) court, most likely win, raid the offices and take what they wanted, and issue everyone involved a gag order backed up by the power of the federal government. They could quite quickly shut google down within 1 hour of showing up with a warrant and a few SUV's full of agents. ",
"They find a way to \"replace\" google with a more compliant one (such as making the stocks of google fall and bankrupt it, and another *ahem* bing *ahem* rise). Or, there are backdoors already built deep within the CPU, network hardware, or the OS that makes it hard to detect intrusions. So it's not only google that needs to be subjugated from the point of view of the NSA, but a lot of other companies as well. Plus there's the good old bribing an employee to become an NSA insider installing \"spyware\" or \"opening the doors of Troy\".",
"Here's the stick they use, completely legal, completely Constitutional. I saw this threatened once by the Secret Service at an ISP I worked for.\n\n1. Get a warrant for a legitimate investigation.\n2. impound the equipment the evidence exists on.\n\nCan't run your business without those servers and disk arrays? Too bad, you should have played ball.\n\n",
"Failure to comply with official (And lawful) requests for data carry legal sanctions. Certain positions in companies carry legal responsibilities, in that you can be held responsible for the companies failures. In short that means that people in the company can be jailed.\n\nThere are also financial penalties, and of course Google and other major companies rely on co-operation from governments for licencing, legislation, and other functions that support their ability to do business. If they start to fail to assist the government when it needs it. then they would undoubtedly find that things started to get much more difficult - from their tax liability being scrutinised to important licences not being granted in a timely fashion.\n\nIn short, it is in their best commercial interests to comply with lawful requests and not bite the hand that feeds...."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://rt.com/usa/qwest-ceo-nsa-jail-604/",
"http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/09/americas-first-political-prisoner-who-obama-wrongly-blamed-for-benghazi-out-of-jail-and-talking.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2w5az9 | how do phones get notifications instantly? are they always "checking"? or do they get a signal somehow? | I was wondering if phones are just always checking for notifications or if they get a signal of some sort. Also, bonus question, how does this affect the battery life? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w5az9/eli5_how_do_phones_get_notifications_instantly/ | {
"a_id": [
"conphes"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The phone is in a \"standby\" mode, waiting for contact from the tower. Specific applications, such as email, will ping the email server to see if there's anything new, but for text/phone calls, the tower is the side that initiates. If the phone is constantly pinging the tower for information, battery life would drain much faster, how much faster would depend on the phone. That's why phones are advertised as having \"talk\" time and \"standby\" time. Talk time refers to the battery life when actively sending and receiving a signal to the tower, while standby represents the phone waiting for contact from the tower."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.