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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1jt9tq | what happens to the sound on my headphones when they're not plugged in all the way? | **TL;DR: Why does music in my headphones sound weird when the cable isn't plugged in all the way?**
So, I've got a pair of Skullcandy Hesh headphones. When I first got them and tried to listen to music, it sounded... weird.
Some of the vocals wouldn't come through too loudly, while other vocals (usually the stuff that's supposed to be harmony in the background) came through even louder. Some of them even echo the vocals in an odd way!
I soon discovered that this happens when the cable isn't plugged in all the way. It's a cool effect, and I will occasionally listen to music like this on purpose. Not all of my songs work with this effect though. No idea why.
I googled this, and the best I could come up with was a post on a tech support forum where a user suggested that someone might be "getting half a stereo feed." Further googling turns up nothing.
My phone has a basic sound equalizer on it, and try as I might, I cannot simulate this effect without unplugging the headphones partially.
What is going on here? I'd love to know the science behind it! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jt9tq/eli5_what_happens_to_the_sound_on_my_headphones/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbi2k0r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"\"Getting half a stereo feed\" is exactly what you're hearing. Headphones are what we call Stereo, or Left/Right. Only one feed or side of that stereo is what we call Mono. On your headphone plug you'll see it is stereo because there are 3 conductors on it. The tip, the ring, and the sleeve. On a mono plug it would only have the tip and the sleeve. When you plug your headphones in, all 3 conductors make the connection and you hear the full stereo image. If you plug it in halfway, only 2 of the 3 connect and you only hear half the stereo image. \n Now, the reason it sounds weird is from the way modern day music is mixed. Modern day music is all about \"how loud can we get this without sounding like crap?\" To achieve this they separate the different \"voices\" or instruments between the stereo image to get certain elements louder than others. If you put all the sounds of the music at he same volume in both channels it will distort at the loud volumes we record music in. So if you separate them, you can get more volume without sounding like crap. Hope that answers your question."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1zimlq | why countries like japan read from right to left, but other countries like france or germany read from left to right | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zimlq/eli5_why_countries_like_japan_read_from_right_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cftzvl5",
"cfu3f1a"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When making a script there needs to be a predictable direction of reading, but what direction you choose is more or less arbitrary. The creators of those scripts simply chose different directions. Other scripts exist that use other directions; many Asian languages are [traditionally read in columns of characters top to bottom, then you read the columns from right to left](_URL_1_), although Western influence has made horizontal writing more common. Greek and Latin were sometimes written [boustrophedon](_URL_0_), where you alternate between left-to-right and right-to-left.",
"Just FYI; modern Japanese is written left to right as us westerners are used to, except for in books and manga where it's written top to bottom, right to left."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_and_vertical_writing_in_East_Asian_scripts"
],
[]
] |
||
58d1vy | what impact does all the chemicals used in clothes washing liquid have on the environment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58d1vy/eli5_what_impact_does_all_the_chemicals_used_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8zgep2",
"d8zo9wg",
"d8zpn14",
"d8zrnkg",
"d8zrnlx",
"d8zrzt5",
"d8zveva"
],
"score": [
274,
13,
85,
9,
3,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"They are a surfactants and they are toxic to fish and other aquatic life, plants etc. \n\nPer the NIH:\n\nMost surfactants are readily biodegradable and their amount is greatly reduced with secondary treatment in wastewater treatment plants. The highest concern is the release of untreated wastewater or wastewater that has undergone primary treatment alone. The discharge of wastewater polluted with massive quantities of surfactants could have serious effects on the ecosystem. Future studies of surfactant toxicities and biodegradation are necessary to withdraw highly toxic and non-biodegradable compounds from commercial use and replace them with more environmentally friendly ones.\n\nhere is a study: _URL_0_",
"The biggest impact in laundry soap was the use of phosphates that encouraged the growth of organisms in the waste water stream. They have been replaced in most detergents by other compounds. ",
"In our naïve past, laundry detergents included the chemical trisodium phosphate (TSP). It's a very cool molecule in terms of cleaning; it converts fat/oil into soap. So fat/oil stains are rinsed out with the water. As it turns out the TSP does not really get into soil or air; it just stays in the water. Algae can feed on it (they like phosphates), so high concentrations of TSP in water can cause massive algae blooms. Algae consumes oxygen (like animals), so algae-thick water becomes too low in oxygen to support other life; and all the fish float to the surface and wash up on shore. \n\nTSP is no longer used in laundry detergent, but the memory/knowledge of what the TSP-based detergents can do helps to tarnish the image of modern detergents.\n\nEdit: Tri Sodium Phosphate TSP (was STP)",
"Many wash detergents had phosphates which were used as fabric softeners. Many countries have banned their use or required a reduction in phosphates in consumer detergents.\n\nThe reason phosphates are bad is that many lakes and rivers are already high in nitrogen from fertilizer run off and sewage. (Sorry I can't remember which human activity adds potassium to rivers) Nitrogen, potassium and phosphates are the key ingredients to encourage plant growth, especially [algae](_URL_0_).\n\nSo with these massive algae blooms, the algae blocks the sun from reaching the plants on river bottom. So the aquatic plants that many other fish, insects etc depend on die. Worse though, some algae also create toxins that are bad for the fish and mollusks. \n\nFinally when the algae dies, it sinks to the bottom and rots. The bacteria that feed on the rotting algae reduce the oxygen levels in the water, further killing life in the water.",
"They're just surfactants, the make water wetter and disperse particles. They're all biodegradable nowadays and they have maximum concentration rates that are like 1 part per thousand for the most common ones. Actually surfactants are commonly used as wetting agents in agriculture so that stuff is intentionally put into the environment frequently. It needs to be reapplied regularly because of how fast it does get broken down. Dow also has some newer eco surfactants that are becoming popular for industrial use because the breakdown is even faster than what is available to the general public.",
"I know this is not part of the question as it was specifically about detergent. But another source of water pollution that is argueably as bad as the detergents themselves is the synthetic fibers that so many fabrics are made of. Many of the things we wear and buy are made pf non biodegradable synthetic fibers, so every time you wash that polyester shirt a bunch of the fibers wash out of it and down the drain. so washing a synthetic fabric is basically like shredding a platic bottle into microscopic pieces and dumping down the sink. \n\nJust another thing to consider when buying fabric products, eventually its going to get thrown away, so cotton, natural latex, wool, jute, hemp etc will all biodegrade rather quickly, while a polyester shirt may take 300 years to biodegrade, and it doesnt really biodegrade like natural fibers will, it just breaks down into smaller pieces of itself and persists in the environment. ",
"So what's the best alternative to environmentally harmful chemicals?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304415700000137"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xi55e | why does food smell stronger when further away? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xi55e/eli5why_does_food_smell_stronger_when_further_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp0bbg8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. However, after smelling anything for an extended period of time (such as sitting over a plate of food) your sense of smell gradually becomes less sensitized to it. The evolutionary advantage to this is that you are more likely to notice a newly introduced smell if your attention isn't being wasted on something you already know about."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3timeq | if it's so seemingly easy to target daesh infrastructure and priority targets, and destroy them as russia and the u.s. have done, why is it not done more often and on a larger scale? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3timeq/eli5_if_its_so_seemingly_easy_to_target_daesh/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx6hjdu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"how much is your safety and PR cost?\n\na bombing mission by a piloted plane costs at least $1mil. \n\nback when we were still actively shooting at al qaeda, it cost us $250,000 to send a cruise missile to kill a bunch of camels and tents."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4fpse9 | why do we lie to ourselves? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fpse9/eli5why_do_we_lie_to_ourselves/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2ax7zj",
"d2axbmr"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's a natural thing to comfort oneself to reduce stress build-up.\n\nOften this can lead to mental breakdowns or even worse stress build-up if the problem is not addressed, but in the vast majority of cases, telling yourself that \"its fine it'll work out\" allows oneself to take a breather from their emotions are try a new perspective.",
"One of Robert Trivers's (evolutionary biologist) greatest contribution to evolutionary psychology is the [adaptation of self-deception](_URL_0_). \n\nIf lying is evolutionary beneficial, the best liar would be someone who believes his own lies. \n\n > If... deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray — by the subtle signs of self-knowledge — the deception being practiced.' Thus, 'the conventional view that natural selection favors nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naive view of mental evolution. -- **Trivers**"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21288379"
]
] |
||
1xm9wd | why is indigo no longer included on the color spectrum? and why was it there in the first place? | I've just started this section is physics and my teacher didn't know why Indigo wasn't on the spectrum any more.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xm9wd/eli5_why_is_indigo_no_longer_included_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfcldiu"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You can put it on if you want. I mean, we chose the color spectrum, there's no reason we can't add or subtract colors as we feel.\n\nThe reason it isn't on anymore is that it's really hard to tell indigo apart from blue and violet because we don't see that range of colors very well. If I showed you the [color spectrum](_URL_0_), you'd have a pretty hard time justifying mooshing something in between blue and violet.\n\nOriginally, Newton called what we would call \"cyan\" or \"blue-green\" blue, and what we would call \"blue\" \"indigo.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/coordchem/spectrum.jpg"
]
] |
|
7ziyxe | what engineering/design feature prevents every car from allowing air to flow from the front defrosters and forward(face) vents at the same time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ziyxe/eli5_what_engineeringdesign_feature_prevents/ | {
"a_id": [
"duoeisn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty much a shared duct between the front vents and the defroster, and a flap that redirects air depending on its' angle.\n\nIn some cars, there are options to enable all three, but for a lot of people this isn't desirable; for some dry hot air in the face causes drowsiness and dry eyes, so even if my windows aren't foggy in the winter, I'll err for defroster or defroster/feet rather than any use of the face vents."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1rqj9o | how is being 'hurt' during sex a turn on? | I did search in this sub but couldn't find an answer. My apologies if it's been answered.
I just don't get it the connection between bondage/dominance/submission/flogging and sex. That is I know just the fairly mainstream stuff. People want to be urinated on. Or worse. I know the pain/pleasure receptors are close together but I sure know the difference.
Thanks for reading and I am looking forward to having a better understanding of this! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rqj9o/eli5how_is_being_hurt_during_sex_a_turn_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdpu7ds",
"cdpzek1"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There might be a psychological aspect, I know a friend of mine who's a sub absolutely loves the feeling of relinquishing control to someone else. The degradation part is harder to pin down, some people just like feeling 'dirty' or 'worthless'. I'm sure someone with a psych degree could give you a whole bunch more detailed info than this.\n\nPhysically, it's all to do with stimulation/overstimulation generating endorphins. You KNOW it hurts, but your brain is getting so much information from the existing sensations that the response is similar to that generated by pleasure.",
"Most people start out with a little pain - something simple like a spanking or pinching nipples. It's just another intense physical sensation to throw in with all the other sensations and feelings during sex. Getting flogged and cut and shit is something really extreme that people end up working toward as they keep chasing a bigger 'rush'.\n\nThe power stuff is a separate psychological thing - even though they often go hand in hand."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1aijrg | how does drinking diet coke make me fat if it has zero calories and is a liquid like water? | If you drink lots of water, isn't coke the same? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aijrg/eli5_how_does_drinking_diet_coke_make_me_fat_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8xq9yj",
"c8xqa0u",
"c8xqlfg",
"c8xrinf",
"c8xs7y3",
"c8xsf23"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
17,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically the artificial sweeteners in the diet coke simulate insulin and/or sugar in your body, making you crave more sugar. Thus you eat more of other kinds of sugar, like cookies, chips, all your favorite carbs and other \"unhealthy\" foods.",
"It does not make you fat? As you said it has zero calories, so you cannot gain weight from drinking it.",
"As /u/kuckbaby correctly notes, Diet Coke **will not** make you fat on its own. You saw yourself that it's got zero calories (or, rather, something like 0.1 of a calorie).\n\nThe concept, though, is that it *influences* your other food choices, so you're more likely to get sugary/oily things, and **those** products will make you fat.",
"It varies for different people.. some people are quite fine with artificial sweetners such as those in diet sodas.\n\nFor a lot of other people though, pretty much this is what goes down..\n\n\nYour body: \"Boy.. we need some energy\" \n\nYou: \"I want something sweet to drink but don't want sugar, ohh, diet soda!\" \n\n*gulp*\n\nYour brain: \"hey! the tongue just said something sweet is on the way, that means fuel is coming! Everyone!.. pancreas!... Fuel is on the way!!.. Increase insulin! Lets get this boat going!! Be ready to get this sugar(fuel) where it needs to be!\"\n\n(At this point if it was actual soda, as in sugar, your body would use it as fuel)\n\nBody: \"Um, all I am getting down here is soggy newspaper.. I can't use this as fuel\"\n\nBrain: \"Well, I already sent Insulin down to convert that sugar into fuel\" \n\nBody: \"Hey, wait! Stomach just reported carbohydrates from a hamburger bun, and fat from a hamburger!\"\n\nInsulin: \"Awesome! That bread is sugar! Lets use that as fuel!! Wait a second.. we have enough fuel to power the stations for a while.. better store the rest of that extra fuel. Use the carbohydrates(sugar) now, and put the fat into storage, in fact, put all the extra fuel into reserves\" \n\nSo, in a nutshell.. while the diet soda is not fattening or has sugar, your tastebuds can cause commands to the brain that it IS sugar because it is sweet, spiking an insulin response, and increasing your blood sugar turning that fuel (carbs) into fuel (glucose).\n\nIf you are further interested, this is why low carb diets such as Keto and Atkins work.\n\nYour body is a simple machine, right? Fuel is Fuel... well there are 3 different types of fuel (there may be more, please correct me if I am wrong) that your body uses... Glucose, which is broken down from sugar(remember carbs is broken down to sugar), Ketones which is broken down from fat, and alcohol.\n\nTypically, your body has a lot of fat storage, but uses Glucose to run. Glucose is like a fast burning fuel. Think like kindle in a fire. Burns fast.. it is NOW energy. This is why athletes carb up. Fat on the other hand is like big old logs. The same logs that are around your waist that may have came from sugar, carbs and fat in the anology I explained above.\n\nWhat a low low carb diet does is tells your body \"NO MORE GLUCOSE!\" no more \"NOW\" energy from the things you eat. So what does the body have to to? Needs to start burning those big ol' logs around your waist. If you ever had a campfire you know that the big logs are longer lasting, steady flames compared to a light stick that goes up in flames fast, then diminishes immediately. \n\nLow carb dieters still have to watch out for this insulin spike with artificial sweetners. You see them downing bacon burgers and extra cheese but no bun, but introduce a diet soda and a lot of times the brain is like \"WHOA! this shit needs to be taken care of NOW! Store that fuel!\"",
"There is mixed evidence if it does anything.\n\nSome studies show that artificial sweeteners increase appetite, others show they don't.\n\nI really wouldn't worry about it.",
"It isn't the diet coke that makes you fat, it has zero calories. It is everything else you eat. \nThe argument with diet soda is what the artificial sweetener does to your body. I won't comment on that because I don't understand it well enough. \nWhat I will say, if your going to drink soda, diet or regular, it probably doesn't matter what you drink seeing as they are both bad for you. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b25rgw | why don’t airlines make faster planes (more engines?) so flights are faster and there’s higher turnover? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b25rgw/eli5_why_dont_airlines_make_faster_planes_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiqe2a2",
"eiqe8a1",
"eiqfnyo",
"eiqgei1",
"eiqhciu"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They have to balance speed with fuel efficiency otherwise they wouldn't make a profit. That's why the Concord eventually went away, it was fast, but not efficient. ",
"Even todays planes do not fly at their top speed. They could be an hour faster over the ocean, but that would increase air drag and increase fuel consumption. Airlines would have to buy a lot more cerosine which would make them have lower turnovers.",
"_URL_0_\n\nI think he explains why they don't really well, it's not a long video don't worry :) ",
"Airlines today today fly about 85% the speed of sound. As soon as you start to fly closer to the speed of sound and beyond, the air starts to behave very differently than before, namely, shock-waves start to form. Once this happens, the drag starts to increase dramatically. More drag means you need more thrust to overcome it, so you need to use more fuel, and fuel is very expensive. \n\nIf you want to mitigate the increase of drag due to transonic and supersonic effects, you have to radically alter the design of your aircraft (compare the Concorde to the Boeing 737 to see what I mean). This means that you've now designed a plane that can fly reasonably efficiently at supersonic speeds, but is horribly inefficient at subsonic speeds. Since your plane has to fly subsonic to take-off, climb out to an altitude where it can fly supersonic, and land, the plane burns even more fuel.\n\nIn addition to this, the plane cannot fly supersonic over land without creating harmful sonic booms on the ground below. This limits the number of routes that an airline can operate a supersonic aircraft at to oceanic flights only.\n\nMore fuel = higher costs, which means a more expensive ticket. There's only so much people are willing to pay to get to their destination faster. For most people, 6 hours to cross the Atlantic is \"good enough\". This was demonstrated by the Concorde. Even in it's hay-day, it operated on razer thin profit margins. With rising costs of fuel, and more and more efficient subsonic airlines, it couldn't make it's operators money any more, and was retired. ",
"They did make faster planes. They were called Concords. Fuel prices were too high for them to be efficient and higher turnover rates simply could not compensate. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/n1QEj09Pe6k"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1uph2o | why do i want karma, achievements and xp, when i know they are worth nothing? | Why do I want, and pursue, Reddit-karma, achievements in games and XP/Bagdes in Steam? And why do I sometimes envy those who have it?
I spend time (and sometimes money) on getting more of these... Even though I know full and well that they are worth nothing! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uph2o/eli5_why_do_i_want_karma_achievements_and_xp_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceke7hr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Our brains are wired to put in effort for a reward. When we get the reward, we get a little bit of a euphoric rush and want to do more to experience that feeling again. Going for bigger goals in life like say, getting a PHD will make you feel more accomplished and the feeling will last longer, but when your mind compares that lengthy goal to the goal of getting an achievement in a game, human nature tends to go for the quick fix. \n\nYou can get an upvote on reddit for a little amount of effort, while getting the PHD will take a lot longer. Our minds tend to choose the action that takes less time to complete or is more associated with the \"in the now\" moment as opposed to goals that take longer, but have more beneficial outcomes to them. The trick is not to let yourself be tempted by false reward systems like this and to pursue better goals. A lot of human drive has been taken away because of the introduction of video games/social media into the mainstream world. Studies show that people are not as motivated as they used to be and I believe the aforementioned points I've mentioned are part of the reason why. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1lauxn | how is electricity consumed, if it's only electrons that move from point a to b. i can't understand why we burn electricity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lauxn/how_is_electricity_consumed_if_its_only_electrons/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbxdyfq",
"cbxdys2",
"cbxe0nt",
"cbxe1az",
"cbxe240"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
5,
2,
25
],
"text": [
"Long story short: It transforms into heat or kinetic energy. Like if you were driving really fast and you slammed on the brakes, you've turned the motion of your car into heat on the pavement. Just the same, when you hook up a battery to a light, it transforms the electrons into photons and shoots them out really fast.",
"We don't burn electricity so much as we turn its energy into other forms. Think about a lightbulb- they give off a lot of electricity energy as heat. No circuit is perfectly insulated, so usable electricity does get depleted.",
"Think of a river. Water flows from uphill to downhill, but it isn't actually consumed, and if you still a waterwheel in there, you can make it do work.\n\nThat is roughly how electricity works. We move electrons around, and make them do work as they go by.",
"We don't, that is just a slang term.\n\n\nPower plants (through a variety of different means) convert various forms of power into mechanical energy, which spins generators, which create massive electron-deficiencies (ie: voltage) which cause electrons to get sucked towards them from points of grounding (just like clouds and lightning). \n\n\nEn route from said grounding to the power plant, electrons pass through things like appliances that you have plugged into the wall, providing the energy to power them.",
"It has to do with potential energy. \n\nIf I hold an apple up in the air, that apple has potential energy because it will fall if I drop it, and the act of falling produces a force.\n\nElectricity is similar, but the energy comes from electrical charge instead of gravity. An electron is a negatively charged particle. Negative particles are pushed away from other negatively charged particles and are attracted to positively charged particles.\n In a power supply, electrons start off at a negatively charged point (the source of the electrons) and move towards a positively charged point (an electron acceptor). \n\nIt is not the electron itself that produces the energy, but it is the movement of electrons that produces energy. Just like the apple, it produces no energy if I just hold it there, it only produces energy by moving from a point of high potential energy (holding it high in the air) to a point of low potential energy (the ground). Once the electron has moved from the negative charge to the positive charge, it has lost its potential energy.\n\nEdit: Just thought I would add, the electric potential energy is measured in Volts. So the voltage on a battery refers to the difference in energy between the negative and positive ends."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1cd4a9 | why linux-based os are supposedly less susceptible to virii than windows? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cd4a9/eli5_why_linuxbased_os_are_supposedly_less/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9fcc4r",
"c9fch7y"
],
"score": [
2,
11
],
"text": [
"If you write viruses for a living, and 99% of the world uses windows while and 1% uses linux, which operating system are you going to go after?",
"two important reasons\n\nFirst of all there are just fewer viruses are programmed that target Linux. this isn't so much a feature of Linux itself being more secure, just a consequence of it being less attractive for criminals to try and attack. There are more Windows systems in the world than Linux systems. Its a bigger target.\n\nSecond, Linux has a different user permissions and security model than Windows. In Linux all of the most important commands require permission from a special user named _root_. in a properly configured system _root_ isn't actually an account belonging to a particular human, its an account reserved for system level operations (like permanently installing new programs, making permanent changes to system memory resources, and accessing the operating system kernel). \n\nA human user will have their own account and can gain temporary permission to act as if they are _root_ if necessary, but activating that temporary permission requires entering a password. If the virus program doesn't have the password to gain _root_ permission then it just won't be able to do much damage. This isn't to say that there aren't Linux exploits and security vulnerabilities, just that the way the system is designed is pretty good at containing the potential damage that can be done from a compromised user. As long as the password for _root_ is secure the system should be able to recover from a virus pretty easily, with the worst consequence being some possible loss of specific user account data, but not a corruption of the whole system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2g73ow | what's the point of the u.n. if the u.s. is going to lead every conflict/humanitarian aid/war? | I don't understand why the US gets involved as much as it does when the UNITED NATIONS exists. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g73ow/eli5whats_the_point_of_the_un_if_the_us_is_going/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckg8fbw",
"ckg8ky1",
"ckg8t8s",
"ckg9j6d",
"ckggznb",
"ckgifww",
"ckgmcei"
],
"score": [
31,
5,
19,
4,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the UN and it's resolutions are largely toothless. It's an international body with no real authority to make anyone do anything.\n\nPeople/Countries will follow along though after someone takes up leadership. So the US as the premiere military and economic power in the world assumes this role.",
"Because they don't. \n\nOff the top of my head the USA wasn't a big player in the UNAMIR mission led by a Canadian and largely composed of Canadian and Belgian troops. UNSTAMIH is being headed by the Brazilians. \n\nAdditionally Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Ireland, Germany, Finland, the UK, Austria and Canada [all provided more aid money per capita - in that order - than the USA in 2004.](_URL_0_)\n\nMaybe you only hear about American efforts because that's all that shows up on American news. ",
"The US has the largest military and the most resources. As far as military, getting actively involved in other nations' biznazz allows the US to maintain posts in other countries. This is usually profitable for both the US and the host country (look at Germany), in that the US is able to have a solid foothold and boots on the ground and the host country has an increase in money flowing in and added security from other nations and natural disasters. The US often provides training and equipment for the host nation military as well, improving their ability to field effective troops.\n\nThe UN's four main goals are to promote world peace, develop friendly relations among nations, promote social progress, and better living conditions. The US has the capability deploy military and resources as needed, much more so than the majority of other nations. The US's actions ideally are beneficial to all of the above.\n\nI'd also like to believe that the UN serves as a kind of power check for the US. No single country can stand against the US, but countries can band together to see to their needs.\n\nThe quality of life part of the UN's goals is a large part; much of what the UN does is attempt to improve and standardize medical, food, and environmental practices while also pushing for gender equality, nuclear disarmament, human rights, and refugee assistance.\n\nThey do more stuff, but I'm not all that well versed in the UN. Most of this is conjecture/shit I heard before, with some bits taken from _URL_0_",
"The thing is the UN works to unite. US, China and Russia can all veto so any disagreement can stop everything. But its purpose is to maintain dialogue so when some understanding can be reached it can be made binding by all parties. Its not there to justify whatever our western ideals and beliefs tell us is the thing to do but to find consensus.",
"Truth be told the US is the world's only superpower at present, especially militarily and economically. Projections estimate it'll remain that way for 15-20 years until we are seriously challenged. Like it or not the UN is a pawn of the US not the other way around. Anything we can get them to do for us militarily or economically is costs we don't have to partake in ourselves. For the most part, especially with the economic departments of the UN decision making is proportional to the level of financial commitment. If we provide 51% (a majority) of the funding we have a say in 100% of where the dollars go. \n",
