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
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fngfw5
|
why it is hard to think about death deeply?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fngfw5/eli5_why_it_is_hard_to_think_about_death_deeply/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fl9gd32",
"fl9h5rc"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagination doesn’t actually ever create truly new things. It takes bits and pieces of experiences that you’ve had and uses those to construct what you’re imagining.\n\nIf you want to test this, try imagining a colour you’ve never seen.\n\nThinking deeply about death falls into the realm of trying to imagine something you’ve never experienced. You’re alive and as far as your brain is concerned always have been. So to imagine death it has no construct to piece together what it is like. The brain can fritz out while attempting to do this as it’s searching hard through your memories for something related.\n\nThis may cause the fear response you feel especially since we are told enough messages that death is something to fear.",
"Maybe you haven't accept it I know when I was a kid I would cry thinking about it I was also 10 probably"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
a3o81v
|
genome vs. gene expression
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3o81v/eli5_genome_vs_gene_expression/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb7vhvh",
"eb7vkyt"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Genome are all of your genes in your DNA.\n\nGene expression is wheter or not a gene is expressed.\n\nWe, human, have lots of DNA but only a minority of it is expressed, it's called \"coding DNA\" , the non expressed part of our DNA is very much studied now because we realised how important it could be in terms of regulation of the coding DNA and its implication in diseases.\n\nAnd lots of things affect expression, like non-coding DNA seems to regulate coding DNA. \n\n & #x200B;",
"Your genome is all the DNA that defines how your body operates. It's the same in all the cells in your body (except for sperm/egg cells - they have half your genome).\n\nGene expression defines what kind of cell each one is. So a skin cell and a muscle cell have different gene expression patterns.\n\nGene expression regulation is *incredibly* complicated, but the most basic principle is described by the central dogma of biology. DNA is transcribed to RNA and RNA is translated to proteins. Proteins do most of the work in a cell, including transcription and translation. They also regulate transcription and translation.\n\nTo define where a transcription starts and ends, the DNA has specific codes that are recognized by a protein RNA polymerase which starts making an RNA version of the gene. The binding of the RNA polymerase is regulated by other proteins called transcription factors. These can be regulated by chemicals, hormones etc. Transcription factors enhance or decrease the ability of the RNA polymerase to make mRNA.\n\nThe way the DNA is structured also determines what genes are expressed. The DNA strands are wound around histones. The histones are grouped in such a way that some DNA is accessible, while other DNA is blocked in. Different types of histones have different configurations, and so they affect which genes are expressed.\n\nOnce the mRNA is made, it can be translated into proteins, but again there are mechanisms that affect this. Some non-coding RNA is made by the RNA polymerase, and these can trigger degradation of mRNA to further regulate which proteins are ultimately produced by the cell.\n\nSo to summarize, expression is affected by the cell type and signals from inside and outside the cells (chemicals, sugars, hormones etc.). The regulation uses structure (histones etc.), protein signals (transcription factors etc.) and RNA signals to determine which genes are expressed (meaning which proteins are made)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7qxy92
|
why is it that certain weapons, like poisonous gasses, are banned from use in warfare by the geneva convention, yet countries and governments can still use them against their own population, such as tear gas to control riots?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7qxy92/eli5_why_is_it_that_certain_weapons_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dssr6bo",
"dssr9cj",
"dssrurm"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Geneva convention is largely a gentlemen agreement. No one wants their soldiers getting gassed or having to patch up wounds from hollow points. Its easier to just say no one gets chemical weapons and fight with conventional weapons, then it is to say \"there are no rules\" and everyone have them. Its already illegal for citizens to use tear gas on cops, so there is no objective reason to outlaw it for law enforcement.\n\nThe question of its something is humane or not doesnt really tend to stand in the way of most governments. ",
"The Geneva conventions mostly specifically relate to wartime activity and uniformed combatants.\n\nRioters are neither at war nor uniformed combatants, and therefore only subject to local laws.\n\nIf the international community deems the local laws too harsh they may individually or collectively take action, but historically nations have been allowed to do pretty much anything to their own populace.\n",
"Weapons are banned in war because governments think it'll piss off other governments if they use it so they don't. They're allowed to exist, but if you drop nerve gas on enemy combatants you can bet you're going to have it dropped on one of your cities too.\n\nOne interesting case that gives some context to this is the ban on exploding bullets. In 1863 Russia developed a musketball that could light hard targets on fire, in 1867 they developed an explosive musketball that would explode on impact even with soft targets. They knew this would trigger an arms race as their neighbors worked to create their own explosive musketballs and it would be awful for both sides. To avoid this, they called a convention in Saint Petersburg in 1868 and issued the [Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868](_URL_0_) which banned the use of explosive bullets, but not artillery shells because they're more likely to kill and not maim. Thus, their fear of having their new weapon used against them led to them getting everyone to ban it instead."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868"
]
] |
||
4wpz5c
|
whats the difference between christianity and orthodox christianity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wpz5c/eli5whats_the_difference_between_christianity_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d68xywu",
"d68ywho",
"d691asd",
"d695bwy"
],
"score": [
6,
12,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, since you are asking this question, I assume you know what Catholicism is. With the Pope and the Vatican and the Baby Jesus.\n\nEastern Orthodox Christianity is essentially a different group of Christians, who believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that was established by Jesus Christ.\n\nBasically, very early on in the history of the Christian church, there were some philosophical disagreements between very highly ranked members of the Christian Church, things like \"Is the Holy Trinity three distinct entities, or are they all aspect of one.\", \"Is the nature of Christ one of man, or one divine, a mixture of both, or is he both at once.\" and other various things. These people disagreed, and they had a falling out.\n\nSo they are Christians, technically, who don't follow the standard ideas of Catholicism, which is the more common form of Christianity. They don't believe the pope is the representation of god's will on earth and they have their own leadership and ideas on the nature of man, god, and the relationship between the two.\n\nI hope that answers your question, they are a subdivision of Christianity, in a similar sense to Protestants or Baptists, but the split became much earlier, and they are, as such, a bit different to most other groups of christianity.",
"The meaning of \"Orthodox\" in the Christian teaching is to denote a kind of Christianity that, according to the speaker, is close to the early Christian beliefs. This means that many different branches of Christianity are likely to regard themselves as orthodox, even if they are at odds with each other regarding theological matters.\n\n\"Orthodox Christianity\" is often used to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is one of the branches of Christianity, one that is mainly practiced in Eastern Europe, Greece and Russia. In this sense of \"Orthodox\", the question about the difference between Christianity and Orthodox Christianity is similar to asking \"what's the difference between a sandwich and a ham sandwich?\". Eastern Orthodox Christianity is one of the branches of Christianity.\n\nBasically, like the Roman Catholic church, it believes it is the kind of Christianity that carries on the original intent and authority of Christ and His apostles. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, it is not united under the authority of a single pope, but rather it is a group of related churches with their own religious leaders. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (which also calls itself the Catholic Church) were joined together in most matters until 1054, when they split due to disagreements. One of those was the issue of the authority of the Pope.",
"The standard setup for the early years of the church was the Orthodox church - where 5-6 Patriarchs ruled the Bishopric of their region. One of these was the Bishopric of Rome. The Patriarch of Rome would later come to be known as the Pope. Well the Patriarch of Rome got some lofty ideas about Rome being the most important of the Bishoprics and wanted to place themselves as first amongst equals. \n\nThis and other issues led to a pretty big falling out between Rome (the 'Western' Bishopric) and the others (like Antioch, etc. being the 'Eastern Bishoprics). That eventually sundered the church with the Western Church becoming Catholics led by the Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Church being known as Orthodox and being headed by the Bishop in Constantinople iirc.\n\nThat became a problem when Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and pretty much everything else in the Middle East being taken over by the heathen Islams, over which a multitude of Crusades were fought. Eventually Constantinople was the last remnant and the Ottoman Turks captured it in 1453. Many Orthodox Christians had to flee and either went west and 'converted' to Catholicism or fled north and east and established strong Orthodox presences in the Balkans, Russia, etc.",
"This doesn't directly answer your question but it might help you see where things diverge and how they relate, none the less it's very interesting to look at and might raise some questions you didn't know you had.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://000024.org/religions_tree/"
]
] |
||
1t786s
|
how is it not entrapment when the fbi provides you the means to commit a crime?
|
A guy was arrested last week for conspiracy to blow up the airport in Wichita Ks but was provided all his bomb materials by the FBI. How is this not entrapment? Why didn't they just stop and try to help him in the beginning instead of providing him the,means to commit the crime?
Here's an article about it...
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t786s/eli5_how_is_it_not_entrapment_when_the_fbi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce517h3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"FBI > \"I hear you're looking for explosives, here you go\" \nvs \nFBI > \"Hey, you should blow up this airport. Here are some explosives you could use\""
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/man-accused-of-airport-bombing-attempt-in-kansas.html?hpw=&rref=us"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2g5m0m
|
- what does a 3200 rpm stall converter mean, and why do i want it in my modified muscle car?
|
I thought I knew what I'm getting into but now I'm confused. What's the difference between a stock torque converter, a 2800 stall, and 3200 stall?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g5m0m/eli5_what_does_a_3200_rpm_stall_converter_mean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckfunqs",
"ckfuzfe",
"ckfw8oh"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You only want that if your camshafts power curve starts at 3200 rpm. Stall speed os the max slippage speed the torque converter will allow, ie. break torqueing your car will hold the rpm at 3200 where your cam makes its max power.",
"The idea is that to make the best launch from a standing start, you need enough rpms to spin the wheels and not let the engine bog down. You don't want the rpms to fall below the meat of the torque curve, at any part of the acceleration run. \n\nI guess which one you 'need' depends on the other characteristics of your car; engine size and type, weight, weight distribution, suspension tuning, tyre dimensions and compound. \n\nIt seems pretty common to go for high stall converters, because standard is just more of a compromise that suits normal driving. But I don't think you need to go nuts, unless the rest of the car is also nuts. ",
"If you have to ask you don't need one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5itkxm
|
how did articles in the roman languages come about?
|
As far as I know neither ancient Indogermanic languages, nor Latin or ancient Greek had articles yet somehow all (or most) of the modern derivatives ended up having them.
How did this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5itkxm/eli5_how_did_articles_in_the_roman_languages_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbaxs9d"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Actually, Ancient Greek did have articles: it had definite articles, but not indefinite articles. This is why some sticklers for correct grammar insist that you cannot say \"the hoi polloi\", because that translates as \"the the people\".\n\nAncient Greek's definite articles were derived from the demonstrative pronouns of an earlier form of Greek, Homeric Greek. Demonstrative pronouns are words like \"this\", \"that\" and \"yonder\".\n\nThis is also the derivation of Germanic definite articles. For example, in Old English, the phrase \"se dæg\" could mean \"that day\" or \"the day\", while \"þæt ēage\" could mean \"that eye\" or \"the eye\". The word \"se\" became our modern \"the\", and \"þæt\" is now \"that\". The reason the word was sometimes \"se\" and sometimes \"þæt\" has to do with grammar: Old English, like modern German, had three genders; \"se\" was used with masculine nouns and \"þæt\" with neuter nouns. Feminine nouns used the form \"sēo\", and it's believed that this is where our word \"she\" comes from.\n\nIn modern German, the connection between \"the\" and \"that\" is even more obvious: a sentence like \"**Das** ist **das** Haus, **das** ich gebaut habe\" translates into English as: \"**That** is **the** house **that** I built.\"\n\nA similar thing happened in the Romance languages. In Latin, the word for \"that\" was \"ille\" for masculine nouns and \"illa\" for feminine nouns. From those words we get the modern definite articles in French (\"le\" and \"la\"), Spanish (\"el\" and \"la\") and Italian (\"il\" and \"la\").\n\nAs for indefinite articles, they simply evolved from the word for \"one\". In fact, in most European languages, it's still the same word: \"ein Hund\" is German for \"a dog\" or \"one dog\"; \"un chat\" is French for \"a cat\" or \"one cat\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
826gsd
|
the weird lettering and symbols that are meant to “help” us pronounce words.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/826gsd/eli5_the_weird_lettering_and_symbols_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv7pswv",
"dv7pxdb",
"dv7qj7g"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"You mean Diacritical or IPA?",
"What else would you use? It is defined in the International Phonetic Alphabet. You need a system that complex to describe how word are pronounced.\n\nI would agree that is is not useful for most people as you need to understand it. But if you study languages and look at it you can start to learn it. A simple usage is to look at words that you know how it is pronounced and see if parts are the same. If it is not the pronunciation is different. ",
"What you're referring to is the IPA pronunciation guide, and it's a better phonetic alphabet than English has, because each symbol has one, and only one sound. If you know how to pronounce 'special,' then you can infer that 'ʃ' sounds like 'sh' and 'ə' sounds like 'uh'. So, 'special' sounds like 'speshuhl'.\n\nThis is opposed to if you pronounced the word the way it looks. English is such a speekeeall language."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2twj15
|
if congress passes a bill that has a 'watered down' version of net neutrality, can't obama simply veto it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2twj15/eli5_if_congress_passes_a_bill_that_has_a_watered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co2y79i",
"co2y7c7",
"co32kmn"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sure, but it goes back to Congress after he vetoes it, and if over two thirds of both the House and Senate (voting separately) vote in favor of the bill, they can override the presidential veto.",
"Obama can veto any bill he wants. Content does not matter. That is part of the basis of the US governmental system's of checks and balances.",
"Sure he can. It's just a matter of deciding whether he wants to take the compromise offered or try pushing his luck to get the whole thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26n46a
|
what was the point of ww1? was anything significant achieved?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26n46a/eli5_what_was_the_point_of_ww1_was_anything/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chskknn",
"chskp55",
"chsmftt"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"How the treaties among nations can bring them into a war they do not want to be in. \n\nFor future generations to learn from the mistakes from our past. ",
"[Just listen to this - trust me](_URL_0_)",
"It was about a whole lot of different things for different countries. Most wars (at least from an American perspective) are between two countries over a small set of issues, and can be easily summarized as \"the Civil War was about slavery, states' rights, and the nature of the Union\" or \"the American Revolution was about fair representation, republicanism, and monarchical authority\". Major European wars are a lot more complicated, because every country in the region has a chance to jump in and settle scores.\n\nThe war started as a fight between Serbia and Austria, with the Austrians seeking to suppress a movement in Serbia that was agitating for the independence of Bosnia from Austria (a little bit like the fight over Northern Ireland if the UK had invaded the Republic of Ireland to suppress the IRA). Austria was in the war to defend the integrity of its empire; after the war it was broken up into its constituent parts, so it didn't achieve its objective.\n\nRussia intervened on behalf of the Serbs in an attempt to assert its claims to be the protector of all Slavs - in effect attempting to establish an exclusive sphere of influence over Eastern Europe. When Lenin's government made a separate peace with Germany, it gave up a seat at the table for the final peace agreement, and the remaining Entente powers punished Russia for the betrayal by establishing numerous independent, Western-oriented states in Eastern Europe (as well as providing limited assistance to the counter-revolutionary Whites in Russia proper).\n\nGermany was in an awkward position at the time. It had been the greatest power in Europe since unification in the 1860s, but it was nestled in between an array of great powers potentially hostile to its ambitions. Bismarck had spent most of his career mitigating the threat by making friends with Russia, and sowing discord between Russia and France, but Kaiser Wilhelm didn't have the same appreciation for subtle diplomacy. Russia and France had been growing closer in their opposition to Germany for some time, and the Germans felt that they had to neutralize this potential alliance sooner rather than later, as Russia was growing stronger by the year. They saw an opportunity to support Austria against Russia (and presumably France) and to win a decisive victory now that would firmly establish their position as the strongman of Europe. Obviously they didn't achieve this.\n\nFrance, conversely, was concerned about Germany's growing military power, and still chafing from their disastrous loss to the Germans in the last war. In effect, their goal was to prevent Germany from having its way, and they achieved this handily (for the time being). Germany's closest ally Austria was broken up, Germany's military was largely disarmed, and the Rhineland, the most industrialized part of Germany, was demilitarized.\n\nThe UK is the hardest case to understand. Officially, they became involved after Germany attacked France by way of Belgium - a neutral country under the UK's protection. More to the point, they were very close to France and had been involved in an arms race with Germany over the last decade, so it was natural for them to honor their various agreements with France and Russia. It isn't entirely clear what they hoped to get out of the war; some argue that they were afraid a German victory might lead to German control of the English Channel, and that this would be a devastating blow to long-term British security. In any case, like France, their goal was primarily to contain Germany.\n\nThe US didn't get involved until much later than the other combatants, and with a very different purpose. President Wilson was an idealist, and he and his chief adviser Colonel House sought to spread contemporary American ideas of democracy and national self-determination throughout Europe. They didn't have any particular animosity towards Germans specifically, except insofar as Germany, Austria, and the Ottomans were all anti-democratic sprawling empires. Unfortunately, Wilson's hopes for Europe were at odds with the more self-serving objectives of Britain and France, and he had to compromise with them quite a bit to get a peace treaty. A number of independent nation-states were created, particularly in Eastern Europe, but without American participation in the League of Nations or a willingness in Britain and France to back the Treaty of Versailles with force, most of the positive results of the war were lost within 20 years.\n\nTL;DR Everybody wanted something different out of the war; it wasn't \"about\" any one thing. The victors had conflicting goals, so they didn't get everything they wanted, and none of them put much effort into protecting what gains they did manage, so the war accomplished little in the long run."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First%20World%20War-World%20War%20One-Great%20War"
],
[]
] |
||
1pql1e
|
why is the media not referring to the lax shooting suspect as a 'terrorist'?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pql1e/eli5_why_is_the_media_not_referring_to_the_lax/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd4z7xh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There is no evidence he was a terrorist, was involved in terrorism, had connections to terrorist organizations, or was doing this act for terror purposes. This was just a crazy/suicidal guy with a gun shooting people, though its currently thought he had \"anti-govt\" views, but not terrorism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2c8qwj
|
why do so many games have a "start" screen where you have to push a button before they decide to start a several minute loading process? (i'm looking at you, battlefield 4)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c8qwj/eli5_why_do_so_many_games_have_a_start_screen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjd1km7",
"cjd1uba",
"cjd2u42",
"cjd3vhk",
"cjd3wbt",
"cjd41he",
"cjd9usx",
"cjdjavj",
"cjdju09",
"cjdkbh0",
"cjdotfr"
],
"score": [
248,
36,
3,
203,
14,
21,
5,
4,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The primary reason is going to be player input. Let's say you omit that start screen, and just begin loading. All of a sudden, the player is sitting there, as you say, for minutes at a time, before anything happens. Is the game working right? did I do something wrong? is it frozen?\n\nBy forcing a player to hit start, it provides feedback that indeed, things are proceeding correctly. If it doesn't work, then you can safely begin troubleshooting reasons it might not be.",
"Gamedev here.\n\nI usually create a splash screen that appears immediately after the user runs the application ensuring that the game is actually running and expecting user's input. It contains a background image, music and ~~three~~ four main buttons: New Game, Restore Game, Options and Quit. No loading happens at this point (unless the game is heavy then I'd let some main libraries load in the background that won't have apparent affect to the user). The splash screen is a very good choice when developing a game in case the user have run it by mistake, or had a change of mind or any reason to quit without going through the waiting phase.",
"Another reason for having a clicked start button is that for multi-windowed environments, the \"focus\" may be on another window, so when you start using your arrow keys you'll be using them on your porn window rather than your game window. By forcing you to click on the game, you are bringing the focus to it so it won't seem to be not working.",
"Gamedev here:\n\nthe press start screen is used to determine the \"primary\" user. \n\nThe bit that most people probably dont realise is that once you've hit start, (and you've signed into XBL/PSN/Steam) We're going to talk to the system platform to get your profile, controller preferences, gamertag etc etc, and with a game like BF4, we're going to talk to service platform(s) to get what content you own, your game history, all your battlepack information, making sure you're not banned, downloading messaging, advertising, etc etc.\n\nOn top of straight up loading the data off the disk, there's quite a lot of back and forth from a communication POV, this takes time, especially when there's multiple services and systems involved. Its also not something you can easily hide as we need to know who the primary player *is* before we can go and do all this work.\n",
"Sometime the ''Splash screen'' is used to determine which controller will be used as primary input for the game.\n\nFor consoles, it might be controller 1 to 4.\n\nFor Pc, it might be the keyboard or the controller.",
"All console manufacturers have a first party requirement of having a start screen and an attract mode which is usually a video. So and game cross developed for PC and consoles will have them unless the dev took the time to remove them from the PC release. The mass effect series comes to mind as a good example of a start screen then the menu screen. \n",
"Having never played Battlefield 4, I'm going to guess you mean the start screen many games have that appears after the initial game load and credits play, but before the options, mode select, etc menus.\n\nThis is a throwback to arcade cabinets, where you would have an attract mode that plays when there is no one touching the controls. While many games have ditched the attract mode (or most players hit start before the attract mode can start) the start screen has become something of a tradition in gaming.\n\nI suppose it still matters in cases where individual controllers sign on with different accounts (what, read the other comments in the thread, me? nah!)",
" Another reason is that on the Xbone, Macrosoft has a pretty strict requirement that the game be responsive within a set amount of seconds after being told to launch (something like 3-5 seconds), as in, the title must have some sort of interactive element. I guess this is for the previously mentioned reasons of reassuring the player that everything is working normally and to not leave them waiting.\n\nsource: Am an xb-one games tester, and have had to occasionally fail a game for the start screen taking too long.",
"I actually considered this not too long ago. \n\nAnother reason I don't think has been explored relates to accidental keypresses.\n\nImagine without a splash screen. The game turns on, loads through producer screen, etc. At this stage most users are mashing \"x\" or whatever primary key for their system. The game suddenly loads, and because the user was mashing keys, whatever is initially highlighted is selected.\n\nThe user is now starting a new game, often with lengthy start cut-scenes, when most likely they actually want to load a saved game.\n\nForcing the user to press \"start\" while ignoring other input forces them to move their finger from the primary buttons, and makes it known to the user the main game menu is about to be displayed and active.\n\n",
"Another point to consider is that arcade cabinets would have a \"insert coin\" screen and has transferred over to consoles. \n\nAlso it makes as a great advertisement in store or booth, previous games would have a cutscene or gameplay that would appear if no one pressed start to entice a player",
"Imagine the game as city traffic. The traffic has to get from point A to point B. Lets put the traffic into Rush Hour mode. Now we have enough traffic to where getting from point A to point B will take longer. As the traffic moves, that represents assets (audio, images, textures, scripts, etc) being loaded into your memory from your hard disk. Some games have traffic cops, which are essentially asynchronous tasks that load the assets in the background of the \"start\" screen sort of like directing traffic at a red light. \n\nWith a PC, all of the cars are self-driving smart cars which are in sync, which means lower load times.\n\nWith a Console, all of the cars are broken down 1980 Geo Metro's which can only get into 2nd gear. Many times, accidents happen, slowing the traffic even more.\n\nWhen it comes to games like Battlefield or anything with online multiplayer, imagine construction zones which clog certain lanes of the traffic. As you and your friends all move to a certain location, the traffic might get rerouted at different stop lights, which increase latency and synchronization time.\n\nThis is about as simple as I can put it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ut5zh
|
why is it that most corporate jobs don't have unions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ut5zh/eli5_why_is_it_that_most_corporate_jobs_dont_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxhlcde",
"cxhn6u1",
"cxhpovx"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Many corporate jobs are achieved by skill. So wage and benefits are given accordingly. There is a lot less likely of a chance of near slave labor in an office building than in a factory/warehouse.",
"When I worked for Boeing, there was an attempt by some to unionize the engineers. It was voted down. Most of the engineers preferred having raises based on performance rather than flat increase across the board.",
"Because most white collar workers are smart enough to know that a union would be detrimental to their ability to receive bonuses, pay/promotion based on performance, and that their competitors would have a competitive advantage. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
342cyz
|
lagrange points for a planet with two moons
|
So, Google was no help regarding this question and I'm hoping someone here can help me out. I understand very basically how Lagrange points work (five locations of equilibrium between opposing gravitational forces and centrifugal forces) but what would happen in a system with more than three bodies?
