q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
g1d5ij | how does game streaming service (geforce now, stadia) have little to no lag, while traditional remote desktops (chrome remote desktop, microsoft remote desktop etc) having significant lags? | Just tried out GeForce Now and amused by its little latency.
But when I tried a traditional remote desktop (Phone to PC in a local network, so should eliminate the internet bandwidth problem), the lag is more significant than GeForce Now.
I wonder is it the underlying technology is different? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1d5ij/eli5_how_does_game_streaming_service_geforce_now/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnexphc"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Whatever remote desktop program you're running has to render *and then* encode the video feed of the desktop on the computer that you're connecting to. The encoding takes a little bit of time. That little bit of time, combined with the fact that most remote desktop programs are just really quickly slapped together without any optimization means that you get a bit of lag.\n\nGeForce Now and Google Stadia are optimized to the point that they've gotten rid of the lag involved in encoding the source video. One of the likely ways that they've done that is by running the server on a custom operating system or drivers that is set up to render video into an encoded format for streaming - essentially encoding the video for \"free\" from a computation standpoint rather than requiring a second process to do it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9yl8h3 | how does country get richer through protectionism? | How this process work? All the 1st world countries were using protectionism at the beginning and only later started to allow free market from what I see. Would it be a disaster for economy if some country let's say from former Eastern Bloc started to use protectionism and why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9yl8h3/eli5how_does_country_get_richer_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea2z3d7",
"ea300nr"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"So the idea is that protectionism keeps profits inside your own country. I buy a car from Ford for $20,000, they spent $15,000 to make it, so they earn 5,000 in profit, and because they're an American company, that profit stays in America. I buy a car from Volkswagen for $20,000, they spent 15 to make it, so they earn 5,000 in profit, and that profit goes to Germany, because they're a German company. That sucks for America and is great for Germany.\n\nProtectionism could prevent this by putting tariffs on VW cars. VW cars would be more expensive, therefore I'd naturally buy a Ford instead, keeping the profits inside the US. This helps grow American companies too. \n\nLet's pretend Ford was an upstart company that just started making cars. For the first few years their cars will be shoddy and more expensive, because the company doesn't have experience and they need to pay off all the debt they acquired starting the company in the first place. Well no one's gonna buy these shoddy expensive cars when there's cheaper high-quality foreign cars they could buy. But if the government slaps a tariff on foreign cars, then American consumers *have* to buy the shoddy more expensive cars. This grows the American company into a mature company that can produce cheap and high-quality cars just like Germany. Then we can remove the tariff and have a free market again.\n\nNow, all of this is the *ideal* scenario for protectionism. Sometimes it works like this but sometimes it doesn't and actually makes everything worse.\n\nThe first big problem with protectionism is *retaliation*. Go back to our previous example about the auto tariff. Germany's not just gonna lie down and take it. They're gonna slap a tariff on *our* products in retaliation. They'll put a tariff on American avocados from California. Oh no! Now most of the avocado companies are out of a business. They were an export-oriented business. So we may have done a favor for the American auto business, but we've done a disservice to the American avocado business. This tit-for-tat can theoretically go on indefinitely, to the common ruin of all. You won't import anything (good), but you won't be able to export anything either (very bad).\n\nThe second problem is that any sort of cap on the free market like a tariff is essentially a brake on economic efficiency. You're intentionally hobbling yourself. If you put a tariff on foreign cars to force Americans to buy more expensive American cars, well those Americans are that much poorer now. They spent a few extra thousand on a more expensive car, and they now don't have that money to spend on other stuff. This is a deadweight loss to the consumer. Overall and in the long run, these losses *can* be canceled out by the boons protectionism provides to domestic industry which may trickle down to all as high-wage factory jobs or investor dividends or whatever, but in the short run it hurts.\n\nSo you ask, would it be a disaster if some country from the former Eastern Bloc started to use protectionism. The answer, unsatisfying as it is, is that it depends. For a country like Russia, it would probably be a disaster. Russia is already highly industrialized and would benefit by getting their factories churning again and producing goods for export. Getting into a tariff tit-for-tat for them would be a disaster as they're already a heavily import-reliant economy. Romania was not quite as industrialized, so maybe they could benefit from some protectionism helping them grow their industrial base before they transition to a free-trade economy. ",
"If you're a relatively poor country, you like free trade, because you can use the cheapness of everything in your country as a competitive advantage.\n\nIf you're a developed country, free trade turns out to be a race to the bottom that destroys your middle class. Because if your wages are above what it would cost to get the work done in poor countries, you lose jobs until people in your country are poor too.\n\nAnd then your politicians tell people everything is just peachy, which really pisses them off but there's nothing they can do about it, until finally somebody with orange hair rises to the top by promising to put your country first.\n\nWhich involves building economic tariff walls, and literal brick-and-mortar walls, both of which put you in direct conflict with the greatest wall-building civilization the world has ever known. Will these policies help? I think the tariffs might (literal walls, I'm pretty sure, became obsolete when we researched the Rifling tech a couple hundred turns ago). But everyone who seems to know more than I do about these issues says it will just make things worse. I agree tariffs always make the world as a whole poorer by throwing a bit of extra sand in the gears of the economic machine. But that's a worthwhile trade-off if it means you can get your middle class back, which is a very important part of stabilizing your society.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
szdtr | what the current state of the marvel comics universe is | I've always loved comics, but I grew up very far from any respectable comics shop. I recently moved across the country for a job and ended up living right next to two awesome comics shops, so now I'm in heaven. My move coincided with DC's new 52, so it was really easy for me to pick up some new titles to read from that. I also read a few things from Dark Horse (Hellboy, BPRD, some of their licensed comics like the Mass Effect ones) and some of DC's new Vertigo titles (only like 2 issues in each at the most right now). I also picked up Saga. Brian K Vaughn is awesome.
I read these comics because a lot of the series are new, or told in short story format (BPRD) and therefore easy to pick up. I pirate comics if it's necessary for me to get up to speed with a book I'm subscribing to, but I don't enjoy the feeling.
Therefore, when I look at the big Marvel titles (honestly, how many different ways can you combine the letter X with other words?) and see the hughe number of seemingly interrelated titles, and ridiculously high numbers they're running at, and how many different X-men titles they're publishing at the same time, I get totally baffled and overwhelmed. Right now, the only Marvel book I'm reading is the new Matt Fraction Defenders, because they're only on issue 5 (and pretty damn awesome, too).
So: what's the Marvel universe like? Are there parallel worlds? What are the flagship titles? Which X-men books are spinoffs of which other ones? Is there anything going on to promote the upcoming Avengers movie that I should know about? What are the major story arcs and crossover plots going on right now and what should I read in order to understand them? If I were going to go pirate 50 issues tonight, which ones should I read to get up to speed on the current good titles? I dodn't really give a shit about characters' complicated back stories, or how the multiverse is exactly organized, or any of that shit. If you were introducing your 5-year-old kid to Marvel comics, and they hated jumping in the middle of a story without knowing what was going on, what would you tell them?
**EDIT:** I think people have been coming in here and downvoting all the comments? I've noticed a couple passes of all or most of the comments getting hit by -1, anyway. Jesus, guys, if you don't like the suggestions, make some of your own. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/szdtr/eli5_what_the_current_state_of_the_marvel_comics/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4i8r4o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"do you want spoilers?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3g24y8 | why do radio stations change by region?? and how come xm is the same across america/the world? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g24y8/eli5_why_do_radio_stations_change_by_region_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctu4cq4",
"ctu4fs2",
"ctu4gbi",
"ctu4gr8"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Radio stations have an antenna and they broadcast their signal out. But the Earth is round, so most of the Earth isn't within reach of the antenna (there's a planet in the way of the signal). So you only receive the signal of radio stations near you. \n\nIt's the same reason why broadcast TV stations are local but cable and satellite TV stations are national. The broadcast only covers a short area, but by sending the signal along wires or between satellites, you can carry it all over the world.",
"FM radio broadcast antennas have a maximum range of about 100 miles, give or take. If you're more than 100 miles away from one station, you're not going to be able to pick it up with an antenna.\n\nXM is satellite radio. Your car is picking up signals from satellites orbiting the Earth.\n",
"Radio frequencies have a limited line of sight range and are broadcast from a fixed point on the ground. Various things like building, hills, mountains among other interference sources limit the range.\n\nXM is a satellite system that transmit their signal from space to the ground so a single satellite can reach a much larger area as there is little to no line of sight interference",
"XM is satellite based so anywhere on Earth that has a line of site to the satellite can receive the XM signal.\n\nNormal radio stations (now called terrestrial) broadcast from tall towers using a massive amount of power. The height and the power allow the station to be heard over a wide area but like all electromagnetic waves, the radio signal loses power the farther it travels. Eventually it loses so much power, radio receivers can't decode it any more. \n\nSince running a radio station is a very lucrative business, stations have popped up to cover all the areas of the US that have any substantial population."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
38ibez | why is there such a disconnect between science and the government? | For example why do LSD and psilocybin remain classified as ‘schedule I’ (high potential for abuse, no accepted medical usage, and lack of safety even when used under medical supervision), or why is saturated fat and cholesterol still considered bad and to be avoided at all cost? Shouldn't the government follow science? Why does it take so long to catch up? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38ibez/eli5_why_is_there_such_a_disconnect_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"crv8nqk"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Because there is a disconnect between people and science.\n\nThe government will only change things that benefit them, or that there is enough public demand for that changing it would increase their chances of continued election.\n\nIf the majority of voters either don't know or don't care about something, the government is under no obligation to change it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3cmpxa | developing grey hair at a young age | I'm currently 16 and had found out not too long ago a bit of my hair has been starting to go greyish and one or 2 strands of hair are completely silver. I know it doesn't come from my family I've heard and read that the cause for this would be lots of stress and whatnot but I'm not sure if I can rely on that. Little bit of help here understanding? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cmpxa/eli5_developing_grey_hair_at_a_young_age/ | {
"a_id": [
"csx01wt",
"csx1upt",
"csx4kvs",
"csx65b4",
"csx8ao4"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
5,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Mine's genetic, but not as bad as my grandfather. He went completely grey by 20. Me, I'm salt and pepper right now. I don't mind though. Better to have hair than no hair. If it's that big of a deal, you could dye it.\n\nBut, to answer your question:\n\n1. Stress has not been shown to increase greying (but I tend to think it does. No proof though).\n\n2. a vitamin B-12 deficiency or problems with your pituitary or thyroid gland can cause premature graying that’s reversible if the problem is corrected.\n\n3. Scientists aren't really sure why, but it tends to be genetic.",
"I have five brothers and sisters. All of us except one were pretty much totally grey by the time we were 35 years old. So I'd say it's genetic. The good news is, we have *no* baldness in the family at all. One recommendation - if you truly find out that you are going grey at an early age, start dyeing your hair early *especially* if you're male. It may not be fair, but guys are viewed more negatively if they suddenly dye their hair after being completely grey for a while.",
"Trauma can cause grey hairs in the area where the injury occurred. My friend hit his head on a fireplace when he was 4 or 5 and has about a 1 inch diameter circle of grey hair. ",
"I'm 35 now and my 80% of my hair is white (not grey), just plain white! Started turning white when I was 16 or 17. I have a crew cut so it's also a pain to dye black because the colour sticks to my scalp if im not careful :D .\n\nI reckon I got this from my mother who said that her hair started turning white at an early age. ",
"Mine's genetic, and the thing is called vitiligo. When you have it your skin cells become unable to produce pigment, not all of them, just in patches. The patches can grow, or not. I noticed it begin during puberty. Any hair in the patch will have no pigment either and will be transparent from the point the cell lost it's ability to produce pigment, so you can get a sudden colour change mid-hair. The transparent hair's look will vary based on the colour of the normal surrounding hair. If you are white skinned you may not have noticed the patches of skin without pigment, no one ever notices mine, but I can see them. If you are black, then you still end up with completely white patches, so it would be obvious, unless this is just starting for you. \n\nIf it is vitiligo, then you are at a higher risk of skin cancer as those patches cannot tan to protect the nucleus of your cells, so you have to be extra careful in sun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4y1eq0 | what is it like behind the scenes when a major website or video game has a massive crash? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y1eq0/eli5_what_is_it_like_behind_the_scenes_when_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6k4s84",
"d6k53vi",
"d6k5zl3"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Panic from everyone non-technical and loud sighs from all of the developers/network guys.\n\nIt's usually a straight-forward fix, so the tech people see \"work at off-hours that I don't get paid for because I'm salary\" and all of the business people see some super complex world-ending problem that they have no idea how long will take to fix.",
"I've had experience of working in large banks and trading organisations, and we have special \"disaster recovery\" procedures in place. I assume other areas where technology is so vital are similar.\n\nBasically, all of the essential systems are duplicated, in an office a few miles down the road (so it's unlikely that our main office and our disaster recovery office are unlikely to be both affected by a power cut, internet outage, etc at the same time).\n\nI've done many practice runs. It's a pain, but it's well rehearsed. The business used to hate it because they only had the absolute minimum of systems. We once had a genuine power outage, and they were very reluctant to go to disaster recovery in case it was only a short outage. In the end, the power came back on before they'd made the decision, so of course that made the decision for them.",
"Outages and defects are pretty common. What's less common are big show-stopping bugs, bugs that run in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour of downtime. When our system detects an outage a call goes out to a member from each team that carries a prod support phone at all times. We have a scale that rates incidents based on the total expected dollar impact per hour/day. Basically we just multiply the number people affected and the expected revenue per person. For the highest priority issues you get 15 minutes to get online and join the conference call. Teams will quickly determine if they are impacted by the issue and most will drop off after a couple minutes if they are not affected. From there the remaining people on the call will try to diagnose the problem and devise a fix. Sometimes the issue can be fixed with some small tweaks and the changes are made, tested, and moved to production within a couple hours. We may determine the issue really isn't that big of an issue and fix it with the next scheduled release. We may develop some quick and dirty temporary workaround until the problem can be fixed properly. If the issue is large enough we may even escalate the issue and call people in to develop an immediate solution and do an emergency release to production ASAP."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
42ggdf | what happens to wildlife in a blizzard? | Animals that do not hibernate, like deer: how do they cope with 2-3' of snow, and drifts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42ggdf/eli5_what_happens_to_wildlife_in_a_blizzard/ | {
"a_id": [
"cza4a5n",
"cza4hvu",
"cza4rvd"
],
"score": [
47,
33,
5
],
"text": [
"More deer do die during really bad winter conditions, but it's surprising how ridiculously tough they are. During the end of fall they undergo a number of bodily and behavior changes: they eat way more food to pack on insulating layers of fat, they shed their summer coats and grow a winter hide of hollow fur that traps air and insulates them further. During particularly bad weather they actively seek out shelter and herds/family groups conserve energy by not moving much. Like two thirds of their time or more is just spent bedded down sleeping.\n\nSmaller mammals tend to go underground in the winter.",
"I can't speak for all animals, but birds that live near water will desperately look for any open waters. As such around holes in the ice you will find many species of duck, gulls, cormorants, swans, geese, kingfishers, herons, bitterns, snipes, etc. It is a great time to look for birds that are usually hard to find such as Jacksnipes and Bitterns, they will come out of their hiding and flock towards such holes. There is one little creek in my village where the water is running and doesn't freeze and once I found over 10 Jacksnipes just along this creek. Normally they are extremely hard to find because they have [near perfect camouflage](_URL_0_).",
"Small mammals just stay in burrows until the ice and snow melts; however, there are places where the bottom of the snow melts before the top, creating tunnels and spaces in the snow where they can move around in. I'm not sure if this happens everywhere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/QMUm8UH.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
1vufgd | why does law enforcement need a warrant to search a suspects property? and why is evidence acquired without a warrant inadmissible? | Lets say law enforcement officials find conclusive evidence that somebody committed a heinous crime, the evidence however was acquired without a warrant, why is it inadmissible? isn't this injustice? how could a criminal walk free for such a technicality?
Edit; Thanks all, great answers! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vufgd/eli5_why_does_law_enforcement_need_a_warrant_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cevvknw",
"cevvomd",
"cevw0ta",
"cevwn0i"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The law is there to protect everyone, including the guilty. Look up the bill of rights, and the amendment which protects you against unwarranted search and seizure.\n\nRemember these laws were written at a time when the people had very recent experience of a government which was corrupt and did not have its citizens best interests at heart.\n\nThe law was written to ensure that all people were presumed innocent, that they had a right to privacy, and that your belongings couldn't be searched unless someone had been able to convince a judge that they had reasonable suspicion of a specific crime being committed. And not just \"he looked dodgy\"",
"It's inadmissible so that cops won't be encouraged to do illegal searches. It's to protect innocent people from just having cops bust down their doors on the off chance that they find something.",
"It's not difficult to get a warrant, and sometimes [exigent circumstances](_URL_1_) allow for entering a residence to secure the site to allow time for a search warrant to be authorized. There are likely very few instances (outside of movies) where inadmissable evidence causes a case to get thrown out.\n\nOn the plus side, it does prevent police from randomly searching everybody on the street ([New York City's stop and frisk is an ongoing exception)](_URL_0_).",
"Interestingly enough, the Constitution says nothing about evidence being obtained illegally being inadmissable. All it says is that police require a warrant to search someone's property, but makes no mention of the penalty for not complying.\n\nThe reason the evidence is not admissible is because of the Supreme Court case of Mapp v Ohio, in which the police tried to get a woman to allow a search of her house with a fake warrant. When she refused, she took the fake warrant and shoved it down her shirt. The police forcibly removed the paper from her bra and proceeded to search her place anyway, not finding the evidence they were expecting, but instead finding illegal pornographic material. The court ruled for the first time that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissable in court so the police were disincented to pull stunts like that again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law"
],
[]
] |
|
75tqvr | how is it economical to ship ramen packets? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75tqvr/eli5_how_is_it_economical_to_ship_ramen_packets/ | {
"a_id": [
"do8w199",
"do8wjdk"
],
"score": [
5,
8
],
"text": [
"Based on their 2016 quarterly report, it costs Maruchan $2.15 billion to generate $3.40 billion in sales.\n\nThey're spending $0.157 to get that $0.25. It takes 3.6 billion packets of Ramen and a whole host of higher margin foods to do it nine cents at a time, but they're apparently pretty profitable.",
"It probably costs a *lot* less to ship things than you think.\n\nLet's say it costs about $2000 to ship a 20ft container from Asia to the US. That's [1100 cubic feet of space](_URL_0_).\n\nLet's also call a [12-count of ramen](_URL_1_) is about 0.23 cubic feet.\n\nDoing some math, that gives 5100 cases or 61,200 packets of ramen - about 3c per packet of ramen.\n\nYou also need to keep in mind that several brands are made in the US, cutting out that cost entirely."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.sjonescontainers.co.uk/container/dimensions.asp",
"https://www.walmart.com/ip/Maruchan-Chicken-Flavor-Ramen-Noodle-Soup-12-3-oz-Box/10450904#read-more"
]
] |
||
4xbtrq | what are the differences in antibiotics that are designed for different varieties of infection (viral, fungal, bacterial, etc.) ? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xbtrq/eli5_what_are_the_differences_in_antibiotics_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6e5hgr",
"d6e5ko9"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Antibiotics are *only* for treating bacterial infections. That's literally what the word means.\n\nIf you're looking at treating fungal infections, you need an antifungal. If you're looking to treat a viral infection, you need an antiviral.\n\nThey're all completely different drugs.",
"Antibiotics treat bacterial infections only. \n\nAntifungals treat fungal infections. \n\nAntivirals treat viruses, if they can be treated at all. \n\nThey are all different drugs and do different things. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1jc9oe | machiavellianism | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jc9oe/eli5_machiavellianism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbd983t",
"cbd9dlz",
"cbd9pr9",
"cbdan2x",
"cbdbb5x",
"cbdg1e2",
"cbdhet3",
"cbdhm9u",
"cbefoio"
],
"score": [
23,
6,
120,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"1. Always have an out, even if it means sacrificing those closest to you. \n2. The ends justify the means. \n3. All things being equal, fear is a better tool of power than compassion. \n4. What your subjects think of you means little so long as you retain your power to rule. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nMachiavelli was a man who studied and wrote about power and how it could be attained and retained. His book 'the prince', see link, is probably his most famous work on the matter and is basically a retelling of how powerful men he encountered or studied kept their power and how successful they were when trying different methods (love/hate/fear/gratitude) to keep their subjects in line.\n\nIt gets such a good run as its about results without any judgement for how those results are obtained. \n\nThink of it as the idiots guide to ruthless ambition.",
"Machiavelli is best known, and the term which now bears his name comes from, a book he wrote called *The Prince*. In it he explains clearly to the rulers of his day how a prince, the ruler of a city-state, should act. He gives advice on a range of topics, but in general it all comes down to a few key rules.\n\nFirst: it isn't important what you do, only how you are seen. A prince must be believed to be trustworthy, faithful, and just. He need not actually be any of those. In fact he should not be. \n\nWhich brings us to the second rule: do whatever you must whenever you must. A prince takes whatever course of action best maintains or increases his power. If you see an opportunity you take it, if something is a threat eliminate it.\n\nThird: your subjects are both the greatest power and greatest threat you have. Treat them as such. You must ensure that they will never try to remove you and that they will obey you. It is best to be both feared and loved, but if you must choose one be feared. Feared but not hated. If people hate you they will remove you, if they fear you they will obey you. To ensure fear but not hatred follow the same rule for those you must remove at home as you follow for those you must remove in war.\n\nFourth: both in war and at home destroy your enemies completely. Those you must destroy will hate you and seek revenge if they can. Do not leave them able to. When you finish they should have no capacity to harm you left. But do not damage in any way others, you will make new enemies that way.\n\nFifth: never trust others. Do not trust your allies as a state. Do not trust mercenaries as an army. Do not trust advisers as a man. Everyone has their own agenda, it is never the same as yours. Know what they want and you can use them. Never believe that they want what you want.\n\nSixth: above all else never get involved in a land war in Asia.",
"Machiavelli was a large proponent of ends justifies the means, and I would say that when you talk about him in political philosophy, this is what you would be referring to.\n\nHowever, in common usage, it means someone who can be two-faced or duplicitous in servicing their own ambitions. ",
"As a former student of political science and someone who wanted to work in politics, some of the best advice I ever got was the following:\n\n1. Read Saul Alinsky's \"Rules For Radicals\" to understand how to get power when you don't have it\n2. Read Machiavelli's \"The Prince\" to learn how to maintain power once you've got it\n",
"He also said that the strongest walls are the love of your people. I feel that no matter who is in charge, as long as life is stable and promises to improve, people don't care.",
"[If I could say one thing to Machiavelli...](_URL_0_)",
"I think Machiavelli might have gotten a bad wrap. The Prince is how people are describing it, but viewing it within the time it was written might betting explain how Machiavellian is a pejorative term today. \n\nIn the Prince Machiavelli dares to state two things that were blasphemous and way ahead of their time.\n\nA. That political power is ultimately derived from popular support. Power coming from the will of the governed is accepted more or less throughout the modern world, but it was a radical idea at the time, and Machiavelli is the earliest person I know of to express this view in a widely read book. At the time, and for the next few hundred years, rulers throughout the western world claimed their power came from divine right. Western monarchies were tied completely to religion, and expressing the idea that common people were tied to power would earn more than a few critics.\n \nB. Machiavelli pointed out how and why to use religion as a tool to gain and maintain political power. As has been pointed out in other comments, appearance matters much more than \"real\" piety. The entire concept of religion as a tool to be used by the powerful was blasphemous to a degree I believe his name remains mud to this day. \n\n200 years before Voltaire; Machiavelli was expressing pre-enlightenment ideas. ",
"Machiavellianism is some seriously depressing and real stuff. I took a class in my senior year of college that focused on him, here is a crash course in Machiavelli.\n\nMachiavallianism is defined as the personal and political teaching which denies the morality to politics, and further claims that manipulation and deceit are often necessary and justified in the acquisition and maintenance of (political) power.\n\nThe Ancient-Modern debate centers around the role that morality and virtue plays in the conduct of political affairs. The original reason for bringing philosophy to politics (Socrates, Plato, etc) was to make politics more just and to help human beings become BETTER people.\n\nThe Modern debate will say that politics has NOTHING to do with morality. You do not have to be a good person to be a good ruler. As a matter of fact, the more \"moral\" you are the more ineffective you will be as a ruler. In your own moral hesitancy as a leader, your enemy will surely run you over.\n\nMachiavelli was deeply suspicious of the Ancient/Modern perspective and what the Christian's called God. He thought, if there is no truth or god, we are left with the here and the now. It's a dangerous, chaotic, violent, and unpredictable place. Machiavelli spoke highly of the separation of politics and religion (church and state). \n\nMachiavelli wrote \"The Prince\" in order to make society run safe and run properly. Also, because he had a problem. His problem was he needed to set a new way of acting and thinking after previously destroying ancient ways of acting and thinking. The context determines what is good and bad. If the ends justify the means and the ends are always changing, then so must the means. In writing \"The Prince\" he wanted to invent someone who could represent the way he thought a leader must act and behave. Because of the constantly changing world, you can't just rely on what you know. There will be a time where you need to be creative and display an act of virtuoso (master of one's craft, game changer). This was \"The Prince\". A prince can be thought of as a virtuoso-an expert at what you do and possess an innate talent to change things, often in times of crisis (FDR and The New Deal). What does something so drastic and life-changing bring someone like FDR? Glory... and well, all princes have glory. \n\nLastly, I thought it was interesting that in the text of \"The Prince\", Machiavelli talks about how, \"The Prince must use the beast with arms\", or the Centaur. The half-man half-beast represents the devil and ruins every conception of what it is like to be human (a unique faculty to reason and talk about justice, virtue, etc). He has literally blurred the line between human and animal. He goes on to suggest we are nothing but mere animals with intelligence. The Centaur is a hooved beast very much so portrayed as Satan. Machiavelli says you have to be BAD, and learn how to be an ANIMAL. Specifically, he mentions two animals: the lion and the fox. \n\nLion-instills fear, backs it up with a certain ferocity. Not afraid to use it's power or intimidation. Lions have no guilt.\n\nFox-quick to act on feet. Very duplicitous and doesn't show it's self (appears good). \n\nAnd in the end, it is not necessary for The Prince to have all of those qualities, rather to appear to. \n\nMachiavellians of our time include Bill Clinton, Lance Armstrong, Charlie Sheen, and Kobe Bryant. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/wSmxGcf"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
34mu10 | if we know jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams then how is 9/11 explained? | I don't get it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34mu10/eli5_if_we_know_jet_fuel_doesnt_melt_steel_beams/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqw4hia",
"cqw4m3k",
"cqw4oep",
"cqw593b"
],
"score": [
7,
14,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"Jet fuel can melt steel beams the guy who made the original theory even said he was talking through his ass. It was a small project ment to fuck with people. It wasn't ment to be taken as fact this widely.",
"1) Combustion temperatures depend, amongst others, on surroundings. The 9/11 crash lead to higher temperatures than the test.\n\n2) Things don't go from completely rigid to molten right away. As temperature heats up, the molecular structure of steel changes and it can rapidly loose it's strength.\n\n3) Fire can and will heavily damage concrete.",
"Let us assume that jet fuel cannot fully melt steel beams: That doesn't mean that the intense heat the fuel applies to the already weakened steel structure can't make the metal malleable and weak. Think of every metal smith you've seen in your life. Usually they aren't dealing with molten steel, they have a steel lump that is extremely hot and is malleable and is almost like dense clay to the hammer. You don't need to completely destroy something to bring down a system relying on it. You just need to weaken it.",
"Ever seen a black smith hammer on a hot piece of steel?\n\nHeat weakens steel. It doesn't have to melt."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4qoyhe | why are we able to predict astronomical events like eclipses and transits down to the minute but we still don't know when or if asteroids like bennu will hit earth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qoyhe/eli5_why_are_we_able_to_predict_astronomical/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4urt8i"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A couple reasons:\n\nA) The moon is fairly large and obvious, so it's been observed for a very long time, so we have a *lot* of data to say where it's going to be. It is also less likely to be bothered by small disturbances tugging on it (it don't care if a small rock hits it). It's so large and close, we landed on it and put a laser reflector on it so we could get even more extremely precise measurements. With lots of good data, and very minor disturbances, predictions into the future are easy.\n\nB) Bennu is small, so getting good precise readings at the distances it's at is hard. Predicting where it will be in 20 years is hard if your readings have large variations in them. Also, small disturbances that are harder to predict (small rocks, solar wind). \n\nC) Also, because Bennu doesn't orbit the earth, things like the gravity of other planets may throw (more like tapping) it around more, making it's path just that much harder to predict.\n\nD) We're looking 150+ years in the future, it's going ~ 1.15 (rough orbital radius in AU)*2*3.14 AU every 1.2 years, over 150 years that's about 135 billion kilometers (over 5 light days) away, trying to aim the metaphorical bullet that far ahead is hard. (Yes, the math is very rough, on purpose)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
52jqok | the difference between a gatling and a machine gun. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52jqok/eli5_the_difference_between_a_gatling_and_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7ksx9e",
"d7kvwbl",
"d7l2jli",
"d7l5fyj"
],
"score": [
8,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A gatling gun uses multiple barrels, whereas a machine gun uses 1",
"Another distinction is that classic Gatling guns were hand-cranked, while true machine guns (Maxim onwards) are self-powered:the exhaust gases from one round are harnessed to eject that casing and load the next cartridge. Thus when there is a problem with one round the machine gun stops working. In a Gatling gun the gunner would keep cranking full-speed and get some serious jams (ammunition was pretty bad back then so it was pretty common)",
"A Gatling gun has 8 barrels, all loaded. As the operator cranks the hand crank, the barrels rotate. As each barrel gets to the top it is hit by the firing pin, shot, then reloaded all by continuing to crank. A machine gun has one trigger and can be held down to continuously shoot the rounds, powered by the gas released from the first initial shot",
"In modern terms, fully automatic machine guns which use a rotating revolver type of magazine mechanism, or a set of rotating barrels are often referred to as \"gatling guns\", or \"gatling style\", for instance the automatic multibarrel cannon that is used by the vast majority of combat aircraft made in America. This is opposed to automatic machine guns or cannons which only use one barrel and a single bullet at a time receiver, with the bullets feeding in a straight line, not a revolving mechanism"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
54pbgt | what's the difference between debt and bankrupt? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54pbgt/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_debt_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d83tizg",
"d83veuf"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Debt is what you owe, but have the means to pay it off.\n\nBankrupt means you have debt, but no means to pay it off.",
"**Debt** just means you owe someone money. You're have to give it back with interest at some point(s) in the future, usually spread out.\n\nBeing **insolvent** means you have debts which you should pay back right now, but are unable to do so because you don't have any income or savings (or too little).\n\n**Bankruptcy** is a legal procedure through which an insolvent person (or company, depending on the jurisdiction) whose financial situation is unlikely to improve anytime soon can untangle the mess and end up debt free after fulfilling certain criteria. These may include selling off assets to make partial repayments and making reduced payments for a certain time from whatever income they have.\n\nThe point of bankruptcy is not only to provide a \"financial reset button\" to the debtor, but also to ensure that the creditors are treated fairly and not indefinitely left uncertain about whether they'll get their money back. It also reduces the incentive to worsen the situation through lies and trickery."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3bs3b9 | if it is legal to have up to 1oz of weed, how do drug dealers keep from getting arrested since they obviously have more? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bs3b9/eli5_if_it_is_legal_to_have_up_to_1oz_of_weed_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"csoyehb",
"csoyls7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is really a ask a legal question, not a concept question.",
"I assume you are not talking about places like colorado where weed is entirely legal but regulated. \n\nFWIW, they usually DO get arrested. In most places were weed less than one once is decriminalized (not legal, just not a jailable offense - they can still write you a ticket) SELLING weed is usually still entirely illegal, regardless of the amount."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7ilmcc | why do christians celebrate jesus' birthday along with many other pagan traditions? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ilmcc/eli5_why_do_christians_celebrate_jesus_birthday/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqznh0i",
"dqznk2m"
],
"score": [
5,
10
],
"text": [
"It makes it a lot easier to get a massive amount of people to do something (convert to Christianity) when you don't ask them to change much of what they're doing ( by not making too many changes to their religious practices).",