"A relevant passage from a book I read recently: *War* by Gwynne Dyer:\n\n\"It’s never been hard to persuade small and middle sized countries to sign up for a project to ban war: they had little to gain by war and a great deal to lose if the great powers decided to expand at their expense. Getting the great powers to sign up to the same rules was a lot harder, because they were being asked to give up a tool, military power, that often let them get their way in the world. [...] There had to be a deal to get them over this hurdle, and it was the device of the veto – a get out of jail free card that allowed each great power to prevent the UN from ever taking action against it.\"\n\nThe U.N. is inherently dysfunctional and for this reason it doesn't usually lead any sort of substantive action. The US, on the other hand is very able and willing to lead, especially militarily, when it's called for, and even when it's not. Especially if their economic interests are threatened. ",
"One of the major goals of the UN is to provide a forum for nations to talk to each other multilaterally, so at the very least everyone is on the same page about what each party wants and that we don't have wars because of miscommunication and misunderstanding. By that token it's done very well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html"
],
[
"http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
nil5y | how has descartes's "cogito ergo sum" has been critiqued? | I was taking a philosophy class a few years ago and while studying Descarte, my professor said that his argument is not longer valid, but never went to explain the arguments that "disproved" it. Anyone care to share some insight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nil5y/eli5_how_has_descartess_cogito_ergo_sum_has_been/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3ggz0s",
"c39dsoc",
"c39eqj3",
"c39fnb1",
"c39ib45",
"c39dsoc",
"c39eqj3",
"c39fnb1",
"c39ib45"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
6,
2,
2,
7,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some (Kant, I think) have objected to the cogito by pointing out that Descartes erroneously assumes it to be exhaustive. Basically, for Descartes the 'I think therefore I am' idea is used to prove that his essence or nature is as a 'thinking thing' (sum res cogitans). Kant's objection is that it is quite possible for one's essence to be something of which we are unaware or even incapable of knowing. \n\nAs far as I am aware though, the logical properties of the cogito are unique in that they are self-confirming and so it will be difficult to refute in its entirety; Descartes must be a thinking thing based on logic alone and so not even Kant can deny this.\n\nPerhaps your professor was referring to Descartes arguments as a whole for his two substance dualism? This is where the cogito leads him and there are a number of flaws in these arguments (such as being unable to explain mental causation, etc).\n\n",
"[Have a comic!](_URL_0_)",
"I don't have a good answer, but I would point you in the direction of Eastern philosophy, i.e., schools of thought that question the very nature of existence and what it means to be. \n\nFrom the Tibetan Book of the Dead:\n\"[Decartes] found that he could find nothing at the point of origin of thought. He erroneously asserted that it was because a subject could not be an object. And he then went wild and said that this subject, this one thing he could not find, demonstrate, establish in any way, was the one thing he could be foundationally certain of! He could doubt everything, but he could not doubt that he doubted! So: I think, therefore I am. Only the laziest Buddhist philosopher would make such a statement.\n\n\"Not making his mistake, we look nakedly and see nothing established there as a fixed thing in itself. Remember, this is in our seeing itself. We cannot even see anything substantial behind the seeing of nothing. We turn again and again, whirling around pointing to the point of origin of the pointing. Our looking becomes transparent to itself. Nothing is to be seen as independent or objective. And this transparency spreads infinitely. Descartes was right, in one way: the subjective cannot be found. But, subject gone, how can objects remain substantial? A subjectivity that cannot find itself cannot indulge in finding objects out of a sense of certainty in itself. Subjectivity and objectivity both dissolve under penetrating observation of this kind, and all that remains is free, clear transparency.\"\n\nAgain, this is pretty deep, and I'm not even close to fully understanding it, but I think part of the gist against Decartes' argument lies in his assumption of subject-object duality. To poke holes in his statement you have to question what \"I\" means and question what \"am\" means. \n\nAs a side note, I wouldn't recommend this to a five year old, but certain psychedelic drugs have a way of stimulating the dissolution of things we take for granted like subject-object duality and the concept of self, and while they should not be abused at all, they can be very enlightening.",
"Coming at the problem a different way, Lacanian thought would argue that the *I* isn't a solid base upon which a person can rest. In short, the *I* is a constantly shifting amalgamation of all a person experiences, lacks, thinks, thinks he experiences, thinks he lacks, etc. So to say, \"I am,\" isn't really wrong in this sense. It's just not as useful a base as one would like for it to be.\n\n\nAll that being said, your philosophy teacher was likely referring to something different. I don't believe Lacan figures as prominently in philosophy as he does in cultural studies.",
"You can find a good rundown by searching the latin phrase in Wikipedia. My favorite part:\n\n\"...Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.\"\n\nBasically, \"cogito\" implies the existence of \"I\" with no justification for it.",
"[Have a comic!](_URL_0_)",
"I don't have a good answer, but I would point you in the direction of Eastern philosophy, i.e., schools of thought that question the very nature of existence and what it means to be. \n\nFrom the Tibetan Book of the Dead:\n\"[Decartes] found that he could find nothing at the point of origin of thought. He erroneously asserted that it was because a subject could not be an object. And he then went wild and said that this subject, this one thing he could not find, demonstrate, establish in any way, was the one thing he could be foundationally certain of! He could doubt everything, but he could not doubt that he doubted! So: I think, therefore I am. Only the laziest Buddhist philosopher would make such a statement.\n\n\"Not making his mistake, we look nakedly and see nothing established there as a fixed thing in itself. Remember, this is in our seeing itself. We cannot even see anything substantial behind the seeing of nothing. We turn again and again, whirling around pointing to the point of origin of the pointing. Our looking becomes transparent to itself. Nothing is to be seen as independent or objective. And this transparency spreads infinitely. Descartes was right, in one way: the subjective cannot be found. But, subject gone, how can objects remain substantial? A subjectivity that cannot find itself cannot indulge in finding objects out of a sense of certainty in itself. Subjectivity and objectivity both dissolve under penetrating observation of this kind, and all that remains is free, clear transparency.\"\n\nAgain, this is pretty deep, and I'm not even close to fully understanding it, but I think part of the gist against Decartes' argument lies in his assumption of subject-object duality. To poke holes in his statement you have to question what \"I\" means and question what \"am\" means. \n\nAs a side note, I wouldn't recommend this to a five year old, but certain psychedelic drugs have a way of stimulating the dissolution of things we take for granted like subject-object duality and the concept of self, and while they should not be abused at all, they can be very enlightening.",
"Coming at the problem a different way, Lacanian thought would argue that the *I* isn't a solid base upon which a person can rest. In short, the *I* is a constantly shifting amalgamation of all a person experiences, lacks, thinks, thinks he experiences, thinks he lacks, etc. So to say, \"I am,\" isn't really wrong in this sense. It's just not as useful a base as one would like for it to be.\n\n\nAll that being said, your philosophy teacher was likely referring to something different. I don't believe Lacan figures as prominently in philosophy as he does in cultural studies.",
"You can find a good rundown by searching the latin phrase in Wikipedia. My favorite part:\n\n\"...Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.\"\n\nBasically, \"cogito\" implies the existence of \"I\" with no justification for it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1005"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1005"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fy9hq | how is 401k a retirement "plan" and not a gamble? | To me it seems like 401k is a gamble on later funds and not an actual plan. How did this become ok with everyone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fy9hq/eli5_how_is_401k_a_retirement_plan_and_not_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckdv4wm",
"ckdv5j7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"How is it a gamble? 401k plans usually have you infest in funds etc that spread out any risk associated with the stock market. Over the life of the stock market you can basically expect 10% returns. Sure if everything goes to crap you could still lose money but if it was that bad then the world has bigger problems. So sure there is risk involved but it is very very small. 401k plans tend to be a great form of investing money.",
"The stock market is tied very directly to the economy. Over the long term, so long as the economy goes up, the stock market will track it, and also increase in value.\n\nIf you invest solely in a fund that expects to match and index (like the Dow), you would expect an investment to grow similarly to [this curve](_URL_0_): the history of the market. While there are very clear fluctuations, an investor who started in the 80's, perhaps when they turned 30, and is just now taking the money out as they begin to retire, would have made quite a large ROI during that period."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.fedprimerate.com/dow-jones-industrial-average-djia-history.gif"
]
] |
|
3otqev | how do store security systems know that you've paid? | What I mean is the metal bars (that are in libraries, grocery stores, department stores ect), when you walk past them and haven't purchased the item an alarm rings out, as to ward off shoplifters. But when you've legally purchased the item it lets you through. How does that work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3otqev/eli5_how_do_store_security_systems_know_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw0dzdi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nEasier to just link to another thread. Use the search next time, I answered almost the exact same question a few hours ago."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3os1om/eli5_how_do_shoplift_detectors_work/"
]
] |
|
1g2l6x | why do so many pharmaceuticals cure/help one thing, but cause an equal or worse effect? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g2l6x/why_do_so_many_pharmaceuticals_curehelp_one_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cag50yj",
"cag6cns"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"For over-the-counter medicine the adverse effects are minor or rare.\n\nDrugs that are used to treat serious illnesses might have large risks, but since the alternative is worse (ie. death) doctors are willing to prescribe it.",
"A lot of different systems in the body involve interactions between the same or similar molecules. When you introduce new molecules from a drug, there's a chance that the drug will affect more pathways than just the target it's supposed to affect. Likewise, if a drug changes the environment of the body (e.g. lowering blood pressure, decreasing cholesterol, lowering levels of uric acid, etc.), the change can lead to a series of other changes within the body. In other words, whenever you use a drug to change the human body, it's possible that multiple aspects of the body will be affected.\n\nWhy are drug companies allowed to sell drugs with side effects? As I explained, any good drug has some chance of causing undesirable effects, so it wouldn't make sense to ban everything with risks. However, there is a government agency (at least in the US) called the Food & Drug Administration. It requires that drugs be tested to figure out if they are safe. Based on how well the drug cures patients, how severe the side effects are, and how common side affects are, the FDA decides if the benefits outweigh the costs. In short, if a drug is available for sale, that means that an agency determined that the bad effects aren't common enough and bad enough to justify prohibiting the sale of the drug. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7179yf | i live in mexico city. today's 7.1 earthquake felt massively stronger than the 8.2 earthquake two weeks ago. how can this be? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7179yf/eli5_i_live_in_mexico_city_todays_71_earthquake/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn8monv",
"dn8mpkf",
"dn8n57o"
],
"score": [
4,
20,
5
],
"text": [
"Mexico City is built \"effectively\" on quicksand type material not hard granite.\n\nThe 8.1 earthquake was 400~ miles away from the city centre, the 7.1 was 75~miles away.\n\nit would feel more intense near the epicentre.",
"The most recent quake was much closer to Mexico City than the one last week.\n\n[Here's a map of last weeks quake](_URL_1_).\n\n[Here's a map of the quake today](_URL_0_).",
"Today's earthquake was centered very close to Mexico City (about 100 miles), whereas the 8.2 quake from before was about 450 miles away. Generally, the farther away from a quake you are, the weaker it will feel. As far as I'm aware though, there is no formula that will tell you exactly how much weaker it will be because it depends on the whole geography of the area."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ar20#map",
"https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ahv0#map"
],
[]
] |
||
crvkuf | i'll say right off the bat i am gen x. but i talk to younger guys at work about millennials. they always are upset to find out that they are millennials. who comes up with these and what do they mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/crvkuf/eli5ill_say_right_off_the_bat_i_am_gen_x_but_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"ex9wlp8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As I understand your question, and the topic, groupings like Silent Generation, Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Y, and Gen Z were all created to give social scientists a way to compare groups of people to each other. It's a soft science, as you can't put people in labs and do controlled tests, but you can measure trends and generalize.\n\nAlso, because it's a soft science, the boundaries of each group are fluid and debated. But again, generally speaking, each grouping is about 10-15 years removed from the one before it (enough time for that generation to have kids and for them to come of age).\n\nI would imagine your coworkers are upset because Millennials have become the whipping boys, targets of largely Boomer-written editorials who are oblivious to the reasons why their way of life is changing/eroding away."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
28zhfk | why the usa doesn't have an official language? | From Wiki: "The United States does not have a national official language; nevertheless, English (specifically American English) is the primary language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements.."
- What are the so-called "negatives" of adopting English/American English as the official language? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28zhfk/eli5_why_the_usa_doesnt_have_an_official_language/ | {
"a_id": [
"cifyb5j",
"cig2rfb",
"cig66j9"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We're a nation of immigrants, made stronger by the diversity of our people. There's no need to make an official language - it would mostly serve to alienate or oppress non-english speakers. (Especially pointless since English basically is, already, the de facto official language.)",
"it would result in unnecessary legislation, oversight and expense. ",
"They are a nation founded by immigrants, built by immigrants, and defined by immigrants.\n\nThis makes me think, why does Canada have an official language if we are founded/built/defined by immigrants."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
km1zc | how do neurons work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/km1zc/eli5_how_do_neurons_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2ldwwl",
"c2ldwwl"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"There are three main parts to a neuron. The dendrites are responsible for receiving signals from other neurons. These are often large, branching structures with many connections, but sometimes only receive input from a few other neurons. There is also the soma, or cell body, which is responsible for keeping the cell alive (with the machinery to make proteins and the energy needed for a cell). The final part is the axon, which is the part that communicates to other cells. This is a long, straight section of the cell that may or may not branch at the end to communicate to multiple cells.\n\nAt the dendrites, input is received from other cells which causes a change in the electric charge of the soma, and this change can make the cell more or less likely to fire, as it makes the charge of the soma closer or farther from what is necessary to fire. If a certain electric potential is received (enough input telling it to fire) the neuron will fire, which causes the electric charge to travel down the axon.\n\nThe axons terminate at synapses, which are gaps between the nerve cell and the cell it wants to communicate to, which can be muscle cells or other neurons. When the action potential reaches the end of the axons, it triggers the release of certain chemicals into the synapses. These chemicals can do certain things depending on the cell they reach. If a nerve cell, like the signals going into the nerve cell, they will tell the cell either to fire more or less. If they fire on a muscle cell, it will cause the muscle to contract (via a much more complex mechanism).\n\nI hope that was simple enough. The biochemistry of neurons isn't really a topic that lends itself to many metaphors simple enough for a 5 year old. Let me know if anything was too complex/confusing.\n\nSource: Majoring in biochemistry",
"There are three main parts to a neuron. The dendrites are responsible for receiving signals from other neurons. These are often large, branching structures with many connections, but sometimes only receive input from a few other neurons. There is also the soma, or cell body, which is responsible for keeping the cell alive (with the machinery to make proteins and the energy needed for a cell). The final part is the axon, which is the part that communicates to other cells. This is a long, straight section of the cell that may or may not branch at the end to communicate to multiple cells.\n\nAt the dendrites, input is received from other cells which causes a change in the electric charge of the soma, and this change can make the cell more or less likely to fire, as it makes the charge of the soma closer or farther from what is necessary to fire. If a certain electric potential is received (enough input telling it to fire) the neuron will fire, which causes the electric charge to travel down the axon.\n\nThe axons terminate at synapses, which are gaps between the nerve cell and the cell it wants to communicate to, which can be muscle cells or other neurons. When the action potential reaches the end of the axons, it triggers the release of certain chemicals into the synapses. These chemicals can do certain things depending on the cell they reach. If a nerve cell, like the signals going into the nerve cell, they will tell the cell either to fire more or less. If they fire on a muscle cell, it will cause the muscle to contract (via a much more complex mechanism).\n\nI hope that was simple enough. The biochemistry of neurons isn't really a topic that lends itself to many metaphors simple enough for a 5 year old. Let me know if anything was too complex/confusing.\n\nSource: Majoring in biochemistry"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2z1z80 | why are girl scout cookies not produced year round? | Edit: Thanks for all the responses guys! I feel really stupid now lol. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z1z80/eli5_why_are_girl_scout_cookies_not_produced_year/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpeyfn2",
"cpeygkx",
"cpeyjxw",
"cpeyvky",
"cpezxed",
"cpf2v1f",
"cpf5r21",
"cpf6fhj"
],
"score": [
35,
26,
12,
3,
8,
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because they make more money selling it once a year ",
"Supply and demand my man, supply and demand. \n\nLet the demand build up enough and those mini lady entrepreneurs can cash in on that sweet, sweet demand. ",
"So the girls don't have to sell them year-round? :-)\n\nBut actually Keebler's makes some killer knockoffs: Grasshoppers (Thin Mints) and Coconut Dreams (Samoas) that you can get year-round and save a dollar or two per box.",
"It's all about supply and demand. By keeping the supply low, they artificially drive up the demand. This is why they can charge ludicrous amounts for cookies and people still buy them year after year. Plus they have cute little sales staff that work for free. ",
"Keebler makes them year round if you're in the mood",
"They're a fundraiser for Girl Scouts. Since you can't hire 12 year olds as full time salesmen, they only do it once a year. If they were made full time and sold in stores, they would no longer be any good as a fundraiser for a youth organization. They would just be another cookie on the shelf. ",
"They sell them at different times of the year in different parts of the country. That way, the factory makes the cookies all year but distribution is spread out. Less inventory to keep on hand. ",
"Beacause the troop leaders would off themselves. So would the cookie mom/dad. I'm a troop leader. I hate cookie sales. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
37jdbf | if we can live without food for much longer than we can live without water, why does our body react to hunger more severely? | It hurts when we're hungry, but when we're thirsty, the body seems to send much subtler messages.
Granted, I've never been close to death from starvation or dehydration, so I do not know how it feels on the extreme ends of each spectrum. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37jdbf/eli5_if_we_can_live_without_food_for_much_longer/ | {
"a_id": [
"crn64u6"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I think because water is so much more important you have spent your entire life making sure to never get thirsty enough for it to be a big deal. Next time you are actually thirsty instead of drinking (or eating anything with water in it), just go another 2 hours, you will be in agony. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3x7rd5 | how can the government pass law (a) that has an other law(b) attached to it that have nothing to do with law (a) how/why is that possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x7rd5/eli5how_can_the_government_pass_law_a_that_has_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy27h2g",
"cy27hxd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"there are no limits on what caan go into a bill.\n\nas long as you can get them to pass and scotus doesnt ultimately declare any part of it unconstitutional.\n\nThen later you will see a political smear ad saying that so & so voted no to medical treatment for our troops! nevermind whatever other pork the bill had included that was the real motivation behind a bill.",
"This is asked very often, particularly in the last few days.\n\nEssentially the answer is because that's how Congress works, that it's not uncommon, and that the only people that can stop this kind of thing are Congress."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
26wd17 | if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, why don't things like newton's cradle just keep moving forever? | A dumb question, yes, but I'd like to hear a scientific explanation to this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26wd17/eli5_if_every_action_has_an_equal_and_opposite/ | {
"a_id": [
"chv3czt",
"chv3elm"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"In a perfect vaccum with no friction or other forces working against it it would. But here on Earth you have things like air resistance, friction, gravity, etc. all playing their parts that will eventually bring it to a stop.",
"Because there's energy lost.\n\nAir resistance is one.\n\nThe impact of the balls isn't totally elastic. Some of the kinetic energy is converted to heat (and also moving the air around the impact ball causing sound!)\n\nThe hinges are also not 100%. Some resistance is converted via friction to heat"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
am34ch | who decides how much a person can sue another person or company for, and how do the payouts get so big? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/am34ch/eli5_who_decides_how_much_a_person_can_sue/ | {
"a_id": [
"efixyft"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Usually they are based on some sort of “actual” damage— though this could be very difficult to figure out. An example where things get hazy are lawsuits over copyright infringement. The company might say that a file sharer allowed 1 million downloads of a movie, and the movie sells for $10, therefore the file sharer robbed them of $10 million of movie sales. That’s a clear number based on the actual facts (number of downloads and price of the movie). But of course the person they are accusing would dispute that claim in a number of ways (not all downloads were separate people/households, very few of them would have purchased the movie otherwise, etc). \n\nLaws *sometimes* allow for treble damages— if you effectively “rob” somebody of $100 you need to repay them $300– or specific amounts for various different issues. \n\nHow would “actual” damages come into play here? Well there’s certainly some amount for distress and general violation of the man’s civil rights, and that’s much harder to figure out an exact number for. But if he missed work due to the arrest, an “actual” damage could be for his pay on those missed days. Did he lose his job because of the arrest (or just because of absence from work as a result of it)? Then you could *argue* the damages are years and years of pay. Of course he can get another job or get his job back but, would this incident impact his ability to find the same type of work at the same rate of pay? Then the damages really could be many years of his salary.\n\nThere are also concepts like “intentional infliction of emotional distress” that don’t come into play too often, but can result in big judgements of it turns out that somebody was really trying to harass and harm you.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2on1ys | visual snow (static like vision) - is it normal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2on1ys/eli5_visual_snow_static_like_vision_is_it_normal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmonmau",
"cmonn6c",
"cmonv7o"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Perhaps a doc would be able to better help you out?",
"You might be seeing [Floaters](_URL_0_) than everyone have, but few people realize. You could also see shadows of white blood cells, that our brain is used to filter out, but are visible on very bright surfaces (or on bright blue sky). Apparently there are even more visual phenomena described in [wiki](_URL_1_).",
"Relax my friend. It is normal, a percentage of the population has it. It works especially in the dark. If you don't see it to the extent that you see it everytime in your daily life, there is nothing to worry. Seeing it in night vision is something many people experience. \n\nI believe the cause is this: Normally human eye is capable of seeing single photons, especially in nighy vision. Our brain filters these little signals to give a smoother vision. In some cases I guess the brain doesn't do that. So it is probable that you are seeing all the photons your eyes are detecting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entoptic_phenomenon"
],
[]
] |
||
1lx8jv | the rules of laundry? | I've known some of the rules but I don't know all of them or why they are rules | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lx8jv/eli5_the_rules_of_laundry/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc3om2z",
"cc3rejz"
],
"score": [
10,
8
],
"text": [
"Whites get washed hot, warm, or cold, hot if they're really quite dirty or you want to keep then super white. \n\nBright colors get washed warm or cold. \nDark colors get washed cold. \n\nThe reason for washing cold is to keep dyes in the fabric. \n\nSame with drying - If it's colored, don't use high heat. \n\nSome special fabrics need different care. The label usually says. Dry clean/hand wash/hang dry etc. \n\nBras should usually not be dried in the machine. They start to warp if they're abused too much. \n\nBleach should be used sparingly and only on whites. \n\nThat's all the basics I can think of...\n\nIron your work clothes!",
"Or do it my way; \"stuff as much as you can into the laundry machine, put it on cold/cold, done\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
d00wyr | how did people learn foreign languages in the old time, when there were no dictionaries or teaching books? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d00wyr/eli5_how_did_people_learn_foreign_languages_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ez4qdnj",
"ez4qm97",
"ez4s8ik",
"ez4sack",
"ez4stg0",
"ez548u9",
"ez55g9s",
"ez566qj",
"ez56kwq",
"ez57ls1",
"ez57vq3",
"ez58zo4",
"ez59b48",
"ez59h82",
"ez5adso",
"ez5b02j",
"ez5bm8g",
"ez5f5hk",
"ez5f7mq",
"ez5gc56",
"ez5grln",
"ez6r5vp"
],
"score": [
906,
2588,
180,
40,
13,
16,
51,
3,
34,
15,
2,
2,
177,
5,
38,
7,
11,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They interacted with people. You will be surprised how much you can learn, and how quickly, if you have no choice but to learn it.\n\nFor example, you travel across the border into Mexico, where they speak Spanish but not English, to sell knock-knacks. Only, no one knows Spanish where you came from, and there are no guidebooks.\n\nYou will eventually learn various words related to your wares, their money, and everyday life, just by talking with the locals for long enough. If you don't, you will find yourself lost, losing money from sales and unable to support yourself in a hostile land.",
"They had to work with native speakers or bilingual teachers. Hell, you can drop someone in a city of people who don't speak their language and given time and effort, they can puzzle out enough of the language to get about (although a teacher *really* helps there), learning with the speed of a dumb baby.",
"You can do this by yourself: just travel a few weeks in a foreign country and you'll start to pick up the local language.",
"I moved to a different country when I was much younger and learned by immersion , there were a lot of people who could speak English so when I got stuck I could get help.\nBecause I only heard the language I learned fast, within 6 months I could speak the language badly but get my point across.\n3 years later I would call myself bilingual\n\nYou learn much faster with immersion and don’t hear your mother tongue",
"How did you learn you native language? You could not read so dictionaries or teaching books was not used. So how did you do that?\n\nIt can be done the same way for a adult. It might be harder because of how the brain develop but the same way that a you learned you native language can be used to learn a new language.",
"[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nPeople learn just enough to get by with foreign people. A Pidgin is a simple hybrid language that allows two people to talk without learning the complex grammar of each other's languages. You learn \"five pig for five cow\".",
