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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26n29r | how on earth is it a good idea to cross lanes of traffic like this on an overpass? | Many overpasses around in Utah cross over traffic. Everyone drives on the left. To accomplish this two new and seemingly uneccesary one-lane intersections are created.
This is what I'm talking about: _URL_0_
I assume there is some magic about this design. Hoping someone can explain it to me as if I were five. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26n29r/eli5_how_on_earth_is_it_a_good_idea_to_cross/ | {
"a_id": [
"chskn4b",
"chsmtyd"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"First, what makes you think it's bad? Traffic is separated. It looks a lot less confusing from the ground than it does from the air, because you only see what's in front of you. \n\nSecond, it's better because traffic entering the onramps from either a left or right turn don't have to wait for oncoming traffic.",
"Cloverleafs are super-expensive to build, and stoplights cause inefficient traffic. In this design, there are only two stoplights (at the crossover), and only two turnabouts. Cars from the surface road don't have to stop at *any* stoplights before getting onto the highway if they're turning right; neither to cars getting off the highway (again, if they're turning right). Cars making left turns only pass one of the stoplights; only through-traffic on the surface road stops at both lights."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/1Q0fz4s.jpg"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
debo8x | if cancer is basically a clump of cells that dont want to die, why/how do things like cigarettes, asbestos, and the literal sun trigger it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/debo8x/eli5_if_cancer_is_basically_a_clump_of_cells_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2u4wry",
"f2u4xhz",
"f2u6nm7",
"f2ub51e",
"f2ufkrh",
"f2ugs00",
"f2uh194",
"f2uhd4y",
"f2uhr44",
"f2ujwla",
"f2ukpbh",
"f2ulrg9",
"f2ults4",
"f2umxmn",
"f2uno49",
"f2up3nt",
"f2uqglk",
"f2uxnuj",
"f2uxqhu",
"f2v0ovg",
"f2v16ku",
"f2vivz0",
"f2vwsfk",
"f2wau49",
"f2wbc54",
"f2wbm4t",
"f2webaw",
"f2wij3b",
"f2wmg0y",
"f2wntqv",
"f2wq2ul",
"f2wrp8a",
"f2ws1m6",
"f2wsmil",
"f2wtbkd",
"f2wvm11",
"f2wwycw",
"f2wy6rj",
"f2wyj2m",
"f2wym2m",
"f2wzgiw",
"f2wzs87",
"f2x06o4",
"f2x0d5s",
"f2x2kll",
"f2x2wve"
],
"score": [
13185,
27,
239,
33,
2,
28,
2,
2,
686,
87,
11,
6,
5,
2,
85,
4,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cancer cells result from mutations that disable the things that keep cell growth in check. Those mutations come from incorrect repairs to cell DNA, and those errors happen more frequently the more repairs take place.\n\nTherefore things that cause damage that requires repairs increase the chances of developing cancer, stuff like cigarettes, asbestos, and sun exposure.",
"The cells in our body reproduce regularly and based off of a genetic map. That genetic map can naturally become distorted and cause cells to reproduce uncontrollably, becoming cancerous growths known as tumors.\n\nA \"carcinogen\" is a substance (certain types of radiation, chemicals, etc.) that can basically screw up that genetic map much faster than would naturally occur in an otherwise healthy person. Cigarette smoke has a lot of carcinogens, both from radioactive sources and from certain chemicals. Energy from the sun is also radioactive - a lot of the more harmful light is filtered out in the atmosphere but you can still receive dangerous doses if you're outside all the time without protection on.",
"Those things damage your DNA. Your DNA is an instruction set on how to build cells. \n\nIf the right bits of DNA are damaged, then your body will read the wrong instructions and build heaps of useless cells, and that is called Cancer",
"Every time your cells split theres a very small chance that something goes wrong and it becomes a cancerous cell instead of a healthy cell.\n\nThose carcinogens damage cells, and force your body to get rid of them, and for another cell to split to replace it. Since they increase the number of cell splits, they increase your risk of cancer.",
"Things called carcinogens can make cells freak out and start growing really fast through a process called 'Mutation'",
"A lot of people are saying stuff like carcinogens are the cause and mutations and etc without actually answering the question\n\nSun releases ionizing radiation which can knock electrons out in the DNA, thus changing it\n\nChemicals can cause stuff like DNA methylation to happen where the transcription and translation process of the DNA get affected so new cells can get made incorrectly etc",
"Cancer cells do die eventually from all the mutations they incurred- but because their cellular growth brakes are gone due to things that break DNA apart at these growth controlling genes (toxic chemicals, UV radiation etc) they basically divide until they die.\n\n\nThis is why you wear sunscreen when you tan - otherwise you risk a higher chance of skin cancer",
"think of cells like a car. there’s a gas pedal, a brake pedal, and when things go wrong, there’s a mechanic. with cancer, you have things like cigarettes and asbestos that cut the wires and break the pipes within the car, so that it’s no longer in control. the car will just swerve in and out of traffic. in contrast, normal cells follow the rules of traffic. they only move at a green light, and they stop at red lights.",
"Instead of a bunch of cells that don't want to die, think of it more like a bunch of cells that have had their self-destruct button broken, or the wiring from the self-destruct button to the \"reactor\" broken. Because that self destruct signal either is not being received or not being carried out properly, the cells keep growing & replicating in an uncontrolled manner.\n\nCarcinogens (or things that cause cancer) like smoking, UV radiation, etc., are the things breaking the self destruct.",
"Imagine you are told a long paragraph (it's simple enough to remember but there exists no copy of it, written or otherwise) and I task you with writing down, over and over again. Each time you write it, the previous write ups cease to exist. You basically just keep writing. How much would you be willing to bet that after a year, the paragraph you write will be the exact same as the initial one given (ie exact word placement [frameshift mutations], properly spelled [nonsense/missense/silent mutation], etc)? \n\nWhen a cell replicates, that's basically what happens. The cell divides based off the DNA framework of the parental cell. The downstream effect are felt when the cell has to divide over and over and over again (DNApol has copy error rates). So after hundreds/thousands of replications, you begin getting accumulations of \"cancer-like\" cell health profiles. \n\nSo back to your original question. Certain things cause cells to die, and your body tends to have a homeostasis (basically a point of balance) drive to have certain cells in certain places. So when you take in some of these chemicals that kill cells, you are basically encouraging your body to divide cells in the affected regions (lungs for cigarettes, skin for sun, wiping to hard to colorectal, etc.), thus you are encouraging replication errors to occur more often than let's say someone who does not do those behaviors.",
"In addition to the DNA damage aspect, these things cause irritation and inflammation. Inflammation helps promote cell replication thus allowing cells with damaged DNA to divide more.",
"Your body makes about 200 cancer cells per day, your immune system is really good at fighting those cells before they metastasize. When you are doing something damaging to your body that's in bed of constant repair, your immune system is distracted by the extra work and those cancer cells slip by unnoticed. Smoking, drinking, inhaling impurities, stressing out, not getting enough rest are all things that cause damage that can be mostly avoided.",
"Generally, there's a chance anybody can get any type of cancer. What causes development of cancer are mutations (mistakes) in the creation of new cells. Environmental factors like the ones you listed increase the probability of these mistakes occuring. This doesn't mean that a smoker *will* or *will not* get lung cancer, it just statistically increases the odds of it happening.\n\nI think the most confusing part about cancer for many people is the statistics that explain it and how environmental factors affect it's probability, not certainty. Many sensational pieces like \"x causes cancer\" are products of a wrongful manipulation of statistics.",
"Seems like most commenters here are referring to the widely accepted Somatic Mutation Theory (damaged DNA = mutations = cancer). My independent studies have led me to believe that the Metabolic Origins Theory is more accurate and up-to-date. MOT pinpoints damaged mitochondria as the cause of tumorigenesis rather than mutated DNA. That is to say, impaired cell respiration leads to cells flipping off their normal programming. They go into a mode of anaerobic respiration and shut off apoptosis (programmed cell death). MOT researchers believe that it is the impaired respiration that then leads to damaged DNA, not the other way around. The greatest evidence suggesting this is that when healthy cells were implanted with cancerous nuclei (DNA), daughter cells were healthy. When healthy cells were implanted with cancerous mitochondria (cell respiratory system), daughter cells were cancerous. According to MOT, the answer to your question would be impaired cell respiration. Carcinogens such as cigarettes, asbestos and UV rays stress the mitochondria and prevent it from properly producing ATP. This can be caused by not enough oxygen reaching the mitochondria as carcinogens cause chronic oxidative stress. \n\nSome sources:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_",