"The Medieval calendar had a very large number of feast days - close to 30. This were set around the cycle of the farm and the seasons. \n\nSo, for example, around the time that lambs are born, you have a feast, because you have some mutton that died in childbirth and a few more lambs than you wanted to keep, so you have a meat surplus. When the Raspberries start to appear in large numbers, and the farmhands have been bringing it in, you have another feast day with raspberry pies, you make raspberry jam, and so on.\n\nThe pagan holidays in any given area were timed around these appearances for the same reason. When nature gives you a food surplus, you preserve what you can, and feast. This has been the way since prehistoric times in northern climates.\n\nWhen Christianity spread, these same 'natural feasts' were still going to happen. Someone had to eat those dead sheep, you may as well cook a raspberry pie, and so on. So the church naturally took elements of the faith, like important figures and saints, and placed holidays commemorating them around those traditional feasts.\n\nWinter Solstice is by far the darkest of these feats, because it occurs after you've taken stock of what you have for the winter, and decide what you can spare, or if there's going to be hunger this winter. The Baby Jesus naturally symbolized that time best - hope in the darkness, whether it's the hope of salvation after starving to death, the hope of making it through the famine, or the good cheer of knowing you have enough food.\n\nIn today's modern society with greenhouses and refrigerators and international food trade, these holidays make less sense, and most of the old medieval feasts have been forgotten. We've kept a few around as a means to connect with the community. Christmas is one of them. I think you're right to point out that it's not really a Christian holiday, it's a community holiday about hope and family. But I also see absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian seeing that through the lens of Christ."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
f7ew9k | how do direction work in space because north,east,west and south are bonded to earth? how does a spacecraft guide itself in the unending space? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f7ew9k/eli5_how_do_direction_work_in_space_because/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiatucm",
"fiauunn",
"fiaxsau",
"fiayyux",
"fiazhcx",
"fib4ajg",
"fib7553",
"fib83cy",
"fib8i06",
"fib9evz",
"fibb551",
"fibbpev",
"fibbx17",
"fibc1hg",
"fibkje2",
"fiboczc",
"fibp5d3",
"fic0r8g",
"fickr3f",
"ficluqz"
],
"score": [
9,
31,
108,
13,
2,
6752,
11,
2,
3,
55,
944,
3,
48,
2,
3,
2,
69,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Just like on earth n,w,e,s are meaningless without a reference. The same will apply to space. \n\nSince things move in space you will need to use coordinates relative to some set objects. Say certain stars. We havent really begun space exploration to really hammer out a good system but we do use angles and distance that are relative to earth.",
"Directions only work with a reference point (even on earth - the reference point could be the geographic or magnetic poles)\n\nSo in space, a traveller would need reference points - possibly using the center of the galaxy or distant galaxies as reference points. Of course it wouldn't be called N, S, E, W because there are 6 \"cardinal directions\". \n\nFor travel within the solar system, the sun would be a reasonable reference point perhaps along with a few distant stars.",
"Ooh, I know this one. It's called a [gimbal](_URL_2_). The concept is used in [inertial navigation sysyems](_URL_0_). Basically, 3 gimbals provide your 3D reference (xyz) to orient yourself. The gimbals will always be spinning in the exact same orientation in space no matter how a spaceship flips and spins. There's a scene in apollo 13 where they talk about [gimbal lock](_URL_1_), meaning they're losing their ability to orient themselves because one of the gimbals is close to being \"trapped\" or \"caught up\" with another gimbal, losing orientation in that axis. [Here's](_URL_4_) a short video explaining it.\n\nEdit: ~~Imagine two of the gimbals represent the xy-plane and its parallel with the Earth's orbital plane around the sun. You can read the gimbals to tell you if you're pointing \"above\" Earth's plane of orbit or \"below\" Earth's plane of orbit (assuming the North pole points \"up\" for us northern hemisphere dwellers).~~ I'm guessing, I shouldn't do that. \n\nMore science related to gyroscopes and the relevant phenomenon with demonstrations you can see [here](_URL_3_). See also 35:35 for another demo.\n\nEdit: Silly me. Walter Lewin specifically talks about it in this video at 43:50. Watch that.\n\nEdit: I'm an idiot. I'm talking about the gimbals like they're spinning. They're just the rings free to rotate and allow the central gyroscope to spin and maintain its initial position. Don't trust everything anyone says.",
"Currently we map objects in the sky using polar coordinates. Two angles and a distance. \n\nUsually we use Earth as the centre point (in fact the viewers position on earth) and we work out the angle the object is from the centre line of the sky (that we define) and then the angle off the horizon. \n\nThis is declination and right ascension. \n\nIt doesn't make much sense for an interstellar space ship to use earth as the centre point. So we might use the centre of the galaxy. Then define 0 degrees as the line through the sun. \n\nSo the solar system would be at 0°,0°,25kly\n\nChanging direction would also likely use angles. Similar to how boats do it. Change angle a by x° and angle b by y°. \n\nI don't know how actual space craft do it but there it's precedent in fiction with star trek. At the end of an episode the captain might command the helm to set a course 120 mark 43. That's your two angles relative to something (the ship, the galactic plane or something)",
"When away from the earth, stars serve as a suitable reference point. The north star is still in the same direction, even in space, and other stars become easier to use because you are no longer on the surface of a rotating sphere. Essentially, in space every star can be the north star.",
"Spacecraft are able to determine their position and orientation through a combination of on board sensors (like star sensors) and off board trackers (like radar). Beyond that, it is typical to describe their position and velocity as an orbit. These orbits can be described using a few variables that indicate the size, orientation, and direction of the orbit. These are called \"Keplerian Elements.\" \n\nSo, for example if you wanted to convey information about a satellite above the Earth, you wouldn't say \"It's 500Km above the ground, moving 7km/s in the Northwest direction\" but you could say, \"The satellite's orbit has a semimajor axis of 6800km, with an eccentricity of .01, inclination of 23 degrees...\"\n\nOf course, there are other ways of keeping track of and describing these, but that's one of the most basic ways.",
"Play [Kerbal Space Program](_URL_1_). Here is a helpful xkcd to help understand why it will help.\n\n [_URL_2_](_URL_2_) \n\nAlso why you won't be ready for that NASA position. \n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"They would use the very stars in the sky as a way to find where they need to be... they would also use constellations to see where they are for a reference.. maybe even gravitational pull this is an excellent question",
"As an add-on to D1Foley's comment, check out Quill18's \"Kerbal Space Program for Complete Beginners\" series on youtube. He covers this stuff and does a preeeeeetty good job of it.",
"Aerospace engineer here! \n\nThe short answer is basically however you want it to!\n\nThe long answer is something called frames of reference. \n\nA frame of reference, or reference frame, is how you determine your position and orientation relative to another object. On Earth we tend to use down as the direction earth is pulling us, up as the opposite and then north/south/east/west for planar (side to side, forward-back) directions. In space however, there is no absolute frame of reference.\n\n You could be x miles from the earth and y miles from something else. (This also effects velocity but we won't go into that unless someone asks).\n\nSo which reference frame do you use? Whichever one works best. Some times the math is easier if you use earth as a reference frame, sometimes it's easier if you use the sun.",
"I actually work in the space industry, so I feel qualified to answer this. As other commenters have alluded to, there are two parts to this question: reference frame and navigation.\nIn science and engineering, when describing motion you need a base coordinate frame. To start, you need a fixed reference point and direction to base the coordinate frame on. The typical reference is the vernal equinox, which is an imaginary line pointing towards a distant star called Vega. For our purposes, the position of Vega is fixed, so it makes a good reference. From there we can build our axes, but this will depend on the physics involved.\n\nFor a low-earth orbit spacecraft we use the Earth-Centered Inertial frame (ECI), which has an origin at the center of the earth, x axis pointed towards vernal equinox, z-axis pointed through the north pole, and y axis perpendicular to both x and z.\n\nA base reference frame should be \"inertial,\" or non-rotating and non-accelerating, in order to make the physics work out. For an interplanetary spacecraft, the ECI frame is NOT inertial, because it is fixed on the earth which is accelerating around the sun. In this case we define a different frame: sun-centered. In this case the origin is at the center of the sun, X-axis pointed towards vernal equinox, z axis perpendicular to the ecliptic (plane that Earth's orbit makes around the sun), and y axis perpendicular to X and Z.\n\nNow, for navigation: we use devices called Inertial Measuring Units, or IMUs, to constantly measure acceleration and rotation. Think of them as fancy accelerometers and gyroscopes like you have in your phone. If we know where we start, and we keep track of all the accelerations, we can figure out where we end up. The previously described reference frames give us the language to describe this (in terms of X, Y, and Z coordinates). We can improve knowledge of our position with dead reckoning, where we CHECK our distance and speed with radar measurements. If we send a signal to a spacecraft and it takes 20 minutes for that signal to get back to us, then by knowing the speed of light we can say exactly how far it has travelled, which makes the estimate we got from the IMU more accurate.\n\nEDIT: I think forget what I said about Vega. The X axis is defined by the mean vernal equinox, which is when the southern and Northern hemispheres receive the same amount of light (around March 21st). At this point, you can draw a straight line from the sun though the center of the earth and that line will intersect Earth's equator. Because of this, it is by definition perpendicular to the north pole.",
"Earth based directions (North/South/East/West/Up/Down) don't work, so we create a new \"frame of reference\". \n\nA frame of reference is a way of looking at and measuring things. Walking around your neighborhood, you use N/S/E/W, but if you were walking on a huge cruise ship sailing through the ocean, you would use Fore/Aft/Port/Starboard, no matter which direction the boat was pointed. We would say we are moving towards the port side, even if the boat is moving west, so Pot is actually south. We would say we're walking towards the Port side at 1.6 km/hour (1 miles/hour), even if the boat is moving forward through the ocean at 32 km/hour (20 mile/hour). \n\nIn the same way, we can create different frames of reference for outer space. One frame of reference when you are orbiting close to earth, another when you are far from earth and orbiting the Sun, another when getting close to the moon / Mars, etc... \n\nA great and fun way to experience this is to play Kerbal Space Program.",
"Astronautical engineer here.\n\nSpacecraft are equipped with a subsystem called Attitude Determination and Control System.\n\nThis subsystem can contain various tools including Star Trackers, Horizon Sensors, and Sun Sensors for navigation.\n\nThere are lots of stars in space, and a lot of them are so far away that they appear fixed, i.e. they do not seem to move.\n\nA star tracker is basically a camera that scans the space for star patterns. Then it compares the image with the database to estimate its orientation.\n\nSun sensors find the Sun (obviously) and are generally used for solar panel pointing etc. Horizon sensors use infrared to find orientation based on the planet's horizon line.\n\nThis is the navigation part. For control, there are reaction wheels, magnetorquers, reaction control thrusters, and more. RWs spin to generate a moment in the desired axis, so there are mostly 3 of them. Magnetorquers use magnetic field of the planet to change orientation. RTCs are small thrusters that are placed on large spacecraft to perform small correction/orientation maneuvers.",
"Space probes visiting planets, comets, and the like replace \"north\" and \"south\" with stars. They are programmed with star maps in their nav computer, and if they get bumped by a space rock or something they can turn on their camera and watch the distant stars, looking for matches against their database. This is also useful to help ground control know whether the probe followed it's flight-path correctly in normal flight. \n\n\nA probe that REALLY gets smacked will probably tumble too fast to re-align itself, but at that point you are also looking at damage that will prevent it from functioning properly so it's moot.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSpace probes can also use interial sensors, a bit like your phone does (this is also how the first airplane autopilots worked, btw), and can use the radio signal from Earth to determine its distance and speed. Some more general info here: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\n & #x200B;\n\nA story about Juno (A Jupiter probe) using star charts: [_URL_1_](_URL_1_) \n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn the future, deep space probes to other systems may use pulsars to navigate.",
"The best part of this question is the number of folks is the aerospace and astronautical field that are willing to chime in.\n\nThanks to all of you, I learnt more than I expected to. Much appreciated.",
"I will explain this using a game of dodge ball. Image you are playing dodge ball, and all you know is where the balls are. If have enough time I am sure you find where and where you are. However, you are the only player try to throw your ball A, to hit other ball B. This a difficult task even when ball B is sitting still. Now image trying to hit ball while a game of dodge ball is being played. Now you need to know where Ball B is going to be in the future. Also, you located other another ball C that being played with. Now you must throw from ball A to hit ball B, all from ball C. In addition you have to account for all of the other balls in the game. The last thing you need to account for is that ball A moves much slower than the rest of the balls. Also, you just barely hit B ball make you don't die on impact. This would be a good to think about travel inside of the galaxy. Traveling Outside of the galaxy would be like throwing to hit another ball that is being used in other game several miles away.\n\nNow unlike dodge ball we know where the stars are, going to be, and we can easily tell stars apart from one another. This means we can tell where we are based off the stars, are going to be, and what time it is.\n\nWhat does this mean is terms of space navigation. You need to know where the other stars are where, how you moving compared to them, how fast you are moving, and what time it is. Also, you may run it a piece of dust ruining all of the math you have before hand.\n\nRight now it is doing lot of math that you do before hand, and then adjust as you get closer. However, for something that can go from any give star to another any other star would have a power computer on the ship do the math every time. You can now see no rushing to leave the solar system.\n\nSo in short its a lot of math get near the star that you hope get you close enough to the star that gravity pulls in the system, and then you steer toward the planet you want go to.",
"Easy, the enemy's gate is \"down\". I'm not a space engineer of any sort, but I can at least talk about the math that's helpful here (linear algebra).\n\nWhen you are walking around, you can talk about how things are *in front/behind* of you, *to the (right/left) side* of you, or *above/below* you. If you want to be clever, you can mix the descriptions too: \"enemy ship at 2 o'clock!\" means something is mostly to your right, but also a bit in front of you.\n\nWhen you're talking to someone else that isn't facing the same direction, you can't just use the forward/right descriptions anymore, so you have to pick something both of you understand. A nice one is to align to the Earth with North/East/South/West. Or, if you know what direction they're facing, you may choose to use their perspective instead (\"turn right on Maple, then turn left on Jefferson...\").\n\nTo give directions, you only need to define the three basic directions \"up\", \"right\", and \"forward\" and go from there. The third can be derived from the first two, so really you just need two of them. Usually you use some sort of reference point(s), maybe a star or a planet or your own spaceship, whatever.\n\nELI25 note: a set of *n* directions for an n-dimensional coordinate space is called a *basis* space, and requires *n* orthogonal vectors. Converting from one basis to another is very easy with linear algebra. With as few as three points that aren't all on the same line (e.g., center of the sun, North Pole of the sun, some other star) you can create a full basis because of the neat property that the cross product of two vectors is always orthogonal to both input vectors.",
"For deep space travel, we would use blinking stars (pulsars).\n\nNot all stars blink, but some of them do. And all the stars that blink, blink slower or faster, but the slow ones always blink slow, and the fast ones always blink fast, but each star that blinks - blinks at its own special speed.\n\nNow if you're on a space ship, you can watch how fast the stars blink and if you're moving closer to it, it will look like it's blinking faster, like when a fire truck is driving towards you and its siren sounds faster. But if you're flying away from it, then it will seem to blink slower, like a fire truck driving away from you and its siren sounds slower, even though the star is still blinking at the same speed. (Doppler effect)\n\nWe know how fast some of the stars are blinking because we've been able to watch them here on Earth, but if we get to fly farther than them, we'll have to find new blinking stars and add them to our map. And if we go even farther than that, we might need to figure out a new way of figuring out where we are.",
"Like all good questions, it depends! \n\n\nIf you are close to the Earth, you use the Earth as reference. You say how far away from the surface and how close to the equator and prime meridian you are. From three measurements that are not in the same direction, you can exactly specify your position. A common tool for this is the ECEF, or Earth Centered Earth Fixed, reference frame. These are coordinates that look at where you are in reference to the Earth as if the Earth never moves. The center is at the center of the earth, the x axis comes out at where the prime meridian meets the equator, the y axis comes out on the equator at 90 longitude and the z axis runs through the poles. This is very handy for looking at satellite positions and figuring out where they are over the Earth.\n\nThat reference isn't that useful if your looking at stuff orbiting the sun. It would look like your position would be constantly changing since the Earth rotates but from your perspective as a satellite you move very little. These objects generally are described using the ICRF, or International Celestial Reference Frame, which is centered at the center of gravitational pull in the solar system. It turns out, as massive as the sun is, it isn't everything in the solar system. The center of mass between Jupiter and the sun is just about on the surface of the sun, rather than deep within it, and Jupiter has by far the biggest mass other than the sun. So we use the point that basically everything orbits in the solar system. Again we use similar references as ECEF to determine a good x-y-z coordinate.\n\nOther star systems and astronomical objects get reference frames as well. We have a reference frame for the Galaxy, for the local galactic cluster, for stars and black holes and everything! Generally you try to find the axis of rotation, like the north and south like for the Earth but on the object, and then something along the equator. Since it's tough to go looking at these objects, we usually pick the line pointing directly at the Earth (or closest to it) and the line perpendicular to both the rotation axis and the Earth line. As long as with three different measurements that aren't in the same direction, you can perfectly specify any point in space",
"A space force is more similar to the navy than the air force. Don't think of a spacecraft like a jet plane; think of it like a submarine - they travel in relation to themselves as the reference plane (down angle, port, etc) and less in relation to nsew coordinates."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal",
"https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?t=23m",
"https://youtu.be/OmCzZ-D8Wdk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://xkcd.com/1244/",
"https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/",
"https://xkcd.com/1356/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-space-probes-navig/",
"https://www.npr.org/2016/07/03/484259562/star-trackers-help-juno-find-its-way"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
86qs0l | how do people grow pot on tv without getting arrested? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/86qs0l/eli5_how_do_people_grow_pot_on_tv_without_getting/ | {
"a_id": [
"dw75uff",
"dw760st"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"No prosecutor will go to court on a charge of posesssion of a controlled substance unless they get their hands on the substance so that they can prove it is something illegal. Without solid proof that it’s pot (and not just something that *looks* like pot), they can’t get a conviction and won’t waste time going for an arrest. ",
"Are you asking about fiction shows or TV as in documentaries? In the case of the documentaries some places it is completely legal to grow. Others, well it’s not hard to hide really if you have the right setup. The hardest part is covering up smell. Some induction fans or blower fans with charcoal filters connected to the exhaust take care of smell very well. Also electrical use gets people caught. Some people wire past their electrical meter so it doesn’t register the use. As far as going on TV with a grow op, that’s an extremely stupid move. Every grower I know that has been caught was caught because they ran their mouth about it. Going on TV is like that but much worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
eawexh | programing question | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eawexh/eli5_programing_question/ | {
"a_id": [
"faybv1o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, you can. The compiled executable and the uncompleted text files have nothing to do with each other. You can change the code while the program is running, and changing the code will not magically alter a running program."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f19240 | when you turn the ac on, turn the speakers louder or turn on a subwoofer in a car, does fuel economy decrease in order to create more power? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f19240/eli5_when_you_turn_the_ac_on_turn_the_speakers/ | {
"a_id": [
"fh2n158",
"fh2r9zc"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"When you turn A/C on the compressor gets power from one of the engine belts. The compressor turning puts more load on your engine therefore reducing fuel economy. The stereo and subwoofer use electricity which is generated by your alternator. The alternator like the A/C compressor runs off an engine belt as well but the alternator is always running so the only way you could potentially lose fuel economy is if the stereo/subwoofer use enough electrical current to rob power from the engine's ignition system (spark plugs). The A/C will definitely effect fuel economy, the stereo or subwoofer is debatable depending on how much electrical current is provided by the alternator.",
"1 hp is about 750 watts. The alternator is in the ball park of 70 % efficient. Your AC compressor will take 2 or 3 hp mechanically from the engine. Take your electric load, divide by .7 and divide by 750, this is the load your placing on the engine.\nA modern car engine will have a fuel consumption of .4 to .5 pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour. \n\nThis is the extra fuel your burning for accessories.\n\nETA: double checked my numbers, some new cars are getting fuel consumption down into the low .3s. Didn't think they could go that low."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
55msv5 | why are people who run onto football fields so aggressively tackled? | I mean, it's not like they have a gun or something, and it seems like regardless, they're always treated like they're a terrorist threat or something. Even when it's obviously for a joke, they end up getting handcuffed and detained, like this - (_URL_0_). Does anyone know how the league ended up taking it so seriously? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55msv5/eli5_why_are_people_who_run_onto_football_fields/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8bxbtt",
"d8bxiz1"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They want to discourage it so that it doesn't become more common.\n\nThey have a game to play (and televise, and sell advertisements for, etc) and don't want it to be frequently interrupted by people running around on the field. As well, if people were to run onto the field while a play were actually going, they could get really hurt. If the punishment were just a slap on the wrist, there'd be a lot of drunk college students willing to just run out there for a laugh, so they make the punishment harsh to try to keep that from happening.",
"You're probably right, a stadium streaker is probably a low terrorist threat, but they've pretty much committed a few crimes, some of which may be felonies.\n\nTrespassing, failure to follow lawful order, resisting/evading arrest, possibly public intoxication and disrupting commerce. \n\nPlus by being aggressive in the detention and arrest, that serves as a deterrent to other people who may be encouraged to streak across the field as well."
]
} | [] | [
"https://twitter.com/i/web/status/782676990927183876"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3tg8r2 | could we reproduce the mechanics of what powers the earth's magnetic field, and miniaturize it to protect spaceships from radiation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tg8r2/eli5_could_we_reproduce_the_mechanics_of_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5v2oy",
"cx5xm7m",
"cx5ykub",
"cx65h2x"
],
"score": [
75,
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. You just have to figure out how to avoid a strong-ass magnet from interfering with all the equipment.",
"Yes, the earth produce a magnetic field via a rather complicated and not so well understood process but the nice thing about it is that, like any magnetic field you can create it with a coil and some electric current. As said by /u/Lazy_Pea, the main problem with using this to protect spaceship is that you have to protect the ship from the magnetic field too.",
"The answer is...sort of.\n\nWe CAN make a magnetic field powerful enough to replicate the safety provided by Earth's magnetic field. The problem is that the intensity of this field is high enough that it causes some interesting, and negative, effects. Years back I remember reading a paper on this very subject. As an anecdote it brought up the story of a scientist who was present for the changing out of some ridiculously powerful magnets of a particle collider. The old one was sitting off to the side on a cart and he knew that at the focal point in the center the field was stupendously powerful (I want to say something like 1-2 Tesla, but I could be terribly wrong about that). So what did he decide to do? He stuck his head in it! He said it didn't feel that terribly different, except that he started getting a bitter taste in his mouth. He spent a moment trying to figure out what was causing this before realizing that it was the water molecules in his saliva breaking down as they moved between the extreme magnetic field lines. Needless to say, he got his head out of there quickly. While he suffered no ill effects from this, it is generally assumed that any prolonged exposure to this sort of situation would have negative health effects. The reason the paper brought this situation up is that by its calculations, in order to provide the sort of protection we would want in the form of a magnetic field, you would need to expose the astronauts continuously to over four times what the magnet in that story had been rated for.",
"Yes, superconductors could do that. It would provide protection from beta radiation. Alpha is going to be blocked by anything that can keep air it, and gamma isn't magnetic. \n\nThus you would not be completely safe, regardless of field strength.\n\nTo add to that, it simply isn't sensible to use this as radiation protection. The crews water and food suply packed around a storm shelter would be better. But there is still a use for this superconducter magnet.\n\nRemember those beta particles from the sun it stopped? They had momentum. You now have that momentum. It's called a \"mag sail\" and it's a theoretical engine that uses no internal fuel."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bskk1k | how do those cables they string across the road measure your vehicle speed? | You know those cables they lay across the road to measure vehicle speed? How do those work? Is it accurate? What is the data used for? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bskk1k/eli5_how_do_those_cables_they_string_across_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"eonwouy",
"eonwqvv",
"eonyywq",
"eooqywl"
],
"score": [
11,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"if I am thinking about the same cables you are thinking about they aren't used to measure speed they're used to count how many cars are going across the road they use it to know how much maintenance or if they need to expand the road to handle more traffic.",
"Usually they are more using it for traffic flow data, before altering a traffic pattern or timing traffic lights, or construction",
"They don't track vehicle speed, the count how many cars pass over them.\n\nThe data is used to figure out how much traffic is going over a particular road to identify traffic patterns, determine light timings, which roads to prioritize repairs, etc",
"They are a known distance apart, so it's simple to calculate your speed based on the time it takes for your wheel to run over the 1st and then the 2nd cable.\n\nHowever their primary purpose is for traffic counting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4dr934 | how do people not feel effects from thc and other substances if they're still present in our systems for up to days/weeks/months enough to show up on drug tests? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dr934/eli5_how_do_people_not_feel_effects_from_thc_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1tkhoa",
"d1tlzou",
"d1tqr6v"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Two reasons: First, much of the substance is excreted out of your body. They are testing for what small amounts are left over. The concentrations in your body are very very small, and not enough to make you feel any effects, but can still be detected.\n\nSecond, depending on the drug, they are not always testing directly for that drug, but its byproducts. You're body will break down the chemicals in the drug, but the byproducts of that process can hang out in your system for a long time.",
"Drug tests that look for weed don't actually look for thc, they look for the metabolites that are left over in your system as the result of your body breaking down thc. The reason it takes so long for your body to rid itself of thc metabolites is because thc is easily absorbed by body fat.",
"TCH proper is not still in your body.\n\nThe unique chemicals TCH breaks down into are, and that is what a tests can detect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bhd2dr | why is scrotal skin so different from other skin? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhd2dr/eli5_why_is_scrotal_skin_so_different_from_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"elrv9hs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because it has a very particular job that other skin doesn't.\n\nYour testicles have to be kept at a certain temperature, one that's lower than the rest of your body. So your scrotum needs to be able to adapt to temperature and then respond by raising or lowering the testicles, becoming thicker, or thinner and shrinking or expanding.\n\nSo basically because your balls need to stay cool/warm."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
b357cf | why is there seemingly only 5000 species of mammals on earth yet seemingly endless minute variations in insects/birds/reptiles etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b357cf/eli5_why_is_there_seemingly_only_5000_species_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"eix823m",
"eix8mo7",
"eix9ynm",
"eiyba22"
],
"score": [
22,
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Smaller reproduction times and lifespans means you can have more generations and a higher rate of mutation. ",
"Mammals are the most recent biological class to come along. We haven't had the time to develop as many mutations which might be beneficial enough to branch off into nearly as many variants",
"Bird and reptile species aren't that much more numerous than mammals at around 10,000 each compared to insects at up to a million.\n\nReasons that there are so many more insect than vertebrate species are their size and complexity. Vertebrates are for larger and more complex and need far more space to live. They can also move around much more so they can choose to live in an area that is more suitable for them and allows for the increased necessities that come with greater complexity. This means there is less separation of groups that might diverge from one another to form different species. Insects on the other hand can travel far less and must instead become very specialized to the local environment they live in causing greater diversity in species.",
"* TL;DR: Insects had an ecological and evolutive edge over other animals. Their ability to fly let them invade the land before any other animal could. They had lots of resources available, letting them specialise, thus generating several groups and species.\n\n---\n\nAlthough the other explanations offer some valid points, they don't quite hit the nail. There are roughly [5300 living mammal species](_URL_7_), [18k bird species](_URL_2_), and [10k reptile species](_URL_10_) (without considering birds). On the other hand [insects are estimated to be around 5.5M](_URL_6_). Before diving deeper into the reasons why there's way more insect species than all other animal groups combined, I would like to point out that the concept of species isn't equally defined for each living group. So, the parameters used to define an insect species are different to those used to define a mammal species to those used to define a plant or bacterial species. I'll focus on comparing insects against mammals.\n\n#1. Insects are old, mammals are young\n\nFirst we need to have some historical context. When did insects and mammals appear? According to the available fossil record, insects appeared around the [Devonian period](_URL_1_), around 419.2 - 358.9 millions years ago (Mya). Mammals appeared on the [Late Triassic](_URL_0_), 251.2 - 201.3 Mya. That means that insects have been existing roughly 200 million years more than mammals; almost twice as much!\n\nIf we assume new species appear at the same rate among both groups, that difference would account by itself as the main reason why there's more insect species than mammal species. But, there's only about [4 000 species of fish](_URL_8_). If time was the only factor, we should have more fish species than insect species. **Time itself can't explain such diversity**.\n\n#2. Insects reproduce faster than mammals\n\nThe next factor we should consider is that insects reproduce more frequently than mammals. Most insects reach sexual maturity within weeks and in a few months they have already reproduced at least once. On the other hand, mammals take more time to reach sexual maturity, from a few months to some years.\n\nLet's try a hypothesis! Let's assume insects and mammals appeared at the same time, they have the same rate at which new species appear but they differ in generation time: Insects have more generations per year than mammals. In this case we would expect insects to have an edge and after a while they would end up with more species than mammals. To spice things up, let's bring a third group into the race: Plankton.\n\nThese unicellular organisms reproduce even faster than insects. They take a few hours to some day to reproduce. If our hypothesis is true, we should have more plankton species. But that's not the case. [An estimate made in 1991](_URL_4_) said there were roughly 4 000 species of plankton in the ocean. Even if we double that number to 8 000 to compensate for land plankton, we would be far from the estimated 5.5 million species of insects. Just like it happened before, **generation time can't explain the tremendous richness of insect species**.\n\n#3. Adaptive radiation\n\nLife began in the ocean. For millions and millions of years only water bodies could sustain life. After millions of years the first organisms were able to inhabit land but they weren't animals, they were fungi and plants. For even more and more years the land was untouched by animals, fungi and plants could thrive with ease without any predators. That's when insects invaded. Winged insects were the first animal group to successfully inhabit the land, during the [Carboniferous](_URL_5_) (356-299 Mya).\n\nWhen insects arrived to the land it was paradise for them: The abundance of fungi and plants meant they have plenty of food to consume and the absence of other animals meant they didn't have any competition. Thus, they were able to thrive. Here's where the major evolutive event on the insect group happened.\n\nEvery once in a while the conditions align for a particular group to thrive exponentially. Having plenty of food and not having any predators or competition were the conditions that let insects to develop lots of species. When there's lots of resources you can give yourself the luxury to be picky. Insects began to specialise. Some only ate fungi. Some only ate leaves. Some only ate leaves of a few species of plants. Some only ate the seeds of a singular plant species. Some began to consume other insects. Some only consumed the insects that only ate seeds. Some ate a little bit of everything. Those \"available resource slots\" are known as \"niches\". When there's lots of available niche slots, [species radiation](_URL_3_) happens.\n\nInsects had the land for themselves for a long time. They have the time to develop several groups with several species. They spread all over the world in fantastic fashion. The ability to fly played an important role in this domination of land. Being able to fly made them harder to consume by the predators that eventually appeared on land, let them move around easily from resource patch to resource patch and so on.\n\n4. What about mammals?\n\nWhen mammals appeared most ecological niches were \"already taken\". Reptiles and other animal groups already were consuming other animals all over the place, all types of plants, a little bit of both, etc. When they came into existence land and sea were already taken. It wasn't until the [Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction](_URL_9_) that mammals had the chance to occupy the niches left behind by the dominant group at the time: The dinosaurs.\n\nCompared to the adaptive radiation of insects when they invaded land, the mammal radiation when dinosaurs disappeared isn't as successful.\n\n#Conclusion\n\nSometimes the conditions are perfect for a group to thrive and generate lots of species. For insects it was the invasion of land when no other animal group have done it what enabled them to diversify tremendously. On the other hand, animals were only able to diversify a little after dinosaurs disappeared but they didn't have as much liberty as insects had when their radiation even happened."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Triassic",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian",
"https://www.amnh.org/about-the-museum/press-center/new-study-doubles-the-estimate-of-bird-species-in-the-world",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_radiation",
"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30979635_Marine_phytoplankton_How_many_species_in_the_world_ocean",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous",
"https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348?journalCode=ento",
"https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/99/1/1/4834091",
"https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00561/figures/1",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event",
"https://phys.org/news/2014-08-reptile-database-surpasses-species.html"
]
] |
||
2gy4qj | why can't you cut all the wires in a bomb to prevent it from detonating? | I mean, in theory, if you cut all the wires at once you stop the electric flow to signal the detonation. Why don't they show it like that in the movies? Why would this not be possible?