"Those who needed to learn languages learned it either by immersion or by using a teacher like you would in school. Writing has been around for a long, long time and we have traces of very old tabulae (wax tablets) that students used to write on and then delete to reuse them. \nSlaves played a big role in spreading useful skills. Forget about miners and those who were chosen to do menial tasks... slaves who could be used as language\\philosophy\\math teachers commanded high prices and were well respected... to the point where they could be see more as respected servants than prototypical slaves. \n \nMany people also employed interpreters, just like we do today and translating contracts in both languages was also a thing :)",
"That is a really good question. I know people like Queen Elizabeth I was taught languages. She must have had tutors. There must have been some kind of books . . . .she probably read books in the language.",
"Not a full answer, but still interesting. \n\nHistorically, pretty much all languages existed on a dialect continuum. This means that nobody spoke \"English\" or \"French\" or \"Japanese\". People just spoke whatever was spoken in their local village. The dialect of two villages close to one another would be similar enough that you would say that it's the same language, but farther away the dialects would become unintelligible to each other. \n\nIt would be like: the village next to yours speaks your language with an accent. The village a couple days' walk away speaks your language with a heavy accent, uses some words you don't recognize, and uses a grammar rule which you don't use back in your own village. The village a month's walk away might share half of your vocabulary, but the meanings of the words are slightly different, and their accent makes it so the words you have in common sound really different, also the grammar of this new village has added a bunch of rules that you don't use, and removed a bunch of rules that you do use. \n\nSo, an ancient traveler wouldn't need to suddenly learn a new language as soon as they got somewhere new. They could pick up words, phrases, and grammar as they traveled, just by talking with the locals. Eventually, when they got far enough from home, they would be speaking \"a different language\".\n\nEdit: Technical notes to address some of the comments.\n\n1. This does not work if your mother tongue and the target language exist on different dialect continua. For example Latin and Greek are both descended from Proto-Indo-European and probably had a dialect continuum at some point in the distant past, however any such continuum had disappeared well before the introduction of writing to the area.\n\n2. The language families and subfamilies which exist today all came into existence well before any \"classical\" or \"ancient\" period. The standardized forms of languages which exist today almost all arose much more recently, as a result of things like centralized government, the printing press and public education. For example, the process of standardizing French started in the 1500s, but it wasn't until the early 1800s that a majority of people in France spoke the standardized version of French. Before this standardization, most people in France would have spoken some western Romance dialect loosely related to the dialect spoken in Paris.",
"Reading books in foreign languages was a very common method to learn them, Hungarian polyglot Kato Lomb sayd that books and radio helped her a big deal learning new languages. She lived in the 20th century, when dictionaries were widely available. But my point is that she spent a lot of time reading, rather than studying, and this must have been a very common way to learn languages for literate people since very ancient times. There were no grammar rules, but there were examples of how people would speak foreign languages.\n\nAlso, ancient romans would buy a Greek slave for their children in order to make them learn Greek.",
"The same way you learn your original language with no dictionaries or teaching books. In fact, many people still think this is the best way e.g. Rosetta Stone.",
"I think once you have figured out the basic words like \"what, how, a, the\" etc you can simply start by pointing at stuff and asking what is it?\n\nBut yeah I bet hand gestures or making logical connections like similar signs.\n\nI mean many already pointed out how we do this involuntarily while traveling. We see a similar word or we figure out greeting and polite words quite fast.",
"\\*Spanish speaker holds up an Apple to an English speaker\\*\n\n\"Manzana\"\n\n\\*Spanish speaker points to a tree\\*\n\n\"árbol\"",
"Many ways, actually. I learned english by immersion. Television, radio, and speaking. You learn a massive amount through interaction and attentiveness. Eventually translating to small books and writing. It isn't as difficult as you might think, however I'm sure the older you get, the more difficult it is.",
"ask yourself this first : how does anyone learn a language given humans are born without the ability to read a dictionary ?",
"English person: \\*points at an potato\\* this is a potato\n\nFrench person:Non, c'est un pomme de terre\n\n\\*800 years of war\\*",
"There will be the day when someone will ask ELI5 how people got a date before the internet.",
"Not real life, but I remember there being descriptions in Gulliver's Travels about how he methodically went about learning a new language when he landed on one of the islands. That's probably close to how it was done for at least some travelers back in the 1700s.",
"This just reminds me of an anecdote told about the early days of Australia being colonised by the British.\nThere’s a British explorer going through Australia and he sees a kangaroo. He’s the first white person to ever see this animal and he’s amazed as it bounces passed him.\nHe looks round and sees an old aboriginal man sitting a short distance away also watching. He goes up to him and says “excuse me, but what was that beast that just went passed?”\nAnd the old aborigine man looks at him in a contemplative way and finally says “kangaroo”\nBut it’s only in recent years with the study of native languages that they’ve discovered that “kangaroo” means “I dunno, mate”",
"The first missionaries would arrive in the country. Some might stay for years and would be able to communicate on a daily basis, and some missionaries do get assistance from the lords / kings of the countries to study the writing systems, and even send reciprocal missionaries to do the same. Some of these missionaries would then write dictionaries and phrase books, and went on becoming the inscription translators, language teachers, etc.\n\nLater missionaries would continue the works on top of existing literature.\n\nSome missionaries stay in the foreign countries till the end of their lives, and their kids would grow up to communicate perfectly in both languages.",
"Englishman: *Points to apple* “Apple”\n\nJapanese Man: “Appuru” *points to apple* “Ringo”\n\nEnglishman: “Great Drummer, but I prefer John.”",
"I dont know about olden times. But if you go to a country and you dont speak their language and show an interest to learn a few things most of the time the locals are really excited to help you. I've been to Japan and Spain, both times anyone I meet was very helpful and after being there just a short while I could get by with patient speakers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
84x4uv | why it’s longer to download an operating system (os) update than a software update when they are the same size | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84x4uv/eli5_why_its_longer_to_download_an_operating/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvt1ppw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The main one is that an OS trys to do it in the back ground. So it trys to limit the maximum speed of the download. Think of it like only turning a tap on half way. This way other internet things are not slowed down. \n\nThe other reason is that Apple or Microsoft may not have the bandwidth to send millions and millions of people an update at the same time. This means that they cant supply it to you quick enough so its like a shower when other people in the building are also using water.\n\nWhen you download a standard software update there's a lot less demand and the browser doesn't care if it turns the tap on full. \n\nNote this only takes into account actual download speed as per the question. For an OS update it could also be checking your system to see which bits you need but this would actually only reduce how much you need to download which is better for the supplier. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7hwyla | how does a computer unset a bit (set it from 1 to 0) in memory/storage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7hwyla/eli5_how_does_a_computer_unset_a_bit_set_it_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqufy5m",
"dqufyp9"
],
"score": [
24,
7
],
"text": [
"It depends on the particular kind of storage.\n\nIn magnetic storage, like a spinning-disk hard drive, it magnetizes the region storing the bit in the opposite direction. (In practice, hard drives write entire blocks at a time, but the technology could theoretically be managed a bit at a time.)\n\nIn typical flash storage, like in solid-state drives or external flash drives, it can't write a single bit at a time. In order to change a bit from a 1 to a 0, it erases an entire block of memory, then rewrites the new data into it.\n\nIn DRAM, which is the typical kind of RAM in a computer, it connects the capacitor holding the bit to a current drain, which allows it to discharge. (Similarly to others, standard DRAM actually can only write a whole line at a time, so switching a single bit means writing the previous value into all the other bits.)\n\nIn SRAM, which is typically used for things like on-CPU caches, the bit line is set to 0 and then the write line is set to 1. The transistors switch into the alternative configuration, and then the write line is set back to 0, which causes them to maintain their current configuration until written again.",
"Depends on the method of storage.\n\nHard drives are known as magnetic memory. They consist of large plates that have tiny tiny sections which can be individually magnetized by something called the \"drive head.\" It is magnetized similarly to how a nail is magnetized when you rub a magnet against it, though this process may also demagnetize it if done correctly. Reading it is simple, as the drive head flies over the magnetic section, the moving magnet generates an electric current in the drive head, which is transmitted to the computer itself. If magnetic then 1, if not then 0.\n\nRAM is a different story. Hard drives are slow so RAM exists as a fast cache that is used because the CPU needs fast memory to do its thing. So RAM exists for this purpose. At its simplest, it uses capacitors. These are kinda like rechargeable batteries with a few main differences, they are fast, can't hold much, and can't hold for long. Here, it is pretty simple to do. Charge in capacitor = 1, no charge = 0. The interesting thing is the convoluted setup this requires. Capacitors must be discharged to be read, so reading requires discharging it then reloading the capacitor. Capacitors also can't hold charge for more than a few milliseconds at best when disconnected from a power source, so every few nanoseconds, the machinery reads the bit and recharges the capacitor if it is a 1.\n\nLastly is flash storage, something that uses something called a floating gate transistor. A transistor is an electronic switch in most cases, it isn't meant to be as a form of storage of charge, but we found some witchcraft that no one knows how works where we can store electric charge in a transistor for mostly indefinite time. This too requires discharging to read but once again a similar strategy is used here. This is used in SSDs, flash drives, and other \"flash storage.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4wcvnm | what will happen if the great barrier reef is destroyed? how will it impact my life in the uk? | Sorry if it's already been asked, I couldn't find it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wcvnm/eli5_what_will_happen_if_the_great_barrier_reef/ | {
"a_id": [
"d663efy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Immediately? Nothing much. \n\nIf you liked to scuba, you'd of course lose a destination. Economically, it'll hurt a swath of business in Australia that caters to scuba divers, and eventually you'd feel the ripples of that, if only oh so slightly. \n\nThe bulk of the plants and animals in the reef would die. This has some side-effects:\n\nYour aquariums will have a harder time getting a royal blue tang, the sort from Finding Nemo/Dory. They don't breed in captivity, so the only place to get them is in the wild. They don't only live in the great barrier reef, so it's not like they'd go extinct, but it would certainly be a blow. \n\nA lot of species probably would go extinct, and all the supporting ecosystem that the reef supported would be endangered. \n\nYou in London wouldn't feel this immediately, or even in the near future, but we're hitting that point where genetics is unlocking a lot of interesting capabilities. [Like harvesting the blood of horseshoe crabs](_URL_0_). It has some component which is useful in medicine. So years from now, you might use some medicine that only came from a species found in the reef. \n\nAnd reefs are a sweetspot for specialists which focus on one trait, as opposed to generalists who focus on survival. Times of change are good for generalists like cockroaches, times of stability are good for specialists like mantis shrimp. \n\nThat's a long way of saying that the loss of biodiversity is losing potentially useful biological traits that we could be harnessing. And you and the rest of the world would benefit from it. Unless it's destroyed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/the-blood-harvest/284078/"
]
] |
|
1g7d9a | how do people with dreadlocks wash their hair? | I searched for this to no avail... and since there is a girl at my office with waist-length dreads, I am one step short of asking her (but I don't want to offend her or seem rude). How do people wash hair when they have dreadlocks? Or do they just not wash their hair? Or do they just put shampoo in their hands and squeeze it into each dread? This is mind-boggling. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g7d9a/eli5_how_do_people_with_dreadlocks_wash_their_hair/ | {
"a_id": [
"cahfznu",
"cahgs4j",
"cahiclu",
"cahjd11",
"cahjfrs",
"caitvb4"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I heard from someone with dreads that you last guess is correct. Get some soapy water and squeeze it into the dread. Then squeeze each one with a towel later to dry them.",
"Carefully but more or less like everyone else.",
"My friend had dreads and she used a special type of soap but you have to be very careful of not unraveling them(especially if you have very straight hair naturally). Eventually she stopped using it because she was lazy and it was a pain in the butt. [here is the soap she used](_URL_0_)",
"I've had dreadlocks for two years. The first time is really annoying because you really can't wash your hair easily. You have to be very carefull. But after enough time you can wash your hair like everyone else. Except the fact that you don't use a shampoo that contains conditioner, because it makes the hair \"soft\". You can squeeze it into each dread or how ever you think it will make your drads clean and fresh.\n\nEdit: Forgot to mention that there are very different opinions of how to wash your dreads the best in the \"dread-community\". Some people say that using \"head and shoulders\" is a good option, others say that any kind of shower-gel is the best and some of them use marseille soap.\n\nEdit 2: English isn't my first language, so i hope that this is understandable",
"A friend who used to have dreads told me he had not washed his hair in a year. He would shower as normal but not soap or scrub his head. I asked him how he handles the itching I feel when my hair is dirty and he said \"you get used to it\"; he also told me when he got them all cut off, that first shower that he scrubbed his hair with shampoo was one of the best feelings of his life.",
"Definitely takes a lot more soap than your average head wash,but its fairly simple because your dreads act like little sponges and abosrb the soap,just make sure you wring them out and dry them properly so nothing builds up int he center of your locs. The drying part is the longest process honestly. Its like drying a head full of soaked ropes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dreadheadhq.com/store/dreadhead-dreadlocks-shampoo-16oz"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ew95y1 | where do your thoughts go when you forget them? | If a brain is analogous to a computer, is there some place where memories are stored either short term or long term? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ew95y1/eli5_where_do_your_thoughts_go_when_you_forget/ | {
"a_id": [
"fg0f4iy"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"Memories in the human brain are, as far as we know, stored as links between clusters of neurons. When we remember something, we're sending a cascade of impulses down this network to re-experience something as you did originally.\n\nWhen you forget, those connections are broken. The memory is literally disassembled. The neurons are (usually) still there, but without the connection, the cascade can't happen and you can't remember it. Degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's involve brain cells literally dying, cutting those connections in the process."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2vm5nt | how are websites that convert media profitable? | How are sites like
-_URL_1_
-_URL_2_
-_URL_0_
profitable am i not using a lot of bandwidth when i upload 100 songs to be converted? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vm5nt/eli5_how_are_websites_that_convert_media/ | {
"a_id": [
"coiw9sp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"looks like ads. bandwidth is really cheap. and it's using your local cpu for processing power. "
]
} | [] | [
"audio.online-convert.com",
"media.io",
"youtube-mp3.org"
] | [
[]
] |
|
45visf | what is a stock basket? | This company called Motif Investing selling a basket of stocks for $10. The "basket" lists 19 different companies, but I don't really know what I'll get if I buy it. Is it one stock per company? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45visf/eli5_what_is_a_stock_basket/ | {
"a_id": [
"d00ivcu",
"d00iyxl"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There are two possible answers to this question. \n\nthe first is that what they're offering is actually to invest in a fund that they will then invest in those 19 companies, and after a set amount of time, they'll pay you back . \n\nso for example if 100 people invest a total of $1000, and after 6 months its worth $1100, you'll all get $11 per basket. (or $8 per basket if it's only worth $800 total)..\n\nthe other option is that they are indeed packaging stocks worth $10 and selling them as a bundle. this way the only thing i can guarantee is that you're getting at least 1 share from each of the 19 companies.. but if you checked you'd find that a lot of those shares are only worth a few cents, (and highly unlikely to change value much over even a long time) and a couple of them are worth a few $ each... (and again, unlikely to change much over the short term) \n\n",
"Not necessarily and very unlikely. A basket of stocks means a portfolio, which consists of a number and/or a variety of investments. \n\nWhy do we need a portfolio? Most cases we do it to spread the risk. \n\nTL;DR \nFor example(not necessarily true, but stay with me), when crude oil prices go down, oil refinery companies(among them, company A)' prices go up, oiling companies(among them, company B)'s prices go down, and vice versa. So it it would be wise to invest same amount of money in both companies(suppose both stocks rise and fall in the same scale in correlation to oil prices, you should invest $1 in company A, and $1 in company B, so when oil prices go down, A changes from $1 to $1.05 and B from $1 to $0.95, you still have $2. And since the market is doing well, both A and B will go up eventually while not been affected by oil prices. The fluctuations in oil prices no longer pose a threat to you. so that regardless of the changes in oil prices and how it affects stock prices, your \"loss\" in one stock can and will be compensated by the \"gain\" from the other. \nEven you may not gain as much compare to invest in A alone when the oil prices continue to go up; you may not lose as much when oil prices continue to go down. This is what's called a \"hedge\", you limit your ability to gain but also reduced your loss by minimizing the risks. \nHowever, the asking prices of each stock may not be the same, say company A sells at $1/stock, company B sells at $2/stock, so for a $20 basket of stock A and B, the best basket would be made of 10 stocks of A and 5 stocks of B. \nA larger basket can consists of many companies to cover more markets and spread the risk better. \nTL;DR \n\nBack to the matter at hand, $10 are not likely to buy even one stock, but Motif is selling the basket to anyone willing to buy, so if 1,000 people decide to buy, Motif will raise $10,000 and then it could buy x stocks of A, y stocks of B, z stocks of C, etc. And in the end, say the portfolio made a revenue of $1,000, you can divide that by 1,000, and you have $10+($1000/1000)=$11 of your total return on the investment, minus the commission of, say, 50 cents, you have $10.5. (BTW, Motif just made $500 from others' money) \n\nAnd just an advice, be cautious of stock markets, they are much, much uglier than what I just described. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5358sg | how come lots of metals have a grayish color? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5358sg/eli5how_come_lots_of_metals_have_a_grayish_color/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7q4tuw",
"d7qdo5o",
"d7qp4ev"
],
"score": [
244,
32,
7
],
"text": [
"Ooh, I know this one!\n\nIt's because how the metal's electrons are placed, it causes their \"resonant\" frequency to be shifted in the direction of ultraviolet frequencies compared to most other atoms. The fact that they aren't particularly responsive to \"normal\" light frequencies means that they more or less reflect the same amount of light across the spectrum we can see, leading to a \"grayish\" hue we call silver.\n\nHowever the only exceptions are gold and copper, since their \"most stable\" electron configuration has a certain electron traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. This obviously means that they gain more energy (since speed = more energy and all that), which means that they have more mass, since E = mc^2 and all that. So they \"respond\" to slightly lower frequencies (for whatever reason), which means they absorb a bit of blue light along with the ultraviolet, and if they subtract only the blue light, then only red and yellow light are reflected, giving us the golden and copper hues.\n\nIf you want to go deeper into the rabbithole, here is a link: _URL_0_",
"All metals have a color, but it's usually so purple that you can't even see it, so the metal looks gray.",
"/u/droomph 's answer correctly explains why most metals don't have a color tint, but what's unusual about metals is that they're *shiny*. Why does that happen?\n\nFor most non-metals, the electrons orbiting an atom are firmly attached to one atom, and it takes a certain amount of energy to break one loose or shift it into a higher orbit. You can provide that energy using a photon (light particle) with the right energy (color), which will cause that color to be absorbed.\n\nMetals, on the other hand, have electrons that are *not* attached to an atom, but are free to drift around through the metal, gliding from atom to atom. This explains most of their properties. It explains why they're good electrical conductors: the electrons are free to move very large distances. It explains why they're good *heat* conductors: the electrons carry thermal energy as they move.\n\nAnd it explains why they're shiny. Light can be thought of as a particle, but also as a wave. That wave pushes electrically charged objects back and forth, and it's *created* whenever a charged object is pushed back and forth. When hit with a light wave, the drifting electrons in the metal are free to vibrate back and forth in time with the light wave, nothing to stop them. This causes them to emit a light wave that's equal and opposite to the one they received: they reflect light.\n\n(There are other electrons that are tied to an atom and *aren't* so free to move, they can only respond to certain colors of light. But as /u/udroomph explains, in most metals these only respond to colors of light our eyes can't see.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72368/why-are-most-metals-gray-silver#72412"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
jg2f5 | how do url shortening websites make money? | Sort of just wanted to know how websites like bitly make money, or why they even exist in the first place. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jg2f5/how_do_url_shortening_websites_make_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2btxah",
"c2bvd4i",
"c2btxah",
"c2bvd4i"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Hey little fella.\n\nI would guess that url shortening services make revenue from being able to see what people are looking at, and which websites they are being linked from. ",
"Upon reading on it a bit more I found a lot of interesting information and my initial assumption (that they aren't very profitable) is somewhat correct, there's been a boom of URL shortening services lately and many of them don't have very long term plans. \n\nGot that bit from Wikipedia, and after a Google search I found this link that discusses the topic pretty in depth (from an owner of a URL shortening service). It's not really 5 year old status but I'm assuming someone else could read it and put it into better words than I could ever. Hope this helps.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Hey little fella.\n\nI would guess that url shortening services make revenue from being able to see what people are looking at, and which websites they are being linked from. ",
"Upon reading on it a bit more I found a lot of interesting information and my initial assumption (that they aren't very profitable) is somewhat correct, there's been a boom of URL shortening services lately and many of them don't have very long term plans. \n\nGot that bit from Wikipedia, and after a Google search I found this link that discusses the topic pretty in depth (from an owner of a URL shortening service). It's not really 5 year old status but I'm assuming someone else could read it and put it into better words than I could ever. Hope this helps.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=508132"
],
[],
[
"http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=508132"
]
] |
|
2dkp5x | why people are willing to add bacon to a sandwich/burger for $1.25 or so, but when it comes to an app that would make their lives easier $0.99 is too much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dkp5x/eli5_why_people_are_willing_to_add_bacon_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjqe4um",
"cjqe7x9",
"cjqet8n",
"cjqetop",
"cjqf0n4"
],
"score": [
3,
16,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I have no idea. I'm the same, I can easily justify buying a game for £40 but a 99p android game is a big commitment",
"Bacon is always good and therefore never free. Apps are often garbage and therefore are commonly free. Apps also frequently contain advertisements which generate income for the developer and minimally inconvenience the user. As a result of this, the expectation has been set.",
"Because the \"microtransaction\", the modest purchase of low-cost digital goods/currency/etc, have strong connotations of greed and anti-consumer practices. Especially if you're a gamer - when you hear the term, your first thoughts are probably of on-disc DLC or the infamous [Horse Armor](_URL_0_).\n\n",
"Most people are aware of the value that bacon adds to their lives. It's delicious and, based on that deliciousness, they can quickly assess whether or not an extra $1.25 is worth it to them based purely on previous experiences.\n\nSure, some bacon is too fatty... some bacon is overly burned... and in those instances, I will regret paying the $1.25 to have it. But the overall consistency of my love of bacon makes those instances rare.\n\nApps, on the other hand, are a crap shoot. I would absolutely pay 99 cents for an app that solved a problem of mine. Heck, I'd pay $99 for an app that solves a problem that is enough of an annoyance. \n\nThe problem is that there is too much hype and too many apps. There may be 1,000 apps that claim to solve my problem, yet only 2 or 3 actually are worth the price. Since it would cost me $1,000 to test each one, the total cost of finding a solution is more than 99 cents. \n\nAt the end of the day, the problem and solution for app developers is one in the same: marketing.",
"It's all about context and relatively. $1.25 compared to the price of a $5 sandwich isn't that much. 99 cents compared to the price of otherwise free apps is quite a bit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/03/download-oblivions-horse-armor-for-a-price/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
11j879 | why, when felix baumgartner went supersonic, he didn't have a visible stream of air around him. | You know jets that go supersonic leave a circle-ish in the air behind them? Why didn't Felix Baumgartner do that when he broke the sound barrier?
Assumption: He wasn't powered by something that leaves a trail, like jet fuel. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11j879/eli5_why_when_felix_baumgartner_went_supersonic/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6my7pm"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
" > You know jets that go supersonic leave a circle-ish in the air behind them?\n\nNope.\n\nThat only happens sometimes, and it doesn't have anything to do with the speed of sound. It's got to do with the point at which the air moving over the plane's aerodynamic surfaces gets rarefied to the point where water vapor condenses out into visible fog. It's called a \"vapor cone,\" and is seen in subsonic, supersonic and transonic (\"really really supersonic\") flight … and even *not* related to flight at all, as when very large explosions create big volumes of very rarefied air, [as seen here](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_baker_explosion.jpg"
]
] |
|
3s1358 | why do people complain about outsourcing? isn't it a natural result of globalization and ricardo's theory of comparative advantage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s1358/eli5_why_do_people_complain_about_outsourcing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwt27mu"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"How does it being a natural result mean that people can't complain about it? Tons of things are natural results that we complain about. Weather, indigestion, traffic. Just because they're natural doesn't mean we like it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6syegp | why are frog movements jerky and spaced out? | [This reddit post](_URL_0_) got me wondering. Are they resting from their previous movement? Thinking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6syegp/eli5_why_are_frog_movements_jerky_and_spaced_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlgt5ow"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Things that aren't moving are a lot more difficult to spot. There's quite a few other animals that would happily eat the frog so it's to their advantage to sit still and not be noticed. And when they do need to move, they do it in short bursts so that the chances are smaller a predator notices them."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/IZIgA57.gifv"
] | [
[]
] |
|
2vt1n7 | why do credit cards have two companies on them: the credit card company (visa, mastercard, amex) and the bank company (chase, bank of america)? who is charging what? | So on all the credit cards and debit cards I've seen, they always have two companies listed on there: one which is a credit card company like Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, Capital One, etc. And another that is the bank, like Bank of America, Chase, etc. I get the reason for a debit card since that is connected to your bank account. But why have the bank on there for credit cards?
