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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1m2s0a | why aren't all foods high in protein? isn't protein used for the structure of all living things? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m2s0a/eli5_why_arent_all_foods_high_in_protein_isnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc57xhc",
"cc580bh"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"While protein does create the structure of many things, carbohydrates can also create structure. For example, chitin, which makes up the exoskeletons of bugs, is a type of carbohydrate. The structures of most plants and fungi are also the result of carbohydrates.",
"Some proteins are indigestible by humans, such as keratin - when a food is labelled as high in protein, it *should* mean that it is high in *available* protein. This is not always the case. \n\nSome foods are also higher in carbohydrates, or fats, or fiber, than they are in protein.\n\nIn short, \"high in protein\" effectively means (in the US) that it contains protein, but - it doesn't indicate as relative to what."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1ve3uk | why does my hair stand up when i'm scared? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ve3uk/eli5_why_does_my_hair_stand_up_when_im_scared/ | {
"a_id": [
"cerbv2m",
"cerc2cs",
"cerfk1d"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The idea was that, back when the hair covering our bodies was thicker, making it stand up would make us look bigger & more intimidating to whatever is scaring us. ",
"It makes you look bigger. It happens because \"fight or flight\" causes goosebumping of the skin which \"frumps\" oyour body hair out",
"As previously stated, it's the \"fight or flight\" part of your body which is called the sympathetic nervous system (its counterpart being the parasympathetic nervous system, both called autonomic nervous system). It does a lot of things, one of which is providing the little muscles around your hair follicles with electric stimuli when active. Electric impulse, muscle contracts, hair gets erect, people look scary."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c1hlsl | we have goat milk and cow milk to consume, but why is it merely impossible to find pig milk in a grocery store? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1hlsl/eli5_we_have_goat_milk_and_cow_milk_to_consume/ | {
"a_id": [
"erd9x5v"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Firstly, it just doiesn't taste very good. Pig's milk is watery, and quite gamey.\n\nThe real reason though is that pigs simply don't produce very much milk, and don't like being milked. Cows have been domesticated for thousands of years, and selectively bred for milk production and docility. Pigs, on the other hand, will put up a hell of a fight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ldn94 | how do seat-belts know when to tighten? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ldn94/eli5_how_do_seatbelts_know_when_to_tighten/ | {
"a_id": [
"cby6iln"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A pendulum under the seat acts as a sensor. When it swings a certain way the seat belt locks up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ev0p4y | how do surgical masks protect you from getting infected when there are huge gaps near your cheeks and the bridge of your nose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ev0p4y/eli5_how_do_surgical_masks_protect_you_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffso2ic",
"ffso6w8",
"ffsol9u"
],
"score": [
11,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't protect you from disease, they protect those around you from your disease. Surgical masks make it so that if you cough, you aren't spraying germs all over the place.",
"Wearing a surgical mask is not an effective way of preventing they wearer from getting infected. (As you suspected) They are fairly effective in preventing the wearer from spreading their own droplets (sneezing, coughing, just breathing), thereby decreasing the chance of them infecting another person.",
"they are also used in droplet precautions in combination with goggles to prevent body fluids and droplets from entering the nose or mouth or eyes. they simply act as a barrier."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7zn6v1 | what is the "crunchy" feeling when a muscle knot is being massaged? | I get really bad knots in my neck and shoulders.
What the heck is that crunching? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zn6v1/eli5_what_is_the_crunchy_feeling_when_a_muscle/ | {
"a_id": [
"dup8oxl"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"As I understand (from my massage therapist and physio), it's the muscle fascia sort of \"slipping\" past the skin, with just enough friction to \"catch\" and release repeatedly, such as when you rub your hands together when they're slightly wet. The effect is more pronounced if you're dehydrated. Working on the muscle fascia is the key component to the \"myofascial release\" (MFR) technique in some schools of massage therapy, which is a controversial technique not supported by good evidence (but with a risk of harm)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
bldxjh | why do horses start side by side while runners are spread at equal distance before the race? | Is the difference just negligible for horses? Don't we want the race to be the same length for all the participants? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bldxjh/eli5_why_do_horses_start_side_by_side_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"emnmfix",
"emnmn2e",
"emnv0tp"
],
"score": [
17,
45,
20
],
"text": [
"The horses can collapse to the inside on the start, so there isn't officially any longer loop for them to take. When runners start something that they have to stay in their lanes for, there is a loop disparity and they need the distance evened out. Human races where you can immediately collapse to the inside will have them all start on the same line as well.",
"They will generally only spread runners out to compensate if they are restricted to a certain lane during the race. In races where there's no \"lane\" (like horse racing) everyone can move to the innermost lane basically immediately.",
"Not totally true, distance races without assigned lanes on a track still use a 'waterfall' start which puts the outer lane about a meter, maybe 1.5m ahead of the inside lane. It does help the break toward the inside lane. However, that's more important because those races start pretty close to the first turn where being stuck outside would have a non-negligible impact on the distance you run. The horses have a long straightaway before the turn, so the difference in angling over is pretty small. At Churchill Downs, the starting gate is 37m across, and the track is one mile, so if the dimensions of the oval are similar to a running track, the straight away for the start is about 400m long. The outside horse, if it ran a straight line to the inside post of the turn, would run less than 2 meters extra, or about .42% farther. Of course, that's the percentage further to the turn, whereas the extra 1.7 meters is only a touch over 0.1% of the total distance. Most of the horses will cover more than that just trying to move into and out of position, as the pack is relatively wider than a normal distance running pack which normally stays in the first two lanes or so for the majority of a race."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4096rl | the scientific consensus says gmo's are safe, and we seem to value our scientific consensuses here in the usa on other issues...so whats all the fuss about? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4096rl/eli5_the_scientific_consensus_says_gmos_are_safe/ | {
"a_id": [
"cysefuf",
"cysekte",
"cysfwul",
"cysg980",
"cysjp49",
"cyskn49",
"cyskute",
"cyslwod",
"cysm82j",
"cysmnnw",
"cysnu9l",
"cysssvg",
"cystnv0",
"cystosy",
"cysufub",
"cysul47",
"cysvhyt",
"cysvj7y",
"cysvnsv",
"cysxn4n",
"cysy36b",
"cysy45o",
"cyt6n6a"
],
"score": [
391,
15,
2,
3,
548,
47,
8,
3,
14,
5,
20,
3,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the same as the fuss about any other topic with scientific consensus--there is a substantial portion of the population that inherently trusts anecdotes and conspiracy theories over scientific experiments. It is often a problem with confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking.\n\nTo be fair, the subject of genetic modification has some legitimate controversies as well, such as the proper use of them without risking vulnerability to disease from monoculture, or how to prevent spreading invasive plants to the environment.",
"We don't value our scientific consensus as much as we should. Vaccines are controversial despite there being strong scientific consensus that they're overwhelming a positive thing in society. Global warming is disputed by politicians despite the overwhelming consensus that it is real, man-made, and will have substantial consequences in the not-too-distant future. Young Earth Creationists can take a national stage to debate their nonsense and can even make a reasonably successful bid for the presidency without this being a belief that instantly makes them unelectable.\n\nGMOs are controversial because controversy gets ratings for news channels, then ratings get ad revenue. Simple as that.\n\nHonestly, among the list of things that there's manufactured controversy for I'd say that the debate on GMOs is bordering on reasonable—there are some secondary or tertiary effects from GMO foods that are worth debating (e.g. introducing entire crops that share the same weakness due to genetic similarities, making the entire crop weak to an unexpected parasite, or making a crop so resistant to a pesticide that farmers are willing to spray way too much). I'm not saying that the controversy actually *is* reasonable, but it's a lot less insane than \"some guy was paid millions of dollars to falsify a study on vaccines, so I'd rather have my kid die of measles than risk the chance that his fraudulent study was right,\" or \"someone managed to interpret my holy book to mean that the whole of earth science and evolution is wrong, so that's what I'll blindly believe.\" ",
"It's no different from people who believe vaccines cause autism, that cellphones cause cancer, anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist, or any of the other related topics. Especially historically, scientific consensus is indeed not always 100% correct, but the people that make these sorts of arguments generally are just coming up with hypothetical arguments that don't really exist. You're welcome to believe taking vitamin C supplements keep you from getting a cold, but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a belief. \nPeople decide whatever the hell they want, and even small minority opinion groups can complain very loudly.",
"Like so many issues, the narrative is driven by people who shout the loudest. \n\nPeople in general have no idea what GM crops exist and they generally don't care.",
"Ag student here. This is a subject that obviously gets discussed quite a bit amongst my peers. \n\nFirst of all, I see way too much confusion over the difference between:\n1. Plant/animal species that we've been artificially selecting for (intentionally or not) over thousands of years (NOT GMOs), and \n2. Transgenic crops that are usually created by using a 'gene gun' to insert DNA sequences into plant embryos over thousands of trials, usually with lackluster results.\n\nWith respect to transgenic crops, I agree that they are not known to be inherently dangerous, and can be a more economically attractive (and operationally simple) option for farmers. They also definitely promote monocultures that can lead to decreases in local biodiversity, which can tend toward putting short-term yield increases over long-term ecosystem/soil biota health. \n\nMy personal hesitancy toward completely accepting GMOs is for a different reason that I don't see mentioned often. IF, decades later, we discover an issue with any of these genes that has a truly harmful effect, as in the case of DDT in the early 70s (and it's happened with several other previously-issued classes of chemical controls), we can't just stop using them and expect their presence to diminish over a certain half-life like with pesticides. The gene will persist in any population that isn't prevented from reproducing, and if it spreads it'll be difficult to control or even identify.\n\nI'm expecting a lot of negative feedback to this comment, hence the throwaway, but I can assure you it's not necessary. I'm not blind to the potential positives of GM crops; they can lower herbicide/pesticide use, slowing the ability of weeds/pests to evolve resistances. Bt crops have been, as far as I can tell, a very positive development. I think the real crux of the discussion lies in the proper ongoing education of farmers without the whole thing being politicized by the rampantly pro- or anti-GM groups.",
"The major concerns with GMO are not just about whether or not they are healthy, they are about other things that make GMO's (and more importantly the companies that produce them) iffy:\n\n1. To increase crop yields they will make herbicide resistant GMOs, they will then bomb the crops with said herbicide. The good here is that the amount of plants harvested is increased. The bad thing is that any animal that decides to eat those crops without properly getting rid of the herbicides can end up with herbicides in their system which may be toxic especially to pregnant animals in which they can affect fetal development. (_URL_0_)\n2. Related to above, the concept of bioaccumulation in which animal one eats herbicide rich food and the herbicide gets stored in fat reserves in high concentration, predator eats animals that ate herbicide rich plants, gets even higher concentration of herbicide within it's system. (_URL_1_)\n3. Because GMOs can be designed to be herbicide resistant and can be designed to grow faster, they can become invasive and hard to get rid of (as they do not respond to certain herbicides) (_URL_4_) also because so much more herbicide tends to be used on these crops it can lead to the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds via selection (_URL_2_)\n4. Local famers can be sold GMO seeds. These seeds produce excellent crop yields however these plants can also be made to \"die off\" after a few generations. This requires the farmer to continually keep on buying seeds every few season. Even if this is not the case, there are often also other \"rules\" placed on the farmers that they cannot share the seeds of their crops to nearby farmers. \n5. Similiar to above, these rules go as far as punishing farmers with fines/ lawsuits or other controls for those who are found to have \"shared\" the seeds of GMO crops with their neighbors. This is judged by GMO companies by whether or not the next door farmers have said GMO crop growing when they have not paid for it. As you can imagine, these are plants, a few seeds may blow over and multiply aggressively in the nearby fields. So it's kinda unfair. One famous example of this was Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in which Monsanto claimed that it's intellectual property rights were being infringed by Schmeiser when their GMO crops (sold to Schmeiser) were found in nearby fields (_URL_3_)\n\nI could also get into why (at least in the US) scientific consensus doesn't really matter to public opinion as much as poltical agendas and \"values\". See public reaction to: global warming (scientific consensus yet no consensus on public opinion) the innately determined properties of sexuality and gender (public opinion: people still claim being gay/trans is a choice), early earth creationists (who deny they world being older than 6000years old) and evolution deniers. ",
"My opinion on GMOs has always been that I don't want to support a system that in the future could lead to copyrights on certain foods. If a company genetic you modifies a tomatoes, and that tomatoes can't be grown or harvested with said companies consent, then said tomatoe has becomes the only tomatoe. Now repeat all food. I belive that companies long goal is to Control consumers and trap them in a system. Health wise, I do think really know, but the second nabisco patents the tomatoe were done for.",
".....What \"scientific consensus\"? GMOs are even banned in several countries; that doesn't sound like a consensus to me. \n\nSeriously, got a link to an announcement or study which backs up the \"consensus\" claim?\n\n**EDIT: I get downvoted for simply *asking for a link which shows this supposed consensus*? Really?**\n\n**EDIT #2: I'm still waiting for someone to supply an article/link which shows a \"scientific consensus\" that GMOs are safe. Tried Google, no luck. Any takers?**\n\n**EDIT #3: The only thing I've found so far is a statement from the \"American Association for the Advancement of Science\". .. But 5 minutes of additional searching reveals the AAAS is a lobbying group based in Washington D.C. with no special requirements for membership in the organization, and it's current CEO is a former congressman. Ref:** _URL_1_ \n\n**EDIT #4: But I did find this... _URL_0_",
"Something big here that's not been mentioned yet:\n\n > The scientific consensus says *GMO's are safe*\n\nNo, it doesn't, because that is a statement that is far from true, and nobody that knows anything about the topic would say if they were speaking carefully.\n\n*GMOs are not unsafe due to their being GMOs.*\n\nGenetic Modification (direct manipulation) is a tool. Scientific consensus does appear to agree that the tool itself does not make food dangerous to eat.\n\nBut that's a little bit like saying \"Food made with things from your kitchen is safe.\" If the things you used from the kitchen were flour, water, and sugar -- yeah it's safe. If you went under the sink and got out the bleach, that's bad. There's nothing unsafe about it being made in the kitchen, but there's a lot of stuff that you could get from the kitchen that wouldn't be safe. Additionally, you could use peanut butter -- that would be safe for many people, but for some people it wouldn't be.\n\n-----\n\nWith the exception of people with a moral disagreement with it (we shouldn't be playing god -- period.), or the... let's call them \"crunchies\"... most people don't have a fundamental problem with genetic modification.\n\nWhat is a problem, is approximately the following:\n\n1. Labeling: There has been a lot of energy from industry to prevent GMO labeling. In general, if the person selling me a product *specifically wants me to not know something about it*, that's not a good sign.\n2. Copyright/secrecy: Even when it is labeled, the exact transgenic modifications used are secret, because.. many legal reasons. If you happen to develop an allergic or intolerance reaction to BT toxin (no idea if this has happened yet, but it probably will) you have no way of knowing if a given product contains it or not. At the moment your only recourse is to go 100% GMO-free, and I don't see that changing.\n3. Regulatory Capture: As I said earlier, any given modification's safety depends entirely on its own self. That means any given modification should really be well-studied before being widely used. Combine this with the secrecy involved, and it's a \"trust the corporation and the governmental oversight agency to assure safety\" situation. Yikes. It's not like any large corporations have ever hid public health issues to make a profit.\n\nSo, to summarize, it really looks like certain parties would like to be able to unilaterally decide what goes in food, with little oversight, and no ability for the public to actually know what they're eating. No thanks.",
"people think that genetically modifying organisms is sticking a giant syringe in an ear of corn filled with bright green liquid and turning it into the equivalent of the plant from lil shop of horrors. it's all sensationalized fear when in actuality it's not that at all.",
"Um... Value scientific consensus? Since when? Global Warming, vaccines, and the helium crisis come to mind immediately as things the general public don't trust science on. There's a lot more if you really want to dig into it. ",
"We've been genetically modifying organisms since the dawn of civilization. We picked out the best traits in livestock and seeds, creating dogs from wolves, even in finding a mate. Now we're just being more specific. A legit concern for GMO's is the question of who owns them. We're giving copyright to life forms. Cases of Monsanto engineered seed blowing into another farmer's land, and when he plants it, is ordered to destroy his own crops because the seeds are patented. But of the billions of servings of GMO food consumed, there are (I'm pretty sure) no data show harmful affects. ",
"Lack of education and mistrust of scientists. Evolution is even more well-backed science, but look at how many people deny its existence. Same goes for climate change. There is a scientific consensus that it is happening, but too many people don't understand it, don't trust scientists, are willing to cherry pick the one or two dissenting opinions from \"scientists,\" etc.\n\nIn short, people are more likely to trust sources that agree with what they already believe, even if there are *far* more sources that prove the opposite.",
" > and we seem to value our scientific consensuses here in the USA on other issues\n\nTell that to the climate change deniers.",
"The only argument that leaves me unable to support GMO's at the current time are not down to the science, but down to the patent system. As it stands, Monsanto have patented strains of seeds that are resistant to their herbicides. If you were a farmer who bought normal seeds and kept the seeds at the end of each harvest to replant you might find somebody in a suit knocking on your door one day informing you that your crops have recieved this herbicide resistance gene through pollination. Currently, you are left with three options and they all suck. You can pay a fee to license the gene that you don't even want, you can destroy the whole crop and therefore your livelihood, or you can be sued. In a world where Nestlé can pull their unethical shit with baby formula in lesser economically developed countries I expect Monsanto would happily arrange for farms not using their gene to be pollinated so they can send them a bill.\n\nUntil people are protected from this kind of patent abuse by big corporations, I can't support GMO's commercially.",
"People are scared and dumb basically. \"We shouldn't be playin gawd with them there veggi-tables!\" Despite the fact that we have been influencing the growth of food since the dawn of agriculture, we're just better at it now. Do you want to live in a world were food requires less water and produces more food? I do, I most certainly do.",
"The only reason there is any problem with GMOs is:\n\na) eco nutjobs who think that \"natural\" means good.\nb) many GMOs were developed in the US and US patent law is pants-on-head retarded.",
" This is because to be an activist you need to have some thick skin and resistance to \"you're over reacting to something that's not dangerous\". The GMO crowd not only has a distrust of the \"establishment\" but for \"evil\" scientists. So telling a GMO activist that there is a consensus among scientists that the crops aren't dangerous doesn't have quite the same affect on them as discussing scientific data with a climate change activist. That being said I think the activists have their place still. I wouldn't mind an outside source of scrutiny keeping an eye on the GMO industry as with any industry. \n",
"One, due to poor science education, many people don't really understand how genetics works.\n\nTwo, the 'natural foods' industry is a corporate entity like any other, and is not at all above using scare tactics to drive sales.\n\nAnd third, but most importantly- people like to feel that they, as people and as humans, are special. The entire science of genetics says: \"You're a bag of chemicals. Corn is a bag of chemicals. Fruit flies/peas/bacteria... every living thing is a bag of chemicals, and not unique ones, either. And we can play around with these chemicals at will, and put bacteria genes into corn, or cows, or whatever, because it's all made out of the same stuff. You're not a special snowflake, and we can prove it.\"\n\n ",
"* there is a lack of long term studies, simply because it's a relatively new technology.\n* large parts of the science is funded by biotech companies like monsanto, bayer or basf, it's obvious that there is at least some funding bias.\n* gmo crops can not coexist with non-gmo crops, they contaminate non-gmo's with pollen. that also means it's nearly impossible to exterminate a gmo that some future long term studies might identify as dangerous.\n\nit's entirely possible that today's asbestos, tobacco or leaded fuel will be tomorrow's gmos, but with the difference that you can't put them back in the box, since they're self-reproducing.\n\nthere's also the point that lots of seed producers have been aquired by a handful of big biotech companies in the last 2 decades, nowadays the 6 largest companies make up 80% of the world market. the turn to gmos definitely sped up this concentration process.",
"Evaluating the safety of a GMO food is a very complex issue. It isn't some new age hippy bullshit that led the EU into establishing extremely tough guidelines around approving genetically modified foods.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"According to laws that apply to all EU member states, a GM food can only be allowed onto the market if it can be documented using scientific data that it is just as safe and healthy as a comparable conventional product.\"\n\nOne of the major concerns with genetically modified food is that plants are composed of extremely complicated sets of chemicals. Within the genome of plants are ancient genes that can lead them to be highly poisonous, carcinogenic, or dangerous.\n\nFor instance, Tomatoes are members of the nightshade family, and Almonds contain cyanide--- the wild varieties being deadly.\n\nGenetic modification however isn't only modifying plants from within their genomes, but also introducing complicated genetics from across major gaps--- for instance animal genes into plants.\n\nThe potential for these genes to produce unplanned or surprising effects is enormous.\n\nThe issue isn't just to human health, but the health of the biosphere itself. There are thousands of examples of natural plants that have been moved and introduced into new environments, that have gone on to decimate local plant species, and cause extinctions of local animal species that depended on them.\n\nTruly introducing genes from animal species to plants, while having the potential for improving agriculture, and feeding millions in poverty, is an event without precedent in biology or nature.\n\nThe issue lies not in whether GMOs 'can' be safe, absolutely they can, but of whether the burden of proof of safety should be on the companies that stand to make massive profits to prove that their genetically altered potato is still just a potato-- or whether the human population and biosphere should be used as a testing ground.\n\nThe U.S. has fallen into the latter category, essentially using its population as a testing ground for the safety of GMO foods, and Europe will be the beneficiary when the studies come out in 20 or so years on the effects for various genetically modified foods on the population of the United States.",
"The \"fuss\" is mostly just conspiracy theorists that take their distrust of the government and try to pass it off as science.\n\nThat about sums it up.\n\nIt's the same thing as the \"anti-vax\" crowd, or the recent \"gluten free\" craze. Even when a vast majority of the scientific community proves and agrees on something, there will still be idiots and fanatical skeptics that deny it.",
"Anti-GMO is a highly structured propaganda effort by the organic farming industry. Look at what has been going on with Whole Foods this past year. They know they are in trouble and needing to grow. The word \"organic\" connotes good old farmer john spreading the rich compost and cow manure in the little pea patch. In reality, organic farming is just another form of corporate farming now. It doesn't use chemical pesticides or chemical fertilizers. However, it uses some nasty compounds for pesticides and the fertilizer is manure. Sounds all good and natural, right? Look at what is happening with Chipotle, a huge organic farming supporter. Problem with manure is it contains all the bacteria of the cows, pigs, chickens. The organic fanatics claim this microbacterial presence in the top soil is necessary for the plant to be the most efficient extracting nutrients from the ground. As long as you can keep the bacteria in the soil and not get on your produce, it makes sense. Bacteria are slippery little beasts though. \n \nIf you watch the scale and size of the Anti-GMO movement, you get an appreciation for the level and sophistication of mob hypnosis programming techniques developed over 100 years can be used."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18790555",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/gmcr.28449#.VpHhJlm0mzw",
"http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3348485/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4**",
"http://theconversation.com/inside-americas-science-lobby-what-motivates-aaas-members-to-engage-the-public-38065"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
70si9o | how do gps apps such as maps or waze know the new formation of roads after construction? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70si9o/eli5_how_do_gps_apps_such_as_maps_or_waze_know/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn5mr4j",
"dn5pt4d"
],
"score": [
40,
6
],
"text": [
"It first important to understand how Google Maps gets all if it's data. Some of it's data is pre-programmed into their systems. This is usually used as initial data, especially for testing. Google provides many more features, however. They also show traffic and other information for your daily traveler.\n\nA few years back, Google acquired Waze and they use data from the Waze app to enhance Google maps. Waze is backed by a community of users who report cops, traffic, accidents, etc. But Google also injects tracking into their software. Google can access the speed of your car by checking it's locations at two different points and dividing it by the time between those two points. If the speed limit on a road is 50 mph, but every car on the road using Google maps is moving only 10 mph, then there is obviously traffic.\n\nUsing the same technique Google will track a cars movement. If a car is going off course, then Google will ignore the data, but still store it for later use. If 50 cars go off course, Google's map algorithm will detect this as an unknown road. Google will run several Artificial intelligence tasks to determine what is going on and will adjust their data accordingly.",
"Mostly, they get the information from various government sources, road databases, maps, traffic regulation databases and so on. Exactly what source that is depends on which country it is. In some cases, they also use OpenStreetMap as a source.\n\nThat update cycle is usually kind of slow, though, maybe just a few times a year, so they also track vehicles. If enough vehicles move along the same line where there shouldn't be a road, they assume there is a road.\n\nOnce they get a proper source for one of the \"car track generated\" roads, though, it's replaced by the proper road. Remember, roads are much more than just a line, it's traffic regulations, speed limits, lanes and so on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5wz6dn | if america spends so much more on its military than russia, why are countries somewhat evenly matched? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wz6dn/eli5_if_america_spends_so_much_more_on_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"dedyyu3",
"dedz7kq"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"They aren't. In a conventional war the US could handle multiple Russias at the same time. However the war wouldn't be conventional because Russia's policy on nuclear weapons is that they will use them as a first strike against enemy soldiers that are at war with Russia. This would force the US to retaliate with their own nukes, and before you know it there are no more Russians and no more Americans. Because of this the countries have to be careful not to actually engage each other in combat.",
"The US and Russia are very far from evenly matched. The US has 11 aircraft carriers. Russia has 1. The numbers are similar for other hardware, and when it looks like Russia can compete in numbers you have to remember that lots of their stuff is old and outdated. The only reason that Russia is a military threat is because nukes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4d7dv0 | does turning a car at a slower speed give it a sharper turning radius? | I noticed that when turning into a parking spot people will go as slow as they can to make sure their car can fit into the spot. However, some people seem to believe that actually moving at a slower speed will lead to a sharper turn. How could this be true? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d7dv0/eli5_does_turning_a_car_at_a_slower_speed_give_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1odpqy"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"As long as your tires aren't slipping, they are controlling your path. So, your turning radius will just depend on steering wheel position. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3d4qjl | i have a math and odds question that i don't know how to explain in the title. | Okay so say you have a bag of 10 colored balls. 4 red, 4 blue and 2 yellow. You stick your hand in and pull out a ball and it's red. there was a 40% chance and you pulled out a red ball. Great. Now you put it back in and pull out another ball at random. Now the chances of a red ball being picked is back at 40%. But the chances of pulling out 2 red balls in a row is lower. Why is it lower? That is my question. Because if the chances of picking a red ball are 40% every time, why do they get lower if you pulled a red ball the time before? The balls don't somehow know which was chosen last time. Why does the time before have any impact on the next "ball choice"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d4qjl/eli5_i_have_a_math_and_odds_question_that_i_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct1qjtz",
"ct1qlqo",
"ct1qxah",
"ct1rtdv",
"ct1xhsv"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because if you want the outcome \"2 red balls\", then you have to hit a 40% chance, and *after* successfully drawing red you have to hit another 40% chance. So you have a 40% chance of even getting to \"stage 2\", and then it's only a chance again. So of all the possible outcomes of the second draw, 60% are already useless before even drawing - because the first draw wasn't right. \n\nImagine hitting a bull's eye in darts. Doing it once seems reasonable as an amateur. Doing it 15 times in a row? Not so much. \n\nEDIT: To give a maybe more visual example: you have a red and a blue ball - what's the chance of pulling 2 blue in a row? So you have 4 possible outcomes: red-red, red-blue, blue-red and blue-blue. Each draw, again, has a 50% chance on its own - but the chance of getting the right outcome out of 4 possibilities is 25%. ",
"You're thinking about this wrong, and this is actually known as the Gambler's Fallacy. (Black has been rolled 3 times in a row, therefore red HAS to be next)\n\nWhen you know the previous ball was a red, then the chance of the next ball being red is 40%. But, the chances of the next 2 balls being red is 40% times 40% or 16%.\n\nIn other words, the time before DOESN'T have any impact on the next ball choice. What happened in the past doesn't affect your future pick. What you're talking about only applies for the next 2 future picks",
"So there is a misunderstanding here which I think I can focus on a single line:\n\n > why do they get lower if you pulled a red ball the time before?\n\nThey don't. Each pull is **independent** of prior pulls. It's the same reason a coin toss is always 50-50, even if you previously flipped 9 heads in a row, it's still 50-50 for the next flip.\n\nThe confusion is in mixing up independent events, with a collection of events.\n\nIf you haven't pulled at all then you're asking \"what are the odds of pulling red twice in a row\", that's a different question from \"what are the odds of pulling red after I've previously pulled red\".\n\nThe difference comes from analyzing how odds are determined.\n\nIn a single pull there are 4 \"good\" outcomes out of a total of 10, so 40%. Even if you already pulled a red and put it back, for your next pull there are still 4 good out of 10, so 40%.\n\nBut if you are looking at TWO pulls, there are much more than 10 possible outcomes for two pulls. In fact there are 100 possible outcomes from two pulls. Only 16 of those 100 outcomes have two red marbles, that's why the odds for getting two in a row are 16%.\n\nIt's all about how many possible things can happen, and after you've already done one pull, there are fewer possible outcomes, so the odds necessarily change.",
"I'm going to step back a little and point out that many of the basic points of confusion around probability are because you focus on the answer and not on the question.\n\nThere are all sorts of very specific questions that you can ask in probability, many of which are similar but not identical. English, on the other hand, lets us ask things that sound specific but are really vague or ambiguous.\n\nSo here we have two different questions:\n1. If the first ball was red, what are the odds of the second ball being red?\n2. What are the odds of the first two balls both being red?\n\nYou're confusing these two questions.\n\nOne way to help understand these is that the first question is asking about *one single event*, the second ball, while the second question is asking about *two events*, the first ball and the second ball. \n\nAnother thing to understand is that information can be embedded in the question, without being part of the event being questioned. Plus, in probability, information affects the answer. So the first question above gives *information* about the first event, but it's asking about the second event. \n\n",
"You are talking about the difference between drawing a red ball and drawing a red ball twice in a row.\n\nThe difference between independent events and several concurrent events. \n\nSo a 40% chance vs 40% of a 40% chance"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f36o64 | how can a broken heart hurt so much psychically? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f36o64/eli5_how_can_a_broken_heart_hurt_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhgwj1m",
"fhgwn6c",
"fhgwu4h",
"fhgxh3z",
"fhgzs5j",
"fhh0f5y"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
46,
8,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's a great question. I was so hung up on this one girl that after she left, I was in torment mode for at least six months. I physically felt torn up, lethargic, and exhausted. Cold sweats at night. \n\nEventually you grow out of it but damned if the physical toll isn't hardcore.",
"The mind and body are deeply linked. Mental pain becomes whole body pain. For example, say you are frightened of something, your heart rate and blood pressure increase and your pupils dilate. if you're looking for a reason why a broken heart feels so bad, it's because your deeper mind can't tell the difference between that and your mother suddenly stopping breastfeeding and disappearing. Our earliest mental patterns endure.",
"Because the pain is infact not just emotional but also physical. Few reasons:\n\n\n1)Hormones.\nWhen you're in love, the body produces elevated levels of feel- good chemicals (hormones like dopamine). You kinda get addicted to these chemicals.\nWhen your heart breaks , these chemicals are no longer produced and so you experience 'withdrawl syndromes' like anxiety,nausea etc.\n\n2) Stress\n\n\nOn heartbreak, the feel good hormones get replaced by stress hormone( cortisol). Its increaed levels activate the fight or flight responses which can cause chest pain and other heart attack kind symptoms.",
"This is actually a medical condition called [Broken Heart Syndrome](_URL_0_) also known as Takotusubo cardiomyopathy. A persons reaction to a negative event causes the release of stress hormones that negatively effect the way the heart pumps. \n\nEdit: a word and formatting.",
"Because you are holding-on so tightly still. One needs to learn the “release motion.”\n\nThe hardest part of letting go of someone is to release the attachment of the investment your heart has made into that of the other person.\n\nWe are social beings. In the human form, here as people we need the company of others, both socially (one to one, intimately) and culturally (as a group).\n\nBeyond this, a relationship is a living, breathing thing made of our connections. A relationship is perhaps one-third of who/what we are.",