Taking Mars as an example, it has two moons. If the two moons don't share the same orbital path, one moon would be passing through the system created by the planet and the other moon. What effect would that have on the Lagrange points? Can Lagrange points even exist in this configuration?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/342cyz/eli5_lagrange_points_for_a_planet_with_two_moons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqqkprk",
"cqqpo5n"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It would depend a lot on the relative sizes and positions of the bodies. Taking the solar system as an example: Jupiter has fairly large concentrations of asteroids at some it's lagrange points, because it and the sun are much more massive than anything nearby which would disrupt the system. By contrast, Earth doesn't have big concentrations of asteroids at the same solar/Earth lagrange points because Jupiter would tend to disrupt the system. \n\nThere's so many things that would change the situation in your moon question - relative masses, orbits, whether the orbits are in any sort of resonance, all might make a difference. But broadly speaking, you'r intuition is right, that more bodies tends to make lagrange points less stable.",
"Could the Lagrangian point \"shift\" or \"change\" its spatial coordinates in space based on the phase of the orbit of the twin moons? Assuming a satellite or a space station with the Lagrangian point would also shift along with the point? Or would it move out of the Lagrangian point and then be subject to the gravitational force of some body like the planet or one of the moons?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3v10z6
|
why hasn't microsoft word made times new roman the universal font?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v10z6/eli5why_hasnt_microsoft_word_made_times_new_roman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxjd41o",
"cxjdcuw",
"cxjdf63"
],
"score": [
3,
14,
15
],
"text": [
"Because TNR is ideal for some uses, but would be awful for many other things.\n\nFor example, in a spreadsheet it would be hard to read, and on a shop-front it might send the wrong message.",
"It used to be the default font because it looks best when printed out. Now fewer things are printed out so they switched to calibri which is easier to see on a screen",
"Fonts with serifs (the little embellishments on the end) are great in printed materials, but are harder to read on a computer screen. It's why most of the Internet uses sans-serif fonts, like Arial or Helvetica, and why Word switched the default font from Times New Roman (a Serif font) to Calibri (a sans-serif font) in 2007- Microsoft noticed that people had stopped printing out most Word documents and instead were reading them on a laptop or tablet."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5w8cd4
|
if calories are the measure of how much energy there is in food - how can things be 0 calorie?
|
I mean - isn't there still energy in those 0 calorie cookies? Would you starve to death if you tried to live on those and Coke Zero?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5w8cd4/eli5_if_calories_are_the_measure_of_how_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de82smv",
"de84vg1",
"de8688c"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Yes. It has zero nutritional value. Zero calorie stuff is just a bunch of chemicals that your brain tells you is tasting good.",
"Yes, you'd starve. 0-calorie food is made of stuff you can't digest. Since you can't digest it, it comes out in basically the same form it came in, which often causes... intestinal difficulties.\n\nDue to some wiggle room in labeling laws, you can have up to 5 calories/serving and still label food as 0-calorie.",
"ok, so essentially calories are the value attributed to the amount of simple and complex sugars that a material has inside of it. Wether that's carbohydrates, fats or protein calories are the estimated value of how much energy that food stores in it.\n\nCalorie free, or extremely low-calorie foods use substitute ingredients to provide something that may still have nutritional values, however provides very little in the way of caloric value.\n\nCase in point, Coke Zero. While it helps quench your thirst, and will settle/calm your stomach, it will not provide you any significant boost in energy. This is because Coke Zero is made with many inorganic and processed chemicals that will not provide your body with beneficial nutrition or chemical based energy that it needs. The chemicals pass through your body almost undisturbed until you either pee/poop them out. The only useful thing is whatever water your body can strip chemicals off of to use.\n\nOther foods, such as rice cakes, may have 1-2 calories, however still have other minerals and nutrints, such as sodium or Vitamin A, but still have no fuel to add to the mix.\n\nIts like your body is a car. Do you need brake fluid? not every day. Do you need oil? Yes, but in small amounts every 1-4 months. Do you need Gas? Yes, every 2-5 days depending on how you drive.\n\nIn this instance, equate GAS to CALORIES. Oil, transmission fluid, etc... these are going to be other minerals and vitamins you NEED, but arn't actively used to make you GO. They work with the things that make you GO to make sure you keep GOING, but they arn't the fuel your body burns."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ent4e
|
why does germany have such a strong influence over the eu?
|
Seems like Angela Merkel and her effect on the EU is always in the news.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ent4e/eli5_why_does_germany_have_such_a_strong/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctgod0u",
"ctgoqqm"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"Germany is the EU's strongest economy and has the largest population. Why wouldn't they have a strong influence?",
"Germany does have the largest economy in the EU, and the largest population, but that is probably a little more simplistic than the actual situation; France, Italy and the UK are also powerful EU member states.\n\nGermany, and to a lesser extent France and Belgium, are the most \"European-minded\" countries in the EU. They place a lot of value on European politics and ideas, contrasting especially with the UK, which has always been on the edge about the EU.\n\nAlso, most Germans, but particularly Merkel, are relatively conservative and supportive of the austerity policies promoted by the European Central Bank. The media covers Merkel a lot because most of the EU politics that Americans care about are related to these austerity policies, which are causing all the trouble in Greece, and she is their most powerful European proponent.\n\nEDIT: Partially because Germany's economy is so powerful, many of the loans given to the Greek government were provided by German banks. This makes them particularly invested in how the debt crisis is resolved."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
xrgy5
|
what is r/circlejerk?
|
I figure this belongs here because it's popular culture (at least to redditors) because references to the page are made EVERYWHERE. I went on, and the only heads or tails I could make of it is that it is a place where people pretend to speak french and make up stories. Is this an accurate analysis?
**Edit:** Thank you!!!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xrgy5/what_is_rcirclejerk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5oz0oa",
"c5p60ve",
"c5pedbw"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is a subreddit where they mock the rest of reddit. The more time you spend on Reddit the funnier /r/circlejerk becomes ",
"It's a kids game that could alternatively be called \"Who can agree the loudest!?\". The idea of the game is no matter how ridiculous something is (actually the more ridiculous the better) you have to agree really LOUDLY. There are no winners.\n",
"It is making fun of widespread and stupid or really immature/youngish opinions on Reddit. For example American anti-Americanism of the I-am-better-than-the-people-around-me-kind, the dumber kinds of atheism, the incredible wankery around science and so on. \n\nIt is basically a place to vent every time the Reddit Hivemind rustles your common sense and not being a narcissistic pseudointellectual prick jimmies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
23ccyk
|
why aren't we sexually attracted to our siblings or parents?
|
I know some people are, but why doesn't the majority of people find their siblings or parents sexually attractive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23ccyk/eli5why_arent_we_sexually_attracted_to_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgvlowx",
"cgvm7z3",
"cgvw8gf",
"cgw90ad"
],
"score": [
11,
6,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"[Westermarck effect](_URL_0_) - we're not attracted to thoe we grew up with.",
"Imo its more a cultural and societal thing because there have been plenty of cases of incest and lusting of or after family members. I think the average person is gonna take any of those feelings and bury them deep down though it's not gonna be something that a person would openly admit to.",
"I look exactly like my dad and let me tell you he is one handsome fellow.",
"It all comes down to evolution - we are attracted to the people we perceive to give us the best offspring. People we are related to share *too* mush DNA with us and therefore would not provide good offspring."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
277dt0
|
swift, apple´s new programming language
|
Is it helping? Or is another programming language just adding a new layer of confusion and complexity?
What can it actually do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/277dt0/eli5swift_apples_new_programming_language/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chy2oes",
"chy3gx3"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"While I can't talk specifically about Swift, seeing as I've not read much about it, I can tell you something about programming languages: new languages constantly evolve. Often as \"better versions\" of older ones. Each programming language has a different use and a different feeling to it. Certain things are going to be easier, others are going to be more complex. One of the core differences between languages is how much you have to micromanage and how close the language is to the machine - the closer it gets, the more micromanagement and in-depth knowledge is normally required, meaning that more time has to be put in.",
"It was just announced. This is the first that anyone outside of Apple's heard of it. Ask again in a week or a month if you want to get some unbiased opinions on how good it really is.\n\nUltimately, it can only help so much. Programming complex programs is complex. No matter how much easier it becomes to express the complexities, they won't go away. If you're making a fighting game with 500 different moves, somebody still has to program them and decide how they interact - no language can make that go away."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1mjs37
|
how are large games abled to be rendered?
|
Im a PC gamer and I was wondering how different games are rendered. Why is it that I can get ~100fps in call of duty or source games (games with small maps) but other games (like skyrim or other huge maps) able to be rendered with the same fps? Basically I heard of a new game coming out with endless generation and was wondering how it would work. Minecraft is endless but that maintains fps by rendering the map in different chunks and you can change how far it is rendered. I was wondering how a graphically entense game would be rendered endlessly and how games like skyrim or GTA5 are capable of rendering such huge places with great fps? That then led me to wonder if games like skyrim are able to load huge areas with good fps why are smaller maps and games not able to load small areas with alot better fps?
Edit: So its all based on the games specific engine and how it does things? For games like skyrim or large maps it has ways of making things farther away less taxing to render, and thus games with smaller maps are just as taxing due to rendering alot more polygons at higher resolutions? I guess its a little bit too over my head to truly explain like im five. But i thankyou for answering.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mjs37/eli5_how_are_large_games_abled_to_be_rendered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc9w7zc",
"cc9wctr"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Generally there are a few methods:\n\n* Intelligent clipping. You only draw the polygons that might be visible.\n\n* Variable Level of Detail. As objects become more distant, they get drawn more simply. A building might be very intricate up close, but at a distance might be rendered as just a single rectangle.\n\n* Fog. This one is cheesy, but it's been used in a few games. You draw a stack of semitransparent polygons at fixed intervals out from the camera, creating the effect of a uniform fog. Then you just stop rendering stuff at a distance where it would barely be visible anyway.",
"Not at expert in the field, just a fellow gamer, who blundered through the 64 fog...hopefully someone more qualified can answer better...\n\nAnyways, the basic idea as I understand it, is that the further away something is in a video game, the less detail it is rendered in. In Skyrim, for example, the Throat of the World is probably made of only a relative handful of polygons as you gaze upon it from Whiterun, but conversely, so is Whitefun when looking upon it from the Throat. The game and your PC can only handle so many polygons and textures, but things far away are rendered in less detail, and so, until you get close to them, only use a few polygons, and low-resolution textures. \n\nIn some games and with some graphical options checked, you can actually see it update as you close, as in \"pop in\". Objects in the world will jump from a low-quality to a high-quality. This was more noticeable in older systems, and a high-end PC can hide it pretty well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7sk9lx
|
why aren’t more major electronics companies making video game consoles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sk9lx/eli5_why_arent_more_major_electronics_companies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dt5egyu",
"dt5ert6",
"dt5f17q",
"dt5kckf"
],
"score": [
19,
8,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The cost is way too high for the profits available. You have to invest huge sums in games and then make profit from selling hardware at very low margins. It's more a question of why anybody is still making consoles.",
"There is almost zero profit in consoles. They are loss leaders. For a while, Microsoft was losing $100 for every XBox sold, but they try to make it back with games. So unless you own a crapload of game studios, it's not worth it to make the hardware.",
"For a console to be successful, it has to have a large following, and a lot of development behind it. That’s hard to create from nothing. Also, most people only have room in their lives and budgets to devote to one console. A customer that has put a lot of $$$ into one console usually can’t afford to do the same with another, and has less incentive to do so. What you see (PS, Xbox, Nintendo) are the three current exceptions to the rule that creating a console is damn difficult.\n\nIt’s a lot like smartphones and why they quickly converged on just two major players. It’s no coincidence that both were created by huge corporations with a solid vision and a crapload of resources to risk on the venture. ",
"First, creating a console takes a lot of time and money. If they don't sell enough, they lose lots of money.\n\nThey have to compete with other consoles that exist. Are you going to buy a PlayStation, an XBox, or a Huawei JoyMech? \n\nAll the companies making games? You're saying they need to translate games even more. It already takes time and money to translate a game from Windolish to Xboxese and PlayStationian. Now they have to translate it into JoyMechan as well?\n\n OUYA tried doing this halfway. It used a language that was already out there (Android) and simply made things show bigger on a TV and use a consult controller. \n\nIt still failed, badly. Barely lasted 3 years. The problem? \n\nNobody wanted to make games for this new thing. Nobody wanted to make games in a new language. Not enough people wanted to buy the new thing instead of another Xbox. \n\nAnd there wasn't enough people using it to make high enough sales and make money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5cxg3p
|
why is the ability to ride a bike something you can't lose once you gain it
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cxg3p/eli5_why_is_the_ability_to_ride_a_bike_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da05ii7",
"da0atz0",
"da0fdlw",
"da0frh4",
"da0uxrw"
],
"score": [
23,
43,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Muscle memory. You don't have to mentally remember anything because your muscles remember how to preform actions they've repeated over and over. Another example is that I learned how to solve a Rubik's cube in 6th grade by memorizing 10 or so algorithms but now I couldn't tell you what they are or even write them out. I can still solve a Rubik's cube however because the movements are so engrained in my muscles. ",
"If you learn to ride a bicycle with reversed steering, you can no longer ride a bike with normal steering until you learn again. The Backwards Brain Bicycle - Smarter Every Day _URL_0_ From /u/MrPennywhistle I believe.",
"In terms of psychology your brain has sensory memory, short term memory and long term memory. Now long term memory can be broken down into two categories: explicit and implicit. Implicit has 4 categories; 1 of which is procedural. This is where all motor skills like typing on a keyboard, riding a bike, swimming, etc go and are stored for vast amounts of time. This is because your brain has remembered the blue prints for how to execute those activities and has placed them your long term memory",
"Bikes are governed by a strange law...\n\n\"Push Right and Lean Right to Go Right\". (and left, left, left).\n\nThat is, if you push the _RIGHT_ handle of the handle-bar forward the wheel will point _LEFT_, this just looks and feels wrong when you start. You are \"steering left\" to \"go right\".\n\nIndeed if you hold a bike upright and walk it, you'll \"push left\" forward to right. But not when you are riding.\n\nThis rule is counter-intuitive because the static analysis and any vehicle that cannot tilt works \"the other way\", from a trike to a wagon to a car, you steer right, to point the wheel right, to go right.\n\nNow if you pay lots of attention to riding, you'll discover that you \"push right to lean right\" because by steering to the wheel to the left, you move the center of gravity to the right of the center of support, or more correctly you move the bike \"out from under you\" to make the leaning easier.\n\nAnd if you stop pushing right, the bike will come back under you and you'll be going straight again. This self-correction is why you can shove a bike out of a moving truck or take your hands off the bar, and it will stay upright as long as it's still moving.\n\nSo anyway...\n\nOnce you learn this odd rule it has it's own path in your brain. If you haven't been on a bike in many years you might take a few moments to recall this process. But the sensations of falling over and the self-correcting nature of the bike will quickly remind you of how it works ... or you fall down ... and your brain _hates_ falling off a bike, so it's very motivated to re-learn and reinforce the old understanding.\n\nSo between threat of injury and very unique system, it's the kind of thing your body and brain are designed to remember.\n\n(EDIT :: Wikipedia on \"[Countersteering](_URL_0_)\")",
"It's because you don't actually learn to ride a bike. You just overcome the irrational fear of the bike falling and commit to it. It's like learning to jump off the high diving board. Not a skill just a psychological barrier. Something like an instrument requires extensive muscle memory and general memorisation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering"
],
[]
] |
||
5vrc53
|
why does some scientists/countries still want to go on the moon ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vrc53/eli5_why_does_some_scientistscountries_still_want/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de46h4c",
"de47303"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"The moon is the closest large object to earth in space, so going to the moon allows us to develop and test a lot of technology related to landing on and moving around on solid, non-earth objects. Mars would be better to colonize for several reasons (atmosphere, temperature, soil, similar hours in a day, etc.), but we don't have the technology to set up a space colony yet and the moon is a much closer place to do testing.",
"The single largest reason is that it has a lower \"Delta V\" than Earth. That's just a way of saying that since the escape velocity on Earth is about four times higher than the Moon, it costs a lot more fuel to lift the same load out of Earth's gravity well than the Moon's.* If we're serious about doing things in space, and not just LEO, we're going to need to address the high Dv required to leave Earth. Fuel is *expensive* in every sense, because the essential problem of rocketry is that you have to lift your own fuel. Therefore fuel savings become a massive proposition, defining what kind of loads you can affordably send into LEO or further. \n\nThe reason why people look at the moon, is that it's a compromise between a pure space station, and a colony. You can reap the benefits of having a *little* gravity, while still having close access to freefall and vacuum. As with Mars, shielding from radiation would be accomplished by tunneling, and there might be something useful for fuel conversion there as well. It doesn't present all of the advantages of a space station or a bubble-formed asteroid colony, but it has the advantage of being something we actually could conceivably make soon.\n\nThe problems are numerous though, and while the Moon has a much lower gravity than Earth, it's still a problem. \n\n*Actually Dv is just \"Change in velocity\" and is shorthand for all of the acceleration you'll need for the whole mission, most of which is going to be a result of escaping from Earth's gravity well. Obvious Dv is a function of the gravity well you're in, and obvious how much you need to accelerate defines your fuel budget. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2kn286
|
why do subreddits need mods to control posts? doesn't the voting system show what people actually want, whether it's shitty or not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kn286/eli5why_do_subreddits_need_mods_to_control_posts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clmvdlj",
"clmwlxj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you have someone being abusive and harassing, simply down voting won't remove it from existing.",
"Hi! There are a LOT of things that really are better off not being seen by anyone. For example, sometimes there are accounts created solely to post spam everywhere possible. Other times, there's a network of accounts created by one or a group of people who go around trying to further some agenda (recently there was one such group posting questions and comments here about Jewish people drinking the blood of babies). There aren't enough admins to control all this. \n\nSometimes there's a thing that's popular enough for it to get upvoted to the level where it's seen by lots of people, while still spreading negativity and being unliked by many, like \"people who don't spay or neuter their pets should be banned from owning them\" or something. That's an extreme example, but I hope it gets the point across. \n\nAlso, if that were the case, all subreddits would be pretty much the same and that's no fun. \n\nSorry, I do have to remove your post, because rules and rules. /r/Askreddit, or another \"ask\" subreddit would also be a good place to post this. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1hlb7a
|
why do royal families of defunct monarchies still exist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hlb7a/eli5_why_do_royal_families_of_defunct_monarchies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cavg3ao"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Even if they came with no money or lands, titles can still give you an edge. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ojmc7
|
how come space probes that travel to distant planets not collide with the smaller objects in space?
|
All these objects are travelling at insanely fast velocities right? And there are thousands, if not millions of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, right? How come the space probes never collide with even the smallest of particles?
If they do - shouldn't they face a lot of damage, owing to their high relative velocities?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ojmc7/eli5_how_come_space_probes_that_travel_to_distant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmnqh9h",
"cmnqhg8",
"cmnqhgo",
"cmnqhqz",
"cmnrcd7"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Asteroid belts are nothing like in the movies. They are mostly empty space. Chances of getting hit are incredibly small. \n\nIt's like spreading millions of ants across a Sahara desert and stepping on one. ",
"Yes: Collisions in space are pretty deadly.\n\nNo: Despite it looking so, the asteroids are quite a good distance apart from each other. Space is massive, your chance of collision is actually very slim.",
"Yes there are a lot of objects between Mars and Jupiter, but they are really, REALLY far apart. It's like driving a car through a field and wondering why you aren't hitting any trees.",
"Space is really really big, and asteroids are really really far apart. The average distance between asteroids in the asteroid belt is about 600,000 miles.",
"It is true that other people wrote - that it's not easy to hit something large because things are far apart in space. However, most probes and satellites are equipped with special multilayer honeycomb core protective shielding to give some protection from micro-meteoroids.\n\nAlso probes are often rotating to use gyroscopic rigidity effect, so that even if they are struck with some meteor their trajectory will not be affected (at least not a lot)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9575nh
|
why can you feel capsaicin irritating your mouth, stomach, and butt but don't seem to feel anything when it's passing through your intestines?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9575nh/eli5_why_can_you_feel_capsaicin_irritating_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3qmcdh",
"e3qxvy6"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Oh I've felt it. You try some good peppers or other high scovile oily food and you feel it working it's way through. It's not the same sensation, but you know it's there.\n\nAs for why you feel it less sit is because capsaicin triggers pain receptors and your main gut just doesn't have many pain receptors. Why would it? Skin, mouth, and anus have way more pain receptors because they are far more likely to come into contact with pain causing things.",
"Capsaicin is similar to an oil. Acid breaks it down, so once in your stomach the acid breaks it down. This stops it from irritating the mucus membrane in your stomach and intestines. This is why spicy foods are often served with a lime.\n\nCapsaicin is also fat soluble, which is why milk products also help with the heat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
684kwn
|
how can a distiller like jack daniel's meet doubled demand within one year when their product takes 4 years to age?
|
A recent TIL said that an endorsement by frank sinatra led to jack daniels doubling its sales of the previous year (150,000-300,000). But how is this possible when the minimum a bottle of jack daniels is aged is 4 years?