"Immuno-oncologist; I will try to make it as basic as I can but realize there are millions of minor facts that fit in the middle of this broad overview.\n\nFirst off it is important to understand cells. Cells are the ultimate team players. They are programmed to kill themselves if there is something wrong with them and they are able to start the cycle of killing themselves. If they don't grow up correctly, if they aren't doing their job properly and when they get too old; boom suicide. This is called apoptosis. What is also important about cells it to realize that they communicate with their environment and their fellow cells all the time with chemicals. Next it is important to know that cells also have receptors on their surfaces that allow them to communicate as well. Some of these receptors are specific in that that have a \"don't kill me\" sign. There are actually sometimes dozens of \"don't kill me\" signs that they can have. Last, it is important to know that cells can, when damaged in the right way not kill themselves and they can also get screwy in their signs and display \"don't kill me\" even if they really need to be killed. Those abnormal cells will still divide as normal if they have the ability to do so and the two cells that come from it will be identical to the first one. So one abnormal cell is now 2 identical abnormal cells. That process can repeat forever in a living organism. This is essentially that clump of cells you are referring to. Often these cells were all from the same parent cell, we call them clonal (from one colony).\n\nNext its important to realize that there are factors outside of random chance that can increase the odds of making a lot of very bad abnormal cells. Some of those include UV and chemicals like those found in cigarettes or asbestos etc.\n\nNext, the last major player to avoid absolute catastrophe is the immune system. Your immune system is amazing but it has limits. Your immune system functions a bit like the police of a dystopian state. They kill everything is foreign, everything that is not functioning properly (e.g. growing too fast or eating too much) and everything that is sick (e.g. virus infected). But I mentioned those \"don't kill me\" signs that cells can have. Those are normal signs but abnormal cells can show them even if they should be killed. This means that your last natural chance to kill bad cells can miss them.\n\nFinally, it is important to realize that this is also a numbers game. The sheer number of cells in your body and their crazy number of things about them that are different depending on where they are (think stomach vs skin vs brain), what they normally do and at what age, sex or random genetic mutations you have makes this whole system seem impossible to alter at our choosing. For reference a billion cells fit inside the tip of an adult pinky.\n\nThe field of immuno-oncology (cancer immunotherapy) cropped up hoping to hijack this system but its been a rough field to find success. We learn more and more that cells have so many ways to tell the immune system to leave them alone. We think we find that a breast cancer has a lot of one sign and we make a drug against it and more of other signs come up in its place. Some of it is basic chance and some of survival by mutation. The more mutations that are made the more likely abnormal cells proliferate. Cancerous chemicals and UV increase that mutational burden and really hurts your bodies natural ability to kill abnormal cells. Essentially this is how we get cancerous cells and when enough of those cells exist, the normal functions of whatever organ they are in goes down and we will eventually succumb to them. So in the instance of cigarettes, our lungs, esophagus and circulatory systems are all sensitive and we cant live without breathing and having oxygen passed around inside our body.",
"I worked as a software developer for my best friend while he was doing his PhD studies at UT Southwestern for Nuclear Physics. His grant was on breast cancer research. His research was on cataloging various types of cancer, particularly on the breast tissue and then see if we could find alternate ways of treatment, including of course radiation therapy. \n\n\nOur test subjects were various lab animals, for the most part lab rats. \n\n\nAnyway, after 3 years working close to him in his research I developed a conclusion that seems to have some fundament on it. \n\n\nImagine you have a copy machine, it is of the best quality possible, makes as precise copies as you can imagine. You are asked to make copies with a caveat. You can never make copies using the same original. In fact, your copy has to be made from the latest copy, and the next copy from the latest copy and so on.\n\nLets call your original copy the \"stem copy\" and you will only get to use it once.\n\nThe first few copies look identical. There is no deviation from the original, but as you keep on making copies, small imperfections appear. Some dust got on the glass, and that made it to the copy, you cleaned the glass, but since you cant make a copy out of the original, all subsequent copies will have that little piece of lint or spec of dust that made it to the glass. \n\nThen the paper shifts just so, so now the copy is shifted and with a spec of dust. \nAt some point the copies definitely look different from the original so you start shredding them. \n\n\nCancer is like this, our body cells are constantly regenerating due to various processes. In a normal lifecycle this is not a problem, but if tissue or an organ or anything has to be constantly regenerated due to an illness, the body will eventually start making bad copies and the own body defenses will start attacking the bad copies because now they look like foreign agents, like disease. \n\n\nAsbestos is a good example. Asbestos fibers get incrusted deep into the lung tissue, the body tries to remove it but it cant. Minuscule damage is done to the tissue that the body is constantly trying to repair... until it makes a mistake. \n\n\nThe common denominator seems to be a wound that has to be constantly healed. Like cancer of the skin... overexposure to the sun... do this enough times and you get a melanoma. \n\n\nDrinking for the liber, tobacco on the lungs and so on.",
"A more recent proposed mental model for understanding cancer comes from observing that cancer cells behave like much more primitive cells, and act in their own interest rather than in the interest of the organism. The idea is that harmful substances injure the cell to the point where instead of booting the cell's assigned OS and operating accordingly, so to speak, it goes into kernel panic mode, and operates like a bacterium, having forgotten that it is supposed to operate as part of a larger organism. Those ultra primitive functions include proliferation and cell division, but lack the regulatory functions that make it participate in the over-all functioning of the organism. Part of that proper behavior is that certain cells trigger cell suicide when their continued activity harms the organism. There is evidence that supports this interpretation, but as with anything as complicated, it is controversial.\n\nSee this: [A New Theory on Cancer: What We Know About How It Starts Could All Be Wrong](_URL_0_)",
"Let me try and really ELI5 this. \n\nLet's pretend a group of friends is building a neighborhood of houses. Each friend has got a huge book of instructions that tell them everything they need to know about building the houses, and how each of them should fit into the neighborhood. This book even tells them how many new friends you need to invite, and when. \n\nThe friends want to keep this neighborhood absolutely brand spanking new, so new in fact, that they demolish houses once they get old, and build new ones to make up for these old ones. The big book of instructions also explains how to do this so there's always have the correct number of houses. \n\nEach friend is responsible for building just one house, and then they live in it. Also, each friend gets their own big book of instructions. When the house is removed because it got old, and the friend is going to leave the neighborhood with their book, the book instructs them to invite a new friend to the neighborhood to build a house. The old friend is gong to keep his copy of the book, and so copies the book by hand, to give to the new friend.\n\ncigarettes, asbestos, and the sun are like smudges and coffee stains in the big book of instructions. Often the friend can work out what the words or letters should be, and correctly copy them. But over time the errors slowly build up. \n\nEventually the book can become so incorrect that the friend reading it thinks it says, \"Invite a new friend to build a house next to you, then DON'T remove you're own house\". The DON'T is the error that has arrived over time.\n\nSo now not only do we have 2 houses where we should only have one, we've got 2 friends with a bad copy of the book! Both these friends will now invite 2 more friends, and not remove themselves. So now we've got 4 houses where there should only be one, and 4 friends with bad book copies! And so on.\n\nThese friends are now really stressed. They've got houses built all over each other, and this stress is causing them to copy the book badly. They're making more mistakes than they normally would. The books are now telling them to invite a new friend every day. To build lots of roads to allow all these new friends to reach them. To order in takeaways constantly to feed all these friends. To tell the friend from the other side of town who's come to help the situation, to get lost.\n\nSo now in the north-west corner of the neighborhood we've got a clump of houses and friends that aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing. And this clump is growing rapidly. \n\nAlthough dangerous, this clump of houses isn't enough to destroy the neighborhood. However, if one of those friends living in the clump gets an error in his book that tells him to get in his car, and drive to a new area of the neighborhood, and how to avoid the friends trying to help on the way, we've got a big problem.",
"So all cells in the body are in a constant cycle of division and death. These functions are controlled by the genetic material inside the cell telling it when to do it, with each cell being a copy of its previous self. When you are exposed to **cigarettes, asbestos, radiation and sunlight (AKA carcinogens)** this disrupts the exact copying mechanism of the genes and a resulting copy of the cells you get maybe defiant to the body's signal for them to die. These death resistant cells makes more copies and essentially take resources meant for other processes making you ill.\n\ntldr: These things mutate the cell by damaging genes making it resistant to dying and making it multiply faster.",
"Cancer forms constantly. Cancer is basically the equivalent of a spelling mistake in your DNA. For every mistake that happens your cells correct it, but if the mistake isn’t corrected then the mistake can be duplicated. All the outside influences you mentioned just increase the chance of the mistake.",
"Ever seen lizards she'd their skin? They always have a new one underneath! How come? Well, as well as us, the cells on their body are constantly reproducing, I'm sure you've seen that process in cartoons, where one cell stretches so much it becomes two, we call it mitosis.\nWell... Sometimes mitosis goes wrong. During the process your body can mess up something, we are flawed creatures. And when that happens we get a \"broken\" cell. The broken cell goes psycho mode and does mitosis at an extremely faster rate, eating away surrounding cells and making more broken ones. If it stops, we call it a tumor. If it doesn't, we call it cancer.\nWell cigarettes, sun and the likes of them kinda fucks a little with our body's chemistry, making the chances of cells becoming broken in the first place higher.\n\nSources: middle school biology class",