EDIT: Thank you for all the great replies. I would have not imagined this question to become so popular. It's still the top question on the front page of /r/explainlikeimfive. Yesterday, it was on the front page of reddit. I'd like you guys to check out other questions and answer them too. I feel bad for other simpletons like me that have their questions gone unanswered because of the popularity of this question. Please check them out :)
Thank you so much for contributing my to my learning experience! I hope that everyone that participated in this thread learned something. Let's do the same for other questions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gy4qj/eli5_why_cant_you_cut_all_the_wires_in_a_bomb_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cknk748",
"cknk7vb",
"cknl6r7",
"cknm8mt",
"cknmfki",
"cknmhdp",
"cknmj0h",
"cknmj0x",
"cknmwf3",
"cknnfo9",
"cknngsy",
"cknniv5",
"cknnl7y",
"cknnnkc",
"cknnvdq",
"ckno5ji",
"cknoaun",
"cknocw5",
"cknod0x",
"cknog25",
"cknojik",
"cknolf6",
"cknosdf",
"cknp3jz",
"cknpa4d",
"cknplnz",
"cknprfy",
"cknpzd2",
"cknq0cm",
"cknq7a8",
"cknq8th",
"cknqb0s",
"cknre4i",
"cknrv2g",
"cknt0kn",
"ckntk82",
"ckntsj8",
"cknu40q",
"cknu8bq",
"cknv77f",
"cknvj46",
"cknwe5p",
"cknwzdi",
"cknxcyn",
"cknz3if",
"cko4c5t",
"cko6kec",
"cko9dib",
"ckocdgf"
],
"score": [
226,
88,
1068,
19,
14,
65,
8,
10,
5,
2,
2,
3701,
132,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
24,
3,
3,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
10,
9,
4,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
17,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I can very easily rig up a dummy bomb for you that would go \\*pop\\* if you cut the wrong wire.\n\nSometimes, it is the presence of electricity that prevents a circuit from triggering rather than a lack of it.\n\n",
"Perhaps in practice to a limited degree, but used more as a plot tension in movies and TV, the bomb maker would have installed booby-trap wiring that, if cut, would instantly set off the bomb. This would be done in order to confuse and confound any person attempting to disarm said device.\n\nThe ridiculous part of these \"defusing\" plot devices is when the \"bomb expert\" is instructing another person how to defuse the device over a phone by telling them which color wire to cut. There is no standardized color coding for illicit explosives, and if there was one it certainly wouldn't be followed by a person attempting to install anti-defusing systems into the device. ",
"All these answers are wrong. Here's what an EOD tech said on Reddit a while back, paraphrased from memory:\n\nDo you know the difference between car brakes and 18 wheeler brakes? car brakes have brake fluid, so when you step on the pedal you are physically forcing the brake to stop the tire. As long as you don't press thee brake, no stopping, but if you cut the brake line the fluid get's out and you *can't* stop. 18 wheelers use \"air brakes\", where the brake is **always trying to close** and is being stopped by the air brake system. When a trucker hits the pedal, he is allowing that system to fail, causing the brake to close. If a truck's brake line goes, it's brakes are locked-on. \n\nNow, bomb's are always trying to explode. That's their design. The only thing that keeps the bomb from exploding is the system around it, and the timer/cellphone/trigger device *will not turn off* until it's trigger is activated. The system is keeping the bomb *from* detonating. So if you cut some wires and brake the system- boom. You've just destroyed the piece that was keeping it stable, like cutting the air brakes. That's the ELI5 version.\n\nTL;DR- the trigger is actually stopping the bomb from blowing up. If it fails, boom.",
"All depends on the design. If the bomb is \"looking for\" 12V, then cutting wires would be fine.\n\nIf, however, 12V is \"preventing\" the bomb from blowing (which would be ideal in such a case), then cutting wires would be a bad idea.",
"The thing that always confuses me is that in movies, there is always a bomb diffuser guy trying to dismantle the bomb. And he is always looking at the wires and thinking \"was it the red wire or the black wire?\"\n\nI always wondered why a bomb builder would stick to bomb making conventions...or even use colored wires at all.\n\nWhy not use all black wires and just label them as you are building, then remove the labels when you are done?",
"The simplest type of bomb, like a grenade or a Molotov cocktail, has no wires - you light the fuse and throw it. \n\nA less primitive bomb has a timing device attached to a triggering device that sets off the explosive charge and this one can be defused simply by cutting the wires.\n\nA more sophisticated bomb will use a series of relays to connect the timer to the triggering device, one of which will be a *normally-**closed** relay, one that requires power to keep the circuit open rather than closed. Cutting the wires to this particular relay will cause the relay to close and allow power to go directly to the triggering device. (As bigblueoni pointed out, that's how fail-safe air brakes on big trucks work - the air pressure is not what makes the brakes go on, it's what keeps the brakes from being applied. If the brake system \"fails\", it fails to keep the brakes from being applied.)\n\nIf you know a little bit about electrical circuits it's easy enough to identify which wires are the ones going to the triggering device and cut those wires. \n\nBut if you're the bomb-maker and have gone to the trouble of making a bomb designed to go off if it's tampered with it's easy enough to install multiple circuits, dummy circuits, hidden circuits, motion-triggered circuits connected to flaps or boxes within the bomb package, etc., which makes it impossible to tell which wires do what. It's hard to tell if you're actually cutting all the wires or the important wires or the wires that are keeping the bomb from exploding.\n\nFortunately, most of these complicated sorts of bombs only exist in the movies.",
"Wouldn't just pulling the detonator out of the C4 or whatever always be a viable solution, assuming that it's accessible?",
"Would removing detonators or cutting detonator wires do the trick? Though I imagine many ied bomb casings may not grant access to detonators.",
"The IEDs that you hear about in the Middle East that explode on Humvees typically use a circuit that is always on until the weight of an overhead passing military vehicle's tires cut off the circuit which triggers the explosion. This is why MRAPS have giant rake attachments with wheels that drive way in front of the vehicle.",
"All modern bombs, that you see on TV mostly and everywhere else, have a microprocessor in them. This is basically a very basic and simple computer that manages the device, from remote triggering, to the timer, turning it on or off, detonation, anything you can think of. \nAll these microprocessor chips can either send out or receive commands, at the same time. So the chip sends information to the display, so it can show the countdown and also sends out a detonation command when the timer reaches zero. \nBut the other thing it can do, is \"listen\" to other parts of the bomb, which send feedback to the chip that everything is as it should be. This is why there are dummy wires in the bomb. Their only purpose is to tell the chip, that the device is not being tampered with. If one of these is cut tho, the microprocessor understands this as someone trying to disarm the bomb and is programmed to override the countdown timer, basically ignore it and immediately issue the blow up command and this is why you can't cut all of them at once or just random ones. They would be called control wires in this case. ",
"Because there are 2 sorts of switches, Normally Open, and Normally Closed. The electrical current is holding the Normally Closed switch open. Interrupt the current and the switch slams shut. Click, Boom. Then factor in capacitors, other relay switches, mechanical switches, it gets a little complicated. ",
"EOD Tech here. I wanted to chime in because the top replies are mostly wrong.\n\nFirst of all, to answer your question simply:\n\n - Some \"firing circuits\", that is, the circuit in an electrically initiated explosive device(i.e., it contains a battery and electric detonator) **can be interrupted in literally any fashion to \"render safe\" the device.** Firing circuits can be as complex or as simple as **any other type of circuit**. Think of a detonator as a lightbulb, and the device \"initiator\" as a switch(this can be anything, a cellphone, a pressure plate, a suicide switch, whatever). The only other thing you need to complete the circuit is a power source(a battery, for example) In this type of circuit, **you can cut any wire** and the device **cannot work**. There's still explosives present, and there's still measures that need to be taken for that, and you still have to get rid of it, but **the device will no longer function as designed**. It's simple electronics. For the record, this type of device is very common.\n\n - Now, obviously, someone with a lot of electrical know how can design a much better firing circuit. This is where the skill set of the EOD tech comes into play. It's important to diagnose a circuit completely before taking any action. The most straight forward type of circuit **that cannot simply be interrupted at any point in the circuit** is called a **collapsing circuit**. There are several ways to build a collapsing circuit, including using relays, semi-conductors, and various other electrical engineering techniques. I won't explain this further. Suffice to say it's possible to booby trap a circuit so that if a wire is cut, the device will function. This is a much rarer type of device, but one that EOD tech's still train to handle\n\n - Then, as another commenter has mentioned, there are lots and lots of types of explosive devices that don't use electronics of any kind, and therefore there are no wires to cut and other steps have to be taken depending on the type of device.\n\n**TL;DR**: There is a lot more than one type of explosive device. Sometimes, any wire can be cut. Sometimes it can't. Sometimes there are no wires.\n\n**addendum**: Generally speaking, an EOD tech will exhaust all other possible measures before physically interacting with a device in any way. We have a lot of tools and techniques at our disposal, and if possible, we won't go anywhere near a device until it's as safe as we can possibly make it remotely. \n\nedit: speeling.\n\neditedit: Thank you very much for supporting reddit by providing me with gold. It's pretty awesome of you.",
"I'm an EOD tech and a perpetual lurker. I was so taken back by how incorrect the top comment was that I created an account to respond. Bigblueoni's explanation is completely wrong when applied to the majority of IEDs. I'm not going to explain how \"bombs\" work, but to respond to OP, there are very complex electrical circuits out there. There are also very simple ones. A smart bomb maker can make an IED that goes \"boom\" when you cut/touch/move/etc. certain components or wires. That's the ELI5 explanation. \n\nTo be absolutely clear, bigblueoni is completely wrong. Whoever gave him gold should ask for a fucking refund. Bombs are NOT always trying to explode, that is not a typical design. I don't feel comfortable saying anything more, but I don't want everyone to have this ludicrous idea about how basic electrical circuits work. ",
"I love how the movie stereotype of bombs still persists.... nobody makes bombs to be \"hard to defuse\", they don't make them to beep and there's no countdown timer to look at pretty numbers while it beeps.\n\nThe overwhelming majority of bombs are made to explode on queue, they're pumped out en mass, not masterworks expecting a movie demolitions expert to try and defuse them.\n\nA staggering amount of explosives are going to be a case of \"pull the detonator/blasting cap out of the explosive material\", and that's assuming you even WANT TO. \n\nThere's no reason to defuse a bomb unless it's somewhere that detonating it is going to cause problems... just slap a line of something on there, drive 200m and boom!",
"I don't know anything about bombs, but I have done some work on alarm systems that are setup with a fail safe in mind. If the power source goes out, a relay trips and complets an activation circuit to shut something down, so the relay needs power all the time. I am assuming it's the same situation with a bomb. You must find the wire that is being switched and disconnect it first. If you mistakenly cut a wire that controls power for the relay, the device would activate assuming it's using a different source for power. ",
"What I don't get is why they colour the wires. Why make the bomb easier to defuse?",
"The answer is as simple as wrong it normally closed instead of normally open.",
"The truck air break analogy is good but not really explaining how it works.. A bomb is the actual explosive, the detonator is what makes the bomb explode. And a detonator is an electrical circuit. Like a flashlight with a battery it has a negative and a positive end and when you connect the two to a light bulb it turns on by sending electrical current from the battery to the bulb. A bomb works the same way, when all the wires are separated and insulated the bomb is fine because the electrical circuit is not complete. But when a trigger is activated it completes the circuit sending an electrical signal to the detonator therefor making the bomb explode. So if you were to cut all the wires at ones you would be completing the circuit because your cutters are metal and would (at a moment) touch all wires at once. ",
"most EOD techs use not wire cutters as their primary disarming tool, but a Barrette .50 or a shotgun, this process is called energetic disruption, and it works because it explodes the device without detonating it, rendering it harmless as the explosive agent is sent fucking everywhere.",
"Wtf do they do then when they find a powerful bomb? Ie, what would have happened if someone found Tim Mcveigh's Oklahoma city bomb? You can't just have a robot move and self contain that kind of explosion. I'm just using that bomb as a reference. Think a powerful bomb that can take down a building, and have enough electronics to confuse someone.",
"If the circuit consists of a battery connected to a blasting cap through a switch, then cutting a wire to the switch, battery or blasting cap will disable it.\n\nIn theory, this basic circuitry could be embedded inside the bomb so it is not accessible without cutting some external wires. The inside part could contain circuitry that triggers the bomb if any external wires are cut. The external wires could be disguised to look like a battery/switch/detonator. This would be a more difficult device to build. I'd be surprised if this happens in practice.",
"It all depends on the design of the particular bomb. Some are very rudimentary and cutting pretty much any wire will make it inoperable. Others are designed with traps where opening an access panel to get to wires will cause detonation. There is no one answer to this question. ",
"The makers of bombs don't want them to be easily defused so they booby trap the trigger. For instance a secondary triggering device might be a percussion cap with a spring loaded firing pin set to hit it once a relay loses power. The wiring system can be quite complex, too complex to understand at a glance. Think a complicated procedure in some programming language (some early computers were programmed with jumper wires in a switchboard like module...) it takes time to understand how it works. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.",
"I'm very sorry but this analogies are wrong, and are not explaining what is actually happening.\n\nThe circuit board is sending a digital 1 output, 1 means the switch of your light bulb is \"ON\", this switch is going trough a \"NOT\" gate, what this gate does is to take the 1 or \"ON\" and turn it into a 0, or \"OFF\", all the time, once the time reaches 0 the switch changes to \"OFF\" and the not gate triggers a 1 or \"ON\".\n\nIf during this time you cut the cable that is sending the \"OFF\" signal you will automatically call the \"ON\" signal and the bomb's trigger.",
"Currently cunducting route clearance in Afghanistan and we have come across many IED's since we've been here. Most of the bombs we come across are simple one switch circuits which usually consist of one pressure plate. You step on or drive over one of these and it completes the circuit between the power source and the blasting cap. Once one of these potential threats are found, usually with ground penetrating radar, we do the ol \"I hope this shit don't explode\" dig untill we find all the components and identify their purpose. If it's the usual simple switch initiated IED, simply cut any of the wires and it will render the bomb inoperable. Then WE blow it up with C4. If the device is more technically advanced with possible anti tamper components and we are not confident on exactly how it works, we send the robot up with some C4, identify the main charge, and blow it up. \n\nIf a bomb was somewhere where you couldn't just blow it up with C4 say an airport, i'd say cut the det cord leading to the blasting cap. Or if it's an electrical system, cut the two wires leading to the blasting cap. This should rule out any anti tamper circuits. Some people here like to think there's some hidden power source waiting to close a circuit once a wire is cut and will cause it to detonate. Well guess where the power from that second battery is going? Cut the wires closest to the blasting cap and only if you can visually see the wires directly connected to it. This is all assuming the bomb is detonated by a blasting/firing cap, which most explosives are.",
"Relevant question on the Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange site: \n[Why would clipping a wire cause a bomb to explode?](_URL_0_)",
"Booby trapping booby traps is the worst problem. I read about demolition guy in Vietnam. He was going to detonate a booby trap. Safest way to disarm, right? So he looked around and the only cover was a tombstone about 25 yards away. So he took cover there and detonated the device-- only to detonate another booby trap behind the tombstone, killing him. A tough job indeed...",
"You have to understand logic gates, AND, OR, NAND, NOR, XAND, XOR etc etc, and how they use voltage and current to activate relays and switches. Hitting something with a stick, unfortunately, doesn't always work.",
"no one cuts wires to disarm a bomb. They blow it up either in-place or if they determine that they can safely move it they will move it away from structures and blow it up there. Because there is no standard way to build a bomb and know way of knowing how each one was put together. For example, every US airport has a designated area where they will take a bomb to blow up if the TSA or cops find one.",
"You don't know whether:\n\nIf the timer/remote is preventing the detonation, and disconnecting it (or the timer running out) will cause it to go off, or,\n\nIf the timer/remote will trigger the charge, in which case it would be safe to cut. \n\n50/50 aint good odds, and this is a pretty simplistic cartoon style bomb.",
"Good question. I honestly have no actual idea, but I would say that there is a certain wire *preventing* the explosion from happening, so if you cut the wrong one (that one) you'd initiate the explosion. And maybe what the detonator does is cut off power to the wire that prevents the explosion. One hell of a theory, and probably wrong, but it makes sense to me :P",
"Just clear the area, blow it yourself with your own charge, and hope it goes low order.",
"A very simple thing to point out is that there are circuits which can trigger due to lack of signal (logical 0), so cutting a wire would actually trigger the bomb.",
"Former EOD student who got kicked out then went and took a circuits class. There's a lot of ways you can configure a bomb to explode, with no one way to render them safe. With chips they way they are these days, crazy shit can be made to initiate the explosion. Cutting wires is stupid, use a robot.",
"is there a compilation out there of movies that actually have thi scene in it?\n\nIt seems like its spoofed more than its used.",
"I think some bombs are wired so that the electric current is the thing **stopping** it from detonating. So when the electric current is lost, boom",
" a bomb with actual wires is a bomb using a computer controller or circuit to trigger detonation. The trick is not to cut the wires but rather to separate the controller from the detonation method (det cord, caps etc). Once the controller can no longer interact with these things the bomb can not be triggered. \n",
"More than anything how do you know you are cutting \"ALL\" the wires? You might just be cutting all the obvious wires(AKA \"Darwin wires\").",
"You can't just cut all the wires in the situation you're talking about.\n\nIf the device is booby trapped to go off if the wrong wire is cut, you can't just cut them all really fast. You aren't faster than electricity.\n\nSay you had two light switches and that went to the same light. When they both down the light is off and when they're both up the light is off but when one is up and the other is down, the light is on. If you flick both lights switch up really fast, the light isn't just going to not go on. One of the light switches is going to complete the circuit a fraction of a second faster and the light will go on \nbriefly.\n\nIt's the same with your hypothetical bomb. You can't \"beat\" a circuit from completely.",
"I feel like people are getting way into how bombs work and aren't answering your question. Bombs can be designed to be tamper proof, so that if you cut \"the wrong wire\" (or **any** wire in a really good bomb) the bomb will explode. \n\nYour question is, why can't you just cut all the wires at once? In theory, this would work. However, electricity travels at the speed of light, and micro-controllers operate at frequencies of over 100,000,000 operations per second. The reason you can't cut all wires is that it simply can't be done fast enough. Based on how the circuit is designed, you could have less than a millisecond after cutting the \"wrong\" wire before the bomb explodes. If you could cut all wires in under a millisecond, in theory you could do it. But no human, (or machine, yet) can achieve this.",
"Maybe there is a relay holding the charge from detonating? If you cut the wire going to the relay, it will let go and BOOM\n\nIf its a PNP transistor, Keeping it at \"high\" level ( with voltage on the gate) will keep it off. Disable it and goes BOOM. \n\nIf its a PNP, then that wire could be pulling it low. Cut it, it will go High and BOOM.\n\nIf its a complicated circuit, and you cut some wire, it could DE-stabilize the circuit, making some voltages increase or decrease, thus activating it and goes BOOM.\n\nSometimes they add extra wires, and if you cut the wrong one, it activates the signal on purpose and goes BOOM.\n\nBy cutting more than 1 wire at the same time, you can short circuit both wires and goes BOOM.\n\nWhen talking about Clocks, there is such a thing as set and re-set. If you cut the right one, the clock goes to max state, such as 99:99, cut the wrong one, and its a shortcut to 00:00 and goes BOOM.\n\nAnd most of the time, if a good bomb maker is involved, they will encase the whole thing in plastic, making it impossible for you to know what wires goes where and does what. all you see is wires going to a black plastic block.\n\nEven encasing the bomb is not safe. If the signal is made to refresh every certain amount of time, by radio control, by blocking the signal it will prevent it from refreshing. Since the bomb cannot hear the signal of \"its ok keep counting\" it will not re-set and go BOOM.",
"What if electricity going through one of those wires is what is keeping the bomb from exploding?",
"Tiny question here: why doesn't anybody gently pull the blasting caps out of a brick of plastic explosive and throw the explosive like a baseball to some safe-ish area? ....assuming the explosive is C4, you can run it over with a truck, drop it from a plane, set it on fire and/or shoot at it with rifles and it won't explode, so why isn't this a good idea? The blasting caps will explode, but we're talking firecrackers, not half the building missing.\n\nI can think of a couple ways to still make it explode, but they're quite a bit more advanced and never done in movies.",
"Simplest answer is that it could be designed to detonate when an electrical flow is stopped.",
"Some newer devices using modern electronics have a LOT of wires. It became something of a subfield in IED making to have devices with incredibly complex circuits. You could certainly try, but there's a threshold where the number of wires that you would have to cut simultaneously is technically possibly but logistically just not going to happen. It's also interesting to note that you can design bombs that start with an electrical signal to activate something else, like another, smaller circuit, that is designed to detonate the bomb if that signal is shut off. I think the term that best describes these are \"fail deadlies\", meaning that rather than just shutting down if some sort of error occurs, it instead self destructs. There are also other really pesky things that aren't as common as they once were, like anti-handling devices. Those are basically components designed to activate the bomb if something is moved or touched the wrong way. A could example of this might be that there is a shell around the actual explosive material, and a light sensor on the inside. The light sensor doesn't do anything until the bomb is activated, at which point opening it up to expose the actual mechanisms you need to disable or tamper with to stop the bomb, light will activate it and make the bomb explode. There are lots of similar devices that get more and more complex as you go on, and it basically ends up making it very dangerous to just try to cut them all at once. But hey. I'm mostly an armchair expert. ",
"Relays.\n\nRelays are electric switches, they either make or break connections. Some relays are open (disconnected) when power is off and closed (connected) when power is on and some are the reverse.\n\nSo, if you want a switch that closes a circuit (blows up the bomb) when power is cut, you use a power off relay. \n\nThe problem is with cutting all the wires, you don't know if they have a failsafe, power off relay in there.",
"Terrorist 101: Explosives\n\nBasic explosives - there are explosives and there are blasting caps. Most explosives are made to be relatively safe and inert, so that they don't go BOOM accidentally. Some explosives are sensitive, whereas things like C4 (like clay or play-dough) and diesel-fertilizer mixes are relatively inert, you can hammer them and they won't go off. To go off they need a sever shock like a blasting cap.\n\n(IIRC Nobel earned his money inventing dynamite, where nitroglycerine was soaked into sawdust or something - nitro will go boom at the least provocation, as dynamite it was relatively safe. Major advance, much money, he eventually felt guilty about the war-like uses and set up the Nobel prizes.)\n\nBlasting caps - the ones I worked with look like the cartridge end of a rifle bullet, with two wires (or a thin plastic tube) coming out one end. The ones with wires are fired by a current running through the wires. I actually saw people using those plunger-type boxes you see in cartoons. You run the wires far enough away, or around the corner of a cliff, etc - push on the plunger, that spins a magnet which generates a jolt of current - more reliable, no battery needed. Replaced often now by battery and switch. \n\nThe other type of blasting cap is explosion-activated. We had stuff called B-line, a long string of explosive with blast speed measured in thousands of feet a second. Hook this to the second type of blasting cap - tube not wires, and the blast shock from the B-line travels down the thin plastic pipe (about as thick as a pen refill) and sets off the cap. Not terribly relevant for bombs. \n\nSo real simple bomb - stick the blasting cap into the lump of C4. If you're the moron wearing the suicide vest, you have several bricks flattened around your body with a blasting cap in each. Al Queda liked to add nails, ball bearings, etc. around the C$ for maximum damage... sick fuckers. Create some sort of trigger - as simple as a mechanical alarm clock that closes a switch when it goes off, as complex as a fancy timer that can run for months, or something that sets off based on a cellphone ring, etc. \n\nSo real simple - cut the wires to the blasting cap, and while you're at it - yank the cap out of the C4, then if it goes off after that you'll at least only lose a had, maybe an eye or two. \n\nNow I'm Abdul or Liam or Mr. Meinhoff or the Weathermen and my job is to make that more difficult. What do I do? \n\nFirst trick is \"do not disturb\". Something as simple as a pool of mercury in a vial as a switch - if the vial is disturbed, the mercury sloshes, the circuit is closed, Boom! Of course, the stupid thing is the screenwriters for movies like *Speed* think you can put this do-not-disturb on a bus travelling 60mph over California streets. It will take the potholes but it knows if you pick it up...\n\nOne trick was to build a dam around the bomb, pour liquid nitrogen - freeze any mercury switches, as a bonus, kill any battery with extreme cold. So put a thermocouple in the electronics to alert the trigger to any attempt to freeze it.\n\nMaybe put a switch like the one on a refrigerator door, if you open the bomb box or lift the bomb off the ground, switch goes off -deadman switch idea. But if your bomb disposal expert can't even look inside the box, where's the fun?\n\nTo stop the blasting caps being pulled out- maybe have multiple wires going into the bomb - one set is attached to a deadman switch - pull on the wires, closes the circuit, boom. Maybe have the wires with another deadman switch too - shave the C4 off and uncover the switch, it goes off. Have electronics that detect the wire being cut (or short-circuited - another trick, shave off the insulation, short the wires together, no current through the cap). There are two or 3 \"caps\" buried in the C4 - which are real, which are decoy trigger switches? There might even be wires buried in the explosive lump to detect it being manipulated - if you change the shape, the wires touch and boom!\n\nSo the problem is - every bomber has their own tricks - is that the cap or a decoy trigger? Looks like the cap wires, but maybe the bomber cup them off a cap to fool you. Maybe the real cap has red and green wires twisted onto it an inch from the cap inside the C4. And so on...\n\nIt's a war of escalating tricks. What has the bomber done to prevent disarming? As every programmer will tell you about computer programming, or every engineer about devices - too fancy and it will screw up. Just do what's needed - if they won't find it, don't add too many tricks. Plus, as mentioned by others - you need practice to be sure it works - so odds are not every bomb will be a one off; the bomber will learn some stuff and repeat it over and over.\n\nThere have been spectacular screw-ups. _URL_0_\n But of course, anyone setting a bomb needs to be sure it does not go off when you turn it on - how do you know your deadman switches are not on, from transporting the bomb to its location? In 1970 the Weathermen were making bombs and blew up a Greenwich village townhouse. The second round of London Tube bombings fizzled, apparently the home-made detonators did not work and the backpacks just went pop. The shoe-bomber failed because his feet sweated too much and his fuse in his shoe would not light. He went through a whole book of matches. According to one news report, the FBI has a perfect imprint of the bombmaker's thumb in the explosive. The underwear bomber simply set fire to his crotch (!!) another fizzle. ",
"Those of you in this thread may enjoy the kindle single _URL_0_\n\nThe bomb used to conduct this ransom is still used today as an example of an impossible bomb to defuse. Great story and read. ",
"NSA is all the fuck over this thread. haha"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/129548/why-would-clipping-a-wire-cause-a-bomb-to-explode"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhrWbvT4UHU"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com.au/Thousand-Pounds-Dynamite-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B00M9V9MFW"
],
[]
] |
|
6kdtdt | what is cherenkov radiation? | I saw the nuclear reactor gif earlier and I've e heard of and seen CR on the internet before. What is it and why does it happen?
Ps. Sorry if this is a reposted question, I couldn't find a previous discussion on the topic. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6kdtdt/eli5what_is_cherenkov_radiation/ | {
"a_id": [
"djlasm7"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"In a nutshell, it’s like a sonic boom, but instead of going faster than sound, it goes faster than light. Instead of going BOOM, it’s a flash of light/radiation. Nothing goes faster than light in a vacuum. However, through a medium like water, light slows down so some subatomic particles can go faster than it. Usually, they’re trying to find neutrinos when you’re talking about Cherenkov Radiation. Since neutrinos don’t really interact with anything, what they do is fill a huge room with water and light detectors. Then they wait and hope one of the quadrillions of neutrinos passing through the room interact with the water causing a brief flash (Cherenkov Radiation)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
a5y24v | is there a reason spicy things become less spicy after being refrigerated? | was eating leftover wings and became curious | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a5y24v/eli5_is_there_a_reason_spicy_things_become_less/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebq6oeh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Cold numbs your taste buds. So it's not less spicy your mouth just doesn't register the capsaicin like it would if the wings were hot."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5zg4dz | if alcohol tastes terrible, why do people drink it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zg4dz/eli5if_alcohol_tastes_terrible_why_do_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"dextjwm",
"dexubmm",
"dexuoi5",
"dexvrj0"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I quite enjoy the taste of beer or cider, especially after a hot sweaty day. And the nice buzz after 2 is calming. I very rarely if ever have more than 3 beers in a sitting (I don't like being out of control of my actions)\n\nI've recently been having low alcohol beers which are pleasantly nice",
"I think you start drinking it for the effect and then start to enjoy it after a while. It's like coffee as a kid I thought it was gross and then started liking it as I got older and like the affect.. maybe it's the same. It definitely doesn't taste great but it kind of tastes like relaxation and good times 👍🏽",
"I love the taste of beer and certain cocktails but can't stand cider. There is likely a drink out there that you enjoy. \n\nBut also, it's a drug. People drink it because of it's depressant effect on the human body as well.",
"To get rickety wrecked! No, there are various reasons why someone might drink alcohol despite it's taste. Addiction is one that I can think of. Peer pressure to look cool might be another reason. Maybe a person just hasn't found the one that they enjoy yet (I'm very particular about what bier I will drink, and that's not many). Another reason that just came to mind would be paring it with a particular food. Maybe it changes the flavor all together. Again, I don't drink that often, if at all anymore, but from what I remember, the points I stated seem to answer the question in my mind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4upeqn | if having a straight back is the 'proper' position, why isn't it the 'natural' position? | Not natural as in a straight back often requires deliberate effort to maintain even if the person does not have any diseases. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4upeqn/eli5_if_having_a_straight_back_is_the_proper/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5rn7ja",
"d5rnv2l",
"d5rq20w"
],
"score": [
44,
48,
8
],
"text": [
"I'm never going to find this article, but the \"natural\" position is a straight spine, not a curved one-- hold on let me google. \n\nThere was an article saying that the anatomy textbooks are wrong because they're all based from people who did a lot of sitting (or something) and if you look at the spine of hunter-gatherers, their spines are straight. If anybody knows what the hell I'm talking about, please help me with your google-fu\n\nFound it!\n_URL_0_\n\n**ETA for TL;DR** Our natural shape is a J, not an S, and older anatomy textbooks have them as a J shape. Lots of sitting and slouching (and potentially, western bellies) have created the S shape. There are exercises you can do to bring back the J shape, which will likely also reduce back pain--perhaps because your spine is out of alignment, or perhaps because those exercises strengthen your core",
"You are asking about natural posture, but you have probably never seen a human who lives in a natural habitat. Chairs, and a sedentary lifestyle, are the reason that most people don't have good posture. [Hunter gatherers have great posture and make it to old age with few back and hip problems](_URL_1_)\n\nWestern Europeans and Americans are the worst of all. Asian cultures like Japan where it is common to sit on the floor have healthier posture, and even [Eastern Europeans who squat more](_URL_0_) have better hip and spine mechanics. Many weightlifters have to practice \"third world squats\" in order to develop leg mobility- which simply means sitting like a human being who didn't grow up in a chair.\n\nIn addition to the lack of flexibility and strength, sedentary lifestyle prevents us from developing an accurate sense of exactly what our posture should be. This is why Yoga does more to help back pain than simple stretching, it also involves paying deep attention to the sensations of posture and movement. Any healthy person has the strength to stand up straight, at least for a while, habit is the reason it doesn't feel natural.",
"**Straight** is not really a true description of the spine. The spine is really a long 'S'. The curves in the spine are healthy and 'natural', and we need them in order to move properly. When you do not [overemphasize the curve in the thoracic \\(middle spine\\)](_URL_4_) - by slouching, or hunching your shoulders, [or by sticking out your chest](_URL_0_) - that's considered \"straight\". When we say people are standing straight, what we mean is that their spines are in proper alignment, which means they still have the natural curves in their spines. \n\nMost people in the West have been acculturated to a slouching or hunching over, holding their shoulders unnecessarily. This is because we want to look cool, so we pose like [models or actresses.](_URL_1_) Or like [Taylor Swift](_URL_5_).\n\nMary Kate and Ashley Olsen are good examples of this. [In this photo of one of them](_URL_2_), you can see she is holding her shoulders high and pushing her head forward unnaturally. It looks good in this photo, but it's unnatural. [Here's another image where you can see the hunching.](_URL_6_) \n\nChildren, who haven't learned these cultural signals yet, retain their [\"straight\" spines](_URL_3_).\n\nFor women and men, who slouch or push out their chests, when we say we want them to \"stand up straight\" what we mean is we want them to put their spines into proper alignment, by lengthening or curving their spines as they are naturally supposed to be."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/06/08/412314701/lost-posture-why-indigenous-cultures-dont-have-back-pain"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/slavs_squatting/",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/06/08/412314701/lost-posture-why-indigenous-cultures-dont-have-back-pain"
],
[
"http://alexandertechniquenorthside.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Probi1.jpg",
"http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2298/358/1600/posture2.jpg",
"http://img.ezinemark.com/imagemanager2/files/30006024/2011/08/2011-08-27-09-16-46-6-at-a-charity-gala-in-new-york-mary-kate-was-embra.jpeg",
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D75DQPI0RmU/Ta9T7G_4F5I/AAAAAAAAAfY/PxNUGP8QzU4/s320/Untitled.jpg",
"http://www.askthetrainer.com/image-files/slouch-computer.jpg",
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/16/article-0-2169A66400000578-962_306x725.jpg",
"http://amandoblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Olsens-Anonymous-Blog-Style-Fashion-Get-The-Look-Mary-Kate-Olsen-Stripes-It-Up-In-Soho-With-A-Black-And-White-Look.jpg"
]
] |
|
aj8ah8 | with modern technology, why do pharmacists still exist as a profession? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aj8ah8/eli5_with_modern_technology_why_do_pharmacists/ | {
"a_id": [
"eethsvf",
"eethu5f",
"eethwq3",
"eeti74b",
"eetk5el",
"eetm0a2",
"eetm71a",
"eetnqn0"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Why do video examples of things exist for games?\n\nPharmacists exist because not everyone can easily understand the instructions, nor can they understand easily the interactions between drugs they’re already taking.\n\nA pharmacist is supposed to be the bridge between your doctor and your medication and you. You can ask your pharmacist if something is weird or different. They will be able to tell you if things interact strangely and that’s why you’re feeling weird. They can also tell you if over the counter medication is interfering.",
"Well, we do need someone to ensure the computers, if any, are accurate and to answer questions someone may have. Computers can’t really do that and computers can fail",
"Pharmacists are the human check of symptoms against legit prescriptions against frequency of dispensation. Advice of drug interaction between patients and a computer system cannot assess the individual patient's needs.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThey also provide advice for all customers and potential patients for low-level non-doctor health complaints.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nMany prescriptions are also written out for non-standard dosages which need to be compounded especially by a pharmacist.",
"Maybe in the future, but for now this isn't precise enough. Personal experience : I worked in two different companies with that kind of machine and it was pretty common they did mistakes. Just a little dust on the sensor can make a huge mess. It's kind of dangerous with meds, one or two pills can screw things. The human aspect is a factor too",
"As someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time with professionals of various medical fields, the pharmacists are bloody important especially if you are seeing multiple specialists at the same time. Specialist A has prescribed X. Specialist B has prescribed Y. The computer would happily dispense them. The pharmacist says \"hmm, have you had supplements Z recently? OK, then taking these together would make your heart explode. Back in a minute, I have some highly trained specialists to shout at.\" ",
"Pharm D's actually are a type of doctor, they are considered clinicians the same way doctors are.\n\nAn easy way to think about it is an MD specializes in the human body and ailments/disease whereas Pharm D specializes in the human body and chemicals/chemical reactions. They work together, behind the scenes they help each other: An MD may want to prescribe a certain drug, but they might have to consult with the Pharm D to figure out the correct dose form, route of administration, and dosing schedule based on different factors like what drugs they are already taking, body mass, and metabolism. \n\nThose who have mentioned that they are a safety net are correct as well: making sure the right drug gets dispensed all the way to contacting Dept of Health where there's a community as risk for disease outbreaks/contamination.",
"I work with some people who are researching this same thing. Firstly, the problem space is something that is actually somewhat hard to solve in the computer science community. ('Hard to solve' being that the problem itself is inefficient algorithmically, by nature of the problem)\n\nThis might get a bit more complicated than ELI5, but how some researchers have proposed to solve this problem is by laying out a series of drugs as a \"net\" (formally known as a graph) where a drug is a point in the net. Every drug has a \"connection\" to every other drug, signifying those were taken together in some quantity. If you were to walk these edges, some paths may cure you and many might kill you. \n\nA baseline proposal is to figure out every possible walk on this network that could potentially kill you for a population of people. This is hard because you either need some careful analysis of drug interactions, which is a whole other science in itself, or real-world data. \n\nAnother problem is that there is exponentially many edges for a number of drugs, and exponentially many different combinations on top of that. You also need to know this network for a patient's given condition. \n\nWith all these variables, it's hard to come up with a deterministic system. The ones we have currently make mistakes (because they are not deterministic nor have full-knowledge) so they best used as aids for a pharmacist who can think more critically than our current systems. ",
"Have you ever looked at what a computer will flag as an interaction? There are so many interactions that are theoretically possible, but which ones actually matter? If you have a person who is an otherwise-healthy 22 year old, is on an antidepressant, and is prescribed ibuprofen and the \"Major Interaction\" for increased risk of bleeding pops up, is that something that you really need to worry about? In all likelihood, no, not really. But you show that \"major interaction\" to somebody and they will freak out. What if your doctor accidentally writes for metoprolol tartrate when the patient has been getting metoprolol succinate? What if somebody with a history of C. diff infections gets prescribed clindamycin by their dentist? Who is going to talk to them about their significantly increased risk of C. diff? And from the list of a million side effects, which ones are actually more likely to happen and which ones are really problematic? I think you underestimate how much information is available and how much information people are capable of understanding or are willing to research. Also, what other healthcare professional can you get health and treatment advice from FOR FREE without an appointment just by going to your corner pharmacy? Pharmacists are consistently rated as the most accessible health care professional for the general public. \n\nThese are just a few examples of where pharmacists can be useful. And this is only in the community setting. Pharmacists are also found in hospitals where among other duties, they are tasked with choosing and dosing antibiotics and anticoagulants. They can be found in pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, ambulatory care clinics, drug information firms, and many other settings. Contrary to popular belief, pharmacists don't just count pills. In fact, they almost never count pills. Their roll is to be an expert on medication - based therapy and to be a resource to patients and other healthcare professionals. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bf0dcp | why does technology seem to develop linear instead of in jumps? | Every year or generation we get a slightly more advanced product and the change doesn't appear to be huge. If they hold back their technology wouldn't other companies just try to be their first to come out with the product? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bf0dcp/eli5_why_does_technology_seem_to_develop_linear/ | {
"a_id": [
"el9urw7"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The bleeding edge of research does move in jumps, but manufacturing doesn't.\n\nThe stuff that reaches consumers has to be produced in mass quantities in giant factories. You can't go retrofit the entire assemly line every time there's a research breakthrough, so there's a slow incremental change in production capacity over time as engineers figure out how to turn new technology into financially feasible production runs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6epff6 | why do printers decide to randomly do...something every so often? | Not sure if this is just something my model of printer does, but every so often my printer will just decide that now is the time to start spinning something, or moving something, or just doing general printer magic. What's that about? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6epff6/eli5_why_do_printers_decide_to_randomly/ | {
"a_id": [
"dic3shr"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Ink jet Printer heads need to have the ink wiped off of them before it dries, and also the head needs to be sealed to reduce risk of blockages. It doesn't do this right away because you might still want to print something. It has some logic which tells it it's time to clean during printing, or that it's sat idle for long enough that it needs to be cleaned and sealed. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1pbyln | how are these kind of space images captured? | not specifically nubulae, but mostly that, i see these images a lot via /r/spaceporn and such avenues and am always fascinated by their beauty and clarity, and then i'm just puzzled. how are these pictures generated? _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pbyln/eli5how_are_these_kind_of_space_images_captured/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd0t1zg",
"cd0t4m1",
"cd0t6ty",
"cd0teyb",
"cd0u55c",
"cd0udv9"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"With the Hubbel telescope.\nA lot of those images are slightly photo-shopped. They don't actually look like that. (has to do with shifting the visible spectrum around)",
"Yah they are taken with the hubble space telescope or other ground based telescopes. None of the colors are real though. They colorize the spectrum so that we can see them and distinguish things. A lot of awesome space photos are taken in the microwave spectrum which we cant see at all so they just assign colors to each wavelength to generate the photo.",
"If you got 30min to kill, this will help.\n\n_URL_0_",
"[This](_URL_0_) does a good job explaining photos and the colors.",
"The images are captured with telescopes like Hubble, (as mentioned below), and then an artist digitally \"paints\" in the color based on light and gas emissions picked up in that particular area of space. Like most things in life, artificial coloring has been added for consumer satisfaction. Example: The \"Eye of God\" or Helix Nebula has been digitally rendered by Hubble artists. _URL_0_",
"thanks everyone for the links and responses, very informative!"