Post in question:_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/684kwn/eli5_how_can_a_distiller_like_jack_daniels_meet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgvmcxf",
"dgvnf7s",
"dgwgtkw"
],
"score": [
7,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"the article says the distillery was already almost 100 years old, so they probably already had enough stock to be able to sell 300,000 units",
"Jack Daniels complies with \"straight bourbon\" classification, which requires a minimum of two years in barrels. It's a blended whiskey, meaning that some of it may be older, and that blend can be varied. The company doesn't go in to exact details about blends and aging. ",
"Once whiskey is in a bottle is stops aging. So a 4 year old blend of jack is very similar to any other bottle of jack daniels. They can have a massive surplus. Aging only counts when it is in the barrel. \n\nA lot of fancy high demand whiskeys are hard to find in stock even for bars. Yamazaki 18 year old whisky is very hard to have in stock. I would order it for months on end and then get it and sell out in a week. At $60(IIRC) a pour. \n\nAlso no bottle of whiskey tastes exactly the same. They are all blends of different barrels and clear grain alcohol. There is a reason all jack daniels is 80 proof exactly. No two barrels tastes the same. A barrel on a different side of the barn can have a hugely different taste(if you have a super fine palate) than each other. The whiskey master mixes them to create the most uniform taste possible. While fancier high end batches can vary. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://talesofthecocktail.com/culture/frank-sinatra-jack-daniels?utm_content=bufferb7b43&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
906tuf
|
why old tech is being shown in new movies
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/906tuf/eli5_why_old_tech_is_being_shown_in_new_movies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2o44ss",
"e2o4nde",
"e2oe6tu",
"e2ofxkf",
"e2ohk7z"
],
"score": [
33,
14,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because most people can't identify models in simple passing.\n\nIf someone pays for the rights to feature their latest and greatest, the studio would use it, but otherwise it's just a prop phone with the model being completely unimportant. ",
"Not sure about the John Wick case but in case of Spider-man I think it was intentional to point out his humble / poor origins. Similarly, you see old flip phones and other old tech used for its uniqueness or coolness factor.\n\nThis is not the only reason but usually when an old tech is used in high-budget movies/series, it has a specific purpose. In lower budget pieces, it's usual to use whatever the production team could get their hands on / whatever was convenient.\n\nEdit: Another major factor that plays into this is product placement (think futuristic Audi cars in I, Robot) and sponsorship deals.",
"Several reasons.\n\nThey don't think people will notice. For the most part, they're right. Unless it's mentioned by name, most people will just see \"a phone,\" not \"an iPhone 4.\"\n\nThey already have props that look like iphones, so they don't need to make new ones. New props cost money. Old props don't.\n\nEven if they used brand new stuff, by the time they're done filming, it will be old anyway.\n\nIf they feature a brand new product, and that product ends up not selling well, they've tied their movie to a failed brand.\n\nSometimes a company (like Apple) will pay the studio to include their latest product (iPhone X) in a movie. If they put it in the movie anyway, nobody would ever pay for it.",
"I would also venture to say that when they filmed those items might have been new. It isn't like a movie is instantly downloaded to theaters. They edit, reshoot, all that jazz and it may be a year or so from the time shooting completed to the release of the theater. Just a thought.",
"I’ve worked on 40+ feature films as a cameraman. The phones come from the prop department. Unless it’s some special product placement or the director/writer specifies exactly which one to use then they use the same old phones that’s been in their kit for years. I’ve worked on some movies with the same prop team that used the same exact phones across five films. They are usually non working older iPhones or worse.\n\nSometimes the director will request a working phone because he wants something to pop on the screen and they don’t want to CGI it so the crew will scramble to use someone’s personal phone or (more often) we will just use the actors personal phone which often isn’t far away.\n\nThe worst example of old tech is a “found footage” style movie where we see the cameras in the film and prop department busted out some old analog 8mm camcorders for the actors to use despite it being a present day film. Being a cameraman, I pointed out these were ridiculous cameras to use as props for the story but I got just evil glares from the prop crew who didn’t want to deal with it and the director was an idiot that didn’t know the difference.\n\nEven on larger movies such as Spider-Man or John Wick they are still dealing with limited time and budget. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8b324m
|
bosons, do they facilitate all matter and how?
|
I was under the impression that energy is made matter through Bosons or something at that level. I know this is high level stuff but can anyone simplify it at all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8b324m/eli5_bosons_do_they_facilitate_all_matter_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx3lyeb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > I was under the impression that energy is made matter through Bosons or something at that level.\n\nThis is not really a correct statement. It sounds like you're referring to force carrier particles, which are bosons (a boson is anything with integer spin). There are a number of force carrier particles in the Standard Model of particle physics. They mediate interactions between all of the different particles in the Standard Model. For example, the photon is the force carrier particle for the electromagnetic force."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
el0liq
|
do nutrients in food change when heated/frozen, and if so, how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/el0liq/eli5_do_nutrients_in_food_change_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdf49wr"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Yes and no. Freezing won't change anything about the nutritional value of food, but cooking will. \n\nThere are many molecules that the human body cannot easily digest, and therefor cannot extract nutrients from. Cooking food can help to break those down into digestible molecules, and allows people to get a greater nutritional benefit from the food. There are also some chemicals our bodies need that can be broken down by high heat, so in those cases cooking can make things less nutritious."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
26ed3t
|
why do many companies nowadays see tattoos as being "unprofessional"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ed3t/eli5_why_do_many_companies_nowadays_see_tattoos/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chq806n",
"chq83md",
"chq88w6",
"chqatp0",
"chqdxek",
"chqea44"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because in much of modern history the people with tattoos have been people very often associated with unsavory organizations, crime, and violence. I think you can understand why companies wishing to present a professional and safe environment would shy away from hiring those with tattoos. That general attitude has been passed down, even though it may not be as applicable nowadays as it was in the past, since many people with tattoos are in no way associated with violence or crime.",
"In general, any body modifications, bar regular ear piercings are seen as \"unprofessional\".",
"\"Nowadays\"?\n\nTattoos have been seen as unprofessional in Western society for ages. They've become vastly more acceptable in the last few decades.",
"It's because of the customers, if the customers didn't care the businesses wouldn't either. I work in a service where I travel from house to house, when I first started I had earnings and tattoos. I went in to the office to quit at the end of my first week, it was rough and the Customers were horrible. My boss told me no, I wasn't quitting. What I was going to do was try the next week without my earnings and longer sleeves to cover my tattoos. Then after that I could do what I want. I'm glad I took his advice, it was a start to the vest job I ever had. Attitudes were drastically different, I was welcome and treated as a friend. \nPeople can be pretty petty, and a business has to make their customers happy. ",
"Tattoos being mainstream(ish) is a recent change. The older generations still see them as something indicative of the low-class/undesirable types. (don't read this wrong, I have a good bit of ink myself.)\n\n",
"It depends on the company. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ci6qt5
|
what purpose do continents serve apart from broad classification?
|
Is there any difference between Asia and Europe or Australia and Africa in terms of administration? How come cultures of Europe and Asia are so different even in neighbouring countries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ci6qt5/eli5_what_purpose_do_continents_serve_apart_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ev1z97y",
"ev1zay0"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"There is not one but a few different models for the continets. Some of them are just for classification. Some are used to differentiate what is one landmass and what is another. I thing the most common models used are the geopolitical and historic political one. These differentiate between what you could roughly call cultures.",
"Continents are just names we give to large areas.\n\nSome continent divisions have real meaning in terms of geology and wildlife and travel. But we name continents for historical reasons. Europe and Asia are not separate continents in any natural sense, they're just different areas our culture has chosen to name. Some other cultures have different sets of continents, and different numbers of continents."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2yxl7y
|
why are united states parents much more strict with the sexual life of their children compared to european parents?
|
Okay, the title is kind of difficult to understand so let me explain.
My girlfriend is from Germany and she tells me stories of how all of her friends' parents allow their significant others to go away with them on the weekends, go on vacations together alone, etc.
When we asked to do something similar ourselves, my parents were against it and so was her mother (American), however her father (German) seemed very okay with the idea and was almost happy that we asked.
Why are American parents so much less open about these types of things?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yxl7y/eli5_why_are_united_states_parents_much_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpdvm07",
"cpdvnjx",
"cpdvp7y",
"cpdwj4d",
"cpdwugw",
"cpdxelm",
"cpe231f"
],
"score": [
22,
5,
13,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The main reason is because of the religious background of the United States. ",
"Probably because of religious reasons/status/culture. I don't really know how to explain the phenomenon but what I do know is that for some reason one of the most liberal countries in the world looks is also one of the most strict in this area. \n\nFor example, in public people kiss each other, breastfeed, whatever in South American countries. That sort of stuff is recieved much differently here.\n\nBut If I had to put it to one thing it would be status. Since culture looks down on it, no one wants to look like a skank or the male equivalent.",
"The U.S. in general has a much stronger taboo on sex, especially with regard to adolescents. Remember that we were more or less founded by super-fundamentalist groups who left Europe, and that puritanical base is still very much a part of our culture.",
"because of the fucked-up puritans who were thrown-out of several countries before illegally immigrating here.",
"It's more to do with the same group that advocated prohibition.",
"It's not so bad. \n\nGirls here get off on being \"bad girls\" and I like that. You don't really get that in Europe. In a way, tabboo makes teh secks hot",
"Remember the Pilgrams? Yeah, they were what we call Puritans. Very strict religious sect. We have got more liberal since then, but somethings such as sex have stayed very conservative.\n\nPuritans, Wesleyans, Methodist, Etc, they were (are) all very strict on social life. Most of your mainstream American \"Christians\" have roots in those 3 branches of protestantism.\n\nThat is the historical fact.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://truthforsaints.com/denomination_history/denomination_history.html"
]
] |
|
6j0o00
|
how have beauty standards changed so much throughout the years? wouldn't what humans find attractive be genetically ingrained into our heads and not really allow standards to change over time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6j0o00/eli5_how_have_beauty_standards_changed_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djajmpe",
"djajoqg",
"djaspi4",
"djatza0",
"djawfer",
"djaxnqi",
"djb4lpz",
"djbdyte"
],
"score": [
9,
70,
11,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Humans are successful because we adapt to environment. We adapt by learning skills instead of genetically changing. Finding a potential mate is important part of successful survival. If traits we find attractive were genetically imprinted in our brains we wouldn't be able to adapt as fast and well. People would find outdated skills and characteristics attractive and new generation would inherit these characteristics and learn these skills in order to attract mate.\n\nThere are certain universal characteristics that people do find attractive across the species though. Facial and body symmetry (indicates health), scent (indicates genetical compatibility to certain degree), good social behaviour (indicates strong social bonds)",
"A lot of the things we find attractive are not physical attributes but does have different physical manifestations depending on technology and culture. For instance we are attracted to wealth. Previously wealthy people were fat and sat indoor all day as opposed to poor people who were skinny, fit and dark as they worked outside on the fields all day. But as times have changed poor people started working inside and the current symbol of wealth is to have time to exercise and have a nice golden natural skin color.",
"Some standards have changed while others haven't. \n\nThe .7 hip/waist ratio still holds true no matter the size. \n\nI think most of our beauty ideals are designed fir optimal health and ability to procreate. \n\nIn the old days, you had to have enough money to eat and enough fat to get you through a famine. \n\nNow our biggest obstacle to s long life is not famine but heart disease, so we are attracted to slimmer people. \n\nFull lips are a sign of youth, clear skin is a sign of health, and symmetrical features are a sign of genetic hardiness. \n\nIn the past, Anglo Saxons had the most wealth, so those features were the most desired. The Roman nose was revered and the Celtic pug nose was scorned. As Celtic people grew more mainstreamed, those prejudices fell away. \n\nToday, as Hispanic and African Americans achieve increased success and wealth, the physical traits associated with these groups are becoming more desirable. People are dying their hair black, getting Brazilian Butt Lifts, and lip injections. \n\nLips thin with age, so that's another reason that people are attracted to fuller lips - they signify fertility just like the ideal hip waist ratio. ",
"Have they? I find historical portrayals of beauty to be remarkably consistent through time.",
" > Wouldn't what humans find attractive be genetically ingrained into our heads and not really allow standards to change over time?\n\nYes, but the details are left to you and your environment. \n\nYou're programmed to find women attractive (or whatever) once puberty kicks in. Because that's what keeps the species going. To that extent any sexual dimorphism that helps us differentiate the sexes will trend towards \"looking sexy\": tits, hips, beards, shoulders, dicks or lack thereof. Things like \"long hair\" is an example of sexual dimorphism that isn't the result of evolution and your genes in the least. It's entirely social. \"After-market modification\". You've been trained to think that those people with long hair are women. That's not your genes, that's society. \n\nDetails like preferred height, breast size, the ideal shape of the nose, the perfect BMI, skin tone, if you like piercings? All of those are all also social cues you've picked up from your surroundings. Our genes dictate a lot about us, but a lot of it is left entirely up to our environment. And even when our genes steer us towards a certain path, the environment can make adjustments. ",
"One important biological concept missed in discussions here is \"**imprinting**\" - an animal's tendency as an adult to follow its caregiver when the animal was young. [Not just geese](_URL_0_), all animals imprint to varying degrees in differing behaviors.\n\nThat is, we are genetically programmed to be attracted to what we see in a critical learning period during infancy/toddlerhood. If you have tall parents then you will be attracted to tall people, fat parent-figures will cause a child to find fat people attractive.\n\nSo to answer the question.... we are genetically programmed to prefer those who are genetically fit (e.g. clear skin) *but are also genetically programmed to imprint, to like what we see as children (e.g. freckles maybe) so these affinities differ with each person and may change en masse according to culture*. ",
"The evolution of our species occurs via the natural selection of the most beneficial genes. The evolution of culture occurs in much the same way, these have been called memes (not to be confused with internet memes, although it functions in much the same way). These memes would include things like hairstyles, clothing, manners of speaking etc. While there is a base genetic component to sexual selection, there is the memetic component that goes along with it. Our cultural memes can change as quickly as communication between people, which is why beauty standards have changed so quickly within the past century. I like to compare this to firmware and software on a computer, firmware like genes and software like memes. The firmware is more fixed and software can be updated and changed. ",
"They haven't. Being fit has always been attractive. As proof I present [greek statues](_URL_0_).\n\nThat's 3000 years ago. Fit.\n\nNow let's move on 1500 years and we get the [Statue of David](_URL_1_). Fit.\n\nIt very much is genetically ingrained and it has changed less than you'd think. And people saying it's socially engineered *is* the social engineering."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UIU9XH-mUI"
],
[],
[
"http://etc.ancient.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1023-1024x768.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/%27David%27_by_Michelangelo_Fir_JBU002.jpg/1200px-%27David%27_by_Michelangelo_Fir_JBU002.jpg"
]
] |
||
22vje1
|
what is passion and where does it come from? (passion for subjects or jobs.) how can it be created?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22vje1/eli5_what_is_passion_and_where_does_it_come_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgqshiw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a good question. Comparable to \"how do you knew when you've met the one?\" You just know. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
24c9pd
|
are you able to move your hand forward whilest traveling at the speed of light?
|
Say you're in a vehicle that moves at the speed of light and there's no friction, would you be able to move your hand, or anything else forward? Hypothetically ofcourse.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24c9pd/eli5_are_you_able_to_move_your_hand_forward/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch5padl",
"ch5pava",
"ch5pb0d",
"ch5q009"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
24,
4
],
"text": [
"every question you have that starts with \"i will be moving at speed of light\" is going to start at impossible. so answering it will be weird.\n\nthings with mass are not going to ever be moving at speed of light, your hand moving at speed of light would have more energy than is in the universe.",
"Well you can't move at the speed of light, so lets say you are traveling at 99.9999999999% of the speed of light. If you moved your hand forward, it would travel faster, but still not at the speed of light, maybe 99.99999999995% of the speed of light.",
"You can't travel at the speed of light. So any question asking \"what would happen if you could travel at the speed of light\" is like asking \"what does physics say would happen in a situation that physics says can't possibly happen\"",
"Setting aside, for the moment, that you can't really travel at the speed of light, let's look at the more interesting question:\n\nIf you're travelling at 99.99999996% the speed of light. And let's say you're in a bus, moving at that speed, where you can walk up and down the aisle.\n\nAt that speed, you're only 0.1 m/s from the full speed of light. You can easily walk faster than that. So what happens if you walk briskly down the aisle of the bus?\n\nWell Special Relativity answers that question. Remember according to SR, there's no such thing as a preferred reference frame. If you're on the bus, the universe is whooshing by at 99.99999996% the speed of light. If you're 'at rest', it's the bus whooshing by. **And both perspectives are equally valid!**\n\nThe first question is \"can you, yourself, in your own perspective, walk briskly down the aisle of the bus?\" And in your reference frame, the bus isn't moving at all. The rest of the universe is moving BACKWARDS at 99.99999996% the speed of light. So sure - That doesn't affect you, so you can walk down the aisle of the bus at 2 m/s and be just fine.\n\nThe second question is, \"can you, according to the guy standing 'still' watching the bus go by, walk down the aisle of the bus?\" And because everything needs to be consistent in special relativity the answer is of course 'yes', but *how* that happens is a bit more complicated.\n\nYour velocity walking down the bus isn't (according to the 'at rest' observer) 2 m/s. You'll be appearing to move much slower than that. In order for all the bits & pieces & causality to work out correctly, that'll mean that the bus is contracted down to 0.00283% of it's original length! So you may be walking down the entire bus, but from the outside observer's perspective, that's not very far.\n\nThe exact numbers are given by this equation:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nMoreoever, from the perspective of the outside observer, **time** is flowing slower for you as well, by the same amount. So over the span of 1 second for an observer, you'd appear to only experience 0.00283% of a second. So you're also moving slower because time is flowing slower for you.\n\nSo it turns out no matter how fast you're going, running down the aisle of that bus, you're not ever going to go faster than the speed of light. You could be running down the aisle at **half** the speed of light, and your speed according to the \"at rest\" observer would only go from 99.99999996% to 99.99999998%. No matter how fast you go on the bus, all you can do is add 9's to the end of the number, but you'll never get *to* 100%, nor higher, for that matter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/1/8/41898d25611a3359aa6bb3a9a7cac36a.png"
]
] |
|
1ex7no
|
how vinyl record players can play not only the pitch but also other details of some sound
|
How can vinyls store different sounds at the same note, because they have the same frequency and so the grooves would be the same?
Eg. Middle C on a piano vs same note on guitar.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ex7no/eli5_how_vinyl_record_players_can_play_not_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca4ni6z"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Different instruments produce different shapes of sound wave. [Here](_URL_0_) are a few examples.\n\nThese are stored on vinyl by physically making the edge of the groove into the shape of the sound wave that the instrument makes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://amath.colorado.edu/pub/matlab/music/F_InstrumentWaves.gif"
]
] |
|
ylowe
|
how and by whom are generation groups (x,y,z etc.) determined?
|
I understand the concept of generations in a family (daughter, mother, grandmother), but I don't understand the line that separates generations in a culture. As new people are born everyday, and there are people of every age at any given time in a country, how/who decides which generation they are placed in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ylowe/eli5_how_and_by_whom_are_generation_groups_xyz/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5wv0ym"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Marketers, mainly. Most of the time, you get a steady drip-drip-drip of people being born every year; there's about as many 7 year olds as 5 year olds or 9 year olds or whatever. \n\nBut the World Wars, particularly WWII, fucked that up: All over the world, the young people who would normally be getting married and having their first kids weren't, because the young guys were in the army and times were tough, so even people who were married put off having kids if they could. Then the war ends and all of a sudden you had like 6 years worth of kids being born at once. That changes things up: You have to build bigger schools, bigger toy stores, more cribs and braces and so forth all at once. That forced the people who sell stuff to pay particular attention to what was going on with young people, because they knew that in, say, a couple year's time there was going to be 6x the normal demand for bicycles or prom dresses or whatever. So they started doing more advertising aimed at young people, more TV shows and movies and books specifically aimed at young people and so on, all through the years. Young people are pretty much always rebellious in their late teens early 20s; but when you have six times the normal number of them at once all that rebellious energy can cause much more profound changes in society than it normally does. Viola: The 60s.\n\nSo it wasn't until the baby boom came around that people really started paying attention to the idea of generations as an important thing. \n\nBy the time the boomer wave was passing into adulthood marketers were used to this idea that people the same age as each other have the same types of ideas and desires, and that those desires are different from those of their parents and so they know they'll have to adapt themselves. (Technological change helps too.) They're the ones whose bottom lines are affected, and they're the ones who pay attention to all this stuff and write most of the BS you see about how generation whatever thinks about the world. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jmzpr
|
what is "fair trade" and why should i care that my coffee is labelled as such?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jmzpr/eli5_what_is_fair_trade_and_why_should_i_care/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2dfwob",
"c2dfwob"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Originally, fair trade was about a group of people that came together and said that they would pay the farmers that grew coffee a \"fair\" price. They wanted to do this in order to help them make more money, so that we weren't just using (exploiting) them. A lot of coffee comes from the poorest parts of the world, even though it gets used by the richest parts of the world, so the system was designed to help these farmers. The system pays these farmers slightly higher than what the world agrees on, thus being \"fair\".\n\nNow the problem with Fair Trade. There's delicious coffee, and then there's the crappy coffee you find at Wal Mart. Let's say you're a farmer, and you have two separate batches of coffee to sell. One is delicious, that you could probably sell for more money, and one that's kind of crappy, that would sell for less money. Wouldn't you sell the crappy coffee to the Fair Trade people, in order to make more money than you could have, selling to anyone else? The delicious coffee gets sold at an even higher price than that, so you're still making money. This means \"Fair Trade\" coffee CAN be less delicious than if you were to buy coffee from the indie cafe down the street, that really cares about quality. \n\nFair Trade also claims to be a non profit, and takes some money from the people that buy their coffee instead. This money pretty much goes to telling everyone what a nice bunch of people they are (advertising/marketing), instead of going back to help the farmers. Then, the people that buy the coffee from the Fair Trade people, let's say Starbucks, can ALSO say that they're trying to do good. They have good intentions, but they're not really helping us have good coffee WHILE helping the farmers too. \n\nThis is where Direct Trade comes in. Before, the Fair Trade people were the only people that could actually PROVE that they were helping farmers. Direct trade means that a bunch of guys are going to the farmers, and telling them how to grow coffee in the best way possible. They give these farmers \"coffee tests\" to make sure that the coffee will turn out to be absolutely delicious, and if the farmers pass these tests, they get rewarded by being paid more. \n\n==\n\n**Edit** - I'm sorry if this isn't too easily understood by a five year old :/ I tried my best! Feel free to ask me to clarify on anything, though. More reading for non 5 year olds [here](_URL_0_) about the problem with fair trade.",
"Originally, fair trade was about a group of people that came together and said that they would pay the farmers that grew coffee a \"fair\" price. They wanted to do this in order to help them make more money, so that we weren't just using (exploiting) them. A lot of coffee comes from the poorest parts of the world, even though it gets used by the richest parts of the world, so the system was designed to help these farmers. The system pays these farmers slightly higher than what the world agrees on, thus being \"fair\".\n\nNow the problem with Fair Trade. There's delicious coffee, and then there's the crappy coffee you find at Wal Mart. Let's say you're a farmer, and you have two separate batches of coffee to sell. One is delicious, that you could probably sell for more money, and one that's kind of crappy, that would sell for less money. Wouldn't you sell the crappy coffee to the Fair Trade people, in order to make more money than you could have, selling to anyone else? The delicious coffee gets sold at an even higher price than that, so you're still making money. This means \"Fair Trade\" coffee CAN be less delicious than if you were to buy coffee from the indie cafe down the street, that really cares about quality. \n\nFair Trade also claims to be a non profit, and takes some money from the people that buy their coffee instead. This money pretty much goes to telling everyone what a nice bunch of people they are (advertising/marketing), instead of going back to help the farmers. Then, the people that buy the coffee from the Fair Trade people, let's say Starbucks, can ALSO say that they're trying to do good. They have good intentions, but they're not really helping us have good coffee WHILE helping the farmers too. \n\nThis is where Direct Trade comes in. Before, the Fair Trade people were the only people that could actually PROVE that they were helping farmers. Direct trade means that a bunch of guys are going to the farmers, and telling them how to grow coffee in the best way possible. They give these farmers \"coffee tests\" to make sure that the coffee will turn out to be absolutely delicious, and if the farmers pass these tests, they get rewarded by being paid more. \n\n==\n\n**Edit** - I'm sorry if this isn't too easily understood by a five year old :/ I tried my best! Feel free to ask me to clarify on anything, though. More reading for non 5 year olds [here](_URL_0_) about the problem with fair trade."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee/"
],
[
"http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee/"
]
] |
||
cnsa6a
|
how do cpu temperatures drop so rapidly?