"Cancer is basically a result of damaged DNA. When a healthy cell divides, there are a variety of checkpoints the cell has to pass in order to avoid self - destruction in a process called apoptosis. This occurs both when the cell has damaged DNA and when it has divided so many times that it has reached the end of its lifespan. But sometimes a cell is damaged in such a way that it wants to keep dividing forever. Normally this very quickly triggers the self - destruct button, but if the self - destruct button itself is damaged, the damaged cell keeps can sometimes keep on living and dividing and spreading. Cigarettes, asbestos, and UV rays all damage DNA, although they do it in different ways.",
"I think of it like windows XP. Remember when you get an error and then the same error message pops up in a window over and over in a loop? It’s uncontrollably multiplying the error message? It’s impossible to exit out of it without taking drastic measures like holding down the power button for a forced shutdown. It’s not good to do but you have to sometimes.",
"Everyone has cancerous cells all the time. Errors copying DNA, or damage to the copy and repair machinery cause it. Some damage triggers a self destruct for the cells, and some triggers rapid growth. \n\nOur white blood cells can smell most of the unrepairable cells, but can only eat so many of them at once. Also, sometimes, the fast growing cells break loose and stick somewhere else, which takes a while to build up enough cancer smell for white blood cells to find.\n\nRadiation, some chemicals, and some viruses greatly increase those problems. They can reduce WBC effectiveness and replication, increase cell damage, etc.\n\nWith enough random hits, some of those cancer cells cannot be smelled. Those can grow without being attacked by the body at all. We treat that by:\n\n* targeted beams of radiation from many directions so only a central point gets a lethal dose, killing the core of a large tumor.\n* drugs that cross-link DNA so your cells cannot replicate. It takes time for your cells to fix this. Any cell that needs to repair or replace itself before fixed will die. Cancer cells, stomach lining, and hair follicles need to do that way more often, and are more likely to die. Some good cells all over die too.\n* newer drugs also can smell cancers and poison them more than normal cells.\n* Custom made viruses can target some types of cancer cells\n* there are some other drug types too\n\nIn all of those treatments, some cells can stay half broken and do not die, leading to more cancer years later.",
"I have always thought of this as winning the lottery. Just that the prize is something you don't really want. The more unhealthy you live, the more bad habits that you have, the more entries you have in that lottery.\n\nYou don't know which cell is going to one day get damaged enough to escape your body's natural elimination system so it's best that you maintain a healthy lifestyle.\n\nIn the end, it's all probability and how badly the universe wants to fuck you. You cannot control the universe so try to control the probability.",
"Supposedly, your body kills one new cancerous cell every day. \n\nWhat makes real cancer different is it's jusssst different enough to remove growth restrictions, but not different enough to trigger a immuno-response.",
"Cancer cells are mutated cells in the body that have been mutated in such a way that they multiply constantly and never stop. As opposed to healthy cells that destroy themselves after multiplying too many times. Things like cigarettes, asbestos, and large amounts of sun exposure damage the DNA in cells and give them a higher chance of developing into cancer cells as they are more likely to mutate. Additionally the reason why cancer is more common as you get older is because there is more time for the mutations to occur. This is also why if a child has cancer, it is usually leukemia, because leukemia only takes a few mutations to occur.",
"They basically screw with the DNA in a cell; as other commenters have stated, it’s an error in replication that isn’t caught before it gets out of control that is termed “cancer”.\n\nAs far as cigarettes go, a chemical called benzopyrene messes with the P53 gene (to the best of my recollection). Asbestos, when inhaled, causes an inflammatory reaction that ultimately ends with mutagens being released. Radiation from the sun can damage the cell’s DNA, and if it isn’t repaired (or the cell doesn’t undergo apoptosis, a type of “suicide”) and continues to divide, it becomes cancerous.",
"Those things damage DNA. DNA controls everything the cell does. How often it divides, what it divides into, etc.\n\nWe're constantly subjected to the DNA in our cells being altered by the environment. Radiation, carcinogens, etc. However, the vast majority of our DNA doesn't code proteins, and even if one of those sections in a given cell's DNA is hit, there's no guarantee it's going to become a tumor.\n\nCancer is when a cell's DNA is altered in just the right way so that it goes crazy making copies of itself. Those copies form a mass and that's called a tumor. Most of the time, tumors are benign. They grow to a certain size and stop growing, don't spread to other cells, etc. Sometimes, tumors are malignant. They grow and spread throughout the body. Eventually they start disrupting system functions and killing healthy cells. These altered cells don't function they way they were supposed to. Like, a cancerous cell from a lung isn't going to transfer oxygen and CO2 to and from your bloodstream, but it will grow and starve out the functional cells that do.\n\nThere is a cancer for every type of cell in the body, that's why a \"cure for cancer\" is a misnomer. It's not one single disease that can just have a single cure. It is several, all with different behaviors and different treatments. Most people get chemo, but chemo is basically a \"scorched earth\" tactic, trying to kill the cancer before it kills the patient. If caught early enough, often the offending tumor can be removed before it spreads to the rest of the body.",
"For cells to become cancer, they need mutations, which are changes to DNA caused by the things you have listed for example, that give them these characteristics. Cancer has six common features:\n\n- Cancer cells need to not kill themselves when the body tells them to.\n\n- The body will not tell cancer cells to grow, so they have to tell themselves to grow.\n\n- The body tells the cancer to stop growing, and the cancer cells need to ignore that message.\n\n- Cancer cells need to be able to break away and move to other parts of the body\n\n- Cancer cells need to find a way to keep reproducing, which healthy cells can’t do forever.\n\n- Tumours need to find a way to bring blood to the cancer cells\n\nThings like UV and asbestos get into cells and mutate the DNA, which means that something about the cell might change as a result. If those changes give a cell all the traits listed above then it will become cancerous.\n\nNote: I am interpreting Hanahan and Weinberg’s paper The Hallmarks of Cancer and have simplified their ideas a lot. None of these concepts are mine, so if you want to know more I recommend reading the paper. They also have listed four more Hallmarks in a more recent paper but for simplicity I didn’t go into those.",
"Cells work together.\n\nCancer cells have mutated DNA and don't work with the rest of the body.\n\nCigarettes, asbestos and radiation can mess with DNA, and sometimes make cells go \"wild\", or cancerous",
"The way my dad explained it was when I was a kid. Cancer is cells multiplying too fast and the body makes an oops. \nWhen you put your body in a position to turbo boost that process —- as in cell damage like sun and tobacco - you just speed up the process. Maybe causing higher chance for an oops",
"Imagine a set of instructions for building a cell that has a stop instruction at the end for when you don't need anymore cells. Cancer happens when one of the things you listed (carcinogens) destroys that last instruction and the cells no longer know when to stop so they just keep going.",
"Most cells in your body copy themselves to survive. It's like a game of telephone. When the genes are copied it tells the next cell what it should be. Now imagine playing telephone while drunk, it becomes incoherent and harder to tell what the original words were. Carcinogens are substances that interrupt specific processes in cell duplication to create errors in the message. It is more complicated than this but this is the gist of it.",
"Cells contain DNA in the nucleus that control what it do. Things like divide, not divide, etc. Things like cigarettes and much exposure to the sun can mutate that DNA and cause it to rapidly divide with no limits, causing cancer",
"Iant it true that cancer cells are sort of immortal. I remember a study done in regards to extending human life etc that basically said. We could do this.....but you are guaranteed to have cancer runaway.",
"Dna gets damaged and the cells lose the part of the code that tells them to stop multiplying.",
"Think of a cell as a program or recipe issuing commands\n\n\n_URL_0_ Cell function\n\n2.Check if replacement is needed?\n\n3.Issue multiply command\n\n4.Stop multipling\n\n5.Repeat\n\n\n\nNow carcinogen's i.e cigarettes, UV rays etc can damage the program and delete step 3, so the cell never gets the command to stop multiplying and becomes a cancer.",
"When a cell turns cancerous, the normal reaction is for the cell to self destruct, or white blood cells will gang rush it before it causes problems.\n\nI specifically know that nicotine disables the self destruct feature and weakens your immune system in the process.\n\nThe sun is a big ass nuclear fusion reactor and therefore gives off a butt ton of ionizing radiation. Luckily our skin keeps it out of the important fleshy bits, unluckily our skin can develop cancer after getting too much radiation damage. Just like you can get cancer from being around radioactive materials for too long.",
"The best way I've ever had it explained was;\n1:good daughter\n2:bad daughter\n3:dead daughter \n4:no daughter\n1 is when the cell becomes damaged but fixes itself and has healthy daughter cells\n2 is when the cell becomes damaged and then passes that trait onto it's daughters'\n3 is when the cell becomes damaged and then the daughter cells die from said damage \n4 is where the parent cell dies before it can split. \n#2 is the cancer causing scenario",