Edit: Thanks for the clarification guys! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vt1n7/eli5_why_do_credit_cards_have_two_companies_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"coko3n1",
"coko50t",
"cokoe1p"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The bank is the one that extends you the line of credit that you use with the card to make purchases. The bank has the account which tallies your spending and presents you will a monthly statement/bill.",
"A credit account is basically a short term loan. Visa and MasterCard don't issue these loans- the banks do. Visa and MasterCard just provide the network to connect the merchants to all of the banks, because it would be way more annoying if the merchants had to have agreements with each bank they wanted to accept. American Express and Discover both issue the loans and run the network, so you won't see a bank name on those.",
"1.Visa,Mastercard etc are payment systems. These systems act like a secure tunnel between the customer and the bank. This part is really important. Because it cannot be a simple text transfer from the person to the bank. That leaves it very easy for hackers to snoop on credit card information from the user and to mess with the bank systems themselves. This is where Visa and Mastercard come of use, they are secure protocol systems and sometimes more basing on features they offer.\n2.Basing just on cards, debit cards and credit cards are not that different. Debit cards have account information from which user can debit using ATMs, paying with Visa etc(that is why the labels). And bank labels too, of course.\nCredits store a unique number which is linked to an account. But still it is a bank provided service. So the bank labels exist. Visa and Mastercard labels are there for the same reason they were on debit cards.\n\nEdit: Also each bank offers different limits on credit, so suppose if you have a credit card from a bank which only lets you use $250 a month and you see a guy in the store paying $1000, obviously you would want to know which bank is offering such limit or feature if I may say. So is the use of bank labels."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
20azzv | why are ice hockey players allowed to beat the shit out of each other? | How come the refs don't stop them or anything? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20azzv/eli5_why_are_ice_hockey_players_allowed_to_beat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg1h6rd",
"cg1hg3p",
"cg1hh43",
"cg1hktb",
"cg1hl1h",
"cg1hp9f",
"cg1hys3",
"cg1i16c",
"cg1iiiy",
"cg1inyc",
"cg1iock",
"cg1j1zn",
"cg1j7la",
"cg1j9ga",
"cg1jl1q",
"cg1jmlf",
"cg1josc",
"cg1jp8t",
"cg1jqfo",
"cg1jqw7",
"cg1jxoy",
"cg1jz7b",
"cg1k28j",
"cg1k28k",
"cg1k2f4",
"cg1k73c",
"cg1k7e6",
"cg1kauu",
"cg1kfuh",
"cg1kga0",
"cg1kgdi",
"cg1kik1",
"cg1kuwf",
"cg1kvnm",
"cg1kx1p",
"cg1l9bc",
"cg1l9qf",
"cg1lgj3",
"cg1lgv2",
"cg1loem",
"cg1mae6",
"cg1mcfd",
"cg1mqit",
"cg1mwle",
"cg1myv7",
"cg1n56z",
"cg1nc74",
"cg1ngfj",
"cg1ngkn",
"cg1ns5v",
"cg1nzsw",
"cg1okhf",
"cg1ovca",
"cg1oxuz",
"cg1oxy3",
"cg1p6rl",
"cg1payc",
"cg1pws1",
"cg1q1mg",
"cg1q2q7",
"cg1q6rr",
"cg1qgt4",
"cg1qnhy",
"cg1r6rm",
"cg1r7p7",
"cg1rq9l",
"cg1rz52",
"cg1rzdw",
"cg1smqn",
"cg1sz1l",
"cg1t0fd",
"cg1thcx",
"cg1uew9",
"cg1ut2y",
"cg1vaz2",
"cg1vi2w",
"cg1vjbe",
"cg1w43c",
"cg1w8lu",
"cg1wbaa",
"cg1wye4",
"cg1wyxt",
"cg1yosz",
"cg1yygs",
"cg20bgw",
"cg20kog",
"cg20rdy",
"cg21xtd",
"cg21zdo",
"cg238hg",
"cg245b6"
],
"score": [
18,
107,
5,
297,
10,
2,
22,
2835,
84,
3,
4,
3,
2,
7,
2,
2,
4,
3,
31,
2,
11,
5,
6,
3,
5,
14,
2,
4,
4,
4,
4,
5,
11,
5,
4,
14,
3,
44,
6,
3,
3,
22,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
4,
5,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
10,
2,
16,
2,
2,
2,
11,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
6,
3,
4,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The fighting in hockey acts like a relief valve for the game. All too often, the two teams will continue to build in aggression as a game wears on. However, as soon as two guys drop the gloves and have a go the teams get back to playing hockey. Of course, sometimes there needs to be a larger stress relief. (Google \"Fight Night At The Joe 1997\" for an example). ",
"As a means to both blow off aggression towards another player so they can keep their head in the game and to convey respect. If someone roughs up your goalie or really any other player who might not be fight savvy, and you happen to be a grinder, you go defend your man and make sure that he knows that \"These acts of aggression will not stand.\"\n\n\nWhen you go into a fight, both players know whats on the line. You get a five minute major (penalty) and if you don't win, you look like an ass.",
"They do stop them once they grapple up or someone falls etc... but they have no obligation to stop them while they're swinging because its dangerous.\n\nThe players are then penalized and depending on circumstance, suspended. The majority of hockey fights are mutual engagements, with both players consenting to the fight. \n\nIt also is unofficially viewed as a means to prevent cheap shots and attempts to injure star players. ",
"So that the aggression is not taken out dangerously against the boards with two players traveling 30mph.",
"watch the movie 'goon'\n",
"My friend dated a Penguin for awhile and he said usually they fight because the fans like it. So if something happens they players are *able* to control themselves, they just don't.",
"Fighting occurs at nearly every level of hockey, so for anybody to claim it's for profit or for television ratings, that's entirely untrue. The penalty for fighting is usually more severe in amateur leagues but it still happens. The typical game has 2 to 3 officials, versus the 10 players on the ice, so it's not as easy as it seems for them to just break up the fight. It's consensual, usually, so the players are allowed to continue until one person gains a clear advantage.\nHockey gets singled out because of the consensual fighting, but baseball players hit each other with 90+ MPH pitches, NASCAR drivers spin each other out at 100+ MPH, football players stomp each other on the ground, and basketball players punch each other all the time and that's acceptable? At least in hockey you get a fair fight with two willing participants.",
"It helps to remember that fights in hockey are 99% consensual. If you don't want to fight you turn your back and that's it. There are players that fight and players that don't, and it's not really a machismo/honor thing that you MUST fight. No one thinks less of you for not being a fighter.\n\nIf you jump someone who is NOT looking for a fight you are usually going to get tossed from the game and probably suspended for a few games to boot. It's not OK to blind-side someone who is not likewise spoiling for a fight and generally speaking that is frowned upon.\n\nSo the minor penalties and general lack of punishment is only in the case of two people who have collaboratively decided to go at it, which is true for almost every fight you see. They are pre-arranged (often at the face-off) and mutually agreed. At that point, two consenting adults doing what they want, basically, and the refs leave it alone until someone is at risk of getting seriously hurt -- usually once someone goes down and it's no longer a standing fight, or if other people are getting involved, or if one person is effectively incapacitated, etc.\n\nTo some degree hockey is a self-regulated game. Refs are there for line calls, not necessarily behavior control. 10 people flying around a small ice surface at 40km/h with wooden sticks can REALLY hurt each other while the ref is looking the other way if they want to.\n\nTo avoid this, fighting is used as a pressure relief... all the pent up aggression you feel for the wrongs and slights done to your team goes into cheering for your guy in the fight. Afterward everyone chills out. This is generally true even if the two guys fighting aren't the actual guys you were mad at. But the thing is, everyone on your team is going to be mad at someone different for some random thing that happened, so it's not practical to expect everyone will \"pay\" individually.\n\nThis mostly works because most players aren't assholes. If they do something to earn your ire it was probably by accident or a \"one time\" thing. It's unlikely you'll remember it for more than 5 minutes and unlikely that guy is going to specifically tick you off again. So the fight serves to release the cumulative pressure of all those little things, not necessarily any specific incident.\n\nWhere this fails is if there is just that one total dick on a team that is constantly cheap-shotting people or otherwise behaving in a douchey way not consistent with the overall tone of the game. Especially if that person keeps doing it even after a fight or two. At some point the other team is going to remember his number and a \"generic fight\" won't fix the issue. That guy now has a target painted on his back and at some point -- maybe not even that game but in a future game -- someone is going to risk getting tossed from the game/suspended to teach that specific player a lesson.\n\nThough usually half of that guy's own team are just as happy to watch him get creamed because, honestly, he IS a dick. We'd never say it out loud of course, team solidarity, rah rah rah... but at some point people get what they deserve and everyone on both sides knows it.\n\nEDIT: Others replies here have also made the very good point that I feel worth highlighting... a hockey fight is not like MMA. It's really hard to get leverage on ice and there's only so much weight you can get behind a punch. And the minute it goes to the ice the refs do get involved to stop it. The dangerous parts of hockey are at speed near the boards. A hockey fight is practically tame by comparison to what can happen there.\n",
"Basketball used to be just like hockey, with enforcers and constant fights. That was all until [Kermit Washington](_URL_0_) nearly killed Rudy Tomjanovich. Rudy came up on Kermit while he was involved in another fight. Kermit thought it was another player starting a fight and unloaded a punch while Rudy was running towards him. It nearly killed him and it changed basketball forever. ",
" There are basically two types of fights. Staged fights (the controversial type) and in the moment/sporadic fights. The first type occurs between two \"fighters\" and the second usually happens when emotions run high and could be any players. \n To answer your question it is allowed because it has been a part of the game for a century, and the hockey community believes it brings a means of \"self-policing\" to the games. i.e. if you cheap shot our best player our fighter will knock your snot out ",
"The movie Goon with Sean William Scott perfectly answers this. It's a hockey movie, it's hilarious, it's on Netflix, and completely describes why fighting is allowed in NA hockey.",
"Along with what everybody else said there is the fact that you really can't get as solid of a swing on skates compared to being on solid ground. That's not to say that you can't do some damage, but with all of the protective gear on you likely won't be seriously injured. One reason they break up fights that go to the ground is to avoid somebody being cut by a skate (which can *definitely* hurt somebody).",
"They do stop them in most leagues. You have to be a certain age and at a certain level of play before fighting doesn't result in an immediate suspension (as opposed to a 5 minute penalty).\n\nThe main reason fighting is allowed is that it is a way for players/coaches to self police. If someone hits/attacks/cheapshots a vulnerable player (hit someone with their back turned/extended to reach a puck/or a goalie in general etc.), you get the toughest guy on your team to go kick the shit out of them. They do this because the two minute penalty the offender received is nothing compared to the potentially career ending injury to one of your buddies. This threat of getting the shit kicked out of them forces players to think twice before doing something stupid.\n\nThere's also the point of simply sending a message (although, in my opinion, the benefit is less than the above, this reason appears to be a more common cause). For example, your team was up 1 - 0 early in the game, but now find themselves down 3 - 1 half way through the 2nd period. For the last 20 minutes, you've been outplayed in every aspect of the game and let in 3 straight goals. Your team gets frustrated and the other team starts to get cocky. These games inevitably start to get 'chippy'.\n\nAt some point your coach has had enough, and says 'OK Bill, get in there and turn this around'. Bill, one of your tough guys, goes out there and starts to get 'chippy' with one of their tough guys (general etiquette dictates the two players should both be roughly the same size and level of 'toughness'), with the intention of starting a fight. A fight ensues, stops the play that you're being so badly outplayed in, and perhaps Bill kicks this guys ass. This demoralizes his team, and suddenly your boys are fired up. They go out and start hitting a little harder, skating a little faster, and reaping the benefits of this psychological second wind. Sometimes this turns the game around for your team completely. Sometimes it doesn't, say if Bill gets his ass kicked. But it's better than doing nothing, and continuing to get outplayed. Even if the fight is a draw, it still fires up your squad, which can only make things better.\n\nI think fighting is an important part of the game, because of the first reason. The second reason, I'm not so sure. The fighting purists believe in both the first and second points I've outlined, while many of the outsiders think it's barbaric. As a general fan, I fall somewhere in between.",
"To start off, as /u/PCPhD said: \"The penalty for fighting is usually more severe in amateur leagues but it still happens.\" To expand, I would even say that fighting is more rampant in the minor (professional, not necessarily amateur) leagues. Just look at the LNAH, one step below the ECHL and MANY steps below the NHL. The fights there are frequent and brutal, I would even point you to this article: [It gives a good profile of the league.] (_URL_0_) \"Joel Thériault... “When I played in Verdun, we had a team rule never to give less than five fights a night.”\n\nEven though this quote suggests that fighting is for the entertainment, it obfuscates the fact that these players have day jobs and play in front of minimal size crowds. The fights that happen, just like in the higher leagues are part of the fabric of the game when you feel like you have something to play for.\n\nTo understand that a little better, imagine being invested in the sport a little bit; it does help if you are familiar with hockey. You are on a team with ~19-21 other guys who you know, and like showing up at the office, have practiced with day in and day out. You have a common goal, to win games and hopefully take a shot at that whatever trophy or title awaits at the end of a long regular and post season. You trust them to give their best effort as you do each time you all take the ice against an opposing squad who has the same connection.\n\nNow, when you chase that puck into the offensive zone corner, and you see the opposing defensemen racing you there, the only thing on your mind is grinding out and winning that one-on-one battle to maintain possession of the puck. He can't win, he won't win. You will shove, jockey, box-out, just to obtain that precious disk. But you will do it legally, and more importantly, not dangerously reckless.\n\nIn a sport where physicality is a necessity, it can be easy to cross the line and go to far, and while it may be slightly subjective, you will know when that defensemen high-sticks you in the teeth before capturing the puck. If you're not too badly hurt, you will as him: \"The fuck was that about, ya fuck?!\" or some other lovingly phrased inquiry. If you are out of commission, one of your officemates will kindly ask for you.\n\nYou see, you needed that puck, he needed that puck. You both were prepared to battle physically, but he decided (intentionally or not) that an unfair advantage was to be used, to your detriment. Not cool. Words exchange, and you won't get a \"Sorry, man.\" in return. After all, he accomplished his task, thats all that ends up mattering. Fisticuffs may now ensue as your rage at this dickwad's apparent lack of courtesy builds. And rather than stop this from happening, coaches, players, and officials alike let the score get settled a little before breaking this \"discussion\" or \"attitude adjustment\" up.\n\nGranted, not all fights start this way, there are staged fights, retribution fights, heated rivalry fights. There are also degrees and lengths to which fights are allowed to happen. But frame the idea from investment perspective. You put your all into this game. When you are denied from reaching your goal (immediate or long term, literal or figurative), it channels into real frustration and emotion. This will have the tendency to boil over one way or the other, and face-to-face confrontation tends (more often than not) to set each other straight.\n\nI will end by saying that ultimately, this is a sport and most people recognize that. You aren't looking to end this guy. You both have the same goal, and you realize that. Sometimes you just really have to \"explain\" to each other how you feel. This usually (and should) end with a mutual respect as you both know that even after this fierce battle, tomorrow brings a new rink, a new opponent, and fresh struggle to reach the mountain top.\n\nedit: **TL;DR: Want win, must win. Stick to head, rage grows. Boxed out of corner, rage builds. Denied scoring chance, rage overflows. Fight ensues. Refs: \"Should we stop em?\" \"Nah, let 'em sort it our for a second.\" Post fight: back to hockey.**",
"They don't jump in the middle of it due to self preservation. I was taught not to jump in until it was safe to do so...usually once they've tired themselves out haha ",
"As an Australian I don't follow Ice Hockey at all, but I could almost answer this question from watching the Sean William Scott movie \"Goon\". (If it was fairly accurate, and I've read that it was)",
"I was under the impression that fist fights are only allowed in the US/North American ice hockey leagues. Unless I am mistaken, the European leagues don't allow fighting. Instead, they play ice hockey.",
"as a hockey player, ive had this conversation with a lot of people. the common counter point to fighting is that other sports like basketball, football and baseball dont tolerate fighting so why should hockey?\n\nwhat makes hockey different from other sports is the fast pace and the physicality. hockey has a very similar pace to basketball in the sense that play can go back and forth for minutes without a whistle and this can be extremely frustrating for hockey players. i know in basketball its similar with all the elbows and grabbing but its hard to get away with anything big in a game where theres supposed to be no contact but in hockey the players have sticks in their hands and a little hacking and slashing is part of the game but sometimes its hard to distinguish between a little tap and something that breaks you rankle. this makes it very hard for refs to call all of it so players need a way to police it themselves.\n\nin football all the physicality and ability to hurt other players without the refs noticing is there but it all happens in 20-30 second intervals with lots of cool down time in between thanks to the play clock and the switching of offense and defense.\n\nthe best sport to compare hockey to when talking about fighting is lacrosse which also hands out 5 minutes for fighting rather than game misconducts, etc.\n",
"There is a very good book about this subject called, \"The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL.\" by Ross Bernstein. The reasons for fighting in ice hockey, at least at the NHL level is partially intimidation to get your stars more space on the ice, partially the protection of your star players, and finally partially about trying to get some energy into your team. ",
"I wish there were more consensual fighting allowed in sports.",
"It is important to not that this only goes for NHL - not for international Ice Hockey.\n\nIn international Ice Hockey the kind of fighting you see in NHL is forbidden, and comes with match penalties at the very least, in a few extreme cases even criminal charges for assault.\n\nThe why of it? While you can give all kinds of reasons such as \"respect\", \"blowing off steam\", \"protecting non fighting players\" etc etc, it really comes down to money.\n\nThe audience like to watch the fighting in NHL. It's seen as part of the highlights of the night. The clubs and NHL as a whole want to make money, and they do so by pleasing the audiences.",
"Watch goon. It's a good hockey film.",
"1. Enforcement. Cross a line you will likely get laid out. Game is too fast for refs to 100% handle. In the Olympics/playoffs there is less need for this as players don't do things that could cost them a PP. They'll take more risks that lead to more fights normally. \n2. Momentum. Down 3-1 in the second period? Putting on your gladiator face and kicking some ass can change the momentum of a game. Especially at home. This can also backfire should you pick the wrong cat.\n3. Honor. If you've pissed a team off enough. You'll have to at least try to fight back if challenged. Caveat here is some players purposely blur these lines with the intention goading the pissed off team into taking a penalty. These players are 'pests' or 'agitators' their job is to shadow and annoy, hoping to get the other teams' best players more focused on hating them than scoring goals. These players will often back out of fights at the last minute, or \"turtle.\" But generally, when challenged and with merit, you're expected to stand up for yourself. Even the skill players had to fight a bit at some point in their lives I promise you.\n4. Pure hatred. Some players just really, really hate each other and the best way to deal with that is bang heads. It's like a receiver/defensive back battle all over the ice, all the time. These intense 1 on 1 battles can boil over like they do in any sport. They're just constant in hockey.\n5. Staged. The enforcers don't play much. So sometimes when there's two of them facing each other they'll want to prove their worth. You can expect certain players to fight each other at some point. This is the fighting the league is starting to frown upon. The more organic fighting is part of the game, but not so much the staged stuff. Fans go crazy for it, but the enforcers are massive and dangerous men (the size of NFL D-linemen) and the potential for disaster is through the roof. That's the gist of it. I played and coached at a high level.",
"the book \"the code\" explains in detail how fighting is how players policy the game, a lot of unwritten rules / ethics in the goon world",
"Well think of it this way... The game started out being played with wooden clubs by bored infantry on frozen ponds. With dozens of guys slashing around for a frozen piece of horse shit, things are bound to get \"chippy\". Which bring us around to our original question, why fighting. Answer, it takes little effort to break someone's leg, arm, face on the ice, and unlike other sports, hockey players actively enforce the rules. This keep all players \"in-check\", you cheap-shot someone on the ice, there will often be consequences. You would be surprised how many times a game settles down after the team tough-guy teeth gets knocked out at center ice. When fighting was removed from the university leagues in Canada, there was a 3 fold increase in High Sticking and other types of dangerous infractions. No fear of getting corrected can have funny consequences. Hope this provided some clarity, cheers and keep your stick on the ice! ",
"u/nezroy does a great job explaining, but there's also the strategic part of fighting in hockey. As u/nezroy said, not everyone fights, and there isn't really a stigma if you don't fight. But every team has a goon or 2 whose main job it is to fight. Heres why:\n\nImagine you've got this small, fast, amazing goal scorer that you're playing against. And he's ripping you apart, damn he's quick. What's an easy way to stop him? Just hammer him into the boards a few times, or trip him up, or do anything to take him off the ice. But the other team knows this, so they have a goon to protect him. Basically, your goon is your enforcer- whatever the other team does to you, he gives it back. So if you focus that little scoring machine, the other goon is going to start smashing up your good players, and this isn't good for anyone. Now when there's a goon on each team, these are usually the guys designated to fight. Usually, both teams will put them out together, and right at the face off they'll go at it. This is the only match that matters for pride- the team whose goon wins is saying they're tougher, and can definetly back their shit up. Also, gonns really only fight goons- if one were to fight a shooter, or even harrass him, out comes the other goon to fight it out. It's really awesome to watch if you understand the strategy behind it.\n\nTL;DR- fights aren't random, and they aren't over some BS argument.",
"Watch your mouth, you're 5.",
"Sometime in the next 20-25 years, fighting will be banned in hockey, and everyone will cry about it, pussification of America, etc.\n\n50 years from now, kids will go, \"Wow, I can't believe they used to actually allow fights in hockey.\"",
"For starters... Anyone using the phrase \"ice hockey\" just won't understand. Its kinda like saying soccer anywhere outside north america.\n\nAs much as i love hockey there is a piece of me that no longer relishes fighting... I think more of the players well being as i age, instead of the raw emotion you need to enjoy a great on-ice tilt.",
"It's entertaining and brings the ratings",
"Because it's a tradition. No better reason.",
"Because that's what audiences want to see. ",
"Hockey is a dangerous game. an angry hockey player, with knives on his feet and a club in his hand, can be tempted to make some very reckless decisions on the ice. common knowledge would say letting these players fight is idiotic, but give me a chance to explain why fighting actually makes the game *safer*\n\n1.) hockey is known as a self policing sport. In a sense, the players have a much higher sense of accountability for their actions on the ice, because the consequences of playing dangerously will result in much more than just receiving a penalty\n\nReckless/dangerous play/ cheap-shotting another player comes with the very real possibility of having to square off with another team's [enforcer](_URL_1_).. which can end with the possibility of skating off the ice [looking like this](_URL_0_)\n\nMost enforcers in the NHL today are HUGE, and some are only on their teams to protect star players. \n\nthis is enough make most players think twice before doing anything too stupid.\n\n**TL;DR** getting beat up is scary\n\n\n\n\n",
"This is a long fight between 2 of the all time heavyweights, Probert and Mcsorley. If you watch at the end they bump heads etc...telling each other good fight. Just another day at the office....not a personal thing.\n\n_URL_0_",
"They're allowed to fight because fans are willing to pay to watch them fight.",
"dropping your mits and going buckies off fires up the boys",
"It sells tickets. It part of the sport. If a majority of the fans were against it, it would stop immediately. It's not hurting their revenue stream so as they say if it ain't broke don't fix it. This is not an opinion for or against fighting. I'm just saying....",
"The answers seem to be missing one crucial thing. Fighting *is not allowed*. There are penalties for fighting. You don't get a penalty for doing things that aren't against the rules. You receive a five minute major penalty (possibly more penalties depending on the circumstances) just like you get a penalty for boarding, slashing, tripping, ect.\n\nAs for why the refs don't stop them. My guess is that they don't want to accidentally get injured trying to break it up. They do jump in sometimes, but usually only before actual punches are thrown, when they feel they can still keep the players under control. ",
" > How come the refs don't stop them or anything?\n\n\n\nHockey players are allowed to fight because a couple of reasons. Some see it as a way for players to “let off steam”.. They can become aggravated at one another quite easily when playing such a physical sport like hockey , so instead of letting them head hunt each other by checking to the head, maybe giving a player a concussion, a broken spine, or worse. They let them cool themselves off by dropping the mitts with one another to settle the score in a more safer way that can be regulated by the referees. Also because it’s been in the game since the beginning, and last but not least, entertainment. Blood sells, who wouldn’t want to see two 6’ 5” , ~230lb players playing connect the fists with eachother’s face?",
"As a northern Canadian I am shocked at how many people don't watch hockey, or call it Ice hockey... Completely fucking with my universe here",
"There are ways to many ways to injure other players in hockey. Some of these ways to injure other players cannot be seen by referees. In order to protect players from cheapshot injuries, fighting takes place. If someone takes a cheapshot at me, then I get his number and my enforcer teammate goes and picks a fight with him. \n\nThe enforcer is called the enforcer because he helps to keep the rules and order in the game. Many people who don't know hockey get turned off to the game because of the enforcer role. In reality, if enforcers didn't exist then the game would be more dangerous because there would be no way to mitigate cheapshots.\n\nHall of Famer Bobby Orr says, \"I would much rather face an opponent man to man in a fight than have to deal with sticks to the face as well as spearing to other areas of the body. Similarly, hitting from behind is a cowardly and careless act that has resulted in far more significant injuries than those resulting from fighting, at least in my estimation. If respect for the guy between you and the boards isn't enough to stop you from running him, maybe what will be is the fear of the retribution that is sure to follow.\"\n\n[ESPN Let Players Fight Article](_URL_0_)",