|
I was using Intel Power Gadget to monitor my Mac’s CPU temps, and I noticed that the temperature would sometimes drop from 80 degrees to around 70 within a second. It makes sense to me why the temps would increase cause the electrons moving through the CPU cause that. But how can the temps drop so immediately when all these processes are going on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cnsa6a/eli5_how_do_cpu_temperatures_drop_so_rapidly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewdeqns",
"ewdfr5t",
"ewdnrgi"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Depends on the exact configuation, but computers have fantastically efficient cooling systems onboard to keep the CPU at safe temperatures when just idling/keeping the OS running, that can max out to disperse more heat when it's doing heavy processing.",
"It's measuring the temperature of the CPU die, which is very small (The size of your thumbnail, or a US dime). The die has a very low thermal capacitance, meaning it does not store heat very well. So when it stops producing as much heat, the temperature drops very quickly as the head spreader and heat sink absorb and dissipate the heat.",
"The temperature sensor you're reading is most likely part of the silicon die, and inside a particular CPU core(which is very small, so it doesn't have much thermal mass). As the silicon in a CPU has the same atomic structure as diamond, it has a very high thermal conductivity, so when heat stops being generated in this particular core, the core temperature drops to the average die temperature very quickly. \n\nIt takes much longer for the average die temperature or the heatsink temperature to change. This is why when you start a stress test the temperature will jump up almost instantly, but then slowly creep up as the heatsink comes up to the new equilibrium temperature. \n\nFor an analogy: The CPU core(what you're measuring), is the heating element of a stove, while the heatsink temperature is the pot of water on top of it. If you boil a pot of water, the heating element will heat up much more quickly than the pot of water, and can get hot enough to glow red. When you turn the burner off, it very quickly cools down to not-glowing temperatures, but it will take a long time for the temperature to go all the way back down to room temperature because the pot of water is still holding a lot of heat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2pw4pu
|
paradox?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pw4pu/eli5_paradox/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn0ik30",
"cn0inje"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Don't post just to complain.\n\nAlso, you're using \"paradox\" incorrectly.",
"Sometimes people don't always know how to phrase their answers right, sometimes people ask questions that necessarily demand a degree of technicality. It's nice for people to be volunteering their time to answer nonetheless, where serious. \n\nAnyway this is Reddit. If you believe you have a better way of explaining something that better suits the ELI5 theme, you're welcome to. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4ai49v
|
why are so many americans hooked on opiate pain pills?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ai49v/eli5_why_are_so_many_americans_hooked_on_opiate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d10ihs3",
"d10iib0",
"d10j0q3",
"d10jevx",
"d10jic5",
"d10k9xh",
"d10kkrx",
"d10l2d2",
"d10ldxe",
"d10likq",
"d10lktq",
"d10m8ut"
],
"score": [
10,
72,
10,
10,
5,
3,
7,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We are a pharma loving people. There is a newer prescription pill epidemic and I think it partially reflects that. People tend to think that because someone gets a prescription for these pills that they are safe and sanctioned. And in ways it is better than heroin in that it is regulated. However, many people are going from the pill habit onward. I guess one could say that it is a gateway in that case. We also have really bad laws regarding less addictive substances. There are many ways to get them. Some people could be legitimately taking them but one of the hallmarks of addiction is gaining tolerance. Fraud and all kinds of strange deals are expected when someone is on these. It's surprising that the visitees were high functioning but IME they will either let the addiction go or let it take hold eventually.",
"First of all, most synthetic opiates are extremely addictive. For reasons I cannot explain, doctors in the USA still tend to prescribe these rather than the less addictive kinds of opiates (tramadol for instance). In Europe, prescriptions for these kinds of opiates are very tightly controlled - not many european doctors prescribe oxycodone or morphine outside of a hospital setting, so these pills seldom leave that setting. Hence, addiction is relatively rare due to oversight from hospital personnel.\n\nThen, there's the fact that US pharmacies aren't interconnected most European pharmacies are. I don't know about the UK, but in the NL all pharmacies are connected to a central database where prescriptions are checked. Anyone shopping for pharmacies would be caught quite easily.\n\nFurthermore, most European doctors use digital systems to communicate with pharmacies. This makes faking a prescription next to impossible. In the US, they still use paper prescriptions quite often, which allows for forgeries, theft and illegal transfer. \n\nIn the end, it all has to do with the relative ease one can get ones hands onto a substance. Pill-popping is most popular in rural parts of the USA, where illegal drugs are otherwise hard to come by. In Europe, it is more easy to obtain heroin than oxy or other such drugs. Hence, relatively speaking, more people are addicted to prescription pain meds in rural US, and more people are addicted to heroin in Europe.",
"I think that the problem is getting a little better. I went in for stitches recently and they gave me one hydrocodone. I think the problem is that for a long time Doctors over prescribed pain killers in America. It was really a matter of convenience. Patients didn't want to get 20 pills, but need 32 pills. Forcing them to go back to the doctor. So instead Doctors prescribed a 20 pill bottle with one refill if necessary. \n\nEveryone always got the refill, and then left the pills in the cabinet. Those pills got stolen or the person began taking them not for pain. So people slowly got addicted to pain killers which are in the Opioid family, and are very addictive. I think that a lot of Americans have a hard time seeing something prescribed to them from a doctor as being dangerous, but pain killers are. \n\nThis is also coupled with the fact that Americans get very little vacation. So, a lot of people are stressed and take little pills to make themselves feel better about there stressful lives. \n\nI worked in Hospitals for a while, and I do believe the problem of over prescribing is getting better here. Doctors realize the dangers of Opioids a great deal more today than they used to.",
"This is also a problem in Canada. My mother worked at a methadone clinic and 80% of her patients were prescribed painkillers when it was not necessary and became addicted as a result. We love medicating everything, covering up symptoms so people can continue to work. I was prescribed percocets for my wisdom teeth. Definitely did not need them nor did I ask. I moved to NL and here they dish out paracetamol or ibuprofen and that is it unless it's very severe. I noticed there's more of a focus on physiotherapy etc here for pain rather than just giving out meds.",
"In the last year, I went to the dentist and twice he handed me an opiod prescription without me asking. He did not mention trying an NSAID first, which is very effective for tooth pain. He was just building a new business and ethics be damned. ",
"when I had my wisdom teeth pulled a few years ago I was prescribed Oxycodone for the pain. I sort of get how people can get addicted to it, the stuff is amazing for pain relief. I found it a bit strange how the doctor didn't seem to have any worry about giving a College-aged kid highly addictive drugs.",
"Let me tell you the story of the local Dr. Feelgood pill pusher from my tiny town. On a quiet street nestled between a garage, a day care and a t-shirt shop, there is an abandoned doctors office. A few years ago, in a town of 2500 people, it would not be uncommon to see over 100 people milling about in the parking lot waiting there turn to see the \"doctor\". Office was open 2 days a week. There were so many people there that he put picnic tables and pop machines outside of his little 900sq ft house turned office and paved almost an acre for parking. Hundreds of people a day. Cars with license plates from one hundred miles or more away ( in Indiana you can tell where a car is from based on a county code on the license plate.) When they finally caught him, I think his average time per patient was about 90 seconds or less. He only took cash. He didn't file with insurance. He had an ATM in the office. His prescriptions were always the same Oxy or Hydrocodone and Xanax. Tens of thousands of scripts for the same shit. Same people. Killed a couple. State finally shut him down. \n _URL_0_\n\nGreat, right? No. While I didn't exactly like the guy by any means, he was, in a sort of way, maintaining the addicts. Most of his customers looked to be construction workers or factory workers. Guys that got hurt on the job and just ended up either still in pain or addicted. What happened after they could not get their prescribed, legal fix? Heroin. We now how a heroin problem that we never saw before. Needle exchanges and HIV outbreaks. They made an effort to stop the dealer with out ever considering what would happen to the addicts. Oh well.",
"Most people answered this well enough already but I wanted to chime in that drugs reps for Purdue hit the doctor's offices *hard* when Oxycontin came out. They touted it as the next best thing to god. It would cure any pain, it's got a mechanism of action that didn't allow for abuse! (when in reality, simply crushing it got rid of the time release). They gave out so many free samples **and told the doctors to give it a try on patients with *any* pain**.\n\nOur doctors were listening to drug reps about what to prescribe patients. Big pharma is awful and it's done it's part in making the healthcare system in the US awful too.",
"You're not an addict if you are in real pain. When u start taking them knowing you have no pain, that's when trouble starts.",
"The bottom line is that in Europe health care is a service, but in the US health care is a business. If you can make loads of money selling addictive prescription painkillers to people who don't need them, someone is going to take advantage of that system unless there are regulations preventing it.",
"You've had a couple good answers, and that's great.\n\n[NPR However, has had a number of articles on this recently](_URL_2_). I'm sure any on that list will shed some light on the topic for you, but [this one](_URL_0_) and [this one in particular](_URL_1_) I remember and think might help address the question specifically.\n\n\nThe \"Listen to this Story\" buttons are way up top if you prefer audio over reading.",
"Finally something I have expertise on! Pain is a complicated mechanism that is still not well understood. Opioids enter the body through endogenous mu opioid receptors and are some of the most effective drugs there are in treating pain, at least initially. There is a signaling process involved, either with the g-protein receptors or the beta-arrestin signaling, or maybe the GRK dephosphorylation process, that causes opioid tolerance. This means that the same amount of drug will stop relieving pain, yet still cause the same side-effects. People in chronic pain will need their prescriptions gradually increased, while side-effects also increase (which is a factor in the huge number of opioid-related deaths in the US). This tolerance can occur after 2 days of taking morphine and the level of opioid required for tolerance to develop is less than the dose required for blocking pain.\n\nThat's the mechanical aspect, but like I said pain is not well understood. There is an emotional aspect as well where patients take the pain stimulus and see it as an emotional negative. When patients are stressed this emotional aspect is increased and patients returning to a high stress environment after receiving surgery or injury are at a greatly increased risk of developing chronic pain. There have been many studies on the effect of stress on pain. You may have noticed that when you are sick or stressed your skin feels \"tender\" this is allodynia, which is basically just your nerves reacting to non-painful stimuli as though it is painful. People with chronic pain can get severe allodynia which can spread to large portions of their bodies, making it extremely painful to do daily tasks- some can't put on socks or shirts because the material feels like it's burning their skin. When you are stressed and become injured it does something to prime your sensory system where you are more prone to developing chronic pain.\n\nSo in the USA where people are lucky to get a few weeks off a year, and low-paying jobs don't even offer sick leave, stress gets piled onto patients as soon as they are awake from surgery. This increases the chance the develop chronic pain, which then needs to be treated. Unfortunately opioids are the best treatment for pain and doctors didn't realize how bad the side-effects could get or the addiction that would occur as tolerance to opioids grew. There are some alternatives now and doctors are trying to avoid prescribing opioids unless everything else fails to provide relief, but the alternatives are not as good. Sometimes patients have to accept being in pain for the rest of their lives, which can be very depressing AND being depressed increases allodynia and risk of chronic pain, so it's like a double-whammy of pain for the patients.\n\nIt should also be mentioned that it may be a cultural thing. Researchers have measured pain scales in different parts of the world and seen that how patients react to pain culturally seems to have a large impact on the percentage that develop chronic pain. For example they interviewed Chinese rice workers who were unable to stand straight and had all the signs of extreme back pain. Yet the patients never complained about it and when the researchers asked if they were in pain and wanted medication for it they said they weren't in pain it was just how their bodies were now, and seem to think it was funny the researchers didn't expect old workers to be stiff. Someone in America with the same symptoms would most-likely try to get opioids so they could go back to feeling 100% again. Also in other countries pain is accepted as a thing that happens and is accepted. In America pain and weakness- such as being old- is unacceptable and quick fix pills are needed to help keep pace with the long workdays and weeks.\n\ndisclaimer: the mechanistic stuff is accurate, the cultural views are my own. :-)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wthr.com/story/11339724/authorities-link-indiana-doctor-to-nine-overdose-deaths"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/11/462390288/anatomy-of-addiction-how-heroin-and-opioids-hijack-the-brain",
"http://www.npr.org/2015/12/30/461519814/doctors-look-to-prevent-abuse-in-midst-of-opioid-epidemic",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=npr+opiate+addition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8"
],
[]
] |
||
110o3n
|
humanism
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/110o3n/eli5_humanism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6i9cgi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"See /r/humanism\n\n > Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality\n\n > -- International Humanist and Ethical Union, minimum statement on Humanism.\n\nor\n\n > I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without expectations of rewards or punishments after I am dead.\n\n > -- Kurt Vonnegut"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4r2bxd
|
how is monster energy allowed to claim some of their drinks contain zero calories, yet there's 4g of carbs per can?
|
And carbs contain calories. Also, they claim zero sugar, yet there's 2g per can of Erythritol, which is a sugar additive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r2bxd/eli5_how_is_monster_energy_allowed_to_claim_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4xpqcm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The FDA allows numbers on Nutrition Labels to be rounded to the nearest whole number. If those 4g of carbs amount to less than half a calorie per serving, then the manufacturer is going to take advantage of the situation and put 0. \n & nbsp; \nAs for the erythritol, the regulatory definition of what counts for the purposes of ingredients and nutritional labeling doesn't always line up with scientific definitions of the same. The law that talks about what products can make a \"zero sugar\" claim uses the wording \"The food contains no ingredient that is a sugar or that is generally understood by consumers to contain sugars,\" and I imagine the manufacturer would claim that consumers don't generally understand sugar alcohols to be sugars. \n & nbsp; \nAnd for all this seems like the Labeling requirements are filled with loopholes, the FDA does try to press back against some of the more flagrant attempts by the industry to game the system. A few years back they issued a \"stop doing that\" notice to some manufacturers who were trying to disguise sugar on their ingredients labels by calling it \"Evaporated Cane Juice\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
54fzqx
|
why does cannabis make people sleepy after the high wears off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54fzqx/eli5_why_does_cannabis_make_people_sleepy_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d81lm6s",
"d81neib",
"d81o0y6",
"d81ob87",
"d81qt51",
"d81rxg1",
"d81syoy",
"d81szpi",
"d81t3wz",
"d81ta0k",
"d81v8np"
],
"score": [
616,
49,
179,
9,
2,
44,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"CBN is a degradation product of THC and other cannabinoids. It is highly sedative.\n\nThere is also the issue of flooding the endocannabinoid system (which regulates our hormonal functioning and a number of other systems) with exogenous cannabinoids producing a temporary down-regulation. \n\nIf you don't want to get tired from smoking pot you can do two things: Smoke less and choose sativa dominant strains. Smoking less is the key really. In moderation cannabis will not produce the burnt out effect that heavy smokers are familiar with. ",
"Not every strain of cannabis will make a you sleepy. This is one of the widespread misunderstandings that prohibition has caused. As a professional in the medical cannabis community in California, we see many patients who come specifically for Sativa heavy strains that energize, and increase activity levels even after the effect wear off. Dispensary grade cannabis does not have to make a person couch-locked, lazy brained or sleepy. Over the years so many people have experienced dirty weed that is old, laden with pesticides or Indica heavy causing them to believe that is what cannabis is about. Nothing could be further from the truth. This being said, every person's endocannabinoid system will process CBD's differently. If you are game, you can experiment with different strains and find what works best for you.",
"Im a heavy pot smoker and the groggy, burnt out feeling goes away after a long...long time. When i smoke im 3 things, happy, hungry, and happy because im high and forgot what else i was going to say.",
"I've never noticed a difference between indica/sativa strains. Having tried 100% sativa, 100% indica, and hybrid(50/50.) IMO the biggest factor that causes sleepiness is the method of use. Vaping and edibles don't seem to create as much fatigue compared to smoking. This is due to the lack of carbon monoxide, other combustibles when you smoke. There's also evidence that marijuana increases melatonin significantly.",
"Also, the point of harvest makes a significant difference on the \"sleepiness\" of the high.\n\nLate harvest with trichromes turning brown will make you much more sleepy, so it's both strain and harvest timing that combine to make you sleepy.",
"you should really ask this in /r/askscience because here you'll probably just find a lot of anecdotal explanations.",
"Depends on the strain and your physiology, not everyone gets sleepy and not everyone gets hungry. Sometimes you'll get 'sleepy' tired but it was just because you were already tired and smoking helped you 'chill out' other times you will be stressed and then get the 'happy' 'high creative' go and not get sleepy at all. I recommend you to try Maui or Haze, tbqh any Sativa strain. ",
"I've never had anyone be able to explain why it never makes me tired (opposite - takes me ages to fall asleep after smoking or ingesting) or hungry (I have to force myself to eat). Fwiw, I'm a long time user and don't have problems sleeping or with hunger any other time. ",
"After? It's always made me super sleepy *during* the high. The moment it starts to take effect, it takes a *TON* of effort for me to not just curl up and go to sleep.",
"I would often smoke pot before bed to help with insomnia. I've since abstained from weed for a 3 month trial. There's a product you can get on Amazon called \"True Calm\" and it almost makes me sleepy like pot did. Does anyone know why?",
"In relation to your body, cannabis is a stimulant. Measure your heart rate before and after partaking and you will find a approx 10-20 bpm increase when under the influence. When this wears off, you will feel relatively lower in energy due to less blood being pumped.\n\nIt is also a stimulant in relation to your brain and its reward center so everything seems more fun when you're high. When this effect disappears then everything seems more boring. Being bored means you're more likely to go to sleep.\n\nAlso, add in the chance of a sugar crash/food coma from all the snacks you just ate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9eglr7
|
why do toddlers prefer to run everywhere instead on walking? it doesn't matter if it's indoor/outdoor or what distance. the first option is to run to get from point a to point b.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9eglr7/eli5_why_do_toddlers_prefer_to_run_everywhere/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5oqg0t",
"e5oqrka"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Well, if you have energy to burn, and are impatient as someone who's only got 2 or 3 years of being alive, it only makes sense to run.",
"They have the energy and impulse control isn't developed in their brains yet. Won't happen til closer to 4. That's why kids have to be taught o walk safely places in preschool and kindergarten."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
71imyi
|
if atoms are over 99% empty space, how is it possible to create structures like spaceships that contain air and are airtight themselves while being surrounded by a vacuum?`
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71imyi/eli5_if_atoms_are_over_99_empty_space_how_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnayq78",
"dnayqyo"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: I know that even though atoms are mostly empty space, we can't walk through walls because of electric fields, but if they're mostly empty, why isn't everything practically invisible? ](_URL_5_)\n1. [ELI5: If atoms are 99% empty space, and everything is made of atoms, what are we actually seeing when we look at something? ](_URL_6_)\n1. [ELI5: If atoms are 99% empty space, and if all matter is made up of atoms, why does solid matter appear ...well, solid? ](_URL_7_)\n1. [ELI5: How do we see objects if the atoms that make it are 99% empty space? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5:If atoms are 99.99% empty space then why some objects are solid? ](_URL_8_)\n1. [ELI5: If atoms are 99.99% empty space, why aren't objects mostly empty space? ](_URL_10_)\n1. [ELI5:Why if atoms are mostly empty space, we do not phase through matter. ](_URL_0_)\n1. [ELI5: If atoms are mostly empty space, how do we make impervious or waterproof things? Shouldn't atoms be able to get through? ](_URL_11_)\n1. [ELI5: If atoms are mostly empty space and don't even touch each other, why dont we just go right through? ](_URL_4_)\n1. [ELI5: if atoms are almost completely empty space and I am made up of atoms, then what is stopping me from walking through walls if the empty space lines up right? ](_URL_9_)\n1. [ELI5: If an atom is 99.99% empty space, why isn't all matter transparent, irrespective of density? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5: If all matter is primarily made up of empty space, how can a knife cut a tomato? And why can't my hand go through wood? ](_URL_12_)\n1. [ELI5: the reason why matter is solid, if the space between nucleus and electrons is so vast ](_URL_2_)\n",
"While yes, atoms are mostly empty space, remember how small atoms are. The space is orders of magnitude smaller than any molecule of air could fit through. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ebd9w/eli5why_if_atoms_are_mostly_empty_space_we_do_not/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40mhaw/eli5_if_an_atom_is_9999_empty_space_why_isnt_all/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5btvyv/eli5_the_reason_why_matter_is_solid_if_the_space/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4e794w/eli5_how_do_we_see_objects_if_the_atoms_that_make/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mt4o4/eli5_if_atoms_are_mostly_empty_space_and_dont/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ak1z0/eli5_i_know_that_even_though_atoms_are_mostly/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s0xzj/eli5_if_atoms_are_99_empty_space_and_everything/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ohq6/eli5_if_atoms_are_99_empty_space_and_if_all/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ig8id/eli5if_atoms_are_9999_empty_space_then_why_some/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q8y7t/eli5_if_atoms_are_almost_completely_empty_space/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sozkj/eli5_if_atoms_are_9999_empty_space_why_arent/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xaeme/eli5_if_atoms_are_mostly_empty_space_how_do_we/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/569hld/eli5_if_all_matter_is_primarily_made_up_of_empty/"
],
[]
] |
||
1kpsnr
|
how we use hubble's law to measure distances.
|
having issues getting my head around this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kpsnr/eli5how_we_use_hubbles_law_to_measure_distances/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbrf6of"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You see, the Universe is expanding. Not just at the edges, but everywhere. The space between any two points is expanding whether it is the space between galaxies or the space between your hands.\n\nWe know how fast space is expanding and we know how fast far away objects like galaxies SHOULD be moving. By comparing how fast we SEE them moving with how fast they SHOULD be moving, we can know how fast space is expanding between here and there. Since we know how fast space grows, we know how much space there must be between here and there to grow that fast.\n\nExample: Making up numbers, let the speed space expands be 1 speed unit for every 10 distance units. We see a galaxy moving at 50 speed units. We know from various sciencing that it should be moving at 40 speed units. We conclude that 10 speed units must be from space expanding. From that we calculate that the distance to that galaxy must be (10 distance per 1 speed) 100 distance units."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9qpvck
|
how an empty pan left on a turned on stove burns?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9qpvck/eli5_how_an_empty_pan_left_on_a_turned_on_stove/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8aubtc",
"e8auzab"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Dont know about gas stoves but i do know that most pans/pots will melt before they catch fire (had a herion user as a roommate when we lived with my uncle as a kid) ",
"A stainless steel or cast iron pan will have a layer of oil coating the metal. Metal won't burn at such a low temperature, but most oil will. Non-stick pans on the other hand are coated with Teflon, which starts breaking down around 500 degrees in freedom units. Not sure when it'll outright burn though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
vundk
|
how did the us go from a budget surplus under clinton to a massive deficit now?
|
I understand that the tech-bubble burst, but what were the other factors/when did they occur?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vundk/eli5_how_did_the_us_go_from_a_budget_surplus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c57rr04",
"c57sak8",
"c57sez1",
"c57shtz",
"c57t0xn",
"c57v35e",
"c57v403",
"c57wi10"
],
"score": [
31,
10,
7,
8,
20,
2,
25,
2
],
"text": [
"THE most expensive thing (by far) in the world is war. ",
"Mostly war but also tax cuts for the wealthy. ",
"When GWB was president:\n\nWe had 2 Wars **NOT PAID FOR**\n\nLarge Tax Cuts **NOT PAID FOR**\n\nPrescription Drug Plan **NOT PAID FOR**\n\nHome Land Security Bill **NOT PAID FOR**\n\nThe economy tanked and a lot of companies went under and unemployment went up and these people and companies are now not paying taxes. When you combine spending like crazy without paying for it either by cutting something else or raising taxes and the economy tanking this is why you have a large deficit now. \n",
"IIRC, the Clinton era numbers depended on a booming economy. Turns out that economies don't always boom. The aging population and increasing health care costs are increasing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Interest on the national debt is starting to be a significant chunk of the pie. War and unrealistically low taxes don't help, but they are only a slice of the problem.",
"The Bush Tax Cuts, and two wars.\n\n- in June 2001 (5 months after being elected) President issued a retro-active tax cut; that was paid for using Social Security\n- in September 2001 a war in Afghanistan started\n- in March 2003 a war in Iraq started\n- in May 2003 there was a *second* round of tax cuts\n- in January 2006 Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit) was enacted\n\nELur5: President Bush spent more more, and took in less money, than Clinton",
"Keep in mind that the clinton era was during a massive technological leap (the internet / computers) which were the main contributing factor in the surplus. Along with lesser war spending and less tax cuts.",
"I'll do my best to explain this. But if you get confused by any numbers, go straight to the bold conclusions.\n\nLooking at budget numbers:\nIn 2000, we spent $1.79 trillion we got $2.03 trillion in taxes. \nIn 2012, we are projected to spend $3.80 trillion and get $2.47 in taxes. ([source](_URL_0_))\n\nSaid another way, **over 13 years, we're spending 112% more than we used to. We're also only bringing in 22% more money now than we did in 2000.**\n\nAs a percentage of the economy: \nIn 2000, our spending was 18.2% of the economy, and we taxed 20.6% of the economy.\nIn 2012, our spending is planned to be 24.4% of the economy, and taxes 15.8% of the economy.\n\nSaid another way, **over 13 years, spending has grown by 6.2% of the economy. Taxes have shrunk by 4.8% of the economy.** \n\nAs for what things were spent on, as a percentage of spending:\n\n 2000 2012\n Defense 16% 18.8%\n Medicare 12% 14.8% \n Medicaid 6.6% 6.9%\n Social Security 22.9% 20.2%\n\nNow remember, spending has shot up 112%. Those four programs took up roughly three-fifths of our spending in 2000, and they take up roughly three-fifths of our spending in 2012. Said another way, **these 4 programs have grown consistently as spending has grown. All are at fault to blame for the rise in spending, some only slightly more than others.**\n\nAs for tax changes,\n\nIn 2001 and 2003, there were two rounds of Bush tax cuts. In 2009, Obama pushed the stimulus, which cut taxes further, and those temporary tax cuts have still been continued until today. Those are the major changes in the tax code. \n\nTo see these changes, look at taxes as a percentage of the economy:\n\n 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012\n % of economy 20.6% 17.6% 16.1% 18.2% 17.6% 15.1% 15.8%\n\nYou can see these numbers dip in response to new tax cuts. You can also see them dip and rise according to the economy. For example. In 2000, taxes were high, and the economy was in a bubble state. In 2004 they dropped after two Bush tax cuts. In 2006 the economy was good, and tax money was back to historical averages. By 2010, Obama's tax cut hit, plus the economy was bad. \n\n**Overall conclusion: There is no single, easy thing to blame. Spending has shot way up, taxes have gone way down (though not by as much as spending has shot up). Major budget programs are all growing as spending is growing. Also, it's also harder to compare a bubble year of 2000 to a recovery year like 2012. (Incidentally, wars are blamed in the comments. War spending as a percentage of the budget is surprisingly small. During the worst years of Afghanistan and Iraq war spending, it contributed to roughly 5% of federal spending. Today, it's much lower as Afghanistan is winding down and we aren't militarily in Iraq.)**",
"Keep in mind that there was still a massive national debt in the Clinton years. It's as if you owed $50k in credit card bills and only planned to pay off $100 that year. Then your budget winds up with $25 extra because it was an unusually good year, and even though your debt is still skyrocketing because of interest, you pat yourself on the back for having a \"budget surplus.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
3emp3e
|
why, when we look at younger people, do we perceive them as looking younger than us than we did at the same age. (aka me at 16 looked much older than whoever is 16 right now)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3emp3e/eli5_why_when_we_look_at_younger_people_do_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctgei9j",
"ctggch8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That's an opinion based thing. If I look at pictures of when I was 16, I look like a little kid. Then again 16 year olds also look like kids to me. Your perception of how people look changes with your age.",
"When you look at a face, your brain automatically starts categorizing and analyzing based on age, gender, race, familiarity, etc. However, when categorizing age we don't have a \"18-24\" category and a \"25-32\" category but more of a \"this person is much younger [than me]\" \"this person is a little younger [than me]\" \"this person is much older [than me]\" type of scale. Which makes sense - in your every day social interactions usually relative age matters more than absolute age, so it's good to be able to guage that at a glance.\n\n\nSo you thinking everyone under 20 looks 12 is just your brain's way of signalling \"Hey, all these people are way younger than you!\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
212yx7
|
why is our vision tinted blue after we face the sun with our eyes closed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/212yx7/eli5_why_is_our_vision_tinted_blue_after_we_face/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg954ow",
"cg96q5l"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Detecting light requires chemical reactions inside the cells of your eye. The chemicals take a moment to reset/replenish before you can detect the light again. When you look at a bright light, it uses up these chemicals quickly, that's why you get momentarily blinded when looking at a bright light for a second. With your eyes closed, you only see the red light filtering through your eyelids, and you become red-blind, leaving mostly blue detectors working just fine.",
"You have two types of cells in your retina -- cones and rods. Rods are like a black and white camera that is really good at seeing in low light, but doesn't give you good color or fine details.\n\nThen you have cones. You have three (usually) types of cones that each detect a color of light -- red, green, and blue -- so that when the three are mixed together you get full color vision.\n\nThe cone cells get tired if they're always being activated by light, so they stop firing so rapidly after a while. Sunlight is a mix of many colors, but when you close your eyes, you filter out all the blue/green colors and just leave the red. So all the cones that are sensitive to red light get tired and stop firing as much, so that when you open your eyes again, the blue/green cones are much more sensitive in comparison to the red. This makes your vision look bluer than it normally is.\n\nThis is called retinal fatigue. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ks9qq
|
on my home theater system why are action sequences so thunderously loud but people talking barely audible. is it my setup or the film audio track itself?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ks9qq/eli5on_my_home_theater_system_why_are_action/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mshbd",
"c2mysxg",
"c2mshbd",
"c2mysxg"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Try bumping up the gain on your center channel. ",
"It has to do with dynamic range compression, or in your case, lack thereof. Movies are usually less compressed than tv shows, so there is a greater difference between loud and soft sounds. There is usually a setting on receivers and dvd players to increase/decrease this.",
"Try bumping up the gain on your center channel. ",
"It has to do with dynamic range compression, or in your case, lack thereof. Movies are usually less compressed than tv shows, so there is a greater difference between loud and soft sounds. There is usually a setting on receivers and dvd players to increase/decrease this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
qmt43
|
why do we have war, and why do we go to war?