"All cancer is genetic, in the sense that it relates to DNA mutations. Very few cancers are inherited genetic conditions (DNA mutations that you were already born with / that you got from your mom or dad). Most of these DNA mutations that cause cancer are therefore \"acquired\" - something happens that causes the cells to mess up when making new cells. \n\nAcquired DNA mutations certainly happen all the time just by chance alone. As you get older the enzymes and things that are responsible for DNA replication and repairing DNA get older and worse. and if you roll dice enough times eventually you'll get a rare outcome. But environmental triggers can certainly make these mutations far more likely to happen.\n\nThe DNA mutations that cause cancer will then do things like make the cells that have them replicate way faster than cells usually would, or not die as fast. Hence why you think of cancer as a clump of cells that don't want to die and/or that build up.",
"Simply put, those things may cause mutations in DNA when cells replicate and mutations may cause uncontrollable replication of new cells. Cancer is just unregulated dividing of cells into a cluster or mass that may alter the regular functioning of body.",
"Hey.. I think I can eli5 this.\n\nYou've heard of the game Chinese whisper?, now imagine that the set of whisper words is a cell, as it divides it has to retain its functionality and all of its characteristics.\n\nNow, just like what happens in Chinese whisper people make mistakes and in the end the word set you end up with could be completely different from what you began with. Similarly, every time sells divide there is a chance that something may go missing or get copied erroneously (in their DNA) .\n\nThese minor errors accumulate and changes the entire word set in a Chinese whisper, while in cells this affects their functionality and ability to maintain their characteristics and as and when they no longer belong to the location they are at they start clumping together and limitlessly growing to form cancers.\n\nNow, sunrays, asbestos and all he bad stuffs... They are like random people shouting unrelated words in a Chinese whisper game, it can distract the players and make them forget the words in the set, eventually leading to different sets. Asbestos and other cancer causing agents does the exact same thing to DNA, but a lot more directly by directly or indirectly damaging it.",
"I wrote a short \"cellular memoir\" of cancer once, telling the tale from the point of view of a cancerous cell in my colon. Basically, all of your cells are descended from one fertilized egg cell. Before it was fertilized, that egg cell had divided from another egg cell, and another egg cell before that, and only ever been egg cells for a billion years. Dividing was its job. Some of its siblings differentiated into specialized cells like skin and bone and nerve and muscle, and THEY stopped dividing, but the one egg cell has never ever ever permanently stopped dividing. \n\n\nIt's a hard habit to break. \n\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Cells actually have to be told to either die or stop dividing. But if the mechanism that instructs these cells to act is damaged even slightly, then the cells won't know when to stop",
"Cells are only made to divide so many times, as when they divide the cell copies exactly what information it has, mutations and all. There are waste chunks of dna on either end of chromosomes, called telomeres, and each time a cell divides this is shortened; these waste chunks protect the real information from being eroded by replication as there is some end parts that are not translated. Cancer is when the mutations have gone far enough the cell stops checking for the telomere all together and just starts dividing rapidly, without any regard for their original limit/expected lifespan. If cancer listened to the telomeres but just divided quickly, most tumors would be benign by the time their noticed, as the rapid division would burn the cells out and they'd die quicky. It's an *uncontrolled* rapid cell division, as there are cells that divide rapidly naturally, like say hair, intestines, and stomach; this is why some treatments, one that focus on the speed of the division, often cross target hair and digestive system as collateral damage.\n\nThings that are generally considered carcinogens are good at damaging dna, and causing these mutations that can eventually snowball into cancerous cells... Cigarette and things you ingest do it chemically, things like uv radiation are still radiation, any photon is technically, but the issue is *ionizing* radiation, which starts occuring in photon energy levels at the high end of ultraviolet. Meaning that a UV spectrum has some ionizing radiation (even if it's not particularly intense, long enposure will ionize parts of your dna, which is inherently damaging)\n\n but say if we tried to live to 200/300 years without addressing telomeres or cancer; it'd basically be impossible to not have some cancer, no matter your health; as there wouldn't be any telomere left and every division would be literally \"deleting\" chunks of your dna. \n\n\nAt the point where you have no telomeres and didn't succum to massive organ failure (by cell death), you'd either be an entire cancerous body, or we'd need to redifinie an \"undead\".\n\n\nTldr: cancer is an unnatural response to the natural end of a cells life, most commonly brought on by mutations in its dna. The rapid division alone isn't inherently bad, but along with ignoring telomeres(not dying, increasing mutations) it just compounds into a cancerous tumor"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4493566/",
"http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2015/02/metabolic-theory-cancer-2-theories.html",
"https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/mitochondria-function-reduce-cancer-risk/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.newsweek.com/2017/07/28/cancer-evolution-cells-637632.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"1.Do"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://tcantine.blogspot.com/2012/01/cancer-cellular-memoir.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
5shom0 | how is it that the president can have the authority to authorize a nuclear attack but not a travel ban? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5shom0/eli5_how_is_it_that_the_president_can_have_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddf4f4s",
"ddf4hu2",
"ddf4iha",
"ddf54fz",
"ddf857y",
"ddf9jqa"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2,
12,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Immigrants to the US, and especially US residents, have a lot more rights under the Constitution than random foreigners who may be nuked.\n\nNuking Americans would be a constitutional issue, and would be within the jurisdiction of US courts. Nuking Russians is not a constitutional issue.",
"He can't immediately authorize a nuclear attack either unless there is clear and present danger, immediate military force is required to safeguard the populace of the United States, there's no time to convene the legislature to debate and vote for war measures, and the military has determined that a preemptive or retaliatory nuclear strike is either the last resort/only remaining option. Under those conditions is the nuclear football used. \n\nHe can't just order Lt. Nelson to pop the football down, phone up the Pentagon and say \"Those dudes in Crapmenistan tweeted bad things, lets glass their shitty country.\" There are checks and balances in place. Further more, members of the armed forces are duty bound (if I'm not mistaken) to disobey orders that are ludicrous. ",
"Neither has anything to do with the other.\n\nThe constitution states that the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This authority naturally gives him control over the military's weapons, including its nuclear arsenal.\n\nThe constitution does not say anything about immigration bans because such a thing did not exist when it was written and it hasn't been amended to include anything about immigration since that time.\n\nHowever, the constitution does say that the job of the president is to *enforce* the law. That does not mean, though, that he can *create* laws by decree, which is what this travel ban was.",
"He actually does have the authority to implement a travel ban under section 212(B) subsection F of the immigration and nationality act.\n_URL_0_\n\n\"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.\" \n\nJudges, however do have the ability to block any law that they deem unconstitutional which is what happened in this case. So from here, the justice department will issue an appeal of the judge's decision, it will move to a higher court and we'll start the process over",
"The logic you are using would suggest that the president has the authority to make any decision that is less important than a nuclear attack, which is to say--most decisions.\n\nFor example, should the president decide also that everyone has to go to college and pay for it out of pocket? That is less consequential than nuclear war.\n\nOr should the president decide that every Friday we follow the old Catholic tradition and only eat fish, because that is also less consequential than nuclear war?\n\nThe president cannot make laws. He may create an executive order to enforce a law in a certain way, but there's a reason the ACA wasn't an executive order.\n\nFinally, the president only has the power to order a nuclear attack within the context of a war that congress authorizes. He cannot just randomly attack other countries.\n\n",