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/H3ytm9V.jpg"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.astronomycast.com/2013/10/episode-317-observatories/"
],
[
"http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/"
],
[
"http://www.spacetelescope.org/projects/fits_liberator/fitsimages/dean_salman_3/"
],
[]
] |
|
kadex | why proper emulation of older systems is still hard on new computers | Older systems such as PS2. Not *really* old, but old enough that I don't know why new computers have trouble emulating it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kadex/eli5_why_proper_emulation_of_older_systems_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2ioq6f",
"c2iroqt",
"c2ioq6f",
"c2iroqt"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Honey, let's take a break from the games and eat your peas. \n\nAlso: difference of dedicated processors v. multi-tasking within an already high-functioning OS. ",
"Emulators (software) try and use the available hardware to reproduce similar actions of different hardware. But without the exact same (or better) hardware you will never get perfectly matching results.",
"Honey, let's take a break from the games and eat your peas. \n\nAlso: difference of dedicated processors v. multi-tasking within an already high-functioning OS. ",
"Emulators (software) try and use the available hardware to reproduce similar actions of different hardware. But without the exact same (or better) hardware you will never get perfectly matching results."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9awld1 | i dont understand spacetime and its relevance with gravity, eli5 please... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9awld1/eli5_i_dont_understand_spacetime_and_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4ynv9w"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"To understand the answer to this question, we first have to understand what curved spacetime is, and how it relates to falling objects. \n\nSpacetime is a four dimensional object. Three of these dimensions are spatial, and one is temporal. In classical mechanics, space and time are the stage on which things move: they are static, constant, unchanging. In relativity, however, spacetime is dynamic. It interacts with the objects that move through it, and time and space are not strictly separate. \n\nAs gravity is modeled through the curvature of spacetime instead of a force, an object under the influence of gravity is force-free. Thus, an object does not undergo acceleration through gravity. We call such an object free falling, and its path through spacetime a [*geodesic*](_URL_1_). You can imagine geodesics as a straight lines on a curved surface. \n\nFor example, all the lines on [this sphere](_URL_0_) are geodesics, as they are straight lines on the surface. If you were an ant on the surface of a sphere, and you started walking straight ahead without turning left or right, you would follow one such \"geodesic\", or straight line. \n\n\nTwo free falling objects in their respective gravitational fields follow such geodesics, as they are both falling freely. Hence, both objects are force free. \n\nOur intuition says, that two force-free objects should not experience relative acceleration, right? If one object moves at v*_1_* and another object moves at v*_2_*, their relative velocity should be constant and given by v=v*_2_*-v*_1_*. \n\nThis result holds true for flat spacetime. In curved spacetime, however, things get more complicated. \n\nConsider [this](_URL_2_) example: Imagine two objects that are moving along the lines perpendicular to the equator. They start out parallel, and move in a straight line upwards. Despite the fact that neither of them is turning, the two objects that started out moving along parallel lines will meet at the north pole.\n\nThis implies, that relative acceleration between free bodies is possible in curved geometries.\n\nThis fact is expressed mathematically by the [Geodesic Deviation Equation](_URL_1__deviation). \n\nTo come back to your example: despite the fact that both objects (the falling object and earth) are force-free, they experience relative acceleration due to the fact that earth's gravitational field curves spacetime. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Spherical_triangle.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic",
"http://pi.math.cornell.edu/~dwh/books/eg99/Ch06/3776c40d.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_deviation"
]
] |
||
5m76rw | is there a non-cynical explanation for rich people running for office? or interested at all in cabinet positions and politics in general? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m76rw/eli5_is_there_a_noncynical_explanation_for_rich/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc1a72g",
"dc1a7ho",
"dc1hpt4"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's pretty simple: Running a campaign costs money. People who have lots of money don't have to go to work to get their paycheck. They can devote 100% of their time and energy to campaigning. They can afford all the flags and banners and employees and commercials that are required to run a successful campaign. And they are likely to have lots of rich friends who can donate to their campaigns and introduce them to other rich and powerful people. \n\nYou could be the most brilliant leader in the world, but if you are poor you just won't have the resources to invest in running a campaign.",
"poor people have to worry about a steady paying job that pays the bills.\n\nrich people can afford to not work for a year or two that they're campaigning.\n\nthat's pretty much only true for state and national politics. local and regional politics, you'll find some average folk running for positions",
"It is hard to be a politician if you have to worry about a day job.\n\nBecoming a congressman or cabinet member usually takes years, even decades, of working your way up the political ladder. Your early career might look like:\n\n* spend a year campaigning (sometimes with your own money) to get elected as state representative\n* get paid $20K a year as state rep\n* serve two years, lose reelection\n* spend the next two years campaigning again\n* win, get reelected twice\n* after 6 years, run for state senate, \n* get paid $30K a year\n* server two 4 year terms\n* run for US congress\n\nIt took you 13 years of full time work just to get ready for a congressional run, and in that time, you averaged a salary of about $21,500 a year. That's a pretty low paying career, with a highly uncertain future, if you don't have anything to fall back on.\n\nThe next time you hear someone complain about how much politicians are paid, remember than not paying them means only the rich can afford to hold office."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1nceu9 | what's the behind the meaning of a "neckbeard"? | Can someone please explain what a neckbeard is? Why do they wear fedoras? Why the "le" in front of words? Is it an insult? I'm still pretty new to this and a bit lost? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nceu9/eli5_whats_the_behind_the_meaning_of_a_neckbeard/ | {
"a_id": [
"cchar7n",
"cchbgmb",
"cchbmmh",
"cchdtxa",
"cchel4f"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
24,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Neckbeard refers to someone who has grown a beard but its really only on their neck. Its fairly common among nerd / geeks. \n\nThe term has become a derogatory term for nerds and geeks, generally referring to those who take themselves to seriously and who tend to have a bad taste in fashion and about their general appearance.\n\nBack when rage comics where popular people used Le instead of The, it was funny at first but quickly got unfunny. ",
"A neckbeard is just a really unkempt beard, such that it grows off the neck as well as the chin. It doesn't really mean the traditional internet denizen (the fedora, le trole, etc.), it does imply it, as usually internet denizens dont care very much about social situations or hygene.",
"A decent beard should be, to at least some degree sculpted or manicured. Just basic hygiene really. \n\nA \"Neckbeard\" refers to someone who has a beard not because they want one, but most likely simply as a result of inattention to grooming. Usually paired with wrinkled, smelly clothes, a surly attitude, and poor social skills.",
"\"Neckbeard\" is also a term derived from an older insult, \"Beardy\". Calling someone \"Beardy\" was used to reference fringe hobbies, like Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40K, etc. It implied that the man didn't have a job, social live, or any reason to shave and take a shower. \n\nCalling something \"Cheesy\" has the same implications, joking that only a dork who smells like cut cheese could have thought up a certain play-style or tactic. Recently though, beards have started becoming popular, especially with hipsters. As a result of this, having a beard isn't as much a bad thing anymore, so now saying someone has a dorky, unkept, neck-beard is the insult of the day. ",
"There are two kinds of beards in the world. The first kind is basically facial topiary; it is carefully trimmed, washed, and managed.\n\nThe second kind of beard is the neckbeard, the chaotic, sprawling, oily and crumb-ridden face-shrubbery that nature intended. This was once considered socially acceptable but now the neckbeard is only found on men and unusually hairy women who are utterly oblivious to personal hygiene.\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21pwh0 | why is an earthquake- warning system valuable when it only gives a warning a few seconds prior to the actual earthquake, at best? | Reading about the 5.1 earthquake in LA, they say the new earthquake warning system was very successful with a warning given out 4 seconds before it happened. Why is this a success when we can't do anything in those 4 seconds to minimize the damage? I'm genuinely curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21pwh0/eli5_why_is_an_earthquake_warning_system_valuable/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgfdlje"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The way I'm reading the articles is that the warning system itself was successful (as a prototype), and that 4 seconds is an indicator that they might be able to get more in the future (30 or 40 seconds) -- not that the 4 seconds was a successful warning.\n\n30 or 40 seconds is enough to evacuate a small building, or stop a subway train."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
q6s7c | what does franchise tagging mean in the nfl? | I hear all the time teams will use the franchise tag on a player, but I don't really think I understand it. Can someone help me out? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q6s7c/eli5_what_does_franchise_tagging_mean_in_the_nfl/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3v74vi"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"When a player completes the last year of his contract, he becomes a free agent and is allowed to entertain offers from any team in the NFL with one exception. The team that previously employed him has the option of employing the \"franchise tag\" so that he stays on their team one more year. As of the new CBA, they are forced to pay him the average of the top player at his respective position over the last 5 seasons or pay 120% of his previous year's salary, whichever is greater. The salary is fully guaranteed.\n\nEach team is only allowed to franchise tag one player per year. Franchise tagging a player is a way for teams to hold on to players with whom they can't reach a long term contract. For example, Drew Brees is coming off a career season and will hit the open market if he can't reach a new deal with the Saints. The Saints aren't exactly excited about paying him Peyton Manning-like money even though statistically he's earned it because they've seen the risk it poses for their team to have so much money tied up in one player. By placing the franchise tag on Brees, he will be forced to play for the Saints for roughly $16M next year. It's expensive for teams to continue franchise tagging the same player year after year because they must increase his salary by a minimum of 20%. Here's an interesting link describing some [franchise tag situations in the NFL this year.](_URL_0_)\n\nIn the NBA, small market owners like Dan Gilbert of the Cleveland Cavaliers wish they had something similar to the franchise tag, mainly so he could have forced Lebron James to continue playing in Cleveland. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1071978-2012-nfl-free-agents-mario-williams-and-players-not-worth-the-franchise-tag"
]
] |
|
9aiina | why can people hold their breath for a relatively long amount of time, but feel out of breath after a few seconds of chugging water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9aiina/eli5_why_can_people_hold_their_breath_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4vocae"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I’m sure it has something to do with how our brains react to different situations. If someone were to try to inhale water while in a pool, it would be extremely difficult because our brains know that it isn’t the right action to take."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6g9h8g | since reusable rockets can reduce the costs, why nasa never had the interest or investment like spacex ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g9h8g/eli5_since_reusable_rockets_can_reduce_the_costs/ | {
"a_id": [
"dioikda",
"dioilr8",
"diok72g",
"dionkn9"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"NASA was hugely interested in it. The Space Shuttle was a completely reusable rocket powered spacecraft. It brought back and reused the engines, the most expensive part of the launch system. The Solid rocket boosters on the sides were also reusable. Only the big fuel tank was destroyed each flight, and that was one of the cheapest parts of the system. A lot of investment and engineering went into that.",
"can reduce the costs *for certain payloads*\n\nthe reusable launches spacex has done so far are pretty light. it has to have enough fuel to land. less than 4000? kg payload. \n\nthe risks associated with using re-usable rockets is not worth it to critical national security and science missions. the air force has specified that it will not use used rockets for GPS _URL_0_\n\nonly communications satellites have been worth it to re use until the technology matures further",
"A lot of comments here mention the space shuttle, and in a lot of ways it is difficult to think of the space shuttle as anything other than a spectacular success. In reality however, in a lot of ways, it was a major failure. And when you have a big failure in aerospace you have a lot of opportunities to learn from it.\n\nHow do you measure the success of manned space flight? Cost? Ease? Safety? Height (i.e. to the moon). Under all of these tests the space shuttle program was a complete disaster. It cost far more than it was budgeted to and drained a lot of NASA's funding from more ambitious projects. It was far more difficult to use than initially expected which meant shuttles were out of service for months and even years between flights. In some ways it was very safe, and in other ways it was the most dangerous spacecraft ever made. The shuttle is the only American spacecraft to have astronauts die aboard it in flight*. And it had multiple deaths in multiple incidents. Height? It missed its own targets, and several useful other ones as well meaning it could simply not be used for a lot of missions - crippling its scientific value.\n\nThat was NASA's lesson from the reusable vehicle experiment.\n\nWhy was it such a failure, and how can SpaceX do it better?\n\nIn large part it was bureaucracy. NASA spread a lot of work through a lot of states in order to get congressional approval of the funds and this made the entire program less efficient. The big external fuel tank was a major design flaw that hobbled the program and lead to a shuttle crash.\n\nAt the end of the Space Shuttle program NASA basically made the decision that it was Mars or bust, and pushed for their next major spaceship to be something that could set the foundations for Mars. Obviously this has not happened and it is a source of pain to a lot of people who are interested in manned space flight. \n\nThis all meant that SpaceX had a lot of lessons and opportunities to learn and improve on things, and they have done so. It is horrible to say, but in aerospace it really seems like the biggest leaps forward are born on the backs of disasters.\n\nEdit: Thank you /u/a2soup ",
"Reusable rockets don't actually reduce cost. In theory it should, but in reality is was never really the case. \n\nGoing into space put a lot of stress on a spacecraft. So far, all reusable spacecraft have a lot of pieces that need to be scrap after each launch. You also need to repair and change a lot of stuff on the spacecraft between each launch. In the end, you have a less and less safe spacecraft and cost aren't really less. Easier to rebuild, than fix the spacecraft each time.\n\nIt doesn't mean that in the future we won't be able to have a reusable spacecraft that cost less to maintain, but even Space X never tested the same rocket twice, so space X is still not a reusable rocket even if it was designed for that.\n\nThat's why, the vast vast majority of orbital launch (civil and public) are made by non reusable rocket and that the NASA is going back to a non reusable rocket for their space shuttle replacement the SLS/Orion."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/03/18/spacex-nabs-gps-launch-contract-as-air-force-opens-more-missions-for-bidding/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
8bvsu3 | how does gas-x work? | And let’s be adults about farts. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bvsu3/eli5_how_does_gasx_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0eyxnh",
"dxa3wrm"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The active ingredient in Gas\\-X is Simethicone. This compound acts by making small bubbles of gas combine to form larger ones which are passed more easily.",
"Gas and bloating is caused by large air bubbles inside your gut. The chemical in Gas-X prevents large bubbles from forming, which prevents that bloating feeling. You still get rid of the same amount of gas, just a little bit at a time instead of all at once."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3dh8ku | why did us congress pass a law to ensure all helium in the us national helium reserve is sold by 2015? what benefit does this have? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dh8ku/eli5_why_did_us_congress_pass_a_law_to_ensure_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct55kyh"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"In 1995 We had gathered a stockpile of over 1 billion cubic meters but had also racked up a debt of $1.4 billion doing so. The law was not to sell off all stockpiles, it was to start selling off the stockpile until that debt was covered. It was all part of a plan to privatize the harvesting of helium and get the control of it out of government hands. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f8pc48 | why does water on the horizon look as if it is above ground level when it is flat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f8pc48/eli5_why_does_water_on_the_horizon_look_as_if_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"fimrmzw",
"fimsnza",
"fin8baz"
],
"score": [
17,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You're not used to seeing such an uninterrupted expanse (to the horizon). \n\nThe water lays at eye level, essentially.\n\nA flat desert would look the same.",
"Check out what a [Fata Morgana](_URL_1_) is.\n\n[And here is the great Werner Herzog showing some video of this effect](_URL_0_).",
"This is a common optical illusion and it's not just water but any flat open space. When you stick a straw in a glass of water have you noticed that it seems to be bent at a different angle in the water than in the air? This is because the speed of light is faster in air than water and the light is bent at the interface between the two where they meet. This refraction of light at boundary layers (where 2 things of different densities or optical properties meet) causes light to bend in a way similar to a lens. \n\nWhen you're looking at something close to the ground but far away, all of the air between you and that distant object is bending the light due to differences in density in the air caused by differences in temperature close to the surface. Sometimes when conditions are just right, it's actually possible to see beyond the horizon as the light gets bent beyond line of sight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLRhoceeuc",
"https://www.wired.com/2015/01/fantastically-wrong-fata-morgana/"
],
[]
] |
||
dctj31 | how does a computer program arrange transistors to run a program? in other words, if transistors are so small, how can a computer ever know how to create the circuit required to run a program? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dctj31/eli5_how_does_a_computer_program_arrange/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2b3py7",
"f2b3xkt",
"f2bkokh"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A computer does not \"arrange transistors\". They aren't moved around to form circuits to run programs, they already are in the required configuration within the CPU. The CPU is manufactured that way with everything already in place as needed.\n\nComputer programs simply interact with the CPU as it is designed to perform their tasks. It is a matter of writing the program in such a way as to interact with the CPU in a desired way, and for that the size of the transistors is irrelevant.",
"Computer programs do not arrange transistors. They are fixed in place. Computer programs are simply a list of instructions which the cpu knows how to interpret and sends current down the correct transistors. Think of it as dominos lined in complicated patterns. You don't need to rearrange the dominos for each pattern, all you need is to be told which domino to push.",
"You're kind of putting the cart before the horse... The transistors are arranged in a way that the programs can interact with them.\n\nTo put it simply, the program says.\n\n1. Add memory block 1A to memory block 2A\n2. If the result is greater than 42, then add result to memory block 1B.\n3. If 1B divided by two has no remainder, then go to step 5, else go to step 4.\n4. *Some other instructions that do stuff.*\n5. *Some other instructions that do things.*\n\nAll of that is done by the programs instructions triggering a chain reaction in the CPU. Sort of like a Rube Goldberg machine, except the outcomes can be different based on the instructions given to the CPU.\n\nAnother way to think of it is that the CPU is just a really advanced calculator. Programs punch in numbers and the CPU gives the programs results; Except the CPU does way more than just basic math."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4k0z5b | how does so much oil exist on earth? | There are literally hundreds of millions of people who drive some sort of vehicle in the US alone. How the hell can all these people use up 10s of thousands of gallons of gasoline in their lifetime without fear of Earth ever being depleted of it.
That's not even going into all the other uses for crude oil, which in the US alone uses up 840 million gallons daily. I just can't wrap my head around it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4k0z5b/eli5_how_does_so_much_oil_exist_on_earth/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3b9ncu",
"d3ba81l",
"d3bdbvt",
"d3bibg3",
"d3bin2x",
"d3cg9j7"
],
"score": [
46,
14,
9,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The oil was formed over literally millions of years.\n\nAnd we *are* using it up. At current consumption rates it could be gone in well under 200 years.",
"Well, there is a bit of a saying, probably made up on Reddit, \"our cars run on liquid dinosaurs,\" and it is not that far off from the truth.\n\nOil is basically what happens to much of the life matter that is not fossilized, while more accurately, it is more plant matter than dinosaur flesh, there is still a little in there. Really, so much of it exists simply because there has historically been a ton of life on Earth.\n\nAnd it is/will deplete. ",
"Oil, Natural Gas and Coal are all formed from dead organic material over millions of years. The length of time it has been there will determine what form it is when dug-up. It is literally made from fossilised organic material, hence the term fossil fuels. \n\nIt is Earth's carbon storage solution. Trees spend years capturing carbon from the atmosphere to grow big and tall. As forests die and become fossilised the carbon is locked away deep under ground. \n\nIt is only in the last 100 years or so that we've learned to dig it up and re-release it in industrial quantities. It will eventually run out, but it is billions of years of carbon storage we're getting through. \n\nBut just think about that, billions of years of carbon storage that we will potentially burn up in 300-400 years. And there are still climate change deniers out there... ",
"Current opinion is that oil will not run out. It's continually being made through the process of subduction. Ocean plates slide under the continental plates where all of the amassed carbon material is subjected to the heat of Earth's mantel. The light carbon and hydrogen material creeps upward to where we can get to it. ",
"Oil is, believe it or not, a renewable resource, just only on geological time scales. Life has existed on the planet for at least 3.7 billion years and organic compounds even longer.\n\nThat's not to say we won't run out of oil, we're using it much faster than it is created, but the supply we're working through has been building up for literally billions of years.",
"If you believe that all the O2 in the atmosphere was formed as a byproduct of some form of photosynthetic organism (plants, cyanobacteria, etc.) fixing carbon, which is the currently prevalent theory; then there needs to be enough fixed carbon (e.g. fossil fuels) , lurking somewhere, such that when burnt it would consume all the atmosphere's O2 (and also to smelt 1/3 of the Earth's iron ore on top of that). \n\nEven if you don't believe that CO2-induced global warming is a huge problem, it is hard not to believe that depleting all the O2 would be a huge problem.\n\n > How the hell can all these people use up 10s of thousands of gallons of gasoline in their lifetime without fear of Earth ever being depleted of it.\n\nSo then, running out of fossil fuels cannot be the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that it will render the atmosphere unlivable long before the fossil fuels runs out.\n\nWhy should I not be in a moral panic about that? Well, maybe I should. On the other hand, I will leave my great grandchildren all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity to date, plus all the additional knowledge which will be learned between now and when they take control of the world. Their access to knowledge and technology will be astonishing compared to mine. For me to worry about micromanaging their future lives from my current seat of profound ignorance is both pointless and supremely arrogant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
xsp83 | time (before you downvote, please look) | People say time didnt exist before, or what it now is, but: Isnt Time something we have made up? human beings, there is no "Time" that "Time" doesnt exist. For Earth it spins and rotates around the sun, where we have "time" that we have made. So isnt "time" something we as human beings have made up to "control" earth. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xsp83/eli5_time_before_you_downvote_please_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5p8br9",
"c5pa878"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"No. Time passed before humans / earth existed. Matter collecting into planets takes *time*.",
"Time is what separates two events in the same space. It is no more a made-up concept than distance is."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2b30p1 | how can it take more than 5 minutes for an airline to know exactly who was on a plane that went down? | I'm Dutch and following the news about MH17, and so far today the number of Dutch casualties has been updated at least twice.
We all get our passports scanned at Schiphol when we check in and when we board - how can it take over 24 hours to know exactly who was on board? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b30p1/eli5_how_can_it_take_more_than_5_minutes_for_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj1dq94"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Another point I haven't seen is that families are contacted first and unfortunate verification that the person in particular was on this flight would probably get verified in this manner. It's a time consuming process."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7rjwqg | why does sand stick to everything even though it doesn't feel sticky? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rjwqg/eli5_why_does_sand_stick_to_everything_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsxjxed"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"Sand sticks to things in many ways just like flour does. Flour particles aren't sticky at all (while dry), but small enough to be caught in tangles of fabric fibers, attracted by even the slightest charges, or \"grabbed\" by microscopic droplets of water or oil (and the human body is literally covered with oil-drop and water-drop emitting organelles: sweat glands and sebaceous glands). Flour is many times smaller, so more sticks of course, but at the size level of a grain of sand a human body is covered in a rough shag of fibers, and sticky oil and water films.\n\nNone of these hold on very tightly, but tight enough to resist gravity and most movement, so the sand doesn't just fall off when you stand up. Brushing the area is more forceful, and tends to knock off every grain of sand hit - but again, sand is so small it can \"hide\" in the fabric or get missed by a rough hand brushing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9hltc6 | what makes a dry martini "dry?" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9hltc6/eli5_what_makes_a_dry_martini_dry/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6cz1vz",
"e6d4wgu"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The use of dry vermouth. Vermouth is a type of fortified wine that comes in sweet and dry varieties.",
"There are two kinds of vermouth, sweet and dry. Sweet is red, dry is clear. A martini is made with gin or vodka and dry vermouth. When you ask for a dry martini, you're saying you want a minimal amount of vermouth. You're not specifying dry vermouth, since a martini is always made with dry vermouth. A very dry martini is almost straight gin or vodka.\n\nThe two usages of \"dry\" are different and unrelated. One is dry as apposed to sweet, the other is dry as opposed to wet. \n\nInterestingly, the original martini was 2:1 gin and vermouth. The ratio has changed dramatically over the last century to include less and less vermouth. And yet there is no clear definition of a dry martini, a very dry martini and an extra dry martini. In fact, most bartenders I've watched make a martini in the last 20 years put a splash of vermouth in the glass, swirl it around and dump it out.\n\nMichael Ruhlman makes the best martini I've ever had. The recipe is online.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7obgct | how is energy from renewable sources, like wind or solar, stored? | I'm all for green energy but it seems to me like there's a serious problem with depending entirely on renewable energy sources. The weather is variable and unpredictable, so is the demand for energy.
For example, There's less sun in the winter but the demand for energy is higher. How is the surplus energy produced during the summer stored to be used in the winter?