|
If it helps, my son who asked was 7, so feel free to explain it like I'm 7.....my son came to me last night and said "Dad, why do we have war, why do people want to kill other people?" Immediately i thought, religion, greed, and just straight up bad guys. I had no idea how to relay that to him so that he would understand, to be honest, I still struggle to grasp how even though I know that religion, greed, and bad guys in power are the reasons, and I know that war is necessary sometimes....but why do we as humans create these situations. I guess I'm looking for a scientific reason why humans go to war.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qmt43/why_do_we_have_war_and_why_do_we_go_to_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3yst7p",
"c3yt0n7",
"c3yt3uc",
"c3yt8ov",
"c3ythc1",
"c3yu69m"
],
"score": [
4,
19,
6,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Pick up a copy of Marvin Harris' book \"Our Kind\". It is an anthropological reader aimed at the masses, and your son should be able to make it through most of the topics. War is included from an anthropological perspective. \n\nFor my own opinion, not Marvin Harris': War is all about resources. The have not want what the haves have, as it were. This continues to be true until a culture grows beyond the point of being ruled by a single person, at which point war becomes more and more a means of entertaining and controlling your own people - so you can have more resources yourself. ",
"Resources. Without resources we die. ",
"That is less of a scientific question and more of a philosophical one. \n\nUltimately there is no real scientific reason we go to war, it's not a physical necessity. \"religion, greed, and just straight up bad guys\" may be things we fight about, but it's not **why** we fight.\n\nHumans are born with the innate ability to be violent, it does not have to be taught. As we grow, all of our abilities are advanced, this includes our ability to fight. As we get older, we stop fighting by ourselves and get others who we like to fight with us against the guys we don't. That is the progression of war.\n\nPersonally I don't think that with a 7 year old you don't have to get more complicated than \"there are bad people who will try to kill others when they have arguments\". It's not necessary for them to understand at a deeper level at that age, when they are able to properly process that type of information, then it will be more obvious to them. \n\nIf you want my personal opinion, I believe that war is just another sign of intelligence. No other species can fight as effectively as we can. \"It's what humans do\" is kind of a cop-out answer, but it's still very true. \n\n\"why do we as humans create these situations?\" We create these situations out of the fact that we are individuals and simply do not agree on some things. \n\nI think it is a difficult thing to explain, \"we argue, therefore we fight, therefore we kill, therefore we have war\". There is no simpler explanation.\n\n",
"War is the last resort to any situation which can't be settled. Let's say there's a land boundary dispute between North and South Dakota. We could try some sort of treaty to resolve the dispute, but we can't come to a conclusion. It's taken to court. The court rules for the North. But this pisses South off very much. The appeal in court but the result stays the same. \n\nYou could try many different methods to settle a dispute like this (a sporting event challenge, random drawing, a vote, etc), but in the end, there's always one last resort... Violence and war. If you have no one else to argue with, you win.",
"\n\"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.\"\n \n--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials",
"War is an extension of politics. Basically, countries enter into a war to achieve a political end, whatever that may be, and will only do so if the war itself does not subvert that political end.\n\nHowever, this does assume the leadership of the countries involved are rational."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1adoum
|
why do some (ebay) auctions have "reserve" prices?
|
What is the purpose behind a reserve price on an ebay auction? I understand that it sets a minimum amount to win the auction but why doesn't the auctioneer just start at the reserve price?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1adoum/eli5_why_do_some_ebay_auctions_have_reserve_prices/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8wfb5d",
"c8wgay7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Starting at 0 entices buyers to begin bidding and then once they've started they will keep bidding past a point when they may have begun bidding earlier.",
"I think it also gets the bidding ball rolling and taps into peoples competitive spirit. \nSomeone is more likely to arrive at $150 trying to outbid their auction 'competitors' than if the bid started at around that price. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
638iq2
|
how did humans develop such that a well balanced human diet consist of a wide variety of foods when throughout most of human history we only had access to a few foods?
|
This seems like it'd doom our survival as a species.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/638iq2/eli5_how_did_humans_develop_such_that_a_well/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfs38sc",
"dfs3l38",
"dfs3ss3",
"dfs4h7b",
"dfsir86",
"dfsjrwc",
"dfsmkug",
"dfsneig",
"dfsojxv",
"dfsp0ia",
"dfspk7b",
"dfstc0w",
"dfstn40",
"dfstyjd",
"dfsucq4",
"dfsv5xd",
"dfsvikt",
"dfsvx0n",
"dfsx307",
"dft0r0l",
"dft1xpu",
"dft4i2y",
"dft4yp1",
"dft5psb"
],
"score": [
2636,
2,
19,
243,
9,
1017,
2,
2,
101,
20,
5,
40,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
17,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Eating sub optimally does not mean a swift certain death. It means a slightly lower quality of life (think of how you feel from a week of eating fast food vs a week of eating healthy), deteriorating more quickly (your brain may slow down faster as you age), a slightly higher risk of developing disease, etc.\n\nGood nutrition is just maximizing your optimal health, not something as polarizing as going from dying of every disease at 20 vs living forever.",
"A 'well balanced diet' is, in part, a fabrication from the advertising departments of food companies. Think \"this bowl of Fruit Loops is part of a balanced healthy breakfast\" \n\nAlso, consider that a lot of modern processed food lacks the overall nutrition of whole natural foods. \n\nSo if someone's diet consists largely of nutrient poor processed foods, then they really should try to 'eat a balanced diet'. But a diet of whole/natural foods will be more balanced by default. \n\nIt's been popularized as the paleo diet. ",
"Grains, roots, leafy vegetables, fruits and meat were all available in the environment in which humans evolved. Agriculture provides more dependable food and selective breeding makes it more palatable. Except in areas of overpopulation, drought or war, a varied diet is and has been available.\n",
"It's not that the body evolved to need a well balanced diet- we humans can survive on pretty unbalanced food just fine.\n\nWhat a well balanced diet is is that we have discovered that certain food combinations optimize the nutrients that out body gets.\n\nThink of your body like a car, food is fuel, you can put pretty much any gasoline in your car as fuel. But, you know, some gasoline works better in your car than others, some leaves buildups that make the car run worse, some contain additives that help keep the engine cleaner, and there are different octane levels that, while they can all technically burn in your car, often there is one specific one that is best suited to being used.\n\nTL;DR: your body can get by on a lot of things, and the well balanced diet is less a requirement of your body than the result of a lot of trial and error trying to figure out what is most optimal to eat.",
"No one really answered this for you they just talked about diets so let me give it a shot. \nUntil recently the world was a large place with many isolated groups of people who would pick what foods could sustain them by their region. \nOnce regions were colonized and trade began, food options for those who benefitted from the trade increased. \nThousands of years for isolated groups to determine what suits their needs best per region then becomes a global buffet from trade. \nAnd like people and culture who make steps forward and back due to war, famine and natural disasters so does the food. \nAnthropologists often argue that new (past 100 years or so) mass agricultural techniques has limited our food diversity, with many plants and animals going extinct. \nAnd I doubt that will change much with Monsanto's great ideas for seed regulation and GMOs. ",
"Hunter/gatherer societies lived on an incredibly diverse diet, sometimes upwards of 70+ different fruits/grains/roots. Millions (billions) of people living off of wheat/rice/potatoes/corn is relatively new in the grand scheme of things ",
"You're looking at it the wrong way. Think of animals as complicated machines that can run on a variety of fuels. We can live long(ish) healthy(ish) lives in all kinds of environments, during all kinds of climates. We're adapted for versatility and survival.\n\nBut we've reached this point where, due to the intricacies of civilization, we can have very nearly ANY food that we want. So now we're in the middle of trying to figure out what combination of food is the very, very, very best for us. We could survive just fine living only on what we can grow and kill in a twenty mile radius of where we are right now (okay, not everybody can, but a surprising number of people could), but that isn't the question anymore. The new question is: what is OPTIMUM. And to figure that out, we can take a look at all of the people all over the world and start asking: which people have the best X and why is that? Who has the healthiest skin? Is that because of the sun? The atmosphere where they live? Genetics? Or something that they eat? And how can w spread whatever causes that great skin to everyone in the world?",
"We evolved to eat as little as possible to survive and reproduce. Reproduction is the measure nothing else. If it doesn't contribute to survival and reproduction it is irrelevant. In fact evolutionarilly living a very long time isn't actually ideal since you are not reproducing and might not even be contributing.\n\nToday we really care about living a long life, living to your 50s is considered dying really young. Back in older times 50s was a pretty good age to reach! You may very well be seeing your grand kids or MAYBE even great-grandkids!",
"History, being the part of the human past that has been written down, is not that long. When you consider that the human digestive system has been evolving for millions of years, a few thousand is relatively small. In fact, the diet you are likely most familiar with is very uncommon throughout Homo sapiens' past. \n\n\nIn prehistory, the human diet was much more widely varied than it is today. Hunter/gatherers had to range far and wide to get the foods they needed to survive. It wasn't until a period known to archaeologists as the [neolithic(new stone age) period](_URL_1_) that humans began to narrow their food sources with agriculture(5-10k years ago) and a more sedentary life. The period is named this way because we find stone tools used for processing large quantities of grains associated with the time period. The most common of these are known as [manos and metates](_URL_0_).\n\n\nedit:spelling",
"There are a number of issues with the question/premise.\n\nA \"well-balanced diet\" is largely a nutrition science idea, and even the best nutrition science is still rather limited. There are a huge number of things about food that we don't know - it's actually a pretty complex subject. \n\nSo, what determines a \"well-balanced\" diet? If we're talking what makes people feel the best (energy, good sleep, etc.) and have the best medical markers of health (low blood pressure, low cholesterol, healthy weight, good lung capacity, good heart rate, etc) it's still likely to vary. Part of it is likely biology. We're just now learning more about how different cultures actually may extract different amounts of nutrients from the same food. (Asians vs. Caucasians eating seaweed for example, or being able to process soy products better.)\n\nBut even just, what works for your body? Some people swear by low carb, for example. I have no energy and am super cranky if I try low carb. \n\nLastly, \"well-balanced diet\" is not remotely necessary for survival. Arguably, a lot of people on a \"western\" diet don't eat \"well-balanced\" in any of the typical accepted versions of the term. Too much sugar, too much over-processed food, etc. But it's not necessary to eat a well-balanced diet simply to *survive.* You can survive in a lethargic state, in a tired state, with high blood pressure or cholesterol, etc. In fact, a lot of us *are* surviving in that state. It's not desirable, IMO, but it's happening.\n\nThe rise of \"western\" diseases like diabetes, hypertension, heart attacks.. a lot of these are diet-based, but it's not because we're trying to \"diversify\" or have a \"well-balanced\" diet. It's more likely (from what evidence we do have) the result of the *type* of diet we're consuming. The extra processed junk, the massive amounts of sugar, things like that.\n\nHumans by and large can survive on a wide range of diets, and even be pretty healthy on a lot of them. The idea of a \"well-balanced\" diet is science trying to figure out what it hasn't yet been able to solve. \n\nCheck out Michael Pollan's work on nutrition, like In Defense of Food. It's pretty fascinating stuff, tracking the rise of government food pyramids and the removal of \"imitation\" labeling, the anti-fat craze that was not medically backed, and a whole lot of looking at other cultures throughout history, and what they ate.\n\nIt's really interesting.",
"Our ancestors had access to more foods than you think. Just not all at once. As recently as the 19th century in northern climates during the winter fresh foods were reduced to things like potatoes, apples, carrots, and cabbages that would keep all winter. When spring came they were hungry for fresh food. Rhubarb is the first thing to come up, and stewed rhubarb was considered a tonic. Then all summer peas, beans, tomatoes, etc were eaten as they became available.\n\nMeat and fish were also available seasonally. So during the year they ate a varied diet as things came in and out of season.",
"We as a species have always retained a pretty high diversity of foods in our diet. If anything, we would likely not have evolved if it weren't for the ability of our hominid ancestors, specifically H. erectus, to cook and process food. There is a theory in evolutionary anthropology about the relative balance of the gut and the brain, sometimes referred to as the gray ceiling. The idea being that both the digestive tract and the brain are biologically \"expensive\" organs requiring lots calories to do their jobs. When H. erectus developed cooking anywhere from 750kya to 1mya, hominids suddenly gained the ability to get much more out of their foods, nutritionally speaking. Cooking and food processing made digestion easier, allowing for the greater extraction of nutrients, and allowing for the gradual increase in size and neural convolution of the hominid brain. If anything we have required dietary variation for our development as a species and to maintain the calories to support our complex brains.\n\nBy about 250kya, H. Sapiens appeared on the world stage, and by 20kya, we had developed agriculture. There has been lots written on the downsides of agriculture, especially as it pertains to overall health of localized human populations (the prevalence of dental caries in Native American populations really sticks out in my brain), but let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees: except in certain instances of localized population collapse due to crop failure, agriculture has been a huge net positive for human as a species. Agriculture has crucially provided us the ability to have a readily available source of high calorie foods and as such has supported the development of both cities and civilization as we understand them today. Even though the relative diversity of foods may have declined as groups developed crop specialization, humans have always required multiple food sources for proper nutrition and survival. While there is clearly a plethora of literature available evaluating the role of famine in causing local population collapse, the idea that humans as a species would subsist solely off of a single food source is a bit of a misconception. The Native American groups of the Southwest subsisted on more than just maize. Unless there were extreme circumstances affecting a localized population, such as a natural disaster or crop collapse, humans have always sought out food diversity by supplementing major crops with other vegetables, adding protein to their diet through animal meat and/or milk, and by trading with other groups for other types of food. This has been the ultimate key to our species' success.\n\ntl;dr--While agricultural development created a sort of dietary bottleneck, it has never been so extreme as to cause a species-wide population collapse. In actuality, the ready availability of calorie dense food brought about by the development of agriculture far outweighed any nutritional deficits on a species wide scale and ultimately led to rapid population growth.\n\nSource: Masters in Biological anthropology/human skeletal bio",
"It's just not true.\n\nNatural human diet is a really low-calorie one. Some people can live a decent life with 60gr of rice a day (250 cal/day).\n\nThe problem is the american 2000 cal/day diet. Without variety, it kills you.",
"Since all humans on earth began as hunter gatherers, there was really no need for major food production or farming. The thought process of most early hunter gatherers began with preferences to what is available around them. Back in the late Pleistocene hunter gathers were still active because wild animals were abundant. Thus yielding more calories and higher reward than farming or domesticating wild edible plants. However, if we look at the Fertile Crescent which began major food production around 8,500 BC, we can see that a big factor in domestication and farming of local native plants is the advancement of farming technology. We see flint sickles, woven baskets, tools for grinding cereals and breaking husks, and even the process of toasting edible seeds so that they do not sprout in storage. With the advancement of food production came an increase of population density. There is a correlation between farming and population density. With more population there are more people to work. This allowed people to focus on farming and others to focus on the other necessities of a community. With that also came trade. In this sense the trade was founder plants that could be taken to other parts of the world to begin a variety of available goods. For example, around 2500 B.C. Southern Native Americans traded with Mexican Indians (who had an efficient system of food production) and began growing new crops such as beans and corn. All of these processes began a cycle that leads us to the availability of a wide variety of foods and goods. ",
"You're looking at it backwards. It's not that you have to have dozens of foods or else you die. It's that you can survive off of many different types of diets, and still keep going. Sure, you're at your best when you have a varied diet, but that isn't always required.\n\nThis is very different than something like a Koala, which can ONLY eat eucalyptus leaves, or a panda that can ONLY eat bamboo. \n\nMost animals require foods that are only available in certain types of ecosystems. Humans on the other hand, have evolved the ability to survive in EVERY ecosystem.",
"Before humans settled down and started growing their own food, they ate a much wider variety of foods. They also were much healthier. They ate hundreds of different plants and animals on a regular basis, compared to a few dozen at most for much of agricultural history. Pre-agriculture humans were taller on average than humans are today, and had considerably less tooth decay than humans have for most of history since. They also didn't have the sort of repetitive stress injuries that their agricultural descendants got from grinding seeds into flour for hours on end. \n\nThat said, the humans that didn't settle down and accept crappier health outcomes were never able to accumulate much stuff, or develop much advanced culture, or develop advanced weapons and other technology like their agricultural cousins. The difference in capabilities was so great that the agricultural humans could just march in and take the land that the hunter-gatherer humans were living on, and the hunter-gatherers couldn't do anything about it. Not only did they not have the technology, but they didn't have the numbers, since agriculture allowed for much higher population densities.\n\nTL;DR: Adapting to eating fewer types of food was good for the survival of the community, but bad for the survival of the individual.",
"Why do you think humans only had access to a few foods? Humans had access to a wide variety of foods, such as animals, fish, mollusks, fungi, fruit, root vegetables, various herbs, wild grains, LOTS of stuff. ",
"Organisms that can eat a wide variety of food are more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on those omnivorous traits.",
"Copied and changed a comment I made lower down. We ate primarily plants, roots, tubers, etc. were staples. Hunter gatherers, depending on location, are traditionally about a 70/30 split between plant matter and meat. I think you're also making the assumption that the most of human history has been post agriculture. Humans were primarily hunter gatherers for longer than we've been farming. \n\nHumans ate literally everything that was edible. Before, the rise of civilization hunter gatherers had access to the best environments, which is where people typically settled pushing out the surrounding people as it expanded and biomes were changed by farmland. That meant that we weren't just eating roots and tubers, but wild onions and other \"precursor\" plants to common fruits and vegetables of today, as well as lots of leaves and natural herbs which were packed with nutrition. \n\nA typical hunter gatherer group would stay in a particular spot for a short amount of time until they exhausted most of the easy food, depending on need of course, for a few miles around. Then they move to a new spot outside of their foraging range and stay there until there isn't easy food. This could be as short as a few days if they're on the move to weeks/months at where they spend the spring/summer months, all depending on location. This means that they might subsist on one particular plant for a little while as a staple, with other little things being thrown in. Then move to a new area with a slightly different diet/move entire regions if they migrate. This means that we needed to be able to live on a large variety of food types and this constant moving meant that most diets weren't just one food and people didn't become deficient in things because of variety. It wasn't until people became sedentary and the agricultural revolution happened that people began subsisting on a few food sources year round and chronic deficiencies became a real problem. \n\nYes people lived longer, grow bigger, and support a bigger population because of more food but there's times in our history, medieval Europe for example, when the peasants were in worse condition than you would find in a stable hunter gatherer society. It was due to this evolution of being able to subsist on one particular food as a staple for months at a time that allowed people to live on several staple crops year round. Due to our nomadic nature we have to be very flexible in our diet and that has also led our bodies to be able to compensate when it runs into deficiencies.",
"What do you mean by \"balanced diet\"? I survive on cookies and peppermint tea. They're kinda hard to balance.",
"What do you mean we only had access to a few foods? Nature is bountiful, take any ancenstral human and Im sure they had access to a wide variety of food. Name any ancient human anywhere. ",
"There are some very good answers here, but not all of them address a common misconception:\n\nThere's no such thing as an essential food. Only essential nutrients. Your body doesn't care where the nutrients come from, only that it gets at least a little bit of each of them regularly. Most deficiencies that cause health problems don't set in for several weeks at least, so unless you're eating nothing but Doritos, you're probably getting trace amounts of all the essential nutrients from many sources.\n\nAnd there are even a few foods that contain a wide enough variety of nutrients, albeit in small quantities, that can sustain you almost indefinitely. Look at the Eskimos. They survive on almost nothing but whale and seal blubber for 8 months a year, with virtually no plants in their diet at all. It's basically pure fat, that's high in protein and calories, and very low in everything else. But they *can* survive on it because the blubber contains just enough of all your body's required vitamins and minerals to stave off severe deficiencies like scurvy (absence of vitamin C).",
"since when did we develop a well balanced diet? it seems like every few years scientific advice for a proper diet changes. I'm pretty sure being a dietician isn't even a real job.\n\nI've given up trying to figure out what to eat properly, because its just too much of a headache to find undisputed information. also we are fucking up the planet so much even healthy food like tuna needs to be moderated because of mercury levels. these days i just eat what i feel like and also try to eat so i feel good the next day as well. and I can go for a run or play sport without feeling sick.",
"Wait what? Before modernisation of human society you couldn't swing a soft juicy prey animal without discovering 3 new species of edible plants. We are currently living in the most narrow band of food options. Ever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nps.gov/meve/learn/education/artifactgallery_manometate.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ocn7w
|
how these modern tiny loudspeaker / amplifiers sound so good?
|
When I was a teenager you needed huge loudspeakers and a 40W amplifier to get decent bass plus a tweeter for the top end. What magic is at work here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ocn7w/eli5_how_these_modern_tiny_loudspeaker_amplifiers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkgdi40"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I know part of this, much stronger permanent magnets. Back then we didn't have neodymium magnets, utilising those in speakers allows for much more powerful motion of the speaker cone so you can get much louder and better sound from a smaller speaker with less power supplied to the coil. \nI'm 37 and I'm also really impressed at the quality and bass you can get from these tiny speakers you can plug into your phone or whatever. I wish we had them in the 90s. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2uaybp
|
why don't they use metal detectors before an mri scan?