" > If we (the people) entrust the President with the ultimate authority to wage a war (which the Secretary of Defense can approve but not veto)\n\nJust to clarify (just in case), we don't allow the president to declare war. Strictly speaking, he's only allowed to wage it after Congress declares it (although in modern history, this power has been expanded,and Congress hasn't pushed back). \n\nPractically speaking, the President has a lot of power, legally speaking, he doesn't. It's not just a funding thing.\n\n > how is it that he could be super-ceded by the courts in a (lesser) effort that he obviously believes is a matter of national security?\n\n The President has a wide range of power in implementing immigration policy, but that is still checked by the judicial and legislative branches.\n\nEven if the President claims it's an issue of national security, the judges will weigh the odds of whether it is actually true. He can't just claim \"national security\", with no proof. While the President has some power in declaring things like martial law, there are strict rules so that it isn't abused.The President does get a huge amount of deference from the judicial branch, but they do need to show something. From most accounts, they essentially had no evidence.\n\nIn addition, I'll mention that the logic in the OP is inherently flawed. there are are million things that we don't allow the president to do. That's just how the Constitution is set up-he's Commander in Chief. The fact that other things are \"lesser\" doesn't really matter. (although i will mention, this is largely intentional, we have separation of powers for a reason).\n\n\nAside:\nIn the comments, i see mention that it's \"not a Muslim ban\". While the ban itself doesn't use the language, it doesn't have to. The President's comments outside can be used as context for animus. In addition, even if it doesn't explicitly mention a Muslim ban,if you can show that a certain religion is disfavored, that can still be a violation of the equal protection clause.\n\ncommon sense tldr:\nBecause in war, you can't always wait for congress/courts to dither. When not at war, you can. You can override that with valid national security , but you do need to show some kind of compelling evidence. The court decided that evidence wasn't enough. \n\nedit:\n\nIf you want to read more on how the court actually came to it's decision, here it [is](_URL_1_)\n\nIt's only 7 pages, i recommend reading. It goes into the reasoning, and it's pretty easy to follow (for the most part)\n\n\nedit2:\nIn a comment, you mention:\n\n > I see no reason why a President couldn't be protective in keeping non-citizens, from any region, out until he felt proper vetting procedures were in place\n\nNoncitizens is actually a tricky question- while you're incorrect (they still have equal protection under the law), they might not have standing to sue in court.\n\nIn general, the administration made a lot of mistakes (not running it by legal counsel) which tripped them up, and they might have been able to save the EO if they had. But they didn't.\n\nI'd highly recommend [this](_URL_0_) and [this](_URL_2_) for further reading. They cover the questions you're asking pretty well, and in far more detail than I did. They're written by a constitutional law professor, whose book is one of the top in the field, to boot. (the articles are written for laymen)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html"
],
[],
[
"https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-02/there-s-no-quick-fix-to-trump-s-immigration-ban",
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/04/read-washington-judges-ruling-trumps-immigration-ban/97484850/",
"https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-29/rule-of-law-1-trump-s-immigration-ban-0"
]
] |
||
jxa1q | can somebody please explain cosmic microwave backgorund radiation? | _URL_0_
I kinda sorta get it but... Not really. Please help me grasp this incredible discovery. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jxa1q/eli5_can_somebody_please_explain_cosmic_microwave/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2fvfje",
"c2fvfje"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"When the universe was very young—as in, less than 400,000 years old—it was very, very hot. It was so hot, in fact, that matter couldn't exist except in a form called \"plasma\". This is the kind of stuff the sun is made out of, except the plasma at that time was much hotter than the sun. One of the things about plasma is that light can't travel through it very well. The sun gives off a lot of light, but you can't really see into it, and if you were inside of it you wouldn't be able to see very far at all. So while the universe was in this state, all of the light that existed was sort of trapped and unable to move around freely.\n\nEventually, the universe cooled down and expanded enough that the plasma turned into an actual gas. When that happened, the light was no longer trapped and could stream out across the universe. This light filled the entire universe at that time. What happened to it? Well, it's still there. Except that the universe has gotten much colder and expanded a lot more since then, so not it's very, very faint. We call that light the \"cosmic microwave background radiation\": cosmic, because it's related to space; microwave, because that's the kind of light it is; background, because it exists everywhere, kind of in the background underneath any other light you might see; and radiation, because light is a kind of radiation.\n\nWhat's so important about it? Well, first it was predicted before it was discovered. Some people were thinking about the idea of the Big Bang and realized that if the theory were correct there should be this background radiation, but no one had seen it anywhere. Then, some time later, some people were looking at the information they'd gathered from a telescope and noticed some \"noise\"—apparent light that shouldn't really be there. They tried a lot of things to get rid of the noise but nothing worked. Then one of them got the idea to see if it matched the light that had been predicted, and it did. Future tests confirmed that it was, indeed, precisely what the Big Bang model had predicted. Thus, it served as evidence that the Big Bang model was correct.\n\nAlso, by studying the light very closely and looking at how it changes depending which part of the sky you look at (remember, it's everywhere, so you will see it no matter where you point a telescope that's capable of \"seeing\" it), we are able to get information about the shape of your universe and the conditions at the time the light was created some 13 billion years ago.",
"When the universe was very young—as in, less than 400,000 years old—it was very, very hot. It was so hot, in fact, that matter couldn't exist except in a form called \"plasma\". This is the kind of stuff the sun is made out of, except the plasma at that time was much hotter than the sun. One of the things about plasma is that light can't travel through it very well. The sun gives off a lot of light, but you can't really see into it, and if you were inside of it you wouldn't be able to see very far at all. So while the universe was in this state, all of the light that existed was sort of trapped and unable to move around freely.\n\nEventually, the universe cooled down and expanded enough that the plasma turned into an actual gas. When that happened, the light was no longer trapped and could stream out across the universe. This light filled the entire universe at that time. What happened to it? Well, it's still there. Except that the universe has gotten much colder and expanded a lot more since then, so not it's very, very faint. We call that light the \"cosmic microwave background radiation\": cosmic, because it's related to space; microwave, because that's the kind of light it is; background, because it exists everywhere, kind of in the background underneath any other light you might see; and radiation, because light is a kind of radiation.\n\nWhat's so important about it? Well, first it was predicted before it was discovered. Some people were thinking about the idea of the Big Bang and realized that if the theory were correct there should be this background radiation, but no one had seen it anywhere. Then, some time later, some people were looking at the information they'd gathered from a telescope and noticed some \"noise\"—apparent light that shouldn't really be there. They tried a lot of things to get rid of the noise but nothing worked. Then one of them got the idea to see if it matched the light that had been predicted, and it did. Future tests confirmed that it was, indeed, precisely what the Big Bang model had predicted. Thus, it served as evidence that the Big Bang model was correct.\n\nAlso, by studying the light very closely and looking at how it changes depending which part of the sky you look at (remember, it's everywhere, so you will see it no matter where you point a telescope that's capable of \"seeing\" it), we are able to get information about the shape of your universe and the conditions at the time the light was created some 13 billion years ago."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9rl9oj | why did pilgrims wear buckles on their hats? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rl9oj/eli5_why_did_pilgrims_wear_buckles_on_their_hats/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8hp1ed",
"e8hp1os"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Contrary to popular myth, capotains never included buckles on the front of them; this image was created in the 19th century.",
"They didn't. That style of hat came after the Pilgrims left England and had established themselves in the New World. The buckle was just a type of fastener used to adjust the size of the hat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7k0ppd | how is fm radio still thriving as much as it supposedly is as a media source? | I have heard data given commercials recently that says something like "fm radio still reaches more Americans than any other media outlet" but I feel like the only place FM is still frequently used is in older vehicles that have no means of connecting or playing anything else. Will the inclusion of bluetooth/USB in modern cars slowly kill FM? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7k0ppd/eli5_how_is_fm_radio_still_thriving_as_much_as_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dram8sa",
"dranjgb",
"drao76a",
"drapluk"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"digital radio is becoming more common, but it still pales in comparison to the number of cars that have a plain old FM radio receiver. \n\nMy cars aren't exactly new, they're both about ten years old (but this is still only going back to 2008 remember) and they have standard FM/AM radio receivers, and every radio I encounter at work is FM. One or two people have personal DAB receivers, and higher end newer cars have them, but anyone who has a car more than about, say, six or seven years old, having a digital or internet radio was normally a pretty high end option if it was possible at all. \n\nIt's hard to imagine if you go round in a newer car and only listen to digital or internet radio, but plain old standard analog radio is still pretty common. ",
"It's possible but the radio is also an easy way to hear new music. Some people don't want to decide which music to listen to or go out searching for a podcast, most morning radio shows have some music but also a talk show, which is a great way to get news. Add on that radio is free and many blue collar shops (mechanics and the like) still use radios on the work floor, FM has some time left.",