"People are answering about the physical responses we have to a breakup. But I think it's more than just that. So much of our culture, the stories we see is about perfect love. It's either the entire point of the story, or the reward. \n\nI think when we are young, we have absorbed a lot of the romantic ideas of various media, and project those ideals of destiny and true love over our own narrative. So we really struggle to accept when life doesn't pan out like that. This can lead to extended inability to get over a breakup, or even have proper perspective on our own actions.\n\nSo with the world not working out the way you expected, with no chance of \"getting them back\", you often look for closure... from your ex. Just naturally continuing to expect that person to be the solution to your pain. \n\nBut trying to find closure generally just opens up wounds more. The real solution to heartbreak is to realise that this person is no longer there for you, and you need to find your happiness and direction forward for yourself."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17857-broken-heart-syndrome"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2k9mak | why does medical and other scientific research cost so much money? i've seen basic research funded by millions of dollars. | Does research really cost millions upon millions of dollars? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k9mak/eli5_why_does_medical_and_other_scientific/ | {
"a_id": [
"clj7fty"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Yes, it does. Biomedical research starts with what you think of as lab experiments - people moving liquid from one tube to another, petri dishes, etc. Then it moves to animal studies, which themselves can easily cost millions of dollars per study. Then they move to human trials which can often cost tens of millions, if not more.\n\nOnce all the costs are added up, it easily costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new drug to market, if not more. This money needs to be recouped in order to keep companies in business and provide the incentive to pursue new research."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
c3rnh1 | what are the actual risks of talking about tienanmen square massacre in china? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c3rnh1/eli5_what_are_the_actual_risks_of_talking_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"ersqrxp"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You’ll get re-educated to be a more harmonious citizen in re-education camp if you have families that would make a fuss if you’re missing, if you don’t you’ll just disappear. \n\nThey actually talk about their version of the event in uni. The gist is: no protester die, many peace keeper die, there were no tanks. No info on how it started or why. \n\nIt’s a little bit better than talking about being gay in a Muslim country but not by much."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2isn7f | what's stopping me from taking a relatively large loan and leaving the country to live in another country? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2isn7f/eli5_whats_stopping_me_from_taking_a_relatively/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl52xpl",
"cl52z2j",
"cl533i2",
"cl55jho",
"cl58lwq"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
19,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"literally nothing. A lot of people do just that. However, you are still obligated to fulfill your responsibility to your creditors and thus, leaving the country does not magically indemnify you of this responsibility. Furthermore, unless you actually die, certain kinds of loans can also be pursued via you next of kin, spouse or other closest family members. Debt follows you wherever you go. ",
"Many countries have treaties with each other that enable court judgements to be upheld internationally. So the lender could get a court judgement against you in your home country, then apply to the courts in your new country to have it enforced. \n\nIn any case, you are unlikely to get a large loan without offering some form of security - like your house, or other property. If you flee the country, the lender will simply take the property.",
"With the exception of a small handful, all civilized countries recognize the jurisdiction of eachother's courts. You leave the country, default on the loan, get sued, get a judgment, then get enforcement proceedings in whatever country you're in.\n\nIf you go somewhere that doesn't allow this, then the only thing stopping you from doing this is the fact that you would be stuck living in one of the countries that don't recognize jurisdiction. And those countries all suck.",
"Nothing. It's just if you have the ability to get a really big loan, you've probably got a pretty good life set up and you wouldn't want to leave it all to live in some 3rd world country where you could get away from the courts and not have to pay the loan back",
"Banks aren't willing to give large loans without collateral. Even with great credit, it would be difficult to borrow \"start a new life in Fiji\" kind of money. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1rlukv | what is a "reasonable doubt"? i know what the legal definition is, but i want to know what i means. | The legal definition is "a doubt which would cause a reasonably prudent person to pause or hesitate before making an important decision." What does this mean in the context of a criminal trial? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rlukv/eli5what_is_a_reasonable_doubt_i_know_what_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdoj5fj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Identical twin brothers are accused of murder. Their identical DNA was found at the crime scene, proving one of them did it. Neither will rat on the other, so there's no witness testimony. Absent other evidence, neither brother can be convicted even though it's obvious one of them did it because a reasonable person can doubt which of the two men the evidence points to.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4kvefz | how can services like cloudflare filter out ddos traffic without getting a false positive from, for example, an article getting posted on reddit and subsequently getting clicked by 10 million people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kvefz/eli5_how_can_services_like_cloudflare_filter_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3i3bcx"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"So I'm not the expert here, ~~Debbie~~ wait wrong subreddit.\n\nAnyway, the goal of DDoS isn't to bring down a server in the sense you and I usually think of it.\n\nLoading a webpage works like this:\n\n\"Hello, server at _URL_1_? Are you there?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Hi, I would like the page _URL_0_\"\n\n\"Here you go!\" And it then vomits the html, javascript, css, and flash to the person requesting, with feedback of \"mhm,\" \"yep\" \"got it\" from the requester to confirm information isn't being mangled.\n\nThe goal of DDoS is to make a server *unresponsive*. To occupy it so completely that it cannot even answer the initial question.\n\nTo this end, you need to direct a lot of traffic at it but it is in your interests for the server to spend the maximum time processing your query with minimal overhead for you, or, if you're one of those types, creating a noticeable dip in internet quality for the people whose computers are part of your botnet.\n\nFor an easy example, imagine a robotic call center operator, able to answer a hundred calls a second. Calls range in quality, from being the dialogue I gave above, to a simple \"Hello are you there?\" \"Yes\" and the person hangs up. The former is legitimate traffic, but it requires dialogue the entire time from the caller. The latter is a ping, and resolves almost immediately, essentially harmless. \n\nBut imagine the operator starts receiving 130 calls a second, and answering them gets them stuff like this \"Hello are you there?\" \"yes\" \"What is the price of tea on the moon and why is it related to your clock time?\" This is an example of a malformed query. Malformed queries take much, much more time to process and respond to than a simple ping, and then the caller silently hangs up while the operator attempts to answer, only to call again and rejoin the queue to speak to the operator.\n\nIn this way, the burden on the people creating the DDoS is light, able to continually occupy the server's entry without stressing their own connection as badly in the process.\n\nSo then, imagine there's a bouncer named CloudFlare. CloudFlare picks up all calls directed to the operator, and handles the \"Hello are you there?\" question. Unlike the operator, CloudFlare is trained in responses to Malformed Queries, so the moment they ask for the price of tea on the moon, CloudFlare hangs up on them. If their question is legit, CloudFlare forwards to the Operator at _URL_1_ to answer.\n\nCloudFlare is also, I should point out, an old hand at this internet game. Unlike the Operator, they can answer a *thousand* calls a second, to pick an arbitrary number. So you need a much bigger operation of crank calls to even make a dent in their abilities, in addition to the filtering in the previous paragraph.\n\n_URL_2_ This is a picture of what CloudFlare sees itself as."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"poorunsuspectingsite.com/coolthingpostedonreddit.html",
"poorunsuspectingsite.com",
"https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/201742508/overview.png"
]
] |
||
4mef5t | does shifting quickly up in manual car really save gas? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mef5t/eli5_does_shifting_quickly_up_in_manual_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3uttj6",
"d3uwre1",
"d3uxvjg"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A really really good driver can save gas with good shifting, but 99.999% of drivers are not that good. I think the average driver would be hard-pressed to beat a modern automatic transmission.",
"The basic rule of thumb is for efficiency, drive in the highest gear you can without the engine having to labour. \n\nIf the engine feels like it's doing less work then it probably is doing less work, basically. If you go in too high a gear too early, the engine sounds rough, it's not responsive, it grumbles and shudders. Equally if you're too slow changing gears the engine screams. \n\nKeep the engine in its optimum power producing position and you'll get the best efficiency from it. \n\nBeyond that, the biggest thing to realize with economical driving is that braking **literally** wastes fuel. \n\nIf you're approaching a junction too quickly and you're having to brake hard, then the energy that you've used, in fuel, to get up to that speed you've now wasted as heat in the brake discs. If you drive such that you don't need to brake hard in any time other than an emergency, a tank of fuel will get you way further. ",
"Saving gas is all about driving smoothly and appropriately for the conditions. Yes, changing gear at 1500-1750 rpm will use less gas than waiting till you're doing 2500-3000 rpm (or more) to change.\n\nAlso, keep your tyres properly inflated, don't carry any extra weight in the car (that fully loaded toolbox that you needed for that job a couple of weeks ago and is still in the back, for example), keep an eye on the road ahead and try to predict what's going to happen as you approach. If you see traffic lights 100 yards ahead and they're on green, they might well be red by the time you get to them. So lift off the gas in advance and you'll save some fuel.\n\nIf you know you're going to be stationary for a while (traffic jam or a set of lights you know takes long to change) then switch the engine off. Lift off the gas pedal while going downhill, in fact you can lift off a bit if you're cruising at a steady speed, there's no need to be using the same amount of gas as when you're accelerating.\n\nAll my cars have been happy cruising in 5th gear at 30mph (which is about 50kph I think), and I only changed down to 4th once the speed had dropped to about 25mph. Over time you get to know your car and you learn instinctively which gear you need to be in at a certain speed. My last car was a small diesel and it would even pull away from 0 in second gear - not very quickly, but it did it!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
98rlpc | why is tesla having higher networth than ford or gm, when the former hardly produces a small percentage of cars than latter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98rlpc/eli5_why_is_tesla_having_higher_networth_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4i90i5",
"e4i995r",
"e4i9aar",
"e4ic06w",
"e4ieytm"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
5,
60,
5
],
"text": [
"I don’t understand this either. Hype maybe?",
"The main reason is that the share price is based on what they are going to do in the future, not just what they are doing now.\n\nFord and GM are big companies who sell lots of product, but a lot of the cars they make are cars that people used to buy in the past, and in order to remain in business and make profits in the future, they will need to make big, expensive changes to start making cars that people will want to buy in the future. There is a strong possibility that they will fail to make those changes, will have their lunch eaten by other companies that do or new ones set up to make the cars people are going to want. Ford and GM could be on a path to complete irrelevance over the next decade.\n\nIn addition, both Ford and GM are supporting a number of loss-making sectors and brands around the world.\n\nTesla is one of those companies who are setting themselves up now to make the cars people are going to buy in the future. In the short term, they are working flat out to build cars that are already sold, they have order books covering all the cars they will make in the next few years, and are ramping up fast. The upside for Tesla is immense. \n\nBut the downside, too, is there. They came close to missing with the Model 3, but now it is on the street and ramping to full production and is reviewing so well, Tesla is going to be cash profitable shortly, the short-term outlook is very good. But they are heading back into the development and spending cycle with the new Roadster, Semi and pickup, and at some time they are going to have solid competition from whatever of the major auto makers really take the plunge into battery-electric vehicles.\n\nLastly, it is pretty clear that the share price is driven by a bit of irrationality. What they are achieving is astounding, and people want in on it, and are paying more than what they are really worth. But if Tesla keeps up the results, there is no reason why even the current price mightn't be sustainable as they continue to grow.",
"It has a higher perceived value because many investors expect that one day Tesla will make more money.\n\nWhether this turns out to be the case is another story...\n\nThere’s a lot of examples out there like this, especially in the tech industry.",
"Tesla does *not* have a \"higher networth\" than Ford or GM, it has a higher *market capitalization*. That is a very different thing and has a large speculative component, i.e. people are hoping that Tesla will take over a large segment of the car market *in the future*.",
"As u/robbak said, the share price is based on how people think the company will do.\n\nAn extremely simplified example would be:\n\nWould you rather give my company $10 today and have $20 next year, or give me $10 today, get 0 next year, and get $1000 the following year?\n\nThe idea is that when Tesla becomes profitable, it'll become super profitable"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
yq317 | why is the japanese culture obsessed with robots? more specifically humanoid robots? | It seems that in not just popular culture but also in other industries the Japanese more then any other culture seems to have a fascination with humanoid looking robots. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yq317/eli5_why_is_the_japanese_culture_obsessed_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5xtim5",
"c5xtn1r"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I am not 100% sure if this answers it but here goes.\n\nWhen cartoons where first being developed to appeal to kids animation was super expensive and time consuming so people had to find a way to do it as cheaply and quickly as possible. Japan's animators found robots where very easy to animate because of their segmented structure, and because they did not need facial expressions. \n\n[This video explains it better then I](_URL_0_) ",
"This may go some way to answering your question: \n\nAfter WW2 Japanese companies underwent huge management and production changes in order to survive the post WW2 climate they were left in. Companies like Toyota took the Henry Ford assembly line and made it as efficient as possible. They introduced concepts like fail-safing and getting things \"right first time\". \"Constant improvement\" was even a rule in most factories. As a result of this huge drive for efficiency, by the 1980's Japan had become one of the most advanced manufacturing nations in the world. Japanese companies had the technology and ability to design and build very advanced machines - including robots - which were to be used in the assembly process.\n\nI don't know why they have such a fascination with humanoid robots now, I imagine that's a cultural thing? A lot of it is a case of building parts to improve the human quality of life, like replacement limbs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/3854-The-Collar"
],
[]
] |
|
1vqwpy | why does my body feel "slanted" when i'm lying in bed when i'm drunk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vqwpy/why_does_my_body_feel_slanted_when_im_lying_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceuxtkw",
"ceuzadj"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because your balance perception is off because you're drunk.",
"the reason you are dizzy while drunk is that not all of your senses are working like they should. If you sit your tactile sense, inner ear and eyes are getting clear information. Once you stand up your tactile sense goes missing, your inner ears are are not getting clear information (because the alc effects the blood and the blood effects the inner ear fluids). Now your inner ear information are not equal to your eyes and your tactile sense are missing. If you spin around and stop, your ear fluids are moving while your eyes are steady - > dizzy.\n\nOnce we lay down in bed your tactile sense goes missing again, our inner ear are getting wrong information since we reached over 0,5 ‰ while our eyes are steady - > dizzy.\n\nThere is a really simple solution, get your tactile senses back; lay down on bed while one foot stays on the ground (hangs out) if you get contact to the ground the information of your tactile sense and eyes are the same again. Or skip the booze !"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9re085 | how did we end up with a silent k, of all sounds, in words like knight and knife? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9re085/eli5_how_did_we_end_up_with_a_silent_k_of_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8g51pt",
"e8g63ha"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Silent letters are the ghosts of pronunciations past. The word 'knight', with its silent 'k', and silent 'gh', is cognate with the German word for servant, 'knecht', where every letter is pronounced. ... The 'e' isn't pronounced, but it changes the pronunciation of the vowel by lengthening it.",
"Silent K before N shows a word that English used to share with German. We have dropped the K sound, but they still say it. The best example is knee, which the Germans pronounce k-nee (they spell it Knie)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4o7kvr | why are there more bugs out at night? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o7kvr/eli5_why_are_there_more_bugs_out_at_night/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4a84b1",
"d4ajdwi"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they have a better chance of not being eaten by birds, most of which sleep at night. ",
"Many factors, such as cooler temperatures, evolving on preying on nocturnal prey species, predatory evasion, etc. Also artificial lights from light posts are also increasing the amount of insects out during the night time because scientists say the artificial lights mimic sunlight which result in more insects flying around at night. There are many more factors as well that play a role in insects hanging out at night but those are the major ones I can think of!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
17vfq3 | what is a subsidy? | I was reading this thread
_URL_0_
And i know ive heard this word before but i am barely knowledgeable in any kind of financial way.
Googling this only led to more questions :( | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17vfq3/eli5_what_is_a_subsidy/ | {
"a_id": [
"c896qda",
"c896xea"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Very simply, a subsidy is when the government offers money to a group, usually corporations, to achieve various results. This can range from lower prices for the consumer, to help researching new technologies, to an effort to stabilize prices. \n\nA great example in the US is farming. As we all know, farming is largely dependent on the weather. This means that some years too little food is produced. This would cause prices to rise, which would in turn make food more expensive. A subsidy, in this example, would pay part of that additional cost to keep the grain cheaper for the end consumer. In the reverse situation, a year when too *much* grain is produced, prices can drop. If the cost drops too much then the farmer might not make any money (or even lose money to ship the food to its markets). In this case, a subsidy would help raise the *farmers* profit while again keeping the end costs low. \n\nThese are examples of fairly direct subsidies, but the government can subsidize almost anything. And they can do it to achieve different results. Changes in farm subsides recently have promoted the growth and use of corn in many different products (including gasoline!). They can promote the growth of one sector over another. \n\nIn the case of this article (which Ive just skimmed) it seems that the government would be subsidizing the cost of solar plants so that it becomes a cheaper alternative to coal. If people are given a choice between coal and more expensive solar, they would chose solar. This would (hopefully) have an environmental impact, and so would desirable, but its a very expensive technology. The government then steps in and takes some of the financial burden in order to promote the growth of solar power. ",
"Free money. Literally.\n\nIn example: The gov't of China offers a $19,000 subsidy to anyone who buys an electric car. That means that if you buy an electric car they will give you $19,000 at the same time, which means you pay $19,000 less. Usually it's included in the price when you go to the store. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17uywm/solar_power_to_be_sold_for_less_than_coal/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
101ydp | how did newton figure out gravity? | What was his process in deducing that all mass have gravity? I can't get my head around how he could have done that without any frame of reference. Did he know that earth was orbiting the sun? Or the moon was orbiting the earth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/101ydp/how_did_newton_figure_out_gravity/ | {
"a_id": [
"c69pd1g",
"c69rgzs"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The rotations of the planets were well known. however it was assumed that the orbits were circular. Newton invented calculus (though whether or not he was the first is a matter of debate) and proved that the orbits are elliptical not circular.",
"I'm going to explain this in a roundabout way, by explaining something known as Occam's razor - which essentially says that always seek the simplest explanation, remove unnecessary complexities. \n\nNow quickly, wherever you are right now, grab a few objects around you. Small objects like pencils, which won't shatter on being dropped. Got them? Ok let's say you have a pencil in your hand right now. Raise your hand and let go of the pencil. What do you see? The pencil drops to the ground. What conclusion can you draw from this? No, you can't draw the conclusion that everything falls down. That's unnecessary complexity. Based on your observations so far, the only conclusion you can draw is that *the pencil you were holding, dropped to the ground when you let it go*.\n\nNow let's make more observations. Drop the pencil a couple of more times. Drop more objects, like an eraser, a pen, a pillow, an apple. Your observation is that all of these objects fall to the ground. Now you have a list: a pencil, a pen, an eraser, a pillow and an apple fall to the ground when released from a height. Now you can apply Occam's razor, and say: *All objects in your room fall to the ground when let go of*.\n\nBut wait. It can be trivially verified that randomly chosen objects outside your house, at the bus stop, at your office/college/school, at a fast food joint also fall to the ground when let go of. At the time of Newton, there had been enough voyages around to prove that this phenomenon is taken for granted across all *known* places on earth. So now you have a huge list of places where *all* objects fall to the ground when let go. Slash at this with Occam's razor again and you get: *Everything falls down everywhere on earth*.\n\nThis was of course well known during Newton's time, and everyone was happy with this. But Newton took it to the next level: what about the sun, the moon and the planets and the stars? Why aren't they falling? It was well known since Greek times that the moon revolves around the earth, and here's where Newton had a thought that only be described as genius: *what if the moon is continuously falling towards towards the earth, but missing it every time on account of it's motion?*\n\nThe European world had barely ditched the archaic Roman number system for a place value decimal system - the Indian number system, or as they are popularly known as, Arabic numbers. Mathematics was at high school level all around. Newton had to invent a wholly new branch of mathematics dealing with increments and minute adjustments, but he was able to prove that yes - an object continuously falling, but having moved sufficiently to miss every time, does describe the motion of the moon quite adequately. Now he looked at the other heavenly bodies.\n\nIt was known from Kepler's work that the planets revolved around the sun. It was known from Galileo's work that Jupiter had a moon. So now you have a list of heavenly bodies: the moon falls towards the earth, earth and the planets fall towards the sun, Jupiter's moon falls towards Jupiter. Cue Occam's razor again: *Everything falls towards everything else*.\n\nBut wait: why doesn't then the sun fall towards the earth? Why not Jupiter towards the moon? And what about the stars? There were enough star charts in Newton's time to indicate that the stars hadn't moved in *millennia*. Newton thought about it while he was also thinking of how forces move objects on earth (as indeed both are related). It was obvious that putting a force to a larger object moves it less than putting the same force to a smaller object. And from the example of the stars, it looked like something far away was not moved, so the 'pull' of all bodies 'tapers' off as you move away from it. With some calculations, it was shown that this 'tapering off' was proportional to the square of the distance.\n\nAnd with that we come to the modern form of Newton's law of gravity: given two objects, both of them will exert a 'pull' on each other proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This 'pull' will be the same on both the objects, but the smaller object will 'fall' towards the bigger object more than the bigger object 'fall's towards the smaller object.\n\nAnd this is (approximately) how Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree and described how the heavens move."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1cdeu8 | why is it that when i watch tv recordings from the 70's, 80's or 90's the quality is absolutely terrible, almost unwatchable, but back then they seemed perfectly fine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cdeu8/eli5why_is_it_that_when_i_watch_tv_recordings/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9ff8q7",
"c9fg1w2",
"c9fm4gf"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Compared to everything else at the time, they looked pretty much the same. Also, you're probably watching on a much nicer screen now.",
"The quality of the equipment you were watching it on was much lower, so not only were you used to watching lower quality broadcasts, but increasing the quality wouldn't have a noticeable effect due to hardware limitations.",
"I frequently watch reruns of old TV shows that are broadcast in digital and the quality, whilst obviously not HD, is perfectly acceptable. You must be getting your recordings from some dodgy sources."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1m81he | why sometimes paintings that look like a wounded chicken drew them are considered art and could be sold for millions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m81he/eli5why_sometimes_paintings_that_look_like_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc6n194",
"cc6oyhc",
"cc6r0jt"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Art isn't all about who can make the most detailed drawings, aesthetics are huge in it. A very detailed and beautiful landscape would fit in nicely with a traditional theme, however minimalist or abstract themes are part of a contemporary theme. \n\nThere is also meaning in the paintings. A well drawn portrait may not have any deep meaning, while a confusing, cluttered, incomprehensible picture like Picasso's [\"Guernica\"](_URL_0_) can convey feelings such as pain and suffering.\n\nIt's like music. A Beethoven symphony may be extremely well made, but maybe I enjoy the meanings and sounds of Metallica more.",
"You just don't get it, you keep it copacetic, and you learn to accept it, you know you're so pathetic.",
"art is kind of like the stockmarket- it has no inherent value, yet people's esteem works as an establishment of worth.\n\nyou can argue aesthetics all day. some art IS crap, but it still sells. because the buyer wants to brag, feel that they personally \"get it\", or a dozen other unfathomable reasons which seem perfectly normal to them but strike others as pointless.\n\nsome art is cheap. you see it everyday all around you. commercial art doesn't even register with most people as art, but somebody got paid to do that ad in the magazine and the logo on that soft drink. this invisible art flies by most of us. then we hear about somebody peeing in a jar with a crucifix and we're like, \"wait... what?!\"\n\nthen you've got people like de kooning who have refined their technique early on, but are most well known for their \"wounded chicken drawing, #4\". \n\nthen there's the guy that gets known for erasing de kooning's drawing.\n\nit's part hype, part bullshit. there's substance at times, but at other points substance is anathema. the length and breadth of movement and reaction have been stretched to where there are niche camps at either end of the spectrum, and at most points in between.\n\nthere is also a lag, where the big dollars go to people who have already been established decades previously, which will highlight work that seems somewhat out of touch, especially when the piece is one that distinguishes itself through its place within a particular movement or school.\n\nthen there's the camera, which made photorealism obsolete. that is, until the backlash came and people started working to extraordinary lengths to redefine realism.\n\n(there's demand, too, but that's economics. i don't know economics.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://faculty.txwes.edu/csmeller/human-prospect/ProData09/02WW1CulMatrix/WW1PICs/Cubism/Picasso1881/Pic1937Guer465.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
6euilg | how did someone like duterte rise to the power in the philippines ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6euilg/eli5_how_did_someone_like_duterte_rise_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"did3dbn",
"did5qib"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It really comes down to the fact that the Philippines has had a massive problem with drug usage in the past several decades. Along with that is a prosperous organized crime epidemic. Rodrigo Duterte, while he was mayor of Davao, did manage to get rid of a lot of the towns drug problems.\n\nYes, he did it through murder and a litany of questionable methods, but he still did it.\n\nAt some point a problem or a set of problems becomes large enough that a population will take drastic measures and throw morality and justice out the window. This is what happened in the Philippines and some in the US would argue here as well with Donald J Trump and the hollowing out of industrial America, but lets not get into that.\n\nIf any ~~Philippinos~~ Filipinos are here, they will probably answer much better than I have as my perspective is maybe over simplistic.",
"Finally, one that I can answer! Filipino here, born and bred but is now living in North America.\n\nIt all goes back to the previous administration, the Liberal party has promised a lot of reform but it never affected the lives of normal people. While to give them credit, they did reform a lot of bureaucracies and made some people accountable, the fact is that they are still considered as one of the \"elites\" (which is another social class discussion).\n\nOur culture is generally helpful and forgiving to our friends, family and who we know and this is one major cultural reason on why that there has been no reform. (Google: Padrino system)\n\nNow comes in Duterte, his image as a rough, poor born, \"one of the masses\" image came about during the pre-election campaign with his Mayoral accomplishments to boot (Davao has regarded as the most safest cities and etc.). Also, through word of mouth, stories have been passed on as he genuinely helps the poor in Davao.\n\nNow with this image, as compared to his opponents from other major parties: Mar Roxas (former administration Liberal Party, qualified but not personable with the masses), Jejomar Binay (alleged corruption but not proven in court), Grace Poe (no political history). It would seem that Duterte was the better choice.\n\nDuterte's win really didn't much matter on his platform (War on Drugs) but Filipinos vote on the candidate's image and I honestly believe that this is the reason for his rise in power."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3s34ly | what is sql? is it one of the simpler programming languages? | I have seen it as a "desired skill" on many job descriptions. I am wondering what makes it useful, and what specific industries it may particularly apply to. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s34ly/eli5_what_is_sql_is_it_one_of_the_simpler/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwtnh59",
"cwtnkfw",
"cwtp8i8"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"SQL = Structured Query Language.\n\nIt is a language meant for getting/updating data in databases. An example command (so to speak) would be\n INSERT INTO table(col1, col2) VALUES(val1, val2)",
"SQL is essentially (essentially being a keyword here) a one-trick pony: it is very good at extracting things out of database\n\nIt has commands that let you say things like \"find all people whose height is 5'7'' with blue eyes who were born in Colorado and got driver licenses from Illinois between 1998 and 2003, and who work at a school\" with relative ease\n\nIn theory, the language is Turing-complete, which is fancy lingo for \"it can do anything any other language can do\"; but really, people seek SQL experience because a lot of computer work is essentially getting stuff out of large data sets, doing some processing, and then putting other stuff back into those large data sets",
"SQL is Structured Query Language\n\nIt is a set of standards for how to communicate with databases, much how HTML is away to communicate with web browsers. \n\nIt allows you to select information from a database, as well as tell the database server to perform calculations and rearrangements of the data before sending it to you.\n\nThis ability to rearrange the data and get what you want is what makes SQL writing such a desirable skill set, and you have to be pretty good at SQL to do this well.\n\nFor instance, if a company has a database that has a table of customers, a table of sales and dates, and a table of locations, you could write an sql querry that gives you one table that tells you monthly sales volume per store and per type of customer. This could be sent directly to a spreadsheet, or a program, or a website (for instance a php script or ruby on rails) and simply show an updated chart. \n\nCompanies are generating mountains of data. Making use of this data is difficult. It needs to be worked into something meaningful, and shown in a way that communicates well. SQL is the first step of actually accessing that data and initial arrangement of that data. From there, more work can be done if needed.\n\nProgramming is about procedurally handling data. But SQL is more about accessing that data. It is the read and write ends... not really the procedures in the middle (though there are some important things you can do in SQL.)\n\nCompanies pay very good money because, while they are very good at creating and filling databases, once they have a certain question, it takes a special way of thinking, and well trained mind, to actually choose the right data, reshape it, and present it to the other analysts and managers.\n\nFor instance, a city might just be thinking, \"how do we reduce traffic at this intersection?\" They can also easily know how many cars pass through the intersection. But, they actually also can know the weight of those cars, IF they are storing the preassure sensor data at the light. If they have that, then they can learn what size/type of vehicles are going through, but first you have to categorize vehicles by weight, and properly account for multiple sets of tires being part of the same vehicle or not. That is, the data is there, but you have to figure out how to answer your problem with it. \n\nBecause you have to get down to the rawist form of the data, you must be comfortable accessing it where it can be, and historically the databases are the most difficult to access. So many analyst and data science positions simply want you to know SQL so they know you can access their most difficult (requiring highest expertise) data sets.\n\nAlong with the SQL skills, you still need your analytics tools. But not knowing SQL is like being a chef who can't choose and purchase their own ingredients, or a construction contractor who doesn't know how to source materials and labor.\n\nI am a (new/inexperienced) research analyst, this is a part of what I do. In healthcare, IT is in the dark ages, and they actually have a lower demand for SQL as a skill set (though this is changing rapidly.) In other industries with strong financial and logistics requirements (basically all industries of note,) you will find that any department that makes strategic decisions will need analysts, or rely on a department dedicated to the task, or pay consultants. Outside of analytics and data science work, SQL is important in application design, particularly applications with large user bases or massive pools of frequently accessed items. The biggest and most complex that comes to mind would be being on the operations team of an MMORPG. Those are crazy large and complex. \n\nIt is also the case that many ads will say \"SQL desired/required\" but really that isn't true. What they really want is someone who can look at a database and be comfortable diving in. You don't need to be an SQL wiz to fire up a database manager and download some tables."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21oco3 | why isn't canada outrageously wealthy due to their landmass? | So Canada is a wealthy first world country -- but why isn't it disproportionately wealthy compared to other first world countries? Why is the GDP per capita similar to that of France, Germany, Japan, etc? Shouldn't Canada have a huge advantage considering the vast amount of natural resources? Canada can have the same ability to produce goods, AND export natural resources... plus, the population is fairly small at about 35million, so shouldn't Canadians be getting more on a per capita basis? PLUS, they didn't have any significant historical setbacks like many European countries (invaded by Germany x2).