"_URL_0_\nVideo of a mic'd ref wearing a helmet cam in an AHL game, which is pretty much a step below the NHL(National Hockey League)! Pretty insightful towards what actually goes on down there.",
"Because it makes the NHL a lot of money.",
"All these people linking Goon as the embodiement of hockey need to watch Slapshot.",
"Because (north) 'murica",
"the problem with getting an ELI5 answer for this question is that if you don't follow the sport and understand the nuances and intricacies of it, any answer you get will still be very literal and isn't going to *really* explain it well enough..\n\nbut basically, it's a very physical sport, and fighting is just one aspect of it that is \"allowed\" because it has always been a part of it. Hockey players are a different breed of athlete compared to other sports.",
"Many of the explanations of why they fight answers the question of why they are allowed to. As many other more eloquently explained, hockey is a very physical game, and because of that tempers rise. Fighting lets players vent their aggression through the fighters. Without this outlet, it becomes more likely that a player will take a cheap shot in retaliation to a perceived wrong. Think of it as two armies, instead of having everyone go at it, each team elects a \"champion\" to fight on a teams behalf. Winning a fight goes beyond just retribution, a good fight can swing the momentum of the game in a teams favor if their fighter wins. The NHL has been threatening to get rid of fights for a long time now, but has never gone through with it.\nsource-Minnesotan for 22 years\nR.I.P. Boogyman",
"None of these responses seem to answer the question of legality. How is suddenly legal for two or more grown men to assault each other with hundreds of witnesses and not get arrested? This isn't boxing or MMA.",
"$$$ - It brings more people into the game.\n\nBecause... the people demand it. Are you not entertained?",
"I know this is late, but I am a Hockey Ref and would like to give my two cents on this issue.\n\nAs a ref we have to watch out for our own safety as well as the safety of players. When two players get into a fight, if we were go to and stop the fight while they are still wailing away at each other, we would likely get hit and injured ourselves. Instead, we wait for an opportunity for the fighting to cease or at least slow down to a point where we can go in and remove both players.\n\n",
"Fighting is actually not allowed in hockey. It's a penalty for both players, and the refs do usually stop fights before they even start (or at least before someone gets seriously injured). \n\nAs for the legality of fighting, assault laws are really ambiguous and it's hard to prosecute when any plaintiff would have also likely been a willing participant in the fight. Furthermore, it's really hard to apply existing laws to such a unique environment because the sport itself is violent by nature. You can't really arrest a player for getting into a fight when that's part of the game, just like boxing. On the other hand, when something like [this](_URL_0_) happens, that's very clearly assault because the attacking player jumped an unknowing victim. In fact, there is still a lawsuit going on about this incident even though it happened ten years ago and the player who did it actually had criminal charges filed against him. ",
"Because the league is mostly white, and so Americans can tolerate it.\nWhite men beating each other up = it's a matter of honor, really\nBlack men beating each other up = thug culture is destroying the fabric of etc.",
"There are other points where a fight is justifiable in a game. Specifically, when a player is hit in the back, or what is referred to as the \"numbers\". Dirty hits almost always warrant a fight, as it is seen that if you're going to hit a guy in the back, then you are going to have to defend yourself. Same with \"running\" a goaltender. There are certain unwritten rules in the game, and everyone knows what will happen if a player breaks those rules. \n\nNot all fights are scripted. Yes, there are times when the team is giving a lackluster performance and a boost is needed. But sometimes, it's more than that. Maybe one of your goons hurt our star player 4 months ago, and we haven't played each other since. Or perhaps it's a rivalry that just goes so deep, you're not sure what started it but you really hate the other team (look up the Battle of Alberta from the 80's. Those games were fucking brutal). \n\nHockey players are allowed to beat the shit out of each other because it keeps the game, minimally, in check. Also remember, there only used to be 1 referee and 2 linesmen, not the 2 refs/2 linesmen system we know now. One ref couldn't see everything, but you can bet your ass someone like Bob Probert did. /u/nezroy is dead on when he says that people can be seriously hurt in this game. It's fast and brutal. \n\nThe NHL has taken steps to cut down on fighting, but it still happens. Plus, you'll never hear an arena boo when a fight breaks out. That only happens if the refs break it up, or the guy from the opposing team gloats in your building. \n\nI suggest watching the Iginla/Lecavalier (sp?) scrap from 2004. That was a gooder. Or \"15 Minutes of Pissed Off Goalies\"",
"Fighting is against the \"official\" rules of the game. But the fights do make the game interesting so that why I think,while not \"officially\" condoned,they are allowed to happen.\nAs a player playing the game...After you get checked into the boards too hard a few times by some guy just being a d!ck about it...then you'll understand why the fights happen.",
"(1) The refs do step in, and there are penalties for fighting.\n\n(2) The refs are less well armoured than the players and need to be concerned with personal injury. Unclear whether they also allow the fighting for a little while for reasons, e.g. to see if the players stop on their own, or to let the crowd enjoy a bit of harmless brawling.\n\n(3) The players are in great shape and have a fair bit of padding. Accidents do happen but most fights are harmless or just bruises and scratches.",
"it is a way for the players to self-regulate a game. I think it is similar to giving the boots in rugby... not being able to give the boots seriously hurts at the amateur level where refs aren't always too great. ",
"An NHL General Manager answers this question pretty well: _URL_0_",
"Two main reasons. Self-regulation and momentum changing\n\nFirst, as has been mentioned in this thread is self regulation. Hockey is incredibly fast paced and it is impossible for refs to catch every possible infringement. Teams carry a fighter to try and ensure that if somebody goes after their first or second line players that player will be dealt with. You think twice cheapshotting someone when some giant stonefaced goon is toothlessly chomping at the chinstrap to hit you. \n\nIf he doesn't get you back that game, he will. No pun intended, but in hockey revenge is a dish best served cold, just ask the [Detroit Red Wings and Colorado Avalanche who had a famous all out line brawl](_URL_0_) one year later in response to a vicious cheap shot hit Claude Lemieux did on Kris Draper (breaking his jaw, nose, and cheekbone). \n\nOften times when a fight seems pre-planned something occurred in the history where both players know going into the fight that they are going to have to face the wrath of their past actions. It is just a given, so you suit up, and face the organ music.\n\nSecond, fights in hockey are viewed as potential momentum changes. Your team is down, lacking energy, the crowd is out of it, nothing is going your way; the fight is a way to turn that all around. A catalyst, generally, to the team that wins the fight. The crowd is buzzing again, your teammates are riled up a bit and slight shift is felt in the game.\n\nedits: format/spelling/grammer",
"Because hockey is awesome",
"Thats the way she goes boys.",
"First of all they are NOT allowed to beat the shit out of eachother. There is a very fine and observed line by the refs that when crossed the fight is broken up. \n\nThe reason they are allowed to scrap a bit is to let them kool their jets before entering the penalty box. Basically so they can get their head back in the game and not go looking to get revenge or make a statement to another player who pissed them off. Generally it prevents more serious injuries by letting them throw a few swings and get on with the game. ",
"Canadians got to have some outlet for being nice all the time. And what a beautiful way to do it.",
"Better question. Why don't other sports beat the shit out of each other? ",
"Because hockey is awesome!",
"It's a way for players to police the game. Hockey is such a fast paced game that the refs don't see everything. You don't realize it from watching it but players are constantly spearing each other and slashing each other subtly away from the play and they talk crap to each other in hockey like no other sport. Here's a nice example:\n_URL_2_\nAnd here's an example of the trash talk:\n_URL_5_\n\nSome players are agitators which means they live to rile up the opposing players. Here's a funny example:\n_URL_0_\n\nBertuzzi comes in and shoots the Maple Leaf goalie's water bottle away from him so his teammate comes to support him. Something like this could lead to a fight.\n\nHere's another example where a player is disrespectful with his celebration after scoring a goal by shooting the goalie with his stick...the other team didn't take too kindly to his gesture:\n_URL_1_\n\nMore often than not though, a player fights to protect his teammate. After a dirty hit or an unnecessarily hard hit, a teammate might challenge the player who delivered the hit to teach him a lesson. If he gets his ass beat, he might be hesitant to deliver another hit like that and all of a sudden, he's much easier to play against. Some good examples are these:\n_URL_6_\n_URL_7_\n\nAlso, players might fight to spark their team if they can tell the effort/focus just isn't 100%. It can really raise a team's energy and battle level which is huge in hockey. Here's an example where Ovechkin tries to rally his team after being down 4-0:\n_URL_3_\n\nHockey is a great sport. It's got the best culture and the best athletes in the world in terms of ego and character. I mean...Rich Peverley had a heart attack and died on the bench in the middle of a game 2 days ago and after he was revived asked if he could finish the game.\n\nI highly recommend watching HBO's 24/7: Road to the Winter Classic series as it gives great insight into what makes hockey and hockey players so great:\n_URL_4_",
"Cam Neely made an excellent point during the initial arguments against it this year, without fighting everyone is a tough guy.\n\nFighting is a natural deterrent for filthy plays, you make a skeezy hit on someone expect the enforcer to remind you that your teeth can be knocked out, it keeps everyone in line. ",
"For everyone that thinks fighting should be banned -.-t go destroy another sport ",
"Canadians invented the sport as our sole means of venting anger and frustration, eh?",
"There are a lot of good points here. It's worth noting that hockey actually became popular (in Canada at least) *because* it was violent.\n\nTo understand this, you have to understand a little bit about a similar violent sport, lacrosse. When French colonists started arriving in North America in the late 1600 and early 1700s, they were coming from a very religious society that basically said, \"No violence, only prayer!\" So they show up and they see the natives playing this violent game and loving it. Lacrosse was known by different names to different tribes, but it was considered a sort of surrogate to actual war (some words for it actually meant \"little war\" or \"little brother of war\") and it could be used in peacetime to diffuse aggression and bring honour/glory/bragging rights to the winners, much like war. Another cool thing: you can bet on the results! which again, is not something good Catholics in France are allowed to do. Well, the French colonists think this, and many other aspects of native society, is pretty cool, and they pick it up and start playing it too, much to the consternation of the priests and governors in New France.\n\nFast-forward to the late 1800s, and the newly-formed nation of Canada needs a national game. Some pressure from England says that it should be cricket, which is a gentlemen's sport with no hitting or checking or fighting. A dentist from Montreal named George Beers says, \"Screw that, Canadians know lacrosse is way better 'cause you can hit your opponents!\" He established the first professional lacrosse club, and soon middle- and working-class guys were bringing their teams to glory. The \"golden age\" of lacrosse was in the early 1900s, when factory workers would take Saturday afternoons off to play, watch, and bet on lacrosse games.\n\nWell, the \"gentlemen\" still aren't happy, they don't want sports to be violent. So they come up with the idea that lacrosse should be an amateurs-only sport, that is, no one should get paid to play it and no betting should be allowed. With the introduction of amateurism, all the working-class guys who need to violently blow off steam are suddenly pushed out, because they can't afford amateur sports -- if they aren't getting paid to play or bet on Saturday afternoons, they need to spend that time at work, and at this time, playing sports on Sundays was against the law. \n\nSo these working-class guys need to find a new sport to symbolically replace war and allow them a \"safe\" (ie socially acceptable) space to knock the stuffing out of each other. Some turned to baseball (not sure why ...) but most turned to ice hockey. The game was already popular in much of Canada -- the first ice hockey \"world championship\" was held in 1883 in Montreal and the Stanley Cup was first awarded in 1893. In the early 1900s, the Western Pennsylvania Hockey League was the first to pay their players, and Canadian leagues soon followed suit. Thus the beginnings of professional hockey.\n\nFun fact: Lacrosse was Canada's only national sport until 1994, when the *National Sports of Canada Act* decreed that lacrosse was Canada's official summer game, and hockey its official winter game.",
"If my five year old had a potty mouth like that he'd get more than his question answered.",
"Because hockey is fucking badass.",
"Don't mess with the goalie though. ",
"Because Matt Cooke is a reeeal cunt ",
"It cuts down on players doing the things that are more likely to injure others. In a hockey fight you might get a few bruises and cuts. Getting hit from behind and going head first into the boards will hurt the players a lot more. Fighting is a way of policing this.",
"I think I'm in the minority with my opinion (especially being Canadian) but I believe that fighting in hockey is absolutely unnecessary. I think it is unsportsmanlike and that it causes unnecessary injuries. I believe that people who defend fighting just enjoy the show, like watching a wreck in a NASCAR race. \n\nYou'd think that team owners would see their players as investments and not want to cause them undue injury by fighting but then you get guys who are specifically out there to intimidate and rough up the other team (enforcers). \n\nAs far as I'm concerned, international competitions (like the Olympics) prove that hockey can still be an exciting and fun game to watch without the players dropping their gloves. ",
"[I think this man explains it best.](_URL_0_)",
"It's like the difference between consensual sex and rape",
"One time two lumberjacks got in an axe fight over a jar of maple syrup on a frozen lake.\n\nAnd the rest, as they say, is history.",
"It's tradition.\n\nDon't fuck with tradition",
"Its fun to watch the fights. Other sports are jealous of hockey.",
"Otherwise it would be a pussy sport like lacrosse or soccer",
"Fighting in the NHL is a consequence for players who have done something cheap and deemed dirty. If fighting wasn't allowed, players could in theory take cheap shots and have to answer to nothing but 2, 5 10 minutes in the penalty box or a game misconduct. Having fighting in the game is a code of ethics so that if a player say throws an illegal hit from behind or nasty hit, they have to own up to it and face the music of opposing teammates wanting to fight. Mind you both players who fight each get a 5 minute coincidental penalty.\n\nFighting is its own set of justice within a regulated game. ",
"Hockey is a very fast, high intensity, high contact sport. The game features many elements that add to the danger; the hard ice surface, sticks in each players hand, blades on their feet, as well as a hard rubber puck. Most of the game features players skating at very fast speeds and part of the game includes checking. Unlike football, which is also a high contact sport, most of the action in hockey is continuous and not start and stop. With all this taken into account, some times the penalties that the league uses to regulate players to avoid them taking liberates with each other; such as roughing, slashing, cross checking, etc., are just not enough. Fighting is a way for the players to self-regulate the game. When a player knows that a slash to the opposing star players wrist may not just result in a 2 minute penalty, but rather a fight from the opposing teams enforcer, the tough guy on the team who is not their to score but to fight, they are more inclined not to do so. While fighting is dangerous it of itself, allowing fighting keeps the players from taking liberties on each other. Also, fighting is used to swing the momentum of a game. When one team just isn't skating as hard as the other team, the sight of one of their players going to great risks by fighting, gives a jolt of energy to the team that is slacking. Often, however, the allowance of fighting is abused. There have been many instances where coaches have started the game with their 4th line (The 4th line, also known as the checking line, is a more defensive based line instead of a scoring line, which is where most teams keep their \"fighter\"). Starting the 4th line, in most circumstances, means the coach wants to begin the game with a fight. This is an abuse of fighting in the NHL. This season, when Vancouver faced off against Calgary, the Calgary coach started his fourth line, so Vancouver's coach was forced to start his 4th line (because in theory he did not want the other teams 4th line to start fighting his star players who usually start the game). And like clockwork, the two teams fought at the start of the game. Vancouver's coach was so irate at Calgary's coach, after the 1st (of three) intermissions, he tried to enter Calgary's locker room to confront their coach. The incident lead to a $25,000 fine for Calgary's coach and a lengthy 15 game suspension for Vancouver's coach without pay for his retaliation. ",
"Canadans have to take out all of the pent up rage somewhere",
"At the risk of breaking up a hockey-fighting circle jerk, they're allowed to because there's entertainment value, pure and simple. \n\nHockey people (as a Buffalonian, I am one) will mostly tell you it's to police each other, make sure worse stuff doesn't happen, etc. In my experience, it's not about those things when people just go at it for the sake of going at it - it happens all the times off face-offs and has nothing to do with anything but entertainment. \n\nThe fact that the best players in the world do without fighting in international play, most other leagues do without it, and it's DRASTICALLY reduced in the playoffs when entertainment matters less than winning the cup (which I thoroughly enjoy watching). If it were so necessary, it wouldn't disappear in the playoffs. \n\nReplace 4th line goons with 3rd line talent offensive players and you'd have a much better game, and make it more international in emphasizing skill over an ability to stand up on skates while punching. \n\nOther sports feature objects and players that can and will hurt each other - some have sporadic fights but it is never the consensual way a hockey fight is, and all seem to do MUCH better than hockey from a revenue standpoint, and all have no issue keeping things from boiling over too far, with the occasional exception (which are no worse than hockey players dragging fans into the penalty box for a pummeling). My point being the entertainment value doesn't even help from a revenue standpoint. \n\nIf there's any evidence to suggest fights in hockey lead to more concussions, then there's no reason the NHL shouldn't try to curb fighting as much as the NFL tries to curb hits to the head. \n\nIt's allowed because people don't like change, pure and simple. I'm not saying I do, just that that's my take on the issue. ",
"Every team has a bully to keep the other team in check. His main job is to defend his players at all cost.",
"I was at a \"Hockey 101\" hosted by Dave Andreychuk. This question came up Dave responded with 'it's just part of the game. The players are very emotional about the sport. And that it is used as a momentum changer'.\n\nAs to your question of why it is allowed, I guess the answer (according to Dave) would be it is just part of the game.",
"Because beating up with fists is better than beating up with hockey sticks and skate blades.",
"They don't do much damage compared to what could happen if that aggression and anger didn't have an outlet where they drop their sticks and just use their fists without the steady base of being on your feet. The skates really help nullify most of the power of the punches thrown.\n\nIf the refs didn't allow these sorts of fights, there would be more dangerous checks, as well as potential injuries from sticks.\n\nSo really it is the best way to go about safety overall.\n\nThe same is not true in sports where people are on their feet instead of skates and ice. Real damage can be done and those fights are not allowed.\n\nIn hockey whenever a fight goes to the ground the refs are quick to stop it to prevent potential head injury and the players are well aware of it too.",
"I would just like to clarify that fighting is *not* allowed in hockey; it is *tolerated*, in the sense that you won't get suspended for doing it, but you will get a penalty.\n\nThere is a heated debate on whether or not it should still be tolerated, although I doubt you will see any change from the league on this any time soon. There are less fights in the NHL than there used to be and when there is a fight, it doesn't always have an impact on the game. \n\nAt this rate, fighting will probably naturally disappear because at some point, coaches and GMs will realize that they're better off with 4 lines than can score goals, rather than 3 lines and a 4th line that has only goons on it.",
"Hockey player here. \n\nThe thing so many people fail to realize is that 90% of the time, the fights are purely for sport really. It's like two young brothers who can play nice for a bit, but when you both want the same toy shit gets real, but then you guys fight and get over it and get back to playing. Hockey players have an understanding of each other, both parties know that the crowd loves a good fight, it gets everybody going, it just brings the game to a whole different level. \n\nMost guys will still shake hands after the game."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Washington"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/sports/hockey/01hockey.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://cellar.org/pictures/shanahan-iginla.jpg",
"http://tthu.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Derek-Boogaard-NY-Rangers.jpg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR389em23T8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/10073724/nhl-players-fight-let-fight"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEBoOr12BrI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz9RE9RGrVY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2013/10/30/pro-fighting-column/3320245/"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMqixqzKoRQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDoGWBx930M",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46g_hjDeEw",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeLEdbj4Jss",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLeECnA4uTA",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qvTr463Oe4",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWRk1InwRxM",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Ldu2k0oKU",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIO8ShhkJTc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/iyVF5EE.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
darzni | how much do hurricanes and other major weather events effect the underwater ecosystem? | Every year, there are dozens of hurricanes, typhoons, and other significant weather events, many of which begin over the water and build up to sustained winds above 100 mph. These events create storm surges and results in catastrophic damage when they approach land, but I’m curious what effect they have on the ocean. How deep do you have to go to be insulated from the effects of hurricane force winds? Do shallow aquatic species migrate deeper into the water the way a bird, person or land animal might move inland in the wake of a storm? Do major storm tides cause large underwater casualties? Or is the direct effect on the ocean, given its depth/pressure/sheer magnitude, negligible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/darzni/eli5_how_much_do_hurricanes_and_other_major/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1tbi0d",
"f1vswdo"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Waves don't make a huge impact on underwater species. They go down maybe 10 meters. The problem is the costal ecosystem which can get damaged heavily by typhoons and hurricanes. But normally the ecosystem can reform quickly, due to alot of food being flooded to them. Normally shallow water species can only migrate somewhat well, so they don't act like birds flying away normally. \n\nSo yea. Not a huge impact.",
"hurricane-force winds stir up deep-sea nutrients and bring nutrient-rich debris out to sea when flooding recedes. this is part of the coastal ecosystem, but it tends to cause algal blooms which are a bad thing if they’re too intense (water becomes hypoxic, killing fish and other O2-reliant sea creatures) or the bacteria produce toxic byproducts (bad for everything)\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.livescience.com%2F30759-how-a-hurricane-impacts-the-ocean.html",
"https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html"
]
] |
|
2yoetf | why is the arctic's sovereignty increasingly contested now that the climate change is starting to show? | Just wondering, why has the sovereignty of the Arctic now more contested than ever, though the effects of the climate change? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yoetf/eli5_why_is_the_arctics_sovereignty_increasingly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpbjfr1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Articles like [this](_URL_0_) one in the news perpetuate the idea that Arctic sovereignty is increasingly contested. In fact, this is not true. \n\nWhile there are parts of the maritime boundaries between the Arctic states are unsettled, the main focus for these states are their claims to sovereignty over the continental shelf. This is because under international law, coastal states have sovereign ownership to the continental shelf (and all the precious oil, gas, and other mineral resources in it) that naturally extends from their coasts. As the Arctic ice melts at an increasingly faster rate due to climate change, states are understandably keen to exploit the emerging opportunities for fishing, mining, and shipping in the Arctic.\n\nWhat is particularly relevant is that while all coastal states can claim certain sovereign rights to the water column and the fish up to 200 nautical miles from their coasts, they can claim the continental shelf much further than 200 nautical miles if geographically speaking the continental shelf \"naturally prolongates\" further. \n\nThe reality is that there are very specific and technical rules for calculating how far a state's continental shelf actually extends to. And there is a specific independent body set up to examine a state's claims called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). So even though Russia is engaging in publicity stunts like planting flags in the bottom of the north pole, they are also making their submission to the CLCS like every other Arctic state.\n\nEdit: The CLCS was only relatively recently established (it held its first meeting in 1997). Given it takes a long time and a lot of resources to map out and verify a country's continental shelf, claims are still being submitted and assessed to this day. [Here](_URL_1_) is the list of submissions made thus far.\n\ntd;dr - Yes, claims are being made by the Arctic States. But they're actually doing it in accordance with established international rules. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic",
"http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm"
]
] |
|
29ty78 | how do mobile/cell phone service providers deal with recycling phone numbers that have been lost or damaged ? | I understand that there are a large number of possible phone numbers available in each country and some countries have more possibilities than others depending on how they arrange their numerical hierarchy.
For example in america the first three digits after the area code are arranged by area around the United states whereas in Ireland the first three digits correspond to which carrier you are with. Since the United states obviously has more people than Ireland they need a system which allows for a greater number of permutations and combinations of numbers.
However the number of numbers must obviously be a finite amount and with people frequently breaking old phones, buying new numbers or just changing their number for whatever reason, how does the carrier seek to recycle any of the numbers that are effectively offline ?