"It's free and good enough, that gives it good staying power\n\nBluetooth/USB connectivity only displaces FM radio for people who wish to use their phone as their media source, but there is a huge population that doesn't wish to.\n\nWhat percentage of people born before 1970 do you think would use Bluetooth if their car supported it? Not a huge percentage.\n\nThe older generations give lots of \"good enough\" technology incredible staying power",
"* It's free to listen.\n* The equipment is very cheap.\n* It requires almost no power to use. A portable radio will last multiple years on AA batteries.\n* It's available nearly everywhere. No wifi/internet/data required.\n* It's constantly changing and up-to-date content (music, news, etc.) with nearly no user input.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
j2thn | can someone explain how to start your own company? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2thn/can_someone_explain_how_to_start_your_own_company/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28o7s9",
"c28oagi",
"c28oeo4"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I regrettably don't have any first-hand experience, and I also would like to know more about this question, but I can offer what I witnessed from my mother starting her own company:\n\nKnow your shit. There's a lot of legal aspects to starting your own business (licensure, permits, documentation, etc.). I'm fairly sure it varies by state, possibly even down to the county level, depending on where you are. I know my mom had to do a LOT to get her business established, and I remember being extremely glad I wasn't the one going through it.\n\nBest of luck, and hopefully someone can provide us with a real answer :-/",
"Companies come in many shapes and sizes. Some have only 1 employee, you; some have 1000s of employees.\n\nTo start your own company you don't need much money or a business plan (a Business Plan is what you show to the bank or similar people, to get help for your business in the form of money, but you also must pay them back.)\n\nThe easiest way to start a business as: Doing Business As (DBA). To accomplish this you need to think of a good name for your business (be creative and think of a cool name). There are ways to check to make sure you don't have same name as other companies. It would be bad if you decided you wanted a company named Walmart, Google, Coca-Cola, etc.\n\nOnce you do this and register the name in the State you live in, you then need a city and state business license. This makes it legal to do business in the place you live and also helps the city and state know how many businesses there are, how many employees, and more. You can even do it out of your own home! No need to rent a big expensive building if it's just for you.\n\nAfter this is done, it's a good thing to find a bank and open a business account (free if possible) so when someone writes you a check for your company name, you have a place to put that money. \n\nRemember, every year you will have to renew your city and state business license, and potentially need to renew the name. If the business makes money, you can pay other people to do work for you and it can get very complex, but we'll save that talk for when we're a little older and wiser.",
"Okay, here's one I can answer. \n\n1. You need a product or a service to offer that people will pay money for. Maybe you know how to make a website. There are people who don't know how to do that, so they want to pay someone to do it for them. You can be that person.\n\n2. Decide how much to charge people. If you don't know, just google it and find out how much other people charge. Or just make something up that sounds reasonable.\n\n3. Decide what kind of business to be. You can be a \"sole proprietor\" or a Limited Liability Company or a Corporation. This affects how you pay taxes and your liability for damages among other things. Ask an accountant and an attorney before you decide what to be. \n\n4. Some places require you to have a business license, and a sales tax permit. Find out if you need one by asking an attorney or accountant in your area. \n\n5. Register your business with your Secretary of State department and/or state tax authority, and pay any fees they require. \n\n6. with your newly registered business certificate, go open a bank account in your business name, and get checks, a check register, and a debit card. \n\n7. Go do some work, get paid, and deposit your money in your business account. \n\n8. Write yourself a paycheck. Congratulations, you're in business."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2qsf23 | why do some radios only come with the fm station and not the am | Got a new radio today, and was curious why it didn't come with AM radio functions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qsf23/eli5why_do_some_radios_only_come_with_the_fm/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn943m2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"AM (_URL_1_) and FM (_URL_0_) radio are two different ways of encoding audio in a radio signal. the actual mechanics of converting the radio signal into audio you can hear are different, and the two different method require different circuitry or software to decode the signal. \n\nbecause of it's poorer audio quality, AM radio has fallen into disfavor for most broadcasting, and while it is still very widely used in the US, it's not be as popular, and is more widely used for Talk Radio, where audio fidelity isn't as important as for Music. \n\nSome radios will only include the circuitry for FM radio, because that's all they expect their users to actually listen to. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation"
]
] |
|
ae5i7x | why are all podcast ads for subscription services? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ae5i7x/eli5_why_are_all_podcast_ads_for_subscription/ | {
"a_id": [
"edmlxg0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Subscription services are just a very popular startup business model currently, it’s a really successful one as subscription services generate good, solid, predictable, and real cash flows (of course only for those that succeed). Subscriptions are an amazing business to be in for most any company over a la carte sales. \n\nPodcasts offer cheap as hell advertising and they can target their demos well. For new emerging companies it’s a pretty good option compared to far higher priced digital ads on stuff like FB or google "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5sdope | is it cheaper to automate processes than to outsource them to cheap labour? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sdope/eli5_is_it_cheaper_to_automate_processes_than_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dde9go5",
"dde9jla",
"dde9kyq",
"ddebys3"
],
"score": [
3,
14,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"In my experience it is enormously cheaper to outsource because there is zero investment. To automate requires capital investment for machines and time to switch over which is itself downtime. There are still vast populations willing to work for peanuts compared to Americans.",
"It really depends on the product, the process and the size of the run. If you are trying to perhaps, bottle beer, or box cereal, a simple, constant product and process, automation makes sense if demand is high. You really don't want workers putting bottles of beer in six pack holders all day, and then placing them into cartons.\n\nOn the other hand, if you are making short run products, 100 of these, 50 of those, then automation becomes less important and flexibility becomes more important. For example, if you only make 20 jet engines a week, but the engines are of four different types than only certain aspects can be automated.\n\nHowever, if you want to eliminate unskilled labor, like fork lift drives, box closers, packagers, assemblers, and demand for the product will exist for a long period of time, then automation becomes cheaper than unskilled labor.",
"In the short run it is often cheaper to outsource the labor to cheaper countries. However if it is a high skill job like computer development then this will usually not be cheaper as high skill people costs about the same no matter where in the world you are as they are free to chose jobs that pay more. Automating on the other hand takes quite a bit of investment as you need to hire more highly skilled people to develop and maintain the automation tools. However when things are automated maintaining it is much cheaper then if you had outsourced the jobs. So it depend on what kind of job it is and how soon you want the return on your investment.",
"This question is probably best answered using the concept of 'Net Present Value', which is essentially the value of future cash flows in 'today's money'. It is calculated by reducing ('discounting') future cash-flows (cash money after all costs) by a certain rate that reflects the cost of borrowing money from somewhere *and then* deducting your initial investment cost (the cost of buying your machinery or equipment used in producing a good or service) from this. This can give you and objective 'value' of a project in today's money and can be compared with other projects to see which is best. \nIn the short-term, outsourcing is often cheaper as automation involves an up-front investment (called 'Capital Expenditure'). If the cost of this investment is not recouped by future cash-flows from producing and selling your good or service, then the same project offering short-term cost savings by outsourcing costs of production could be a more attractive alternative. \nIn the longer-term however, the cost savings made by automating production often outweigh the initial investment as the project has longer to recoup that initial investment and the cost savings (particularly wage costs in developed economies) tend to significant. This is a generalization, and is dependent on a number of factors (such as average wage costs, tax rates, depreciation rates, residual value of the machinery, the labour intensivity of producing your goods) but is a key reason why so many manufacturers in developed economies have either turned to automation (e.g. Japanese Car Industry) or a combination of automation and 'offshoring' (moving production to a foreign country) (e.g. Nike's production of shoes in Asia). \nIf you are interested, this scenario can be compared through using a 'discount cash-flow' (DCF) model (there are plenty of explanations of how this can be done on youtube). Good to finally use my Finance Degree for something other than answering emails!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5hdrzx | how does a heat pump work? | Also interested in the difference in normal operation mode and "aux" or "emergency" mode.