I am not including Russia in this question as Russia has had their share of geo-political turmoil over the course of their history which could explain their economic situation..
but Canada? Can anyone explain why Canadians aren't swimming in money but are merely on par with other developed nations? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21oco3/eli5_why_isnt_canada_outrageously_wealthy_due_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgeygm7",
"cgez0yo",
"cgezn0o",
"cgezxjc",
"cgf15d3",
"cgf1imc",
"cgf1ygj",
"cgf2coc",
"cgf2em5",
"cgf2fcu",
"cgf2teh",
"cgf2zv1",
"cgf31nh",
"cgf36az",
"cgf39w5",
"cgf3cdr",
"cgf42xs",
"cgf45rh",
"cgf49bp",
"cgf4ce2",
"cgf4cj6",
"cgf4tw5",
"cgf4ufg",
"cgf592h",
"cgf5aks",
"cgf5bvf",
"cgf5pw9",
"cgfadlv",
"cgfk77e"
],
"score": [
114,
60,
26,
26,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
6,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
44,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cold. Too cold. Transportation is tough when it's too cold. ",
"Actually one of Canada's biggest hardships is over coming the vast empty space that separates us and working together. For example, I live in a city of 80,000 people, and to get to a major city i must drive at least 9 hours. The empty space and inaccessible area is challenging to work around. OP mentioned that other countries have been invaded, but most likely even if there was considerable damage at least a good portion of the infrastructure survived. While we Canadians have to start building our infrastructure from scratch. Don't forget that while we have a lot of resources, we also have an environmentalist group fighting to stop every new project proposed. This makes things even slower. So maybe one day our time will come, but we're not there yet. ",
"Canada is limited due to its workforce size, some heavy regulatory conditions, the cost related to exploiting many of its resources and some trade handicaps. But it's nice to see that canadians are actually working these issues.\n\nCanada has about 35 million inhabitants and a workforce of about 18 million. A problem they are facing is an aging population (much like Norway, Findland and Sweden), that if not addressed might have a significant impact on the economy's output. As it stands, in order to increase its income Canada would have to produce more, but right now they don't have enough workers and those that already are there, are expensive. Canada is addressing this problem by having one of the most open immigration policies in the world, and thousands of immigrants from eastern Europe and Latinamerica have settled in Canada in the last decade. Still the migration policy would ask for more inmigrants in order for it to be a super-economy like you describe it.\n\nCanada is highly dependent of the US in its international trade, about 75% of their export an 65% of their imports are to and from the US. Their commerce lines with places such as Asia and Europe are barely developed, so an increased output wouldn't have much else to go other than the US. However Canada is increasingly signing and negotiation multiple free trade agreements in Latinamerica and Europe, which would help build commerce and diversify canadian's productiond destination.\n\nLike it has been stated... The vast majority of Canada's landmass is inhabitated due to nature conditions or not enough people willing to populate those areas so far off of metropolitan areas. Furthermore, the cost of doing business for any company trying to set up shop in such places would be massive due to lack of workforce mobility and transportation costs, making it harder for people to move further north (there are no jobs in the middle of nowhere). Again the canadian immigration policy could help fix this, and additional tax incentives for people and business setting shop further north could help drive development in places currently deserted, although there might be enviormental issues that could slow that effort down.",
"Land itself doesn't make money, but it is a component in making money. So, Canada has the ability to produce a lot of resources because it has a lot of land, but it is restricted in other ways like capital and labor since you need people to take the resources out of the ground and capital to pay for the machines to do so as well. Also, Canada's resources are in remote areas, adding additional transportation costs.\n\nThe resource extraction industries are completing against other industries, like heavy manufacturing. Having both industries in your country doesn't mean you have more money in general because both industries are competing in your country for labor and capital. That is why Canada is just at developed nation wealth.",
"In the larger explanations, it's all about the workforce. Canada lacks the population to utilize all its resources, to have the economic strength you are refering to. \n\nThere was a point made, about US/CANADA unification - had the US never declared independance, or if Canada had been successfully conquered, there is a good chance 'North America' would be on top of everything for the forseeable future. While economic relationships are getting stronger, I think a political union is far less likely. The EU is a good example, but we north americans are far from that. Why? I bet someone more educated on this topic can answer. \n\nEDIT: SP ... veluna has pointed out.. :)\nEDIT 2: i suck at spelling",
"it['s pretty much just due to low population. I'm Canadian and I have faith this will be a good problem to have in the future. We have a huge amount of natural resources and also a large percent of the worlds water supply. We are pretty much set for the future. We have a ton of room to grow unlike other countries. One day we may be the only first world counry still accepting immigrants. It will take the world being very overpopulated before people want to move to canadas northern parts to escape the over population. we are essentially getting ready for that in Canada, we are exploring our northern natural resources and even tapping and capping them for use later. When the day comes that immigrants are desperate enough to move to northern Canada then Canada will be in good shape. ",
"Canada has large reserves of natural resources but a lot of it is difficult/uneconomical to get. The cold, and vast (mostly empty) distances make extraction and transportation not worth it. As other sources of these resourcves dry up and as the north continues to warm up, the extraction should get more economical.\n\nHere's an article that talks about some of the difficulties.\n\n_URL_0_",
"First, our poor and lower-middle class have it much better here in Canada which is at least in part due to our Government's finances being in better shape that down south, which is itself in part due to our wealth of natural resources. We don't have urban decay and the same scale of disparity in standard of living that the US does (not saying there aren't issues, but if you are part of the wrong economic/ethnic group in the US, you are pretty much screwed it seems). Social mobility is way better since University education is much more affordable, and our social safety infrastructure (healthcare and employment insurance, old age pensions) provide much more for our citizens. \n\nSo for the majority of people in our country, we are much more wealthy due to our natural resources providing a huge advantage to government finances. I'm from Ottawa, and it's as though the recession never happened. In terms of average income, it just seems that the 'super rich' in the US sort of balance out the 'super poor'. In Canada, there really aren't any 'super poor' the way you see in the rust belt, rural south, and black/hispanic communities. It is true that there are very poor aboriginal communities, however, this is mostly due to isolation, violence and substance abuse manifesting themselves in those communities. However, it is far from what is experienced in poor black communities in the US. And if those who have aboriginal status take advantage of some of the employment/education opportunities offered only to them, they can drastically improve their lives. Aboriginal students I knew in university had full tuition and living expenses paid for by the government. I strongly agree with this as a policy.\n\nI've been to both the US and Europe. The US' problems I have already stated. In the UK, for example, there countryside seems very well-off (probably have to have a good income to own land) and some parts of London were just plain opulent. But some part seemed entirely composed of low-income project housing. We don't really have that in Canada. I was also in Newcastle and it also seemed like large parts of the city were just run-down industrial land and project housing. Downtown, along the Tyne, and by the sea were lovely though. Anyway, the disparities make sense because the UK has none of our resource wealth and would have to rack up huge public debt (which I understand it already has) to provide what Canada provides to its less well-off.\n\nTo sum up, the majority Canadians are better off than the rest of the developed world, thanks in large part to our vast land mass and its resources. It just isn't as obvious. \n",
"Land itself is'nt valuable. its what's on that land. half of Canadas land is useless, just like Russian Siberia\n",
"Population man. India has one of the largest economies in the world but it's not considered wealthy. Standard of living and GDP are not the same thing. ",
"A lot of Canada is just not ideally habitable, mixed in with the remote location, mining costs, transportation (you usually have to fly workers out to these areas, A lot of people from Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada are flown out to northern Alberta to take advantage of the opportunity to make a lot of money). It is not ideal work, a lot of mega projects are set up in Northern Canada to extract resources then are disbanded after a couple of years when they are no longer profitable. A lot of mining can be done in the Northern 3 Territories, which accounts for 39% of Canada's land mass, only has 0.3% of Canada's total population",
"because its fucking COLD",
"We are happy. Don't worry about canada, we are doing very well. :D",
"Its all politics. Every time Canada has something that will cost the united states money, we are pressured to stop it. We were making the Avro Arrow, but US companies pressured Canada to kill the product and caused many skilled laborers to go work for Boeing and other big aircraft manufacturers in the united states. We used to have ~3-4 fully operational oil refineries until the united states pressured us to close them and sell crude oil to US at bottomed out prices. We sell our excess electricity to the US for close to nothing, but when we have to purchase it from them we get reamed. Due to poor leadership, our natural resources are sold to private organizations like Shell. Its a problem of location. Hope this helps. ",
"is it becasue we sell some of our resources to the states and then buy it back for a considerably amount more?",
"Most of the points have been covered but I just wanted to add a couple things. Firstly, our government has shown to be full of fucking Idiots when it comes to resources. They are happy to sell off huge stakes of uranium potash oil etc to foreign countries for relatively very small amounts to make quick cash instead of investing in Canadian owned operations. A lot of cities, like the one I live in also have a very large aboriginal population that are unemployed, on welfare, etc etc etc that use up way more tax dollars than they should. ",
"smoke breaks eh",
"As a Canadian, I actually take a small amount of pride that we have some of the few untouched natural areas left in the world. For some reason, the thought of the entire earth covered in cities and farmland sort of depresses me.",
"As a Canadian: Yeah... WHY?!",
"Canada is one of the richest countries on earth and enjoy some of the highest loving standards anywhere. Like any other capitalist country, wealth doesn't trickle down to the common people. ",
"bc it's frozen land lol",
"We are swimming in money, we just don't brag about it because it would be impolite. Sorry",
"Canada has the population of California, and is bigger than Europe or the US in land area. Canada has the world's longest coastline by far.\n\nCanada has about 20% of the world's fresh water, about 20% of the world's uranium and 20 & of the world's oil and gas reserves.\n\nTherefore a political union with the US is gonna look more attractive to the US in the coming century as the US runs short first in water, then oil and gas.\n\nHowever we Canadians don't want another 50 provinces, or any of those damned aircraft carriers so we can police the world for freedom or wherever has oil and a despot...\n\nThe deep south of Canada unfortunately is north of the northern 48 states and much colder, with a shorter growing season.\n\nWhen I lived in Europe, it was a five KM walk from town to town in most of France, or England.\n\nI spent a winter in the Northwest Territories where it was fly in, 2 hours north of Yellowknife. Houses on stilts above muskeg. No sewer or water lines can be buried in muskeg, all water and sewage was trucked in (and you had to be sure to empty the sewage before adding more water to the input side of the system.)\n\nThe ice road was open from late Feb to late March when the ice became unstable. The ice is good in January but there is no sunlight to drive by, and snow on snow does not make for finding the road all that well with headlights.\n\nThe lake thaws every july 15 plus minus a few days and freezes in September. The trout are huge. The water is 1000 feet deep. at Great Bear Lake.\n\nFly in supplies are 50 cents a pound for shipping, (a thousand a ton) for food before you pay for the actual food.\n\nManufacturing anything at all heavy that needs shipping is insane. Ore is tough to ship. Roads cost many millions per mile to serve tiny communities hundreds of miles apart.\n\nWe are well off. We live longer than Americans, have good educations, lousy TV from most of the US, and we don't have Obamacare. We got something we all agree is much better, at half the price.\n\nYa gotta be older than five to understand all this, and not Republican.\n\nWe have a picture book for Republicans with really short simple words.\n\nCut out and send in the coupon for the book.\n",
"There's also a boring cold conservative town called Ottawa. Some say it's the capital but the lack of anything happening in the city makes that claim questionable.",
"Our politicians are retarded and spend public funds like its nothing. Kathleen Wynn and the liberals under dalton mcguinty just blew $1.1 billion on power plants that won't even be built! No one is taking some and no one has been fired. This country is retarded sometimes. ",
"I am Canadian. I'm from Southern Ontario. I've seen northern Ontario, the prairies, the Rocky's, and a pretty big chunk of Quebec, and I have no idea what you're asking.\n\nIn warmer climates there is more life. I'm not sure how else to say it, but there is more life per square mile than you would find in Canada. It's more spread out here. In the South, you have to be competitive in order to survive, but up North you have to be cooperative to survive.\n\nThat affects everything about you. They way you live, the way you think, politics, etc. Socialism isn't some stupid ideal we're trying to live up to, it's the closest thing to describing how we already are. If you fall through the ice, you go straight to the first house you see and bang on the door. There will be no shotguns in your face, and you won't be turned away. We need to be that way in order to survive. You need to work together and conserve your resources.\n\nWasting resources is an unnatural way of thinking in a place like this. You might not know it from talking to people, but it's there in our bones. We might say, \"Yeah, money money money\", but when it comes time to cut down the forests and dig the mines it becomes, \"Let's just take what we need.\" And then make excuses for it like we're ashamed of not being greedier.\n\nIf you actually get out there and see these places that make you go, \"Oh my god, this is what the world would look like without people\", then with every fiber of your being you will want to turn around and leave it exactly the way it is. It is so hard to even think about it as being a resource or a pile of money. It's home.\n\nI don't know how else to say it.",
"Am I the only one who is actually kind of impressed Canada hasn't turned into the world's pantry? I mean sure there are benefits to ripping up and distributing their natural resources but I think its kind of cool they have this massive amount of beautifully untouched scenery and wildlife that down the road could become a huge asset. \n\nMaybe the reason they aren't swimming in money is because they value their resources enough not to destroy them.",
"Canada in whole has a smaller population then all of California.",
" Because we signed NAFTA which completely fucked us and we now have to sell our natural resources amongst many other things to the Americans for less then what we sell them to ourselves for. We are also banned from stock piling anything. We send our resources south, where they get made into products in the states, and the get sent back here and we pay ridiculous amounts for them. NAFTA was an invasion by pen and not sword. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://business.financialpost.com/2011/08/31/arctic-has-great-riches-but-greater-challenges/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2r69bo | how are baitcar operations legal? what makes it not entrapment? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r69bo/eli5_how_are_baitcar_operations_legal_what_makes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cncum1c",
"cncun7k",
"cncve3q",
"cncvpq9"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Entrapment is when an officer convinces someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't. When bait cars are set up, there's no undercover cop standing there telling them they should break in. They're doing it purely on their own volition.",
"Entrapment, by legal definition, is convincing someone to commit a crime they would not have committed otherwise. That guy was going to steal a car anyway. He wasn't just walking down the street and suddenly decide to steal a car *because that specific car was there*; he was looking for cars to steal to begin with.",
"It boils down to nobody should ever be compelled to steal a car no matter how good and easy it looks to steal.",
"Because an honest person wouldnt have taken the car even if it was left open to steal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5l7n3u | why do you have to "charge" glow in the dark stuff? | You know how you have to hold glow in the dark items under light to "activate" them? The only answer my drunken, man-child brain can muster is that it traps the light and holds for later use. I'm also pretty sure that is incorrect. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l7n3u/eli5_why_do_you_have_to_charge_glow_in_the_dark/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbtk261",
"dbtk4bp"
],
"score": [
5,
19
],
"text": [
"The light is charging the molecules inside. Think of it like this, compare the \"activation\" to winding up a wind up toy and when you stop and let it go it is slowly releasing the energy you built up. Instead of a toy walking it is releasing a constant glow. ",
"That's actually pretty much correct.\n\nIt is called \"phosphorescence\" and basically means that it doesn't re-emit the light that it absorbs immediately (the way light shining on a red object would just absorb and then reflect back red light immediately at the same strength as the light that hit it, since it is all at once).\n\nPhosphorescent materials absorb the light and then release it *slowly* over time by releasing it with lowered intensity.\n\nThat's why glow-in-the-dark items won't glow as bright as the light that was shining on them originally, but they can last longer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1s0zdb | why are probabilities called densities? | It seems there ought to be more to it than *because it shows how the distribution is "weighted"*. Everybody (well, in the math world) throws around stats/prob vocabulary, but a lot of it is non-intuitive. Is there a secret manuscript laying all this out that all proper statisticians have read?
So much of what I've seen goes ahead and says what these things *are*, but rarely what they actually *mean*. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s0zdb/eli5_why_are_probabilities_called_densities/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdsx4y6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Density refers to how tightly packed the elements of a set are. Density as the trivial relationship between mass and volume follows this.\n\n\nObserving probabilities as the relationship of chances and incidences and mapping them to a unitary scale gives rise to the idea of distribution—how great a share of a unitary chance any given incident or range of incidences holds. It’s the packing of that unit among incidences that shares the paradigm of density shown above.\n\n\nI tried to keep it simple, but if you need me to get into detail, let me know."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9kit58 | how do drugs like kamagra and viagra affect the body? | Hello!
I was wondering how these work.
I heard that originally it was used for other medicinal purposes and the primary use of it now days was just a side effect.
How do they work in the human body?
Thank you in advance! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9kit58/eli5_how_do_drugs_like_kamagra_and_viagra_affect/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6zl5t5"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Your question was so interesting that I looked it up. Thanks for making me learn something interesting\n\nI'll try to explain Viagra (active ingredient sildenafil). Wikipedia says:\n\n > \n\"Sildenafil is a potent and selective inhibitor of [cGMP-specific phosphodiesterase type 5](_URL_0_) (PDE5), which is responsible for degradation of cGMP in the [corpus cavernosum](_URL_1_). \"\n\nHere's what this means:\n\nThere's an compound called cGMP. It does a couple things, but the one that interests us is that it increases bloodflow to the area in the body where it's released (for example an erect penis...). Of course, it's not active forever. There's an enzyme called cGMP that breaks it down and makes it inactive. Sildenafil (the active ingredient in viagra) blocks (or \"inhibits\") the enzyme. So, if you take sildenafil (viagra), the enzyme takes wayyyyy longer to break down cGMP, making it easier to achieve an erection. \n\n\nAnd yes, it was originally developed for (and is still used for) cardiovascular disease treatment. So if you hear of a child who takes viagra, it's not as weird as one may think."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGMP-specific_phosphodiesterase_type_5",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_cavernosum_penis"
]
] |
|
3c5ktk | why aren't the joint chiefs five star ranks? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c5ktk/eli5why_arent_the_joint_chiefs_five_star_ranks/ | {
"a_id": [
"cssgzji",
"csshlpz"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the joint chiefs don't individually control everything. They each have control in their respective branches, but they still have to coordinate with each other.\n\nOn the flip side, the president can't be expected to have the knowledge necessary to issue out advanced, detailed orders.\n\nSo what do you do when you need the ability to sidestep disagreements in lieu of time constraints, but to do so with knowledge and competence? You give one man (usually one of those joint chiefs) all the power, and that's the five star.\n\nWe don't actively maintain one because forcing compromise between multiple individuals is the greatest guarantee of satisfactory results, i.e. winning the war with the fewest amount of casualties in as short a time as possible and on the tightest budget reasonably available.",
"They're more about advising and five star is for war time only. You could consider them five star but are not. Think of them as the best of the four star generals/admirals "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
f21pdq | why is it best for someone with frostbite to warm up slowly? | It seems like the best idea would be to warm them up as quickly as possible, but I’ve heard that’s not the right course of action. Why should you warm them up slowly? And what happens if they warm up too quickly? I’m from the Southeastern US, so I have no experience with extreme cold or frostbite, I’m merely curious | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f21pdq/eli5_why_is_it_best_for_someone_with_frostbite_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fh9t5al",
"fh9uk9s",
"fh9x7v5",
"fh9ywhv",
"fha0yic",
"fhajgvj"
],
"score": [
28,
14,
9,
5,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not about you warming up too quickly. A very cold hand is also a numb hand, so you can't tell how hot the water you're putting on yourself actually is, so it would be very easy to burn yourself without realizing it until you've done serious damage. \n\nMeanwhile it's not really important to have the hottest water possible to warm you up quickly. Whether you're trying to heat or cool something, moving water will get the job done quicker than standing water. It's all about heat transfer. If you combine something hot with something cold, heat will flow from the hot into the cold until both items are the same temp. Moving water maximizes contact, which allows for much faster heat transfer.",
"Frostbite or hypothermia? In hypothermia, or low body temperature, you rewarm slowly because a rapid change would put stress on the heart.",
"Because the amount of oxygen (blood flow) a cell needs is directly proportional to how warm it is. When you warm someone up by putting them in warm water or in front of a fire you warm them up from the outside in. Their body's core temperature is still low so their blood vessels in their extremities will still be constricted even if you warm their hands up. Their hands are warm and need blood flow but their core is still cold and wants to conserve heat so it will still reduce blood flow to the hands which will result in more cell damage.",
"When your extremities are very cold, your body restricts the blood flow to them, but at the same time, the cold also slows their cell's metabolism, almost to a stop. If you heat the area up too quickly, the cells wake up, but because they have no supply of blood, they die. Heating the frostbitten area slowly makes sure blood flow returns in time.\n\nA similar thing happens with hypothermia. Your body restricts blood flow to the surface to maintain warmth in your core. If you heat someone up too fast, the blood travels through those surface areas and brings the cold back to your core where it can damage organs.",
"I’ve been frost bitten before. Putting your hands under running water feels like getting hit repeatedly with hammers. Horrible pain.",
"Weird, now I'm wondering if I believe an urban legend. I was taught it was because frostbite is frozen tissue and ice crystals at a cellular level can cause havoc. So you thaw out the frostbite so it melts rather than having jagged crystals moving. Some cells rupture from water expansion while freezing and without the ability to move anything your body can't repair or mitigate freezing damage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2s1ina | how did the states get their shapes? | I actually searched for this and surprisingly it wasn't on /r/eli5 .