I know about water reservoirs, they are used to store energy. What about flat countries like Denmark or the Netherlands? Do they have gigantic batteries storing the energy? How efficient would that be?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7obgct/eli5_how_is_energy_from_renewable_sources_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds860xw",
"ds870ot",
"ds88ccd",
"ds8bkxy",
"ds8efnz",
"ds8ht47",
"ds8jr4x",
"ds8mdac",
"ds8mhf5",
"ds8n1mj",
"ds8qj0q",
"ds8re3p"
],
"score": [
13,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That’s actually a big issue holding us back from 100% renewables that they are still working feverishly on.\n\nRight now, though, we can avoid the storage problems by having back-up energy capacity installed. Basically: if the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, we just burn more fossil fuels to compensate for the shortage.",
"Energy storage is a huge issue in general, especially for \"unreliable\" energy sources like solar and wind. Right now the most effective way we have to store it is to pump water uphill into a resevoir, which can then be drained back downhill to spin a turbine (i.e. hydroelectric power) and harvest some of that energy on the way down. The efficiency of this system is terrible, however, you lose more than half the power you generated in the process. \n\nThe best option we have now to deal with this issue is to simply diversify energy types. Have solar *and* wind *and* hydroelectric, and have a maximum capacity that's greatly in excess of whatever maximum load you anticipate; that way you'll always have enough. ",
"The primary form of renewable 'storage' is in the power grid itself. When renewable energy peaks, the power grid ramps down. Unfortunately, this creates a phenomenon called the 'Duck Curve' that effectively limits the value of renewables in most places.\n\nYou can also extend your power grid long distances to average out renewable production. However, as you noted, this average varies throughout the year in non-equatorial regions (and even in equatorial regions which often have 'rainy seasons') so it isn't ideal. The further you need to send electricity, the less efficient it becomes and the greater logistical difficulties it imposes on the grid.\n\nBatteries can be used locally, but they don't scale to grid-level applications. They're very inefficient for power storage and very dangerous at the power levels required for mass power generation.\n\nYou can also use application-specific power demands. If you can find a time-independent process that can be run intermittently to produce a final product, renewable energy can potentially be useful. However, it's relatively difficult to find such applications. For example, any such process must be able to operate virtually unmanned or your wasted labor costs would overwhelm any benefit you receive from renewables.\n\nLong-term, the best 'storage' mechanism we have right now is hydroelectric. It can ramp up/down very quickly and any unused hydroelectric is 'stored' in the form of the potential energy inherent in elevated water.",
"Solar thermal can store large amounts of heated liquid and then use it to keep generating through the night. I guess it's not competitive on price or we'd see more installations.",
"Best renewable storage I have seen in pump storage dams for hydro.\n\nIn short, pump water up a hill to a lake with excess renewable energy and have the water flow down turning turbines producing energy when electric power in needed.\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"This is actually a big issue with renewables, and all ways to store will see losses. Here are some ideas:\n\n* Batteries, basically put the energy into chemical energy. \n* Pump water up, i.e. a mountain, when you have engery and the when wind/sun go away you let the water flow down again through turbines.\n* Accelerate massive flywheels when you have energy and use that to drive a generator when the energy is off. \n* Use the renewable energy to make biogas/biofuel. That can get stored and transported as you wish. You can also use to get hydrogen, which again can be used as source for energy. \n* Heat up something and use that heat later (either as heat over night or to drive some turbine again). \n* Compress gas to quite high levels and drive a turbine later with that.\n\n\nAll this - and more - is a giant area of research because we really need to solve all this.\n\nGetting good batteries, a way to store and get back electric energy, is an even more pressing matter, because with stationary solutions it does not really matter how \"big\" the storage is, we can build very large here, but batteries is something we wan to fit in cars and still drive 300 or better 500 km with one charge. ",
"We have no means of long term storage except for the water reservoir that you've already mentioned, the best we can do is store short term power for intermittent loss of production, if the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shinin'. So there's no means of collecting the excess during the summer and storing it for the winter, if only...\n\nBut one cool means of storing energy is through a flyweight aka flywheel. This is a kinetic battery. The coolest of these are made from ~45 kg of high strength ceramic, suspended on magnetic bearings, in a vacuum chamber; you can spin one of these things up to 150,000 rpm and it'll rotate for months or years because there's no drag and very little in eddy currents from the magnets to slow it down. Once you put a load on it, though, the current will drain it of it's inertia. The benefit is once made, there are no physically touching parts, no chemicals, and an essentially endless operational lifespan. The down side is if it spins too fast or there is a material flaw, it can catastrophically fail, ceramic at 150k rpm, which is why the housing is made of thick steel. The largest I've ever heard of weigh a few tons and rotate a few hundred rpm on steel bearings in open air, and are used to provide backup power to a hospital for a couple hours. They see limited application, I don't know why; maybe someone can grant us some additional insight.",
"Once the energy is generated you have to use batteries to store it. Since you can’t control the sun or wind. However with water you can build a dam and produce as needed by controlling the water flow. ",
"It's often not stored, just constantly consumed, or wasted.\n\nMost power companies use fixed generation level energy sources as a base energy generation and then use variable generation sources to fill in the demand as it changes over the course of the day.\n\nFor instance, they might use solar panels to produce the energy needed during the day, and hydro-electric (where you can control the flow of water, and thus energy generation) to produce energy needed beyond what solar produces, and to provide power at night when the solar is outputting nothing.\n\nIRL, the non-renewable energy sources are the most common sources used because they are the easiest to change the output of quickly to meet demand. in order to change to solar and wind as a primary energy generation method, you would need to have a huge advancement in battery technology and manufacturing, or use one of several mechanical methods that are being experimented with at this time \n\nMechanical methods I've heard of include such things as pumping air into large caves and filling them with high pressure and then using that pressure to power wind turbines, using power to move a heavy object up a track, then generating power from it moving down the track later, or pumping water into a reservoir to power hydro-electric turbines, but most of these are experimental, and none of them are very efficient.",
"Poorly.\n\nThere is really no efficient, practical way to store electricity on a large scale. You have always have to be matching production with consumption. Getting bonus energy at random intervals helps, but not as much as you think.\n\nCurrently, pumped hydro is the best way to store energy but isn't practical in most areas. The massive battery bank Tesla deployed in Australia recently provides less than an hour of energy. Part of the reason people are keen on the hydrogen economy is that surplus power could be used to crack hydrogen from water and replace fossil fuels.\n\nOne possible answer is scale. It doesn't solve the storage problem, but if you have solar and wind *everywhere*, *somewhere* will be generating electric, evening out those peaks and valleys.\n\nBut as of right now, there is no good way to store that energy. It is great that 10% of your energy comes from renewables, but you still have to prepared to generate 100% of non-renewables.",
"Mass storage of energy is a big big problem. In short, we don't have a good way to store large amounts of electrical energy. It's why wind and solar are so inefficient - we can only make energy when it's windy or sunny, but can't easily save that energy and use it when it's not windy or overcast. \n\nOne way that has been tried is to use excess energy (when it's windy in the night when energy consumption is low, for example) is to use the energy to pump water from a low point (a river, say) to a higher point (to a reservoir a few hundred feet above the river). \n\nLater, when energy consumption (demand) exceeds supply (available power), the water in the reservoir is released to flow back to the river, passing through hydro-generating turbines, generating energy that can be put back into the grid. \n\nThe problem is that such an \"energy storage\" scheme is extremely inefficient. Well over 50+ percent of the original energy is lost in the process. \n\nWhomever solves this problem will be richer than the richest people currently alive on Earth. \n\n_URL_0_\n",
"Energy storage is a very infantile field. In some applications such as concentrated solar power systems, the heat absorbed from the solar power is stored in the form of molten salts which are kept in insulated containers. When the sun goes down or is blocked by clouds and no heat is being absorbed the working fluid which is powering the steam cycle, the stored molten salts are used to heat the working fluid and extend the power production even when there is no access to direct sunlight. Other methods involve large batteries like those being developed by Tesla. Some mechanical batteries are used as well. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity"
],
[]
] |
|
1epfwy | quantum superposition | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1epfwy/eli5_quantum_superposition/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca2gxco"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In a normal situation, things that you measure have that value before you try to measure them. You are in your parking lot before you look it up on GPS. You are moving 55 MPH before the cop radar blasts you. If you try to measure the speed or location of an electron, it actually doesn't have one until you take the measurement. Before you measure it, the electron is in a \"superposition\" of all the possible locations or speeds. Some locations or speeds have a higher likelihood of being measured. When you take the measurement, the superposition \"collapses\" and one value becomes the state of the electron."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9v5s56 | im british and ive always heard jeff sessions's name bought up negativly...why are people protesting/ angry that he has been fired? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v5s56/eli5_im_british_and_ive_always_heard_jeff/ | {
"a_id": [
"e99ljyi",
"e99lmoi"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"He recused himself from the investigation into Russians tampering with the 2016 election favoring Donald Trump. Meaning the investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with Russia and obstruction of Justice was being done by Sessions’ deputy, Rod Rosenstein. \n\nBy Firing Jeff Sessions, Trump can more easily stop the body that is investigating his possible criminal wrongdoing. ",
"He \"had\" the power to fire Rosenstein, who officially is the guy in charge of the Mueller investigation against Trump. However, Sessions recused himself from the investigation due to conflict-of-interest ties between himself and that investigation. This meant that Sessions couldn't fire Rosenstein, thus Mueller could continue investigating.\n\nFiring Sessions means appointing a new figure to his position who CAN replace Rosenstein with someone willing to end the investigation.\n\nScumbag or not, it's bad to see someone recused from the investigation get replaced with someone not recused."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1rfweb | why don't our lungs clog from all the tiny things we inhale? | Simply, why can we still breathe when there's dust, pollen, smoke, mite in the sheets or whatever around? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rfweb/eli5_why_dont_our_lungs_clog_from_all_the_tiny/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdmx9ef"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In addition to the lung clearance provided by the ciliae there are tiny cells in the alveoli wall (the tiny bubbles the lung tissue is made out of) called macrophages whose task it is to basically \"eat\" rubbish and get rid of any foreign bodies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4nczbw | why does putting sugar on some things make it taste sour? | Like when you buy the sour gummy worms or sour Skittles it is coated in sugar and that makes it taste sour. Would it not make it taste even sweeter. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nczbw/eli5_why_does_putting_sugar_on_some_things_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"d432a0k"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I'm pretty sure the coating is a mixture of sugar and citric acid. Citric acid is the main chemical that makes citrus fruits taste sour."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1yp519 | the difference between coke zero and diet coke, surely you only need the one product? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yp519/eli5_the_difference_between_coke_zero_and_diet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfmhgrc",
"cfmhh9a",
"cfmibru",
"cfmil82",
"cfmindu",
"cfminfj",
"cfmj858",
"cfmjdv2",
"cfmjgv3",
"cfmjgw4",
"cfmjpty",
"cfmjq1n",
"cfmjznp",
"cfmk0b8",
"cfmk2ll",
"cfmk8s7",
"cfmke6e",
"cfmkkzs",
"cfmkskh",
"cfml10w",
"cfml81z",
"cfmla46",
"cfmle8w",
"cfmlide",
"cfmlj11",
"cfmm0am",
"cfmm9i6",
"cfmmcuj",
"cfmmj39",
"cfmmpnn",
"cfmmxy0",
"cfmn5n9",
"cfmn9ae",
"cfmnas2",
"cfmnegl",
"cfmnq9y",
"cfmnufv",
"cfmo4tx",
"cfmoaqa",
"cfmomxq",
"cfmp0u9",
"cfmp5h6",
"cfmpg7o",
"cfmpjzw",
"cfmpm56",
"cfmpr05",
"cfmptr5",
"cfmq4mj",
"cfmqdul",
"cfmqe01",
"cfmqiym",
"cfmqque",
"cfmriai",
"cfmrihd",
"cfmrirl",
"cfmrmye",
"cfms6n8",
"cfmsbsc",
"cfmsdbx",
"cfmsi0v",
"cfmtu35",
"cfmu82a",
"cfmv0nd",
"cfmv0te",
"cfmv2dw",
"cfmvr9i",
"cfmvro7",
"cfmw5zf",
"cfmwdd0",
"cfmwjn2",
"cfmwlgy",
"cfmwpvo",
"cfmwuab",
"cfmx0pc",
"cfmxalh",
"cfmxv8h",
"cfmyr8v",
"cfmz9uf",
"cfn0c3v",
"cfn15zk",
"cfn1vp1",
"cfn38fp",
"cfn4xjh",
"cfn6bvn"
],
"score": [
3620,
399,
2,
13,
6,
14,
12,
6,
3,
2,
3,
54,
23,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
8,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
5,
3,
8,
4,
3,
2,
2,
3,
6,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
10,
3,
3,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's actually a really interesting story! In my opinion, anyway, though it might be more interesting or relevant to people who remember the failed experiment with \"New Coke\" in the mid 80s.\n\nIn the early 80s, diet sodas pretty much sucked. They tried to replicate the formula of the non-diet version just without sugar, but I guess food science was in its infancy at the time and the result usually wasn't so great. Diet Pepsi was arguably the leader, and the Coke executives went back to the drawing board. They decided not to try and replicate the Coke formula, but to make a new diet cola from scratch that would taste best, taking into account the drawbacks of artificial sweetners. They came up with a slightly sweeter cola than Coke that tested well and sold it as Diet Coke. It went over like mad and was soon the runaway leader for diet colas.\n\nHere's the interesting part. It did so well that Coke executives said, well I bet people will like it in a non-diet formula as well. They were a bit desperate at the time as Pepsi, a sweeter cola than Coke, had recently been making huge gains in market share. So, they came up with an advertising campaign for this relaunch of their flagship brand and called it: New Coke. That's right, New Coke = non-diet Diet Coke.\n\nYeah, that didn't work out so well. Anyway, fast forward 2 decades and food science has advanced enough that they can make a diet cola that tastes a lot like Coke: Coke Zero.\n\nSo Coke Zero is based on the Coca-Cola formula, while Diet Coke is an original formula made specifically for the Diet Coke brand.\n\ne: As to why they continue to carry both instead of just switching over to Coke Zero (or sticking with Diet Coke), they learned the lesson once about discontinuing a popular product and so weren't about to cancel the standard Diet Coke. They likely thought there was a market for a more \"Coca Cola\" flavored diet cola that would not steal market share away from either Coke or Diet Coke and so launched it. FWIW, it's my cola of choice on the rare occasions I drink soda.\n\ne2: Thank you for gold, mysterious benefactor!",
"Diet Coke has a deliberately different formula from regular Coke (beyond the substitution of aspartame for HFCS). Coke Zero has the same formula as regular Coke except for the substitution of sucralose for HFCS. \n\nSo basically:\n\nDiet Coke tastes different from regular Coke, and is supposed to.\n\nCoke Zero is supposed to taste the same as regular Coke.\n\nDiet Coke and Coke Zero use different low-calorie sweeteners.\n\nDiet Coke is marketed to women.\n\nCoke Zero is marketed to men.",
"Its also a marketing tool. Coke zero is marketed towards men, while diet coke is marketed towards women.",
"The drinks taste vastly different. And nobody \"needs\" more than one product we just want more than one product and so companies do their best to give us what we want. Welcome to unplanned market economy. also they try to convince us that we want what they can get us, this is indeed called marketing but it is not the fundamental issue.",
"\"Coca‑Cola Zero delivers the great taste of Coca‑Cola, with zero sugar. While it has the same sweeteners as Diet Coke (a blend of aspartame and acesulfame-K), it has a different flavor base, though both are low calorie and zero sugar.\"\n\nHere are the only differences found in the ingredients:\nDiet coke has 'food acid 330' where as Zero has 'food acid 331'.\n\nPersonally I think the biggest change is just in the target audience, coke zero was created in part because diet coke did not appeal to a male consumer.\n\nEdit: Taken directly from the product labels.\n\nIngredients in Diet Coke:\nCarbonated purified water, flavour, colour (caramel 150d), food acid (338, 330), sweeteners (951,950), preservative 211, caffeine.\n\nIngredients in Coke Zero:\nCarbonated purified water, colour (caramel 150d), food acid (338, 331), flavour, sweeteners (951,950), preservative 211, caffeine.\n\n\nRead more: _URL_0_",
"Diet Coke has aspartame as its artificial sweetener, while Coke Zero has both aspartame and acesulfame potassium, which is another artificial sweetener that doesn't stand too well by itself but works well with others. Source: ingredient list on the side of the can, college food science professor who would only give us essay and fill in the blank tests so we had to really memorize things",
"This is a much better explanation as to why companies do this. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nTLDW: A guy named Harold Moskivitz discovered that people don't know what they want, even when asked directly. You have to give them variations of everything.",
"Here in Japan they discontinued Diet Coke after they introduced Coke Zero, so the idea that what amounts to two of the same product competing against each other in the same market definitely did occur to Coke... Just not in the States... ",
"Then what was TAB?",
"Coke Zero is marketed towards men specifically, which is why it has a masculine look. The powers that be found out that their male consumers did not feel comfortable requesting Diet Coke since it felt a bit emasculating, like they were trying to watch their figure. But Coke Zero doesn't mention the word \"diet\" in its name and it became accepted as another sugar-free alternative for Coca Cola consumers.",
"Diet coke uses aspartame. Coke zero uses acesulfame potassium. They are two different artificial sweeteners. It's simple as that. ",
"I work for a Coca-Cola bottler in Southeast Asia as the Engineering Manager. I always assumed this was common knowledge because we show it on the ingredients list, but the difference between Coke classic, diet Coke (Coke Light), and Coke Zero is the sweetener used. Coke red uses real sugar, either from cane/beets/corn/palm. Diet coke is the same beverage base, but using aspartame, which before you ask is entirely safe to consume. Coke Zero is a blend of 3 sweeteners, Aspartame, Ace-K, and Sucralose. We also have used Stevia in select markets for Coca-Cola Life. \nSo whatever way you choose to have it, enjoy your dose of happiness!",
"Coca cola has always had a bit of a spice flavor to me. Diet Coke does not have the spice flavor and Coke Zero does. ",
"I prefer coke zero to diet coke. Drinking a cherry coke zero right now",
"They taste different, for one thing. Coke Zero (IMO) approximates Coke better.",
"Also worth noting Diet Coke has about 4 calories per 12 ounce serving while Coke Zero has zero. There are food labeling laws that allow companies to claim \"zero\" calories for products that contain less than 5 per serving. ",
"They use two different types of artificial sweetener as well. Diet Coke uses aspartame, Coke Zero uses Splenda. I can't drink Coke Zero because Splenda gives me the most horrible migranes, stomach cramps, and fever I've ever felt. ",
"Dublin Dr. Pepper is king!",
"All you people must be regular coke drinkers...\n\nSome people, especially those who have been drinking it for years, just like that weird classic diet taste. \n\nThey don't like the taste of regular coke or coke zero.\n",
"Different flavor sweeteners. People have different tastes. \n\nThat was an easy one.",
"What is really good is to mix them about 50/50.",
"Diet Coke/Coke Light are their own beverage. DC is not a diet version of coca-cola. If you put them side by side, you'd instantly see that they aren't even close to the same flavor.\n\nCoke Zero is designed to taste like coca-cola but with less calories. CZ and DC taste nothing alike.",
"The difference is in the types of non -nutritive sweeteners used. Diet Coke has aspartame while Coke Zero has a mix of aspartame and acesulfame potassium. The beverages have different levels of sweetness and off tastes (I.e. high levels of aspartame have a metallic taste) as a result.\n\nSource: I am a food scientist. ",
"I understand soda's are a big deal in the US, but I never ever have tasted any difference in Coke products. Or even, and please don't shoot me, Pepsi and Coke. Tastes the same to me. Also it keeps amazing me how big the marketing is for soda's in the US. Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper and all that. In The Netherlands they promote fruit juices more for some reason rather than soda's. ",
"I like Coke Zero OK. I just hate Diet Coke, it tastes flat and nasty to me. Tab takes nasty to a new level. Definite taste differences.",
"Something interesting to note is that you would think that two diet options in the cola lineup would cannibalize sales of Diet when Zero was launched but that hasn't been the case. Diet has almost a cult following and people who drink it love the flavour distinctly from regular Coke. Zero was designed to encourage drinkers of red Coke to swap to a diet alternative that stayed true to the Coke they know and love without the calories. ",
"They taste different. Hence, different products.",
"There's another one here in Chile and Argentina called Coke Life (we also have Zero and Lite). It's made with stevia and a reduced amount of sugar.",
"I have had acid reflux off and on for a bit and enjoy the occasional diet coke, I tried coke zero and it seriously pissed my stomach off. Turns out one of the major differences in the formula's is a decrease of the amount of aspartame from diet coke and instead increasing the amount of phosphoric acid, which is the main difference between the two.\n\n\nDiet Coke order of ingredients:\nCarbonated water, colour (caramel E150d), sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame-K), natural flavourings including caffeine, **phosphoric acid**, citric acid. Contains a source of phenylalanine\n\nCoke Zero order of ingredients:\nCarbonated water, colour (caramel E150d), **phosphoric acid**, sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame-K), natural flavourings including caffeine, acidity regulator (E331). Contains a source of phenylalanine\n\nSource: \n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"I drink Coke Zero, but I drink whiskey with Diet Coke. I can't explain it. So it's me. I am the reason.",
"I wish Coke still had coke in it. I'd snort the shit out of it.",
"this question brought to you by your friends at Coke\n",
"There's a definite taste difference. I'm type 1 Diabetic, so obviously I've cut full-sugar Coke out, and drink diet most often. Coke Zero just tastes to me like the own-brand supermarket colas, kind of burnt and bitter in a way that leaves you with a dry mouth. Diet definitely tastes different to original Coke, but I prefer it now.",
"Diet coke is new coke. It is more sweet. Coke zero is coke classic. It is more tart.",
"in Sweden we don´t call it diet coke, we call it coke light because we know that if you are on a diet you don´t drink coke.",
"One tastes like aspartame, the other tastes like sucralose. Both taste like garbage.",
"Don't call me Shirley ",
"Significant difference in flavors - Plus, adding another SKU lets them grab more space on store shelves from competitors.\n\nFWIW, I can't stand diet coke, but I really like coke zero. (Same with Diet pepsi and pepsi Max.)",
"Coke zero and diet coke taste different. There is a market for both.",
"Taste. Coke Zero tastes less...diety...",
"As noted, Coke Zero tastes distinctly different than Diet Coke, but it's also a great way to market zero calorie cola to men. Diet Coke is often seen as a product for women, the black label and ZERO butch it up a bit.",
"Diet Coke (marketed as coke light in Europe) is not the same world wide. While Coke zero is exactly the same in Europe and north America",
"According to this [Huffington Post](_URL_0_)\n\nDiet Coke has a distinct taste from regular Coca Cola.\nCoke Zero is aimed to taste the same as regular Coca Cola while retaining the exact same contents and \"nutritional\" value as Diet Coke.\n\n",
"Diet Coke is the diet version of \"New Coke\" that is now discontinued. Coke Zero is the diet version of \"Classic Coke.\" Slightly different flavor recipes. ",
"I actually prefer the taste of Coke Zero to both. Regular Coke tends to level a very strong sweet aftertaste to me and Diet Coke has a metallic flat taste. Coke Zero has a nice Coke flavor and is crisp but not so strong of an aftertaste.",
"Diet Coke is for women who want to think that their are making healthier decisions. \nCoke Zero is for men who don't want to feel emasculated by drinking a diet product",
"The short version is, Diet Coke is based off the infamous 1980's \"New Coke\" or \"Coke II\" formula and Coke Zero is based off of Coca-Cola classic. If there's anything Coke learned from that fiasco/stroke of marketing genius, its that replacing Diet Coke while it still has a loyal customer base will not slide without a MAJOR backlash.",
"I was under the impression one was diet classic coke, and one was diet new coke.",
"Warning: opinion. Diet Coke tastes like Diet Coke and Coke Zero tastes like Coca-Cola. ",
"coke zero is make with splenda not aspartame and tastes really good",
"Coke zero uses a different sweetener than diet coke. My ex-wife stopped getting headaches when she switched to coke zero.",
"Despite the formula differences, soft drink makers are now marketing to men and women differently. Men will drink Coke \"Zero\" and Pepsi \"Max\", but women prefer \"Diet\" drinks.",
"They use different sweetners aswell. Better for those allergic to one",
"actually they taste quite different from each other. My guess is ENOUGH people like both to warrant keeping both on the shelves.",
"No, we definitely need both products. And don't call me Shirley. ",
"In my marketing class, my professor explained that \"Diet Coke\" only appealed to females, males we're very opposed to drinking a \"diet\" beverage.\n\nTo counter this coke introduced \"Coke-Zero\" which focuses on the male demographic. The advertisements for these drinks all target the male audience.\n\nYou're seeing other companies starting to do this such as Pepsi which recently released the \"Pepsi Max\".",
"Look at caffeine level. Not sre about coke but pepsi max has way more caffeine than diet pepsi. It has nothing to do with gender sales.",
"In Sweden \"Diet Coke\" is names \"Cola Light\" sounds much better than diet :)",
"The diet soda market is skewed way female. There are women who their grandma drank diet coke, their mommy drank diet coke, and they are going to drink nothing but diet coke. (and so will their daughters). You don't turn your back on a loyal following like that.\n\nOn the other hand there are people who hate diet coke and won't touch the stuff, but may be willing to try something new.",
"Different sweeteners and different target demographics. ",
"The real Reason is that plain coke is marketed to young people, but as they get older they start to mature and care about their health and weight. Diet coke is marketed to women, while coke zero is marketed to men. They do this on purpose as they noticed that men wouldn't drink diet coke just because women did. Look at their respective marketing with this lens. \nCoke = very young\nDiet coke = women\nCoke Zero = men",
"When chilled:\nCoke Zero has the same coke fizz but without the sugar. \nDiet coke tastes like sweetener coke. I worked at a coffee store and I felt a difference between sugar, splenda and brown sugar. \n\nCoke = brown sugar\nDiet coke= splenda\nCoke zero = no sugar ",
"TIL: Evidently I've been drinking a woman's drink all my life.",
"diet coke is for calorie-conscious women\n\ncoke zero is for calorie-conscious men",
"Water. Just drink water.",
"Coke Zero tastes closer to actual Coca Cola flavor but w/o calories. Diet Coke is well...like all the artificially over-sweetened sodas.",
"I don't think they'll discontinue Diet Coke. For people who've drank Diet Coke all their lives Coke Zero tastes totally different, so a lot of people won't drink it. I've tried explaining it to people, but to somebody who doesn't like the taste of regular Coke it's just too close to that.",
"If a product has a light version, it's best to consume neither.",
"Pretty damn simple, THEY TASTE DIFFERENT.",
"Does anyone else remember Coke C2 which came out like 10 years ago?\n\nNone of my friends recall it, but it had a cool can ",
"I think they market diet coke towards women and coke zero to men",
"Simple- Another product to generate revenue... It only takes a very small change to the formula for a different taste that may be more appealing to other people.",
"And follow up question: what's the difference between Pepsi max and diet Pepsi? ",
"Short answer:\n\nCoke Zero: Coca-Cola formula with artificial sweetener.\n\nDiet Coke: Different formula from Coca-Cola.",
"They are both 0 calories but they use different sweeteners. Also: they taste different.\n\nThere's another thing to it: Diet is made more for women while Zero is for men, at least if you look at the ads.",
"*cough* Zero and Diet taste like shit *cough*",
"Diet coke is delicious. Coke zero tastes like ass.",
"Very different taste to me. I can drink both but prefer the zero. Less of a bitter sort of taste, I guess. ",
"Coke zero and diet coke use different artificial sweeteners that taste different. Coke zero uses sucralose, and diet coke uses aspartame. ",
"I choose Diet Coke since it leaves no sticky residue if it spills or drips on you. ",
"simple, short answer: Diet Coke is marketed to women, Coke Zero is marketed to men",
"There is a difference, and don't call me Shirley. ",
"It's all marketing, 'Diet' is seen as feminine and that is represented through its advertising. 'Zero' doesn't sound feminine so is more likely to be bought by men.",
"Coke Zero uses sucralose as a sweetener, while Diet uses Aspartame. Different sweeteners and different tastes, that's it. Both contain (next to) no sugar though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://foodwatch.com.au/blog/additives-and-labels/item/q-what-s-the-difference-between-diet-coke-and-coke-zero.html#ixzz2u9SCInAN"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/coke-zero.html",
"http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/diet-coke.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/diet-coke-vs-coca-cola-zero_n_1199008.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2g59rd | how does gorilla glass work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g59rd/eli5_how_does_gorilla_glass_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckfr5d2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is done using using the ion exchange process:\n\n\"Ion exchange is a chemical strengthening process where large ions are “stuffed” into the glass surface, creating a state of compression. Gorilla Glass is specially designed to maximize this behavior. The glass is placed in a hot bath of molten salt at a temperature of approximately 400 degrees C. Smaller sodium ions leave the glass, and larger potassium ions from the salt bath replace them. These large ions take up more room and are pressed together when the glass cools, producing a layer of compressive stress on the surface of the glass. Gorilla Glass’ composition enables the potassium ions to diffuse far into the surface, creating high compressive stress deep into the glass. This layer of compression creates the surface that is more resistant to damage.\"\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4p6swh | stock grants | I'm probably going to need an explain like I'm 3 explaination.
I get stock grants from my company each year, I currently have 116 shares vested. The last price shown was $42.92.
What I can't seem to grasp for some reason is how taxes are handled when I choose to sell. I was told that my vested stocks are what was left after they withheld the appropriate amount for taxes. Someone else said they weren't sure. Then there's something about a loss/gain taxing... I'm so lost.
When I sell my shares will money be deducted for taxes or have they already been? Or do I have to pay taxes on them at the end of the year?
I don't plan on doing anything other than putting my stock into a savings (I discussed a savings vs. CD and chose savings because it's going to be my emergency fund, and I don't want any restrictions on if I need to use it), and I'm basically just trying not to be completely stupid with my money. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p6swh/eli5_stock_grants/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ij0hs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you choose to sell your stock, you will sell it at whatever price you get, and be taxed on that.\n\nFor stocks in the US you will be taxed at the capital gains tax rate. You are not taxed until you sell, because until you sell your stock, the value is $0. Stock prices can change every millisecond. It could be $50 one second, and $0 the next second. So you are ONLY taxed when you actually make money on the sale. Until then, nothing happens.\n\nWhen you sell, you will be taxed on the total amount you get from the sale. Depending on your other income you will be taxed different rates. This can be 0%-20% depending on how much other income you have.\n\nHowever for you, lets get real, we are not talking about much money...\n\n\nAt say $43 x 116 shares = ~$5000.\n\nYeah just $5k, total, if you sold today. It's just $5000, thats not gonna make or break you. How much taxes are you paying on that? Well it depends on your other income. From your post I have to assume you don't have much money, so its most likely you will pay either 0% or 15% depending on how much money you make.\n\nEither way, even at 15%, thats what like $750 in taxes, thats low.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2p65ts | if people are born in palestinian territories what citizenship do they have? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p65ts/eli5_if_people_are_born_in_palestinian/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmtp8in",
"cmtx1fx"
],
"score": [
19,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nPeople born to Palestinian parents get a Palestinian ID card with the approval of the Israeli government. They are Palestinian citizens, even if it technically means they are stateless (since Palestine is not an independent state).\n\nP.S. Only some countries practice \"jus soli\" (\"right of the soil\") - i.e. they give citizenship based on where you were born. Most countries, Israel included, practice \"jus sanguinis\" (\"right of blood\") - they give citizenship based on the citizenship, ethnicity or nationality of your parents or ancestors.",
"Israeli-Arabs born inside the Israeli territory, like any other Israeli person, and regardless of ethnicity or religion, have Israeli citizenship. \n\nBut, if they are born within Palestinian territory (Gaza and the West Bank) they get Palestinian identification and papers, because Palestinian territory functions independently. If they wish to, they can apply for Israeli citizenship, move in Israeli territory, study at Israeli schools, join the IDF, etc. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_identity_card#ID_card_casing_and_variations"
],
[]
] |
||
8dmiff | does juice expire and how? is it more about the taste goong bad or is it unhealthy to drink juice that has expired a few months ago? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dmiff/eli5_does_juice_expire_and_how_is_it_more_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxo9raa",
"dxodor8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Juice can mold because of the sugar content. This would likely only occur if it was previously opened so the mold spores could enter, but nonetheless I would proceed with caution.",
"Yes, you aren't the only thing that eats juice. Bacteria for instance will also eat juice, and they will grow in it and crap the results of that consumption where they live. Depending on the type of bacteria, this can result in unpalatable taste, smell, or even unpleasant physical effects. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
pyikc | why is the price of gas so much more fluid than any other good we purchase? | What makes the price of gas jump up and down so often but any other product we buy inflates at a slower rate.