|
I've seen in TV shows that any ferrous metal in your body can be extremely dangerous during an MRI. I had an MRI recently, they made me sign that I don't have any of that, but that was it. Why don't they have, say, the same equipment TSA uses in airports? Is it too expensive or not sensitive enough?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uaybp/eli5_why_dont_they_use_metal_detectors_before_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co6qa4i",
"co6r6ii",
"co6r7om",
"co6trzt",
"co6ukh7",
"co6z8h8"
],
"score": [
11,
8,
3,
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it may just be an unnecessary expenditure since you are assumed to know if you have metal in your body, or it would at least be present in any medical records or be in there for some plausible known reason. ",
"Section 2.4-3.4.4.2 of the [FGI Guidelines](_URL_0_) requires \"ferromagnetic detection systems\" in use at access points to MRIs.\n\nHowever, this clause was added in 2010, and does not affect installations built before that time. Additionally, not all states require hospitals be built to the FGI guidelines, and some only require part of them. \n",
"I've got 2 plates and 12 screws in my ankle and my biggest worry is that I'll be in an accident and get knocked out and they'll put me in the mri and the hardware will get ripped out of my ankle ",
"There are some situations where xrays are performed before an mri is done. Example, if there is a chance you have shrapnel of any sort in your body, an xray is usually performed prior to check for this metal. This is speaking of an out-patient scenario. In trauma scenarios, xray or CT is the preferred choice due to the length of exam for CT vs MRI. ",
"They have them on hand if there is any concern. For example, I once had a serious head injury and couldn't remember where all of my piercings were. I was headed in for an emergency MRI, and they scanned me with a handheld metal detector. \n\nUnder most circumstances though, a person knows where metal in his body is located. And for surgically placed metal implants, they use a type of metal that is safe in an MRI",
"MR techs know which implants are safe or unsafe in the MR environment. There is rigorous testing on implants and they refer to that literature. You fill out a form before your test to tell the tech what is in your body. If you are unsure about metal in your body, they assume you are unsafe and proceed accordingly. This may involve an x-ray to see if there is metal in sensitive areas of your body.\n\nAs /u/ChildoftheFence19 said elsewhere in this thread, most implants are safe after being in your body for 6 weeks. As you heal, scar tissue builds up around the implant which anchors it in place and prevents localized heating. This is true for small surgical clips to large prosthetic joints. \n\nAs for why they don't use metal detectors, my assumption is that they aren't sensitive enough. All they'll do is beep if there's metal present but they can't distinguish between safe and unsafe metal. At that point, the tech would have to ask you all those safety questions and decide how to find the information you're unsure of. So having the detector just adds steps to the process unnecessarily."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.fgiguidelines.org/pdfs/FGI_2.4_CriticalAccess_Hospitals.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3xiky5
|
why do people leave useless answers to amazon product questions?
|
[This for example](_URL_0_) And I've seen a lot more. Why even bother answering if your answer doesn't provide useful information for the one asking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xiky5/eli5why_do_people_leave_useless_answers_to_amazon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy4x4ep",
"cy4x6oi",
"cy554c2"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Amazon asks people who have bought products to answer questions so some people just try to answer",
"You actually get an email from amazon, asking you if you can answer the questions (usually a product you recently bought).\nMy best guess would be that they think they are directly asked by that person. Doesn't make much sense, but so doesn't answering the question with a bad answer.",
"What's even more infuriating to me are people who give bad reviews for products without bothering to explain how it displeased them. *\"I did not like this product. It did not meet my expectations. Duh end.\"* It's as if some people literally do not understand the purpose of language and human communication."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/forum/-/Tx8JIXZ7WCM2EN/ref=ask_dp_dpmw_al_hza?asin=B0000AN4D0"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
31lf9e
|
why is it that we typically make eggs, bacon, pancakes, etc. for breakfast & why does it seem so wrong in a sense if we eat anything other than those typical breakfast foods for breakfast?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31lf9e/eli5_why_is_it_that_we_typically_make_eggs_bacon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq2nuli",
"cq2o4mi",
"cq2rpfi",
"cq2t8qj",
"cq2zf53"
],
"score": [
22,
11,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Conditioning. If you were raised on pizza and soda for breakfast, milk and cocoa puffs would seem weird.",
"Because that's what we're accustomed to. Other cultures eat very different things for breakfast. \n\nFor much of American history, breakfast was a hearty meal and included meat. This was heavily influenced by the English breakfast (as opposed to the continental breakfast), which features lots of fried things and meats. It wasn't until the Kellogg brothers and company started pushing a healthy diet and \"clean eating\" as a cure for every manner of bodily sms societal ills (including masturbation) that lighter breakfasts of cereals became the norm.",
"Pancakes for breakfast sounds wierd. That's a dessert, surely?",
"This was covered in a [Cracked article](_URL_0_) in 2012. Definitely worth the read.\n\n > Here's something you've probably never wondered: Why are some foods considered \"breakfast\" foods (pancakes, bacon, eggs) and others not? Why is it weird to eat pancakes for dinner and pizza for breakfast? Well, if what we know about bacon is any indication, it's purely a matter of marketing.\n\n > You only have to go back several decades to find a time when bacon for breakfast was about as alien as having a steak for dessert. The entire reason we even consider bacon part of a traditional breakfast is due to the work of one man and a lagging company's desperate attempts to sell their product.",
"I'm sorry I'm not answering the question, but I've never actually seen people eat pancakes for breakfast outside of TV and movies. It seems like it's way too much of a pain in the ass to cook when everyone's tired as hell and just trying to get out of the house. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cracked.com/article_19833_the-7-sneakiest-ways-corporations-manipulated-human-behavior.html"
],
[]
] |
||
49fmsy
|
why do some runners/drivers get a head start in pro races?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49fmsy/eli5_why_do_some_runnersdrivers_get_a_head_start/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0rf8pz",
"d0rfm35",
"d0rjems",
"d0rnnlw",
"d0ru01m"
],
"score": [
95,
8,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"If you're talking about racing around an oval track, the competitor on the outside has to cover a longer distance than the competitor on the very inside, which is unfair if they all started at the same time.",
"Because the runner/driver on the outside track runs a longer distance (a curve is longer when the radius is longer), the outside runners get head starts to equalize the distance each one covers.",
"So there are two answers:-\n\n1. Runners on a track are staggered according to what lane they are in because of the corners. The runners on the inside lanes will be running a shorter lap than those in the outside lanes.\n\n2. In vehicle racing, cars are staggered simply for spacing.\nIn Formula 1 for example, the day before the main race is used for qualifying where the competitors aim to get a better starting position for the main race.",
"Follow up questions:\n\nIn a foot race on an oval track, the turn radius is different for the different lanes. Does this make any difference? Like is it easier to run fast with a larger radius turn?\n\nWhy not just have a straight track? Obviously not as stadium friendly for longer races, but shouldn't fairness take precedence?",
"There are different reasons for different types of racing, are there any in particular you are thinking of?\n\nWith slower/shorter racing it can be distance - on a running oval like a 400m track runners are restricted to their own lane, but the outside lane takes more distance to travel around the corner, so the runner starts from a position ahead of the person in the next lane (but runs the same distance).\n\nIn most sports though it is just the practicality of starting everyone - in f1 or NASCAR it is impossible to start everyone in a straight line, so they have qualifying rounds to put everyone into a fair order. You do well in qualifying, you get the advantage of starting closer to the front.\n\nIn really big races like the London marathon there are so many participants it takes a fairly long time to let them all pass the start, so rather than starting at the same time and some people getting stuck waiting, they use individual clocks so that everyone gets timed separately from the moment they cross the start line. The same system is also used in individual sports like orienteering where participants are needed to start separately so they can't follow each other and have to choose their own routes, so are started at set intervals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5rinkh
|
cellular respiration, why is it so important in maintaining animal health, growth and reproduction?
|
Looking for a simpler understanding of a process I find rather complicated.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rinkh/eli5_cellular_respiration_why_is_it_so_important/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd7mqsc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cellular respiration isn't like, important in maintaining health. Its like saying a heartbeat is important in maintaining health.\n\nCellular respiration for animals..i guess, is how every cell gets energy to carry out(most) chemical reactions.\n\nThe Adenosine TriPhosphate molecule (ATP) that you see people typing out in this thread saying its energy for your body is what is the great yield from cellular respiration. Though the body technically \"uses\" it and you can say its the way energy is made in your body thats not entirely true.\n\nCellular respiration (wether it be calvin or krebs cycle respiration, aka plant or animal), is a type of chain reaction to really get Adenosine Diphosphate another phosphate group to make that molecule you keep hearing (ATP). \n\nSo the reason why is basically this molecule is set up in a way that the 3 phosphates on this adenosine-ribose complex (as per the term adenosine Triphosphate), is the perfect shape to manipulate the rest of the chemicals in your body. This is the \"energy\" you hear people associate with ATP.\n\nIn almost every single reaction in your body, you have like thousands of intermediary proteins, compounds, hormones, whatever, that will be involved to make a cell do something. ATP is flooded everywhere to allow those things to change their shape and in doing so allows the process to happen. When the molecules change their shape energy is being transferred, this is why you hear people associate it with energy.\n\nNow your question however, you're trying to imagine like cellular respiration being important in the process of health, growth, reproduction,.. whatever.\n\nThe thing is, ATP (and therefore cellular respiration) is technically why these molecules are moving and changing in the first place. Its not like an important factor, like oil in an engine, cellular respiration is the process of an engine. Its the entirety.\n\nAny biological mechanism you can think of probably involves atp somewhere. Any mechanism. Ever. So it's hard to denote cellular respiration like that. Growth, health, reproduction, these are on whole entire magnitudes of biological mechanisms that are going on, but just focus on one cell doing a n y t h i n g. Theres cellular respration, because you need ATP to have that happen.\n\nATP virtually makes the chemistry happen in biology. Without this molecule to change the shape (and therefore transfer energy, and in biology changing shape is the basic chemistry of the situation anyways), you would need something else to change the shape of molecules to control the chemical reaction you are trying to get at, like making a protein, moving a vesicle inside a cell, a ribosome creating protein from RNA,. i could almost list every single biological complex known and you would need the energy catalyst ATP to do it somewhere somehow. ATP causes biochemistry to happen, and there's no other chemical that can work well for that on this earth with earths biology, otherwise it would be dominant everywhere, but now we are going into evolutionary principle.\n\nNot even mulling over glycolisis or other forms of ATP production as its hardly ever found as the main contributor to ATP in most living organisms, and in almost every case is just an inefficient form of the calvin and krebs cycle of cellular respiration."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1m5kl5
|
in what context would you decide between saying "muslim" or "islamic"?
|
Or are they interchangeable? Or is there a difference between the two words that I am not aware of?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m5kl5/eli5_in_what_context_would_you_decide_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc5zrb3",
"cc6013v"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Muslim and Islamic are interchangeable when used as an adjective. For example \"Muslim architecture\" and \"Islamic architecture\" are both correct. However \"muslim\" is also a noun that refers to a follower of islam and is not interchangeable in that context. For example you would say \"John is a muslim\" but not \"John is an islamic\" as the latter makes no sense",
"Muslim is to Islam as Christian is to Christianity.\n\nWhere Christian can be a worshipper *or* a \"thing\" that is Christian (Christian temple, Christian holiday, etc), generally a Muslim is a worshipper whereas Islamic would describe the \"thing.\" They can be more or less interchangeable though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
50cwzo
|
why do we fall asleep faster when the environment is being rocked/swung about (i.e. car, baby's bed, ship)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50cwzo/eli5_why_do_we_fall_asleep_faster_when_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7302ub"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Surprisingly, it looks like the science is still out on this.\n\nMy two cents would be that it is a hypnotic effect though. Continuous rocking is also a soothing / coping habit for people experiencing anxiety. I would presume it gives the brain a predictable pattern to work with - and that predictability calms the mind.\n\nYou might say \"calms it how? Just because something predictable is occurring, doesn't mean something unpredictable isn't going to come along.\" Which is of course true - but the brain has limited resources. With rocking motions, some of those resources are now taken up by predictable stimuli, and leave less resources to imagine unknown stressors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4jko7x
|
what exactly does the little blue gel pad at the top and the rubber pad at the bottom of my razor do? is it just for style and we all assume it actually does something like add comfort or something but it actually does nothing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jko7x/eli5_what_exactly_does_the_little_blue_gel_pad_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d37cqgt"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They're lubricant. They both help the razor slide more smoothly across your skin but also leave moisture behind to prevent your skin from drying out.\n\nThe one at the bottom would help with function as you don't want hair to catch on the blades. The one on top would be more for comfort.\n\nIf you learn how to shave properly, they're both redundant. You should have adequate lubrication on your skin before the razor touches it and you should be using some kind of after-treatment for comfort."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1pc8es
|
why does the us use a state system?
|
What do the residents of the western region of Virginia have in common with the eastern region that would allow them to have some say in what they should share in laws, regulations, benefits, etc.,? What made them decide that this should be a permanent system for the country?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pc8es/eli5_why_does_the_us_use_a_state_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd0w38p"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Because originally the USA were thirteen pseudo-independent colonies under the British crown. Contrary to common belief, the \"united\" states of America never got on with each other historically. Not all thirteen even rose up against the British to begin with, so when they eventually did unify they kept a federal system whereby each state retains some autonomy, but are \"united\" in the sense that there is a central government which has a limited jurisdiction over all (now 50) states. As such, all the states have some say in the laws of all but remain independent enough for differences between them to persist.\n\n*edited 52 to 50 because apparently that's how many states there are now lol"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cc12ez
|
how bugs (not referring to tiny ones) somehow get through screened windows with no noticeable entrances.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cc12ez/eli5_how_bugs_not_referring_to_tiny_ones_somehow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etjow2v"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Info: are you talking like stuck between the screen and a closed window? \n\nIf so, many screens, while sealed into the screen frame itself, are able to be open and closed. They can run on a little track in the side of the window frame and can actually leave a small gap at the top (between the screen frame and window frame). While many bugs, like cockroaches, look huge, some can slide into places as thin as the thickness of a quarter. So even a small gap that you don’t notice or can’t see can be an exploitable entrance for bug kind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2quj23
|
why does the dish for my satellite tv have to face south to receive signal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2quj23/eli5_why_does_the_dish_for_my_satellite_tv_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn9mqrz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because, if you live in the northern hemisphere, that's where the satellite is.\n\nThey're in a geosynchronous orbit - which means they're above the equator and orbit the earth in 24-hours. So they stay in the same spot in the sky."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
d7sjh9
|
why do some diseases tend to localize to specific areas while others remain more general? for example, hand, foot, and mouth disease, or genital herpes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d7sjh9/eli5_why_do_some_diseases_tend_to_localize_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f143u4x"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I suppose you're talking about communicable diseases. It all depends. But for viruses for instance, they can never infect a cell unless they bind to a receptor and get internalized. Not all cells express a receptor for a given virus, for example that's why you don't get the flu in your leg it binds to receptors in your airways. HIV to B cells in the immune system. Bacteria on the other hand, it depends on how they evolved. Some bacteria evolved mechanisms of immune evasion in particular environments, like the intestine and salmonella. Bacteria like to hide from the immune system because it's pretty good at killing them, so they tend to stay in the interstitium or in cells where the infection took place. H pylori for example evolved to dig into the mucosa in the stomach and hide from the acid by secreting a neutralizing buffer in its vicinity. Prions are another form of pathogen, they infect other prion proteins that are otherwise healthy. These proteins are most commonly found in the brain, so that's where prion disease progresses. You get the idea, but there's a lot more to the story obviously"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
46nvpv
|
why do cars that are not driven rust while cars that are regularly driven do not?
|
Assuming that the one that doesn't drive just sits in the driveway and has for a few years, and the one that is driven regularly gets typical under the hood maintenance. They experience the same weather and same amount of sunlight. The undriven car isn't experiencing the wear of the driven car.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46nvpv/eli5_why_do_cars_that_are_not_driven_rust_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d06n07w",
"d06o8tp",
"d06ouo4",
"d06wmzs"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"the paint deteriorates, allowing water to get to the metal. also, as my cousin learned with his 79 camaro, when you leave it outside in the sun, it can eat away at the rubber stripping along the windows, allowing water to seep into the car and eat away things like the floor pan. also, depending on where you live, driven cars will get hit hard with rust due to salt on the roads, and in those areas the owners must be diligent to wash under the car, and possibly spray an undercoat on it",
"45 years working on cars and restoring them. I don't agree with your question, most cars that just sit do not rust worse than those that are driven, especially up north with all the salt on the roads. What data/experience are you deriving your question from?",
"Cars that sit face the same elements without getting washed. Leaves clog drains, water gets inside. Windows are never opened to air the car out. Another big problem is the snow or water under the car doesn't evaporate away quickly. If the car sits on grass it eventually sinks to the ground really deteriorates.",
"The biggest universal problem of letting a car (or any piece of machinery) sit will be that any rubber seals, o-rings, or gaskets will dehydrate and crack due to lack of movement and/or lubrication. Rust is likely a more regional environmental issue. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b0zjzm
|
how do animals, like squirrels & foxes, know what is food and what isn't, in urban environments, especially processed foods.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b0zjzm/eli5_how_do_animals_like_squirrels_foxes_know/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eij12ix"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First they learn from parents by what is being presented to eat and what they see being eaten.\n\nSecond they have some instincts to avoid or pursue certain smells or tastes.\n\nThey learn by trying, if they puke up something that still looks and smells like that thing they ate, then they avoid it later. Particularly if it causes pain. Same with messes coming out the other end.\n\nAnd finally, as others said, they often don't and end up eating something not food. Maybe \"harmless\" in that it is not nutritious but not dangerous, or might be something bad for them.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSome animals suffer greatly around us and others (trash pandas) do just fine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cj3rpj
|
how do some cars have a birds eye view of of the car when they’re parking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cj3rpj/eli5_how_do_some_cars_have_a_birds_eye_view_of_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evay0ha"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"The car has cameras in the front, rear, and in the two side mirrors. Those images are stitched together (kind of the same way that your phone creates a panorama) to give a kind of 360° view of the car's surroundings. That image is then displayed in such a way that it looks sort of like a bird's-eye view instead of like the 360° panorama that it actually is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6tbv61
|
how did nicknames for names like richard and charles become dick and chuck and other ones like that when they are so different from their original form?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6tbv61/eli5_how_did_nicknames_for_names_like_richard_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dljhyc4",
"dljjbiz",
"dljm8hx",
"dljustx"
],
"score": [
13,
8,
6,
13
],
"text": [
"Some of my friends told me that Dick comes from Richard due to the original nickname of Richard being \"Rick\". After that, Dick came to be due to its rhyming with Rick.",
"What about Billy from William?",
"Interesting! How do you get Molly from Mary, then?",
"All I wanna know is if Steve is short for Steven then why isn't Steph short for Stephen rather than Stephany? And what's short for Stevany????? Stev????? Help!!!!!!!!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
d89je3
|
why is it that light can travel for a billion years across the universe, but as soon as you flick off a light switch it disappears instantly?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d89je3/eli5_why_is_it_that_light_can_travel_for_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f18kjbq",
"f18lanh",
"f18ldih",
"f18lsyl",
"f18lv3w"
],
"score": [
11,
10,
3,
3,
45
],
"text": [
"Light travels very fast. A source is needed for the light. \n\nWhen you turn off the light, it's no longer emitting light. The light wave that was sent just before you take it off takes almost zero time to reach the point where the light is absorbed (whatever the light is shining on in the room).\n\nThe light that is traveling billions of years just hasn't reached the point where the light wave is absorbed.",
"Your question in the subject line is answered in the text box. \nIn the billions of years in space, it doesn't encounter anything. Because it is space, the absence of stuff to encounter. \n \nAs for the why hitting stuff makes that light \"disappear\". \nWhen the light hit stuff, it gets turned into heat and stops being light. \nThe light bulb makes the wall slightly hotter. \n \nGranted there isn't a whole lot of energy involved. \nMost light sources made by human are producing heat by accident, overwhelming the amount of heat made by light.",
"I'm not sure I can ELI5 particle physics, but the majority of photons are converted into a different kind of energy when they come into contact with another force.\n\nWhat we know as \"heat\" energy is really just \"kinetic\" energy. Everything is made of particles, and heat is (on a basic level) just vibrating particles.\n\nLight can travel across the universe because it is unlikely to hit anything. No matter what sci-fi tells us, if you picked a direction and headed that way in space you would be extremely unlikely to ever come into contact with anything.\n\nIn a room, the photons will be absorbed by... well by anything they touch. Any photons reflected from a wall will either be reflected or absorbed by what they hit next until every photon has been absorbed.\n\nAs light travels crazy fast (as in 7 times around the planet in a second fast) this will all occur in a moment, basically instantly to the eye.\n\nHowever, if you could get a super duper mega slow motion camera, you would see the room slowly fade to darkness as the photons were absorbed, imparting teeny tiny little parts of warmth to whatever they touch.",
"Because not all of the light is reflected. Some of it is absorbed (and re-radiated as heat). Your blue wall, absorbs red, yellows, and greens (not completely, but enough). But even this blue light is not completely reflected. Some of it is absorbed too.\n\nEvery time the light bounces some of those photons are absorbed. And because light is really really fast, even if it takes 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 bounces across your 10m room to absorb so much you cant see it, it's still basically instantaneous. \nLight travels at 300,000km/s. The 100km (10m x 10,000 bounces) travel of light happens in 1/3,000 of a second.",
"The second part is your real question, you are wondering why the light disappears instead of bouncing around in the room. The answer is that it does bounce around in the room, it is just that it bounces around so fast that it is absorbed effectively instantaneously. Material absorbs light, the less light it absorbs the more reflective it is. But even the most perfect mirror absorbs some of the light that hits it. Light just travels so damn fast that even really reflective materials absorb it 'instantaneously', although if you could measure how many times it bounces back and forth you'd find it takes ever so slightly longer to go dark in a room made of mirrors than your normal off-white semigloss."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
45n2fo
|
what happens next since justice scalia passed away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45n2fo/eli5what_happens_next_since_justice_scalia_passed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czywacs"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Obama is going to appoint a new justice and that Justice will need to be confirmed by Congress. This is a pretty huge deal since the old court was pretty evenly split on issues because about half the court was liberal and half was conservative with John Roberts being the swing vote. Now the majority is going to be liberal. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2msj4y
|
what does obamas executive order on immigration do exactly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2msj4y/eli5_what_does_obamas_executive_order_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm76g26",
"cm76mmy"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"From what I heard on Fox News, it shreds the constitution.",
"I can't answer fully, but it sounds like there are a few broad scenarios in which Obama says that we will not deport, and we will give a Social Security number. Allowing people to effectively be here legally and able to work (indefinitely?)\n\nIt sounds like if you were < = 16 by 2010, you get to stay. If you have a kid that gets to stay, you also get to stay. If you have a legal citizen kid born here, you get to stay. \n\nAs for the complications that come, I don't know. Does this qualify all of them for social welfare programs, and lead to being able to vote is local elections? I don't know. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7ds6s3
|
why do lighters have smaller flames when cold and bigger flames when warm?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ds6s3/eli5_why_do_lighters_have_smaller_flames_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpzz9ho",
"dq03v1p"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Butane gets thicker when cold so it doesn't come out as fast so it only produced a small Flame. ",
"Butane boils at 30f degrees. The only reason it's a liquid is because the pressure forces it to be that way. When you hit the button, the open valve lets the butane literally boil and steam out. The lower the temperature, the slower the boil. Below 30 degrees lighters don't work at all because there's no pressure. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4hykti
|
how did charles manson influence his followers to do such drastic acts?