I googled it also and just came up with a TV show and no real answers. I guess my question is. Was it just who claimed the land while the states were being formed? Or is it a real reason behind the random shapes of the states? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s1ina/eli5_how_did_the_states_get_their_shapes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnlaelr",
"cnlag5z",
"cnlakyn",
"cnlb44t",
"cnlcwku"
],
"score": [
18,
6,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it was geographic boundaries like rivers or mountain ranges. Sometimes it was done via treaty with other countries (and they stuck when the state borders were formed). Sometimes they were just chosen arbitrarily (especially where the straight lines happen).\n\nObviously there are more details with every state, but the above is a good generalization.",
"You should really watch that show. It explains it really well. For the most part, states east of the Mississipi River got those shapes because of rivers and natural landmarks. Made for easy, clear borders. West of the Mississippi, the shapes came about because of the railroad systems. There were fewer easy landmarks and surveying had come a long way, so we ended up with more squared off states",
"There's a reason that a tv show was one of the first things to come up when you searched this, because you could spend half an hour discussing each state. There are just way too many factors, and each state is different. I can give you a handful, I guess. \n\nIn general, you either get straight lines along longitude and latitude lines, which is normal for surveying and marking territory and property lines, or squiggly lines along rivers, which is also very common. \n\nThe East Coast states are somewhat random in their distribution because they started out as colonies, coastal towns that expanded their borders inland claiming land out until the Appalacian mountains (which was the decreed limit of colonization by the Crown- this limit is one of the main causes of the revolution). The states east of the Mississippi formed in a similar way. \n\nThe Midwest states are longer E-W than they are N-S because they were flyover states from the beginning, they incorporated with transcontinental trails and railroads in mind. \n\nMissouri's \"toe\" is a result of the Missouri compromise: in the lead up to the Civil War, in return for a new free state in Maine, Missouri was to be the last Slave state to enter the union. The toe was a huge plantation that belonged to one guy who wanted to keep his slaves, so he negotiated a concession of his land from Arkansas territory into the newly formed Missouri state. \n\nOregon and Washington form a neat little block in the corner because they used to be a single territory, with contested ownership between the US and Great Britain. \n\n",
"The show actually does an excellent job explaining this, it's often very complicated. I recommend the show.",
"The TV show is based on a book! It includes maps that really help visualize everything."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
26ehxp | why don't reboil water? or is it ok? | “What on earth are you doing?! Why are you boiling the water again? You’re not supposed to do that!” | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ehxp/eli5_why_dont_reboil_water_or_is_it_ok/ | {
"a_id": [
"chq99ge",
"chqa0qv",
"chqc7jb"
],
"score": [
18,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Completely false. There's nothing wrong with boiling water a million times, other than the fact that you won't have much left.",
"Random fact if you boil water to much it can become deoxygenated this is an important factor when making cups of tea. The more oxygen smoother the taste.",
"If you heat up some previously-boiled water in a microwave oven, it lacks dissolved air and microbubbles. So it can [superheat and explode.](_URL_0_). The problem is worse with polished ceramic mugs than with paper cups etc.\n\nIf you simply *must* repeately boil water in a microwave oven, stick a wooden spoon or chopstick in it to provide bubbles and prevent superheating.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://amasci.com/weird/microwave/voltage2.html#coffee"
]
] |
|
1sa1kh | if i bought a self driving car, would i need a drivers license? | If these Google mobiles are able to drive all aspects of a trip. i.e. From where ever its parked, to parking at its final destination. Would i need a drivers license? I understand I'll still need insurance, because you cant control other drivers. But if i'm just gonna sit there and either sleep or use some sort of device to whittle away the trip, and not pay any attention to whats going on outside the car, much like a cab, why would i need one. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sa1kh/eli5if_i_bought_a_self_driving_car_would_i_need_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdvhn2q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"California is still in the process of creating laws regarding this matter, so I can only give you a speculative answer.\n\nYou would need a drivers license to operate a self driving car in case the system malfunctioned. With that same line of thought, it's plausible that laws will govern that there be a licensed \"driver\" in the front seat at all times for that same reason."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fejovi | how are we able to hold our breath for so long? how do our vitals still receive oxygen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fejovi/eli5_how_are_we_able_to_hold_our_breath_for_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjp6nxd",
"fjohdnl"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Also remember that if you stopped breathing right now, there is enough oxygen in your blood for you to have little to no brain damage for 10 minutes, *as long as your heart keeps pumping*. Sanjay Gupta wrote about this in the CPR chapter of his book Cheating Death. This is why CPR works even if you don't do mouth-to-mouth. If you are taking in zero oxygen, as long as your heart is still pumping, your vitals are still getting the oxygen that is in your blood.",
"You do not consume all of the oxygen in the air you take in during one breath. Inhaled air contains about 21% oxygen, exhaled contains about 16%. So you can see how you would have enough oxygen in a single breath for a while (minutes). The actual urge to take fresh air comes from wanting to get rid of the CO2, which decreases blood pH if accumulated. It's all simple chemistry, gas exchange is governed by rules of diffusion (it's a little more complex when you consider hemoglobin and how tightly you're holding on to oxygen and CO2, but at the fundamental level it's diffusion). So if your blood contains 5X O2 and 10X CO2 (random units), and the breath has 20X O2 and 0X CO2, these two will go down their concentration gradients raising blood O2 and lowering CO2. As you continue exposing your blood to this air in the lungs, you continue to exchange, but as the CO2 is on the rise in the lungs and O2 is dropping, and you keep producing more CO2 and using more O2, you reach a limit and need to take fresh air to re-establish steep enough gradients."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3qy7k8 | why can't windmills based out at sea have a tidal power element at there base to allow for tidal-energy too ? | At the moment there are hundreds of sea-based windmills for getting marine style wind-power, which are based miles out at sea.
My question is: Why don't these incorporate a tidal-power marine-water-turbine at the base of these so that any platform could accumulate tidal aswell as wind-energy ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qy7k8/eli5_why_cant_windmills_based_out_at_sea_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwjc2ls"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because that would merely cost, while only increasing energy production by a very small margin.\n\nWind turbines are placed in areas with high wind, and ideally on sandbanks to reduce installation costs. The chance that this matches with a place where tidal forces can be gathered cost effectively, is unlikely."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2qrtf0 | why are universities treating education like it is corporate business? | Why don't they lower tution/ costs so that more students can attend to make up for the loss of profit? The cost of higher education contributes so much to the debt of this country that it sounds counter-intuitive to cause such financial strain on future customers. Is the demand for higher education really that high that people are willing to sacrifice their well being to attain it? I have so many questions and I'm not sure if this is the right or wrong place to ask it.
I know there are many factors such as: more professors, larger facilities, more housing, etc but with more students flowing in wouldn't this be possible? What other factors influence the way higher education is structured? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qrtf0/eli5why_are_universities_treating_education_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn8wt5v",
"cn8yefp"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"You named them. More faculty, more housing, more classrooms. Universities are very expensive to run. Qualified professors aren't exactly a dime a dozen, and most universities I've seen are running low on space to expand, since they were either built in a major city or a city has grown around them.\n\n",
"Universities need to be run like a business in the sense that they have expenses that must be covered by some kind of revenue stream. In the case of private universities, this revenue typically consists of student tuition plus investment income from their [endowment](_URL_0_). Public universities also rely on state government funding, but that level of funding is subject to the discretion of each university's state legislature. State funding for universities and higher education in general [has been declining for decades now](_URL_1_), which forces public universities to compensate by raising tuition.\n\n(Edit: Added a missing word.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment",
"http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-a-race-to-the-bottom.aspx"
]
] |
|
e7acv9 | how does the measles virus wipe out your body's "memory" of immunity to other viruses and why is this not common in other viruses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e7acv9/eli5_how_does_the_measles_virus_wipe_out_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9y94cj"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The virus has a proclivity for immune memory cells as targets for infection. This causes the death of the immune memory cells from the action of the virus itself and from elimination by the healthy aspects of the immune system in fighting the infection. This widespread destruction of the immune memory cells, which are responsible for an individual's immune memory, therefore leads to a loss of said immune memory. The loss of immune memory is then compounded by damage to the skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal tract tissues, which are components of the passive immune system. This combined damage to both the adaptive and passive immune systems results in a higher vunerabiltiy to other pathogens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
196lm5 | running, sprinting, and jogging. what's the difference? | I've been running for the past couple of weeks and I have been asked whether I sprint or jog, and I have no idea what the difference is between them. Please help me out! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/196lm5/eli5_running_sprinting_and_jogging_whats_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8l9a1o",
"c8l9fi5"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Sprinting is all out pedal to the metal so to speak ...jogging is maybe half speed... its to get your heart rate up and be able to endure the exhaustion of physical activity ...if that doesn't help google it ",
"Running is what you'd call the action itself; sprinting and jogging are just different speeds of running. \n\nI would say that sprinting is running as fast as you can-- think of how fast the athletes in the 100m dash at the Olympics go, or what you would do if you were being chased by a bear.\n\nJogging, on the other hand, is much more leisurely pace. The goal here is to work on your resistance/endurance and take on longer distances."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3roln1 | asian keyboards | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3roln1/eli5_asian_keyboards/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwpwgpr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most of them look pretty much like U.S. keyboards.\n\nYou usually type the Japanese or Chinese characters phonetically with standard letters. Then a list of possible matches appears where you are typing, and you can click or arrow to the correct choice.\n\nMost Japanese characters also have Japanese phonetic characters directly on the keyboard as well (for example, the Q key usually has a た character on it too), but I’ve never seen a Japanese person use that feature. I’ve always seen them typing Japanese by using the same alphabet we use."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6dizz7 | why is it easier for me to remember numbers that are hyphenated (social social security numbers, phone numbers) but hard to remember a long stretch of only numbers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dizz7/eli5_why_is_it_easier_for_me_to_remember_numbers/ | {
"a_id": [
"di30g19",
"di30imn"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"This is probably due to a memory process called \"chunking\". Basically, your short-term memory can hold around 5 to 9 pieces of information at a time. When you see a string of numbers, such as 457389321, your short-term memory is trying to hold 9 separate pieces of information. When you break the same number up into 457-389-321, your memory only has to hold 3 separate pieces of information, so it's easier.",
"Our memory works best with \"chunks\" of related information. If you tried to memorize \"5896325658\" on its own (*disclaimer: that is not my phone number; I just made that up*), you might get confused and mix things up, because you're trying to remember 10 \"things\": the digits in the sequence.\n\nBut, if you can break it down into chunks and remember the parts of those chunks, you'll have an easier time. So the above being \"589-623-5658\", you have an easier time remembering *3* \"things\":\n\n1. 589\n2. 623\n3. 5658\n\nAs long as you get the smaller bits of the chunks right, arranging them in the right order is much easier.\n\nConsider the following:\n\n GHY KUJ IOP LOI TRH FRE\n\nTry to memorize all of these letters in order. Kinda tough, right?\n\nNow try this:\n\n FBI CIA NSA DOE TRY FOR\n\nThis is the same number of letters to remember, but you're not actually remembering the letters \"F\", \"B\", \"I\": instead, you remember the chunk \"FBI\". That's 1 \"thing\" instead of 3, so it's easier to hold onto.\n\nEDIT: As others mentioned, and as I forgot, some research has shown the most people are able to remember up to 7 \"things\" at a time. That being the case, the original phone numbering system in North America using 7 digits was ideal for people to memorize and recall the phone numbers of others: any more than 7 might have been overkill. That, of course, depended on most people only needing to call their neighbors or others in the same area code, so they only had to dial 7 digits (back when we had \"long distance\", calling to another area code, requiring some extra connections between the local area code switchboard and that of the other area code, etc.)\n\nThese days, most if not all phone calls in NA are placed using 10 digits, including the area code, possibly thanks in part to the advent of cell phones. At the same time as those phones came about, most folks started saving contacts' phone numbers in the phone memory, rather than trying to memorize it themselves, so the switch to 10-digit dialing wasn't that big a deal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
42jv13 | why is it when a child is learning to speak, the most common constant expressed is a "w"-sound? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42jv13/eli5_why_is_it_when_a_child_is_learning_to_speak/ | {
"a_id": [
"czay1sb",
"czay8gz"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because it's a really easy sound to make. Children learn easy sounds like /m p b w/ etc. first, and then they learn harder sounds later on.",
"Not an expert in any way, but I would assume it has something to do with how easy the \"w\" sound is to form with the mouth. They largely learn by watching and can't see the subtle differences between \"w\" an a lot of other sounds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4wiwid | how were 5v and 12v decided on as the "go to" voltages for so many electronic devices, specifically computers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wiwid/eli5_how_were_5v_and_12v_decided_on_as_the_go_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d67i29n",
"d67i5bt",
"d67j52m",
"d67maau",
"d67ml5v",
"d67rqej"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
4,
2,
21,
7
],
"text": [
"Transistor Transistor Logic gates operate on 5Volts. Logical 0 is up to....I think 1.5volts? Logical 1 from 3.5-5v\n\nNot sure where 12v is from.",
"Combination of safety and industry standards. You can also run smaller gauge wire and smaller components on 12v. I would also be curious to hear about a more technical reasoning. ",
"I believe the 12V comes from what the auto industry uses. The 5V is a nice 'even' number/value. IIRC the electronic type before TTL (start of 5V) was ECL and they used 8V. Also I believe that 48V comes from the phone company and 26/28V is also from the aircraft/ship industries just like 400hz vrs 50/60hz frequency for land use.\n\nI have no sources for this information.",
"Lots of newer devices have moved to 3.3V, and some to 2.5 or 1.8V.\n\nAs to exactly where the standards come from, I'm not sure.\n\n12V is 6x lead acid cells, which is what was commonly used for cars or portable radios. Why it was six not five (10V) or something else, I don't know. Maybe because you can easily divide it into 2x3 or 3x2 cell batteries?",
"Voltage of chemical cells is one factor. For chemical sources of DC voltage (i.e. batteries, rechargeable or not), you can't really alter the voltage easily, the best you can do is add multiple cells to get a multiple of their inherent voltage.\n\nAlkaline non-rechargeable batteries provide around 1.5V. You can't run a 0.5V device on them (even the very small alkaline batteries have 1.5V) but you can make e.g. a 9V pack from such cells. When emptied, they slowly go down to ~1V and the devices are designed to accept that, so the many types rechargeable batteries whose chemistry gives 1.2V (and can't ever make 1.5V) are used interchangeably.\n\nThe classic lead acid cells provide 2V. You can't get 5V from that without a big hassle, but you can get 12V (or 10V, or 20V) by chaining multiple such cells when you want a larger voltage, so that you can provide the required power(watts) with less current. \n\n12V has been a standard in portable pre-electronic devices because of that, and so this tradition probably made it standard when more electronics were designed.\n\nAs for 5V, I don't know, but I would guess that there may be some semiconductor properties that require this voltage to run them.\n",
"For a couple of decades 5V was the rule for CMOS circuits because of the physics of transistors. A basic CMOS inverting amplifier has two transistors, one pulling the voltage up, one pulling it down. You tie the gates together, and design the semiconductors such that there is a voltage (high) that turns on the pull-down (N-type) transistor while pulling turning off the pull-up (P-type) transistor. And there is a second voltage (low) that turns on the pull-up and turns off the pull-down. You need to set things up so there are two such voltages, and such that the output in the two states corresponds to those two input voltage.\n\nIts been obvious since the beginning of CMOS design that you would reduce power and increase speed, but it took decades to figure out how to meet the basic design constraints at a lower voltage than 5 volts.\n\nAt this point, 5 volts is simply historical. CPUs operate at whatever voltage, but history keeps a lot of the rest of the world operating at 5V. Increasingly the world is shifting to 3.3V, but these shifts happen at glacial speeds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4atckz | because natural selection is not happening to humans with modern medicine, what does it mean for the human race in the near and distant future? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4atckz/eli5_because_natural_selection_is_not_happening/ | {
"a_id": [
"d13a0wy",
"d13b4pl",
"d13bdea",
"d13d3yc"
],
"score": [
5,
20,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Medical and technological advances will heavily outweigh the potential evolutionary benefits humanity as a species may have possibly gained over thousands of years due to natural selection. As such, pretty much nothing. The only cases where natural selection would play a part are in extreme cases, such as certain hereditary diseases that would prevent reproduction regardless.",
"Natural selection is 100% happening. All modern medicine has done is changed the selective pressures. Things that exerted significant pressures before may not now, things that did not exert significant pressure in the past may now. ",
"It's important to remember that, although a lot of people have access to life-saving medicines, [the majority of Earth's population are still very much in danger from the same things that have killed us for millenia.](_URL_0_)\n\nWhile the US is better off than, say, most of Sub-Saharan Africa on this count, there is still variation within the US in terms of access to care. The best example I can think of is Magic Johnson's continuing health while HIV and AIDS continue to kill less affluent Americans.\n\nThe upshot of this kind of economic stratification to medical access is a bifurcation (or tri- or quadfurcation) of society into groups with substantially different outlooks in terms of life expectancy and quality of life. We've always seen this - the rich have always lived longer and better than the poor - but with our growing understanding of how to manipulate the human genome, this phenomenon, based on temporal economic standing (who's rich today), is going to cement in DNA some of the advantages that were previously only enjoyed by the ones that were themselves rich. In other words, those with medical access can not only improve *their* lot in life, but that of their great-great-great-great-grandchildren in a much more impactful and concrete way. \n\nOver generations, this access to genetic improvement could ultimately result in additional speciation within Homo Sapiens Sapiens, if our genetic materials diverge enough to prevent viable offspring from being created.\n\nAnd you thought racism was bad *today*... ",
"The whole point of natural selection is focused on who produces the most children, not who lives the longest or healthiest. In the West, only religious fundamentalists and immigrants are having large families. Other than in these groups, western countries aren't producing enough children to maintain their population. The movie idiocracy, which is kinda funny, is about what this could lead to.\n\nWhat is likely to happen is a caste system of wealthy elites who have access to health services and educational options that others do not have. Sound familiar?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2040893391/2054793694/gr4.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
38gfiw | why do zambonis need to be so big? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38gfiw/eli5why_do_zambonis_need_to_be_so_big/ | {
"a_id": [
"cruu5rw",
"cruvvwo",
"cruwgyj"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To hold more warm water so they can clean/smooth ice more effectually. \n\nHow whole internal parts works I am not 100% on. But playing hokey for 10 years you tend to notice things. I know it picks up the ice it scrubs off and melts it for more water to use. As well as it needs weight so the tires/treads can actually move. \n\n",
"There are a lot of components under the hood. The engine to drive the machine, there is a blade that shaves the ice, augers that pick up the shavings (snow) and store it in a large bucket, water tanks that spray water. You want an entire rink done in a single pass to be efficient as possible so the tanks need to be large enough to hold enough water to cover the entire rink.",
"Contrary to popular belief, a majority of the body on an ice resurfacer is devoted to collecting shavings, not storing water. The top half of the machine is called the dump tank and all the \"snow\" is collected here through an auger system just like a snow blower. Beneath the dump tank is an engine (or battery pack on electric models) as well as a 200ish gallon tank for ice making water. There is an addition 90 gallon tank for cold water located between the operator's seat and the dump tank that is used to wash debris from the ice. The area to the right of the operator is devoted to the hydraulic system.\n\nThe machine is designed to resurface a standard 200x85 rink. There are larger and smaller models available depending on the needs of the rink. It should be noted that the original Zamboni model was built on a jeep chassis, which basically dictated the size of the machine.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
edo6go | why does sleep deprivation make you see spiders/bugs on your peripheral vision? | ETA: I’m bipolar and have put myself through bad sleep deprivation during episodes of mania (don’t do this, kids), as well as talked to people who have undergone the same and it seems most people have a similar experience:
Spiders > phantom sensations > loss of depth perception > some weird music that feels like it comes from outside your head > shadow people > even more shadow people | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/edo6go/eli5_why_does_sleep_deprivation_make_you_see/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbj3cs7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'm pretty sure you are asking why sleep deprivation causes hallucinations, well, sleeping is important for your body, but it's the most important thing for your brain, because during a sleep cycle the brain gets rid of toxins that have accumulated. If you don't sleep these toxins don't go away and grow in number instead, these toxins can disturb neurons activity and therefore make your brain slower and inefficient. On the hallucination side, this means that your brain is not able to correctly interpret an image and it compensates this by relying more heavily on your eyes' input (which makes it even worse, because there are more things for your brain to not see well) [source](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/why-do-humans-hallucinate-little-sleep"
]
] |
|
6r3hhp | what determines a person's sense of humor? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6r3hhp/eli5what_determines_a_persons_sense_of_humor/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl22ppn",
"dl2638k",
"dl2ay43"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly psychological. When a person has good sense of humor, it generally means they are happy, socially confident and likely to have a healthy perspective on life. But this has exceptions because humor has a dark side. There are people who use self-defeating humor; also humor is used to criticize and manipulate others through teasing, sarcasm and ridicule. So being funny isn't necessarily an indicator of good social skills and well-being. It all depends on the kind of humor the person uses. ",
"FWIW, I see humour as being of four types: scatalogical, situational, word play, and logical. Scatalogical humor appeals most to children (though some adults seem not to outgrow it). The TV show Frasier would be a good example of both situational and word play humour. Absurdist humour, such as Monty Python, is logical ( i.e., take an absurd premise and then proceed logically). I expect that the kind of humour a person is drawn to correlates with how their mind works in other areas. For example, a person who focuses on plot details when they tell an anecdote probably also finds situational humour funny, whereas a person who focuses more on how they tell the story is probably more of a word-play person. People who are more logical-analytical are probably more likely to be drawn to absurdist humour than someone who is emotional-empathetic.",
"Every question about why people are different can be summarized as a combination of one or more of the following, genetics, interest, training, environment.\n\nFor specifics try r/askscience"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2qu9s5 | how does time lapse video with the different angle work? does someone slowly move the camera to a different location to create that smooth movement? | _URL_0_
here's a few good example but what is the setup like? I would really like to try doing something like this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qu9s5/eli5how_does_time_lapse_video_with_the_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn9k1ve",
"cn9srjx"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"jop, stepper motors and stuff, actually many people build those themselves because its really not dark magic. _URL_0_",
"/u/YMK1234 is right. You just build a rig that will move the camera, usually powered by an electric motor, and have it move incredibly slowly. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://vimeo.com/31413518"
] | [
[
"http://www.diyphotography.net/build-an-amazing-super-versatile-diy-time-lapse-dolly/"
],
[]
] |
|
3m9u9s | how does russia maintain and sustain #2 military in the world with economy smaller than brazil or italy (#10)? | I don't understand how Russia can pump out advanced fighters like PAK-FA or advanced tanks like T-14 Armada MBT, or upgrade their entire tank force to T-90 when they are apparently broke from oil plunge, sanctions, etc... I don't understand! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m9u9s/eli5_how_does_russia_maintain_and_sustain_2/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvd8vj5",
"cvdbnrs"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"By spending a larger portion of their money on their military. This is how North Korea keeps a large army on a small GDP, they don't spend as much on food. It's all a matter of choices.",
"No other country manages to spend anywhere close to the truly titanic sums of money on their military as the US, but China and Russia do spend quite a chunk of change on their militaries, much more than most other countries do. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
28vedr | why do you hear a whoosh noise if you put a glass on your ear? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28vedr/eli5why_do_you_hear_a_whoosh_noise_if_you_put_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cietlbh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Blood flow in your year. I guess you can hear it because it is amplified in the enclosed space of the glass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6djj8t | how a noun can become a verb, like google or photoshop? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6djj8t/eli5_how_a_noun_can_become_a_verb_like_google_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"di356o0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People just start using the word as a verb and it becomes popular.\n\nThere's not much more to it than that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5rw7yt | how do electronic ph sensors work? | This is pretty much what I wonder about every kind of sensor - electronic scales, cameras, etc. - but the one I especially don't get is an electronic pH probe. What exactly is it that "senses" the H+ ions present in a solution, differentiates from any other kind of dissolved cation, and translates the intensity of the "H+ signal", whatever that is, into an electric signal picked up by a computer of some sort? And how does it detect the total volume of the solution that the pH probe is submerged in, in order to calculate the H+ concentration that is prerequisite to calculate the pH? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rw7yt/eli5_how_do_electronic_ph_sensors_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddanz1j"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"An electric pH meter is essentially just a voltmeter. An acid solution is essentially half of a battery, so the pH meter brings the rest of the battery along and measures the potential difference between the two leads on the probe. Once you've determined the voltage of your \"battery\" the Nernst equation gives you the relationship between voltage and hydrogen ion concentration. \n\nVolume is irrelevant to figuring the pH out in this way because volume does not affect voltage of a battery, just the life of the battery. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7tgzkc | if light slows down in water, how does it speed back up again when it comes out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7tgzkc/eli5_if_light_slows_down_in_water_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtcfufa",
"dtchspt",
"dtcr5mu",
"dtd5nzj",
"dtdt9dg"
],
"score": [
150,
3,
7,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a way to think about this problem that was--IIRC--in Stephen Hawking's *A Brief History of Time*. \n\nImagine a big famous actor walking through a room. They travel at a constant speed that we'll call A. The actor always moves at speed A, no matter what. When the room is empty, they're able to walk into the room and out of it easily in a straight line. \n\nHowever, if the room is full of people then the actor can't walk in and out of the room in a straight line. They keep moving at A, but because of the people they have to bounce around and take a much more circuitous path to get out of the room. This means that despite remaining at A the entire time, it took them *longer* to get out of the full room than the empty room.\n\nThe same is true with light. The light doesn't 'slow down' in water. The light's still moving at c. However, water is much more dense than air or a vacuum, so in order to make it through the water, the light has to take a much more circuitous path. Despite never changing speed, we as an outside observe perceive the light taking more time to cross through the same distance as a difference in speed, rather than what it actually is: the distance having changed. \n\nThen again, I'm not a physicist, so this could be wrong, but I think it serves as a good ELI5. \n\nEdit: I’m seeing a lot of comments that this explanation is either wrong, too oversimplified or some combination of the two. As I said, I’m not a physicist, and am only repeating what I’ve heard from what I believed to be a reputable source. I would encourage anyone reading this to also look at the discussion underneath this comment and in the rest of the comments as well. Just because I got the most upvotes doesn’t mean I’m right. ",
"It's not losing speed or gaining speed, it's interacting with the water molecules with each interaction requiring a bit of time to complete.",
"I'm sorry, but I have to step in. I have a degree in physics, however, I was never a good student. But I'm pretty sure that light actually do slow down.\n\nI don't know how to eli5 this, but the speed of light is not constant. It depends on Permittivity, Permeability of the medium. Basically, how easy electric and magnetic field 'travel' through the medium. [equation 9](_URL_0_)\n\nIn water, or any other medium that is not vacuum, the Permittivity and Permeability are higher, and thus the speed of light is slower. I'm not a good enough physics student to actually understand why.\n\n",
"A lot of people on here saying things that are decent analogies but aren’t true, others are simply sharing flat out false misunderstandings. \n\nThe light goes into the water. The water is made up of molecules and empty space between them. When traveling between molecules, light is traveling at its universal speed of c. \n\nHowever when a photon of light hits a molecule, it is absorbed. The energy spends some time affecting the molecule—maybe with movement, or electron energy level alterations, etc. Then the photon continues, popping out the other side at speed c. \n\nSo yeah if you measure entry time and exit time you would say, “light slowed down in the water.” But thats not true at all. It simply took some breaks to hang out with the local folks on its path. \n\nTL;DR—Light is just bar-hopping, always driving the same speed but stopping for a drink at a few molecules. \n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"The Feynnman lectures have a good example.of this. Don't have time to search for a link but it's on the refractive index or permittivity stuff. \n\nIt comes down to the light wave cause atoms in the new medium to oscillate at the same frequency as the incoming wave. They oscillate out of phase however. It turns out the addition of the original wave and the induced waves sum up through super posistion to be a new wave with a lower wave speed in the medium."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/permit.htm"
],
[
"http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/08/q-if-light-slows-down-in-different-materials-then-how-can-it-be-a-universal-speed/"
],
[]
] |
||
2r7gqt | store tells me to rub the chip when my debit card is not recognized? the chip is clean, so why does this help? | My debit card has a chip on it. The payment tills at the store often don't recognize it and I am being told to rub the chip. Doing this once or twice usually gets it to work again. What is going on here? I requested a new card already thinking the one I had must be faulty but within a month the problem returned on the new card.