EDIT: When I refer to destruction of a phone I am making the assumption that the Sim card containing the number information in the phone is also destroyed. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ty78/eli5_how_do_mobilecell_phone_service_providers/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciog56t",
"cjs2r8y"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, if someone opts to not continue using their telephone number, it can be re-issued. In the US, however, your phone number is basically yours and you can transfer it to any carrier (or to a different geographic area code some of the time). Back before the number portability law went into effect, people changed phone number (at least on their cell phones) more frequently and you'd occasionally get calls for the former owner of that number.\n\nThere's an applicable xkcd comic that explains how US mobile number work.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n(2005 is when the law went into effect allowing you to keep your number anywhere and with any carrier).",
"So you can't keep your number if you switch carriers in Ireland? \n\nI changed my number after I switched to a new carrier, as my old number was from another area code (mainly so that people locally using landlines could call me for free). \n\nThe problem? People don't usually drop numbers voluntarily. The previous owner of my new number was apparently behind on his bills and being sued by everyone and his mother. I get calls almost every day asking for him from various collections agencies. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://xkcd.com/1129/"
],
[]
] |
|
3n7azh | why has there not been a mass shooting event in australia since the port arthur massacre? | Time and time again we see the answer to massacres in the US that if more people have guns they will be able to defend themselves and stop a massacre. So why is the opposite true? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n7azh/eli5why_has_there_not_been_a_mass_shooting_event/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvlgto6",
"cvlgww9",
"cvlgzap",
"cvlgzd3",
"cvlhguh",
"cvljhp0",
"cvljpcu"
],
"score": [
21,
7,
5,
6,
4,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"I would say it just makes sense: Less guns and harder accessibility to them = less shootings. The easier it is to get your hands on a gun, and the more the use of guns is promoted as normal in everyday life, the more likely it is you will choose a gun as a weapon. This counts for attacks planned well ahead, and when reacting impulsively to a situation.",
"*Because crazy teenage boys with social/mental health issues (who commit most mass/school shootings) are very easy to keep away from guns* with legislation. \n\nThey lack the connections/social skills, etc to get illegal guns (which, of course, still exist in Australia; they just cause far, far less problems because of their illegality).",
"Following the Port Arthur Massacre the Australian Government essentially passed a law banning all firearms unless they are used for a specific purpose. This could be either:\n- Law Enforcement (self-explanatory)\n- Hunting (which requires a very strict licence and background check, and is normally reserved for farmers with wild animal problems) \n- Sports (Rifle Ranges etc)\n\nNB: Handguns are 100% illegal unless used for sport, and are a very small caliber. \n\nWe took a pretty strong stance on gun violence after Port Arthur and because of it we have had no major gun related incidents. However do not think that the Government just took the guns. Over $350 million was spent on a \"buy-back\" scheme, where the government effectively purchased all unlicensed firearms. \n\nGun violence is not a thing in Australia, because we purely do not allow it to happen. It's become accepted in our day to day life and we not not feel vulnerable because of it. \n\n",
"After the Port Arthur massacre former Prime Minister John Howard introduced laws that heavily regulated the ownership of guns - in particular semi-automatics. Essentially it became a lot harder to gain a gun license and therefore own a gun. Not longer afterwards, a 'buy-back' scheme was introduced that allowed Australians to hand in their firearms and be paid the value of them. Over 600,000 firearms were handed in and destroyed. Roughly 250,000 firearms weren't handed in and remain in a 'grey-area'. The gun that the man used in Martin Place siege in Sydney came from this grey-area.\n\nTL;DR: Heavy gun laws & guns destroyed; less guns, less gun related violence. ",
"edit: Whoops, misread the question. I thought the OP was asking why Australian didn't have as many of these incidents as America. Guess I read too many of those '294 mass shootings in America so far this year' threads today. For the record I'm neither Australian or American, just opinionated :-)\n \nThere's a tendency in American media to give a lot of attention to the individuals committing these offenses. I'm not suggesting the American media condones or encourages these actions, but they give a voice and screen time to the perpetrators than other countries media doesn't. Additionally, IMHO, Australian / UK coverage is more likely to use terms like 'mentally ill' while the US says things like 'mass shooter' or 'estranged teenager'.\n \nWant to be heard in America? Commit an atrocity. \n \n[I recognize I'm not backing this viewpoint up with citations or statistics and present it prinarly as food for thought]",
"I was born the year of the Port-Arthur massacre, the same year the gun reform was legislated. I don't think I've ever seen a privately owned firearm. I know people who hunt rabbits and stuff on their farms but that's about it. Little to no guns makes massacring a lot harder.",
" > people have guns they will be able to defend themselves and stop a massacre. So why is the opposite true?\n\nIma play Devils advocate here and go against the usual reddit circlejerk say that this is the reason why controls don't work. They want guns to defend themselves but guns aren't allowed on school campuses or movies theaters or any other \"gun free\" zones. These people with guns are following the law by not bringing their weapons to these areas but that takes away their ability to defend themselves. Yet there will allows be criminals and mentally disturbed individuals who don't care about laws and will break them anyways. remember that there will always be people who have he intention to do harm. If they have the will they will find a way. That is why one of the reasons most shooting takes place in gun free zones is because the shooters are the only ones that will have guns. \n\nIts impossible to place bans on guns right now because all that will do is land even more people in jail and will cause the death of many Americans and police officers from trying to take away guns and defending themselves from having their weapons taken away. There's defenitely people who will go to those lengths in keeping their firearms.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
40ksj6 | why do some highways have "line indentations" running through the road, and others are smooth? | With lines:
_URL_0_
Smooth:
_URL_1_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40ksj6/eli5why_do_some_highways_have_line_indentations/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyuz8xr"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The grooves are there to help with traction in the rain. This is more common on concrete surfaces. Asphalt is rougher by nature plus if you cut those grooves into it it'll just crumble much faster."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/english/transtek/roadtalk/rt16-3/Tining%20at%20Sunrise.jpg",
"http://p1.pichost.me/i/12/1350918.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
4dleeo | what is the legal difference between a postitute, escort, and porn star? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dleeo/eli5_what_is_the_legal_difference_between_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1rzv05"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"A porn star is hired to act in a film that happens to involve a lot of sex. \n\nAn escort is hired to spend time with you and escort you to an event. If sex happens to occur while they are with you, you are both consenting adults and that happens. They are technically not required to have sex with you. \n\nA prostitute is specifically selling sex. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9kpbx8 | the difference beyween amoled and p-oled? | For example, the Pixel 2 runs AMOLED screen while the Pixel 2 XL runs P-OLED? What's the difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9kpbx8/eli5_the_difference_beyween_amoled_and_poled/ | {
"a_id": [
"e70rfu8",
"e70ux4l",
"e71tc1a",
"e72cdpj"
],
"score": [
66,
7,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"AMOLED stands for \"active-matrix organic light-emitting diode\", where the AM part means that each LED has an individual transistor driving it, hence \"active\". Practically all graphical displays these days are active-matrix. The OLED part doesn't specify what kind of organic molecule is used as the light emitting material.\n\nP-OLED is more specific type of AMOLED display that uses an organic polymer (=plastic) as the light emitting material.",
"A P-OLED is much simpler and thinner than AMOLED (just Samsung's name for Glass OLED), see this image: _URL_1_\n\nIn the real world however, P-OLED might have a bit more durability since it's not glass-backed, but AMOLED can use plastic too, so it's really a toss up.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It sounds like P-OLED uses a plastic polymer in one of its layers instead of a more common glass material. From what I can tell this makes it more flexible in the manufacturing process and possibly more durable. \n\nAMOLED is a Samsung marketing term for what seems like a fairly standard OLED display.",
"Display engineer here. P-OLEDs can flex. One is made of glass and the other plastic. \n\nA *substrate* is the material a display is built on. If you make that display out of glass, it will be very hard but not able to bend. If you make it out of plastic, it will be lighter and possibly able to bend (depending on the other parts). \n\nAn LED screen is made of\n\n- a substrate (stiff layer everything is built on)\n- LEDs (tiny, efficient lightbulbs that are the pixels)\n- traces (small wires connecting the lightbulbs)\n- the transistor matrix (tiny switches controlling which lightbulbs are on)\n\nFlexible screens are hard. Not only does the substrate have to be flexible, but so does everything else. The LEDs (which act like tiny lightbulbs) have to either bend or the wires connecting them have to. Samsung recently figured out how to get those wires to bend (essentially, they are coiled up zig-zags like old landline phone cords). So now plastic substrate OLED screens can flex. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.androidauthority.com/poled-vs-amoled-792869/",
"https://cdn57.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Flexible-OLED-thickness.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4d1ec9 | on a handgun, what exactly does a custom compensator do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d1ec9/eli5_on_a_handgun_what_exactly_does_a_custom/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1mx9ou"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"When the gunpowder explodes, it pushes the bullet forwards. This also results in a backwards recoil force. Because you were gripping the gun below the explosion, the gun pivots about your hands instead of flying backwards, forcing the muzzle upwards. A compensator takes some of the gases exiting the barrel and directs them upwards to counter the muzzle rise for a more accurate shot."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2ir0ft | the difference between magnetic confinement fusion, inertial confinement fusion and how they actually cause atoms to fuse. | Also how are they able to contain the nuclear reaction that's happening? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ir0ft/eli5the_difference_between_magnetic_confinement/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl4mmx1",
"cl4qara"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Nuclear fusion is when two (or more) nuclei or particles are forced to join together to form a single nuclei. Since these bodies have a strong repulsion from each other, they must be restricted, or confined, into a given volume. Magnetic confinement takes advantage of the fact that these bodies respond to magnetic fields; these fields are used as the barrier to prevent passage. Think of inertial confinement as a ring of baseball players, with the baseballs as the particles. Every time a ball gets thrown into the ring, it might hit another, or it might keep going; when it hits the other side, a player catches it and throws it back in. Inertial confinement is nothing more than \"throwing\" the particles back into the reaction zone. \n\nParticles are made to fuse when their force of repulsion is overcome and they are actually brought together. These forces are enormous, and the force of repulsion has a much greater range than the force of attraction. Imagine taking two magnets that will stick together, but only within a centimeter. Now, imagine there is a kilometer-long spring pushing them apart; if you can manage to overcome the force of this huge spring, the magnets will stick (or the particles will join). So magnetic and inertial (and gravitational, as in the sun) confinement aren't so much confining the reaction (although they can do this as well), as they're confining the ingredients for the reaction.",
"Nuclear fusion requires getting the atomic nuclei so close together that they become one. This takes a lot of energy because until they are right, _right_ next to each other, the nuclei want to push each other apart. (This is because they are positively charged, and it is like pushing two positive poles of a magnetic together.)\n\nSo there are two ways to go about doing this. The first is to just heat the atoms in question up. If they are zipping around at very high speeds (which is the same thing as very high temperature for atoms), they will occasionally run into each other before the repulsive force can push them apart. The temperatures for this are _very_ high: tens of thousands of degrees celsius. \n\nThe other approach is to try and just squeeze the materials together physically. This takes a _lot_ of pressure. In the Sun, it requires _the entire gravitational force of the Sun_ to work. \n\nSo when we try to do these things in a controlled, laboratory setting, we have to find ways of making either of these options work from a practical point of view. Heating things up, that's not so hard, right? Well, except that the temperatures required are so hot that no physical substance can endure them and stay in a solid form. So if we put all of the fusion fuel (e.g. hydrogen) into a glass container and heated it up, it would obviously melt well before the fusion temperature was achieved. Ditto lead. Ditto uranium. Ditto anything you can imagine. \n\nSo the answer that the scientists came up with was, well, let's contain the fuel using something that is _not_ a physical material. Let's make the hydrogen into a charged gas, and then hold it in place with a magnetic field! Basically instead of a glass bottle, you're made a magnetic bottle. Then, in theory, you can just pump energy into the gas (e.g. with a laser or a microwave emitter or whatever) until it gets to fusion temperatures. \n\nIt turns out this is easier said than done, because making stable magnetic bottles that don't \"leak\" energy or gas is really, really, _really_ hard. A plasma physicist I know who worked on this stuff for his Ph.D. said that it was like trying to confine all of the water in your bathtub to a tiny corner using just your hands: the water will find _any_ way out and there are probably a lot of ways out. If the magnetic bottle \"leaks\" then the temperature of the fusion gas will decrease and the whole thing will cool (and potentially damage your installation, depending on how much energy we are talking about). There have been many different designs for figuring out how to make stable magnetic containers; the one that people are mostly betting on at the moment is a giant Tokamak, which is sort of a twisted torus (a donut, sorta) of moving gas.\n\nThe other approach is inertial confinement. This means squeezing the fusionable material to ridiculously high densities — i.e. making liquid hydrogen several orders of magnitude more dense that it normally is. The idea for this came from the design of hydrogen bombs, which also use high compressive forces (the X-rays emitted from an atomic bomb) to create the conditions for fusion. Instead of using an atomic bomb as the \"driver\" of the compression, the idea is to use something like a giant laser. If you can shoot a very powerful laser beam at all sides of a tiny sphere of frozen hydrogen and perfectly \"implode\" it from all sides, you can create conditions at the very center of the sphere that are good for fusion, and in principle the reaction can propagate through the rest of the fuel. So basically you are creating an extremely tiny Sun inside your reactor, which will release a bunch of energy in one brief instant, that you can then try to capture one way or another. \n\n(This is called inertial confinement because it is the action of the fusion fuel squishing in on itself, after being blasted by the laser, that is holding the whole thing together in a configuration that will lead to thermonuclear fusion. This is in contrast with the magnetic confinement where a magnetic field is keeping things in the good configuration.)\n\nIn practice this too is very hard to achieve, even with very big lasers and very tiny pellets of fuel. The problem is that any tiny asymmetry in the shining of the laser light will result in an imperfect implosion, and the reactions won't start. There are ways to get around this (e.g. if you put the pellet inside of a little box made of gold, and shine the laser light at the inside of the gold box, it will reduce X-rays that will uniformly fill the gold chamber, and compress the pellet perfectly), but they all involve losing some of the laser energy, and so you need an even bigger laser to make it work. (We're talking about lasers the size of football fields, here, just to ignite pellets smaller than the nail on your smallest toe.) Additionally, the efficiencies of lasers and the whole system are not super high, so less than 1% of the energy that you put into the laser makes it to the pellet. This means that in order to get more energy out of the reaction than it takes to start it, you need _very_ high \"gain\" from the pellet — it needs to give out a _lot_ more times energy than reaches it. So far that hasn't happened.\n\nThe state of research in both of these methods is that for every success there are several discouragement and setbacks. A massive MCF Tokamak known as ITER is set to start up sometime in the 2020s. The idea there is that by scaling up the size of the whole thing, maybe it will be easier to construct a magnetic bottle that is more tolerant of losses than smaller installations. The biggest ICF facility, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) was constructed by the Livermore weapons lab over the course of the late 1990s and early 2000s and went live a few years ago. It was initially expected to reach the point where more energy was given out by the pellets than it took to start the reactions, but that goal has been scaled back considerably in the last few years. (There are many news reports that say that more energy has been achieved than _reached the pellet_, but remember that only ~1% of the energy actually reaches the pellet.)\n\nFusion _has_ been achieved with both methods, on small scales, but nobody has yet achieved \"break even,\" the point at which you get more energy from the fusion reactions than it takes to start the fusion reactions. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2ap5hr | why does my laptop tell me what percentage of battery power i have left, but unexpectedly die when it is around 30-40%? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ap5hr/eli5_why_does_my_laptop_tell_me_what_percentage/ | {
"a_id": [
"cixd4nq",
"cixd56v",
"cixd5lr"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It shouldn't do that normally. That tends to be a sign of battery failure, and you probably need a replacement",
"Dies it really die, or is it shutting down to prevent data loss? (This could be changed in the settings)\nIf it really dies it is likely that the battery life indicator is not properly calibrated. This can often be fixed by completely unloading and then completely loading the battery.",
"Sounds like your battery is dieing and is misreading it's charge."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5efbo5 | why do a number of asian currencies deal with relatively (to american dollars) high numbers? | Hopefully the people who know understand right away.
I'm about to make up some numbers and words right now, but for example: how does 100,000 yen equal the worth of 100 dollars? Counting 100 dollars in 1 dollar bills is arduous enough, and I get that their notes are in the thousands (some of them), so why didn't they just normalize it to a lower number?
Is currency imagined in a completely different way over there? I can't imagine it could really be that much disparity in worth, especially these days; perhaps catastrophic economic events in the past?
Thanks for your time! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5efbo5/eli5_why_do_a_number_of_asian_currencies_deal/ | {
"a_id": [
"dac14vx",
"dac21ji",
"dac325m",
"dac3chf"
],
"score": [
21,
10,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In Japan they only have yen. In the US we have dollars quarters dimes nickels and pennies. \n\nSo you are dividing the total in dollars by 100 instead of saying 10000 pennies.",
"Japan is one of those countries in Asia with near 1:1 exchange rate with USD. Except the Yen has no cents. The currency starts at 1 yen which is roughly equivalent to 1 American cent. \n\n100 Yen is about $1\n1000 Yen=$10\n10000 Yen=$100\n\nIf you want to go to Japan and want to know how much a product in Yen costs in US dollars all you have to do is take out the last 2 digits of Yen( > 100) and you'll get the approximate US Dollar ammount.",
"This question was asked by those who came before you. Try to use the search function! _URL_0_\n\nYou can think of \"yen\" like \"pennies\", in that it is the smallest form of currency available to the Japanese (in fact, the only form of currency they use now). If you think of it like that, you can see how 111 yen currently equal 1 USD, and it means that their currency is not much less valuable than the US currency. It's just that they're counting in pennies instead of 100's of pennies. \nJapanese Yen is also the third most traded currency in international markets, which suggests that there is a lot of global faith in its value, just like USD, Pounds Sterling, and the Euro.\n\nTo answer your more basic question; \"Why do some currencies, like the Zimbabwe dollar, use such high numbers to denote such low (relatively speaking) value?\"\nThe answer is that it's almost entirely arbitrary and usually falls to custom, tradition, or the random choice of some leader in the past. Some leader was like, \"I'll show those British Royals how wealthy I am... all of our currency will now be in the BILLIONS! HAH!\" (This happened in Zimbabwe.) ",
"Historically, Asian currencies tend to be weak. Many currencies had to be devalued (having their value reduced relative to other currencies), making unit value of their currency to be weak. From quick google it showed that China, India, and a Indonesia, the three largest countries by population in Asia (and top 4 in the world excluding US) had devalued their currency in the past. Brazil also had devalued their currency. \n\nThis weakness due to devaluation meant that the currency tend to be exchanged at higher number because their per unit money valued much less than per unit dollar or euro. \n\nSome former European currencies that got replaced by euro also had high denominations. Italian lira for example, used to have 1000 as their lowest banknote amount. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4io6bj/eli5_why_do_some_countries_have_their_currency_in/"
],
[]
] |
|
9afx3m | why loaves and french and italian bread mold after a couple days but a loaf of sliced bread lasts weeks without molding? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9afx3m/eli5_why_loaves_and_french_and_italian_bread_mold/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4v3hzx",
"e4v4xpg",
"e4v7fab",
"e4vi2o5",
"e4vjei3",
"e4vjzc8",
"e4vo1l5"
],
"score": [
340,
17,
59,
8,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"So in sliced bread, a tonne of preservatives and sugars are added to the bread. While they do make the bread worse for you, they make it last a lot longer. Fresh baked breads and buns usually only have enough salt and sugar to properly bake. The lack of salt and sugar means the bread is much easier for mold to grow on.",
"What sliced bread do you have that goes \"weeks\" without mold? I find that any more than 2-3 days past the expiration date and it starts getting all kinds of mold.",
"Also adding to the points below, I almost never have proper french/any decently baked break go moldy in a couple of days. Good bread usually goes stale/dried out and then lasts for a while in that state and you can use it in recipes that are best with stale bread. ",
"In cheap sliced bread ([here](_URL_0_:) are the ingredients in wonder bread) you’ll see sugar, preservatives, and *vinegar*. You can smell the tang of vinegar in the bread aisle. Vinegar keeps the acidity low and discourages mould growth. You’re eating pickled bread.",
"Remember that the yeast munches the sugars and produces alcohol and carbon dioxide bubbles as byproducts. The baking process evaporates the alcohol and fixes the CO2 as the gaps in the bread texture (the bubbles) ",
"I've learned to start putting fresh, \"artisan\" breads in the refrigerator. It keeps them from molding for a long time. I'm talking, weeks. Whereas otherwise, they'd mold after mere days.\n\nSure, it's not the most fresh at the tail end of that time. But there's no mold, and it's totally edible.\n\nSheldon on BBT was totally wrong about that (not that BBT doesn't get a lot of shit wrong). To prevent molding, put fresh breads in the fridge.",
"Weeks? Where are you getting your bread?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=wonder+bread+ingredients&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgrc=iowBnHnASH-7rM"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
25r8af | what is actually happening in a computer when a usbflashdrive is ejected "safely"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25r8af/eli5_what_is_actually_happening_in_a_computer/ | {
"a_id": [
"chjyemi"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"When you tell the computer to write something to a drive, it doesn't always do it immediately. It keeps it around in case you make other write requests so it can do it all at once. It's more efficient.\n\nIf you yank the drive without telling the computer, it will lose the data it was waiting to write. When you tell it to eject, you are giving it warning so it knows to finish everything up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
26c3x1 | why are conducted energy weapons (tasers) not more common with law enforcement? | It seems like there is a negative public opinion about CEWs and they are considered more dangerous than they actually are.
Is the problem that we haven't decided when it is appropriate for law enforcement to use these devices?
Regardless of how dangerous CEWs are, I am certain they are less likely to be lethal than a gunshot wound. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26c3x1/eli5_why_are_conducted_energy_weapons_tasers_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"chpoc3o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Last I heard, tasers are pretty common among American cops."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
b5i6ii | so fractional reserve banks loan money into existence that was loaned into existence to them, for a cheaper rate. so the interest that the banks earn on loans they make to business/consumer is money out of thin air on money that was created out of thin air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b5i6ii/eli5_so_fractional_reserve_banks_loan_money_into/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejdnndq"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In short, yes. The interest on the main loan is how much the initial lender charges to borrow. \n\nThe secondary lender then splits it up charges customers to borrow smaller amounts of that money at a profitable rate. So the initial loan actually ends up being “worth” more than the face value. \n\nThats how money is “made” on a regular basis.\n\nFor the part about “loaning money into existence”, this is also true. Theoretically the reserve bank has infinite cash. It just “prints” more money when needed to balance the economy. Creating money allows businesses to grow and make jobs and betters the economy. Create too much though, and inflation becomes a problem, and the money is worthless."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1er8gv | what's the difference between normal plastic and microwavable plastic? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1er8gv/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_normal_plastic/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca2yozf",
"ca30h10"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"All plastic containers that bare the microwavable safe logo have gone through fda testing so see if the plastic when heated with and without food leaks chemicals. So when the fda tests the plastic it can only \"leak\" a certain amount of Chemical in to the food. \n\nAs far as if your asking about why some melt and others don't the has to do with the type of plastic Nd the epoxy used. \n\nEdit: \"High Density Polyethylene is about 130 ºC \n\nLow Density Polyethylene is about 110 ºC \n\nPolyethylene terphthalate is about 250—260 ºC \n\nPolypropylene is about 160—170 ºC \n\nPolystyrene is about 70—115 ºC \n\n(Pvc) Polyvinyl Chloride is about 75—90 ºC\n\n\nEdit: \"The scientists then measure the chemicals that leach out and the extent to which they migrate to different kinds of foods. The maximum allowable amount is 100–1,000 times less per pound of body weight than the amount shown to harm laboratory animals over a lifetime of use.\" \n_URL_0_\n\n\n\nDoing this on my phone is a bitch. ",
"According to this, there is no microwaveable plastic: _URL_0_\n\nAlthough, i think the microwaveable plastics leak less amount of BPA."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0706a.shtml"
],
[
"http://thisgreenblog.com/2009/02/which-plastics-are-microwavable.html"
]
] |
||
5qe9gh | how do people create videos such as obama singing a song he never sang? | Hey Reddit.
I was curious as to how people go about creating videos like the following: _URL_0_
It seems like it would be inefficient to simply watch a lot of speeches and then piece them together. Is there a smarter, simpler way to do this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qe9gh/eli5_how_do_people_create_videos_such_as_obama/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcyj92f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm sure there's a website out there with all the president speeches on it in word form. Just use the search function on the website to find the certain word you want then when have the word find which speech it's from then look for it on youtube. "
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3oIIOBJuA"
] | [
[]
] |
|
e65wpa | what fills the space of a synapse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e65wpa/eli5_what_fills_the_space_of_a_synapse/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9o0m1x",
"f9o0qgc",
"f9o1ryp"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
8
],
"text": [
"The extracellular fluid (ECF) fills the space. That's filled with all sorts of different ions, proteins, enzymes, and will be different depending on the neuron to suit it's specific needs.\n\n Neurotransmitters usually get sucked back up into the presynaptic terminal soon after release or broken down by enzymes and recycled. A small portion will diffuse away from the synapse, usually getting taken up by an astrocyte.",
"The space is filled with extracellular fluid, which is actually the same fluid that bathes every cell in your brain. Synapses are just the connecting ports of a neuron, very much like your USB plugs that you put into your computer. A synapse, in that example, is the USB dongle (part that plugs in) and the USB port (part you plug into). The rest of the USB cable is your neuron (although the analogy breaks down here).\n\nNeurotransmitters that somehow get loose generally end up floating around in the extracellular fluid until they break down, and then generally get flushed as waste through cerebrospinal fluid into your lymphatic ducts, which drains into your circulatory system and then ultimately gets breathed out.",
"Extracellular fluid, which all cells are surrounded by. The gaps aren't nearly as big as they are commonly depicted though, that's just done for illustration. Having a big gap would be counterproductive as you want neurotransmitters to make it to the other side as fast as possible. [This](_URL_0_) is what a synapse actually looks like. Note that there is really no noticeable empty space."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-neuronal-synapse-upper-Electron-microscopy-of-a-synapse-The-Postsynaptic-terminal_fig8_263037986"
]
] |
||
4krcy4 | difference in multicam and single cam tv shows from an acting perspective | I was recently watching the trailer for CBS's new show, Man with a Plan. One of the comments for the trailer also claimed that they worked on the set and that Jenna Fischer just couldn't handle the multi cam set up so she was fired.