All basic materials and goods (sugar, coffee, corn, soy, beef, etc) are traded on commodities markets, but starbucks doesn't increase and decrease the cost of a coffee by a few cents each week. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pyikc/eli5_why_is_the_price_of_gas_so_much_more_fluid/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3t9085"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"It changes often because the profit on gasoline is so thin and there is no way to spread that out. Most of the stations are franchised or lease the right to the brand name. That means that the station owner will lose money if the cost of the new shipment goes up by say five cent. Couple that with four stations on opposing street corners, and knowing that most people will go to whatever station is convenient, and the price can change twice in one day. \n\nLet's make this an example involving actual five year olds. I have a lemonade stand on the Southeast corner of Elm and Maple. I also sell high profit items at my lemonade stand like porn and crack. I know that if I can get people to buy my lemonade they may buy crack from me. I only make one cent per glass of lemonade, but I make $1 for every porn mag I sell. I make $40 per gram of crack. \n\nLet's say Shelly sells beer and pot on the Southwest corner. Shelly makes her money on the beer and pot. She makes 2 cent per glass. \n\nCharles is on the Northwest selling lemonade also. He makes his money with lottery tickets and condoms. Charles is making a penny a glass of lemonade. \n\nDoris sells lemonade, pencils, and Ecstasy. Doris makes about a penny and a half selling her lemonade on the Northeast corner. \n\nWe each pay our lemonade supplies what they ask for the cost of the lemonade. They are all made from Florida lemons. They are all lemons, water, and sugar. The cost of lemons is flat. The cost of labor is the same for everyone, only subtle market changes in the cost of lemons changes. \n\nWe each want someone to come to our lemonade stand for the extras we sell, but we each know that most of our customers will only stop for a glass and move on. So we keep the prices about the same and only change when our supplier changes his price. Best of all would be if I could get more people to buy crack from me when they want lemonade, but I know that if I set my lemonade price too high they will smoke pot or buy lottery tickets. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2wmou5 | how did mit become internationally renowned compared to other state technical colleges and universities? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wmou5/eli5_how_did_mit_become_internationally_renowned/ | {
"a_id": [
"cosafhk",
"cosl0xd"
],
"score": [
36,
13
],
"text": [
"MIT isn't a state school, it is private. So like Harvard they can be selective which allows them to cultivate a reputation for excellence. ",
"First off, MIT is private.\n\nThe school was founded with a idea in mind that it would be an institution devoted to the sciences, as opposed to other schools at the time which were devoted to liberal arts educations, or military schools. It was basically the only one of its kind for a while, and ended up attracting a lot of good researchers for its faculty.\n\nThen WWII happened and MIT (along with a few other schools, including Cal Tech) got boatloads of defense-related funding, and they've been at the forefront of science research ever since."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
516zx4 | how does a fertilized egg develop into the different parts of a fetus so specifically? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/516zx4/eli5how_does_a_fertilized_egg_develop_into_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d79zhg4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"One could literally describe details on this for pages and hours, and if you want to get into the weeds, people work on researching this information as a career. I'm pretty sure they're still not entirely sure on the details. But because of where we are (and because embryology is one of my weak points) I can give a massively abridged version. Just ask for further explanation if you're curious.\n\nThe embyro isn't symmetric. It has/develops regions where certain proteins are higher concentrations than others or genes are more or less expressed. This basically acts like a complex coordinate grid, allowing the combination of genes/proteins/growth factors/signalling molecules to direct development at specific points. \n\nSo, for example, lets say that a certain point on the embryo has a lot of protein 1 (P1, this isn't an actual protein, just an example). At that point, P1 levels are high, and as you go farther from it within the embryo, P1 levels drop. In addition, P2 levels are high, P3 is low, and p4 is at a moderate low. There's only one place that would have this combination of proteins (we'll call it R1). P1-4 acts on genes in R1, telling it to turn into R1*. R1* might be, say, part of the neural tube and can use a similar scheme to develop further.\n\nAgain, really ELI5, and I'm not the best at embryology (someone smarter might come in and explain it better), but this seems to roughly be the understanding of determining the axis of the body. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3n81xh | why does 'republican' mean something completely different in europe compared to what it means in the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n81xh/eli5_why_does_republican_mean_something/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvlmjog",
"cvlo2n4",
"cvlsie0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it is the name of the other major party of the US, so the political ideology and goals of that party greatly define what republican means in the US. In Europe on the other hand there are still a lot of monarchies (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain) so republican is more understood as the opposite of monarchist.",
"and remember, it's capitalized to denote the difference. \"republican\" still means the same thing in the US, though you may have to explain what you mean when speaking. the party is the Republican party, the system of government is republican. ",
"In countries that have traditionally had monarchies, republican means someone who wants to abolish the monarchy in favor of a republic.\n\nIn the US, Democrat and Republican are just brand names that have little to due with their dictionary definitions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
42be28 | is phantom pain considered psychological pain or actual physical pain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42be28/eli5_is_phantom_pain_considered_psychological/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz91n6j",
"cz93788",
"cz96t9a",
"cz9ey2q"
],
"score": [
115,
23,
21,
3
],
"text": [
"It is actual pain. It occurs at the end of the nerves where they were severed. Those ends are exposed and aren't properly \"wired\" into the body and it causes the illusion of pain beyond their end (where the limb used to be). If you have a modern surgeon do an amputation, you shouldn't suffer from this condition because they can make sure the end of the nerve is properly treated.\n\nStuff You Should Know did an interesting bit on it, that's their explanation of it.",
"okay, here's the thing. all pain exists in the brain and how it interprets signals from nerves. therefore all pain is a construct combined in the body, mind, and the balance between the two. if you cut your finger, the finger doesn't \"feel\"pain. it sends signals up to the brain that then days \"a cut has occurred\". that data is what we call pain.\n\nphantom sensations are the same thing. it's our brains interpreting data. if you lose a limb, the signals have changed so drastically that the brain takes time to come up with new interpretations. remember, the brain is a great processor of data, but like computers it requires programming to do anything.\n\nphantom pain is not related to injury but that doesn't mean it's not real pain. the brain is doing its job, and if you want an analogy, it's trying to update drivers for the new hardware (or lack of, which is where that analogy breaks down). do, it isn't psychological in that it isn't related to thought, emotions, etc. it's related to the way our body and brain work together. that means it's a neurological problem.\n\nnow, some of the treatments make it seem like it's psychological because you're tricking the brain (like using mirrors for amputees). but that's really just reprogramming the pathways to a new hardware setup. (honestly, that's what psychology is when used as therapy, reprogramming)\n\nit's a fine line of distinction, but an important one. \n\nnow, there are plenty of instances where the state of mind can generate pain. depression, anxiety, and other ailments can generate pain. most of the time it stems from hormones or other chemicals combined with the brain interpreting the sensations incorrectly. but the pain itself isn't psychological, really.\n\nreferred pain is another example. let's say you're having bad gas in the intestines. there's cases where the brain gets those signals and processes it wrong. it detected those signals, tried to understand them, and our sensation is that of pain in the chest instead. \n\npain is a complex issue.",
"It is both. We were expecting another Metal Gear Solid game but didn't really get it, we just got an open world sandbox with some Metal Gear characters who didn't act like Metal Gear characters. So from a production and writing standpoint it caused both psychological and physical pain for the fans.",
"There might be cases where it's physical, but there are definitely cases where it's psychological. VS Ramachandran, the lead neurologist on phantom limbs who came up with the mirror box trick has a nice video where he describes how the pain is **learned** (yes he actually says learned 12 minutes into the video). He says half of the people who have phantom limbs can actually move it. The cases where it's paralyzed and painful are the cases where the patient had their nerve severed while their paralyzed arm sat there for months before it was finally amputated. Seeing their paralyzed arm in a hurt condition gave the visual feedback that caused their phantom limb to be paralyzed.\n\n\n_URL_1_\n\nNow I've actually read Ramachandran's book, Phantom's in the Brain and I've attended his lectures in UCSD as a neuroscience undergraduate student. He actually explains why phantom limbs happens. It's because the area in the somatosensory cortex that represents the limb no longer has any function when the limb is amputated so it becomes rewired to adjacent areas in the cortex. And depending on where it's wired to, phantom limb patients can actually *touch* their phantom limb by touching the limb that's represented adjacent on the cortex. Fun fact: if your genitals are amputated, you can touch your phantom genitals by touching your feet because [the representation for feet on the somatosensory cortex is adjacent to the representation for the genitals.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://bio1152.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch49/49_16-MotorSensoryCorts-L.jpg",
"https://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind?language=en#t-732298"
]
] |
||
405wnp | why is it that some of the sugar i put in my coffee dissolves, but some always seems to remain at the bottom of the mug? | As I finished my last cup of coffee for the night, I happened to glance down and realized I never really thought about this. I always put a bit of sugar into my coffee, and I know some of it dissolves because the flavor is affected. But there always seems to be a bit of sugar left over once my drink is finished. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/405wnp/eli5_why_is_it_that_some_of_the_sugar_i_put_in_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyroya1",
"cyrpagx",
"cyrpita",
"cyrq1a8",
"cys0fv4"
],
"score": [
58,
2,
2,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Let's look at this with the knowledge of chemistry from school that hasn't left me in the 20 years in between. \n\n* The liquid could be over saturated. That means there is more sugar in there than the liquid can absorb. The rest would just stay crystallized. Since this would make your coffee pretty much syrup, I believe this can be ruled out. I very much hope so.\n\n* Sugar needs some time to dissolve. \n\n* It dissolves quicker when energy is added. This can be in the form of motion or heat.\n\nErgo: You stirred too little. If your coffee is too cold you need to stir even longer. ",
"Assuming your coffee is hot to start with, dissolving sugar into a hot liquid creates a supersaturated solution, that means it's taken in more particulates, sugar, than it normally dissolves because of temperature in our case. When the temperature settles, the coffee is over saturated and sugars begin to crystallize then fall to the bottom of your cup! ",
"It could be that your coffe is fully saturated (it has dissolved as much sugar as is possible, and it won't dissovle any more)",
"Something others haven't mentions yet is that coffee is a liquid which already has dissolved solutes. Otherwise, it would just be water. These solutes (coffee particles) limit its ability to absorb other solutes (sugar).",
"Try putting salt in a cup, and sugar in a cup. Salt will dissolve immediately while sugar would take quite a while to dissolve. What's happening is that the salt breaks down into its components (normally Na and Cl, but can be stuff like potassium bromide), since it's held together by ionic bonds. The salt disappears fairly quickly because all of its crystals \"disappear\" after splitting into NaCl or whatever salt. However, sugar is a bit different. Sugar is held together by covalent bonds so they don't split. \n\nNow that you have some background info, there's a few things that you might wanna know. You might have had too much solid compared to liquid, which I think is definitely not the case, since it would be pretty hard to drink. Since sugar doesn't break down and split up like salt, sugar would need a lot more stirring, which is probably why your coffee had a pile of sugar. Sugar needs time and energy to dissolve as well, so if your coffee was cold it would take longer. You could also deliver more energy by motion (aka stirring)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6czz2t | positive, negative and ground in an electric circuit. | What are they exactly and its purpose? And electricity flows from negative to positive correct? Always? How? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6czz2t/eli5_positive_negative_and_ground_in_an_electric/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhzb9vs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The way a battery works is that it sets up a difference in potential energy (electric potential is *slightly* different but let's ignore that). The electrons at the negative terminal have a high potential energy, like a ball on top of a hill. The positive terminal is like the bottom of the hill (low potential energy), so if we connect a wire between them, the electrons want to flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal (roll down the hill).\n\nThe bottom of the hill isn't the lowest the balls could go though, and you could imagine that if you started throwing tons of balls down the hill that things could get jammed up and start making a pile, so it's harder and harder to get them to the bottom. The ground is like we dug a gigantic hole near the bottom of the hill that can hold tons and tons of balls.\n\nIn the analogy the potential energy comes from gravity. In a battery, you have a chemical reaction that pulls electrons out of the positive terminal and puts them into the negative terminal. Since they're all negatively charged, the electrons don't want to be all jammed together in one spot, so if you hook up your wire, they get the hell out of there. Instead of gravity, we're using the fact that charges repel other charges of the same type."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
466ib8 | why are the democrats and republicans rigorously fighting over the next successor of justice scalia? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/466ib8/eli5_why_are_the_democrats_and_republicans/ | {
"a_id": [
"d02u6rk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Supreme Court has nine justices. Before Scalia's death, there were five conservative justices and four liberal justices. Scalia was one of the conservative justices. Whoever gets his old job will determine which way the balance of power is tipped."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6cm4gi | why do containers form a vacuum when being heated in the microwave with their lid on? bowls with cling wrap do the same. | To me the air and contents inside are heating up and therefore should expand and build pressure. But after the microwave stops, the plastic container starts to collapse in. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cm4gi/eli5_why_do_containers_form_a_vacuum_when_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhvopt0",
"dhvoqp5",
"dhvpcx8"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"This depends on the design of the lid. A normal lid or plastic wrap is not able to contain much pressure but are able to contain vacuum. So when the contents of the container heats up the container will be pressurized with steam. However the lid will let the steam out so the pressure will not build up. So when the microwave stops and the contents start to cool the steam start condensing creating a vacuum. The lid will then seal and may start collapsing.",
"Because the microwaves excite the water, causing it to expand as steam, leading to pressure in sealed containers, some steam seeps out, then when the microwaves stop, the water loses the extra energy and begins to cool which causes a retraction in the air. If you had a very well sealed container(like an egg or something), it would explode which is why most microwavable foods say to cut a slit or vent somehow, to allow the steam to flow out easier. ",
"Please don't ever microwave cling wrap. And, if you have the money, swap out plastic containers for glass ones. \n\n[That shit is toxic. ](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/31/chemical.dangers/"
]
] |
|
6dapqe | if easter is more significant than christmas, theologically speaking, then why do americans and many others make a bigger deal of christmas--for example, making christmas a federal holiday but not giving any days off for the easter weekend, as opposed to most european countries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dapqe/eli5_if_easter_is_more_significant_than_christmas/ | {
"a_id": [
"di15dly",
"di160um",
"di16pdn",
"di17fs1",
"di1cbvb"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
11,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"because for most people they are secular holidays about Santa/the Easter Bunny, not a fictional representation of Cesar Borgia.\n\nand because they are secular holidays, they are motivated by money, and people spend far more money on Christmas than they do on Easter.",
"Christmas was not such a big deal until the big department stores in NYC started pumping it up as a holiday. Until the late 1800s, Christmas was a minor holiday, and some Christian sects actively tried to prevent them from being anything other than that. After they invented the rotund Santa Claus, and made up stories like 'The Night Before Christmas' etc., the genie was out of the bottle and the rest is history. And when the saw what a good job they had done with Christmas, then they started with Valentine's Day, etc. \n\nTL/DR It got as big as it is because Macy's told us we had to buy things from them to make people happy.",
"A major component of the \"Federal Holliday\" topic is that Easter always falls on a Sunday. Christmas, however, can be on any day. So, Christmas needs to be a official holiday to ensure that everyone gets the day off, whereas Easter does not.\n\nFurthermore, the significance of the holiday from a religious standpoint has nothing to do with the importance of it to the larger American culture. The US is long past the point where the cultural significance of an event is determined by religions.",
"Because theology has nothing to do with it. The relative importance of each holiday is about shopping, and I would add that Christmas being so close to the end of the year, and often in miserable weather in some places, makes it a more natural choice for giving extra days off.\n\nAlso, Canada gets a four-day weekend for Easter. Good Friday is off, and because Easter is on a Sunday, Monday is off too.",
"Part of the different treatment is that *because* Easter is theologically more important, it is somewhat less commercialised and it is still treated as a relatively serious holiday. It's easier to make a bigger deal out of a more upbeat holiday such as Christmas.\n\nAnd for another comparison: look at how the relatively minor Jewish Hanukkah is treated versus the far more serious Passover or Yom Kippur."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4jzvz6 | why do humans take so long to fully develop? | Humans take over 20 years to grow and mentally develop completely, which is longer than most animals lives. Why does it take so long? What in nature causes this and has it always been this way for humans? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jzvz6/eli5_why_do_humans_take_so_long_to_fully_develop/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3azelm",
"d3b0jh0",
"d3b2gsk",
"d3b3lha",
"d3b4rvi",
"d3b50fr",
"d3b51ed",
"d3b5is0",
"d3b7eul",
"d3b7ewu",
"d3bblcb",
"d3bgst0",
"d3bkacw"
],
"score": [
116,
223,
339,
11,
43,
6,
3,
18,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Humans are way more advanced than other animals. It takes a lot of time to fully develop our brains.",
"Humans are born much earlier developmentally than most other mammal species (except marsupials who have to get pre-born and finish developing in their mom's pouch). This is just because our brains are enormous compared to our body size and we couldn't make it out if we didn't finish up outside. ",
"The body is ready for reproduction around 13-14 years (and in some populations even earlier than that). This isn't that much longer than many other large-ish mammals.\n\nIt takes a long time for our brains to develop and learn properly (~18-25 years) because our brains are just so big and complex. And we have to go through a lot of cultural learning, with our culture being very complex because of language. No other animal has this.",
"So several folks have answered based on brain size, but there are two things to consider. Any longer and a woman's hips would have to be oversized to accommodate the skull while still walking upright. Everyone who went for the bigger skull died in child-birth and never even got another chance for smaller heads. HUGE incentive to push out 'early'. The other reason has to, again, deal with the brain. There is only so much to be learned in the womb. The more intelligent animals don't mature quickly because they rely on their brains and those brains need training. We need stimulus that cannot be found in-vitro to fully grow that organ. ",
"There are two general strategies that most animals roughly follow for rearing their young: R and K strategies. R strategists count on numbers and quick progeny development (think bugs, bunnies, etc.), this way it's okay if 90% of their young die. On the other hand K strategists are generally larger animals with larger, fewer young (think elephants, tigers, bears). Because their young are such a large investment of food, energy, and time, they tend to take much better care of their progeny.\n\nNot all animals follow this perfectly, but humans are an extreme example of K strategists. Considering that we are large, long lived animals, this strategy would make sense.\n\nAnd btw, there are no \"more evolved/advanced\" animals. Evolution doesn't work that way. All it takes is a change in environment, and even the best equipped animals of the time will be up shit creek and extinct. For example, if a meteor hit today humans would probably be goners- but cockroaches? They'd be great.\n\nEDIT: Insignificant_Figure pointed out that I had R and K switched, and I have edited this comment to fix my error. ",
"Obvious answer: Genes. The most obvious difference between humans and our closest relatives is that we our neotenous, we look like juvenile versions of other primates. There are many genes that seem to be responsible for this but neotoney seems to have provided us the physical structure we needed for our primary advantage, intelligence. Young mammals have larger heads in comparison to our bodies, we retain this trait into adulthood allowing us to support our larger brain. As compared to other primates we develop slowly and do not fully mature (we never develop the muscle mass that other primates develop in adulthood and we remain relatively hairless). It is therefore likely that our intelligence was made possible by our developmental genes.\n\nActual Answer: There is no consensus on how or why the human genome exists in its current state, science is working it out one tiny piece at a time.",
"It depends on what you mean by fully developed. We can reproduce at around 12 years old. When we only lived until 30, I'm sure a 12 year old knew how to survive better in the wild than you do now with the internet at your side. ",
"With respect, saying we're more advanced than other animals is painting with a broad brush. Look up 'cuttlefish,' and you'll see what I mean. Yes, our specialization of advanced, conscious cognitive abilities such as language and imagination is impressive, but the argument can be made that even those capabilities are not unique to our species. (I just found out the other day that dolphins name their calves.) In any case, those capabilities don't necessarily make us 'more advanced' than other species. We Earthly species have merely each advanced into different specializations. \nOne of the most significant ways we've advanced is by becoming bipedal (walking upright). A consequence of bipedalism is a narrowing of the hips, in order to achieve a more mechanically efficient stride on two legs. This means that modern humans have a significantly narrower birth canal than our quadrupedal predecessors—which means that our offspring are born relatively early in their physical development. This is why we have such a long path between birth and our first steps, for example, while quadrupedal mammals such as horses virtually hit the ground running. I believe that is at least part of a broader understanding that NBMK is looking for here. \nWith regard to the length of time it takes our brains to develop specifically; long story short, the jury's still out. Scientists in relevant fields have been extending this term for decades now. Many now agree that the human brain is not fully developed until well into the 30s, or even 40s. My personal theory (completely unfounded, scientifically) is that this is fairly common among those of us in the animal kingdom who rely heavily on our ability to consciously understand and learn how to thrive within a wide range of changing environments. Our specialization and evolutionary advantage is our ability to solve problems and adapt. This has been the lynchpin in our rise to super-dominance of our planet. Maybe the fact that our synaptic pathways are still developing so late into our lives means that we remain more 'plastic,' and consequently more able to adapt during the course of even a single generation. ",
"Humans are a social species. Our primitive ancestors lived together in small tribes, which later grew into nomadic (traveling) tribes, then settlements, villages...etc. As such, early human young enjoyed the evolutionary benefits of being raised in social groups. This social behavior provided food, protection, tutelage and a host of other advantages for offspring. It is because of this that humans could afford to develop a very long \"maturation\" period - with all of the benefits and protections offered by social upbringing, there is no immediate need to reach sexual and mental maturity quickly - we can take our time. Also, the survival of the group as a whole is not completely dependent on the reproductive rates of any individual. You will notice a similar pattern in other social mammals. By contrast, animals that evolved a more solitary existence tend to reach sexual maturity much quicker. This is because, without all the protections and securities of social groups, these animals need to reach sexual maturity and reproduce as quickly as possible - their untimely death results in a far deeper net loss of evolutionary \"fitness\" than the death of one member of a larger group. Also, solitary animals need to be sexually mature on the relatively rare occasions that they come into contact with another of their species (of the opposite sex) - again, in order to pass on their genes. Large groups of social animals have fewer problems passing on genes regularly and do not depend on chance meetings, and so reaching sexual maturity is not a dire necessity.",
"This may be a little more complex than intended but I'll give it a try. Humans are born in a state that some scientists believe is \"premature\" and helpless in comparison to many other similarly large animals. There are two different reasons why most scientists think this occurs: \n\n1. Because humans walk upright on two legs, their pelvises are narrower and well suited for this. Humans also have big heads/brains, so humans have to be born \"early\" because their heads are too big for the mother's pelvis as a result of the combination of large head size and narrow pelvis. \n2. Mother's expenditure of energy appears to get dangerously high at around 9 months of pregnancy, so the baby is born then or else the health of the mother may be sacrificed.\n\nThe more interesting thought is that since human beings are born so helpless and \"premature\", they must rely on large numbers of other humans for support, necessitating the development of society, language, and later \"humanity\". ",
"Here's from scientific american (yeah i know not the best source, but still a good answer):\n\n[Over time, natural selection increased brain size in these early humans. But at some point, the selection for bigger and bigger brains collided head-on, so to speak, with the narrow pelvis. If babies’ heads got any bigger, they would get stuck in the birth canal and kill both mother and child. ](_URL_0_)\n\n\n",
"I actually study this! In truth, I research play behavior in non human primates. But! Because it relates to cognitive development.\n\n\n\nHuman brain development has a marked slow down during juvenility. Most of your brain is actually done growing by age 7. However, humans have a delayed _maturation_ of myelin density. We are the only species known where myelin density maximums are delayed into the 3rd decade of life (20's). The current theory is that myelination is required for our extreme behavioral flexibility and much of our increase in cognitive capacity compared to other species. \n\n\n\nHowever, I must get to work. Probably won't be able to update or flesh this out for 8 hours or so. Leave q's and I'll get to them after work!!!\n\n\nHere's a mandrill:\n\n\n[:]=+{}",
"Because animals are hardwired with firmware at birth, humans require \"software\" which needs to be loaded up, takes 20 years to download."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-babies-long-to-walk/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
5rjgc9 | how is saudi arabia on the un panel, when they have beheaded more people than isis, in 2015? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rjgc9/eli5_how_is_saudi_arabia_on_the_un_panel_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd7q12u",
"dd7ql4a",
"dd7qvs3",
"dd7swio",
"dd7ty7b",
"dd83x1i",
"dd888ri"
],
"score": [
5,
30,
32,
7,
11,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Many countries/politicians support the death penalty. It wouldn't preclude you from sitting on any UN council.",
"This is a fairly broad explanation because the politics and culture of the subject are extremely complicated, but the short answer is this: \n\nHistorically, Saudi Arabia was a powerful ally in the Middle East for the United States and its allies during the Cold War. The US provided Saudi Arabia with weapons to help to stabilize the ME by proxy and to protect the region from Soviet influence, their fairly stable government and commitment to capitalism made them critical to maintaining the balance that the US established.\n\nIn modern times, Saudi Arabia is extremely important from a geopolitical standpoint. They control vast reserves of oil, and that has both made them fairly rich as well as given them a lot of influence over oil using countries like the United States and Europe.\n\nBeyond that, they also trade pretty heavily in weapons with other countries, especially the United States, and they have long been a very strong ally and stable nation state to the US in a region filled with more volatile governments. They act as a steady influence and key ally for US and more broadly United Nations involvement in the region, and as a result they are a valuable ally and are treated as such by the UN. So valuable in fact that the other nations of the UN are willing to overlook their more draconian laws and somewhat backwards view of human rights because their value outweighs the problems they cause.\n\nTLDR Saudi Arabia has been a valuable strategically to the United States and the UN in general for decades. Their oil reserves, stable gov't, and weapons trading with the US makes them important enough for the nations of the UN to overlook their HR abuses and sometimes cruel actions. ",
"Look under the sand there. Guess what you'll find? Lots of oil. A state can behead as many people as they want if without much objection if they have enough oil. ",
"Why would that preclude people? The US still has the death penalty and executes people too. Few other first world countries do. Why don't we get rid of the US from the UN too? \n\nI think many people mistake the UN for something like Amnesty International. It's not a humanitarian charity. The UN is like parliament. It doesn't matter if some wanker thinks it would be good to kill every firstborn child, that the pyramids where built by aliens or that a couple of Jews run the world from the shadows. You get all sorts of people in a parliament and you get al sorts in the UN, with all sorts of beliefs. The moment you start excluding people for having different beliefs than your own is the moment it ceases to be representative. If the UN is not representative, it's not fair and countries will leave it (high chance of happening to African countries in the next few years). ",
"The truth is, if you look at almost any nation in the UN, with a really big magnifying glass, you're going to find a lot of skeletons in their closet. \n\nSure, Saudi Arabia is more prehistoric than a lot of other member countries. They behead a lot, women can't drive. They have some pretty outmoded ideas about a lot of things. There's a reealllly good chance they had some sort of involvement in 9/11, albeit minor, but, still. \n\nExcept, they're not the only ones with a lot of skeletons. Russia has a ton. Disappeared journalists and dissenters, work camps. And China - need I say more? And then America. America is constantly teetering on the brink of a race war, so there's that. \n\nThe UN isn't just \"this country does stuff I don't like so kick them out.\" \n\nSaudi Arabia has a lot of shit to work out. But as I believe the Iraq war should have proved, bombing a repressive regime to hell doesn't make the region like, super awesome suddenly. They have resources, and influence. \n\nSo we work with them. The biggest, probably most difficult aspect of politics is negotiating and dealing with people whose ideas and culture you find repugnant. Dealing with their elites and knowing how badly the people under them suffer. \n\nBut *because* we deal with them, diplomatically, we continually apply pressure to urge them into a more secular mindset. \n\n",
"Next up : why did we have a 60bn arms deal with them also?!",
"US does the same thing, we just use lethal injection. What makes them any worse?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
11ajc5 | ambulances carry teddy bears to give to kids after accidents. psychologically, why does the teddy bear help? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11ajc5/eli5_ambulances_carry_teddy_bears_to_give_to_kids/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6kqywm",
"c6kr2e6",
"c6kws9t"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the only thing scarier than a car accident is Teddy Fucking Roosevelt. ",
"Being able to hold something warm and fuzzy is very comforting and offers a feeling of security. [Harry Harlow](_URL_0_) performed a whole bunch of experiments on using monkeys and fuzzy objects which demonstrated that this desire for a soft, warm companion is quite powerful, so if you want more info, Google his name. \n\nBy the way, I'm not sure how widespread this emergency teddy bear practice is. I'm an EMT and I've never seen a stuffed animal stored on an ambulance for this purpose. ",
"In addition to plain teddy bears, some ambulances also carry a special bear that plays an additional function in aiding supplemental oxygen delivery. Because of the comforting affect of the teddy bears, some ambulances (at least from what my experience as an EMT for a few states on the East coast) carry a \"blow-by bear.\" This is a bear designed for administering oxygen to young children. Because frightened young children are not very likely to enjoy having an oxygen mask strapped to their face, some companies make an O2 delivery device shaped like a teddy bear. The oxygen flows freely from the toy bear, that they are likely to cuddle and tolerate much better than the uncomfortable plastic non-rebreather masks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9jKlNK1Qc"
],
[]
] |
||
cxo74w | what happens to all the oil we use after we dispose of it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxo74w/eli5_what_happens_to_all_the_oil_we_use_after_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"eymd4ek"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It gets taken to a recycling plant, super heated and filtered and filtered again to get all impurities out. Then boom, back to the shelves. Or filtered and used in bio-diesel engines."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
d6lgy7 | how do we make paper out of trees? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d6lgy7/eli5_how_do_we_make_paper_out_of_trees/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0u1hye",
"f0u37vi"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Paper mills liquify the pulp of the tree and turn it into thin slices. Paper reverts to its pulpy state when it gets wet.",
"Trees and plants are very fibrous. We take trees, grind them onto a pulp, spread it very thinly through fine mesh, and then compress it and dry it (sometimes with heat and sometimes without. This affects the texture of the finished paper).\n\nI mean, in theory. We also add binders and chemicals and stuff to make modern paper. But of you tear paper (especially thicker, art papers), you can [see]( _URL_0_) how the fibers make up the paper. \n\nWith modern paper, all the fibers are aligned due to how they are pressed through mesh screens. This gives paper a sort of grain, similar to how wood and fabric has a grain. It can be very important to determine the grain of the paper for certain crafts or uses, like book binding. If you can't see the grain in your paper (in some rustic papers, you can visibly see the fibers), the easiest way to test it is to soak the paper in water. The warping and wrinkling forms with the paper grain. You can also test by tearing it. The paper will tear in a straight direction with the grain, but will tear crookedly and unevenly across the grain. \n\nPaper is fun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/08/16/15/09/fiber-2648066_960_720.jpg"
]
] |
||
1v52fu | why did the british army not attack loyalist paramilitaries as well as the ira during the troubles? | So I have been watching the excellent BBC documentaries 'loyalists, Provos and Brits' on the entirety of the troubles. Series can be found here
_URL_0_
What I haven't been able to grasp is if the British army was there to preside over keeping the peace and fighting 'terrorism', why was all of their conflicts with the IRA when the UVF and UFF were similar organisations carrying out the same types of atrocities? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v52fu/eli5_why_did_the_british_army_not_attack_loyalist/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceox71p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because the Ulster Volunteer Force & Ulster Freedom Fighters regarded themselves as 100% British. They also had MPs in British Parliament as the Ulster National Party. \n\nThe IRA killed a lot of British soldiers, as they were regarded as the occupying force (equally, the SAS would assassinate members of the IRA).\n\nIf British soldiers killed the UVF/UFF it would be the equivalent of killing your own.\n\nAt the beginning the British soldiers were seen as a peace keeping force & treated well, but then horrible things such as Bloody Sunday occurred which really made the Irish Catholics hate the British & eventually (because Thatcher was an ardent supporter of keeping Northern Ireland as part of the UK amongst other reasons) the campaign then came to the UK, with the Birmingham pub bombings, an attempt to assassinate the Queen & many more.\n\nThere's far more to it than that, you need to read a good few books really."
]
} | [] | [
"http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA6BDE6CF5D0578E0&desktop_uri=%2Fplaylist%3Flist%3DPLA6BDE6CF5D0578E0"
] | [
[]
] |
|
4x3zuk | if a sizable spacecraft was hovering over earth, would we be able to see it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x3zuk/eli5_if_a_sizable_spacecraft_was_hovering_over/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6c8pzk",
"d6c8thk",
"d6c8uiq",
"d6c9a1n",
"d6caz6e"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You can spot satellites and the ISS from the ground already.\n\nThey look like shooting stars, but you can see them.",
"_URL_0_ \n\nLink on how to see the ISS, because the other guy beat me to mentioning it. :P\n\nSo, in short, yes.",
"You can see the ISS which counts as a spacecraft if you know were to look.\n\nSo unless the spacecraft was either much smaller and/or much father away you would be able to see it.",
"Yes, under the right conditions.\n\nIn fact, you can see our relatively small spaceships tonight if you want to.\n\nFor example, the International Space Station. [NASA has a tracker website to make life easy, it will tell you when and where to look](_URL_0_). You can only see it with naked eyes at night, when the sun reflects off of it and makes it relatively bright against a dark sky. During the day, it's hard to spot. With a telescope, or even a good camera, [you can see it during daytime](_URL_1_). \n\n[Here's a picture against the moon, for a scale reference](_URL_2_). It's approx 109 meters by 73 meters (356x240 feet) and orbits about 249 miles from earth's surface.",
"All the previous answers already confirmed that you can see spacecraft if they are large or close enough but saying a spacecraft was 'hovering' as in your question bothers me a bit. \n\nAll satellites (and spacecraft if you so will) have to move at great horizontal speeds to not fall back to earth. 'Hovering' is not possible unless you were constantly counteracting gravity by firing rocket engines (or some other means, though that is mostly sci-fi). There is a region where satellites seem to 'hover' above earth (about 36.000km above the surface) because at that distance they move as fast around earth as earth itself is turning. At that distance though the spacecraft/satellite would have to be enormous to be seen even with an amateur telescope."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/events/stsight.html#.V6uEHPkrJhE"
],
[],
[
"https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8",
"http://astronomynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ISS_transiting_Moon_940x940_v2.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
u04bm | atomic bombs | what makes them go off? what is inside of them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u04bm/eli5_atomic_bombs/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4r7vct",
"c4r7zo0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This seems fairly comprehensive: _URL_0_\n\nSearch the subreddit for a few more.",
"First of all, basically we can fuse small elements to release energy and create bigger elements, and we can split really big (and unstable) elements into smaller elements, also releasing energy. We need both of these processes for an atomic bomb.\n \nA basic atomic bomb has 3 levels.\n\nExplosive outer core. When this detonates it squeezes the inner core, think of squeezing a small rubber ball in your hand. \n\nThe inner core has two pieces, all the way inside is a small \"hydrogen pellet\" and that is surrounded by a uranium shell.\n\nWhen the ball is squeezed, the pressure is so high the pellet fusses and that releases a bunch of neutrons. The neutrons are like little bullets and fire outwards from the very inside of the inner core to the outer uranium shell.\n\nThis is when all the magic happens. If you can get enough uranium into a small enough space, called a *critical mass*, and if you can get some neutrons flying around... the neutrons will hit the uranium atoms and split them. This will release even more neutrons which will hit more near-by atoms.\n\nAs long as you have a critical mass and you have some neutrons flying around you can start the *chain reaction*. The squeezing of the rubber ball by the explosive outer layer serves two purposes, it creates the critical mass by squeezing the uranium, but it also, and this is very important, squeezes the hydrogen pelllet and fusses it, that fusion releases some neutrons and starts the chain reaction in the critical mass.\n\nThe original explosion of the outer layer does not create enough energy to split atoms, that takes neutrons fired like bullets, so the tiny \"hydrogen pellet\" is used as a fusion trigger to start the chain reaction of splitting atoms.\n\nThat is a basic atomic bomb.\n\nA hydrogen bomb, uses this process to create a bunch of energy but instead of merely a small \"hydrogen pellet\" a much larger source is used. When the outward atomic blast from the spitting atoms happens that also causes an opposite reaction of intense squeezing and the larger source of hydrogen is fused and with clever geometry and amazing blast many many many times stronger than an atomic bomb can be created. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/oacdj/eli5_how_the_hydrogen_nuclear_and_atomic_bombs/"
],
[]
] |
|
2zv971 | why do sharks expose their top fins above the surface? | I was watching a documentary on sea lions, and they would see the shark fins and be alerted of there location, what are these fins purpose?