PS: How can I avoid this happening to begin with? Is it because it is stored with other chip card? Or in my purse with my smartphone? I know magnetic strips can get messed up by a smartphone, but the issue seems to be the chip? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r7gqt/eli5_store_tells_me_to_rub_the_chip_when_my_debit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnd5708",
"cndd9g7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes a fine layer of oil forms on the chip. Rubbing it removes this layer",
"Cashier here, bend the card only slightly so the chip is directed further in the machine. That always work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
21crs7 | showering after a meal | I was told as a kid that taking a shower right after a meal was bad. I never really got a good reason why though. What are some reasons, if any, as to why it is a bad idea. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21crs7/eli5_showering_after_a_meal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgbs4xa"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"For a warm shower: Blood gets diverted to the skin, to lower your body's temperature (which increased all of a sudden when you're under hot/warm water). \n\n\nSince this happens on a large surface area (almost your entire body's surface area), there is a chance for your blood pressure to drop, since a majority of your blood is diverted to the skin (for temperature regulation) and gut (for digestion). This MIGHT make the person feel dizzy, if he/she has some underlying disease, or is old (because the compensatory mechanism to raise the blood pressure is slower than younger people) and as a result faint. Normal people should not have any problems.\n\n\nThat's all I can think of."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
69x23k | why does the same setting in the shower feel warmer in the summer than in the winter? i've noticed on a warm day, i need to turn the shower down because it feels too hot, but surely it's the same temperature? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69x23k/eli5_why_does_the_same_setting_in_the_shower_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"dha1gnm",
"dha1kti"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The water starts warmer in warm weather.\n\nImagine the heater raises the water temp by 20 degrees. If it's 90 outside, it goes to 110. If it's 50 outside, it goes to 70.\n\nThis is a gross oversimplification, of course. But that's the gist of it.",
"The quick answer is, because in winter the cold water coming from your cold water feed is usually a **lot** colder. I don't know about where you live, but where I live (UK) in winter the water coming out the tap makes your hand go numb very quickly. In summer you can hold it under there all day. \n\nIf you have a standard electric shower, the sort that normally has a Off/Eco/Low/High dial and then a numbered temperature dial, they work like this: \n\nThe first 'power' control (off/eco/low/high) of course switches the water on and off, but also puts the power to the heater to one of three states, low medium or high. Naturally three temperature settings isn't enough, you normally want something between, so that's where the other dial comes in. \n\nThe other 'temperature' dial is just a valve that controls the water flow. The higher you turn it the slower it allows the water to flow. The slower the water is flowing the longer it's spending going through the heater, so the hotter it comes out. Turn it down, the water flow increases, it spends less time going through the heater and comes out cooler. \n\nThe reason you have to crank the dial up in winter to get the same temperature is because, that's literally what's happening. The water is colder coming in, because the water supply pipes are colder - the water itself is colder, and it takes more heating up. Simple as that really. \n\nIf you have a standard mixer shower that works off hot and cold water feeds, the same is happening. The cold water is colder in winter, so you need more crank on the temperature dial to get the same temperature coming out the shower head. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
z4vdq | the difference between routers, switches, access points | Its work related and id love to know | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z4vdq/eli5_the_difference_between_routers_switches/ | {
"a_id": [
"c61g3th",
"c61hcpt",
"c61hsnz"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"For this example we will keep it simple.\n\nRoutes are smart switches, they can assign IP addreses and handle local and internet traffic.\n\nSwitches are not as smart as routers, they basically add more ports to your router, they allow more devices to access the functions of the router. however they can function independently, handle traffic and some can grant IP address.\n\nThere is also a hub, which is the most simplistic. It can only add connections, it will not grant IPs and it wont handle traffic well.\n\nan access point is a device you add to an existing hard-wire network to add wireless.\n\n\nBy handle traffic i mean they balance the load so multiple computers can use the internet or share files without disrupting the service of others.",
"Switch - PA system, everyone gets the message, people who don't care ignore it\n\nRouter - Phone call, only the person who cares gets the message\n\nAccess point - Phone, a device that enables wireless networking...sometimes is also a router ",
"In order of complexity:\n\nA hub connects several devices in a network. When it receives data on\na port, it repeats that data out on every other port. These are\npretty rare now that switches have become so affordable.\n\nA switch is a smarter hub. As it receives data, it learns which\ndevice is connected to each port. When it receives data destined for\na particular device, it only sends the data to the device's port. If\nit doesn't know which port to send the data to (e.g. it hasn't seen\nthat host yet), it acts as a hub and sends the data to all ports --\nexcept the one it was received on. Once the host replies, the switch\nlearns which port is connected to, so it goes back to acting like a\nswitch.\n\nA bridge is used to connect two physically different networks so that\nthey are the same logical network; e.g. connecting a Token Ring\nnetwork to an Ethernet network. (it doesn't matter if you don't know\nwhat those are, it's just important that they are physcially\ndifferent.)\n\nA router is used to connect two logically different networks\ntogether. It routes traffic between the two networks. \n\nA Wireless Access Point (WAP or AP) is a type of bridge because it\nconnects two different types of networks -- wireless (IEEE 802.11\nb/g/n) and wired (usually IEEE 802.3),\n\nMost of the devices that you will see are actually combinations of the\ndevice type listed above. For instance, a gateway that a person would\nget from their cable company that has wireless does all of these\nthings:\n\n * If it has multiple Ethernet LAN ports, it is a switch.\n\n * it connects the coax cable network, the Ethernet in the house and\n the home wireless network, so it's a bridge.\n\n * It connects between the cable company's network and a home network\n (wired and wireless), so it is a router.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2l9zhx | why car companies have such a problem with the destruction of their cars in video games , but apparently not that much in the movies ? | Sorry for bad eng :-/ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l9zhx/eli5_why_car_companies_have_such_a_problem_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"clsvmme",
"clt4e6e"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the video game. Manufacturers like certain video games and license their vehicles to those games because they put the brand in front of young and impressionable consumers. They also like their product in movies for the same reason. The ability of the manufacturer to control how their product is used is an important part of the licensing deal. Companies wan their product reflected in a manner that is consistent with their marketing message.\n\nManufacturers don't like their product licensed with games where they are unable to control the message or there is the possibility of negative associations with the brand. This is why the GTA games do not have licensed vehicles. Manufactures are afraid that parents will boycott their brands for fear that their children may end up knocking over a bank while using a Chevy Sonic as the getaway vehicle. ",
"You don't have to apologize for you english, man. Not everyone was born in an english-speaking country"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
92aym0 | what exactly happens with the moon during a full eclipse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92aym0/eli5_what_exactly_happens_with_the_moon_during_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e34cj79",
"e34cqs6"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"The Earths shadow lines up with the moon completely blocking out the light from the sun which usually lights it up during the night, like if you put your hand in front of a torch, whatever you were shining the torch at becomes unlit *Your hand is the earth)",
"the earth orbits the sun. The moon orbits the earth. At certain times, they line up perfectly so the earth casts a shadow onto the moon. During a full eclipse, the moon is fully in that shadow for some time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
cji5bq | why is it that a lizard can jump off insane heights but not take any damage and be fine but if we scaled us down to the size of a lizard we'd die from that high of a fall? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cji5bq/eli5_why_is_it_that_a_lizard_can_jump_off_insane/ | {
"a_id": [
"evdgl0v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Lizards weigh less, so the impact when they land is a lot lower. If I fall, it's equivalent to a 100 pound person landing on me. If a 300 pound person falls, it's equivalent to a 300 pounds of person landing on them. The gecko just takes a few ounces of weight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
73ijaa | how did medical care become standardized? | It seemed like just 100 years ago, doctors were still going door-to-door diagnosing hysteria on women and not washing their hands. Now we have this complicated system with medical schools and residencies that are consistent across the whole country and everyone learns the same thing. How did that all get standardized within just a few generations? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73ijaa/eli5how_did_medical_care_become_standardized/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnql7sj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Many, many smart inventions. I'm not a history geek, so I'm unsure about the specifics, but the conventional microscope was only created in the last hundred - two hundred years. From this, people discovered bacteria, viruses, amoebas, cells, and how each related. This spawned vaccinations to stop smallpox and rubella, as well as people finding out microorganisms survive on skin, and can be contagious. Drugs, sanitisation, supplements; all of these things exist because of the microscope. While it'd be stupid to attribute every breakthrough in modern medicine to the microscope, it truly was the straw that broke the camel's back - or cured it, in this case."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2n5dv4 | why do we need the give the security code off the signature strip of credit cards when we buy things online? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n5dv4/eli5_why_do_we_need_the_give_the_security_code/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmaha8s",
"cmaha93",
"cmai1gl"
],
"score": [
7,
30,
3
],
"text": [
"It's an additional layer of security for online purchases. If someone were to obtain your credit card number (even with the exp date), they would likely be unable to use it online as just about every retailer will require that security code.\n\nIn addition, most credit card issuers dictate that the security code cannot be stored within online accounts. If someone were to compromise an account that you had a credit card stored in, the attacker still wouldn't be able to use it as the security code is not stored in that account.",
"It helps show you have possession of the physical card. That number is not stored on the magnetic stripe, so it can't be obtained using a card skimmer for example.",
"It's like a bank's version of 2-factor authentication."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4hv2ij | why does sweet and salty food taste better together? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hv2ij/eli5_why_does_sweet_and_salty_food_taste_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2sk2j7"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"We generally do not like the taste of bitter. Salt has the miraculous ability to block the taste of bitter. When we say salt is a \"flavor enhancer\" what we're typically talking about is its capacity to block bitter, allowing other flavors to come forward. So, the flavor profile of caramel gets richer and yummier because the smidge of distraction provided by the smidge of bitter is pushed to the side by the salt. \n\nThis combined with our general need for salt and taste-appreciation for salt specifically adds up to something that is delicious!\n\n(as an aside, I secretly believe, and for this I have no real justification, that the craze of butter-in-coffee (damn hipsters!) is actually explained a bit (beyond fat=yum) by the fact that butter has salt and coffee has bitter and the little bit of salt suppresses some of the coffee's bitter allowing the richness of the coffee flavors to come forward. can someone please do a taste test with salted/standard butter vs. unsalted butter?)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
jaxjs | bosnia | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jaxjs/eli5_bosnia/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2ami4w",
"c2ami4w"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A place where bad people go. ",
"A place where bad people go. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3m7rvl | when employers take 1+ weeks to get back to you after an interview, what are they waiting for? | No rejection, no offer, no indication of anything other than "you are still in the process, very busy, please wait". What are some common things they're doing, why don't they reject the candidate already (since in my experience waiting a long time = usually not good) and is waiting for more than a week usually bad? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m7rvl/eli5_when_employers_take_1_weeks_to_get_back_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvcp8o3",
"cvcpbm2",
"cvcpqk7",
"cvcpvkk",
"cvcq50f",
"cvcrpx5"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They are interviewing other people. There's really no reason to reject someone immediately, for two reasons: one, it limits their options, and two, it takes time. It's easier to send a rejection notice after someone has accepted the offer.",
"Lots and lots of reasons\n\nThey probably have more candidates to interview. They have several people who need to look at the interviews and resumes, and they have lots of people and are busy. They may be doing some additional invetigation on you. They need approval by likely a handful of people before hiring. Or, commonly, they interview a bunch of people, let everyone look over their stuff for a few days to a week, then all get together and figure out the best people to hire.\n\nAfter all that, then they have to figure out pay and offer terms and run it through an HR department and such.\n\nEvery company is different. Some turn around real quick, some don't. Just because you haven't heard in a week does not mean good or bad -- however its totally OK to reach out to them and ask what the status is, they get it.",
"In addition to other comments: we are running a background check on you and the other candidates. OR we've already run a check and/or seen the shenanigans on your Facebook page and decided we'll pass.",
"It really could be anything. These are the common ones I see.\n\n1 week is *extremely* short in my field. I would say our hiring process is around 3 weeks wait time.\n\n* They could be interviewing more candidates\n* They might be busy with other projects\n* They might be investigating you (LinkedIn, Facebook, other social media, etc)\n* They might be looking into projects you have worked on in the past\n* They might be calling previous employers for proof of work\n* They might be calling references\n* They might have internal processes that slow down the callback process\n* Essential people for the hiring might be on vacation or unavailable (such as your boss's boss)",
"A week? Lol, my place lets people sit for months even if we're not actually DOING anything further. Companies still have to run day to day, and they can easily get caught up in doing that.\n\nNot necessarily still interviewing.",
"They are interviewing other people. Chances are, you aren't their top pick. Just like they are exploring their options from a pool of candidates, you should continue to explore your options with other companies.\n\nIf you get an offer from another company you are considering to accept, you should let the other companies know that you have an offer on the table from another company and you need to respond to them in x amount of time (i.e. within 24 hours). If the delay is just their internal process, they will rush if they really want you.\n\nIf they don't really want you, they will just thank you and move on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7m57ks | difference between led, amoled, lcd, and retina display? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7m57ks/eli5_difference_between_led_amoled_lcd_and_retina/ | {
"a_id": [
"drrhaz5",
"drrhdyr",
"drrhfsd",
"drrhvuv",
"drrj1rb",
"drrkjgu",
"drrkz58",
"drrlms1",
"drrnbbg",
"drrnzds",
"drro0d9",
"drrpfif",
"drrq7xd",
"drrqeej",
"drrtpar",
"drrytti",
"drs0zmj",
"drs24xt",
"drs2od5"
],
"score": [
7397,
54,
7897,
24,
654,
77,
16,
45,
2,
2,
4,
55,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Retina display refers to a display with pixels small enough that the human eye is physically incapable of distinguishing the difference between adjacent pixels, at a given distance. This is kind of funky because our eyes don't work with pixels but it's probably a decent approximation.\n\nLCD stands for liquid crystal display and basically works by having pixels made of liquid crystals and by applying a certain voltage they will let through different amounts of red green and blue light. The light comes from a backlight (typically one or many LEDs these days). \n\nOLED stands for organic light emitting diode and has tiny colored LEDs in each pixel. This is why a black pixel can emit zero light unlike an LCD which just attempts to block all light from the backlight. \n\nI'm not sure what AMOLED is and I just came here for karma, not to do work.",
"LCD and LED are screens with white backlights, which have moving lens (pixels) that physically move to bend the light from the backlight and produce color\n\nAMOLED have no backlight. The pixels are organic and produce their own light. This allows the screen to be thin as well as produce true blacks.\n\nRetina is nothing more than a marketing term. Apple uses regular LCD/LED and slaps on Retina to make it sound more appealing",
"So these are terms that refer to some fundamentally different things. I'll throw a few other terms in the mix that will hopefully clarify things:\n\n###Display Technology\n\n* Cathode ray tube (CRT) where an electron beam is used to excite colored phosphors on the inside of a glass screen. You may have heard it referred to as a \"tube TV\". This is pretty old stuff, and is the earliest display technology for TVs.\n\n* Plasma displays, where a gas inside each pixel is made to glow. This is now pretty outdated, but still way newer than CRTs. It was especially common back when LCD TVs were new, and lower quality than they are today.\n\n* LCD (liquid crystal display). This is the most common type of display tech for televisions. There are three different colors of pixels (red, green, and blue) that can be made more or less opaque to let through light being created by a backlight behind the screen. The combinations of red, green, and blue can be used to form millions of different colors.\n\n* AMOLED (active matrix organic light emitting diode). Each pixel is made of of individual little lights that don't need a backlight. This is newer, and is being used in a lot of newer phones, but is still very expensive for large TVs.\n\n###Backlight technology\n\nNote that backlights are only needed for LCD displays\n\n* Cold cathode. This uses a light similar to the overhead fluorescent lights used in stores and office buildings.\n\n* LED. This uses LEDs (light emitting diodes) to provide the backlight. Newer TVs will have hundreds of individual LEDs to provide even lighting and the ability to dim different sections of the screen to provide better contrast.\n\n###Other stuff\n\n* Retina Display. This is just a fancy Apple buzzword for having lots of pixels that are really tiny, so you can't see the individual pixels on the screen even when you look pretty closely.",
"LCD and LED are mostly the same, both being LCD panels. The difference is the backlight technology. Displays listed as LCD use fluorescent tubes to light them where as LED displays use LED lights to light them. They have their strengths and weaknesses, LED is generally considered better as they are often brighter, more energy efficient, and can sometimes utilize dimming zones to improve contrast.\n\nAMOLED is Samsung's OLED technology. OLED is unique where instead of the image being lit by a light behind the screen, each pixel produces its own light. The main advantage to this is near perfect blacks since pixels showing darker parts of an image can show less or even no light at all unlike LCD or LED. They can also be very energy efficient, only turning on parts of the screen that are needed.\n\nRetina display is Apple's term for a high PPI/DPI display, which means more than average pixels per inch. A retina display is usually LCD or in the case of the iPhone X, AMOLED. A higher DPI generally means more detail for the size of screen. It's not anything special, there are many displays out there that are higher DPI than Apple's retina displays, Apple just has a special word for it. ",
"Retina Display is not a technical designation, it's a marketing term. There are numerous display resolutions available in PCs (FHD, QHD UHD, etc) and Apple wanted to have a trademarked way to describe their display resolution that nobody else could legally use to make it sound like a unique offer. Depending on the device and screen size the term \"Retina Display\" can refer to significantly different resolutions and varying pixel density, though generally it means the pixel density is high enough that you cannot make out individual pixels at standard viewing distance. The Microsoft version of this is \"PixelSense\", which is again a marketing term rather than anything that has technical meaning.\n\n",
"Something relevant that hasn't been explicitly mentioned is that AMOLED black = nothing. That's why blacks look so good. It's in Samsung products but also Google and Apple",
"As an Electrical Engineering student and avid graphics geek, I love this stuff! Great question :D\n\n\n**Displays**\n\nComputer screens are made up of a grid of \"pixels\", which are little tiny colored squares. Think back to [Super Mario 8-bit](_URL_3_), see how you can see all of the squares in his body? That's because your GameBoy's pixels were pretty huge. The pixels in your computer now are really tiny, which is why we get smooth round shapes.\n\nIn [old computer screens](_URL_1_), pixels used to either be \"on\" or \"off\", either lit up or dark. This meant you could only have black and white images on the screen. **Nowadays, our pixels light up in any combination of colors.** How do they do this?\n\nOne way to create any set of colors is to use different combinations of [Red, Green, and Blue light](_URL_0_). You can make just about any color by combining these three colors.\n\nSo a trick that you can use to create a colored light is by shining a red light, a green light, and a blue light right next to each other at different intensities. If they're small enough that your eye can't tell them apart, all your eye will see is the light combination. In fact, [that's what pixels look like up close](_URL_4_).\n\n**The difference between types of displays is how they use those tiny colored lights to create colors.** \n\n* An **LCD** display has a backlight behind everything, and it controls the color by blocking different amounts of each color of light. This means that \"black\" on an LCD display still looks kind of bright.\n* An **OLED** display is dark by default, and turns on tiny little colored lights in different amounts to create different colors.\n* An **AMOLED** display is a type of OLED display. It allows you to access and control pixels faster than other types of OLEDs (PMOLEDs), which allows you to have bigger displays.\n* A **retina** display is a fancy Apple marketing term, meaning the [pixel density](_URL_2_) is higher. Basically, this means everything is higher resolution, so your eyes are even less able to see the little tiny pixels. It's like going from 8-bit to 16-bit.\n\n",
"There's a whole bunch of different display technologies out there today. LCD (liquid crystal display) being the most common. As the name suggests, you have some electrically sensitive crystals that can polarize light when you pass a current through them. Sort of like a high tech Venetian blind. LCDs don't produce light on their own though. (Think the original Gameboy.) So they need a backlight to make the screen visible. Originally they used bulky CCFLs (sort of a cross between a neon lamp and a florescent tube), but were eventually replaced with LEDs. These were marketed as LED TVs to differentiate them, and make an easier upsell. The main advantage with LEDs is you can make thinner, more energy efficient displays. Nearly all LCD displays use them now. \n\nThe problem with LCDs is they can't display true black. The best ones can block most, but not all light from the backlight. So blacks will always look a bit washed out, resulting in reduced contrast ratio and colour accuracy. CRT and plasma displays can produce true black, but they have their own shortcomings in regards to size and power consumption. OLED is the next gen technology to replace them.\n\nOLED stands for organic light emitting diode. They're tiny LEDs made using an organic material that emits light in response to electrical current. An AMOLED display is a matrix of these, with each sub pixel (the red, green, or blue bits of a pixel) being its own individual OLED. They generate their own light, so a backlight isn't needed. And since you can turn them off completely, it can display true black. Hence better colour accuracy and contrast. Using organic materials also allows for thin and flexible displays. They do have some shortcomings though. They consume more power than LCD panels when showing a lot of white, like a text document. There's also lifespan issues with blue OLEDs. Lastly, they're quite a bit more expensive than LCD displays. Though prices have dropped significantly in the last 10 years. \n\nA Retina display is just a marketing term Apple used when the iPhone 4 first came out, to differentiate it from older devices. Basically anything with a 264ppi (pixels per inch) display or higher. Which is basically every phone now. At that point, the individual pixels are so small that that the average person would be unable to see the individual pixels at the closest comfortable viewing distance. A lot of low resolution LCD displays had a noticeable \"screen door\" effect, including early iPhones and the OG iPad, which is what the high PPI displays sought to address. ",
"Which kind is good for Vegans?",
"Retina is just marketing bullshit.\n\nBasically every non-super-budget android Phone out there has higher pixel density than iPhones, and retina only refers to pixel density.",
"\"retina\" is merely a term coined by Apple that is essentially 300ppi. Pixels per inch. \n\nBack when the iPhone 4 (I think) came out. It was highly praised for it's high resolution and super clear display. \n\nBasically most phones, even budget phones nowadays are \"retina\" displays because the screen has so many pixels that it's very clear and sharp. \n\nThis is a term coined by Apple. So if you see shit like \"it doesn't have a retina display\" it's a load of BS.",
"I have to deal with display technologies all the time in my line of work. Here's the major points:\n\n\n**LCD** is like an image being illuminated by a backlight. The backlight can mean that the viewing angles aren't necessarily fantastic and if the backlight is poorly done it can be viable around the edge. This also means a true black isn't achievable. However, more recent LCD display technologies like IPS and PLS, use larger RGB sub pixels and vastly improve uppon the technology.\n\n\n**LED** just means the backlight being used is LED lighting.\n\n\n**OLED and AMOLED** are essentially the same, the only difference being the way the transistors are handled. These screens don't need backlights- they make the light themselves. These are a hot newish technology because we can make them bright and we can make them thin. But they have some huge problems. The blue diodes we use in OLED decay at a very rapid rate. Have a Samsung Galaxy S5 and beyond? Pull up a full screen all grey image and you'll see the issues: burn in and a warmer (orange) color shift. Have an iPhone X? You'll see these problems more and more the longer you have your phone. It's a pretty bad technology in that regard. Far worse than we had with Plasma. It's important to note that OLED screens are not built to last. And though they're touted as high end, we have still not created a great version of OLED. OLED does have the advantage, like laser projection, of being able to display a true black.\n\n\n**Retina Display** doesn't mean anything. It's a silly Apple marketing term that just means more pixel density, but it's not even properly defined. Basically by Retina, Apple means any display technology (and they do mix them) in a device, but with pixels small enough to look smooth. It doesn't mean more resolution (because their phones actually have pretty poor resolution.) It just means decent resolution per inch.\n\n\n**Quantum dot** isn't one you asked about, but it's one to keep an eye out for. It can't, in its current consumer state, display a true black like OLED. But it has better accuracy at high brightness, it can get brighter, and most importantly, it doesn't suffer from burn in. With more development, it has the potential to be the OLED killer.",
"Here's an actual ELI5 without technical jargon:\n\nLCD = A panel of dots blocks light in certain areas to make a picture. Behind the panel, the screen is all white all the time. That's called the \"backlight\".\n\n(Side note: \"LED\" without the O refers to using a LED backlight on an LCD display, unlike previous displays that used a fluorescent light bulb for the same thing - more energy efficient. Fancy LED-lit LCDs can actually dim certain areas of the backlight so it's not \"all white all the time\", mostly to save even more energy.)\n\nOLED = instead of blocking the light, a panel of millions of tiny lights makes up the image directly. That's why they're so crisp and clear. But because they're individual lights, lights left on all the time will become dimmer over time, leaving a \"burn-in\".\n\n(Side note: you ever seen an electronic billboard on the road? Those are LED, using millions of full size LEDs (like those indicator lights on your TV and modem) to make a picture, but since you're viewing it so far away, it looks like a single big image. It's fun to get close to one some day! OLED is just a really, really tiny version of the same idea.)\n\nRetina = just a display (of any type) that has individual dots so small that your eye (retina) can't tell the difference between them.",
"Retina != a display. It's marketing. Anyway. \n\nLCD == Liquid Crystal Display. A large lightsource, in the back of the display (a backlight) or around the edges provides white, multicolored light. Each pixel, or rather color sub pixel, is controlled by a pair of polarizers. Think of polarization as a direction, it goes through a polarizer, it has a polarized direction, call it up or left (it's actually quantum blah blah blah not important right now). \nNow that it's gone through one polarizer, it's chance of going through the second depends on the \"direction\" of the second polarizer. If the second polarizer's direction is parallel to the photon's (they're both \"up) the photon goes through. If it's perpendicular (the photon is up and the polarizer is left) the photon doesn't. If the direction is \"somewhere in between\" the photon has a chance of going through, dependent on how close its direction is to the polarizer's. If the polarizer's direction is halfway in between, it let's half of the \"up\" photons through and blocks the other half.\n\nA liquid crystal display has controllable polarizers. Each little pixel has 3, one for red, green, and blue, that change to let in however much red, green, or blue light you want going through to the users eyes. All this complexity means you get lightleak, or photons bouncing around and through pixels you don't want and blah blah blah. But it works.\n\nOLED, or AMOLED (Same thing really, for this purpose) uses something far simpler. Run a current through an organize compound (the O stands for organic) and it emits a specific color of light, easy. The brighter you want it the more current you run through it. You can turn it off completely by not running any, no lightleak. Just same as above, you run three colors (red, green, and blue) per pixel (dependent) and combine to get whatever color you want.",
"LCD is the layer on the front that makes the colours basically, and it has a light behind it that shines through so you can see it. It's called a backlight and is the reason why when you go outdoors you have to turn the brightness up. It has to comepte with the light coming from the sun in front of it and be brighter. LED means an LCD display that used LEDs (the lights) to backlight it instead of cathode tubes which are liek flourescent lights like someone else already said. LEDs can be indivdually switched on or off or dimmmed to make differrent parts of the screen darker than other whereas cathode tubes usually only have the one and the screen has to be entirely dimmed or switched off. \n\nAMOLED displays combat this by having the one layer that providdes both colour and it's own light. Each pixel can be dimmed or brighteneed individually giving you the ultimate contrast and abaility to turn off indivudual pixels to go completely black while having neighbouring pixels at max brightness. Also now that you dont have a backlight layer that has to have the light spread evenly means you can bend the display without having backlight issues so that's why basically all curved or edge to edge or even displays with cutouts are usually AMOLED. \n\nRetina Display is just a marketing term for apple devices with a higher than a certain amount DPI, so a certain pixel density that's so high they say you can't distinguish individual pixels with the naked eye.",
"So which one has the best display? ",
"AMOLED is a Samsung trademark in some regions. Retina Display is an Apple marketing term. We’ll come back to these.\n\nLCD is a type of light filter. In an LCD display, there is a white backlight and a sheet of thousands or millions of tiny filters for Red, Green, and Blue. Each little filter is a subpixel and a group of them (typically a full RGB set) makes up a pixel, the smallest addressable picture element of a display. By adjusting the amount of light let through for Red, Green, and Blue in a coordinated way, specific colors are produced.\n\nAn LED is a Light Emitting Diode. They can be white or colored. LEDs can now be made extremely small in continuous sheets. Some LCD displays use a sheet of white LEDs as a backlight, so that they don’t have to rely on the RGB LCD filters to filter out all the light, to achieve darker darks. (Earlier tech for LCD backlighting was usually one or more fluorescent tubes with material to evenly spread out the light)\n\nIf you make a sheet of colored LEDs, you can make a display without a backlight. An Samsung-branded AMOLED display is just that. AMOLED is an Active Matrix Organic LED. Every phone or computer “OLED” display is Active Matrix, so Samsung having “AMOLED” as a trademark is kinda garbage (and too generic in some regions, thus “Super AMOLED” etc).\n\nRetina Display is a marketing term Apple came up with when they started shipping displays with enough pixels that they couldn’t be distinguished by eye at normal viewing distances, approximately 60 pixels per degree. Previously, it was common for displays to have so few pixels that if you tried, you could easily see each little square making up an image. Still fairly common for computer displays, but phones are now generally well over that threshold.\n\nIf you want to talk about a display, the basic type would be LCD or OLED.\n\nSaying Samsung displays are different because they are AMOLED is wrong, all OLEDs these days are Active Matrix.\n\nSaying only Apple displays are Retina is mostly wrong, because nearly all phone displays these days are greater than 60 pixels-per-degree in normal usage (although it is trivially true that non-Apple displays don’t use the Apple trademarked term).",