Note: I have googled, the responses just aren't in layman terms and I'm not understanding. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hdrzx/eli5_how_does_a_heat_pump_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dazdcoe",
"dazdju5",
"daze0xf",
"dazklyd"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Sorry, can't flair. On mobile. ",
"It's basically an air conditioner that can be turned around. When it's an AC it blows cold air and hot air is pumped outside. When it's a heater it blows hot air and cold air is pumped outside. \n \nDon't know what sux or emergency mode would mean other than they operate at their maximum capacity to warm or cool asquickly as possible.",
"It's basically air-conditioning in reverse. The compressor increases pressure and concentrates heat on the refrigerant flowing to one coil while a fan moves air through it, heating the air and cooling the coil. This now cooled refrigerant flows to the metering device. These can be as simple as a stopper with a tiny hole or a dynamically adjustable valve. Passing through this restriction drops the pressure and spreads the heat back out, lowering the temperature of the refrigerant as it flows into the second coil. A second fan moves air through this second coil, this time raising the temperature of the coil and cooling the air. The refrigerant now flows back to the compressor, repeating the cycle.\n\nIn a heat pump, the first hot coil would be connected to indoor air. And the second cold coil would be using outdoor air. On a standard heat pump unit there is a \"reversing valve\" which changes the direction of the flow. Making the outdoor coil the hot one and the indoor coil the cool one. This produces air-conditioning.\n\nAs you can see in both instances very little heat is actually produced, but rather it's moved. Heat is moved from outside to inside in heat pump mode and the opposite for cooling mode.\n\nSince we are moving heat that's already there, that's why heat pumps struggle to produce enough heat when it's very cold outside. Most units will have a less efficient source of backup heat that actually generates heat rather than moving it. Running this along with the heat pump is \"Aux\" heat. Emergency is running this backup heat alone.\n\nSource - Former HVAC Service Tech",
"Two things first: When you compress a gas, it gets hotter, when you decompress a gas, it gets cooler. Going from liquid to gas is even better.\n\nWith that in mind, let's look at a heat pump. We have four main components: A compressor, two heat exchangers, and what's called a working fluid, which must be a gas at the lowest temperature you plan to deal with.\n\nThe compressor compresses the working fluid into a liquid, which heats up in response. The working fluid moves through the first heat exchangers and dumps a bunch of that heat off into whatever you are heating, or outside if you're cooling. \n\nThe working fluid then travels through a one-way valve into the second heat exchanger, where the now cooler liquid working fluid boils off. Boiling is the same as expansion, so as a result, the gas cools off, and absorbs heat from the heat exchanger, which absorbs heat from the environment, the opposite of the first heat exchanger.\n\nThe now warm, gaseous working fluid flows back into the compressor, and the cycle begins anew.\n\nIn this way, by changing where the air from each heat exchanger goes, you can change the temperature of the environment around it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1tk0dd | what is happening when i turn off the television and the lights, and the television still looks to be dimly lit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tk0dd/eli5_what_is_happening_when_i_turn_off_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce8tz2y",
"ce9biki"
],
"score": [
37,
2
],
"text": [
"You mean old CRT TVs? The way those work is the back side of the screen is coated in phosphor. The TV makes images by firing a beam of electrons at the phosphor coating, making it glow. The beam moves from left-to-right and top-to-bottom, redrawing the entire screen many times a second.\n\nWhen the electron beam stops, the dot stops glowing. It loses *almost* all of its glow in less than a tenth of a second, but it doesn't lose *all* of its glow for a good while. If you're in a completely dark room, and your eyes are adjusted, you can see the residual glow. It's quite dim, even to start with, and loses all its brightness over the course of a few minutes, the same way a glow-in-the-dark toy does.",
"What's happening is that your broke ass needs to get rid of that old CRT and get flat screen. Welcome to the 21st century."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6v7gcv | does a baby smell like s mix of its parents or a new smell to an animal with a more sensitive ability to detect odor? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6v7gcv/eli5_does_a_baby_smell_like_s_mix_of_its_parents/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlyhlcf",
"dlyj5ms",
"dlyj8fs",
"dlykja2",
"dlymcp0"
],
"score": [
8,
147,
21,
4,
12
],
"text": [
"Seems like it would be almost impossible for a baby to NOT smell like its parents since they come into so much daily and repeated skin to skin contact with the child. Is it inborn? Prob not but they most likely smell like the parent from repeated close contact. Who has a baby they dont touch 100X per day?",
"While extensive studies have been done examining the ability for parents and newborns to identify each other VERY quickly after birth, I don't think there's yet been investigation into the similarities of babies to their parents. But given that dog trainers encourage new parents with dogs to first bring a blanket the baby has been wrapped in home for the dog to acclimate to the new smell, the baby's scent is likely to be different *enough* from its parents for dogs to treat it as a new smell. This also makes sense with what we know about the differences in smell that humans undergo as part of puberty: even if babies smelled similar to their parents in some identifiable ways, they wouldn't smell the same because the parents are adults and the baby is not.",
"My son smells like a complete mixture of me and my wife. Example, I get a sweaty head in the night which smells weirdly like rice pudding (strange I know). My son, who is now two, also gets a similar sweaty head which smells like a slightly more pleasant (probably the wife's pheromones) version of my scent. I know this isn't scientific, but it is a genuinely weird sensation when you smell your child which, I guess, activates some animal instincts. I hope this is useful, although strange. ",
"Babies smell like baby poop, and not the bad baby poop smell, just the ambient baby poop smell. Anyone else? No? Okay I guess I'll leave.",
"I'll answer this directly for you since no one else seems to want to. Babies have their own unique smell. They produce tons of pheromones and that is why a lot of times pets will become very protective of the child. For example, my dog, although he wanted nothing to do with my son when it was just us in the house, when we had company he would always try position himself next to my son directly in between him and said guest. Especially people my dog was unfamiliar with. We brought this up with both the doctor and the vet and we were told that the smell of the pheromones was triggering an instinctual reaction to protect my son from harm and potential predators. Now that my son is a little older (almost 2), him and my dog are inseparable. Although he doesn't smell quite as nice. That boy can clear a room with a fart in 5 seconds flat"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2lnj0d | the marvel cinematic universe and the film rights to their respective characters in the marvel comic universe. more specifically, quicksilver & scarlet witch. | I'm not that big of a comic book fan, but I do enjoy their film adaptations. Most of us know that the distribution rights to most Marvel entities belong to Marvel Studios, however, the franchises of Spider-man, Fantastic Four & X-Men still belong to Columbia Pictures and 20th Century Fox, respectively. This makes it near impossible to create an Avengers film with Wolverine and Spider-man in them.
However, after watching the latest Captain America and X-Men films, I've noticed that the character of Quicksilver makes an appearance in both films. While the appearance in Capt. America was a mid-credits scene, the actor has signed on for a multi-picture deal and will appear in next year's Avenger film. Not only that, but the character of Scarlet Witch (Quicksilver's sister) appears in Capt America, and had plans to appear in the same Xmen film as Quicksilver, but the scene was cut from the theatrical release.
How is it that that particular character can appear in both of those film franchises? It can't be something as simple as a popularity issue, can it?
And while we are on the subject, how is it that the character of Django from *Django Unchained* (a film distributed by The Weinstein Co.) was able to appear, in character, in *A Million Ways to Die in the West* (distributed by Universal Pictures.)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lnj0d/eli5_the_marvel_cinematic_universe_and_the_film/ | {
"a_id": [
"clwga1q"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch occupy a weird little grey area in the usage rights that Marvel licensed to Fox. They're mutants, children of Magneto, so they're part of the X-Men franchise. So Fox can use them. However, they're *also* long-term Avengers, and -- unlike Spider-Man and Wolverine -- most of their comic book history has *been* as part of the Avengers, and not with the X-Men franchise. So it's natural for Marvel to use them. Marvel and Fox could have had a big brou-ha-ha over who got to use the characters, but instead worked out an arrangement so that each company could use the elements of the character that is relevant to their franchise. That is, Fox can use Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as mutants and children of Magneto, but cannot reference their history with the Avengers. Marvel Studios can use Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as members of the Avengers, but cannot reference X-Men or Magneto, and -- probably -- cannot directly call them mutants. (They'll just be people who have their super powers naturally but the reason why is likely to be glossed over.)\n\nI don't know enough about Django's appearance in *A Million Ways to Die in the West* to answer that question. Was Django present as a full character, or just a cameo? If so, was he *actually* Django -- as in, called such by name -- or was he just Jamie Foxx dressed like Django? There's enough room in the difference between the two that it's possible a small usage could skate through, especially given that parody (which I know AMWtD is) is protected speech. (Of course, it's also possible Weinstein just licensed the use of the character to AMWtD.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1gh1n6 | why do people on reddit care so much about comment and link karma? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gh1n6/eli5_why_do_people_on_reddit_care_so_much_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"cak4qil",
"cak4st1",
"cak4swi"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Human brains love being rewarded, even if that reward is just positive feedback (in the form of an upvote or a comment agreeing) from other anonymous users. It creates pleasure to get link and comment karma and displeasure to lose it.\n\nAlso if you have low karma it makes it harder (slower) to use the site.",
"I like to be upvoted (of course) but don't give a rat's ass about 'karma'.\n\nSome people are competitive types who love to 'score' and feel superior. My guess is it's for them. I doubt most redditors give a fuck. ",
"First of all, I don't care. Anything you get for free is worth what you pay for it.\n\nThe reason that other people care might be that they perceive the gathering of karma as not free. Most of the comments I see are geared towards establishing the wittiness of the person writing the comment, in the hopes or sometimes even expectation that said wittiness will be rewarded with up arrows.\n\nWhen this happens, it serves as a confirmation of self for the commenter. Many people are stuck in the [secular round of Maya](_URL_0_) and as such feel thay have something to prove.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zen#A_Boy_and_His_Dog"
]
] |
||
18mlcx | why do i have to be 18 to buy a lighter? | I was looking at lighters in the dollar store earlier today and the lady at the counter asked if I was planning on buying one and I replied with "yes" and she asked me how old I was and I replied "17", where shortly after she said that I have to be at least 18 to buy one. Why is it like this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18mlcx/eli5_why_do_i_have_to_be_18_to_buy_a_lighter/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8g3nw3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because that's the legal age to buy tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
rrgct | buddism | I'm a moron when it comes to anything spiritual... I've heard things in passing about Buddhism, but I still don't know its core beliefs.