So I'm wondering what is the difference between multicam and single cam from an actor/actresses perspective that they would happen to be worse at one over the other. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4krcy4/eli5_difference_in_multicam_and_single_cam_tv/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3h8xsc",
"d3hegr4"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"As an actress, single cam does tend to be easier. These are single takes all formatted together so it's easier to edit out problems and get the \"best take.\" Think of that movie feel. Multi-cam does tend to be harder for those used to getting multiple takes of the same stuff since it's more of a continuous shot. The majority of theater actors/actresses can typically handle a multi-cam without any issues. Multi-cam is also much less expensive and less labor intensive for the crew and editors because of this. It's a matter of doing the scene in 1 take with the whole crew of actors (sometimes a couple times the same way depending on what you're working on) versus delivering the same line 100 times the same way to a ball on a pole for editing later.",
"/u/LionFish87 is absolutely right about all points he/she listed. Multi-cam shoots are used with the expectation that the performance will be done in one take. Single-cam setups, by nature, are multi-take setups. Actors have plenty of chances to get their lines right, or try it with different affectations, etc. Someone like Jenna Fischer likely got to experiment and improvise quite a bit on the set of The Office, and wasn't used to having to deliver her lines effectively in one take. It's a lot more pressure for an actor.\n\nBut the other big, *big* reason multi-cam is hard is because it's typically in front of a live audience. Most sitcoms from the 80's and 90's were multi-cam. It was done in front of a live audience to pique interest (the public could get tickets to a taping of their favorite show), because they could capture audience reactions (why canned \"laugh tracks\" are so frowned upon in modern comedies -- effectively telling audiences when to laugh, rather than having to live without laughs if the jokes didn't land), and because they were much cheaper to produce. The rise of HD digital cameras and affordable digital non-linear editing has made single-camera shoots much more cost effective, which is why so many sitcoms have transitioned to them. They can have the directorial control dramas have without being prohibitively expensive. This has been great for television from a story-telling perspective, allowing for more complex things like multiple locations, more expansive camera angles, and more nuance from actors -- shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation could never have existed in the 80's or 90's. Multi-cam setups these days are mostly used for live -- or at least non-scripted -- broadcasts (sports, concerts, ceremonies, political events, etc.) because they can't just stop and work around the actors and try again and \"fix it in post\" the way a single-cam shoot has the luxury of doing. \n\nThis does not necessarily mean that all \"single-cam\" shoots only have one camera (The Shield famously used two to three cameras to capture a \"documentary-style\" effect to mimic shows like Cops, but was still considered a \"single-camera\" show by definition, since it was done in multiple takes and extensively edited later). This also does not necessarily mean that multi-camera actors are \"better\" actors, just that they can perform their lines more effectively under pressure. \n\nNearly all non-documentary films are considered \"single-camera\" shoots, because the event being filmed exists in relation to the whims of the production. Everything being filmed exists solely for how it will be represented on film. Multi-cam replicates the ability to cross-cut camera angles that a single-cam shoot does by having multiple cameras present and being able to cut on the fly, often by a person called a technical director on-site (as opposed to the director, who is typically on-set and off-camera, giving his actors and crew notes, etc). \n\nTL;DR: An actor in a single-camera set-up has far more leeway and room for experimentation, and an actor in a multi-camera setup is more akin to a stage actor performing in a play, with no do-overs. This is why theater actors typically fare much better transitioning to film than film actors do transitioning to theater.\n\nEDIT: Clarity on a few points.\n\nEDIT 2: A couple more things, for clarity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
sasi4 | airplane de-icing prior to the start | Whenever it is/has been snowing, they de-ice the planes before start. I know they are using some mixture of hot water and chemicals, but I'm still unsure as to why it doesn't re-freeze immediately after take-off, especially considering the outside temperatures when on cruise altitude. Why is Ice/Frost not an issue during flight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sasi4/eli5_airplane_deicing_prior_to_the_start/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4ciq8y",
"c4clklo"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"In many cases it's hot water and alcohol (alcohol having a very low freezing point) that they spray on the planes. When a plane sits on the ground ice/snow can accumulate on the top, when flying it's more likely to accumulate on the surfaces facing in to the direction of flight.\n\nIcing is an issue in the air but commercial aircraft are equipped to deal with it. They can have heated windshields, heated pitot/static so ice will not accumulate on the hot surfaces.\n\nAircraft also have \"boots\" on the front edge of wings/elevators/rudders which can inflate and \"burst\" the ice that has accumulated. There are also systems that can dispense the water/alcohol mixture to help prevent ice formation.\n\nLast of all, aircraft try and avoid flying in to icing conditions when possible.",
"UPS Aircraft De-Icer checking in.\n\nDe-Ice fluid we use is a 63/47 Glycol/Water Mix that gets heated to 180F to clear ice/snow/frost from planes. Ours is a Redy Orange colour.\n\nIf there is no active precipitation de-icing is often enough, but in cases of active snow/freezing rain we would need to apply anti-ice fluid which is 100/0 Glycol/Water AFTER all contaminants are cleared with the de-ice spray. This is not heated and goes on all goopy onto the plane and sticks to cover important surfaces (wings/stabalizers/etc) to stop other contaminant from sticking to the plane. This green goop has a sheering speed of something like 70-80km/h so it should be 99% clear from the plane by the time the wheels leave the ground. For that reason we cannot spray anti-ice on alot of single prop type planes since they leave the ground at a speed lower then the glycol sheering speed.\n\nDepending on the type of de/anti-ice fluids they normally have a freezing point in the range of -30 to -40c which is well below that of water. If the temperatures are that low the aircrafts will NOT take off as there would be virtually no holdover time window.\n\nIce/Frost is an issue during flight but it's alot harder to form in flight thanks to the speeds happening. Often any ice buildup gets blasted away by the winds blasting by. Alas flight itself isn't my speciality so I'm not the best source of info for this section.\n\ntl;dr - De-icing is simply to clear any contaminants to aid in the most strenuous part of an aircrafts job - Taking off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1jscum | explainlikeimfive: why are asians perceived to be good at math? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jscum/explainlikeimfive_why_are_asians_perceived_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbhtg9f",
"cbhti9o",
"cbhx0ao",
"cbi2nr0"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The American counterculture generation, which are those born from 1945-1965, had an abnormally low respect for math. Because of this cultural reason, elementary schools don't teach math well, parents don't complain, and children at home aren't encouraged to do math starting from a young age. The average American student or adult is extraordinarily bad at math. Asian Americans don't have this element in their culture. Therefore they're considered good at math.\n\nAs for national Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, it's because their cultures highly respect math and see math not only as a field of study for children but also a basic measure of a child's obedience, problem solving skills, and concentration.",
"To my knowledge it's a stereotype based on the education systems in the higher-income urban areas in Asia.",
"There is also a selection bias going on. Over a third of the world lives in Asia and only a small fraction of those make it over to the United States. Usually, it is the children born into rich families or very poor families. In either case, there is extreme pressure from their families to do well. For kids in rich families, there is pressure to do well academically to maintain respect (aka \"face\") for the family and for kids in poor families there is pressure to do well in a country of new opportunities.\n\nAsia is overpopulated, so the academic competition there is unreal. Americans have no idea how hard the average Asian student works in comparison. Their work ethic is bad ass because it has to be to stand out and be the top of their class.",
"When Asians were fleeing their countries to come live in America there were so many that The US had to limit who came to our country. So most Asians that we let in we're coming with substantially higher IQs and getting high paid jobs that required a lot of education. And we have all seen the A+ Asian dad meme, well in part that is true. If there is a dad who is a doctor they are going to have better schooling and higher standards for teir children. So now we perceived them as being super smart. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4ezswn | why, when i'm driving, if i start slowly pressing down on the gas further down, do the rpms instantly jump from 3,000 to 6,000, rather than just being a smooth increase? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ezswn/eli5_why_when_im_driving_if_i_start_slowly/ | {
"a_id": [
"d24r9e8",
"d24ssc9",
"d25628x"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your car is downshifting because that's how you accelerate linearly. When the car shifts down the gear ratio changes causing the RPM to jump up to maintain the same speed. \n\nA lower gearing has more torque (power) giving you better acceleration.",
"What year model is your car? your description sounds like your car has a CVT transmission. Quickest way to tell is if you are at a complete stop and floor the accelerator does the RPM's stay st 6000 RPM until you let off the accelerator regardless if you accelerate to 45 or 80mph? If that is the case your car is not actually downshifting because your transmission does not actually have gears. It uses a belt system where clutches are used to manipulate the belt (read stretch and shrink) to obtain its gear ratio of sorts. When you step on the accelerator the engine is allowed to rev up to the optimal RPM for power and then the clutches lengthen the belt steadily to gain increased forward momentum. \n\nThat is how I understand the workings of a CVT transmission anyways.",
"Apart from the already mentioned downshifting of your automatic gearbox, you can get a rise in RPM when you depress the throttle due to the [torque converter](_URL_0_) most conventional automatic cars have instead of a clutch.\nA torque converter does not directly couple the input and the output, and allows an element of slip particularly under heavy loading."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter"
]
] |
|
3dbflv | when updating software, how do creators decide to change the version from, say 1.0 to 1.1 as opposed to 2.0? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dbflv/eli5when_updating_software_how_do_creators_decide/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct3k05f",
"ct3k2co",
"ct3mpid"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"2.0 is almost always a mass change, both removing and adding features. 1.1 doesn't completely change how it works, just adds slight fixes and removes bugs. ",
"Depends on the project, and often even who happens to be making that decision in the project at the time. There are a huge collection of 'standards' for versioning. Many are used inconsistently, many admit to being arbitrary by nature, and many folk just kind of don't care really.\n\nLinus Torvalds admitted, for example, that Linux 3.0 was started not because of any groundbreaking new feature or changes, but simply because Linux 2.* had gone on long enough. \n\nChrome like increment the number at the drop of a hat so we're already on 43. Firefox took on that scheme despite Firefox 1-4 being pretty widely spaced . Now Firefox is on version 35 even though, by their old standard, it'd more likely only be a later version of Firefox 4 or maybe 5.\n\n**TL;DR**: They make it up. ",
"\nThis varies widely between organizations. Marketing departments love to be able to call a product \"1.0,\" because that means something previously only used by early adopters is ready for prime-time; or \"2.0\", because that has the connotation of a brand-new reinvention. So sometimes it's driven by business concerns.\n\nSome people -- especially open source projects -- use *semantic versioning* which means [1]:\n\n- MAJOR version (1.x, 2.x, 3.x) when you make incompatible changes,\n- MINOR version (1.0 to 1.1, 1.1 to 1.2, etc.) when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner,\n- PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes (1.2.0 to 1.2.1, 1.2.1 to 1.2.2, etc.)\n\nThe benefit of using semantic versioning is that it helps automated software called *package management* to better understand when installing a newer version of one program might potentially break another program.\n\nThis is especially useful with regard to open source software, where production systems often contain dozens, hundreds, or thousands of programs, many of which are inter-dependent -- package manager software helps manage the complexity, and using a versioning labelling scheme that makes life easier for the package manager means the whole experience is better for everyone involved.\n\n[1] _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://semver.org"
]
] |
||
61pefr | the recent bill passed in america that allows personal browsing data to be sold. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61pefr/eli5_the_recent_bill_passed_in_america_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfg98f9",
"dfga4cp",
"dfgcrlg"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It hasn't passed yet. It was approved by the senate, but it still needs to go through the House of Representatives before it's official.",
"In 2016, the FCC set up new rules for ISPs which would have taken effect this year. Basically, these rules would require ISPs to actually ask you before they sell your information - called opting in. Currently, you have to find their contact form and actually tell them they're not allowed to share your information - opting out.\n\nThe Senate bill just prevents those changes from taking effect. So as assholish as the Senate is being... technically, nothing changes.\n\nHere's a summary of what the new rules would be, [from ArsTechnica](_URL_0_):\n\n > **Opt-in**: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify categories of information that are considered sensitive, which include precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications.\n\n\n > **Opt-out**: ISPs would be allowed to use and share non-sensitive information unless a customer “opts-out.” All other individually identifiable customer information—for example, e-mail address or service tier information—would be considered non-sensitive, and the use and sharing of that information would be subject to opt-out consent, consistent with consumer expectations.\n\n\n > **Exceptions to consent requirements**: Customer consent is inferred for certain purposes specified in the statute, including the provision of broadband service or billing and collection. For the use of this information, no additional customer consent is required beyond the creation of the customer-ISP relationship.\n\n",
"Thank you to people who posted an explanation. But there are many articles floating around saying they'll be allowed to do it without consent or even knowledge of customer. \n\nAny idea if there's anything to those claims?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/isps-will-soon-have-to-ask-you-before-sharing-private-data-with-advertisers/"
],
[]
] |
||
6sbrvb | how did popular trends catch on before modern technology? | When I say modern technology I mean before photography and fast forms of transportation; if I had to put an era I'd say pre industrial revolution. Today trends pick up fast due to television and the internet but how did they pick up before? It seems like it would be hard for a fashion or music trend to start when spreading it would take a lot longer. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sbrvb/eli5_how_did_popular_trends_catch_on_before/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlbk5d8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The high society frequently held gatherings; dances, feasts, games, balls, etcetera. This is where they would share the latest fashions and trends. High society fashion very slowly trickled down to the lower classes, once those fashions and trends became inexpensive enough for the lower class to afford."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4lqis7 | why is dietary advice constantly changing and contradictory? | Fat was once the enemy now it apparently isn't, sugar is the demon, eat lot's of carbs/cut out carbs, X is the new wonderfood, never eat Y, eat red meat/go vegan... With so much advance in our understanding of the human body surely there should be a recognised standard? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lqis7/eli5_why_is_dietary_advice_constantly_changing/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3pc0tn",
"d3pc0tq",
"d3pco3m",
"d3pjq87",
"d3poel1",
"d3q5gy7"
],
"score": [
6,
24,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"AS with all scientific disciplines, our knowledge about human dietary needs changes as we continue to study it and gain understanding. \n\n Much of the hype you mention is due far more to marketing practices than to science. \"This food is surprisingly healthy, maybe eat more of it\" generates much less revenue than, \"NEW SUPERFRUIT DISCOVERED! PROLONG YOUR LIFE NOW BY BUYING IT FROM US!\"\n\n",
"Nutrition studies are very hard to do precisely, due to the amount of confounding factors, length of time required, small sample sizes and more. All these details get completely ignored by the media, who instead will print whatever new results have come out that gets them a nice headline",
"Both u/eliterepo and u/OldWomanoftheWoods make compelling points - first the science is tricky, and second you need to separate the good science from the media hype and marketing. \n\nI think *another* major issue here is that humans are omnivores. There is no such thing as a single best diet for our species. Omnivores by definition have very flexible diets that can be complete and nutritious. Add in individual factors like genetics, preference, allergies, and availability and all of a sudden you have a really complex situation. What works well for one person might not work for another. As a result people can have completely different diets, but they can all be complete and nutritious. \n\n",
"There are two main reasons.\n\nResearch is difficult and comes up with lots of inconsistencies depending on sample size and other factors. \n\nAnd the media outlets that give a majority of peoples nutrition advice doesn't give a damn, if it seems plausible and it sell magazines they're happy.\n\nThis causes a new diet revolution every other bloody week.\n\nThe biggest issue with this is that if some people are dedicated to them then they can be hurting themselves by constantly changing their eating patterns as well as sometimes experiencing malnutrition.\n\nI would recommend that if you are going to go the diet route, that you pick a very simple one that doesn't rely on weird logic, for example try simply limiting your calories per day, something as simple as that also makes perfect sense.\n\n",
"I think it changes less than people pretend it does. I think people are very hyperbolic about \"IT CHANGES ALL THE TIME! I CAN'T KNOW WHAT IS EVEN REAL!\" as a convenient excuse to not listen to the advice they don't want to hear. ",
"_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAdam did a good job of explaining it on Adam Ruins Everything: Nutrition.\n\nThe Chocolate Study was featured because it was a researcher doing a bogus nutritional study to show how easy it was to get the media to buy into study with a good headline(Lose weight by eating chocolate).\n\nThe food industry is big business, so there are a lot of incentives to have people eat something to make a profit. Breakfast for instance was billed as an important meal to sell bacon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-chocolate-diet-hoax-fooled-millions/",
"http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-nutrition.html"
]
] |
|
4c6eld | why did jesus die for our sins? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c6eld/eli5why_did_jesus_die_for_our_sins/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1fez3v",
"d1ffdmn",
"d1ffdnd",
"d1ffe9j",
"d1ffpku",
"d1ffsqd",
"d1fghm8",
"d1gki7z"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
12,
2,
2,
2,
33,
2
],
"text": [
"So, we're all sinners, even if you're a saint you have the original sin on your back: and that sin needs to be repaid, like a debt, in order to get eternal life from god. god knows this. \n\nWhen jesus died he took on all the debt of humanity and paid it himself, so now if we accept his sacrifice we don't have to repay our own debt, he is our payment. now we get to be with god in the afterlife without having the burden of sin on our back.\n\nAs with all things god, things get pretty abstract and complex pretty fast.\n\nImagine him to be a form of sacrifice; he died, went to hell, came back, and rose to the heavens. In doing so a new contract/covenant with god was established. ",
"Ignoring what's \"real\" and what's mythology, not even trying to have that conversation: this was a time when animal sacrifice was very common. You kill a goat for a good harvest, you kill a cow when your daughter gets married, etc. If you're an Aztec, maybe you sacrifice a virgin. Why that happened, maybe someone else can explain, but it was a thing and it was very, very accepted and normal. \n\nSo when this was turned on its head and God sends his son to die, it acts as like a super duper animal sacrifice, absolving everyone of their sins, past and future. Like a big ass goat. SUPER GOAT. It's why he's called the \"Lamb of God\".",
" > makes absolutely no sense to me\n\nThat makes two of us, but let me try to explain.\n\nAdam and Eve sinned when they took the fruit of knowledge of good and evil (why God didn't want humans to have that knowledge or how they should have known it was wrong before having that knowledge is a question for another day). This gave humanity as a whole \"original sin\" (why God thought it was fair to punish humans for all time from their crime is yet another question).\n\nThis meant that no matter how much good works you do, you are still sinful and therefor can't get in to heaven. So God had to make a loophole in his own rules.\n\nSo he sent his son (which is also himself according to the trinity) to take on the sins of humanity. His sacrifice is the only thing that can redeem your sins so you can get in to heaven. (How punishing someone innocent from our sins is moral is another question. And how a blood sacrifice of his son/himself was the only way for God to forgive us is yet another. And what the actually sacrifice was, as Jesus went straight back to heaven after, is another question still)\n\nReligion makes perfect sense, doesn't it?\n\nEdit: this might actually be a question for /r/DebateReligion",
"Because God, who is all powerful, inflicted an \"original sin\" on everyone everywhere. However, the rules say that sin can be repaid with a blood sacrifice. God, who for some reason is bound by his own rules despite being the only legislator and only judge, decides that his son, Jesus, will be such a huge blood sacrifice that it will make up for all of this sin. So God sacrificed Jesus to Himself to repay a debt owed to Him by humans, through no fault of their own.\n\nIf you're confused, you're not alone.",
"He died for our sins because the writers thought it'd be a clever plot device. He was resurrected because continuity had yet to be invented apparently. God apparently couldn't forgive us without us first torturing his son to death. Fairy tales weren't as well written 2000 years ago.",
"I don't think the religion would have grown as much as it did if its followers weren't willing to die for their beliefs, in emulation of their greatest prophet and most of his apostles. \n\nJesus literally died to aid the spread of his religion and philosophy. I see his actions in the days before his death as deliberate provocation with only one possible outcome. It was all planned.",
"There are a number of answers to this one. But the basic gist of the mainstream Christian understanding of it goes something along these lines:\n\n1. God created the cosmos and, of course, human beings.\n2. But then sin entered into things and poisoned the relationship between humanity and God.\n3. So God gave to humanity a series of commandments to live by, and a system involving sacrifices for when people mess up. This is basically the Old Testament, and more or less how Christians understand Judaism.\n4. But this system isn't perfect, as it doesn't address the main problem. Also, it's really inconvenient having to sacrifice an animal every time you want your sins forgiven, and it only works for Jews because non-Jews weren't allowed into the temple.\n5. Jesus started preaching and performing miracles. But the religious authorities of the day resented him and so plotted to have him killed.\n6. But in fact, Jesus was the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for, and Jesus being killed was part of God's plan all along. In fact, in some mysterious way, not only was Jesus the Messiah, but he was *also* God.\n7. His death represents a sacrifice -- in fact, the ultimate sacrifice. Instead of us having to sacrifice an animal for every sin we commit, Jesus is *the* sacrifice to end all sacrifices. He is the sacrifice for all of our sins.\n8. All this is proven by his rising on the third day. As he is, in effect, God himself, death cannot obviously hold him. After making various appearances to the people who knew him, he ascends into heaven.\n\nIf you're thinking this still doesn't make sense, Christians have been debating and arguing over this for the last two thousand years. Since Jesus is supposed to have died around the feast of Passover, the Bible draws parallels between him and the Passover lamb -- whose blood, you may remember if you're a practicing Jew, was the signal for the Angel of Death to spare the Israelites. This is why Easter is always so close to Passover.\n\nThe idea of Jesus \"dying for our sins\" almost certainly made a great deal more sense to 1st century Jews familiar with the sacrificial cult. To be honest, though, I think a great many modern Christians just repeat the phrase without really understanding what it signifies, so if they don't know what it means, I don't think you have to worry about not understanding it yourself.\n\nAs for being raised from the dead again, the Bible takes this as a metaphor, among other things, of starting anew. The rite of initiation into the Christian church is baptism, which was originally done on adults by fully immersing them in water (it's still done this way in the Baptist Church): it symbolised the death of the old sinful self and the birth of the new self -- a second chance, as it were. Hence the phrase \"born-again Christian\" to mean a recent and enthusiastic convert.\n\nOf course, the most likely real-world explanation is that Jesus was executed, and his followers -- some of whom genuinely believed he was the Messiah -- had to think of something to make sense of that.\n\nTL;DR: Before Jesus, you had to sacrifice an animal to have your sins forgiven. Then God, in the person of Jesus, sacrificed himself so Christians didn't have to do any more sacrificing.",
"Basically the price for sin is blood, God wants blood for your wrong doings. JESUS the half God, took the place for the sacrifice required to make you clean. So it is no surprise when you see religion spilling the blood of innocents, see it was violent from their beginnings."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
w8w94 | gas masks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/w8w94/eli5_gas_masks/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5ba6fy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its a mask with a filter attached that blocks any harmful chemicals/pathogens "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
397l2j | how does a gaming session kill somebody after 7 days but nobody died in the chile mining incident (2010)? | As per this link [here](_URL_0_), the guy played 2 days of diablo 3 and died. Where as ALL 33 MINERS who were stuck underground for 69 days didn't die at all. What gives?! And there's been hunger strikes as well that have lasted for way longer than a week. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/397l2j/eli5_how_does_a_gaming_session_kill_somebody/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs10w7c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The gamer probably had other health problems, but regardless, it's not good to sit in a chair for more than a few hours at a time... especially not 2 days straight supposedly without eating or hydrating.\n\nThe miners were probably in better physical condition being blue collar workers. They had access to a tunnel that they used to exercise. They carefully rationed their emergency stockpile of food for weeks, meant to last for just a couple days. After they were discovered, the rescuers used long ropes lowered down tiny holes to deliver them food, water, and other items, while the rescue operations took place on the surface.\n\nAfter they were rescued it was revealed they had developed a democratic system to keep them alive, and support each other when they started to go bananas. Morale was kept high. In the end, they all survived because they were badass dudes who had some survival skills, and they were lucky as fucking hell. \n\nDiablo guy, not so lucky."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamer-dies-after-diablo-iii-marathon/1100-6387472/"
] | [
[]
] |
|
1xx2gk | how do birds fly crazy fast into trees/brushes and never seem to hit anything and land perfectly? | I was looking out my window today and noticed some birds flying around pretty fast and flew into a pretty bushy bush but avoided everything to land perfectly on a little branch. How can birds be so stupid to fly into a window yet can avoid every little thing when flying into a tree/brush without hitting anything?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xx2gk/eli5_how_do_birds_fly_crazy_fast_into/ | {
"a_id": [
"cffdjro",
"cffhbsr"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In relation to the way you see, they see in slow motion.\n\nTo humans anything above ~24 frames per second is fluid motion, you can no longer tell it's one static image being shown after another. Slow motion video is actually very high frames per second video. Think of say a water balloon bursting. It happens in 1 second and your brain gets roughly 24 images of it. That's not really enough to see what happened, you just see a balloon then water splash.\n\nRecord that same event with a high speed camera though, something that captures hundreds or thousands frames per second you capture every little change in state that balloon goes through.\n\n*Birds* see in ~75 frames per second. What comes rushing at you in the blink of an eye comes rushing at them 1/3rd as quickly. Plenty of time to get out the way.\n\nThe reason they fly into windows is simply that they don't see them. Doesn't matter how many images per second your brain gets, if it's invisible and you can't comprehend what a building is then you fly into it.",
"They fly into glass because it is a bastardization of the natural world to them. It doesnt exist and they have not had to evolve any sort of defense mechanisms for it, most of the time they do not die because of it so it is not really a threat to them on a major scale, enough to affect evolution...\n\nMoths on the other hand go to light because it has something to do with the moonlight and how they navigate things, so synthesized light and bug zappers prey on their natural way.. there will be a time when enough moths fly into lights that wotn pass up their genetic info and the ones that dotn fly into bug zappers will pass on their genetic material.. at some point in time moths may not be attracted to light at all because of this...this may tak thousands or millions of years, of course.."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
8etarw | can you actually train yourself to need less sleep, or are you just learning to be able to function with less? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8etarw/eli5_can_you_actually_train_yourself_to_need_less/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxxu8qe",
"dxy8l75",
"dxy8oh2",
"dxy947n",
"dxyetr0",
"dxyf0aw",
"dxyf554",
"dxyg002",
"dxyg5cx",
"dxygkpa",
"dxygm3y",
"dxyk8r7",
"dxys0g2"
],
"score": [
38,
11,
1032,
151,
2,
2,
130,
17,
9,
25,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Training yourself to need less sleep is learning to be able to function with less sleep so yes?\n\nThe US army rangers do it they sleep deprive their recruits and make them go on long ass hikes with a ton of gear on their backs eventually they just get into the schedule.\n\nBut it does have its limits though. ",
"I think OP is asking if you can physiologically adapt to less sleep in the same manner that our bodies strengthen and increase our muscle size in response to weight training or is it only just that we get used to it.",
"People who are chronically sleep deprived have lower cognitive capability in scientific studies. After a long time of sleep deprivation, the body and brain will begin to \"get used\" to feeling tired, but the cognitive effects (and increased mortality) remain.\n\nIn other words: it *feels* like you get used to it, but you never do",
"Your sleep requirement is not a trainable characteristic, so no. Restricting your sleep in no way changes what your individual requirement actually is you merely become accustomed to a new, lower, level of performance as a result. You believe you are functioning ok but have in reality adjusted to a worse \"normal\".\n\n\"Why we sleep\" by Matthew Walker is an excellent, and eye\\-opening, read on this topic.",
"As someone who has deprived themself of sleep on purpose, also had insomnia and now a crazy work schedule, you get used to it, but it is not good for you. I do not recommend it. ",
"I've always been an insomniac. As long as I can remember I would get 4 to 5 hours, and have to fight like hell to get up for school / work etc. About 18 months ago, I started just getting up whenever I woke up. After a few months, I settled into the first regular sleep schedule of my adult life. 11:45 pm to 2:45 am. I also commute an hour by ferry and I'll usually catch a nap on the boat. So is this coping, adaptation or am I a mutant? On the weekends I have tried to sleep in, but I actually feel worse.",
"When I was diagnosed with Sleep Apnea, I was supposed to have an overnight sleep study, then come back for a titration study with the CPAP.\n\nAfter about an hour or so, the sleep tech woke me up and told me we were putting the mask on then and there.\n\nApparently, I had an AHI of 81 or so over the course of a single hour... so basically, I didn't sleep - I just died for a little bit. I was also entering REM sleep almost immediately - I nearly skipped entire phases of sleep, I was so messed up (our estimate is that I went undiagnosed for about four years, and I've never slept well even before that).\n\nAfter around six hours sleep, in an unfamiliar and, honestly, somewhat uncomfortable bed, hooked up to more wires than I care to admit, with a strange new hose and mask attached to my face like some kind of weird beneficial facehugger... I woke up feeling better than I had in **years**. \n\nApparently it takes about 12 cm^3 of air to keep my airway open... but holy hell do I feel better now!",
"Can anyone link any reputable sources on this? My family thinks I'm being dramatic when I claim I need a full night of sleep and you don't get used to sleep deprivation without some cognitive decline",
"If waking up at the end of sleep cycles is how you wake up refreshed, can I sleep for ~5 hours a night and wake up feeling refreshed for the day as long as I wake up at the end of a sleep cycle?",
"If you're chronically sleep deprived, but begin to sleep more, do the cognitive effects eventually go away? ",
"Polyphasic sleep. If you don't feel like googling it. The answer is yes you can, not much research has been proven towards it, but what has been found is a lot of draw backs and dangers getting your mind to that point. ",
"You can train your body to go with less sleep, but not by simply \"getting used to it\". \n\n\nThe way to do it is to have more restful sleep. Not all sleep is equal. If you are restless while you sleep...tossing and turning...you can do with less sleep by having more deep REM sleep.\n\nThere are many things that you can do. But a few key actions are:\n\n* Do not eat within 3 hours of going to sleep\n* Do not drink liquids within 2 hours of going to sleep\n* Don't eat or drink sugar or complex carbohydrates (or severely limit them)\n* Regulate your portions so you are not overeating\n* Exercise regularly\n* Do not view screens within an hour of bed\n\nThe idea is that if you are physically tired and have burned excess calories, and you are not getting up to go to the restroom, and your mind has been allowed to wind down, you will sleep more soundly and not need as much sleep. Waking up feeling well rested. \n\nAlso as a bonus, whenever possible, sex is a great adrenaline dump that can put you to sleep quickly.\n\n\nIf you do the opposite of these things, it will increase the amount of sleep you require. ",
"I want to believe you can train yourself to get by with less sleep. That is helped along though by being a poor sleeper and having a complex job requirement to perform. You can meld the two together and function well. I did this for 'decades', until one month came around that I couldn't; I went to sleep two times while driving, one while at a traffic light, and the other time on a Metro beltway doing 70 mph in a curve (and just happened to wake up holding my lane and in time to brake), I started taking the old time full strength Ambien, in a couple of days I slept for 6 hours straight for the first time 30 years. That felt INCREDIBLE'.\n\nMy Father passed down to me this 'lack of sleeping', and being able to function. With the pills, I found a window to get to sleep, sleep, then wake up. God help me if that got disturbed, which in later years it did, being on Emergency Call, etc/\n\nMy reward for all my devotion and work, plus lack of sleep? Just like the medical articles say: drifting in to heart disease due to a life time of hypertension, diabetes, high blood pressure, and arthritis pains in legs and joints. I kept going even with some commutes taking 2-4 hours per days.\n\nTo those reading, I NEVER believed my body would let me down, plus I was always in pretty good shape. But the retirement days I was looking for, now I can't hike a trail with a back pack, never hunting those deep woods again, not going to get another motorcycle, etc. God fucking damn! It all hit together in about 3 years time span; I pushed it back by backing off on work, and getting in really good shape in 2012 (military shape), but that wasn't enough, the hours the next 3 years just nearly killed me.\n\nI am still on Ambein, and I get about 5 hours a sleep a night, in two broken pieces. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
14k1mx | what happens to the food that gets sucked down the garbage disposal? where does it end up? is it horrible for the environment? | I'm living in my first apartment that has one of these things. I'm still mystified/terrified by it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14k1mx/what_happens_to_the_food_that_gets_sucked_down/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7dru5v"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Food that you flush down your garbage disposal is ground up and flows, along with the rest of your household's waste water (sinks, showers, bathtubs, toilets) into the sewage system. All of this effluent is processed at a [sewage treatment plant.](_URL_0_) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_treatment"
]
] |
|
7ou1hm | how was the first blast furnace constructed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ou1hm/eli5_how_was_the_first_blast_furnace_constructed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsc9m5l",
"dsccn10"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"You don't need metal in a furnace to produce iron. You can make a furnace complete out of stone, brick or clay.\n\nOr more precisely you can never have the inside of blast furnace made of the same metal you you are melting in it since then the furnace itself would also melt. But you have a pure metal furnace if the metal that you melts have a lower melting temperature, lead can be molten in a furnace with a steel inside if you cool it with water.\n\nModern blast furnaces have the outside made of metal because it is strong and easy to build the structure. The inside are lined with ceramic bricks that survive the temperature.\n\n",
"you just need clay dirt to make the furnace. the problem is..you have to break the furnace to get the resulting steel out. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-oZ6X1sho&t=480"
]
] |
||
1lkg45 | why can't you forget how to ride a bike, but if you can forget a learned language if you stop using it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lkg45/eli5_why_cant_you_forget_how_to_ride_a_bike_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc04jcu",
"cc04yoi",
"cc055e5",
"cc05q7x"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can forget how to ride a bike.",
"Probably due to muscle memory. Most people will forget names and phrases but you won't really forget how to walk",
"Even if you \"forget\" a language, you can relearn it in a fraction of the time it took to learn it originally.",
"I'm practically fluent in 5 languages, and have never forgotten one of them entirely. if you stop using it, it'll be **harder to remember**, but exactly like that it'll be **harder to ride a bike** after a long period of time. I'd actually say around the same amount of time. I didnt ride a bike nor spoke my second language for a couple of years, then came back there and I needed practice with both, making mistakes I normally never would have, but eventually both skills came back fine. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ztimw | why does everyone make a chain comment of the letter f in reddit threads? | I don't get it.. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ztimw/eli5_why_does_everyone_make_a_chain_comment_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpm4ssg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In Call of Duty Advanced Warfare on PC. One of the first cutscenes takes place at a funeral. \n\nThe on screen graphic says 'press F to pay respects'. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
do8bhu | why do american's hate their president, they voted for him? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/do8bhu/eli5_why_do_americans_hate_their_president_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"f5kn236",
"f5kn4c2",
"f5knv6a"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Because some Americans didnt vote for him so hence they dont like him even when he does good things",
"Not literally every American hates him. Not literally every American voted for him. Not everyone that hates him voted (or voted in a manner that would reduce his chances of getting elected.)\n\nAlso, opinions change over time.",
"I would say yes and no. The majority of Americans didn't vote for him, but since we have the electoral college in place he ended up winning the majority there and losing the majority vote. So straight from the start he didn't have majority favor. And over time the initial disdain people have, compounds for any multitude of reasons."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
289n0d | how do record companies keep track of songs played on radio to collect royalties? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/289n0d/eli5_how_do_record_companies_keep_track_of_songs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci8s3z9",
"ci8tcaa"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's mostly an honor system, although with newer technologies radio stations can keep track of how many times a song is played. Hey, if your iTunes library can keep track of that one song you've probably played 36 times this week, a radio station can keep track of that song they've played 36 times today.",
"Those other answers are technically wrong I'm afraid. \n\nRadio station royalties are very different to streaming. A radio station pays royalties for the right to play a song for a specific period (say 1 year), and they can play it as much as they want. \n\nIf you are a musician and you hear your work on a station that doesn't have an agreement to play it, you report them. Simple"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8qx1vc | uniform circular motion and centripetal force | Hi everyone! I need help with my physics class. I’m in deep trouble, so if anyone has any tips or can explain this stuff to me, I’d be most grateful. It’s a physics 101 course, so no calculus stuff. The bare basics. Thank you! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qx1vc/eli5_uniform_circular_motion_and_centripetal_force/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0mq8w9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You know that velocity is a speed + a direction, and acceleration is a change in velocity -- which could mean its magnitude (speed) or the direction of travel. You know from Newton's 1st law that if you want to change velocity, you need a force. In order to go around in a circle, then, instead of a straight line, you need a force, because you always need to be changing the direction of the velocity. And of course, changing the direction of velocity is an acceleration. So if you want to move in a circle you have to provide a force towards the interior of the circle, since that's the direction you want to \"pull\"\n the velocity vector towards.\n\nIs it the concepts you're having trouble with, or the math?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ayma2r | in music, why does the way scales progress sound natural when it's a mixture of half and full "steps"? | For example in this scale: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C, the jumps between B and C, and between E and F are semitones (evident from the lack of black keys between those notes on the piano) and the other jumps are whole tones. In other words, the above can be described as as jumps of:
2 whole tones, 1 semitone, 3 whole tones, 1 semitone.