|
I just can't imagine people being convinced so easily without anything on the line for them or anything benefitting them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hykti/eli5_how_did_charles_manson_influence_his/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2th7xe",
"d2thr85",
"d2tjdp8",
"d2tnh5k"
],
"score": [
18,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The same way that Hitler did. He had a very strong charismatic personality that was capable of getting people to trust him, believe and follow what he said. \n\n > I just can't imagine people being convinced so easily\n\nAnd that is where you are wrong. People are very easily convinced of things and history is full of charismatic people taking advantage of it. ",
"TLDR: he offered runaways something their homes did not.. acceptance.\n\nThe long of it all, is based on two factors, Charles Manson's charisma coupled with the need for troubled and runaway teens to have a place they felt safe and like it was their home. The kids Charlie took in all left their homes because they didn't feel like they belonged or fit in... Charlie had a smooth tongue and an easy accepting manner that gave these kids a feeling of being wanted, important, part of something that was their own, not forced on them by their parents or society. Ironically, Charles manson has more followers worldwide today than he ever did when he \"inspired\" those kids to do those horrible things",
"The same way that Donald Trump keeps gaining popularity. Just tell them what they wanna hear and seem sincere about it. Once your in power, you can change the rules and anyone who doesn't follow is labeled a traitor.",
"Simple, \n \n \nThe same way people were convinced human sacrifice was good. \n \nSame way some people were convinced to mutilate people in the Inquisition, or torture people who translated the bible to english, or imprison people for saying the Earth is not the center of the universe. \n\nOr the same way people were convinced genocide was demanded by their god. \n\nOr the same way people were convinced to burn women alive for being witches. \n \n\nOr the same way people were convinced to kill and be killed for a desert there god died. \n \nOr the same way people were convinced that slavery was okay. \n \nOr the same way a soldier is convinced that blowing up a village full of brown people makes him a hero. \n \nOr the same way a Kansas family is convinced that picketing said soldier's funeral and harassing his loved ones will get them into heaven. \n \n\nOr the same way someone is convinced to strap a bomb to themselves or hijack a plane. \n \nOr the same way some people are convinced they are the superior race. \n \n\nOr the same way people are convinced to kill cartoonists or threaten authors. \n\nOr the same way people are convinced to not vaccinate their children. \n \n\nOr the same way young girls were convinced to run away from home with the messiah and be sexually assaulted. \n \n\nOr the same way some people are convinced to stone their children to death. \n\n Or the same way some people are convinced to waterboard other people. \nOr the same way some people are convinced to bomb hospitals and clinics. \nOr the same way some people are convinced to cut off their daughter's clitoris. \nOr the same way a police officer is convinced that shooting an unarmed person is normal. \n\nOr the same way people are convinced to hate another who is not like them. \n \nThe brute fact is we are, as a species still not entirely rational beings, and our emancipation from the rest of the animal kingdom is wishful thinking at best. \nBut if there's anything to be learned from a monster like Manson it's when he starts talking. \nIf you listen to him from his earlier interviews to his footage today, it's like looking at a time capsule; he starts spewing his cryptic beatnik dialogue with random spouts of biblical grandiose just like he did 40 years ago. Only now it seems he's just phoning it in. \nThe Manson then and Manson now have changed little, and THAT is why he was doomed from the beginning. He is the epitome of the evolutionary detour of all sociopaths. Swine like him come in all shapes, sizes, and colors; but inside they're ALL the same model; apathetic parasites that run on the pain of others. \nThey just had the bad luck of being born to a species who's success as a social animal that would work together in order to grow and survive the grinding passage of time. While the sociopath would only have to make sure he blended in, unaware that it's already too late because he was a fossil from the start.\nEither Manson is incapable of figuring this out, or he's terrified to admit it to himself in his most private thoughts. \n \nOr maybe he doesn't care. \n \nBut it doesn't matter, back in his heyday, Manson's mysterious warrior poet act was his choice hunting method of luring the young and impressionable. Even now he will still release his inner muse if he thinks there's attention, after all, in the end who is he? \n \n \n \nNobody"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ogjpf
|
what is final fantasy? what is the plot, and why is it so damn famous?
|
I seriously just don't understand the whole thing. Every time I try to understand it I end up with a headache.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ogjpf/eli5_what_is_final_fantasy_what_is_the_plot_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccrqpta",
"ccrrn6z",
"ccrtiia"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Every one of them are almost completely disconnected from the others, so trying to think of them as a whole will make it really hard to get it. They all take place in different worlds, with different characters and different mythologies. \nThey do have a few common elements, but they're usually not very story-relevant so don't get too stuck on them.\nEssentially, every Final Fantasy game should be thought of as a stand-alone JRPG. \n\nFinal Fantasy built its fame on some of its very popular (and for good reason) earlier titles. I could be wrong, but I gather that 7 is the game that built the massive fame it now has, although it was still great before 7 came around; 6 has a pretty die-hard fanbase. \n\nThe general consensus is that it's been a very long time since the last \"good\" final fantasy game was released, many arguing that 10 was the last title in the series that was faithful to the original quality and spirit of the franchise, but there's some dispute on that. It seems that the general consensus is that Final Fantasy 6-10 were the games produced in the 'golden age' of final fantasy, but there's quite a lot of dispute even among those titles.\n\nTLDR: They're all different games, and the old ones made them famous enough that there's a lot of die-hard fans that still talk about them. Mix that with newer fans from the newer games and you get a lot of mixed messages.",
"From a historical standpoint, I believe that Final Fantasy was a last ditch effort by SquareSoft (now Square Enix) to produce a game because the company was going bankrupt. The franchise was enough to take a few steps forward early on, but really didn't explode until about FFVI, as others have said. It's famous for a lot of 90's gamers because SquareSoft did a really good job at getting the gamers to become emotionally invested in the characters and story. Sure, the stories are complicated and in a big world, but that's why there's a lot of appeal and a lot to experience. ",
"Final Fantasy is a collection of games that share a few themes, but almost always occur in completely separate universes.\n\nThese games are role playing games (RPGs) that are like stories/books/movies where you control the characters. Character development is central to the games. Character development occurs both in the story as you learn more about the characters' back-story and they go through the story, but also your characters become stronger as they go through the experiences. \n\nThe stories vary game to game, but you start off with your main character and (usually) gain friends that you also control as you go through the game. You have to fight enemies of various types as you go. You can defeat these enemies with a variety of physical attacks, magical attacks, self-enhancements, status attacks (like poison, sleep), and other special abilities. Each character normally has strengths and weaknesses of their own, so usually the optimal strategy is to maximize individual character's strengths and then balance your party (combination of characters). For example, you might have a character that has very strong magic attacks, but is very susceptible to physical injury when you have another character that is very durable to physical attacks and can make the enemy attack them. By making these characters co-operate, you can maximize the damage dealt while minimizing the damage you take. This is important when fighting enemies more powerful than your characters; you can't win unless they not only work together, but they must work together intelligently.\n\nIt is the character development (both in terms of story and attributes to make them stronger fighters) and the way the characters interact (story and also how they allow each other to maximize their own strengths while covering each other weaknesses) that is central to the experience.\n\nSee also /r/FinalFantasy "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3no6cg
|
why do cultures who rely heavily on rice in their diet typically use white rice which has less nutritional value than other types of rice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3no6cg/eli5why_do_cultures_who_rely_heavily_on_rice_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvptswy",
"cvptx6o",
"cvpvt3x",
"cvpxt1h",
"cvpzbc9",
"cvpzvhb",
"cvq0fk0",
"cvq13yf",
"cvq1qsq",
"cvq2k83",
"cvq4vyt",
"cvq540e",
"cvq58lv",
"cvq81qb",
"cvq9s2r",
"cvq9z6g",
"cvqc4ss",
"cvqc767",
"cvqd0kz"
],
"score": [
1285,
45,
80,
2,
118,
67,
19,
3,
31,
931,
25,
2,
33,
2,
2,
3,
3,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"One of the reasons why Asians have used mainly white rice over the years is that white rice lasts longer in storage than brown rice. The essential fatty acids found in brown rice usually begin to go bad after approximately 6 to 12 months of storage, the exact amount of time depending on how much oxygen is available. When brown rice is polished down to make white rice, many of the essential fatty acids are lost, allowing white rice to last longer than brown rice without going bad.\n\nAnother reason why many Asians prefer white rice is that they have become accustomed to how easy it is to chew and digest. Brown rice requires more chewing power to properly digest than white rice does.\n\nSome Asians refuse to eat brown rice because to them, it's a sign of poverty. Many Asians who are above 40 years of age have been deeply conditioned to believe that prosperous people eat white rice while peasants eat brown rice.\n\nFinally, many Asians choose white rice over brown rice because white rice is less expensive. White rice is far less expensive to produce and distribute because it is in greater global demand and produces higher profits because of its longer shelf life.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"Brown rice still has the bran and germ on it. This is what makes it more nutritional than white rice, but it also means that it will spoil much faster than white rice will. \n\nIf you are wondering about the product called \"Wild Rice\". That is not a true rice and is a crop native to Northern North American and so was not an option to be used by the rice cultures of the world. ",
"Cajun here. I imagine for us, it's just the flavor. Brown rice is a bit more vegetal, which IMHO doesn't go well with most of our traditional cuisine; most of our rice-based dishes are salty/savory.",
"As a side note I remember a documentary stating that in many areas the people who farm white rice actually typically can't afford to each much of it and instead they eat... I don't remember I want to say lentils? It was something cheaper anyway.",
"Brown rice doesn't taste as nice. Same reason Americans generally prefer white bread and potatoes.",
"In my culture (spanish), we mainly use white rice as its our staple food (rice, beans & meat). It mixes better when we add other ingredients to it, i.e making Seafood rice, beef, chicken & other meats. It absorbs the flavors better. Brown rice has its own unique taste and it alters thr flavors that we really need to achieve. Its less expensive than brown rice & as other people have stated, it lasts longer. ",
"The phytic acid in whole grains actually impairs absorption of dietary minerals and increases digestive issues. So the increased mineral content that you get from whole wheat, brown rice, etc is moot--you aren't absorbing those minerals anyway so you may as well eat the refined grains which are 1) easier to digest 2) have superior culinary properties 3) last longer in storage without spoiling. Whole grains also have more vitamins than refined grains, however in the last century we've been fortifying refined grains to the point where they're now higher in vitamins than the whole grains, and besides grains are a weak source of vitamins compared to fruits and vegetables, dairy, and meat.",
"As far as I know, brown rice may be more nutritional, but the bran contains phytic acid, a so-called anti-nutrient, which prevents the body from absorbing the nutrients. This makes the net nutritional value of white rice actually greater than that of brown rice.",
"For what it's worth, cultures who rely heavily on wheat in their diet typically use white flour rather than whole wheat, despite nutritional loss.",
"chinese here. i was the first one to be born in america but my parents are from mainland china and were raised old school. all i've ever eaten were homecooked traditional chinese food (they both cook amazing food), white rice every single day for dinner. both of them were very very poor growing up and they never ate brown rice. \n\ni don't know what the top commenter is talking about being a sign of poverty. i asked my parents why they dont eat brown rice and they say it's because it tastes like shit, and i agree with them. brown rice also doesn't go well with the side dishes we eat, white rice just taste much better with them.\n\n**edit:** for those saying white rice has no nutritional value and full of sugar may be true BUT that doesn't mean eating it makes you unhealthy by any means. i'm not obese at all, im 5'10 190lbs and i eat white rice every day, alot of it (sometimes for lunch as well as dinner). i bench 325, squat 385, deadlift 405. being \"healthy\" is a relative term. i obviously don't fill my daily calorie goals ALL on white rice, i get more nutrients elsewhere (veggies, beans + wheat bread for fiber, lean meats, fish, etc etc etc) , so you can't say white rice makes you \"unhealthy\". plus, my mom and dad eats it several times a day and they're skinny and healthy.\n\ni also didn't know brown rice was associated with poverty because i didn't pry my parents with the question. simple question \"mom, dad, why don't we eat brown rice\", them \"because it taste like shit\", me \"oh ok\".\n\nTLDR for edit portion: the biggest misconception people have is that white rice is full of sugar and has no nutritional value, therefore it's bad for you and will make you unhealthy/obese. no, it doesnt work that way.",
"Chinese from Singapore here.\nHonestly, like what some of the comments here have stated, brown rice just tastes weird. It's bitter and feels like you're eating nuts but well, you're not. Perhaps it is due to cultural conditioning, but to me, it doesn't go well with the Chinese dishes. It doesn't have the slight sweetness white rice have after it is cooked nor does it mix well with the dishes.",
"simple, keep white rice dry and it will pretty much be eatable forever, brown rice will go off in a couple months no matter what you do.\n\nalso brown right is just gross =p\n",
"Brazil here. We eat white rice and black beans every day.\n\nFirst of all it's just a matter of habit - I'm not sure what's the cultural reason that drove our ancestors to eat white rice, but there's a whole factor here of we eat it like this because it's always been how we eat it.\n\nHowever, an important factor is the fact that rice is *always* viewed as a non-obstrusive *complement* to whatever other thing you are eating. So when you eat a typical *feijoada* (a big meal made with black beans and, well, everything you can possibly remove and eat from a pig, including his ears, tail, legs and such), you'll add white rice to it, adding substance, but not intruding the flavour. Whole grain rice would have too much \"personality\" on the dish and distract from the main point, which is the beans.",
"Brown rice technically contains more nutrients, but you don't necessarily get those nutrients because it's harder to digest compared to white rice. \n\nHere's a quote from Chris Kresser with reference links below in case anyone is interested:\n\"Aside from having a higher arsenic content, there are other reasons to avoid brown rice: it’s harder to digest and nutrient absorption is likely inferior to white rice because of phytates in the rice bran. (8) Despite a higher nutrient content of brown rice compared to white rice, the anti-nutrients present in brown rice reduce the bioavailability of any vitamins and minerals present. (9) Plus, brown rice also reduces dietary protein and fat digestibility compared to white rice. (10)\"\n\n(8) _URL_2_\n(9) _URL_0_\n(10) _URL_1_",
"I think it has to do with the fact that white rice lasts longer. If you look at a package of brown rice you'll see that it goes bad, or has to be refrigerated.\n\nThe ability to store a staple food (i.e. rice) for long periods of time was probably a cornerstone of many civilizations. It meant that people were less likely to starve to death because they could stockpile white rice for long periods of time.",
"You could ask the same question, why do americans eat white bread, when whole wheat is better for you? ",
"Brown rice can not be stored for long periods of time without going rancid. So that is the probably the practical reason for a preference for white rice.\n",
"Is brown rice really that much better for you, or that just some fad nutritional advice, not based on solid science, that will be reversed in 10 years?",
"Indian here.\n\nIt's for the same reason white-bread was traditionally considered rich-people-food while brown-bread was considered poor-people-food in Europe. (Apparently French Revolution outlawed bread-segregation, and forced \"mixed-breads\" for everyone, not sure whether this is true or not).\n\nIt's because white rice is softer, easily digestible, easily made into flour (which can be used to make rice-cakes, rice-pancakes etc.), can be easily made into desserts like rice-puddings. White rice has a neutral flavor that easily picks up the fragrance of herbs and spices it is cooked with, whereas brown rice is very \"adamant\" in the sense that it has it's grassy-hay-like flavor that overpowers other tastes. Brown rice is like the stubborn child who doesn't want to play with other children.\n\nBrown rice and red rice were traditionally eaten by poor who couldn't afford white rice. Today brown rice is becoming more popular with the fitness and health gaining more awareness, but white rice remains the default staple."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://drbenkim.com/node/82"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302338",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2822877",
"http://brianstpierretraining.com/index.php/brown-rice-or-white-is-there-really-a-difference/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
d94a75
|
how a gamma ray burst could kill us all at any moment
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d94a75/eli5_how_a_gamma_ray_burst_could_kill_us_all_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1eikjq"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
" Gamma ray bursts occur when very dense stars die and go supernova - basically, they explode. If such a star were to explode close enough to our Solar System, dangerous gamma rays would bathe the Earth, killing us off - think a dangerous nuclear leak, but on a cosmic scale.\n\n The odds of a gamma ray burst affecting us are astronomically small, however, so don't let that fact keep you up at night."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5tro1q
|
why do roads appear more curved as i drive on them compared to the way they appear on maps?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tro1q/eli5_why_do_roads_appear_more_curved_as_i_drive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddoiu9q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Scale. \n\nWhen driving if the road curves ten feet you will feel it. \n\nTo a map maker that small curve doesn't matter when they draw the road. \n\nSame thing with hiking trails. I've been on some flat trails that simply just did small ups and down. \n\nif the turn isn't large the map won't record it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1dki3a
|
what actually decides when i'm born if i'm a boy or a girl?
|
Sperm, egg or other?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dki3a/eli5_what_actually_decides_when_im_born_if_im_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9r68f1",
"c9r68uf",
"c9r6acs",
"c9r6hqm",
"c9r7u1c",
"c9rauk4"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
25,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"sperm have an X or Y chromosome. Eggs always have X. if you get a Y sperm you're going to be a male, if you get an X sperm you will be female... this only applies to humans (maybe some other mammals, I'm no expert)",
" > The sperm cell determines the sex of an individual in this case. If a sperm cell containing an X chromosome fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote will be XX or female. If the sperm cell contains a Y chromosome, then the resulting zygote will be XY or male. \n\n[From here.](_URL_0_)",
"Your dad's sperm.\n\nYour DNA (the blueprints to build a complete human), is broken up into like little chapers, called chromosomes. Everyone has two copies of all 23 chapters. Or you have 23 chromosomes from mom (the egg) and 23 from dad (the sperm) for a total of 46 (you need all 46 for everything to work but thats another ELI5).\n\nNow of those 23 (remember you have a copy of each) only one determines sex, #23, the sex chromosome. \n\nAll fetuses are defaultly female, the only thing that makes them into a male is two certain hormones at very specific times. The codes to make these hormones are found on a chromosome called Y. \n\nSo lets do some deductions. If Y is the chapter than makes the \"turn this baby chick into a baby dude\" signal; and your mom isn't a dude, then she doesn't have Y. She has the Y's female copy, called X. Actually remember she has two X's (every chromosome has a copy). She got one X from her mom and one from her dad. No Y, so no signal to make a dude, so when she was an fetus it defaulted to a female, the natural sex.\n\nSo when her eggs are formed and she gets to give one of her copes, she can only give an X, thats all she has. But you dad, he's a dude, so he as an Y, and since he's from a man and woman, the other #23 he has is an X. So when his sperm form there is a 50/50 chance it gets an X copy or a Y copy.\n\nSo its the sperms, with its X or Y than when it fertilizes the egg, which can only have an X, that makes the sexual determination. ",
"It's determined by the [23rd chromosome](_URL_0_) in the sperm. It can be an X or Y chromosome. The reason being a boy or a girl doesn't depend on the egg is because eggs always have an X chromosome. So if you have a Y chromosome from the sperm, you get an XY combination which means you get a boy. If the sperm has an X, you get an XX combination which makes a girl. \n\nShort answer, it's decided by which sex chromosome the sperm carries.",
"Thanks everyone, I get it now :). ",
"Usually a few inches of skin."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/p/chromosgender.htm"
],
[],
[
"http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Conception/Pix/karyotype_sperm.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
ax4oys
|
what happened in world war 2, and why did it happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ax4oys/eli5_what_happened_in_world_war_2_and_why_did_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehr7h76",
"ehr89w0"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"1. War happened. You'll learn more when you reach middle school and take your history lessons. \n\n\n2. Because we treated the Germans really badly after WW1 they elected a Adolf Hitler, a known power tripper, as their leader who eventually attacked Poland starting the European front, and because the Japanese were also on a really huge power trip and attacked basically whole of Asia and America starting the Pasific front. ",
"Its a bit hard to explain but basically.\n\nWhen WW1 ended there was the Versailles treaty which basically blamed Germany for the war and had them pay war reparations to all allied countries with exception of Russia since they abandoned the fight in 1917, They were also forced to give up part of their industrial production to France as part of reparations. \n\nThe issue is that to pay for the war all European powers were borrowing money from the US, and were heavily in debt.\n\nThis was fine because the US was giving them a stable payment plan... Until the 1929 stock market crash... the US recalled all loans and raised interest rates. leaving Europe with no financial liquidity.\n\nThis basically meant that the whole of europe was plunged in to a financial crisis, but the hardest hit was germany due to several factors. \n\nTheir economic reserves were forfeit when the lost the war, much of their industrial output was going to pay off the allied powers and the new Wiemar republic government was a bit green and decided to try to improve the financial situation by printing more money. \n\nAt the same time the first \"soviet expansion projects\" were on the horizon and some support was going to communist groups in Europe, which meant that many governments had to either ally them or with Fascist and at the time resentment with the soviets from abandoning WW1 as well as general dislike of the ideology meant that governments were much more trusting of Fascist parties then communist revolutionary groups. \n\nAt the same time a ww1 \"war hero\" (he didnt do much but he was in the trenches and wounded) by the name of Adolf Hitler was taking over a small Bavarian nationalist party that grew to be the the national socialist party, AKA the Nazi party.\n\nThey got a respectable parliamentary representation on a plataform of blaming external powers (allied powers, jews, bankers) of the economic problems in germany, ceasing payment of all war reparation, retaking the industrial areas and output which was given to France. and a major public works program to rebuild german infrastructure.\n\nThey manged to take full control of the parliament after they were given emergency powers due to a false flag operation where they torched the parliament and blamed communist and anarchist for it. \n\nThe idea is that between no longer paying war reparations, and a expansion plan in to eastern Europe which was agreed with Stalin, Germany could finance all its public infrastructure plans and slowly take over europe creating a pan european german empire. \n\nBut both england and france had defense treaties with poland, at first when germany took over Czechoslovakia there were appeasment treaties, which ment that germany would be allowed to expand inside a limit to avert all out war. \n\nBut when Germany invaded Poland, the UK and France were forced to declare war on Germany and the 2nd world war started. \n\nBut this is the european theater of WW2, The Asian theater has been going on since the 1933 from the Japanese invasion of China, Korea and Indochina (whats today Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2ra54c
|
what is a financial audit ?
|
Minimal to no jargon please. I wish they taught me this in school.
Edit: typo on 'wish'
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ra54c/eli5_what_is_a_financial_audit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cndwzoe",
"cndx2ge"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Somewhere along the lines you filed some paperwork with the government saying how much money you made that year. The government blindly accepts that information as true and uses that to figure out how much taxes to charge you. An audit means they are going to double check to make sure that everything you said was true. If you were dishonest or forgot some information you may have to pay back-taxes.",
"I am going to assume that you have no knowledge of accounting so sorry if any of this is condescending.\n\nA financial audit looks at \"books\" kept by a business. A business keeps books to know all about how its money works. Like, how much money it makes each day, how much it spends, how much inventory, how many accounts it can collect.\n\nLike, if you are a restaurant you will keep a book that talks about all the sales you make. Another says how much salary you pay. Another says how much debt you have, and how much your chairs are worth and stuff like that.\n\nThis is done so that you can say \"I am making X dollars\" or \"I am worth Y dollars\" or whatever. A successful business makes money, while an unsuccessful business loses money. (This is incredibly simplistic but I dont think you want all the details here)\n\nWhen an audit happens you hire someone to come in and look at all your books. You usually go to a well known and respected firm to do it. They make sure you are truthful. If you say you make 10k a day, they will look at your bank deposits and make sure that is happening.\n\nAt the end, they issue an opinion. They say \"this business is telling the truth\" to the best of their ability to say so. This is done so that when you go tell a bank \"hey I need 100k to build a new section for seating!\" you can take your books and audit and show them that you are making enough money to pay the money back. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1rsg79
|
a grenade explosion
|
Why can such a small thing do so much damage? Why does it go BOOM like this? Why won't it explode immediately?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rsg79/eli5_a_grenade_explosion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdqe6em"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > Why can such a small thing do so much damage?\n\nExplosives are designed to be just that. You stuff explosives into a small, contained space and it makes it even more violent. The case is made of thick steel, so when the explosion ruptures it, it throws shrapnel all over the place and tends to make quite a mess.\n\n > Why won't it explode immediately?\n\nThere is a fuse that times it so that it takes several seconds for it to explode. Thus allowing enough time for someone to throw it and take cover."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2xtgp9
|
why aren't all humans dark skinned?
|
I can't think of a single evolutionary benefit to having pale skin. Hiding in the nude in snow? Jokes aside, even slightly increased sun-resistance from having darker skin seems like a huge advantage, even in northern climates. Was it just from a lack of actual impact?