"Okay, so while you're not explicitly saying it, I assume you're referring to display technologies. Lets run through your list with a little bit of background.\n\n* LED: LEDs are **L**ight **E**mitting **D**iodes. They're a technology that was invented in the 1950ies and 1960ies. Essentially every red, green or yellow indicator light on electronics from that period onward, and essentially every indicator light on electronics from the 1990ies onward (when LEDs with other colors became available) are LEDs. \nLEDs are derivatives of a simple semiconductor device called a diode, that is in essence a one-way valve for electrons. You can imagine it a bit like a waterfall, where water from a high place can flow down to a low place, but not the other way around. In LEDs, the energy that is normally lost as heat in that process gets converted into photons and emitted. The \"one-way valve\" thing isn't actually important in any way for the application of LEDs, it just happens to be used as energy source. \nIn displays, LEDs are usually (with the exception of AMOLED, see below) used as back light for an LCD display. So lets look at that for a moment\n\n* LCD stands for **L**iquid **C**rystal **D**isplay. What it does is act like a switch for light. If you ever held two polarizing sunglasses in front of each other, you've seen the polarization effect. Light can be filtered such that it moves just in one plane (that's a bit simplified, but will do for this explanation) - normally light is a mix of all orientations - by something called a polarization filter, and if you put a second one beind it with the wrong orientation, it will block out the light from the first because it's the wrong orientation. A bit like two mail slots you try to push a sheet of paper through. That only works if the mail slots are oriented in the same direction, or the paper direction imposed by the first mail slot won't get through the second. \nNow there's also ways to rotate that orientation (that's where the mail slot analogy stops working), and that's what's used in LCD displays. You have two sheets of polarization filter that are oriented such that they normally block the light, and something between that can rotate the light such that it will get through the second after all. What makes this useful is the ability for this substance in-between, that's the eponymous liquid crystals, be switchable by electricity, that is the property \"rotates the light polarization plane\" can be switched on and off by putting a electric voltage to these liquid crystals or not. You can probably see how this is useful: Each of these units is an electrically switchable light valve that will let light through or not. And, what makes this even more useful is that these valves can be built really tiny, tiny enough to be used as pixel on a screen. So what you do is you have a grid of many many many of these light valves, each one switchable by an electric voltage, and then some control circuitry that translates the video signal from the computer into the individual signals for each of these valves. \nSo far so good, but there's two more puzzle pieces needed here. One is where does the light you're turning on and off come from. Of course you could just make the back of your LCD screen transparent and use the natural light around you, or put a small mirror behind it and use the light from the front by passing it through twice. That is being done in really small LCD displays, the ones that need you to shine a light on them so you can see something. But for a computer monitor that is supposed to show a high-quality uniform picture, that's not good enough. So you put a back light behind it, a uniform white light source. The older technology is [cold cathode fluorescent tubes](_URL_1_), which works like the green letters on old calculators, just larger and instead of a green phosphor they used a white one. Or, you use LEDs, which is where we're back at the last section. For the operation of the LCD, it doesn't really matter where the light it turns on and off comes from though \nThe second puzzle piece is color. You want a color monitor, after all. But that's solved easily. You just shine white light through, and then put a grid of alternating red, green and blue color filters in front of the pixels. The electronics converting the video signal for your monitor just need to know which pixel has which filter, and you're set.\n\n* Retina Display: That's just Apple marketing speech for an LCD display with small pixels. The number of pixels per area on a monitor is called the resolution. Traditional monitors used 72 or 96 dpi (**d**ots **p**er **i**nch), which means on a 1 inch by 1 inch grid, you get 72x72 or 96x96 pixels. That's okay...ish. But the human eye is still able to see the individual pixels if you look closely. For a long time, that was the end of the line in display technology. But, in recent years, it became possible to up the pixel density. For reference, book printing often uses 300 dpi, and many modern computer printers can do even 600 or 1200 dpi or more. It's generally accepted that somewhere between 300 and 600 dpi, it becomes impossible to see the individual pixels at a normal viewing distance. And retina displays are trying to reach that point with their pixel density. Other than that they're just ordinary LCD panels.\n\nOkay, amost there, one more thing to talk about:\n\n* AMOLED: AMOLEDs are **A**ctive **M**atrix **O**rganic **L**ight **E**mitting **D**iode (displays), sometimes just called [OLED](_URL_0_) displays. At some point above, you might have asked yourself \"Why the complicated stuff with the back light and the light valves, why not just use a bunch of LEDs and put them in a grid and turn them on and off? Wouldn't that be easier?\" And of course you're right there. And that *is* being done and works well, for large screens like stadium displays and outdoor ad displays. But, the catch is, you can't make an LED made out of traditional inorganic semiconductors (i.e. the usual semiconductors we know which are made from metals like silicon, or germanium and some others) small enough to be usable as pixel in a conventional computer screen. \nBut over the last 20 or so years, a new technology appeared on the scene: Organic semiconductors. *Organic* in this context refers to the definition of organic used in chemistry, that is molecules with a carbon back bone. Carbon is an interesting molecule, that has a *huge* range of properties it can be made to exhibit. I could ramble on about how that is, and I happily will if you want, but for now lets just leave it at carbon is extremely versatile. And, as it happens, it was found carbon compounds can also be used to do what traditional inorganic LEDs do, that is turn electric energy into light of a specific color. These devices are called Organic LEDs. And, crucially, it is possible to make these devices *much* smaller while they're still bright enough to be useful. So that's where displays come in, since we can now make (organic) LEDs small enough for the usual pixel size in computer displays, companies started doing that. OLEDs don't work exactly like traditional LEDs, but their functional principle is close enough that the name *LED* has stuck around. \nSo far the technology is still young, and still has its problems. One is that we can't make large displays well and cheaply yet, the production technology just isn't good enough yet to make large cost-effective displays (but you can bet there's people working on that as we speak). But the size of cell phone displays is already doable at a competitive price today. Which is why you can buy cell phones with AMOLED displays. And the other snag is that so far, these organic molecules aren't quite as stable as inorganic semiconductors. Which translates to pixels in AMOLED displays malfunctioning earlier, AMOLED displays becoming less bright over time and so on. Again, something that is being worked on, as AMOLED is seen a break-through technology in the industry.\n\nAlright, that's it. If you got any follow-up questions let me know.",
"LED: Light Emitting Diode. These are typically used for backlighting in modern non-OLED displays. They're capable of emitting a very pure, white light, they're very power efficient, and they turn on instantly, unlike older cold cathode backlighting. \n\nAMOLED: Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode. This is a screen which is comprised of what are essentially many tiny green, red, and blue LEDs. Because these light up on their own, no backlight is required - and they can be turned off completely, giving them the deep blacks they're renowned for.\n\nLCD: Liquid Crystal Display, which is a more conventional type of screen technology. Liquid crystals get manipulated by electricity to change their color. They do not emit light by themselves, necessitating a backlight. Because of this, you cannot get perfect blacks with them. \n\nRetina's basically just a marketing term Apple uses for a certain amount of PPI (Pixels per Inch) on a panel/monitor. In most of their products, Apple uses IPS displays, which are a type of LCD panels. IPS panels are unmatched in terms of color reproduction, but since they require a backlight, you cannot get perfect blacks with them. \n\nIPS and (AM)OLED panels both have their advantages and disadvantages. As I previously mentioned, IPS panels have more accurate color reproduction, while OLED panels have deep blacks and more vibrant colors. However, unlike IPS panels, OLED panels are also more susceptible to burn-in and mura (uneven colors). OLED panels also tend to use a Pentile grid, which uses twice as many green subpixels as red and blue ones. This effectively lowers your resolution by one-third, and many people argue that you don't truly get the advertised resolution on, say, a 1440p Pentile AMOLED panel. [Here's a traditional RGB grid next to an AMOLED grid. RGB looks much better.](_URL_0_) Thankfully, resolutions on phone screens are so high nowadays that this is practically a non-issue. \n\nI might've gotten some of this wrong, but it should be mostly correct!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_rgb.asp",
"https://imgur.com/a/nbl54",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density",
"https://imgur.com/a/S2KOv",
"https://imgur.com/a/uvy8v"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Cold-cathode_fluorescent_lamps"
],
[
"http://us.v-cdn.net/6030075/uploads/userimages/gs4-vs-one-macro.jpg"
]
] |
||
3emyvl | what is the difference between economic espionage and corporate espionage? | This is the article I found that confused me.
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3emyvl/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_economic/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctggocn",
"ctggv9g"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In most contexts they mean the same thing. Specifically referring to China they may be avoiding the term corporate espionage because in a lot of instances the government of China is the one doing the spying and then handing the information they gather over to state-run business to make use of.",
"What Aragorn said. It's also more of a catch-all term because corporate espionage often refers to stealing secrets that can only be gleaned from the inside, while you can also steal intellectual property that isn't \"secret\" but it's still protected by copyright laws (which are very often ignored in China). \n\n[Here's a good example of what I mean](_URL_0_). The people they're talking about are using publicly-available information, but only because it's so easy to get away with IP infringement in China."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/25/fbi-china-most-predominant-economic-espionage-threat-to-us/"
] | [
[],
[
"http://www.cracked.com/blog/we-found-pirates-at-consumer-electronics-show/"
]
] |
|
6nsqhf | why is lifting weights with long arms heavier than with short arms? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nsqhf/eli5_why_is_lifting_weights_with_long_arms/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkbxh2r",
"dkcqv6j"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It deoends on how you're lifting the weights, but usually the shoulder or the elbow will act as a pivot when lifting dumbbells.\n\nThis is because when a force is applied along a rod (arm/forearm) that is fixed to a pivot (shoulder/elbow), the horizontal distance between the pivot and where the force is applied acts as a sort of multiplier, which is strongest when the arm is horizontal (as horizontal distance is greatest).\n\nLong arms have a bigger distance between the hand and elbow, so the weight is acting further from the pivot and requires more energy from the person to hold it in place and lift it in an arc motion. Shorter arms require less energy to lift the weight.\n\nThink of a see-saw. You tip the see-saw the most when you're at the very end of it, furthest from the pivot. Making you seem heavier. \nIf you're sat at the end, and someone 2x your weight sits halfway along on the other side, the see-saw is balanced.\n\nDoors work in a similar way. Door handles are always at the outer edge of the door (farthest from hinge/pivot) because when you push on the outside, your push is being amplified by the distance from the hinge, so it's easier to open. (Seems to be the opposite to the arm example but it isn't. Your push on the door is the same as the dumbbell's push on the arm. The longer the arm, the more the push is amplified).",
"Doing deadlifts with long arms is actually lighter. There is less distance for the weight to travel from the floor so in turn it is easier."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2enbqh | why is it bad to defrost/heat up meat twice? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2enbqh/eli5_why_is_it_bad_to_defrostheat_up_meat_twice/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck138lu",
"ck1h813"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Commercially frozen meat is often flash frozen, this means that the ice crystals formed are small and don't damage the meat cells very much. If you freeze meat at home it's a much slower process, Large ice crystals form an like little spears puncture the cell walls of the meat. This means that when it defrosts the second time you loose a lot of the liquid contents of the cells and are left with spongy protein matrix that formed the cell walls. You loose all taste and moisture when that happens.",
"Time to shine! Yes the quality of meat deteriorates the longer it is in your freezer at home because of the freezer's process, but the main reason is spoilage. \n\nWhen you freeze Bacteria they slow down. They still reproduce, but at a much slower rate. So whilst in the freezer the bacteria is waiting for the opportunity to strike! When you take the meat out to defrost, the bacteria slowly wakes up and starts multiplying. At this point you would either cook the meat, and kill the bacteria, or store it in the fridge for later use. Lets assume you store it and then decide you no longer want your tasty meat, so you freeze it again. So at this point you are now freezing a piece of meat that has a HUGE amount more bacteria on it. Those bacteria go back into slow mode whilst the meat is frozen. When you take it out to defrost it a second time, the bacteria wakes up and starts multiplying again. This second defrost will take the bacteria level to dangerous areas, most probably spoil the meat, and make you very very ill. \n\nBasically if you defrost something, you have to heat treat it to remove bacteria, then you can freeze it again. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1r2o1k | water damage is horrible for houses. so what about when constructing a house, and it's completely exposed for weeks, and it rains? | I life in San Francisco and a new house is going up on my block. It's been raining the last few days and I see these guys just going about their business putting up walls and such. The house is just wood framing and a foundation at this point. Isn't this horrible for houses? It must happen all the time. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r2o1k/eli5_water_damage_is_horrible_for_houses_so_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdiz2gx",
"cdj0ppm",
"cdj1slw",
"cdj49dc",
"cdj8m0k"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Water damage is bad because the house traps moisture in, allowing mold to grow and wood to rot.\n\nWhen a house is incomplete and exposed to air, it is able to dry completely.",
"A little bit of rain isn't a problem. However, during a storm or if it's expected to rain for a few days, a lot of the better contractors would use an inexpensive large tarp or a plastic sheet of some kind to cover construction sites.\n\nConstruction is seasonal as well, so it often happens during specific times of the year as well to reduce the construction site from general rain patterns. Usually before it gets to the \"rainy season\", houses have the outside complete, and the contractors can finish the work on the inside in relative shelter, then the rain and snow don't matter nearly as much as it would have if it wasn't completed in the summer.",
"Wood framing and subfloors will dry out when they get wet. Normally they have the roof on by the time stuff that will get wrecked if it gets wet, like drywall or carpet, is put in. ",
"As far as the OSB panels, we coat the flakes in resins and wax to keep it together, keep it from swelling, and keep the water out of the flakes. Some higher end roof and wall panels aren't affected in the least bit by rain once they are installed (and they save on energy costs, as well). The flooring panels are meant to withstand up to a couple months of being exposed without causing any issues. Can't really answer for the studs, I don't really know the details on that.\n\nSource: I work in quality assurance for an OSB manufacturer.",
"In addition, the construction is done in phases. It will be framed with wood that is water resistant first. This is usually regular old pine dimensional limber plus any structural beams, and will be cladded in OSB, which is resin-impregnated and can be exposed to the elements for a week or two without harm. (It sounds like this is the phase that the house down the street from OP is in.) \n\nThen, usually in a single day, the house is cladded in materials like housewrap and tar paper, and windows and doors are installed. This is the \"drying in\" phase, and the wood inside the house is supposed to fall beneath a particular moisture content before construction continues. \n\nWhile the house is drying in, \"rough in\" of the home mechanicals (plumbing, electrical, heating and a/c ducts, etc) will happen, and roofing and siding will generally go up. After the house is dry enough inside, then insulation, a vapor barrier if necessary, and drywall will go up. \n\nFun fact: the brick, cement board, or wood siding on your house is a rain screen or veneer, which means it's not actually the part that keeps water out of your house. Same with the shingles on your roof. It's actually the layer underneath, housewrap or roofing felt, that keeps water from outside out of the frame of your house. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c4u0wg | physical mimicry in nature | How did it even come to exist? Do the animals just so happen to develop traits over time, that just so happen to share traits of its surroundings? Or do they actively start developing traits with the purpose of looking like its surroundings?
Also, how do these animals learn to mimic behaviour of certain things, like mantis and stick insects pretend to sway in the wind and drop to the floor with their legs folded respectively.
Examples are the Leaf toads, that look like leaves. Hoverflies who copy the appearance of a bee, and the already mentioned mantids, who look, and act like leaves. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c4u0wg/eli5_physical_mimicry_in_nature/ | {
"a_id": [
"eryfvzq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Evolution occurs by natural selection.\n\nWhat this means is that, in every generation, some individuals will reproduce and some will not. In this case the key point is whether or not each individual was caught by a predator before it had a chance to do the deed.\n\nTherefore it follows that a creature which, by pure random mutation, has a trait which reduces its risk of being caught by a predator, is more likely to reproduce and pass that trait on to the next generation.\n\nLet's take the frogs- one frogs in one generation was born with a mutation which made them, in some small way, blend in with nearby leaves. That frog didn't get eaten so that slight 'leafiness' gets passed on.\n\nThe survival advantage persists so the frogs with that trait expand and multiply, and eventually the whole species looks a bit leafy.\n\nThen a frog in a new generation has a mutation which makes it, by chance, look even more leafy. That frog has even more of an advantage against predators, so again the trait spreads through the population.\n\nFollowing this path you can see that, over millions of years and millions of repetitions of this cycle I've described, the stacking of these leafy mutation would eventually lead to this frog species looking near indistinguishable from the leaf."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6mycyt | how do you distinguish when to use one hyphen and when to use two? (- vs --) | I understand you use one to connect two words like "self-destructed" or "ex boyfriend", but what about in a sentence? Are there different ways to use hyphens in a sentence, or is it a common misconception on how to properly use them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mycyt/eli5_how_do_you_distinguish_when_to_use_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk5bac5",
"dk5brks",
"dk5n7rw"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The \"two hyphens\" you're referring to is called an em dash, which is actually the length of three hyphens. It's used to structure or interject a sentence in a similar way a comma or parenthesis would. For example: \"The two sisters—although strange—mean well.\" You can also use it as a colon in some instances, for example: \"The investigators finally came to a conclusion—it was murder.\" It's usually used for emphasis or to set the tone/mood in a sentence or part of the text.",
"There's actually no such thing as \"using two hyphens\" -- despite the fact that I just did it!\n\nUsing two hyphens is a hack to approximate a dash, since most computer keyboards don't have a key for dashes. \n\nA hyphen is used to join words (\"a dog-friendly cafe\") or sometimes numbers, as in a phone number (\"555-1212\"), and they are also used in typeset text to break multi-syllabic words when a fixed-width line needs to be wrapped (which I can't demonstrate on a variable width Reddit page). \n\nThere are two forms of dashes: an en-dash ( & ndash; ) and an em-dash ( & mdash; ). An en-dash is slightly longer than a hyphen and an em-dash is the longest of the three. They're named that because traditionally an en-dash was the width of a capital N and the em-dash the width of a capital M. \n\nIn typography, each has different uses. For example, an en-dash would be used when representing a range of pages, such as \"pages 33 & ndash;41.\" \n\nThe em-dash is most frequently used in places where a parentheses or color would be used. \n\nFor example, take the first sentence I wrote in this post: \n\n > There's actually no such thing as \"using two hyphens\" -- despite the fact that I just did it!\n\nTypographically speaking, the correct way to do that would be to use an em-dash without any spaces around it: \n\n > There's actually no such thing as \"using two hyphens\" & mdash;despite the fact that I just did it!\n\nBut since there's no character on the keyboard for that, I had to plug in an HTML entity code to make the em-dash appear. That's a hassle, so when writing in a text editor or input box on a webpage, people use two hyphens (--) instead. ",
"Adding on to what /u/DoctorOddfellow says:\n\nhyphen - \nfigure dash ‒ \nen dash – \nem dash —\n\n* Figure dash is used within numbers, e.g. 867-5309\n* Either em or en can be used for a parenthetical statement\n* • em dashes generally used without spaces\n* • en dashes generally used with spaces.\n* en dashes can be used to denote ranges: \"the years 1754–1763\n* en dashes can be used to denote relationships: \"Boston–Hartford route\"\n* \"em dashes can be used to set off a quote source\"—Abraham Lincoln\n* em dashes can denote a break of thought \"I think—no, I know I can\"\n* em dashes can denote missing letters: \"Should I marry W—?\"\n* Horizontal bar is used to introduce quoted text.\n* Swung dash ⁓ (looks like a tilde ~) is used to separate alternatives or approximates. Some dictionaries use it like a macro to represent the word being defined.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1p38w3 | how does someone determine if a company is a shell company or not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p38w3/how_does_someone_determine_if_a_company_is_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccye9xt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If the company has no registered assets and doesn't do any business, its a shell."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
w828r | the rules of rugby | So, I now live in a country that likes rugby. I looked at the wikipedia article but it makes no sense. Can you explain the rules please? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/w828r/eli5_the_rules_of_rugby/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5b2zwf",
"c5b30ko",
"c5b3aow",
"c5b3jx1",
"c5b3m47",
"c5b45zj",
"c5b4iza",
"c5bbk2l"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
59,
14,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are 3 main rules of Rugby you need to know:\n\n1 the ball must go backwards unless kicked from the feet. Any time the ball goes forward it is a scrum (where 8 of each team must try to win the ball by pushing the other team over it when the ball is placed in the middle, with an advantage for the team who were awarded the scrum)\n\n2 A player cannot be between the ball and their oppositions try line \n(the end line before the edge of the pitch, where the goal posts are) and interfere with the play (if they are then the player is offside)\n\n3 A Try (basically a team player placing the ball down over the try line) is worth 5 points. If the team can then kick the ball between the goal posts from where the try was scored (but they can go directly backwards) then there are an extra two points. If the ball is kicked from the ground (either from a penalty for infractions, or the player drops the ball to the ground before kicking it (see Johnny Wilkinsons drop goal in the 2003 world cup at the end) then it is 3 points.\n\nSource: 5 years of playing amature rugby and following international rugby",
"Do you know if they play Rugby League or Rugby Union? The rules are slightly different. Rugby League is 13 players a side Rugby Union is 15 players per side. Rugby sevens is another popular one.",
"I'll do what I can for you here, but there are some intricacies that will probably be missed:\n\nIn general, you can't throw the ball in front of you, only directly to your side or a little bit backwards. This is to make you carry the ball across the field, or even to kick it. This is why you see the team with the ball creating a diagonal on the field: by the time the ball gets to them, they should be running full speed and hopefully run right through the defense. \nPoints are scored for \"tries\" which are like American Football touchdowns, only they actually have to touch the ball down in the try area. These are worth 5 points. If you run into the try area and drop the ball, then it doesn't count as a try! You can also score bonus points after scoring a try (similar to an extra point in American Football) and here, you have to kick the ball through the uprights from the same spot on the try line where you crossed. I know that sounds tricky: say you score a try right in the middle of the uprights. Great! Now, you can bring the ball back out as far as you want and you have an easy kick that is worth 2 extra points. You'll probably get this since you're in such good position. If you score a try way over on the side, you can bring the ball out far, but you have a crummy angle and you're far away from the uprights so it'll be very hard for you to get those extra points. This is why you will sometimes see players even after they've crossed the try line, keep running to the middle before touching the ball down; to give the kicker better position. You can also score during normal play by kicking through the uprights (worth 3 points) and this only counts if the ball touches the ground before you kick it. So, you can drop the ball and when it bounces, kick it through the uprights OR if someone does something bad to you and you get a free kick, you can also try and kick it through the uprights.\n\nThe scrum is like a big shoving match where your friend puts the ball in play and you have an advantage, because he's your friend so you kind of know when to expect the ball. Even though the rules are that your friend has to put the ball into the scrum perfectly straight so that both teams have a fair chance, you have a bit of an advantage because he's your friend. When the ball is in the scrum, there is a big pushing match to try and get over top of the ball. At the same time, everyone in the scrum tries to keep the ball in between their legs so that no one else can touch it. If the ball comes out, then the big pushing match isn't really helping the team any more so it stops. If the people in the scrum are really good, they can push the other team back AND keep the ball in between their legs and the other team won't really be able to stop them. The guys that you see on the outside of the scrum are called the scrum halfs (this isn't super important but it's a pretty easy position to identify). These two guys (on opposite teams) have the job of putting the ball into the scrum and taking it out and giving it to their team. So when the ball really close to the outside of the scrum on their team's side, or when the guys in the scrum kind of kick it back out to them, they pick it up and decide what to do with it.\n\nNow, the person with the ball will run forward, run backward, kick the ball down field, pass it off, whatever, so long as they have the end goal of scoring on the other end of the field. If they get tackled with the ball, you have a \"breakdown\". What happens now is that each team tries to push over top of the breakdown and keep the ball on their side. Like a scrum, you want the ball to be behind your team and someone (usually the scrum half again) will come by and pick it up. In a breakdown, you are not allowed to run around the side and pick up the ball. If there are two opposing players there standing over the tackled person on the ground, you have to push them back over the ball so that it is on your team's side before your team can play it. This is why MOST of the time the team that gets tackled keeps the ball after being tackled: the person on the ground can move the ball closer to their team's side and they had friends close by to push over top right away.\n\nLineouts are like the rugby version of throw-ins. Instead of choosing where to throw the ball though, it has to be perfectly straight in from where the ball went out. This is to give each team a fair chance to get the ball, but like the scrum, you have an advantage when your friend is throwing in the ball because you know what to expect. Sometimes you'll see on or two people being lifted up high to try and catch the ball. this can be a huge advantage! If you're lifted up high and the other team is just standing on the ground, it will be much easier for you to grab the ball out of the air and hold on to it. When you have the ball (even in the air) you can throw it away to your teammate or you can be lowered back down and your team can try to push together like a tiny scrum, or move the ball out wide to the players farther away from you; you have options.\n\nJust for fun, I'll run through what it might look like in a game (I think I've covered most of the general things that happen):\n\nSo we have two teams, Red and Blue playing a game of rugby. The Red team is kicking the ball first. So one of the players on the Red team (usually a good kicker) starts off by dropping the ball on the ground and kicks it far into Blue's end. A blue player tries to catch the ball, but he makes a mistake and accidentally hits it forward. Since it's against the rules to throw the ball forward, even accidentally, the referee calls for a scrum. The Red team has the ball here, and the scrum half puts the ball into the middle of the scrum. Right away, both teams start pushing against each other, but Red is a little bit quicker because they had a better idea of when the ball was coming in. The Red team is able to keep the ball in between their feet and push Blue back a little bit. While the ball is still in the scrum, no one outside is moving, just waiting for the ball to come out, and then suddenly Reds scrum half picks up the ball and throws it to his friend beside him. Unfortunately, this red player gets tackled. But, he is quick and turns his body over on the ground to give the ball over to his team much easier. Because they are still so close to the scrum, there are lots of players to help push over their tackled friend and the the ball, and Red is able to keep the ball without blue picking it up. The scrum half again picks up the ball and this time throws it REALLY far, all the way to the furthest guy, who catches it and runs into the try area, touches it down, and scores a try! YEA RED! Red's kicker now takes the ball back out onto the field directly from where the try was scored until he thinks he can make the kick based on the angle to the uprights in the middle of the field. Red's kicker lets the ball bounce before kicking and comes close, but it was a very difficult position to score from. Now Red is up 5-0 to Blue and play will continue with Red kicking to Blue just like before.\n\n\nHope that last bit helps tie everything together. Cheers",
"[This](_URL_0_) video makes it pretty clear if you dont want to read a wall of text!",
"This is a very helpful video [NSFW]\n_URL_0_",
"_URL_0_\n\nIntro from Rugby 2006, the video game, extremely helpful, and there's a fancy accent!",
"Watch a whole shit load of rugby. Honestly, it's the best way to get to know the game. Watch highlights on youtube, watch full games on youtube, watch matches with your friends who know the sport. Everything you've read up on rugby, here or elsewhere, will mean a lot more when you sit down and watch.\n\n_URL_2_ - 6 Nations - Biggest international competition in the northern hemisphere. Played between England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and Italy.\n\n_URL_1_ - Heineken Cup - Domestic Championship in the NH\n\n_URL_0_ - Tri Nations - Biggest international competition in the southern hemisphere. Played between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, soon to be the Rugby Championship thoguh when Argentina join this year.\n\n_URL_3_ - Rugby World Cup. Played by the top 20 teams in the world. New Zealand won it last year.\n\nAlso, come say hi in [/r/rugbyunion](_URL_4_)",
"Most importantly, rugby has laws instead of rules. Just like in real life, if no one sees you breaking the law, then it never happened. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgV8Go9t3o"
],
[
"http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xldymd_lynx-rules-to-rugby-nz_lifestyle"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQyCcageGg"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRigOe2IHFM",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjREZBUUaTw",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tjbpA5T7F0",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sSc5ZPK7P8",
"http://reddit.com/r/rugbyunion"
],
[]
] |
|
40t4wk | how do dictionaries determine the earliest known use of a word? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40t4wk/eli5_how_do_dictionaries_determine_the_earliest/ | {
"a_id": [
"cywuhym",
"cywuj2z",
"cywujyf"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the first \"known\" use, so they take the first use that they are aware of and put it in. There's no guarantee it's the actual earliest use of the word. If an earlier use of the word shows up, then they will update the entry in the next edition. Most of the first known uses come from old documents.",
"There is a field called etymology which studies the evolution of language. Those in the field sift through old documents and writing, examining how language was used in the past while also allowing them to date the first recorded use of new words. ",
"In the past (and to a large part today), it's by careful scholarship: lexicographers and others pore over hundreds of old books, newspapers, diaries, letters, etc and record the earliest use of a word. It does take some sense of history, of course. If some word is just casually dropped in the middle of a letter or diary, then we can be reasonably sure the word was already in common use by that time.\n\nThese days, more and more old writing is being digitized and OCR'ed, so the search process is much easier. For example, the definitive origin of OK has now been tracked down to the satisfaction of lexicographers, and that was chiefly due to digital searching.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
73v7he | in cases of mass shootings with one perpetrator, why do witnesses often report seeing multiple attackers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73v7he/eli5_in_cases_of_mass_shootings_with_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"dntd1ue",
"dntdfg9"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"Gunshots are very loud. That means that they echo in situations where other sounds wouldn't have audible echos. They hear shots from several directions, and tell that to the police, who decide to play it safe and act as though there are multiple attackers.",
"It is not easy to identify who is on what side. People run around, sometimes in the wrong directions. Echos can make it sound like there are gunfire coming from multiple directions. It is hard to get an accurate description of the people you run away from, even if they are not shooting at you. So you often do get reports that indicates multiple attackers in addition to the reports saying a single attacker. The safe bet is to assume there are attackers that you do not know about. This way you do not get another mass shooting just as police say everyone is free to return from their hiding spots."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
24de1d | if families like rockefeller and rothschild have are famous for being rich and powerful, how come none of their members appear on rich lists online? | I was just curious to find out how much they are worth, but am struggling to find that information | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24de1d/eli5_if_families_like_rockefeller_and_rothschild/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch608bb",
"ch60aa0",
"ch60bhl",
"ch6125i"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I think there are a couple reasons. First, old families get very adept at hiding their assets. Second, over time the wealth becomes very diffused so not one person holds that much money (i.e. the Vanderbilts). Sort of the opposite of the primogenitor laws of England where all the money stayed concentrated with one person.\n\nThere are some families like the Kennedys that keep all of their wealth in a family trust that they all draw on, but not so many are like that.",
"It's a question of a) how old the families are and b) how many times that wealth has been split.\n\nThe Rockefeller Dynasty is over 150 years old now and has over 200 living descendants. Make no mistake, they aren't exactly hurting for cash (their number includes a former U.S. Vice President, a U.S. Senator, and the head of Chase Manhattan), but if you take any large fortune and break it up that many times, you aren't going to crack the Top 10 anymore.\n\nForbes [did a breakdown] (_URL_0_) of this question, which might provide you with more specific information.",
" > Matthew Yglesias: Right now, people have the impression in the United States, that wealthy people are mostly like Bill Gates — founders of enterprises rather than inheritors.\n\n > Thomas Piketty: Well, when you take the top 50 or top 100 list, you have a lot of inheritors as well. The Walton family, the Koch brothers, etc.\n\n > The quick answer is that we don't really know because the wealth rankings of magazines are very much biased in favor of entrepreneurs. First, they are biased in an ideological sense. They have been created in order to celebrate the entrepreneur, although Steve Forbes himself is a grandson of the founder of Forbes. But in addition, **the methodology is biased simply because it's much easier to spot large entrepreneurial wealth than large inherited wealth. Large inherited wealth typically takes the form of a more diversified portfolio, whereas large entrepreneurial wealth, when you have created a Microsoft or Facebook, it's difficult to hide.**\n\n > When people have a more diversified portfolio, it's harder to spot. **When I’ve tried to see how the journalists at Forbes or in other magazines in Europe get their numbers, basically they make phone calls, and they try their best.** They don't have any systematic registry from which to draw.\n\n > **I think they are missing the bigger part of top inherited wealth and top entrepreneurial wealth.**\n\n > Matthew Yglesias: In other words, we’re not going to be able to count Bill Gates' grandchildren’s money?\n\n > Thomas Piketty: It will be harder to spot, yes. Already today, you have the Walton family, you have the Koch brothers, you have a number of people with inherited wealth, but frankly we don't know from this data.\n\n > To me, one of the main purposes of the wealth tax is that it should produce more information on wealth. I think even a wealth tax with a minimal tax rate would be a way toward more financial transparency. A minimal registration tax on assets, a minimum wealth tax is a way that we can produce more information on wealth, and then we'll see what happens in terms of tax rate.\n\n > After all, maybe we'll discover that the Forbes rankings are just completely wrong, and that the top of the wealth distribution is not rising as fast as what we thought and that we don't need such a high tax rate on wealth. I wouldn't mind. Right now, the lack of financial transparency makes it very difficult to have a quiet political conversation and democratic debate about these things.\n\n > To me, this is the main worry because people may turn against globalization, or may turn against foreigners, or may decide that Germany is responsible for the problem, or China is responsible for the problem just because we don't manage to have a quiet conversation about a proper tax system. We ought to organize ourselves and do the best out of capitalism and the market economy which, at the end of the day, is a system that has a lot of merit. But we need to find a way that everyone can get to share in this process.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Their wealth is privately held. Maybe one or two of their companies trade on the market, but if your wealth is private, nobody knows what you have. The Mars (candy) family is another case; they have been a private company all this time and only have to disclose to the tax man."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/0228dynasties.html"
],
[
"http://www.vox.com/2014/4/24/5643780/who-is-thomas-piketty#interview"
],
[]
] |
|
j9j68 | the process of applying to and going to a four year college. | What steps does someone have to take in order to go to college?