Thnaks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zv971/eli5_why_do_sharks_expose_their_top_fins_above/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpmliq4",
"cpmlt96",
"cpmuqk8"
],
"score": [
57,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Sharks -- most species, anyway -- are true predators. Many of those predators hunt air-breathing species... seals, sea-lions, turtles, etc.\n\nThe shark would prefer to be far below the surface, as it is a true fish. However, the air-breathers that they prey upon, quite naturally spend a lot of their time at or near the surface. A shark's \"topmost\" posture in the water exposes its dorsal fin and part of its back to the air above the surface.\n\nSharks don't expose their dorsal fins on purpose, it's just a natural function of the shark operating as high in the water as it can.",
"And when hunting underwater what do the fins help with?\n\nim having a discussion with a friend and we cant seem to figure out why they are there.",
"Interestingly enough sharks can't rotate their pectoral fins like most other fish so it's impossible for a shark to swim backward."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5oe8lw | what are the benefits and drawbacks of having an overvalued or undervalued currency? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oe8lw/eli5_what_are_the_benefits_and_drawbacks_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcin7yh",
"dciqpf3"
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text": [
"Overvalued- It's easier to buy imported stuff cos they're cheaper than your domestic stuff. Even though your currency is worth more, theirs is worth the same, so their prices will decrease from your perspective. On the downside, your domestic market suffers, and so do your country's exports, because they are costly relative to the world market. \n\nUndervalued- Pretty much the opposite. Imports become costlier, and your domestic market thrives. Your exports also thrive because they become cheaper to other countries. On the downside, other countries don't take kindly to you dumping your cheap exports (like China does) and you could face embargos and stuff. \n\nObviously this isn't a comprehensive overview, but it goes through the essentials. ",
"Overvalued currency can also lead to trade deficits where we import more then export. At the same time, there maybe capital inflow. Some economists see this as demand stimulus for the foreign country. \n\nUndervalued can lead to trade surpluses where we export more and import less. China uses this model because it tends to create jobs. Some criticize this policy because it distorts domestic prices and investment decisions. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3ilvzp | why do european countries have to accept refugees from the middle east and elsewhere? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ilvzp/eli5_why_do_european_countries_have_to_accept/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuhjaz8",
"cuhjpb4",
"cuhlup4"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Because they have signed (at the very least) the [UN treaty related to status of refugees] (_URL_0_) ([full text] (_URL_1_)). That is, the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. All members of the European Union have signed] both. ",
"They, like most countries of the world, have agreed to the [United Nations treaties on refugee law](_URL_0_). Like many laws of this type, it was originally motivated by the large-scale movement of people fleeing oppression in WWII, and an attempt to avoid repeating the mistakes of that era. There's a [UN agency in charge of the overall process](_URL_1_), sort of, but a lot of the details are still up to national laws.\n\nIn any case, it's not supposed to be all Germany's (or whoever's) problem, and all the participating countries are supposed to work together to take in their \"fair share\" of refugees. But that gets complicated in the details. Right now the largest source of refugees is the war in Syria, and most people fleeing that are actually being supported by Turkey. Altogether 80% of the world's refugees are living in non-industrialized countries.\n\nIn the broader philosophical sense, they're being let in because of a sense of \"today you, tomorrow me\" rational self-interest in human rights. If there was ever a reason for large numbers of people to flee Germany for some reason (cough), they'd want their citizens to be protected.\n\n",
"It is worth note that the West is responsible for destabilizing many of these ME countries."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees",
"http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html"
],
[
"http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_High_Commissioner_for_Refugees"
],
[]
] |
||
3sn46b | why do mushrooms taste like meat? | I was feeling adventurous the other day and got mushrooms on my pizza instead of the plain cheese I usually get, and I remarked to my husband that they tasted very meaty. Does anyone know what causes this?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sn46b/eli5_why_do_mushrooms_taste_like_meat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwypuu2",
"cwyq4re"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"They don't. \n\nMushrooms have a very earthy flavor, which is something that some meats also share, but they in no way actually taste like meat on their own. If you do not often eat meat on pizza that similarity may be what you are picking up on and you assume it is meaty flavor. ",
"Mushrooms sort of are meat. \n\nThey use similar chemical processes to animals, and they consume food rather than photosynthesis. On a chemical level, a mushroom is closer to an animal than a plant (though distinct from either). Because of this, they can replace meat nutritionally and often have a sort-of meatlike flavor."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
lfrme | blood types. what are all the different types, what's the rarest, who can donate to who, and why can only some donate to others and others can't. | I've always been curious about it! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lfrme/eli5_blood_types_what_are_all_the_different_types/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2sbrtj",
"c2sbtna",
"c2sbrtj",
"c2sbtna"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"OK - I'll give it a go - it's been a few years since I looked at this - you all lemme know how I did....\n\nThe types are: A, B, O and AB. There's also an Rh Positive and Rh negative. We'll skip the Rh stuff till later.\n\nYou can think of the A and B types as being kinds of \"spikes\" or \"sticks\" on the surface of a red blood cell (RBC). 'A' sticks and 'B' sticks. Folks have one or the other, both or none. That's how you get the A, B, O and AB types. O type has no sticks. AB has both.\n\nThose 'sticks' are kind of like an ID flag. If you're a type A, your RBCs have type A sticks on them. Your body is 'used' to your red cells having those 'A' sticks on them and your immune system recognizes red cells with an 'A' stick as being yours, part of \"Us\".\n\nThe problem comes when you're, say, an A or O Type and you somehow get B blood in you (or some other kind of mis-match). Your body recognizes that B stick as \"Not ours\" and attacks it. Even if those red cells would do no harm and may actually help you. Because they're recognized as \"Not Us\", this causes your immune system to destroy those B type cells. That can cause a bunch of other problems.\n\nNow if you're an AB type - you can receive A, B, O and AB blood - because your body recognizes both A and B 'sticks' as being \"Us\". And O, having no sticks, doesn't cause a reaction either.\n\nAn O type person can only receive O blood as their immune system will recognize any stick as \"Not us\" and something to be attacked.\n\nO type blood is called \"The Universal Donar\" as their blood can be given to most anyone.\n\nAB type people are known as \"Universal Recipients\" as they can accept any donor's blood.\n\nAfter that - there's still the Rh factor to consider - those have to match as well. But that's a bit different. Suffice to say, so long as they match - you avoid problems.\n\nIn reality, there are many, many other 'factors' that can come into play. A, B, O, AB and Rh Pos and Rh Neg are just the more well known ones. There are many tests done on donor blood BEFORE it's given to a patient to make sure it's safe.\n\nMake sense?",
"Blood types have to do with the blood's antibodies and antigens.\n\nThe most common blood antibodies for transfusion are Anti-B and Anti-A.\nPeople with Anti-B antibodies can not receive blood unless it has Anti-B in it and people with Anti-A can not receive blood unless it has Anti-A in it. If you have Anti-B antibodies you have the blood type A (Not a typo) and if you have Anti-A antibodies you have the blood type B (Not a typo). If you have both Anti-A and Anti-B your bloody type is consider O and as such can donate to both Type A and Type B. If a person has nether he would be considered AB and as such could only give blood to a person who also has AB but receive blood from everyone.\n\nAs such among the general population AB is rarest blood type but also the least useful for donation as they can receive blood from people with the O type.\n\nThere are over 50 major Antigens in human blood. The most significant is D as if you receive blood that has the D Antigen and you don't normally have it you will probably have a reaction. If D is present the short hand would be + and if it's not present it would be -.\n\nSo the rarest **major** blood type is AB- with 0.9% of people in the USA. The most useful is O- cause you can give that to almost everyone one and that 6.6% in the USA. The most common is 0+ which 37.4%. \n\nBut as I mentioned there are over 50 Antigens and some of those Antigens are exceeding rare. For example people with hh antigen or bombay blood group can only receive blood from other with the hh antigen (O- does not work on them) That blood type is present in 0.0004% of people in the world.",
"OK - I'll give it a go - it's been a few years since I looked at this - you all lemme know how I did....\n\nThe types are: A, B, O and AB. There's also an Rh Positive and Rh negative. We'll skip the Rh stuff till later.\n\nYou can think of the A and B types as being kinds of \"spikes\" or \"sticks\" on the surface of a red blood cell (RBC). 'A' sticks and 'B' sticks. Folks have one or the other, both or none. That's how you get the A, B, O and AB types. O type has no sticks. AB has both.\n\nThose 'sticks' are kind of like an ID flag. If you're a type A, your RBCs have type A sticks on them. Your body is 'used' to your red cells having those 'A' sticks on them and your immune system recognizes red cells with an 'A' stick as being yours, part of \"Us\".\n\nThe problem comes when you're, say, an A or O Type and you somehow get B blood in you (or some other kind of mis-match). Your body recognizes that B stick as \"Not ours\" and attacks it. Even if those red cells would do no harm and may actually help you. Because they're recognized as \"Not Us\", this causes your immune system to destroy those B type cells. That can cause a bunch of other problems.\n\nNow if you're an AB type - you can receive A, B, O and AB blood - because your body recognizes both A and B 'sticks' as being \"Us\". And O, having no sticks, doesn't cause a reaction either.\n\nAn O type person can only receive O blood as their immune system will recognize any stick as \"Not us\" and something to be attacked.\n\nO type blood is called \"The Universal Donar\" as their blood can be given to most anyone.\n\nAB type people are known as \"Universal Recipients\" as they can accept any donor's blood.\n\nAfter that - there's still the Rh factor to consider - those have to match as well. But that's a bit different. Suffice to say, so long as they match - you avoid problems.\n\nIn reality, there are many, many other 'factors' that can come into play. A, B, O, AB and Rh Pos and Rh Neg are just the more well known ones. There are many tests done on donor blood BEFORE it's given to a patient to make sure it's safe.\n\nMake sense?",
"Blood types have to do with the blood's antibodies and antigens.\n\nThe most common blood antibodies for transfusion are Anti-B and Anti-A.\nPeople with Anti-B antibodies can not receive blood unless it has Anti-B in it and people with Anti-A can not receive blood unless it has Anti-A in it. If you have Anti-B antibodies you have the blood type A (Not a typo) and if you have Anti-A antibodies you have the blood type B (Not a typo). If you have both Anti-A and Anti-B your bloody type is consider O and as such can donate to both Type A and Type B. If a person has nether he would be considered AB and as such could only give blood to a person who also has AB but receive blood from everyone.\n\nAs such among the general population AB is rarest blood type but also the least useful for donation as they can receive blood from people with the O type.\n\nThere are over 50 major Antigens in human blood. The most significant is D as if you receive blood that has the D Antigen and you don't normally have it you will probably have a reaction. If D is present the short hand would be + and if it's not present it would be -.\n\nSo the rarest **major** blood type is AB- with 0.9% of people in the USA. The most useful is O- cause you can give that to almost everyone one and that 6.6% in the USA. The most common is 0+ which 37.4%. \n\nBut as I mentioned there are over 50 Antigens and some of those Antigens are exceeding rare. For example people with hh antigen or bombay blood group can only receive blood from other with the hh antigen (O- does not work on them) That blood type is present in 0.0004% of people in the world."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rn1ua | why does the periodic table allow us to predict the properties of other atoms | I realize it probably has something to do with the outer valence shell... Is it shaped the same way? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rn1ua/eli5_why_does_the_periodic_table_allow_us_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnhdh8c"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It first started off the other way. That is, scientists noticed that the then-known elements could be arranged in a grid that grouped common behaviors together.\n\nThe table had gaps then, which were predicted to be undiscovered elements. This later turned out to be true as new elements were discovered.\n\nTLDR, ELI5: The table was created from observing patterns, and the observed pattern from the table allows us to predict stuff."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8jq5iy | why are foreign language classes and language immersion programs not taught from the most basic perspective (like elementary school)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8jq5iy/eli5_why_are_foreign_language_classes_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dz1l9wi",
"dz1lbg0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the students know how to read and write in their own language.\n\nIn many languages the letter are identical. If you know one alphabet system learning to read another is easier then learning to read the first one.\n\nWhen you learn to write your own language you are learning to write a language you already can speak. Kids don't learn to speak their own language in kindergarten the know it from home.\n\nWhen you learn another language you learn to spell and to speak the words at the same time. \n\nThe brain and ability to learn change over time so the way that is good for a child is not necessary good for a adult.",
"The mind of a 5 year old works significantly differently than the mind of a 16 year old or a 25+ year old. 5 year old's brains are still forming, and so can intuitively pick up things like language in a way someone over 25 can't do. Someone who is 16 can still do this to a degree, but it's significantly harder than when they were 5.\n\nBut aside from that, older people are taught things assuming they already know the basic logic and just need to apply it differently.\n\nSince I wasn't taught much formal English grammar in elementary school, but was taught French in elementary school, I explain all my tenses and structures with their French names by default, even when I'm describing the English version."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1gmqeg | how do all planets become to be near perfect spheres? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gmqeg/eli5_how_do_all_planets_become_to_be_near_perfect/ | {
"a_id": [
"calqr03"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As Carl Sagan once explained in Cosmos: (paraphrasing)\n\nTake a ball of clay (not spherical, just a rough shape) of clay, then put your hand on top and push down, then turn it over and do it to that side, then keep turning it over in different angles and pushing down on top. Eventually, you will end up with a spherical ball. \n\nThis is pretty much what gravity is doing to everything all the time, hence why many objects in the universe are spheres. The larger the object, the larger the mass, and hence the more effect gravity has on objects on the surface. Compare that to an asteroid that could be shaped like a potato, the mass is not nearly as large, and hence gravity does not push down as hard, which allows it to keep its shape of a potato."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2cbwmc | why are we investing billions in fighter jets? shouldn't they be replaced by drones? | NATO, mostly the United States, is investing billions in projects like the F-35 and the F-22, but why? Can't drones in the near future do exactly what fighter jets do now? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cbwmc/eli5_why_are_we_investing_billions_in_fighter/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjdwgm5",
"cjdwh97",
"cjeddy0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > near future do exactly what fighter jets do now?\n\nmagical word: near future. they can't do that now. and probably for quite some time they will not be as good as humans.\n\nand second thing, drones can be jammed, with planes it's much, much harder.",
"Drones are only effective when the enemy does not possess any significant anti-air assets, such as fighting insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. Otherwise even shoulder-launched missiles or anti-aircraft guns can post a significant threat to them.\n\nIt is questionable if the US needs \"5th-generation\" aircraft like the F-22 or the F-35 when it's unlikely that they're going to fight an enemy with a modern air force anytime soon, but that does not mean that drones will necessarily be a replacement. At least not yet with current technology.",
"Current drones have 1 fatal flaw: the link to the operator. \n\nStill having to control the drones from (hundreds ?) kilometers away introduces several problems, such as: \n\n* Being susceptible to ECM, e.g. Jamming of the frequencies. And if the enemy has the capabilities to engage 5th gen strike/fighters, they would probably also have the capabilities to try to jam 5th-gen strike/fighter drones.\n * At worst this may also mean hacking (through social engineering ?), but this is pretty unlikely.\n\n* Being very rubust to any maneuvers the plane does. Currently thats not a problem, as drones always have the same orientation and dont fly or turn very fast. But if want to make a fighter into a drone, you need a stable connection even when the plane is flying upside down at mach 1.2 making a 7G maneuver. \n\n* Input Latency. If your drones has an input lag of a second because your signal needs to travel over half the world involving slow-ish satelite connections you are at a significant disadvantage against any enemy you encounter. \n\nAll this could be eventually solved through solid AI, but its still a long way off, and even if you have the technology (which also needs to be shielded against EMPs) you still have ethic, legal and political problems at hand. Noone likes an AI going around killing people. \n\nYou also need to consider that developing manned 5th gen planes gives you a lot of technology usefull in the future. E.g. all the advantages in Radar, sensor fusion, stealth and so on that went into the F-35 and F-22 will also be available once you decide you want to builds strike/fighter drones.\n\nOn the other hand, the next bomber of the US will very likely have optional unmanned capacities. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
52trfy | before modern day lawn mowers existed, how were golf courses like st. andrews able to cut & maintain that much land dating back to the late 1700's? | Obviously terrain comes into play as it was a links style course. I've always wondered how they were able to cover, cut and prepare something so massive in area with few tools. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52trfy/eli5_before_modern_day_lawn_mowers_existed_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7n7zyd",
"d7n8rxn",
"d7n9sqh",
"d7ncogb"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Modern mowers were invented in the 1830s.\n\nBefore that, they'd either have peasants go out there and scythe the grass down, or they'd have flocks of sheep graze it down.",
"Mainly it was just labor intensive work of using a scythe. Having a large manicured lawn was all a part of ostentatiously showing off your wealth.",
"Mostly peasant labor to maintain the grass with various hand tools like a scythe and even scissors to maintain the lawn. Sometimes livestock like sheep and goats for the larger fairways.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nBack in the early 80s, I visited some wealthy extended family in Africa. They had an army of villagers who would come every few days and do this for all the wealthy families in the compound, then collect all the clippings to take back to feed their livestock.\n\nBack then labor was so cheap, motorized equipment wasn't worth it. I think now they have a few motorized stuff mostly for security reasons, fewer villagers need to be let into the compound.",
"I know others have already mentioned the scythe, but I wanted to leave this here:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nReally cool."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythe",
"http://www2.fiskars.com/Products/Gardening-and-Yard-Care/Grass-Shears"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/7NfYUEr996A?t=7m9s"
]
] |
|
5t68vm | why does rigor mortis make bodies stiff? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t68vm/eli5_why_does_rigor_mortis_make_bodies_stiff/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddkir7v"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the way your muscles work. The muscles have fibers that extend and contract using the energy of ATP molecules. Those fibers are mainly made up of actin and myosin. They slide along each other to make the movement. But the way it actually works is that ATP breaks the connections between those fibers to allow them to move in the first place. It's a third molecule, that I can't remember the name of, that actually does the pushing and pulling. With no ATP, after death, the actin and myosin fibers are locked together."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4kdwis | why would an asteroid collision wipe out life on earth? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kdwis/eli5_why_would_an_asteroid_collision_wipe_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3e5jdz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > but would it stay there for so long that we would all freeze to death?\n\nYour bigger worry is starving because all the plants have died out due to lack of sunlight. But yes it would stay up there for months AT LEAST.\n\nAssuming you weren't caught in the blast or any of the earthquakes or megatsunamis such an impact would cause of course."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
az0izr | how come when one really needs to go pee, they're completely okay when in any other room, but as soon as they reach the bathroom to relieve themselves, they almost pee their pants? | This never made sense to me, and whenever I try to come up with some definitive scientific answer, I never can! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/az0izr/eli5_how_come_when_one_really_needs_to_go_pee/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei4ikiy",
"ei4n4h8"
],
"score": [
17,
4
],
"text": [
"Classical Conditioning. If you ring a bell and then give a dog treat, and continously repeat this process until its engrained in the dog’s brain, then the next time you ring the bell, the dog will automatically salivate. Same with us and bathrooms. We see a bathroom, and then our brains automatically prepare for us to pee through years of conditioning.",
"Habituation can explain part of it, but the brain has a very complex interaction with our urinary system, and there are multiple, highly complex and not-well-understood inputs into the area which decides when our bladder empties.\n\nFirst, some anatomy. Our bladder leads to a tube called the urethra, which is where pee exits. The urethra has two sphincters (like valves, that block flow), which are called internal and external. The external sphincter we can control voluntarily, just by willing it. That's how you hold on when you're rushing to the bathroom. The internal sphincter is under involuntary control, it relaxes when our brain says \"time to wee\", no matter what we want. Finally, there's another muscle involved, which squeezes the bladder. We'll call it the bladder muscle (more proper name is detrusor).\n\nSo, when the brain decides to urinate, it squeezes the bladder muscle and relaxes the internal sphincter. If you agree with the decision, you relax your external sphincter and pee comes out.\n\nThe 'brain's' decision to pee is based on a number of things, including sex (remember, most mammals pee to indicate fertility / mating status!), and very importantly danger / threat. That's why you can't pee when somebody's watching you, because as an animal you wouldn't ever do that -- it's a great way to get eaten!\n\nYour bathroom is safe, it's familiar, and your brain has become accustomed to noticing that and the automatic part of peeing (bladder squeeze and internal release) both happen automatically. You're still doing the external squeeze, so you can hold it until the toilet and then ... external release and pee!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
40busm | what causes abnormally high jackpots? is is just chance and replication? or are there other mechanisms involved? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40busm/eli5_what_causes_abnormally_high_jackpots_is_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cysyb22",
"cysyc2b"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"As the jackpot rises and it becomes more publicized, more people play, which adds more money to the jackpot. If this continues through several cycles with no winner, they can grow rather dramatically, as we've seen recently with the $400 Million bump. ",
"For the powerball, if nobody wins one week, the money roll over to the next and continues to add in new tickets. Plus when it gets high, a lot more people but tickets so it compounds a bit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2k3i17 | why is breakfast the only meal where it's socially acceptable to only eat a dessert? (doughnuts, pancakes, cinnamon rolls, muffins, etc.) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k3i17/eli5_why_is_breakfast_the_only_meal_where_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"clhjhqe",
"clhjkua",
"clhjsih",
"clhjtgf",
"clhjunh",
"clhjyom",
"clhkc1z",
"clhke6l",
"clhkmyw",
"clhl79x",
"clhldxj",
"clhlove",
"clhlusv",
"clhlw37",
"clhlx99",
"clhm3yn",
"clhm9ij",
"clhmui4",
"clhmxku",
"clhnil7",
"clhnkdy",
"clhnp9u",
"clho70q",
"clhohwc",
"clholrq",
"clholvs",
"clhotjx",
"clhp74i",
"clhppa0",
"clhpqnm",
"clhpwee",
"clhq4ov",
"clhq7td",
"clhqcyl",
"clhqcyo",
"clhqers",
"clhqgm9",
"clhqh74",
"clhqi4c",
"clhqil4",
"clhqmpp",
"clhqpb1",
"clhqryg",
"clhqsij",
"clhqy1j",
"clhqz6x",
"clhqzh4",
"clhqzxz",
"clhr0f8",
"clhr0o7",
"clhr3p7",
"clhr550",
"clhr5y7",
"clhra9v",
"clhrdmk",
"clhrew8",
"clhrgkq",
"clhrivu",
"clhrmf9",
"clhrw30",
"clhryes",
"clhryhz",
"clhrzk4",
"clhs2le",
"clhs3fw",
"clhs7yz",
"clhsauz",
"clhsdni",
"clhsldq",
"clhsmpo",
"clhsojp",
"clhsvtp",
"clhswaq",
"clhswcd",
"clhsxdk",
"clht1wf",
"clht2ub",
"clht57q",
"clht6jw",
"clht91x",
"clhtdgs",
"clhte09",
"clhtk9c",
"clhtktk",
"clhtozo",
"clhtt08",
"clhu67x",
"clhubi3",
"clhuhmc",
"clhujjh",
"clhujmd",
"clhupdg",
"clhv2za",
"clhvi6b",
"clhvkd2",
"clhvolm",
"clhw4dt",
"clhw5nq",
"clhw6le",
"clhwb01",
"clhwf4w",
"clhwph2",
"clhx00b",
"clhx1qb",
"clhx2qb",
"clhxer5",
"clhxitq",
"clhxpuy",
"clhy0vb",
"clhyb6k",
"clhz0fg",
"clhz2ex",
"clhz90k",
"clhzfrz",
"clhziff",
"clhzj0i",
"clhzphv",
"clhzwe7",
"cli0dyj",
"cli0ine",
"cli0ixz",
"cli0ku9",
"cli0ldq",
"cli0t58",
"cli0vd7",
"cli1eho",
"cli1hlg",
"cli1j7c",
"cli1xg9",
"cli1xtp",
"cli2ehm",
"cli2fu5",
"cli2m23",
"cli2uz8",
"cli3jbc",
"cli3mqw",
"cli3uib",
"cli46xv",
"cli47gr",
"cli4eon",
"cli4foo",
"cli4kxl",
"cli4qck",
"cli4qz2",
"cli4twf",
"cli54wk",
"cli5iys",
"cli5j0n",
"cli7mzp",
"cli7o89",
"cli81ed",
"cli8q8k",
"cli93tn",
"cli949p",
"cli9eh1",
"cli9o55",
"cli9olt",
"cli9y3h",
"clib1vh",
"clib4u7",
"clic2bv",
"clic40r",
"clicqyr",
"clicrkb",
"clicsx4",
"clicsy6",
"clicxyz",
"clid8z7",
"cliea55",
"clieakz",
"cliei26",
"clieidf",
"clif2ew",
"clifapn",
"cligchb",
"cligsln",
"clikjri",
"cliq9fq"
],
"score": [
153,
11,
71,
4,
17,
1940,
35,
67,
603,
199,
2,
303,
468,
3,
3,
23,
2,
7,
8,
4,
2,
22,
2,
73,
64,
2,
5,
3,
12,
53,
19,
3,
10,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2776,
2,
2,
2,
138,
2,
17,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
189,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"*You*, OP, need to start counting dessert as a meal.",
"I honestly don't know the answer, but it's a great question. Whenever we have sweets in the morning, a friend of mine comments that we're basically eating 'candy for breakfast', given that doughnuts, pop-tarts, etc have as much, if not more, sugar than a candy bar. This observation is usually followed by \"CANDY FOR BREAKFAST!!\" in excited little kid voice.",
"I don't know about the social aspect of it, but I've always felt that there must be some physiological reason why we ended up having such sugary foods be typical breakfast fare. My theory has always been that our bodies need the quick energy to get going in the morning, and so we crave sugary foods early in the morning more than we'd crave them during the rest of the day (in general). Same idea as a cup of coffee to get you going. \n\n*If someone with a better understanding of the human body wants to verify or discredit my theory, that'd be helpful. I'm only theorizing, I don't know for certain.*",
"I've always looked at eating things like doughnuts in the morning as a matter of convenience. Breakfast is often more rushed than other meals, so anything you can eat on the go is going to be popular. That doesn't really explain why you couldn't just grab a piece of fruit though. Low blood sugar might be a factor in the craving for early morning sweets. Also, at least in the US, breakfast isn't really viewed as an essential meal. We've all know it's good to eat a healthy meal to start the day, but it's kind of a pain, so we just grab something quick to hold us until lunch.",
"A good question and one I don't have an immediate hypothesis to explain. I wonder if some of it has to do with convenience food in the last few decades. Originally 50 or 60 years ago flapjacks or griddle cakes would have been served as part of a huge farm breakfast replete with eggs, bacon, ham, coffee, so you had a huge caloric base to start your chores at 5 AM. Densely caloric and balanced with some protein, I think it has been transformed.\n The sugary treats you mention are very easy to eat, in some cases chewing is almost redundant, doughnuts, crullers, pie etc. almost melts in your mouth. It can be bolted down with little preparation or effort. Some java and you are ready to start your work day. Just the rawest of caloric fuel so you can labor. Plus it is the easiest of foods to pick up and eat during commutes, standing or walking. So convenience most certainly plays a large part. ",
"In Australia none of the things you have mentioned are breakfast foods. \n\nThough we do have sugary cereal so I guess there's that. ",
"I always thought it was because sweet things pair well with coffee, and most people have coffee with their breakfast.",
"[Relevant pictures](_URL_0_)\n\nIt seems to vary ALOT across the globe.",
"It isn't...in many cultures, breakfast is a soup, noodles, etc. ",
"It's not really socially acceptable in England.. well not to people I know. I guess pancakes is okay but I don't think you'd eat it regularly.. and I suppose people do eat Starbucks & muffins etc but most people I know would think that's like a once a week/one off sort of treat because it's just so unhealthy.\nBut we do eat a butt load of sugary cereals instead!!\n",
"Could be because people are typically stressed for time and cooking a good meal takes time. Whether it's McDonald's bacon, egg, cheese biscuit or a donut, it's sure to quickly deliver a rush of energy in the morning.",
"Goddamnit, I feel American for saying this...\n\n\nWhen the fuck did pancakes become dessert?",
"Edit: why is breakfast the only meal in AMERICA where it's socially acceptable to only eat dessert? ",
"Probably because junk food is quick, easy, and cheap. ",
"Pancakes sure, muffins maybe, but doughnuts and cinnamon rolls? Really?\n\nI like sweet foods, but eating a doughnut / cinnamon roll after just waking up sounds horrible.",
"I guess we puertorricans are the opposite. We would never eat a doughnut and consider it a breakfast. Hell, the last thing I want early in the morning is something as sweet as a muffin or a doughnut. I would rather have some toast, bacon, or scrambled eggs. My point is, not everyone wants sweets in the morning",
"I always figured it was because those things have a lot of sugar and a bunch of sugar would give you a quick energy boost early in the day. ",
"Personally, I would like non-sugary foods for breakfast; eggs, bacon, sausage, toast, etc. But since I am in a rush in the morning I just grab a black coffee and then whatever. Usually the whatever that pairs well with black coffee is a pastry. ",
"It's a cultural thing I guess. Mexican breakfasts aren't desserts, we prefer savory, spicy, delicious goodness. ",
"It's something about the distribution of wealth in United States I think, that relates a lot to people who can only afford sugary, unhealthy breakfast items. Something about it has changed over time from people with money being able to do it, to poor people having to do it. You don't really see rich white men eating Cinnamon Toast Crunch and doughnut holes for breakfast. But then again what the fuck do I know. \n",
"Very good question. I remember telling people I would eat left over dinner as breakfast and people would lose their minds! Really? How is my left over spagetti worst then your donut?",
"Who the fuck eats doughnuts for breakfast? :/ \n\nOatmeal and milk. That will last you a long time, its super easy to make and its delicious and super healthy for you.",
"I see absolutely nothing at all wrong with eggs and pancakes for supper.",
"I'm not sure where you're from but in many places the foods you mentioned would not be considered regular breakfast foods. Here in the UK we would perhaps eat those sorts of things on a Sunday brunch or similar but even then it usually wouldn't be by itself.\n\nOne possible reason I can think of though is that desserts are high energy foods and therefore might be somewhat appropriate for providing a kickstart to an active day. Because it is eaten first thing in the morning, breakfast is the meal after which you are the most likely to properly burn off any calories gained, in comparison to your evening meal after which most people go to bed and are unlikely to work off any of the energy gained from a large, calorific meal.",
"I think that is an American thing. My parents are immigrants, and that stuff was certainly not a feature of my breakfast menu. \n\nConvenience probably plays a big part. Sugary stuff doesn't get stale as fast as plain bread (the sugar helps retain moisture), so it doesn't have to be fresh-baked to taste good. And there are plenty of people to tell you what a bad choice that is, with the energy running out by mid morning at best.",
"It's all about those omelettes with bacon and sasuage. Leave that sugary stuff to thw children. ",
"When you awaken your body is in a catabolic state (not building anything but burning). Your body doesn't want this so the first thing you grab is something that is quickly turned to energy. Simple carbohydrates like glucose are the easiest thus you eat sugary foods to reverse that catabolic state.",
"Eat a chocolate chip pancake for breakfast, nobody bats and eye. Eat a chocolate chip cookie for breakfast and everyone loses their mind. I dont know why this is. Tradition at this point",
"In the US, we have IHOP. So..... you can have that stuff for any meal. I have breakfast for dinner all the time. Nothing beats chocolate chip pancakes at 7pm on a Tuesday. :D",
"Im no expert, but when I switch to a low carbohydrate high fat diet I did copious amounts of research beforehand. Here are some points as to why we eat a carbohydrate rich breakfast/diet. (This will all be focused on American Culture, as opposed to other world views)\n\n1. During our nightly fast our body uses store energy to maintain itself (at a reduced rate). We replenish these reserves in the morning by breaking fast, traditionally with fruits and grains. Which have readily available source of sugars and carbs.\n2. Americans have been told for a long time that Carbohydrates are good and Fats are bad. Starting the day with carbohydrates is a great way to start the day. Sugar tends to find a weird kind of back seat to the argument in some.\n3. Our agrarian roots also contribute to this. For a farmer who needs to start early in the day, making a complicated breakfast of meats and fruit (which tend to not be available all year round) would take too long. Left over pastries, or a quick fry up of last nights biscuit batter creates a very nourishing meal with so salted meats. \n4. Convenience. Its a lot easier to eat bread and pastries than a greasy piece of meat or sticky/juicy piece of fruit on the run.\n5. Finally, breakfast is seen as the most important meal of the day to some. Its thought to provide the energy you need to function throughout the day. Eating dessert type things in the morning means that those calories and nutrients will last you until the evening meal.\n\nWe have socially accepted the idea of eating dessert for breakfast out of the concept of shear efficiency. Dessert is fast, simple, and loaded with easy energy so that you can work until your arms fall off.\n\nEdit: [Here is a interesting site looking at breakfast around the world](_URL_0_)",
"God damn you, now my pregnant fat ass needs a Cinnabon. ",
"I don't know where it came from... But nutrition wise this is the worst meal to eat sugary foods for. I mean, it's never good on your pancreas, but going from an 8 hour fast instantly to a high 70-80 GI (glycemic index) is a great way to ensure that you get type 2 diabetes. Eat some bran for breakfast, or nuts or something",
"Because you are American?",
"You're an adult. Fuck what everything else thinks, eat what you want.\n\nThat's the advantage of being an adult.",
"I dont think it is common to eat those things you listed for breakfast at all outside the US.\nIn the nordic countries we eat oatmeal cereal, or bread or some other type of cereal. We dont eat doughnuts or pancakes or cinnamon rolls or muffins for breakfast at all.",
"I'm not sure when all the sugary treats became so popular. However, I have heard that historically, breakfast was always the largest meal of the day. This was because in earlier periods of history, most people had manual occupations in which they would be working long hours, such as farming, industrial labor or strenuous manual work. A huge breakfast was needed to sustain the day. ",