Edit: Wow, who downvotes ELi5? lol
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xtgp9/eli5_why_arent_all_humans_dark_skinned/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp37ixv",
"cp37k6e",
"cp37nn3",
"cp3887f"
],
"score": [
21,
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Vitamin D.\n\nThe further north you go, the less sun you get year-round. UV-rays from sunlight are used in the skin to metabolise Vitamin D, an essential vitamin. Less melanin in the skin (the stuff that makes your skin dark) means less UV blocked and more Vitamin D and better bone growth.",
"Lighter skin absorbs more vitamin D from the sun in climates where there is less sunlight for a lot of the year (like northern climates) ",
"Lighter skin makes it easier for your body to use sunlight to produce vitamin D, which is an advantage in northern climates with less sunlight. There's a balance between blocking enough UV to provide protection while letting enough through to produce enough vitamin D.",
"Vitamin D is pretty much the answer. Skin color is basically a balancing act of getting enough sun exposure to create vitamin D, but not enough to get skin cancer. So in Northern climates with less sun, you need lighter skin to absorb it. In equatorial climates, you need more sun protection, so dark skin."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1be2ux
|
if doma gets overthrown in the scotus will same sex marriage be legal everywhere in the us? or will each state have to pass it individually still?
|
I thought DOMA only allowed states with no SSM laws to not recognizing licenses given in other states. So if DOMA was repealed would gay marriage be legal across the county or would it still be only is some states, yet transferable to any?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1be2ux/eli5_if_doma_gets_overthrown_in_the_scotus_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9611mb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"DOMA does two main things:\n\n1. Makes it law so that if one state legalizes same sex marriages, all states do not have to recognize it.\n\n2. Denies federal marriage benefits to same sex couples, even in states where they are legally married. This is Section 3 of the law.\n\nThe part being talked about right now at SCOTUS is section 3. The rest or the law isn't bring contested right now, and though I believe they COULD strike down the whole act if they wanted to, it in very unlikely.\n\nSection 3 is really all that the federal government has to do with recognizing same sex marriage, legal same sex marriage comes at the state level.\n\nState-level SSM *is* being talked about, in the Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v Perry), but SCOTUS watchers say the court is extremely unlikely to issue a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
b3xv81
|
why isn't government used software open source?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3xv81/eli5_why_isnt_government_used_software_open_source/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej2x7t0",
"ej2y0s6",
"ej32hwt"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"They probably bought a license and don’t own it. The government uses Microsoft office, but they buy volume licenses, Microsoft still owns all rights so it can’t be open source. ",
"Because there is no legal requirement to limit itself to that kind of approach.\n\nElections are very regulated, to prevent fraud. So unless you are going to explicitly ban one kind of exclusively use another kind, it will not go anywhere.\n\nThe only way to change it is to get involved and improve it.",
"I'm a government person involved in purchasing SW. And the short answer is they do.\n\nThe long answer is much of the SW they need must be custom and the government is not really interested in paying someone to write SW and then hiring other people to fix it when it breaks. They've tried that, it never ends well. On top of that, support is a very much something they need, if it breaks they want a number to call. The last thing is price, governments have budgets, they need to make all the stuff cheap, if open source can do it, all the better.\n\nThat results in a few things, if open source can be used, they'll always end up paying someone else to be the support for the stuff they use, they'll never use debian directly, but they are more than happy to sign up for a RHEL contract and let them deal with it, this has the effect that it isn't always the cheapest option because free software is unsupported and that's a nonstarter. Another issue is the cost of investing into development and it's predictability, spending $10 million to develop a system, and then finding it doesn't work, dropping another $5mil fixing it, and then 5 years later you need to pay $5mil for it again? How do they forecast that? What happens when it's over budget? What is the contractor decides to refuse to work for a reasonable fee? Training a new contractor is expensive and takes time. No, that doesn't work. It is FAR easier to just sign a contract with a vendor who says it's $500/machine/yr, and it's guaranteed to always be updated, and they'll always fix bugs within a year at no extra cost. The contractor selling that package is going to be very against open source, because their income is dependent on keeping that contract. They will spend whatever they have to to avoid open source, and avoid contaminating their code with things like GPL that could allow their competitors to take it. It's irrelevant that open source is cheaper, they are the ones getting paid. It has the side effect that it's unlikely to see open source voting SW because the government already has a signed contract for existing SW."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a0j4zn
|
how does a country first react if they are being invaded by another country?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0j4zn/eli5_how_does_a_country_first_react_if_they_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eahzyhc",
"eai0j8z"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Normally there is some form of advanced warning, in some cases a declaration of war in others intelligence gathering indicating a build up of forces on the border area. The general first action is a mobilisation of the army, so all on leave etc. army forces report to designated areas to arm and deploy. It then depends upon the nature of the attack and the defensive measures used sometimes the border zone will be strongly defended other times they will allow territory to be taken in order to enable full mobilisation of the armed forces.",
"It depends a on the specific circumstances, but in most cases invasions don’t come suddenly out of the blue. The country’s military will have mobilised, will have taken up defensive positions. Meanwhile, the government will be trying to press its diplomatic case with other countries, the UN, etc.. Sometimes the other side will have issued some kind of ultimatum so everyone knows what’s coming. \n\nAlso, there’s often a gap between the outbreak of war and any actual *invasion*. You could have border skirmishes, raids, air attacks, even a full-blown naval war before any invasion (if it happens at all). \n\nThe important thing is to see an invasion as part of a process of escalation – it rarely comes out of nothing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1anf24
|
why i should not be scared shitless on commercial flights.
|
Mainly why do we trust the mechanics involved in flying so much? Security should also be a welcomed conversation.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1anf24/eli5_why_i_should_not_be_scared_shitless_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8yzvpy",
"c8z083x",
"c8z0m1y",
"c8z3hns",
"c8z4i2f",
"c8z4o4e",
"c8z6hry",
"c8z7dny",
"c8z7w7v",
"c8zci1h",
"c8zcpd0",
"c8zhrh6",
"c8zkxgj"
],
"score": [
34,
20,
203,
6,
4,
11,
4,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Statistically, you should be scared sh*tless in your car, not on airplanes.",
"As a fellow aerophobe I can only say that you should try finding solace in the improbability of a lethal plane crash. There are thousands of flights every day, tens of thousands of flight hours, hundreds of thousands of passengers are flown to and fro, yet plane crashes are getting rarer and rarer every year, despite the fact that the number of flights keeps increasing. \n\nAlso, were you to actually experience some sort of an accident on board a plane, you should know that, according to a [NTSB study](_URL_1_) (and here's the official [PDF of the study itself](_URL_0_)) of plane accidents, 95,7% of people involved in them, from 1983 to 2000, survived. And even if you only take the worst events, you still have a 76,6% survival rate. Things have only gotten safer since then.\n\nBasically getting in an airplane accident of any sort is like winning a lottery. Dying in one is like winning two in a row.",
"Pilot here.\n\nSome people have an irrational fear of flying. If that's you, I could describe in as much detail as I like how safe flying is, and it probably wouldn't help you. There are \"fear of flying\" courses you can attend which *can* help. They typically involve spending some time understanding some of the technical aspects of what's happening, talking to pilots and air traffic controllers, and then going on a short flight, with *incredibly* understanding flight attendants who will help explain what's happening, what all the noises mean, and so on.\n\nSince you specifically asked why you should trust the mechanics, it may be that in your case, your fear isn't totally irrational, but is based on a lack of understanding of flight and aeroplanes, in which case the following will help:\n\nFirst of all, understand that aeroplanes naturally *want* to fly. The wings are designed to keep the aircraft in the air. The tail is designed to keep the aircraft going straight. The engines aren't even needed for flying - they're just needed to get into the air, and to maintain speed and height. If all the engines stopped, however unlikely that may be, you'd be left with a big glider. One of the few examples of this was the US Airways flight which landed safely in the Hudson after both engines stopped, resulting in zero injuries. The crew did a brilliant job, but the aeroplane was designed to fly, and that's why it was able to fly to a safe splash-down.\n\nHaving said that, there are certain items which are important in aeroplanes, and yes, engines are one of them. So are flight control systems. And autopilots. All airliners have duplicates of these systems, so that if there is a problem with one, the others can carry on working. A typical airliner will have two engines, three hydraulic systems that are used for moving the control surfaces, and three autopilots. If anything does fail, there will be a backup system to take over.\n\nFinally, there's the safety culture that exists within aviation. We all make mistakes from time to time. If we make a mistake driving, we usually forget about it and move on. If the mistake results in an accident, we deny it. In aviation, the opposite is true. When mistakes occur, pilots, engineers, and everyone else in aviation is actively encouraged to report it. Reports are regularly published so that everyone else can learn from them. That means that flying gets safer and safer as we all learn from previous mistakes, and change our procedures to ensure we don't repeat them.\n\nIt's because of all these things that commercial flying is consistently the safest way, statistically, to get around.\n\nI hope that helps, but please do ask if there's anything else you want to know.\n\nEdit - wow, reddit gold! Thank you, kind redditor. There are few things I enjoy as much as flying, or talking about flying, so to get reddit gold for doing something I enjoy has made my day!",
"You only hear about the unsuccessful flights on the news, and that's not as often as you think. Think of how many successful flights happen every day. Its a very rare chance that something goes wrong.",
"Granted I was in the Navy, but the jets I worked on had EXTREMELY strict rules about maintenance. Breaking a drill bit meant putting the entire bit back together to make sure every bit is found is the norm. It's not directed for you to do by an asshole boss. It's just standard procedure. Done without even being told to do so.\n\nOne time I remember the entire US Navy downed (not allowed to fly) every single F/A-18 because one of our suppliers of O-ring's was found to have sold counterfeit parts (elsewhere, not even to the US Navy). No problems with them, but they were suspect and so a large portion of the navy stopped flying for a couple days to replace them. I'm sure there were exceptions of course, I'm sure somewhere in the world we had a mission critical flight that could not be delayed.\n\nAgain, this is a military jet, but I remember reading about 2 F/A-18's colliding in midair. One had half his left wing completely removed. He still made it home and landed on the aircraft carrier.\n\nSemi-related: This guy landed his jet and got home as well, skip too 4 min 30 sec for shot of the wing damage:\n\n_URL_0_!\n\nTL;DR the reason why flying is so much safer over driving is because of extremely strict maintenance and good back-up systems for when things do go wrong.",
"You can see the result of all the safety regulation in the aircraft industry by looking at air crash statistics (the number of people killed in air accidents each year verses the of number of people who fly each year). \n\n > In 1990, five hundred million airline passengers were transported an average distance of eight hundred miles, through more than seven million takeoffs and landings, in all kinds of weather conditions, with a loss of only thirty-nine lives ([source](_URL_0_))\n\nCompared to your chances of dying from other things that's not very many:\n\n* Cardiovascular disease: 1 in 2\n* Smoking (by/before age 35): 1 in 600\n* Car trip, coast-to-coast: 1 in 14,000\n* Bicycle accident: 1 in 88,000\n* Tornado: 1 in 450,000\n* Train, coast-to-coast: 1 in 1,000,000\n* Lightning: 1 in 1.9 million\n* Bee sting: 1 in 5.5 million\n* **U.S. commercial jet airline: 1 in 7 million**\n\nAnother way of putting it is if you board a random US flight every day then on average it would be nineteen thousand years before you were involved in a fatal crash.",
"Although I'm a frequent flier now, I used to be nervous in airplanes. One thing that definitely helps: repetition.\n\nKnowing the sounds that planes make, watching the crew respond to chimes and go through their pre-flight/takeoff/landing routines, and basically knowing what is coming next is a huge factor in reducing anxiety and nervousness.\n\nAlthough turbulence still bothers me, experience and repetition has helped there too. I once flew from Sydney to LA with 7 hours of continuously light or moderate chop, where even the crew was seated. Now whenever my flight gets bumpy, I can tell myself \"at least it isn't as bad as that time from Australia......\" etc.",
"The chance of you being injured or killed is very, very, very low. That's due to the fact that a lot of very intelligent people spend a lot of time thinking about every little thing that goes into building the plane you're on. Maybe the seats aren't as important or the stuff you're in direct contact with but the stuff that's really important gets a LOT of attention. ",
"Redundancy. I'm a former aircraft mechanic, so I speak with some experience. Take the navigation system, for instance. There are three channels, L, C, and R. Each channel has its own computer. All three talk each other and compare data - if any computer disagrees, it's ignored. Each of those computers has redundant computers *inside* it, checking its data internally before sharing it with the others.\n\nEvery flight critcal system on a commercial airplane has redundancies. Backup backup backups, in some cases.\n\nAlso, experience. We're not new at the flying game. Planes have crashed and we have learned from those crashes. Mistakes in design have be redesigned and redesigned.\n\n",
"You are quite more likely to win a typical US state lottery than die or even almost die on a plane.\n\nI know what you mean though. When you are driving, you have some form of \"control\" of what's going on. In a plane, you are helpless to do squat should a situation occur. You just have to breathe and realize the odds are immensely in your favor. Works for me.",
"I'm a little late to the party, but to to more weight on the statements of \"There are hundreds of flights every hour\" take a look at [this](_URL_0_) website.\n",
"Since it doesn't look like anyone has mentioned security yet, I want to point out that most of the security stuff you see at the airport is fairly unnecessary.\n\nAccording to the writer Bruce Schneier, the two things that have made airlines much more secure since 9/11 are reinforced cockpit doors, and encouraging passengers to fight and try to overpower a potential hijacker. And they've been very effective. When was the last time a major airline was hijacked?\n\nYou hear about bombs and such, but the fact remains that none of them have been successful. It's scary to think that they *could* have been successful, but it's also scary when I trip going down the stairs and realize I *could* have just fallen to my death. It doesn't mean I shouldn't take stairs, it just means that occasionally danger is too close for comfort.\n\nThe only foolproof way to prevent someone from doing something dangerous on a plane is to prevent people from going on planes altogether. But remember the odds - you are far more likely to be a target of that kind of violence if you live in a metropolitan area. Billions of people fly every year (according to the IATA there were 2.5 billion passengers in 2009) without ever being in danger. That's billions of people who fly without incident, for whom the biggest problem is the indignity of airport security. \n\nPut another way - I'm safer flying through the air than I am walking down the street in my city.",
"I'm comforted when taking commercial flights by thinking that people already flew to the FUCKING MOON. That's got to be a lot more complicated than JFK -- > LAX\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SR0101.pdf",
"http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94023&page=1"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kk1KBQ96_DI#"
],
[
"http://anxieties.com/flying-howsafe.php#.UUnQZVfvlH0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.flightradar24.com"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
en9uf0
|
how cold blooded animals manage their body temperature when external environment temperature is in minus, eg -1,-2 or so?
|
I have heard that cold blooded animals have the same temperature as the environment, then how it is possible in temperature below freezing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en9uf0/eli5_how_cold_blooded_animals_manage_their_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdwsfo2",
"fdwvimz"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Cold-blooded animals don't typically live in environments that drop below freezing. When they do, they typically go underground where it's warmer and/or hibernate for the winter.",
"The reason cold blood is bad is because it slows down your metabolism. Cold blooded animals adapt to cold situations by having periods of hibernation, where as long as the water inside them doesn't freeze, they'll survive. They tend to have burrows underground, which help reduce the change in temperature that occurs due to the daylight cycle. Many cold blooded animals also produce a chemical during colder months that acts as an anti-freeze, reducing the temperature at which their cells freeze."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1bz4ln
|
why vehicles aren't built more like bumper cars.
|
Why don't cars have rubber bumpers around them? Not very aesthetically pleasing, sure, but there'd be a lot less damage done to a vehicle, no? How would passenger safety be affected if people drove cars outfitted with rubber bumpers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bz4ln/eli5why_vehicles_arent_built_more_like_bumper_cars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9bgz1f",
"c9bh0py"
],
"score": [
13,
6
],
"text": [
"Cars are designed with crumple zones. Even a fairly gentle crash will crumple the car, meaning that the car doesn't stop quite as suddenly. It's still very sudden, but not quite as much, and this can make crashes much more survivable for the people in the car.\n\nBuilding cars with solid bumpers like bumper cars would result in more injuries and death in the case of accidents.\n\nConversely, building bumper cars like street cars would result in cars that would be no use after their first \"bump\".",
"Vehicle manufacturers (or vehicle safety standards) are concerned for your safety, not the cars. Rubber bumpers would indeed prevent damage when you are going 5 miles an hour, but manufacturers don't care about accidents at 5 mph -- they won't kill anyone (in the car). They won't do very much at all (and in fact, could be *more dangerous*) at high speeds, the kind of speeds that kill people. \n\nModern cars are designed to sacrifice themselves to save you. When you run headfirst into a wall, the entire front of the car crumples up, and the effect of crumpling slows down the car and gets rid of all that energy you had built up by making it crumple your car instead of you. You slow down much more gently than if the car was super rigid. Imagine if there was a rubber bumper on the front of your car big enough to handle running into a wall at 50 mph. Instead of slowing to a stop when you hit the wall, you would slow down and then bounce backwards almost as quickly. Think about what that would do to your neck.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jls2o
|
white ceilings
|
Why do people usually paint their ceilings white?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jls2o/eli5_white_ceilings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbfxgwb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It reflects light which helps the room to be brighter.\n\nThis helps the room feel bigger and less opressive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4cxyve
|
why are us primaries so expensive? candidates rely on heavy donations, what do they spend that money on besides air fare/accommodation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cxyve/eli5_why_are_us_primaries_so_expensive_candidates/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1m8rt4",
"d1m8vv7",
"d1m8zwi",
"d1maau7"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
44,
3
],
"text": [
"Ads are extremely expensive and for better or worse, needed in a modern campaign, and that's where a majority of the money goes. Beyond that there is a logistical need to house and staff a campaign headquarters, and field offices in multiple states. Though a lot of people will volunteer, you need high-quality leadership to help you, and that costs a pretty penny. There's also a need for marketing material, insurance on everything you rent/buy and general overhead expenses. ",
"Advertising is not cheap. Organizing people to call, canvas, and promote a candidate even with volunteers is not cheap. Funding is incredibly important. All of this before you travel to each state often multiple times for public appearances, meet and greets, strategists and the campaign staff are WAY not cheap if you want good ones. ",
"Advertising... Mailers, yard signs, flyers, bill boards, and the biggest of all, TV spots. All those things, done in multiple states simultaneously, cost a huge amount of money.\n\nStaff... Not everyone working for the campaigns is doing it for free, plenty of the people working for the candidates need to feed their families. The same goes for the security hired for events.\n\nEvents... Those rallies and stuff cost a lot, and that money's got to come from the candidates. Venues, traffic control, programing, etc...\n\nWebsite... It's not a huge expense, but running a professional website that can handle heavy traffic isn't free.",
"In many other countries, the election 'season' is very limited - like just 45 days of campaigning. That is practical because the votes are usually more for a particular party that has put together a lengthy agenda and a candidate 'list' for election, and all the candidates on the list are generally expected to back the party agenda. \n\nIn the US, people are elected. And its a free-for-all. And there are no limits on time. For the presidential election, it is a year and a half of campaigning in every state in the nation with two separate sets of elections, the primary, and the general. And the US is the richest nation in the World. So there is a lot of money available. If the candidates spend $1billion collectively on the election, that works out to...$3 a person. \n\nAnd for spending, its the flip of that. You are trying to reach 330 million people (well, more like the 130 million likely voters). But that includes ads on every possible platform, buttons, stickers, campaign staff, get out the vote drives, phone lines, faxes, consultants, pizza...it all adds up. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6erj44
|
can you keep an amputated limb?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6erj44/eli5_can_you_keep_an_amputated_limb/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dich0q5",
"dich218"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Depends on where you live but in the US you either bury the limb(by former owner's request) or they incinerate or donate it for study.",
"I am pretty sure they get incinerated and I am sure it depends on why it was amputated. If it was due to an infectious disease from bacteria I doubt they would let you keep it from fear of the disease spreading. If it was for another reason you might be able to keep it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4eb4i2
|
how is a game made from a totally new engine (like overwatch)?
|
What are the first steps on making a new game engine? Looks like A LOT of complicated job.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4eb4i2/eli5_how_is_a_game_made_from_a_totally_new_engine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1yre8h",
"d1yx022"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"First, you find out what your game is going to be. \n\nYou're at the design stage. First person shooter? Fine. WW2? Fine. Good graphics or amazing graphics? Okay. Are there any Engines out there that already fit our needs? CryEngine? Unreal? No? Damn, okay.\n\nNow's the hard part. Designing a new engine from scratch isn't just hard work, it can be thought of as an investment. \nThat's why you're seeing new editions of the CryEngine -- they've got something good and they're improving on it. Same with the unreal engine-- there have been countless games made on that.",
"Likely your first step is going to be how to display something, so you would code an interface to the graphics systems (we're going broad here) that tells it you want a square on the screen. Then you want to apply a specific color. Then you may want to be able to put a specific design on it. You slowly (and painfully) build up the different things you can do.\n\nAdd the option to click on it with your mouse, resize it, transform it (move one or more corners so it isn't a perfect square anymore). Have it pass through another square, slowly change it's color. Each of these are incremental steps, and takes time and effort, but once done you have an engine.\n\nAt this point you have some basic display components. But when it comes to building a full engine there are so many different components that it is a very complicated job.\n\nThe next step is actually to figure out the rules you want to live by, and there is almost always some give and take. The decisions are usually made with a thought to processing power.\n\nDo you want to have 20,000 moderately detailed objects on screen or do you want to have 1,000 very detailed objects?\n\nDo you want to be able to interact (shoot/see/hear) objects from miles away or just the closer ones?\n\nHow realistic do you want your lighting? Should light reflect of different surfaces based on the material of that object? Do you want some items to be fully or even partially transparent?\n\nAre sounds limited in volume by distance only or does architecture and walls make a difference? Just like lighting, do you have certain materials muffle noise more or less than others?\n\nDo you want realistic physics or a more relaxed system? For example do you want objects to have terminal velocity at different rates due to air resistance/mass restrictions or just assume they all reach the same terminal velocity.\n\nDo you want weather effects? Curved surfaces? line of effect or just line of sight?\n\nEach decision adjusts both the processing power needed and the complexity of the code.\n\n\nFor many games the type of game (as mentioned by FuzzyCats) can help with these decisions. A racing game will probably need better physics modelling than a platformer. \n\nOnce these are decided, it boils down to programming, you have a series of problems and you find solutions to them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3wu1kh
|
what can someone really do if they find your ssn and dob?
|
EDIT: Don't go on /r/WritingPrompts as much...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wu1kh/eli5_what_can_someone_really_do_if_they_find_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxz2g8i",
"cxz8rtj",
"cxzafzk",
"cxzcwze",
"cxzd53g",
"cxzffs7",
"cxzgbfm",
"cxzgtqz"
],
"score": [
274,
37,
3,
21,
3,
11,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"With that (and perhaps a few other, publically accessible information, like your name) they can apply for credit cards in your name, max them out, and never pay them back, ruining your credit. They may also be able to access your bank account and other private information. It could be quite bad.",
"Using your social and DOB they can look you up at the DMV and obtain almost every piece of information they need if they play their cards right.\n\nFrom there they can use that information to do what /u/Nerdn1 and /u/Reese_Tora have commented as well as most banks have 2 logins... Your account number or your social and a verification of vehicle or address or maiden name. 2/3 shot right there.\n\nNow, if your crook is military... They can do a little bit more as its a tight knit community. Those that are buddies with people who do background checks can pull even more information.\n\nIt's amazing that we can create a virtual life story of you. You seem to like /r/WritingPrompts so I have no doubt that you know just how creative someone can be if they *need* the cash.\n\n$10 bucks I could scourge through your reddit and find pieces to the puzzle to where your city is. Hell, just write a program to filter /u/Kangadood's entire profile by keywords and just parse all the filler out. Great story making material there!",
"Are you asking what a criminal could do with your data? Or do you mean what you can personally do to stop the identity theft once they've stolen it? \nEdit: for clarity",
"Date of birth they can check out your criminal reports and where you lived and stuff. It's creepy what we can do with little information. I work in a background check company.",
"They can do a lot. Including get a job with your info and make it so you owe a whole bunch of taxes. They can choose to not have the taxes taken out. This is what most illegals do.\n\nThey can also get credit cards and all kinds of things under your name and ruin your credit. This also happens pretty damn often.\n\n",
"At the very least they can look up your address and show up at your birthday party uninvited. ",
"Well, with your name and date of birth, I could probably also figure out your mother's maiden name on Ancestry. A little more sleuthing around online (like on Facebook), and maybe I could find out which schools you attended, or the name of your pet. And maybe a whole lot more, if you have an online social media presence. \n \nThen, I could call your bank (guessing which bank you use based on where you live) and with all the information I've gathered I might be able to pass the security questions needed to change the address on your account. Statement is mailed to this new address, and I have your bank account number. Or, report that \"my\" debit or credit card was lost and have a replacement one sent. In pretty short order, I could take over your bank account and drain it. \n \nEDIT: Notice that I said \"could\" and \"might\", because a few other things need to fall into place for this kind of fraud to work out. For example, many banks have moved away from \"easily found\" security questions/answers (like date of birth), in favor of other multi-factor authentication verifications (such as also sending a text message code to your phone number on file to make any changes on your account). And most banks also send out notifications to the previous address when an address (or phone number) has been changed. Also, limits to the types of changes that can be made to an account within the same x-day window, or over the phone *at all*. Also...well, you get the idea. I've seen the bank where I work put in all sorts of extra security measures over the past few years as the online landscape changes and fraudsters get more aggressive.",
"I work in fraud department for a bank. I see fraudsters literally make away with 10s of thousands daily. I'd like to make a thread about it soon. It's bad. Honestly I don't think they ( fraudsters) get caught often. Very easy to do which is scary as hell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.