How is it paid for?
Are the SAT's necessary? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j9j68/eli5_the_process_of_applying_to_and_going_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2a9ges",
"c2a9k1j",
"c2a9ges",
"c2a9k1j"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Those are some good questions! It's been a few years since I've had to complete the whole process, but I'll do my best.\n\nIn order to go to college, you need to do a few things. You need to either be on your way to graduating high school, have already graduated high school, or have a piece of paper called a GED that is very similar to having graduated high school. Colleges usually won't let you apply if you haven't done one of those, so that's step number one!\n\nStep number two is picking which college you actually want to go do. Most colleges have lots of information available about the types of things that they can teach you very well and what sort of awards they have, because they make money by you going there so they try really hard to advertise for you. Sometimes, colleges will even send you information before you start looking for them! When you are looking for a college, you'll want to look at a lot of things. What do you want to learn? Where do you want to live? How much will it cost? How long will it take? What sort of other things can you do at that college? Those are just a few questions, but there could be a lot more! Most colleges are willing to answer these questions for you, and if you already have friends going to a college that you're thinking about, they can help a lot too!\n\nStep number three is actually applying! Colleges will generally send you applications if you ask for them, and then you get to sit down and write a lot of information to send back to them. Usually there is a sort of fee associated with applying, since colleges like to make money and it costs money to pay people to look at your information and figure out if they want you to come to their college.\n\nOnce you've applied, you get to wait and wait and wait and wait and wait until you get a letter. The letter will either tell you that you've been accepted or not. Usually the acceptance letter will make them sound very excited - almost as excited as you - and the rejection letter will make them sound very sorry that \"we are not currently looking for applicants of your type\" or \"we only have a limited number of positions for students and they have all been filled.\" If you've been accepted, then you get to fill out some more paperwork, talk to an adviser and eventually you get to start classes!\n\nCollege can be paid a lot of different ways.\n\n* Some people have saved up a lot of money in the past (or have had money saved for them), and they will use that money to pay for college all on their own.\n\n* Some people will fill out a lot of applications to different organizations to get something called \"scholarships,\" which are where other people will pay some money for you to go to college. Scholarships usually tell you that you have to keep good grades to keep them, so be a very good student if you get scholarships!\n\n* Some people will talk to the government or the school and get grants, which is where those organizations pay some or all of your college money. These (and scholarships) are usually limited to a certain number of people, so if you want to do these options you should apply as early as possible and to as many as possible.\n\n* Some people will go ask a bank or another organization to let them borrow money to pay for college. These are student loans, and a lot of people take these out. Be careful if you take student loans, since they are very hard to get rid of and can get out of control very quickly. There are a lot of laws in place to make sure that people have to pay student loans no matter what, so it's usually good to try these as a last resort.\n\nWhether or not you'll need to take the SAT depends on the college. Lots of colleges really want you to take them, and some colleges won't let you apply without having taken them. On the other hand, some colleges will let you take another test called the ACT instead, and some colleges will *only* accept the ACT! I've heard of some colleges that don't require either test and allow you to take placement exams, but I can't say for certain. It's probably safest to take the SAT anyway.\n\nI hope this helps! Do you have any more questions that I can answer?",
"Okay, since I'm assuming you're old enough to be applying, I'm not going to go through the five-years-old charade.\n\nFirst, you identify the college you want to apply to. Look on their website and figure out how they want you to apply. Many schools will offer several methods:\n\n1. Early Decision -- this is a BINDING decision. You can only do this if you're applying to ONE school, and you are SURE you want it. You will send in your materials and receive a decision earlier than usual.\n\n2. Early Action -- this is a NON BINDING decision. Do this if you just want to do everything earlier. You might be \"waitlisted\" which I explain further down.\n\n3. Regular Decision -- non binding. You do this at a later date, usually sending in stuff sometime from January to April. \n\nSo once you have decided your level of commitment and interest, you need to find the actual application. It's probably under \"Admissions\" on the school's website. You should be able to do it almost completely on the internet. Two main ways exist to apply:\n\n1. The school will have an online application\n\n2. It will ask you to use the \"Common App\"\n\nThe Common App is basically an application that a lot (not all) of schools use. It's useful for students who apply to multiple schools and don't want to answer the same questions (name, address, parents' employment, etc) over and over again.\n\nEither way, you'll end up answering the same basic questions, in addition to some questions your school might choose to throw in there. You'll also probably be writing a small essay about a topic selected for you by either the Common App or your school. In many cases, there is a fee to apply, but not all schools have this, and sometimes you can call the financial aid office at the school and have this fee waived if you are not able to afford it (not likely, they're like 40 bucks at most).\n\nSome schools (Berea leaps to mind) make you interview as part of the application process. Some schools will have counselors come to areas where students might be, but most schools will make you come to them and interview there. A standard interviewer might ask you what your interests are, why you want to go to a particular school, what made that school stand out to you, why you think the school should accept you, and so forth.\n\nSo when you've completed your (sometimes optional) interview, sent in your application along with the application fee, and done any other things the school might want you to do as part of your application, you sit back and wait for the school to decide. Usually a school will do several things.\n\n1. They can accept you.\n\n2. They can reject you.\n\n3. They can waitlist you. This can happen if you did Early Action or, sometimes, Regular Decision too. You will get a decision at a later date.\n\nSo let's assume you get accepted. At some point in your application, you probably encountered a box to check that was like \"I wish to apply for merit or need-based financial aid.\" If you did this, the school might help pay for it.\n\nMerit based aid is awesome. This is scholarships and grants. If it comes from the school, it basically means that they just lop off your tuition by however much the award is worth. You get these for having good grades or being black, among other things. Some scholarships come from out of school, and you have to apply to them through whatever foundation sponsors them. They will usually give you the money and specify that it go towards tuition or something like that.\n\nNeed-based aid is aid given after you submir some tax forms that document your family's income. If you are poor, or do not make money, you might be given some extra grants. This is not based on academic performance, usually, and simply based on money. \n\nIf the school is expensive, you will likely need to apply for student loans. This is a popular way to pay for college. You might also be rich enough to pay for some of it out of pocket. Many people have a combination of all four factors paying for their education.\n\nAlso, the SATs are usually necessary, though for some schools they aren't (Lawrence University, Lewis and Clark, etc). They usually give you an option between the SATs and the ACTs, which is pretty might like the SAT except it has some different test sections and is on a different scale (SAT is out of 2400, ACT is out of 36).\n\nI just did this shit, so if you have any other questions I can probably help.\n\n",
"Those are some good questions! It's been a few years since I've had to complete the whole process, but I'll do my best.\n\nIn order to go to college, you need to do a few things. You need to either be on your way to graduating high school, have already graduated high school, or have a piece of paper called a GED that is very similar to having graduated high school. Colleges usually won't let you apply if you haven't done one of those, so that's step number one!\n\nStep number two is picking which college you actually want to go do. Most colleges have lots of information available about the types of things that they can teach you very well and what sort of awards they have, because they make money by you going there so they try really hard to advertise for you. Sometimes, colleges will even send you information before you start looking for them! When you are looking for a college, you'll want to look at a lot of things. What do you want to learn? Where do you want to live? How much will it cost? How long will it take? What sort of other things can you do at that college? Those are just a few questions, but there could be a lot more! Most colleges are willing to answer these questions for you, and if you already have friends going to a college that you're thinking about, they can help a lot too!\n\nStep number three is actually applying! Colleges will generally send you applications if you ask for them, and then you get to sit down and write a lot of information to send back to them. Usually there is a sort of fee associated with applying, since colleges like to make money and it costs money to pay people to look at your information and figure out if they want you to come to their college.\n\nOnce you've applied, you get to wait and wait and wait and wait and wait until you get a letter. The letter will either tell you that you've been accepted or not. Usually the acceptance letter will make them sound very excited - almost as excited as you - and the rejection letter will make them sound very sorry that \"we are not currently looking for applicants of your type\" or \"we only have a limited number of positions for students and they have all been filled.\" If you've been accepted, then you get to fill out some more paperwork, talk to an adviser and eventually you get to start classes!\n\nCollege can be paid a lot of different ways.\n\n* Some people have saved up a lot of money in the past (or have had money saved for them), and they will use that money to pay for college all on their own.\n\n* Some people will fill out a lot of applications to different organizations to get something called \"scholarships,\" which are where other people will pay some money for you to go to college. Scholarships usually tell you that you have to keep good grades to keep them, so be a very good student if you get scholarships!\n\n* Some people will talk to the government or the school and get grants, which is where those organizations pay some or all of your college money. These (and scholarships) are usually limited to a certain number of people, so if you want to do these options you should apply as early as possible and to as many as possible.\n\n* Some people will go ask a bank or another organization to let them borrow money to pay for college. These are student loans, and a lot of people take these out. Be careful if you take student loans, since they are very hard to get rid of and can get out of control very quickly. There are a lot of laws in place to make sure that people have to pay student loans no matter what, so it's usually good to try these as a last resort.\n\nWhether or not you'll need to take the SAT depends on the college. Lots of colleges really want you to take them, and some colleges won't let you apply without having taken them. On the other hand, some colleges will let you take another test called the ACT instead, and some colleges will *only* accept the ACT! I've heard of some colleges that don't require either test and allow you to take placement exams, but I can't say for certain. It's probably safest to take the SAT anyway.\n\nI hope this helps! Do you have any more questions that I can answer?",
"Okay, since I'm assuming you're old enough to be applying, I'm not going to go through the five-years-old charade.\n\nFirst, you identify the college you want to apply to. Look on their website and figure out how they want you to apply. Many schools will offer several methods:\n\n1. Early Decision -- this is a BINDING decision. You can only do this if you're applying to ONE school, and you are SURE you want it. You will send in your materials and receive a decision earlier than usual.\n\n2. Early Action -- this is a NON BINDING decision. Do this if you just want to do everything earlier. You might be \"waitlisted\" which I explain further down.\n\n3. Regular Decision -- non binding. You do this at a later date, usually sending in stuff sometime from January to April. \n\nSo once you have decided your level of commitment and interest, you need to find the actual application. It's probably under \"Admissions\" on the school's website. You should be able to do it almost completely on the internet. Two main ways exist to apply:\n\n1. The school will have an online application\n\n2. It will ask you to use the \"Common App\"\n\nThe Common App is basically an application that a lot (not all) of schools use. It's useful for students who apply to multiple schools and don't want to answer the same questions (name, address, parents' employment, etc) over and over again.\n\nEither way, you'll end up answering the same basic questions, in addition to some questions your school might choose to throw in there. You'll also probably be writing a small essay about a topic selected for you by either the Common App or your school. In many cases, there is a fee to apply, but not all schools have this, and sometimes you can call the financial aid office at the school and have this fee waived if you are not able to afford it (not likely, they're like 40 bucks at most).\n\nSome schools (Berea leaps to mind) make you interview as part of the application process. Some schools will have counselors come to areas where students might be, but most schools will make you come to them and interview there. A standard interviewer might ask you what your interests are, why you want to go to a particular school, what made that school stand out to you, why you think the school should accept you, and so forth.\n\nSo when you've completed your (sometimes optional) interview, sent in your application along with the application fee, and done any other things the school might want you to do as part of your application, you sit back and wait for the school to decide. Usually a school will do several things.\n\n1. They can accept you.\n\n2. They can reject you.\n\n3. They can waitlist you. This can happen if you did Early Action or, sometimes, Regular Decision too. You will get a decision at a later date.\n\nSo let's assume you get accepted. At some point in your application, you probably encountered a box to check that was like \"I wish to apply for merit or need-based financial aid.\" If you did this, the school might help pay for it.\n\nMerit based aid is awesome. This is scholarships and grants. If it comes from the school, it basically means that they just lop off your tuition by however much the award is worth. You get these for having good grades or being black, among other things. Some scholarships come from out of school, and you have to apply to them through whatever foundation sponsors them. They will usually give you the money and specify that it go towards tuition or something like that.\n\nNeed-based aid is aid given after you submir some tax forms that document your family's income. If you are poor, or do not make money, you might be given some extra grants. This is not based on academic performance, usually, and simply based on money. \n\nIf the school is expensive, you will likely need to apply for student loans. This is a popular way to pay for college. You might also be rich enough to pay for some of it out of pocket. Many people have a combination of all four factors paying for their education.\n\nAlso, the SATs are usually necessary, though for some schools they aren't (Lawrence University, Lewis and Clark, etc). They usually give you an option between the SATs and the ACTs, which is pretty might like the SAT except it has some different test sections and is on a different scale (SAT is out of 2400, ACT is out of 36).\n\nI just did this shit, so if you have any other questions I can probably help.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4665mv | why does the smell of heated food spread easily? | When I toast some hot cross buns in the toaster, pretty soon the whole house is filled with the scent of fresh hot cross buns. However, room temperature or cold food doesn't have its scent travel at all, you need to be right next to it to smell it.