Another example is this (A Major) scale: A-B-C#-D-E-F#-G#-A
which can also be described with the same jumps as above: 2 whole tones, 1 semitone, 3 whole tones, 1 semitone.
The question is why does this progression sound natural to us? Does it have something to do with how our hearing develops? Can it be explained using wavelengths/nodes/peaks?
I have little training in music from school but I am super curious/nerdy (and my son just started piano lessons). I tried Googling but didn't find an answer that satisfied me.
Edit: thanks for the few answers that I got. Sounds like it's a combination of "nice" mathematical ratios and what we've been conditioned to sound appealing. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayma2r/eli5_in_music_why_does_the_way_scales_progress/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei1tenq",
"ei1uoj2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In western music we use certain intervals that the Ancient Greeks figured out. One octave is double the frequency, so if you had a note at 200 Hz, the same note one octave up would be 400 Hz. There's also the perfect fifth, which is a 3/2 ratio, the fourth, which is a 4/3 ratio, etc.\n\nIn total there are 12 intervals in the octave, but not all of them make nice harmonies. The major scale only uses the intervals that make nice harmonies. It's sort of a coincidence that some of the steps between notes in the scale are semitones, and some are whole tones... But it's done so that all of the intervals in the major scale are the nice intervals ",
"They vibrate in frequencies that are factors of each other. It’s actually fascinating, if you watch the strings of a piano being played with a high-speed camera in slow motion you can see that they’re vibrating in sync with each other when it’s a harmony and they vibrate out of sync with each other during a dissonant chord. Major scales just have the most square math, if that makes any sense at all. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
28j4wl | what causes the inability to sit still while high on meth? | How does meth work physiologically to result in "tweekers" acting like [this woman in the video](_URL_0_)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28j4wl/eli5_what_causes_the_inability_to_sit_still_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"cibflfu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine ten pots of coffee hitting your bloodstream at once. You're going to tweak out."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx6SAKb8sNg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
3a9q5z | why do clickbait articles capitalize the first letter of every word? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3a9q5z/eli5_why_do_clickbait_articles_capitalize_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"csajwp3",
"csajyug"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not just clickbait sites, lots of newspapers and news website do this. It puts emphasis on the title and makes it stand out.",
"It's uncommon in normal texts. Usually a capital letter means the start of a sentence or someone's name. This means that your brain has to do a little more work to read it. Then you're less likely to glance over the title, but actually, actively read it (in the hopes that you'll click)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5s8u62 | how to calculate the domain and range of a function? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s8u62/eli5_how_to_calculate_the_domain_and_range_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddd6isz"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"For a function f(x)=y :\n\nThe Domain is all the values x is allowed to be.\n\nThe Range is all the values y can be, considering all allowed x.\n\nFor example: f(x)=1/(x^(2)) has a Domain of \"x is not equal to 0\" (since it would be undefined due to division by zero) and a Range of y > 0 since no value of x gives a negative or zero value from the function, but you can get any positive real number result you want."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cy0zlm | why do you change because of alcohol? | So if you're drunk, your personality changes until you're not drunk anymore. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cy0zlm/eli5_why_do_you_change_because_of_alcohol/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyozoa5",
"eypioal"
],
"score": [
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Without delving into the chemical and neurological aspects of alcohol consumption, it comes down to lowered decision making abilities, poor judgement, lack of control of inhibitions, you don't think clearly, and you may feel more emotional, all of which combined can produce results that wouldn't normally happen had you been sober. I would not go as far to say that your personality changes, rather, you see another side of yourself that is usually held back by social expectations, emotional regulation, better judgement, etc.",
"Interesting that this question comes up 4 days after the following article is published.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAccording to this article and their research, your morals do not change. It's only your inhibitions and emotions that do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.sciencealert.com/you-re-still-the-same-person-morally-when-you-re-drunk-says-study/amp"
]
] |
|
3f6qxc | how do bowling balls roll so smoothly without hindrance from the finger holes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f6qxc/eli5_how_do_bowling_balls_roll_so_smoothly/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctlwrzx"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"It's rare for the ball to actually roll directly over the finger holes, especially with a hook release, however it does sometimes happen, and you will hear it when it does (a woop woop woop woop)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1p7aes | why is north korea freely allowed to exploit human rights? | I have read a lot about the secretive nation that is North Korea. I have a lot of passion for the subject - i.e. I want to campaign for the freedom of the population.
There are plenty of undercover reports and interviews with escapees from both prison (camps) and prison(North Korea).
I want to know why the worlds governments and the UN aren't doing enough about saving the people. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p7aes/eli5_why_is_north_korea_freely_allowed_to_exploit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cczfzn0",
"cczg1eg",
"cczin00",
"cczmfxp",
"cczs17x"
],
"score": [
22,
9,
13,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"By \"do something\" I assume you mean military intervention.\n\nThere's a host of problems with that, not the least of which is China. Who is going to take in the refuges? Who will draft a government? Who will provide economic support during a transition? Will the Chinese allow a western military presence on their border? How can we do it safely while protecting South Korea? The list goes on. ",
" > I want to know why the worlds governments and the UN aren't doing enough about saving the people.\n\n\nThe question is, why should they?\n\nThe basis of international politics is [the Westphalian system](_URL_0_) which basically says that every country does what they want within their own borders, as long as it doesn't effect *other countries*. So, oppressing your own people: OK. Attacking people in another country: not OK.\n\nSo, to interfere in the domestic affairs, you have to have a *really* good reason for it, or it has to be threatening your own country somehow. North Korea's internal fascism doesn't affect other countries very much, and the cost of invading would be super-high because of how much damage they would do to South Korea.",
"If you really want to know more about North Korea, [check out this AMA from an expert in r/askhistorians](_URL_0_). Here is an excerpt from one of his answers. \n\n**Why is North Korea rattling the saber right now?** The most plausible guess is the scenario you've given here. But the ultimate aim isn't to start a war, which even the most hotheaded people in the North Korean military and government have to know they would lose terribly. (There's a reason that North Korea never allowed press coverage of the Afghan/Iraq invasions or Libyan airstrikes.) The ultimate aim is to demonstrate the same ability his father had to get other parties to come to the negotiating table.\n\nVictor Cha in *The Impossible State* observed that if you track the history of North Korean threats with later offers of talks and/or aid, you'll find that North Korean saber-rattling is typically book-ended by an aid offer from another country within two months on average. They're not stupid. Aid offers can easily be spun to the populace as acts of contrition or subservience by other nations; a North Korean novel from the 1990s explicitly makes this connection, with a diplomat demanding 400,000 tons of grain in return for the \"difficulties\" that the U.S. has forced them to endure. This is another example of \"attack diplomacy.\"\n\nThe elites know that these demands serve a twofold purpose:\n\n - **North Korea actually does need the aid:** The NK economy is only viable as a dependent of someone else's. This was true during the Cold War, and it's still true now. They have not changed the systemic problems in the country that prevent economic success. \n - **Getting other countries to offer it confirms their ability to manipulate East Asian affairs:** Kim Jong-un doesn't need to win a war to retain control of the North Korean state. He just needs to make it clear that the alternatives to cooperating with North Korean demands are too inconvenient, dangerous, or expensive to consider rationally. And then there's always the part where you wonder if dealing with him is actually easier than dealing with whomever would *replace* him in the event of a coup. The next guy coming down the pike is not always going to be an improvement.\n\nThey're also very well aware that nearly all of the involved parties with the exception of the North Korean people themselves have a stake in the status quo: \n\n - **China** doesn't want millions of malnourished, desperate refugees on its border: \n - **Russia,** same. Also, neither is interested in a reunited Korea that would probably be pro-American. China in particular is nervous about having any neighbor hosting a U.S. base that would ease the Americans' ability to shut down Chinese shipping, which is why China is extremely touchy about the South China Sea.\n - **South Korea** doesn't want to bankrupt itself trying to rebuild its northern counterpart. Talk about the warm fuzzies from reunification is cheap. Paying to actually get North Korea to something resembling economic viability would not be.\n - **The U.S.** would almost certainly need to shovel out several dozen, if not several hundred, billion in aid money if the North Korean state collapsed. Also, the security nightmare that would probably be created in the event that desperate or corrupt North Korean scientists sold missile or nuclear technology/arms to the highest bidders isn't pleasant to think about.\n - **Japan** actually has the most to gain from a unified Korea, but it, too, would be on the hook for billions in aid money.\n - **The North Korean elites** are terrified of what happened to their counterparts in fallen Communist governments around the world, and fear being the targets of retribution from an enraged population. In fairness to them, most of the current elite weren't part of the decisions that have largely shaped North Korea's destiny. They were simply born into it, and would have gone to the camps along with all the other dissenters and their families if they had protested. It's for this reason that I think we can argue they're just as trapped as they people they control. Someone once facetiously argued that the U.S. could unilaterally collapse the North Korean government overnight by offering officials and their families free visas to the States, and there's grain of truth to that.\n\nSo Kim Jong-un has a lot of room to maneuver and everyone knows it.\n\nNorth Korea is also really, really big on dramatic action around one of the country's important anniversaries, and it's no mistake that their December 2012 missile launch coincided with the anniversary of Kim Jong-il's death, or that they're ramping up the rhetoric in time for Kim il-Sung's birthday next week.",
"Freely? Seriously?\n\nTheir economy is crippled by some of the most severe trade sanctions in the world. They are hardly doing it \"freely\".",
"They're allowed to because the only way to stop it would be war. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c29lu/wednesday_ama_north_korea/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
38j2w0 | why do big military aircraft like the c130 and the a440 use propellors instead of jet engines like commercial aircraft? | Am I even asking the right question? It just seems...weird to me. Makes them look ancient even though the A440 launched just two years ago! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38j2w0/eli5_why_do_big_military_aircraft_like_the_c130/ | {
"a_id": [
"crve0ii",
"crvgpiu",
"crvndfm"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"Propellers are more fuel efficient at low altitudes where the air is thicker. Low-altitude aircraft use propellers, high altitude craft use jets.\n\nCombat planes need to be able to go high altitude, so they're all jets. But you can more more stuff more cheaply if you use propellers for cargo.",
"**From some dude on the internet:**\n\nJet engines are more expensive than piston or turboprop engines. Since jets turn faster and experience much higher temperatures, their components must be machined to a higher level of precision using stronger metals.\n\nIn addition, piston and turboprop aircraft can take off from and land on shorter airstrips. This is the reason the C-130 is a turboprop; it can deliver supplies to less improved airbases closer to the front.\n\n**And some other dude:**\n\nBear in mind that what you see as a jet engine in reality is also a propeller, as in a modern (high-bypass) turbofan is overwhelmingly getting its thrust from the fan, not by the jet itself. In fact the big propeller-drive aircraft you refer to are driven by a gas turbine, just like a jet engine, with a propeller connected to the gas turbine instead of a fan.\n\nIn other words, the only difference between the aircraft you refer to and \"jet engines\" is that jet engines are 'enclosed' propellers, whereas propeller aircraft use 'non-enclosed' propellers.",
"Turboprop aircraft like the C-130 and A440 are designed as *tactical* transports that can utilize very short and primitive runways.\n\nJet aircraft like the C-5 and C-17 - while some have the capability for short takeoffs and landings - are nowhere near the same realm as what the C-130 is capable of. Likewise, the jet engines on those aircraft do not do well in primitive runways (like dirt) where rocks and debris can easily be sucked into intakes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bp5w8r | why isn’t possible for all cars to move in unison when a red light turns green instead of seeing a green light and having to wait a few seconds before you can move? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bp5w8r/eli5_why_isnt_possible_for_all_cars_to_move_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"enoyno1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's to do with the spaces between the cars. At the lights there's only a small gap, and if all the cars started together then the gap wouldn't grow and if someone hits the breaks there would be an accident. By waiting a second for the car in front to move, you create a safe gap between your car and the car in front."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
29qwus | how do celebrity amas really work? do they have a team helping? writers? pr people? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29qwus/eli5_how_do_celebrity_amas_really_work_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"cinljbe",
"cinlnz5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It varies.\n\nSome celebrities, who are probably more internet savvy, do them freely on their own.\n\nSome get help from the reddit team, specifically [Victoria](/u/chooter).\n\nSome are probably done by PR teams - one of the most notorious examples was the crappy [Morgan Freeman AMA](_URL_0_), although it's more likely that these AMAs are done by the celebrities themselves, with the PR team's help.",
"why dont you ask one on their AMA? :P"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1c5zxh/i_am_morgan_freeman_ask_me_anything"
],
[]
] |
||
4nihfi | why we can't just fly to the edge of the atmosphere in a plane then light off a rocket to boost it to a stable orbit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nihfi/eli5_why_we_cant_just_fly_to_the_edge_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4463iu",
"d4465wo",
"d4467mq",
"d447yhb",
"d44aqg7"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think we already do this with booster rockets being what would be the planes flying the rocket to the atmosphere. Just adding another sentence so this doesn't get deleted right away.",
"The reason it's hard to get to orbit isn't that space is high up.\nIt's hard to get to orbit because you have to go so fast.pace is about 100 kilometers away. That's far away—I wouldn't want to climb a ladder to get there—but it isn't that far away. If you're in Sacramento, Seattle, Canberra, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Phnom Penh, Cairo, Beijing, central Japan, central Sri Lanka, or Portland, space is closer than the sea.\nGetting to space[1] is easy. It's not, like, something you could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached space[2] just by going fast and then steering up.[3]\nBut getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there.\nGravity in low Earth orbit is almost as strong as gravity on the surface. The Space Station hasn't escaped Earth's gravity at all; it's experiencing about 90% the pull that we feel on the surface.\nTo avoid falling back into the atmosphere, you have to go sideways really, really fast.\nThe speed you need to stay in orbit is about 8 kilometers per second.[4] Only a fraction of a rocket's energy is used to lift up out of the atmosphere; the vast majority of it is used to gain orbital (sideways) speed.\nThis leads us to the central problem of getting into orbit: Reaching orbital speed takes much more fuel than reaching orbital height. Getting a ship up to 8 km/s takes a lot of booster rockets. Reaching orbital speed is hard enough; reaching to orbital speed while carrying enough fuel to slow back down would be completely impractical.[5]\n\n_URL_0_",
"We certainly can! The thing is, though, that getting to orbit is not about going _up_ so much as it is going _fast_. To be in orbit requires a velocity of at least 17,000 MPH, so starting high with a velocity of, say, 400MPH is not a tremendous boost. If we could launch supersonically, that would be more ideal, but that adds even more engineering challenges. The added complexity of towing a rocket up on a plane (think about how many times rocket launches get delayed, even for just a few minutes at a time) means that, generally, you just make the rocket a few percent bigger and launch it from the controlled stability of a launch pad.",
"The hard part isn't getting to space, it's not falling back down again. As you said you could just fly to the end of space and use a tiny rocket to get the last big. But to stay in space you need to be in orbit.\n\nIn orbit you are still affected by gravity pretty much as strongly as on the ground, so you are free falling towards the ground. The trick is to move sideways so fast that the Earth curves away before you hit the ground.\n\nThat is why the space station needs to move at 7.66 kilometres per second (27,600 km/h; 17,100 mph) to stay in space. If it stopped moving it would just fall to the ground.",
"Getting out of the atmosphere is NOT the same thing as getting into orbit.\n\nIn order to obtain orbital velocity, you have to go really, really, really fast. That's the real reason we use rockets instead of planes. A plane just cannot get the amount of speed necessary to obtain orbit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3cwxyn | why do some weeds grow so fast and easy in cracks and rocks, but some plants die in full soil if you kinda just look at them funny? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cwxyn/eli5_why_do_some_weeds_grow_so_fast_and_easy_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cszqr45",
"cszqxty",
"cszvzi7"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"My best guess here. Has to do with some plants evolved to grow in bad conditions as a way to reproduce the species more effectively in wide variety of conditions. Also soil conditions such as Ph values and nutrients. Different plants require different levels of nutrients to grow well. ",
"Some plants have succeeded in reproducing by growing fast and well in conditions of high fertility and moisture. Others succeed by growing well in conditions where there is very little competition from other plants.\n\nOne of my favorite plants is chicory. This plant has small flowers of a shade that I think is very beautiful. It is sometimes called watcher of the road because t tends to grow along the side of well-traveled roads where not much else will grow. Chicory wouldn't do well competing with the flowers that grow in my garden because they would grow faster and shade it.",
"Generally speaking, plants which people grow as food have been manipulated by us through natural selection to produce as much food as possible. This is great news for us, but it usually means those plants aren't as tough because they are putting all their energy into growing food. Plants which don't yield as much food (or any at all) will have more energy to spend on growing strong and resisting harsh conditions. \n\nWhen you plant a garden, you try to balance growing as much food as possible with giving plants plenty of space so they can get sunlight, water, and nutrients. You have to balance all these factors to get the most bang for your buck. \n\nA weed growing out of a sidewalk doesn't have to worry about growing food for people to eat. It just has to survive, and it puts all its energy into that task. \n\nPlants are living things, and there's an amazing amount of variety in between weeds and staple crops. There are heirloom varieties of plants that resist disease but have smaller yield, plants with amazing flavor that need a lot of attention, and plants that are pretty low-maintenance but taste just ok. And then there's the raspberry bush in my yard that is delicious but doesn't give a fuck about me and threatens to take over my yard if I don't watch it, and the parsley that is growing out of my sidewalk even though the stuff in my window box is barely hanging on. Plants do what they want to do, we can only try to control them. \n\n\nTl;dr: life, uh, finds a way. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ty45e | why didn't google just buy the shit out of facebook at that ipo? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ty45e/eli5_why_didnt_google_just_buy_the_shit_out_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4qp846",
"c4qpcx4",
"c4qs4ku",
"c4qsgja",
"c4qtnbx",
"c4qw0nt"
],
"score": [
54,
93,
10,
11,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Just waiting for Google+ to get popular. Any day now...",
"Zuckerberg is still retaining a majority interest, so no matter what he will still be in charge witht he most shares held. Google couldn't just own facebook because it went public.",
"They only sold 18% of Facebook at the IPO, so it would not be possible to acquire a controlling interest. Also, what topperharley88 said.",
"Facebook was overpriced.\n\nWith pretty much every object (such as shoes, computers, cars, ect) people want the best value for the price. Companies such as Google is no different than people, in that they too want the best value for the price. Sometimes the value of something is hard to judge (what is the value of having 100,000 people watch an advertisement video) for instance, so its purely based on educated guesses. In this case, Google decided that the value of Facebook was simply not worth the price, for what ever reason. \n\nAllot of the value of Facebook comes from information. The worth of the information will be based on what a company already knows, as well as how the new information benefits them.",
"ELI5 what an IPO is...",
"Simply put, Google thinks it can make more money with its money that Facebook can make with Google's money."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
atvopl | how come stuff that gives us easy pleasure often has a bad side effects (e.g. fast food, drugs, you name it), and things that are "not fun" great side effects (e.g. exercise, healthy food)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/atvopl/eli5_how_come_stuff_that_gives_us_easy_pleasure/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh3ok5c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Easy pleasure is chemically what happens when your brain hits you with a serotonin rush. That’s a little bit of a learned reaction and also based on personal taste— as evidenced by people who get addicted to exercise and experience a “runner’s high”— that easy pleasure you’re talking about. Your absolute favorite healthy food can be just as easy pleasure as a fast food burger, too. It’s all about what your brain is wired to make you want to do again, the pleasure you derive from it is partially learned from watching others and partially from things like “inherently feels/tastes good”."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
30mtzl | why do some games reload the whole level on playerdeath? | So in bloodborne, the loading times after death are ridiculously long. The only reason I can imagine for this is every image gets reloaded. Why don't they just draw a black wall and reset everything without reloading it ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30mtzl/eli5_why_do_some_games_reload_the_whole_level_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cptvw46"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When the level loads, it gets placed in the active memory. When you start playing, things about the level start changing (player position, enemy position, items...). The changes have to be saved so you can keep going, and there are a few ways to do this.\n\n1: change them right in the memory of the level, overwriting the original values. This uses the least amount of memory (so games with large levels or otherwise memory intensive use it), but it resetting the level means loading the whole thing again.\n\n2: Overwrite the original values, but add a flag next to each changed value that says \"this got changed\". Now when you reset it all it has to do is find the flags and reload the values next to them. But this takes a bit more memory, and can cause bugs when the game fails to set a flag (if you've ever reset a level and one of the enemies you killed or an item you picked up doesn't respawn, this is the reason).\n\n3: Put two copies of the level into active memory. All changes get written onto A. When you reset, it overwrites A with B. This is the fastest method, but it takes twice as much memory as 1, so it's not possible in games with big levels."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3m6irx | how is all my reddit content in english when this is a global site? is reddit translating to english as my default or do i just not see the posts in other languages? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m6irx/eli5_how_is_all_my_reddit_content_in_english_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvce6fj",
"cvce9jc",
"cvcehlw"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"68% of connections to Reddit are from the US. That alone will mean that the majority of the content on Reddit will be catered toward American consumers including being in English. Add to that the number of other English speaking countries that Use Reddit and the number of countries that tend to have English as a second language and you are looking at an even higher percentage of the site being created in English. \n\n_URL_0_",
"If you look for them you can find subreddits in other languages.\n\nThere is /r/de for example. But then you have the /r/Berlin subreddit where you get posts in Englisch and in German...",
"Because you are browsing subreddits that are generally aimed at American audiences or worldwide audiences, in which case, English is going to be the most comprehensible language for the biggest group of people.\n\nIf you start browsing subreddits meant for specific countries, you'll find the majority of posts in that language like /r/thenetherlands or /r/sweden. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit"
],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.