"My best guess is that those foods were initially adopted in the US as desserts specifically to pair with/follow healthier breakfast foods -- bacon, eggs, toast, etc. Over time, as the industrial work schedule took prominence, people had less time to prepare a real breakfast, so the simplest and most calorie efficient foods -- donuts, muffins, cinnamon rolls, etc. -- became the go-to food for a quick breakfast. \n\nIn the case of pancakes, they're still primarily a dessert to go with breakfast. Most people serve it with eggs and meat or something like it.",
"Go away Leslie, stop talking about breakfast foods.",
"Those aren't breakfast foods, those are foods that accompany coffee/tea. As our lifestyle has evolved to where we no longer eat a full breakfast, but rather we caffeinate and maybe eat something to go with it, pastries have evolved into de facto \"breakfast\" foods.",
"It was once explained to me that you can eat what you want for breakfast because you have the rest of the day to burn those calories off.",
"Breakfast is, as the name states, breaking your fast. This means for the regular person, you should be consuming carbs. Consuming sugar allows for a burst of energy early in his he day, which is supported by the influx of other carbs (though generally non-complex) that will keep you going until around lunchtime. The idea is that you don't burn fat and muscle stores, i.e. when people don't eat breakfast.",
"This is prevalent in America. It stems from the days of farming from sun up to sun down when a high caloric meal was required to get you through a physically demanding day until dinner was served.",
"Furthermore, why is breakfast the only meal where it's socially acceptable to eat the same thing every day?\n\nEat the same thing for breakfast every day, and nobody bats an eyelid.\n\nEat the same thing for dinner two nights in a row, and EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MIND!",
"Breakfast is the first meal of the day, and we often want to load up on energy first thing to give us a good run throughout the day. While what you're mentioning should be part of your breakfast and not the complete meal, and are generally things that give you a good shot of early energy before you go out to greet the day. If you are on the farm, where most of our American diet comes from, these quick and sugary energy filled sides make a great kick starter before a long day and can help keep your energy up with smaller lunches and diners (where you may not have as much time to prepare or to eat) \n\nWhen you load your fat and carbs early in the day then you have more time to burn them off compared to later in the day or at night when you are going to bed. If you have all day to keep that doughnut from turning into fat it is better to eat it at breakfast and not after dinner.",
"Could this be an American thing? As a swede I would never eat a doughnut or a muffin for breakfast. Can't imagine any of my friends would either. I eat 2 sandwiches every morning. ",
"UK here, pancakes and cinnamon rolls are rare occasions ( birthdays and such ) but no one eats doughnuts or muffins unless there having a crazy moment.",
"I have had curry for breakfast, i would recommend it, it really tastes amazing and sets your mouth ready for the day ",
"After having slept for the night your blood sugar tends to be low. The best way to get your blood sugar up is to eat sugary foods. That's why breakfasts tend to have simple sugars like juice, fruit, cereal, and all of the dessert like foods you mentioned.",
"In most cultures, the #1 thing that's important in breakfast is that it's fast/easy to make. When you're running out the door, you don't have the time to make a full dinner. In America where desserts are popular for breakfast, we have a strong agricultural history. Back in the day, you needed tons of calories to get you started in the morning, so it would make sense to eat high calorie foods for breakfast. Pair that with how yummy pancakes are, it makes sense",
"Okay, so as far as I can see, nobody is answering your question. \n\nBut, as most have already said, breakfasts in other parts of the world are completely different than here in America. \n\nThe reason people in America eat a high sugar/carb breakfast, is because back when most people were still farming, they'd work all day without getting a lunch or a small one at least. Their breakfast needed to give them enough calories to get through the day. Carbohydrates are the most caloric dense of the macronutrients (fat, protein, carbs) and this would give them enough energy to get the hard work they needed to do done. \n\nNow, it's not necessary to eat a sugary, high calorie breakfast as most people simply don't need it. But it's just carried over with our society as being \"normal\". ",
"Fuck social acceptance, eat whatever you want,whenever, unless you're a cannibal, if so, stop that.",
"All those you listed are carbs. Carbs fuel you for the day!\n\nOh yeah, and I'm lazy.",
"I can't believe no one has said this yet but the fat scares and things like the food pyramid (heavily influenced by the grain industry) caused a big shift away from 'steak eggs and buttered bacon' type breakfasts. Most cultures have more substancial foods for breakfast, the US is a bit of an exception due to this backlash and great marketing. ",
"It's gonna sound like a cliché but in my country I have seen people eating everyday tacos, gorditas and tamales for breakfast, guess which country :) ",
"Ah, America. Land of the busy and home of the productive. \n\nFun fact: Doughnuts have been around for a long time, but their popularity became bigger in WWI as a simple sweet dough fried in pork fat. \n\nI digress, as many of you wonderful world travelers have mentioned - breakfast varies around the world. \n\nAmerica has a penchant for high carbohydrate foods with little nutritional value, not just in the morning but through out the day, but we like to add that sugar early because it gives us a sugar high. We want items that are easy to take with us as we scramble off to work: doughnuts, muffins, bagels, etc. And why? Because we need a burst of energy to get our day started. Sugar does this, just like caffeine (the most popular breakfast item in North America).\n\nPancakes, a cousin of the crepe and probably the earliest and most widespread cereal food eaten in prehistoric societies (I know, right!), is paired with syrup but doesn't necessarily have to be. It can come with meats, legumes, soups, etc.\n\nNinja Edit: Wikipedia and the Internet get all the credit.",
"One time my ex brought home cookies from work the night before and as I was leaving the next morning I grabbed one and ate it and she was offended. \"You can't eat a cookie for breakfast!\" and I was like \"why not? how is it different from a donut or pancake with syrup?... breakfast cookie\" for some reason the idea of a breakfast cookie really irritated her. \"THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BREAKFAST COOKIE!\" she yelled. The next week I was at the supermarket and right there in the cookie isle in a package with big bold letters... pepridge farm or something.. \"Breakfast Cookies\" I sent her a picture and immediately got a text back \"THERE'S NO SUCH THING!\" \n",
"We live in a society that is clueless about health and nutrition. Society would think that carbs = energy. Therefore doughnuts, pancakes, etc are carbs which equal energy. However, they do not understand the difference between complex and simple sugars and the effects it has on your body. Back in the day, you eat a donut first thing in the am, you get a sugar rush, you're energized. Later in the day, you crash but think it's just life making you tired.\n",
"Things like cinnamon rolls and pancakes and such are very cheap, and as such make great staples. Same with cereal, which is mostly oats and sugar, two of the cheapest things money can buy. Plus, the huge amount of carbohydrates in that doughnut/pancake/cinnamon bun helps give you plenty of energy for that after sleep/during work grog",
"I like to eat rice and eggs (runny or poached) for breakfast. Pancakes or French Toast would be a special occasion thing.",
"In the U.S., donuts, muffins, and hand-held pastries for breakfast come from a variety of immigrant backgrounds, but they all share a similar advantage: they were a deep fried or baked item that could be easily packed or stuffed in a pocket for a person to eat on their way out to the fields, on their way to work, etc. and could be eaten either warm or cold. \n\nDonuts, in particular, were more of a rare occasion breakfast food until World War I, where female volunteers would bring the soldiers a taste of home by bringing warm donuts to the soldiers in France. Some volunteers even brought them to the trenches. After the war donut machines became more common and they spread in popularity.\n\nPancakes are a bit different in that they are definitely a sit-down breakfast food. A flour-based flat cake cooked on a griddle is one of those foods that you can find in practically every culture. Pancakes used to be a crepe-like item served at dinner during pre-Revolutionary times. U.S. cooks began adding a chemical leavener which made the pancake a more substantial and hardy item, and one that was perfect for making in the morning to use to scoop up last night's cold stew (the typical breakfast of the era). Using a chemical leavener meant not having to wait for the dough to rise, so it was perfect for the breakfast meal, and was quite useful even out on the frontier when cooking hoe cakes, etc.\n\nHence it's turn from an evening food to a morning food.\n\n",
"Oatmeal with almond milk, and either strawberries or blueberries is my go to breakfast.\n\nWe will do eggs, bacon, various veggies, tortillas and salsa on occasion because Texas.\n\nI know doughnuts are a thing here in the States, but I do not know anyone personally who eats \"sweet\" stuff for breakfast. If someone I know has a doughnut or a muffin, it's usually around 10 or 11 over coffee and a chat.",
"I am a proud American and I eat leftover pie for breakfast!",
"American here. I usually eat slow cooked steel-cut oats with raisins. Or three bowls of Cocoa Pebbles to get me through the next two hours.\n\nSometimes we make strata, which is pieces of leftover bread, with cream cheese, brown sugar, and butter layered like a lasagna with syrup over it.",
"In Spain it's definitely not m8. Dessert every meal all the way.",
"Because breakfast is supposed to..get this...break down quickly in your stomach to give you the energy to start your day. Sugary foods are great for this. You typically eat non sugary foods for breakfast when you have the time to prepare an actually healthy meal, such as bacon and eggs (or what have you.)",
"because it's 8 am, i'm tired, and i don't give a shit",
"Come to Germany. Here we have Kaiserschmarrn.\nOh and Apfelstrudel.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBoth account for a full meal. But can be eaten as a dessert as well.",
"Because you don't get dessert at breakfast. Better get it if you want it somehow.",
"Because they give you energy and you have the whole day to burn all the calories",
"For me personally, sweeter foods go better with coffee/tea. If I eat a big breakfast with eggs and bacon, I'll feel more inclined to hold off on the coffee for a little bit while my food digests. If I'm eating donuts, well I can do that and drink coffee simultaneously.\n\nBut that's just me.\n\nEDIT: Also, all the foods you mentioned are easy to carry around and eat on the go. I can't take a plate of eggs with me in the car.",
"Brit living in Belgium. They are obsessed with sweet stuff for breakfast. Can very occasionally have a 'pain au chocolat' bit it always feels wrong. ",
"Wait, pancakes are a dessert? That's a staple breakfast food in the United States.\n\nPancakes with eggs, bacon and toast. That's a nice breakfast. Cereal can get boring.",
"TIL: I eat dessert for breakfast. \n\nAnd I thought these were normal to eat for breakfast, and I don't even consider them sweet. ",
"I think it's because some breakfast foods (or foods that accompanied breakfast) are pastries, and so there was a delicious, slippery-slope.\n\nI also suspect that so many people growing up with super-sugary breakfast cereal got them into the habit of something very sweet at breakfast.",
"Anthropologist here. Short story... American breakfast used to be hearty and full of all food groups. The invention of cereal led to breakfast becoming the small, quick, convenient carb heavy meal that we know today.\n\nIt is also a product of cultural norms. As an asian, breakfast is usually leftovers that can be rice, soup, meat, etc. ",
"But it's the most important meal of the day, what's the big idea world?",
"I feel like it may be due to the mindset that you have all day to burn off the extra calories versus having desert after dinner when you are close to bedtime.",
"I'm not sure, but eating simple carbs in the morning gives you energy quicker than eating oatmeal or salad",
"It's the \"most important meal of the day,\" and dessert is the most important part of a meal. Ergo...",
"In Bavaria and Austria its perfectly acceptable to have a sweet dish like Kaiserschmarrn or Dampnudeln. Usually you have a soup beforehands but the main course is basically a big desert.\n\nThis was especially popular when people were more catholic and couldnt eat meat on fridays, so it was either fish or a Mehlspeisn (flour-food).",
"That's more of a cultural thing, I'd say. In many cultures it's in fact not socially acceptable to eat sweets. Be that as it may - I'd love to know how the \"classic\" American breakfast came to be. If anyone knows or has a source, that would be awesome.",
"I'm from Poland, I moved to Canada about 20 years ago. In Poland we'll eat sandwiches for breakfast, or sausage, or eggs and bacon, or whatever.\n\nSo when I moved here and was introduced to muffins, bagels, and continental breakfasts.. .. .. Well, I looked at the situation and tried to adapt. Like I said that was 20 years ago. I'm still not used to it. Bagels and muffins CAN be good, but they weigh me down in the morning and slow me down.. I try to stay away from carbs so early in the morning, it seems like a stupid idea.",
"For me, my sugar is incredibly low when I wake up. Donuts are a quick grab that make me feel less like puking and fainting. I need to see a dr. ",
"As i understand cakes and deserts were used as a pre-breakfast when working on a farm. The sugars would give you a burst of energy early in the morning as the women would make a real breakfast to be eaten a couple hours later.",
"I'm American and i would prefer something spicy in the morning. I'll make a bowl of chili or chicken with hot sauce. If I tell my friends they think I am insane for doing such a thing. It tastes better than a liquid sugar and butter drenched flat piece of sweet bread.",
"Most of those are not socially acceptable breakfast foods in a lot of countries.",
"Am i the only human on earth who just eats some rye bread and yoghurt for breakfast?!",
"Not my protein pancakes from Costco.....until I smother them in butter and syrup.",
"Being from the UK, I couldn't imagine eating any of that for breakfast. Bring me Weetabix and a cup of tea. If I have time, a bacon and egg sarnie. Yum!",
"Ever put ice cream on a pancake?",
"Because people 'have' to eat something for breakfast. I can't eat an english breakfast so I just eat a waffle.",
"Young (23), in shape diabetic here. The only time my blood sugar gets real low is over the course of a night. Nothing better than a coffee and a couple donuts to get it back up and get my ass into gear. It's also good for the quick boost of energy to get you by until lunch. ",
"Why is dinner the only meal at which it's socially acceptable to eat spaghetti?",
"Since when are pancakes a dessert?",
"Because I'm already on edge being up this early and if you try to tell me I can't have this dessert I swear to god I'll stab you with this butter knife covered in cinnamon roll goo.",
"You just dealt with the horrible act of waking up, you kinda deserve it.",
"Actually, I think we have it backwards. We should be eating dinner-style meals in the morning and breakfast-style meals at night. That way we would spend the day burning off the bigger meal. I do this on the weekends (kind of) and I can absolutely tell the difference. ",
"When you wake up, your metabolism needs to get going, and sugar is a good way to begin processes in the body. These kinds of foods are not hard for your body to break down.",
"Why is it acceptable to eat breakfast for dinner and not dinner for breakfast?",
"But... you can't go lift at the gym if your breakfast is doughnuts...",
"It provides a sugar rush to get you going early in the morning. ",
"Often times desserts are easier to eat, so people who have morning nausea can get them down easier. I personally have difficulty eating many foods in the morning (by that, i mean I feel like I'll throw up if i try.), so I settle for things like yogurt.",
"I hope someone already mentioned this. Our sense of smell doesn't wake up till later. So, foods that are sweet and salty are our go to foods in the morning. Our tongues can interpret the info even though our noses are still waking up.\n\nEDIT: Spelling. ",
"Desserts all day erry day screw anyone who says otherwise\n\n...in moderation of course",
"Cereal grains industry duped the market into thinking eggs were bad for you and birdseed and sugar is healthy.",
"Doughnuts for breakfast? Jesus christ. Oh well, at least your country probably doesnt have an obesity and diabetes problem.",
"I love it how we, in my country eat oatmeal and pieces of wood that some might call bread. And then there's The US. Doughnuts and bagels",
"Fun fact: Asian cultures care much less about differentiating breakfast food and dinner food. They just eat whatever.\nI don't know if this is true in Africa and the Middle East, but I assume so.",
"I dont think I could eat sugar that early. I'd Clog my arteries with bacon instead",
"Wait.. pancakes are a dessert?? Well.. the way they are served at IHOP, I suppose.",
"I don't think Americans consider them regular breakfast foods for everyday consumption. It's more a rare breakfast treat like in other countries",
"The best part of waking up is ALL OF THE CARBS",
"I eat pancakes for dinner. Hell, my mom even makes them.",
"It's not socially acceptable to eat any of those things for breakfast. You people are just fat.",
"Eating your sweets at the begining of the day is a sign of hedonism. That's why most of the world subconsciously eats bacon and sausages in the morning. This shows that you did some work for your _URL_0_",
"All of those are terrible things to eat for breakfast.. Seriously you eat pastries the first thing you do in the morning? Goddamn. ",
" > socially acceptable\n\nThere you go. If there even is an explanation, it's arbitrary and stupid as hell.",
"the reason why it's okay to eat something sugary in the morning is because you have the entire day to work it off. the later you eat sugary foods the worse it is on your body, it gets stored. ",
"It's **very** cheap to make sweat dessert style stuff. Very cheap. Like, unbelievably cheap. Especially when compared to healthy options. The affects of that fact have slowly eroded the American breakfast diet.",
"it may have \"happened organically\" due to western societies high paced demands. i had the guy quoted in this \"life hack\" for a professor a while ago. he has also wrote books on food for the brain, and has a ted talk which goes into much more detail\n\n_URL_0_\n\nbut basically, your brain runs on glucose, which is easily gotten from sugar.\ndonuts and such also provide the choline part of the important neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is heavily involved in attention and executive function",
"It's NOT an acceptable breakfast OP.\n\n\n\nYou eat bad and you should feel bad.",
"It isn't acceptable...that's why Americans are fat. ",
"Serious answer: I believe it has to do with the protein and carb overload usually brought on by things often eaten for breakfast, bagels, waffles, bacon, sausage, and of course donuts. They provide you the energy to wake up and start your day and in theory you are going to work them off during the day.\n\nI believe it was Men's Health which said that every breakfast can be a cheat meal, so long as you are physically active and eat healthy the other two (or three or four) meals.",
"Slowly happened over time! As it turns out, sugary foods are one of the worst ways to start the day. You will crave sugar the whole day. The best solution to this problem is always having candy bars or doughnuts on hand to assure that the cravings subside!",
"Simply put, it's because the sugar in those pastries replenishes your blood glucose after sleep and gives you an extra boost of energy to start the day.",
"The sugary foods you mentioned are said to have what's called a \"high glycemic index\", meaning they have a lot of sugar in them. This can be said for fruits and breads too, as carbs that are unused will basically be processed as sugar. Sugar isn't necessarily bad for, in fact your body needs sugar, the problem is when you eat sugar and are sedentary or eat entirely too much sugar.\n\nHigh glycemic foods are best eaten earlier in the day because then you have the entire day to burn them off. Sugar can be used as energy if used immediately, otherwise it is stored as fat.\n\nThis is basically why breakfast should be your largest meal of the day - you're giving your body time to burn off the calories you just consumed. It's also why you shouldn't eat any high glycemic foods before bed, because the sugar won't be able to be used and will be stored.\n\nProteins on the other hand are usable just about all of the time, the trouble is they're often coupled with fats. That's why people trying to build muscle and lose weight will eat nothing but chicken breasts, because they're low fat and high protein.\n\nTL:DR - Foods that will be processed as sugars or have a high content of sugar in them are best eaten earlier so the sugar can be spent as energy rather than stored as fat. Of course, eating too much sugar is always a bad thing.",
"I don't know the answer but whatever we have left over cupcakes I tell my husband I will stop eating cupcakes for breakfast when someone can give me a solid answer on why a donut is an acceptable breakfast but people act like cupcakes aren't. ",
"A lot of people seem to be missing the point. No they're not a healthy daily option, but the question is why the western breakfast has so many sweets that are considered solely breakfast foods.\nThey're a cheap and effective source of calories, so they were probably more acceptable back when the majority of people were farmers or laborers.",
"I seriously dislike sugary foods for breakfast. Give me some eggs and sausage with hashbrowns and I'm good to roll. I actually feel slightly ill if I eat only sugary things for breakfast.\n\nI'm American btw ",
"I hate breakfast 'food etiquette'. I eat what I want, when I want.",
"And French Fries! .... We just change the name to \"Hash Browns\" and everybody is okay with that. ",
"I had ice cream and sprinkles for dinner yesterday; was that not socially acceptable?",
"I don't understand how sugar entered the breakfast world to begin with. All that stuff makes me feel horrible and generally gives me the shits.\n\n\nEggs, some kind of meat, toast and some milk or coffee (or both) is the only breakfast I'll eat. Cereal is for when you're stoned at 2 in the morning and don't actually want to make food.\n",
"Correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding, it evolved from the continental breakfast, a type of light breakfast that distinguishes itself from an English breakfast. Per Wikipedia (2014), continental breakfast consists of slices of cheese, cold meat, fruits, and cereals. The drinks can be tea, coffee, or fruit juice. I think in America, we are more casual with how we approach our daily meals and since we are used to having pastries with our coffee, this carried over during breakfast.",
"Waking up is bad enough don't take away muffins man",
"You've been fasting for the past eight or so hours, your body needs fuel. If you'll notice, ever item you mentioned is very high in carbohydrates.",
"In Sweden you would never think of any of the mentioned choices of food as breakfast, maybe pancakes for lunch or dinner on a Thursday but breakfast? Nobody got time for that anyway. ",
"The traditional american breakfast for most young people I know is nothing, because oh shit I'm late!",
"Someone else will probably add more information, but if I remember correctly, anthropologically and evolutionarily speaking, we break down fats and such easier in the morning after we break our overnight fast. Our bodies crave nourishment after sleep and we seek out fattier and more succulent meals. Over time, our social norms are developed around these unconscious practices. \n\nIf you look at the breakfasts of different cultures, the main thing they have in common is large amounts of starch, fat, and sugar. ",
"Edward Bernays , father of modern public relations (propaganda) \n\nThe concept of breakfast food more or less comes from him. Most other cultures eat the same foods as any other meal. Quite often left overs from the day before. \n \nedit: father not bather\n",
"Dutch here. We eat bread (not toast, brown bread) with some slices of meat for breakfast. Nobody eats pancakes, douhgnuts, cinnamon rolls, muffins or other sweet things.",
"Because this is a vestige of the previously typical American breakfast. Previously it was more common to eat some porridge or fruit with your coffee for breakfast. But in the 1920s a sneaky rascal called Edward Bernays managed to convince the American public that a heavier breakfast was good for them. Now that heavier foods have fallen out of favour, typical coffee treats that easy to eat on the go have taken over. ",
"Hey, ass-talker here. One possible reason may be that your body had more time to burn these sugars as the day goes on, as opposed to eating it before bed, and all of it being converted to fat during the night. ",
"I've always wondered if separate breakfast food is even a thing in non-western cultures. There's no reason it would be. What about bacon and pancakes says \"8am\"?\n",
"Because have you tried waking up in the morning? It's a terrible experience, and a dessert makes it that much more bearable. \n",
"\"Socially acceptable\"?... Why the fuck do you care what others would think because you eat a different breakfast? Worst than idiot teens who are sweating their ass off trying to think of what to say next so their friends would think they're cool. Pathetic. Eat whatever the hell you want...",
"As an avid pancake eater and trying-to-reform fat guy, I'm all about making crepes. They are basically just eggy pancakes. You just adjust the ratios for more egg, milk and less pancake mix until you get something more runny. You can add vanilla, cinnamon or nutmeg to the batter if you want to get fancy. One key lesson I've learned is to use nonstick spray and put a small amount of the batter in the middle of the pan. You pick up the pan and move it around to get a very thin layer. You can make them savory and healthy with spinach, ham and a bit of flavorful cheese like sharp cheddar or asiago. If I make sweet crepes, the sweetness comes from berries mixed with Greek yogurt to make a sauce topping. I'd take my homemade variety over any restaurant unless it was exceptionally good. **TL:DR CREPES > PANCAKES for being more protein, less carbs and more versatile.**",
"Nobody even mentioned bloody marys and beer... Come on Aussies I know you have some alcohol in the morning before you start flushing the toilet in the wrong direction.",
"I feel like a good add on question to this is: Why is breakfast the only meal where it is not only acceptable but expected to eat the same thing every day?",
"When I was on a tour in Italy, our guide said, \"Here, breakfast is espresso and a cookie.\" By contrast, muffins and even pancakes aren't that bad. Either that, or I just refuse to admit that Italy, a country with arguably the best food in the world, has somehow managed to completely fuck up breakfast.",
"Speak for yourself man. \n\nDessert only is acceptable for any meal. \n\nLast night for dinner, I had like a 1/2 gal milk and like 5 lbs of homemade orange sweet rolls. ",
"Sugary cereal is our reward for winning world war II, so fuck you commie. ",
"because you might die at any point after that. might as well go out sugar loaded and happy.",
"Traditionally when most people worked on farms or other hard labor it was necessary to consume a ton of calories so you had enough energy to work. That's why everything you listed has a high calorie density.",
"Our bodies handle carbohydrates best in the morning. It gives us the most time to burn them off. You eat ice cream for dinner and that'll go straight to your hips, Johnny.",
"It's a cultural issue. In Middle East countries they eat desert BEFORE the meal.\n\nYet in Turkey we eat deserts, AFTER noon and dinner. ",
"Carbs and sugar to start your day off right...and to crash about 2 hours later",
"As a Swede: YOU CAN EAT DESSERT FOR BREAKFAST!!??",
"I don't think I've ever eaten any of those for breakfast. Do you happen to be american?",
"Wtf are you muricans (I assume) doing to your bodies. I'm English. I've never seen anyone have that kind of breakfsst excluding pancakes on pancake day and the occasional croissants. ",
"Because of Edward Barnays! The father of marketing, the reason that women smoke and the reason Americans eat bacon and eggs in the first place.\n_URL_0_ \n",
"That's only in America. Britain does see it as disgustingly unhealthy and weird.",
"That's because we had to wake up and now feel all miserable for suddenly having to leave our comfortable regeneration position. Just as when we're sick, we're allowing ourselves to pity and just eat dessert. It's even scientifically proven to be good, since we need problems to evolve/growth. Therefor we have created the problem getting out of bed too early, to enable growth. If we would only wait for real problems to start occurring, we might not have sufficient of them to truly grow! And it is not a dessert. In fact, after your hot meal it only seems socially acceptable to eat breakfast!",
"Thats maybe breakfast in America.. Pancakes if we're yolo-sunday in Denmark, else its just oatmeal or Danish rye bread! ",
"Seems to be a north american thing. In the UK breakfast is either a bowl of cereal or toast. If you're a fat bastard its sausage, bacon, beans, tomato, fried toast, mushrooms and egg.",
"Socially acceptable in america.* Apart from on Shrove Tuesday ive never heard of someone eating any of these things for breakfast. ",
"Where do you live that pancakes are a dessert food? I'm in the US and having lived in both the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, I've never seen this done, and I'm curious.\n\nLiterally a stack of pancakes and maple syrup with butter for dessert?",
"Socially acceptable maybe... But screw socially acceptable! I eat whatever I want, whenever I want.\n\nAlso people eat donuts, and muffins for lunch too. (And more)",
"Brit here. None ... none of those things are breakfast foods. Not one. They are *treats*. \n\nMy God, you people eat that stuff at *breakfast*? ",
"Must be an American thing, in English we either eat cereal, toast or a Full English.",
"Social programming by the wheat and corn industry. Nobody used to eat cereal for breakfast 120 years ago. Maybe some bread with eggs and whatever else but not the scale with which we eat grain based products now. A lot of it started with Wheaties trying to successfully market their product.",
"I eat eggs, sausage, hash browns, bacon (sometimes), toast(sometimes) every morning before I go to work, and I'm in the US. Some of us still don't consider these things by themselves a breakfast. If I eat pancakes there will be something else with it. I hate eating sugary foods in the morning, because I'm hungry just a couple hours later.",
"What the shit, people eat that for breakfast?",
"Your question is the answer to ELI5: why is America fat?\n\n/s 😜",
"Yet everyone gave me weird looks when I ordered waffles and icecream for breakfast. I guess not all desserts are acceptable...",
"Some cultures have breakfast for every meal. Like the creatures of Redwall Abbey. That's the only one I know of, though...",
"In Punjabi Pakistan, breakfast foods are usually very greasy/fatty. Parantha, which is a (clarified) butter drenched flat bread is a staple. You eat that with your eggs, braised beef/lamb shanks/feet, or yogurt. Chana puri is also a deep fried flat bread with a chickpea curry. All in all its high fat foods in the morning with high calories. Punjabi people are traditionally farmers that eat 2ce daily so meals like this were required to give them energy throughout the day. ",
"The \"rules\" make *absolutely* no sense at all. If I sit down in the Cafeteria at work at 8:30 in the morning with a chocolate muffin, a doughnut, a sugar coated scone, a cinnamon roll, 2 frosted pop tarts or a bowl of cereal featuring *marshmallows*, nobody bats an eye.\n\nIf I were to have a seat with a slice of cake or pie or a scoop of ice cream, I'd get weird looks from everybody that walked by and crap from my co-workers.\n\nBill Cosby had a whole bit about his wife freaking out after getting caught letting his kids eat chocolate cake for breakfast before school one morning. It's hilarious, but it makes no sense, it's acceptable to give the kids sugar-coated cereal but not cake?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.viralnova.com/breakfast-around-the-world/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.viralnova.com/breakfast-around-the-world/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/1550611262213964/Alt-Wiener-Apfelstrudel.html",
"http://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/1900361309694639/Altbaerlis-Kaiserschmarrn.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"food.by"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lifehacker.com/5660544/a-morning-donut-could-improve-your-memory-and-ability-to-concentrate"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3lvx02 | why is the "k" silent? as seen in: knack or knock | the 1st silent "K" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lvx02/elif_why_is_the_k_silent_as_seen_in_knack_or_knock/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv9rzps"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In the 1600s, the K was pronounced. Pilgrims in America said \"kuh-nife\" and \"kuh-nee\" for knife and knee. It died out around then, but spelling had become set,\nSo we kept that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1qlzhd | if the speed limit isn't actually a hard upper bound, why don't we just post a target speed instead? | Everyone treats it that way anyway... why doesn't the law account for it as such? They could just make it illegal to go more than 10 mph over or under a posted "target speed" and we'd have basically the same system we have now, but it'd be more honest.
Edit: okay, so I understand that it's *technically* a hard upper bound, but that it's up to the police officer to decide when to enforce it. Fine. But I still don't get why we post limits and not ranges, since obviously going too slow is hazardous too, plus it would take some of the guesswork out of it. Can anyone explain to me why we don't post a range? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qlzhd/eli5_if_the_speed_limit_isnt_actually_a_hard/ | {
"a_id": [
"cde4azp",
"cde83tr",
"cde8tw9"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I've been pulled over for 26 in a 25. It's up to the cops discretion, and some cops are dicks. The speed limit is a hard upper boundary, but it is up to the individual officer whether to enforce that strictly or not. ",
"They should just call it a speed average\n",
"It's very simple : Everyone goes 5 miles over, so when officers need to meet their ticket quotas, they start pulling people over in the 'safe' range.\n\nThere's no incentive for the departments to change this, because then they'd have a harder time bringing in traffic ticket money."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2hlg62 | what would happen if a queen was carrying a king's son, but the king died. | Would the throne go to the current first-in-line? Or would it go to the unborn son? Would there be a time cut off? How would this vary in different countries?
Edit; Conscious it would vary a lot from one country to another, but any thoughts on what would happen in some prominent monarchies? The UK? Norway? Spain? Thailand? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hlg62/eli5_what_would_happen_if_a_queen_was_carrying_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cktr0gc",
"cktr7w7",
"ckts5eg"
],
"score": [
13,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It would depend on the time and country. Different countries all had different rules of royal succession, and those rules changed over the course of history. \n\nThere is no actual single answer to this question. It would be like asking, \"What color is everything?\"",
"_URL_1_\n\nSo this video is on the topic of the British monarchy, I can't speak to the systems for other monarchies. But basically, people in line to the throne aren't actually in line until they're born (y'know, when they become people.) So the King dies while his wife is pregnant with his son. The crown then goes to the next person in line which would probably be the King's closest-aged sibling if he has any. Now, if this new King (let's say he's brother of the original king) dies before he has any children, then the crown goes to the baby, son of the original king. However, any kids the newer king has will automatically be higher up in line than kids of the old king. So if the new king (brother of the original king) has kids, those kids will be first in line, before the child of the original king. It's important to realize that the list of people in line to the throne is literally thousands of names long, and there's other people besides siblings who also get rights to be in line. It's very complicated. There's an enormous, ever-changing list on wikipedia of the entire line of succession to the British throne that lists over a thousand people. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nEDIT: So the last time I looked at that wikipedia article, it looked much different, and listed thousands of names. Now it only shows the top 50 people. But those are really the only important ones, no one else has even a remote chance of ever being king or queen. \n\nSECOND EDIT: For British monarchs, if the child is conceived out of wedlock or has ever been a Catholic, they are permanently excluded from the line of succession. So a child the king has with a mistress cannot be king or queen. ",
"This is known as posthumous birth.\n\nAnd as of yet in the majority of monarchies, the Blood Heir beats out a sibling. Meaning that the sibling cannot take the throne, or may take the throne and reign until the child is old enough to take the throne themself, at which point the child would become Monarch.\n\nSo, let's fast forward 30 years, time and toil have taken their toll on the Royal Family, Elizabeth, Margaret, Charles, William and Harry are all dead, leaving King George on the throne and his brother Edward. King George is married to Queen Amanda and are expecting their first child. 6 months into the pregnancy, King George is killed in a car accident, but Queen Amanda hasn't given birth. This leaves Edward in a position where he can take the throne, but when the child is old enough to take the throne (most likely at 18, or perhaps slightly later depending on if he too joins the military) he would have to abdicate the throne and allow his nephew, young Prince Andrew to take the throne. \n\nOf course, Edward could keep the throne and possibly spark a civil war, or kill Amanda and the unborn Andrew, but those tactics haven't been seen in years.\n\nEDIT - This is based off of an agnatic primogeniture. With male primogeniture, it would be the same, but if Amanda gave birth to a princess, then Edward would keep the throne. With absolute primogeniture, Edward could not claim the throne as King, but could claim it as steward.\n\nFor fun, Thailand is male primogeniture, Spain is absolute neutral primogeniture, UK is currently male-preference absolute, but it is in the works for that to be changed, and Norway is absolute as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUY6HGqYweQ"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.