How is this "scent amplification" caused?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4665mv/eli5_why_does_the_smell_of_heated_food_spread/ | {
"a_id": [
"d02rl71",
"d02vjji",
"d031te3",
"d032ohr"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A scent is actually physical particles that have spread out into the air and get inhaled into your nose.\n\nHotter gases or molecules have more energy, and move around much more quickly. \n\nThat means that the hot food item is sending off more excited particles into the air than a similar cold item.\n\nBecause these particles are hotter, they bounce around more quickly and manage to diffuse into the house faster.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"If you heat something, chances are it has some sort of water within it. When you heat the water, it evaporates into the air, but contains the smell of the food you're cooking.",
"What about cold spoiled milk?",
"I don't think it's not so much because the molecules vibrate more quickly because they are hot, as others are suggesting. That difference is rather small (proportion is related in kelvin degrees, 300K [room temperature] and 373K [boiling point] is less than 25% difference). \n\nIt's more because they are transported by a cloud of warm air and water vapor. I think the water vapor here is key actually, because it's new gas being created, so the air must start moving around to make space for the new gas, generating an air flow. Hot air also expands and contribute some, but just 10cm away from the food, the \"hot air\" is probably just a few degrees hotter than room temperature, so not so much compared to new gas being generated. It will still want to float though so it's also generating some air flow.\n\nWith cold food there is nothing really generating a flow, to a small extent air close to it will be cooled and sink, dragging the smell to the floor - but this is both in the wrong direction and a smaller temperature difference (fridge to room temperature) than with hot food, and most importantly, almost no water vapor generation. But perhaps your cat on the floor will easier pick up on the fridge being opened than what you're cooking.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2i1ser | what's the big deal about the internet of things? why do people think it will change the world, and why do they think it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i1ser/eli5_whats_the_big_deal_about_the_internet_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cky1h35"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It means extending the configurability, extensibility, easy of access, and all the other perks of the Internet to everyday objects. It'll be amazing. Right now it's trivial to integrate your email to your cellphone, or some app to some other service. Imagine your bed talking to your central heating, your coffee machine, your vehicle, and your shower, so that as soon as you wake up, your body tells your coffee machine, so your cofee is ready, and after you shower (shower is ready and at the right temperature as soon as you finish your coffee), your vehicle is already turned on and warmed up, ready to go. Imagine your fridge notifying you of what you are missing, etc, etc, etc. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5y6y56 | why do we often feel more sad when viewing or hearing about animal suffering/death, than we do about the equivalent in humans? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5y6y56/eli5_why_do_we_often_feel_more_sad_when_viewing/ | {
"a_id": [
"denn9jr",
"denpuk6"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a thing called the [Just-World Hypothesis](_URL_0_). Humans want to think that the world is a fair place; so when we hear about something bad happening to someone, there's a tendency to think of a reason they *deserved* it.\n\nThe most common moral frameworks don't hold animals accountable for their actions, so they aren't capable of deserving what happens to them.",
"There are several possible reasons:\nLooks: we have the tendency to classify things as \"cute\" or \"funny\" or \"innocent\" based on appearance and favourise those, and in turn would want to protect those, so seeing most animals that we in turn believe are \"cute\" hurt we instantly think that its something bad happening to something that we don't want it happening to. This is not true for all animals, like rhinos yet we feel that taking their horn's ivory is bad because its like taking someone's bone for profit without their consent; unthinkable.\nJustice-belief: when a something bad happens to a human it tends to come from another human which means that whatever caused that sad event must be related to their previous actions (that's our first assumption) like if you got punched then you probably annoyed someone first. Animals who could not have purposefully done something bad, like a robbery, obviously don't deserve something bad happening to them.\nPopulation: there are more humans than other mammals combined so who would care if one human, even a little child, died of starvation(?) when it doesn't do much harm to us overall whereas a starving red panda is a catastrophe because dying out is a serious threat to them\nProtection: humans are more well legally protected by organisations so if a gang was to kill someone, they would get arrested. The International Whale Alliance who want to stop illegal whaling might see a whaling ship but not be allowed to arrest it or even expect a reaction from authorities because eventhough illegal whaling is illegal, there are not actuall punishments for it and no law enforcement group to ensure it doesn't happen (imagine murder being illegal but there are not police and no prisons; it's basically legal at this point). Because of that we see it as unfair that this MAY have been avoided\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis"
],
[]
] |
||
3b7ns8 | why are words like "queue" and "tea" have so many unnecessary letters behind them? | And others like "Jeopordy" and "colonel". | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b7ns8/eli5_why_are_words_like_queue_and_tea_have_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"csjlto1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some of them indicate a specific pronunciation. For example, the *ea* in \"tea\" indicates that it should be pronounced with the long e sound (\"eeee\"). Removing the a from the end would give you *te*, which could be pronounced \"teh\", \"tay\", or \"tuh\".\n\nOthers, like queue and colonel, are leftovers from the etymology of the word. *Queue* comes from the Middle French *queu*, which comes from the Early French *cueue*, which comes from the Latin *cauda*, meaning \"tail\".\n\n*Colonel* comes from Old Italian *colonello*, the officer at the front of a *columna*, a \"column\" of infantry. The weird pronunciation \"cernal\" comes from when *colonello* was adopted into French and Spanish: one language kept *colonel* while the other swapped it to *coronel*. You can see how the pronunciation of \"coronel\" could be shortened to \"cernal\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
pstrb | the mindset of very rich people that are trying to get even richer | Why people like Rupert Murdoch want to get even richer and many times are (accused of) doing it by immoral ways? There are many conspiracy theories about how super rich are screwing millions of lifes to get even richer. Why they would do that?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pstrb/eli5_the_mindset_of_very_rich_people_that_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3rydes",
"c3rz6jo",
"c3rzbvc",
"c3rzxns",
"c3s0ml3",
"c3s1u6d",
"c3s4saz",
"c3sa591"
],
"score": [
8,
10,
3,
5,
5,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You ever seen the show \"Hoarders\"? Some people do that with money.",
"Some people decide that there is a direct connection between happiness and money. From their perspective, the more money you have, the happier you are. There is no limit to how much happiness money can create, as long as you keep having more money. These people might associate money with love, respect, power, freedom or owning things. Since money is the greatest source of happiness, these people choose to ignore what others see as alternative direct sources of happiness (such as health, human relationships, adventure and doing good things). Some examples of people in this category are Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump and Conrad Black. They believe that they are worthy of respect and admiration even if the ONLY worthy thing they've done in life is make a lot of money.\nSome other people see making money as more of a game, where you \"win\" by getting as much money as you can by any means necessary. They get addicted to this \"game\" and play it over and over again. People in this category may become investment bankers or work in finance. They will do ANYTHING to earn money, and may not care whether they or someone else gets to keep the actual earnings.\nHope that helps!",
"I was gonna try to explain it, but as a poor guy, I really can only guess.",
"Third World Kid wonders why we need to buy a computer at home when they're free at the library, or why we need a $600 phone when a $50 one will do. your answers to those questions will be very similar to the answers rich people give when you ask them that.",
"You know how you put your money in a bank? Well when you have a lot of money, a bank is a very bad place to keep money. It becomes risky and loses money to inflation. Therefore you put money into stocks. This gives you partial ownership of a company. It is on average much more profitable and will outpace inflation but is also very risky. Now that you own part of the company you really want that company to do well and since you own part of the company, people listen to you. Whenever it looks like there's a threat to the well-being of the company, you speak up and tell them to do something about it. They respond by doing something. These actions sometimes screw people over.\n\nHow to apply this: If you want a say in what a company does (and to make money doing it), buy stock. The company cares a lot less about customers than it does about share holders. A boycott of a company is irrelevant unless the shareholders get upset. When the customers get upset, nothing happens, when the shareholders get upset, shit gets done.",
"I work at high-end conferences for investors (where it costs like $10,000 just to get in), and I always find it kind of pathetic when I see elderly guys, multimillionaires, with nothing better to do in their old age than go to conferences about how to make more money. It appears to be all they know, all they understand. They have been working all their lives to make a fortune that they haven't a clue how to enjoy.",
"I don't think all rich people have the same motivations.\n\nProbably it just comes down to needing somewhere to go and something to do every day. I think when you're super rich, you don't work because you need money or because you think that next million will make you happy, but because you find your work intellectually stimulating. I think for a lot of people, they'd rather be doing deals in Manhattan than sunbathing in Florida or golfing in Hawaii for the rest of their lives. \n\nI mean... In the grand scheme of things basically everything humans do is a waste of time. Different people enjoy wasting that time in different ways.",
"A coworker asked me what I would do if I won 30 million dollars. My first response was: \"It's not enough.\"\n\nHe was very surprised, and asked why I would say something like that.\n\nI told him that I would be set for life, but it is not enough to help all of my extended family for the rest of their lives.\n\nHowever, 100 million is not enough either. Sure, my extended family would be set for life, but I happen to know that one of my favourite museums needs 100 million dollars to build a new facility. I would love to be able to help them in a significant way.\n\nBut if someone gave me 200 million dollars, it would still not be enough. You see, if I invested the money instead of building the museum, perhaps after a few years I could afford to fund some planet exploration missions. Why build a museum when I could send an ice drilling machine to Europa?\n\nBut it is still not enough. With just a little more, I could build a space elevator, which would be much more useful than a drilling probe that may crash land.\n\nStill not enough though. With just a little more... maybe a couple of billion dollars... I could help combat hunger and malaria in Africa.\n\nBut it is still not enough. Even if I had 7 billion dollars, and I wanted to try to help everyone in the entire world, that only equates to 1 dollar each. Not enough to get anything significantly useful work done on a global scale.\n\nMake no mistake here: I'm quite happy with what I have, and as long as I keep working I can keep my family living in our house with food on the table, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I can definitely see how it is possible to have 7 billion dollars in the bank and still think that it is not enough."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1j0vtg | why do a lot of mentally disabled people look alike? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j0vtg/why_do_a_lot_of_mentally_disabled_people_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb9ye4v",
"cb9yini",
"cb9ymwf",
"cb9z8nf",
"cb9zg1f",
"cba006l",
"cba00zj",
"cba05am",
"cba0di2",
"cba0doh",
"cba0f3d",
"cba0vof",
"cba1d67",
"cba1g69",
"cba1koq",
"cba1kxb",
"cba1m7r",
"cba1wt1",
"cba210a",
"cba2xz5",
"cba2zrk",
"cba38ey",
"cba3e5y",
"cba3nbt",
"cba3xel",
"cba3zu9",
"cba61ov",
"cba6fmq",
"cba6sim",
"cbaavt6",
"cbab0os",
"cbabrqo",
"cbad082",
"cbad6vp",
"cbae1c3",
"cbaf4xa",
"cbafujr",
"cbaig8e",
"cbaiiqh",
"cbaj7nz"
],
"score": [
584,
9,
345,
10,
50,
10,
2,
3,
5,
440,
8,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
5,
4,
8,
3,
2,
28,
3,
4,
2,
3,
3,
3,
5,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Typically they have similar genetic defects, thus similar appearance.",
"People with similar conditions (i.e. Down Syndrome or severe autism) will look alike but I'd argue that mentally disabled people with different conditions don't look that much alike although they all may have facial/bodily deformities. Also, not all mentally disabled people have bodily deformities, such as those with less severe autism.",
"Let's consider down syndrome.\n\nThe thing that everyone with down syndrome will have in common is (since they have down syndrome) the extra 21st chromosome. It's kind of a big deal.\n\nIt being there predisposes the person to this pool of [characteristics](_URL_0_). That's the genetic/innate part of it, wherein we have identified as the cause of the shortness etc.\n\nThe other side of it is socialization and manners. A lot of people with a profound disorder will carry themselves in a relatively similar way compared to everyone else, even if they don't all act the *same*. Having strange posture or a general lack of grace that you then see again in another person that looks similar adds to the effect.\n\nedit: come on. enough replies that just say \"retard strength lololol\"",
"This is a perfectly legitimate question that has yet to be answered. And to all those relating this to racism---stfu. There is something uniquely different about people with Down's. This is just true. I don't think a single race of ppl look alike but whenever I see someone with Down Syndrome I think: \"Hey he looks SO much like that other Down's kid I know.\" No one has even come close (in the 13 comments listed here so far) to explaining so stop making excuses and answer the question. If you don't have a good answer, then don't post. ",
"I currently work at a mental hospital, and have been mistaken for a client multiple times, where even some clients have been mistaken for workers multiple times as well. Saying that, most of them do have that similar look, but its not always so true.",
"I would like to add to [nyuutsu's](_URL_0_) post. People who suffered a brain injury in early life (cerebral palsy) can have lost motor, sensory and/or cognitive function in any combination. If a part of your body was always in spasm, or paralysed, it looks different after a while. Not just in posture but also shape, etc. \nThat applies to the face...and what the term \"slack-jawed\" implies. \nI should also say that there are some people affected by cerebral palsy with normal intelligence, and they are probably thought of as mentally disabled based on their appearance.",
"My kid has soto syndrome (dr soto was the first to figure out these individuals had a specific gene missing) although she is mentally disabled \"inability to perform academic work\" some with the exact same condition still look like her but are \"normal\" and go to college etc. ",
"One thing I've also heard is that there's social perception. To bring up another stereotype, because it's the easiest way to draw a comparison - people with down syndrome look alike the same way that Asians look alike (to westerners).\n\nEach individual of course has their own set of unique identifying characteristics, but to those who are not used to it, the common characteristics (in Asians, it would be dark hair, similar skin tone, narrower eyes, etc) trump the details.",
"Some other disorders that have similar features but arn't mentioned here yat are those who suffer Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and/or were exposed to cocaine while in the womb (crack babies). Often people who are exposed to alcohol and cocaine while a fetus will have more rounded features, more curved brows, eyes that arn't as deep and more round, small upper lip etc. (_URL_0_ for some pics if I don't make sense) \n\nBeacuse of this, those that suffer mental retardation due to this kind of chemical exposure, have a range of severity of the features but will look similar in general facial structure. \n",
"Here's another way to look at it:\n\nWhen a sperm and egg come together and it grows into a baby, there are a million things that can go wrong. It's really common to have an extra chromosome, or a missing chromosome, or a large piece of one that's missing or upside-down.\n\nMost of the time, these mutations lead to death (miscarriage) of the fetus.\n\nOnly a tiny number of mutations to your genetic code actually allow the fetus to survive. So those are the ones who are born, and what we observe is that babies who have something wrong with them typically have one of a set of common genetic abnormalities. It's not that those are the only possible abnormalities - it's that all of the other abnormalities are too severe.\n",
"Due to the fact that all the major genetic mutations responsible for mental retardation share similar physical mutations\n\n- short stature \n* weak muscles\n* short, wide neck\n* nasal deformity\n* irregular shaped mouth and togue\n* slanted eyes",
"There is a very related field called Dysmorphology wherein diseases are diagnosed based on physical characteristics. An interesting read can be found at: \n\n_URL_0_\n",
"Do you have any statistics or evidence to show that they do look alike? There can be thousands of syndromes or reasons why an individual may have an intellectual disability. I would argue that sure, in case like Down Syndrome, such people may look similar, but there are so many other diagnoses that overall, I honestly don't think a lot do look alike, unless you just mean 'different than most of the population in some way'. Maybe you are biased into thinking this based on a limited set of personal experiences with such people?\n\nSource: worked with maaaany different people with cognitive disabilities.",
"Maybe they think we all look alike!",
"\"Mentally Disabled\" is a pretty loose term. An individual with a severe psychiatric conditions could potentially look no different than an individual that does not have one. On the flip side, they can also look drastically different (similar to other comments discussing down syndrome). If you saw a paranoid schizophrenic with managed symptoms (on their meds), you may have a difficult time telling that they even have a disability. ",
"From experience, I would say that only people with Down's Syndrome look similar. Those without Down's Syndrome, who have either a chromosome deficiency or whatever, will often look completely different. As touched on below, a lot of families will often dress relatives who have a learning disability in either age inappropriate clothing, or simply anything. This can be the starting point of easily recognising if someone has a learning disability, which in turn makes people think it is the individual, rather than these external factors.",
"I've worked with Special Needs (mentally retarded) individuals for 6 years and have encountered several different specific disorders. Cri du Chat (Cry of the Cat) Syndrome fascinated me, when these individuals are babies their cry sounds like that of a cat, and they have \"cat-like\" features, broad flat nose, prominent brow, v shaped mouth. This one little girl had blond hair and cornflower blue eyes, she was stunningly beautiful with these features, and severely mentally handicapped. \n\nBut some other kids i worked with didnt have any specific disorder, they were just mentally retarded. Something didnt form right and their brains didnt work like they were meant to, sometimes even just a severely low IQ. These guys didnt look different than any normal kid, except for the occasional helmet or drool bib they wore, or an expression of sheer innocent joy or frustration on their face depending on the situation, since they usually have no filter or self awareness. A specific disorder will usually have physical as well as mental characteristics, but being mentally handicapped won't necessarily have any physical drawbacks. ",
"Asides from specific known syndromes that have similar characteristics (i.e. Down's Syndrome), there's also the fact that fetal development occurs at specific stages with certain characteristics developing at each stage. Cognitive development and certain features develop fairly early in the pregnancy. Since often women don't even realize they are pregnant at this time, they may consume harmful substances (not necessarily drugs or alcohol, the list of harmful stuff is miles long and includes household items). A substance doesn't just affect one characteristic, it affects the whole fetus. So more often than not similar characteristics are stunted or developed in the babies because they were exposed to the substance at the same stages, usually early on. (Source: Nursing Student, Human Development Class)",
"The top comment brings up some good points but it is also likely a matter of expertise. For example, we are much better at distinguishing differences in features within our own respective ethnicities. The more experience and interaction you have with a group of objects or individuals, the easier it is to tell them apart. Perhaps a better example would be a that of a dairy farmer. We might see a group of cows and see them as nearly indistinguishable from each other because we haven't spent enough time around the species. A farmer, however, can likely tell individual differences between all of his cattle. \n\nIt has to do with the Fusiform Face Area (FFA), and there are a lot of interesting experiments such as Greeble's studies which would illustrate my point. To someone who works with the mentally disabled often, the differences between each disabled individual are more clear because they are \"experts\" so to speak.\n\nTL;DR Spending more time with the mentally disabled will cause them to appear more unique over time ",
"Take a picture and link it, and we'll get back to you.",
"What about the mentally disabled who look normal?\nThere are even more of them out there.\n",
"As /u/nyuutsu observed, some mental disabilities (such as Down Syndrome) are associated with a particular set of physical characteristics. Because our brains are big pattern-matching machines, we tend to pay a lot of attention to ways in which groups of people are different from what we expect as the \"norm.\"\n\nThis is, for example, why some white people think that Asian people all look the same—it's not because they do, but because these particular white people haven't met enough Asian people to become familiar with the common feature variations of people who have at least a few ancestors from Asian countries, versus the common feature variations they're familiar with (i.e., of people with ancestors almost exclusively from European countries). Their brains fixate on the handful of obvious variations from what they're used to, lumping everyone with those variations into the same mental category.\n\n**TL;DR: They don't necessarily look that much alike, but your brain pays more attention to the common ways in which they look different from you than it does to the differences they have from each other.**\n\n*Side note: This explanation isn't meant excuse anyone who walks around claiming that people from [ethnic group X] actually do all look alike, as it should be patently obvious that the problem is with your perception versus their appearance.*",
"Take Down Syndrome for example: basically the disorder is the result of a genetic mutation (trisomy 21). In addition to causing mental disability, this mutation can present through many other symptoms including but not limited to: congenital heart failure, and a myriad of distinctive physical attributes (eyelid crease, flattened nose, short neck...) Therefore, because they share a genetic mutation, they are also phenotypically similar; many individuals with trisomy21 will present similar physical symptoms. \n\nAdditional fact: Many years ago, people began referring to DS patients as \"Mongoloids\" because their appearance resembled similar characteristics to Mongols (\"-loid\" suffix means \"resembling\"). Of course, this is considered pretty insulting, and is not often accepted termonology today. ",
"Because you don't notice the ones who don't-",
"I work with mentally challenged people, the only ones that really look alike are the ones with down syndrome... most of them look completely normal.",
"/u/whoremongering has linked [loads of photos](_URL_0_) of people with varying disabilities. What you will notice is that they do not look alike. Not even at all. They do share some characteristics.\n\nSuggesting that they look alike is like saying that all black people look the same. That is, it is insensitive and wrong and only reveals your own ignorance.",
"Its just the ones with down syndrome bro. And not all, mosiacs ds looks different. And they look similar cause of the extra chromosome , 21.",
"Most people who have a cognitive disability look like everyone else.",
"While there are a lot of explanations of how the damage that causes mental dissabilities lead to a similar look, there isn't much explanation of why they look alike *to you*. So...\n\nHumans it turns out are really good at seeing patterns. We're also good at seeing differences and similarities because of this. \n\nCertain shapes of peoples faces are common for different races or for people with certain disabilities. Usually your brain locks on to the biggest difference it sees with a new person and says \"Oh, that is the shape of Brian's face\". If Brian has downs, or is the first white/black/asian you have seen, all other people you see that have downs or are white/black/asian will look like Brian to you. Its why you might have heard \"All < insert minority here > look the same.\"\n\nIf you meet or see a lot of people with downs or of different races your brain will start to think \"Oh, that shape isn't just Brian.\" When this happens your brain starts to look at the faces for more detail and it becomes easier for you to distinguish between people of that disability/race.",
"Just a little correction here, what you're asking about aren't me necessarily people with intellectual disabilities, rather people with developmental disabilities.",
"I have always wanted to ask this question but never did because I didn't want to offend anyone",
"meh, people with down syndrome have a very distinct look. All people with down syndrome have that similar look, there's nothing ignorant about it.",
"I have a brother with fragile x syndrome, which is similar to downs, but people with fragile x have many of the same characteristics in their face, like a longer face, larger ears and so on. I dont know if that is common in other disabilities but i would assume so. ",
"Not that this explains it, but Downs used to be called Mongoloids because it made people look like Mongols.",
"The term \"mental disabilities\" would be interpreted by most professionals as mental illness (depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.) Do you mean people with developmental disabilities? This would include what used to be called mental retardation (now called intellectual disability), as well as autism (and a bunch of other disabilities/disorders). Down Syndrome is a specific genetic disorder that falls under the larger umbrella of intellectual disability. \n\nThere are a couple of disorders that have a specific type of facial characteristics, like Down Syndrome and Williams Syndrome. Because many people do not have regular interaction with a variety of people with developmental disabilities, they just tend to assume that this is what all people with some type of DD look like. In reality, there is a huge range. You would probably be surprised how many \"typical\" looking people you meet have some sort of non-visible DD. Learning disabilities actually falls under the category of developmental disabilities. \n\nAs a special education teacher, I notice a lot of organizations that try to raise money for people with developmental disabilities use people with Down Syndrome or an individual in a wheelchair in their promotional materials (Special Olympics, Goodwill, Melwood, etc). They are trying to do good (great!) things, and know people need the visual to understand what the organization's mission is, in order to spur donations. Unfortunately, it also unintentionally promotes the idea that people with a DD all have a visible disability. \n\nTL; DR- People with developmental disabilities don't all look alike, but many people think they do. It is a good question/discussion. Many professionals in the field of special education worry that other people do not understand what they do, and how to interact with the students they are working with. Personally, I am always happy to answer questions. It helps to promote inclusion in the school, workplace, and commmunities of the individuals I serve :)",
"Often, their mental disability is caused by a genetic disorder that also affects physical traits.",
"that's a mirror, OP",
"Too many chromosomes, or lack thereof",
"I'll commend you for straight up asking this...I kinda always wanted to ask this myself. ._.",
"Because the Bush family are prolific breeders."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j0vtg/why_do_a_lot_of_mentally_disabled_people_look/cb9ymwf"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/htmls/fas-face.htm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/dysmorphology.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j0vtg/why_do_a_lot_of_mentally_disabled_people_look/cba048c"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2pjwss | why does it make sense to design new paper money that is harder to fake, if the old bank notes are still valid? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pjwss/eli5_why_does_it_make_sense_to_design_new_paper/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmxdcw2",
"cmxence"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd imagine it's because the old bank notes would be slowly weeded out of circulation, but the process cannot begin without the new bank notes.",
"Unless artificially aged, brand new counterfeit banknotes in the style of old ones would be rather easy to spot, don't you think?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
22zfwn | what types of jobs do people in the cia actually do? how many people actually work as secret agents and whatnot? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22zfwn/eli5_what_types_of_jobs_do_people_in_the_cia/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgrwe6t",
"cgrwj2a",
"cgrwuec"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Nice try Putin.",
"There are tons of jobs in the CIA, from accountants and doctors to special operations types. The closest thing to James Bond would be guys from the Special Activities Division, the special operations arm of the CIA. they are recruited nearly exclusively from elite military units and perform similar tasks, such as direct action or intelligence gathering in extremely hostile terrain. The glitzy work that Bond does is usually carried out by officers know as NOCs. It's much less sexy. Imagine giving a guy $10,000 to bring you a picture or get you a phone number. There's no high stakes poker game involved. There are also a lot of rather mundane jobs at the CIA, like imagery analysts. Their job is to look at pictures. Basically, a lot of the CIA does 9-5 type work but with much more sensitive information. \n\nSource: former Marine reservist, friends. \n\nEdit: I believe the number of clandestine personnel is classified, but it's very small. Probably less than one percent of the entire agency. ",
"A lot of the people who do the kind of stuff that might make you want to call them \"secret agents\" are actually in military intelligence--Army INSCOM, for example. The CIA is mostly civilians. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
490i91 | why are for-profit universities (devry, ashford, phoenix, etc.) under so much scrutiny? | What makes them unpopular choices? How are they bad?
And if they're as bad as I hear, why haven't they been shut down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/490i91/eli5_why_are_forprofit_universities_devry_ashford/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0o3l23"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"For-profit universities tend to be HUGELY profitable, but there's no real mechanism for shutting them down when they're bad. The government doesn't license higher education, so they have no power to do so. Traditional universities seek accreditation from professional associations, like the AACSB (the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) or the MLA (the Modern Language Association) -- this peer review makes sure that their education and faculty meet acceptable standards. \n\nBut most consumers don't know enough about the market to look for those accreditations, or they don't know the difference between the AACSB (legit) and the Academy for Contemporary Research (bogus). So they end up thinking that they're getting good value for their money, and end up with a degree that employers aren't impressed by and a lot of student loan debt. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5uwsbl | how does a common cold give me a headache? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uwsbl/eli5_how_does_a_common_cold_give_me_a_headache/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddxjn34"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The cold virus reproduces by hijacking the genetic machinery of host cells and causing host cells to manufacture copies of the virus. The virus then destroys the host cell outer membrane so that copies of the virus can escape the host cell and infect other cells.\n\nWhen the host cell membrane is destroyed, the contents of the host cell, called cytoplasm, spills into the spaces between cells.\n\nCell cytoplasm is rich in adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which cells use to power cellular processes. Outside of cells ATP functions as a neurotransmitter chemical and can cause pain. Once outside a cell, ATP is rapidly degraded to adenosine, which is, like ATP, is a neurotransmitter that can cause pain.\n\nExcessive extracellular (outside of cells) concentration of ATP and adenosine in the head is the immediate cause of headache.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4b4wkr | erdogan's politics. turkey is a democratic country, why is he still in power? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b4wkr/eli5_erdogans_politics_turkey_is_a_democratic/ | {
"a_id": [
"d163u0b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"He is in power because more people support him than oppose him. Turkey is, in a way, an extreme form of the US in that it's split between eastern turkey and western turkey. Eastern Turkey is very islamic and the entire country has tilted that way several times since Ataturk created a secular nation. Erdogan plays to the majority who, in a world that is increasingly islamophobic, are flexing their muscles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1caybj | the end of the movie stanley kubrik's "the shining" | [Specifically with this photo]
(_URL_0_)
And what did Delvard Grady mean when he said that he (Jack's character) "had always been the care taker" there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1caybj/eli5_the_end_of_the_movie_stanley_kubriks_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9eqram",
"c9esadj"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"i assumed he was possessed by the spirit of the previous caretaker. basically the hotel is evil and the spirits inside consume him. the photo appears after his death- and now he is one of the ghosts doomed to haunt the hotel. ",
"Kubrick liked to leave questions open, and I believe the ending is deliberately vague, so as to keep the question in your mind.\n\nIt came out in 1980, and we're still talking about its meaning 33 years later. I'd say it worked."
]
} | [] | [
"http://propaholics.wolfchasers.com/uploader/users/public/k44965ShiningPictureq228.jpg"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9azwl8 | if the universe is infinite, why is there doubt that there are other lifeforms? | & #x200B; | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9azwl8/eli5_if_the_universe_is_infinite_why_is_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4za8pi",
"e4zatb3",
"e4zb8az",
"e4zdq1e"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The universe being infinite doesn't necessitate that everything happen in that universe. A unique event could still exist. Nor do we know the starting conditions of life, and with a sample size of one, we have no easy way to assign probability to its occurrence. ",
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.\n\nThat said, given that there is no actual proof for biological life existing elsewhere then if we follow the scientific method it is clear that we cannot say whether there are or are not other lifeforms that exist in the universe. Not only because we do not understand life well enough, but that we also cannot visit everywhere in an infinite universe in a finite timeline. It is also necessary to point out that the universe is not necessarily infinite. The numbers and distances involved make it essentially infinite, with the real issue being that we have been unable to find an edge, and may never actually do so.\n\nBut as another commenter pointed out, an infinite universe would essentially render anything else within it also infinite in number, because infinite is more of a concept than an actual value. If we are the only life within a 13 billion light year radius, then an infinite amount of life still exists elsewhere, because the universe would contain an infinite number of 13 billion light year radiuses from points that do not intersect each other. 1 x infinity = infinity.",
"The universe might be infinite, but the stuff in it is finite. Sure, it might be practically infinite from our perspective, but there are \"only\" so many stars in the universe and only so many of them will create a planet that is life-suitible, and only so many of them actually produce life. \n\nThat being said this is a common fallacy: Infinity does not imply perfect coverage. There are uncountably infinite number of numbers between 2 and 3, but none of them are equal to 4. ",
"I've got three concepts to share with you, they are all more like thought experiments rather than scientific theory. Drake's Equation, the Fermi Paradox (that u/CptCap already mentioned) and the Great Filter.\n\n\n\nDrake's Equation is really just an educated guess at how likely life in the universe should be. Some of these numbers are estimates at best. (copied roughly from Wikipedia, I'm not smart enough to remember this off the top of my head)\n\nR x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L = N\n\nThe equation looks long but is just simply multiplication. Essentially start with \"the average rate of star formation\" which is (R). This is a REALLY big number. Then multiply by the fraction of those stars that have planets. (fp) Then multiply by the \"average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets.\" (ne) Then multiply by the fraction of those planets that could potentially support some kind of life. (fl) Then multiply by the fraction of those planets with life that develop intelligent life. (fi) Then multiply by the fraction of those civilizations that create technology that we can detect from earth, think radio transmission or something like that. (fc) then multiply by the L, the \"length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.\" What you are left with is N, a rough calculation of the total number of alien civilizations that we could just maybe communicate with. Even thought many of the fractions we used are tiny, tiny chances, the starting number of stars is so massive that estimates range from the tens of thousands to the millions. Drake's Equation is very debatable as so much of it involves guess work and there are different versions of the same idea. [Check out the Wikipedia page if you wanna read more.](_URL_2_)\n\n\n\nThe Fermi Paradox is simply that, a paradox. If the universe is so massive and there are so many other stars and planets out there then there must be something, yet we only see evidence of non living influences in the night sky. Our Milkyway Galaxy has a half trillion stars in it. Say we are the only planet with life in the Milkyway, There are so many galaxies and so many planets out there that some must have life, but maybe there is no way for us to ever find out for sure.\n\n\n\nThis feeds into the last concept I mentions, which is the one I find most interesting. The Great Filter. ([I first heard of The Great Filter from this fantastic Youtube video, worth a watch](_URL_0_)) Think of the development of life as a spectrum, on one end is the first most basic of life forms, and on the other end is a civilizations with the capability of interstellar communication, travel and colonization. Between no life, and super advanced life there must be a number a major hurdles that life must overcome to progress to the next stage. Maybe it's life becoming multicultural organisms, maybe it is industrialization, maybe it is resource consumption, maybe interstellar travel. Any one of these could be the thing that blocks life on a planet from progressing further. The question is this: for humans on Earth, is that Great Filter behind us, or still ahead of us? Both answers bring up scary conclusions. If the Great Filter is interstellar travel, maybe any planet that develops life is trapped there forever. Or maybe the great filter is the formation of life in the first place, in which case we might really be alone in the universe. [Or maybe there is no Great Filter, and aliens could wipe us out without breaking a sweat...](_URL_1_)\n\n\n\nAs humans we like to think of other life on the terms that we know life by. But in reality if there were super advanced life out there, we would probably be like ants to them. Neil Degrasse Tyson said in an interview something like \"Maybe our swath of the Milkyway has already been bought and sold by some hyper intelligent race of beings, do you think that when the Louisiana Purchase happened they check with squirrels that lived there first?\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjtOGPJ0URM",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eujwxh_r43E",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation"
]
] |
|
3bogqb | if a hospital has to be evacuated, what happens to patients that are in the middle of surgery? | EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify...middle of RECEIVING surgery! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bogqb/eli5_if_a_hospital_has_to_be_evacuated_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cso0bn6",
"cso4bub"
],
"score": [
15,
8
],
"text": [
"Standard practice would be to get them stable enough for transfer. There would be a lot of variables depending on the type of surgery, and how far along they were in it. Evacuation of a building as large as a hospital is not a fast process so they would likely have time to get the surgery far enough along to keep the patient alive, but the goal of the surgery may be forfeited. ",
"Depends on why it is being evacuated. In most cases they just stay till it is finished and you can be safely moved. Pull in generators to power lights or whatever is needed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2tj7kv | why are people able to get away by not paying child support? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tj7kv/eli5why_are_people_able_to_get_away_by_not_paying/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnzjoli"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's very difficult to get someone jailed for not paying what they owe. You have to prove that they *could* pay but choose not to; even when that's possible, we're generally uncomfortable with the idea of jailing people for not paying debts.\n\nThe other solution is taking their money. But we don't think it's okay for the government to just go into people's homes and take their cash to pay debts. So this has to be done through a very specific process, which not all parents have the time and energy to go through just for the possibility of payment. (Because the reality is, if they really don't *have* money, nothing can make them pay money.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
at1m2i | ancient languages deciphered | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/at1m2i/eli5_ancient_languages_deciphered/ | {
"a_id": [
"egy2aps"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Your specific example of Sanskrit actually never needed to be “discovered”, because people didn’t stop using it. It became kind of like Latin for India and Asia, and continued to be studied by scholars throughout the centuries.\n\nThat said, language changes over time, and linguists do have to do some detective work to figure out how languages used to look. But linguists have figured out many general patterns in the structure of languages and how they change, so they can make some pretty good deductions about general shifts in language. Combined with knowledge of descended languages (like how Latin evolved into Spanish, French, Italian), and they can trace how things evolved through time with pretty good confidence.\n\nFor truly lost languages, you can try to use knowledge of grammar patterns and basically do code breaking (I don’t know if there’s an example of this approach actually working, but most human languages fall into a few categories and follow some general patterns), but the holy grail is something like the Rosetta Stone (the actual thing, not the software) which contains the same text in two different languages, in that case Ancient Greek (which we knew) and Egyptian hieroglyphics (which we didn’t know at the time). By comparing those texts, you get the initial breakthrough you need to start decoding the rest of the language.\n\nI’m sure there are other approaches that an actual linguist could describe in more detail."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.