Any Buddists out there who can help me? Or anyone with some knowledge of it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rrgct/eli5_buddism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c481t2z",
"c482564",
"c484s0r",
"c4856m5",
"c487c2z",
"c48bcng"
],
"score": [
3,
22,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm no good at ELI5, but...\n\nIt's easier to understand if you take a secular, non-spiritual viewpoint on the subject. \n\nBuddhism is a method by which *you learn to take command over your emotions, rather than having your emotions command you. It uses some basic instruction and regular practice to create a habit by which you can be a better human being.\n\nThis is a good read, as it leaves out all of the mystical mumbo-jumbo and just leaves the core, essential teachings to be easily digested: _URL_0_ \n\nEDIT: *words are hard",
"This may not be something a 5 year old will 100% understand, but I am explaining a religion here so I'll do my best to keep it simple.\n\nBuddhists believe that:\n 1. Everything is always changing, nothing stays the same, by accepting this you will no longer hold on to things that cannot last- this helps them accept death etc. \n\n2.There is no self, this is based off Hindu beliefs of finding a self but the Buddha said there is no self or at least no permanent self(relating it to point 1)\n\n3.Buddhism believes that all humans suffer, it is part of the 'human \ncondition'. - First Noble truth\n\nThe cause of this suffering is craving - The 2nd Noble truth\n\nBy getting rid of craving you get rid of suffering - 3rd Noble truth\n\nThe best way to do this is to live the middle way, between poor and rich, living on what you need, as you see how monks in a temple live.- 4th Noble Truth. \n\nThere is then the eightfold path which is ways to live your life, having the right view of things, putting these views into action and holding the correct thoughts(meditation comes into this). There is 8 sections to this path but that's the general gist of it. \n\nAll of this helps Buddhists reach enlightenment through helping them think and act the correct way - it helps them be compassionate to others. This will help Buddhists receive good Karma.\n\nBuddhists believe in the wheel of life, it has different realms which vary from good and bad, if you have Good karma you are reborn(not reincarnated, buddhists believe in no self so there is nothing to be reincarnated only your Karma follows on) into a better realm/rebirth, if you gain bad karma you are reborn into a worse realm/rebirth.\n\nHowever the ultimate goal of Buddhism is enlightenment, which is escaping this wheel of life by getting rid of suffering and realising all the truths of Buddhism. \n\nThis is what I know of Buddhism by doing it in my RMPS class in secondary school, if you have any questions about anything I have said just ask and I will see if I can answer them. \n\nTL:DR -Get rid of suffering by getting rid of craving and be compassionate. Through this you will reach Enlightenment. \n\nor a TL:DR for a 5 year old - If you want to feel happy you must stop wanting things and be nice to everyone, then you will feel truly happy.\n\n",
"1. desire leads to suffering \n\nthe more you want something, the more you get hurt and confused and cause yourself to get unhappy. your expectations lead to disappointment. you are creating the pain and disappointment yourself. its not that you did or didn't succeed - the task didn't cause you to be unhappy - its that your expectation of succeeding was so strong that you got disappointed and then suffered when it didn't work out.\n\nto do things and to accomplish things you don't need to yearn for them and to cause yourself to be unhappy. you just need to do the tasks and work on accomplishing it. \n\nenjoy the work and enjoy doing things, but don't create these artificial demands and expectations and then get upset when these expectations aren't met.\n",
"Life is how you feel when you skin your knee. But if you're a good boy or girl, eventually you can never feel anything ever again. But only after you die.",
"Zen Buddhist here. \n\nI just sit and stare at walls. Doing that helps clear my mind of pesky random thoughts and helps me focus on the present, not skip the present for a fantasy of the future or the mistakes of the past. \n\nI still try to set the wall on fire with my eyes sometimes. ",
"The way someone explained it to me in an East Asian Religion seminar was thusly: \n\nLife sucks. The reasons life sucks so much are desire and ignorance. There is a way to make life not suck anymore, and that way is to be a good person, accept that nothing is permanent, and open your mind to enlightenment. \n\nThat's the super-simplified version. \n\nFrom then on it starts to get really, really complicated and the teachings depend very heavily on what particular school of Buddhism you're looking at. Some schools of Buddhism are very similar to Christianity and believe in salvation and something that's sort of like Hell except an enlightened being called a Bodhisattva can bust you out (of course, the similarities to Christianity made the European missionaries' job in Japan pretty easy), and others incorporate other religious traditions like Daoism or indigenous Tibetan religion (Bon). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
40t209 | why is the force of gravity lower in water then on land? | This may already have been asked, and probably in a better way. Is the force of gravity applied to water as a whole?
Thank you in advanced. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40t209/eli5_why_is_the_force_of_gravity_lower_in_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"cywtl0q",
"cywto7b"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not less, it's exactly the same.\n\nThere's just a new force involved, bouncy, that's pushing you up while gravity is pulling you down. It could be argues that bouncy is simply the force of gravity applied differently, but that's not really important for this argument.\n\n",
"The force of gravity is just as strong on an object in water as it is on land, but it's countered by the buoyant force, which is the force of the water below an object pushing it upward.\n\nSo it feels like gravity is lower, because there's another force pushing you up while gravity pulls you down, making the net force (the combination of both of them) feel a lot like weaker gravity.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3im9dm | how is braille used/interpreted in cultures with complicated writing systems (arabic, japanese, etc.)? does each language have its own unique braille alphabet? | Title is pretty self explanatory. It seems like a Braille system for written languages with thousands of characters would be quite inefficient and difficult to learn. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3im9dm/eli5_how_is_braille_usedinterpreted_in_cultures/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuhnit8",
"cui4hdz"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"For [Chinese braille](_URL_0_) see here. It uses \"multiple characters\" for one sign. ",
"Generally, each language has it's own version of braille. Languages use the Latin alphabet mostly share the same basic characters, with different contractions. Other languages seem to be mostly arbitrary.\n\nHere's a document listing most current versions- _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_braille"
],
[
"http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000872/087242eb.pdf"
]
] |
|
9u915c | why does your brain automatically read words and why can’t you stop it from doing so? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9u915c/eli5_why_does_your_brain_automatically_read_words/ | {
"a_id": [
"e92ud98"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Our brains are wired to pattern match. By teaching kids to read, we shortcut the patterns at an early age, and it becomes habit. Try looking at a totally different language and you certainly won’t automatically read it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4igqsz | south atlantic anomaly | _URL_0_ is a bit.. bit confusing for me.
What effects does it have on satellites ( current and newer )? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4igqsz/eli5_south_atlantic_anomaly/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2xzwsc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The South Atlantic Anomaly is an area of low earth orbit where radiation is particularly high, due to the shape of Earth's magnetic field. This means that satellites pass through these areas are bombarded by high-energy particles, which cause cumulative damage to electronics.\n\nThis damage occurs since electronics such as computer memory (as an example) work by sending very small amounts of electricity through what are basically very small wire packages in a very exact way. How exact this has to be is called \"tolerance\" - if your electronics no longer deliver the right amount of electricity to the places it needs to go, it's \"out of tolerance\" and you end up with things like a failure to store/process information properly, or even complete failure of the device.\n\nThis happens in two general ways:\n\n1) \"Soft-errors,\" which are temporary, can happen when when some electrons are displaced from their normal path. To put this in ELI5 terms, electricity \"flowing\" along a wire can be thought of as a chain of people (atoms) passing a ball (an electron) from one person to another, until it reaches some destination. Radiation is \"ionizing\" which means that it can introduce new balls along this chain, or even knock some balls out of people's hands or give them a permanent ball to hold so they can no longer be part of the chain. Up above I said that some electronics require a very specific amount of electricity to be delivered to some places - the introduction of new electrons into the system messes this up. It is temporary if the amount of radiation is small, because you could move to a place with less radiation and there will be no more interference with the chain and the electron passing will go as normal. Even those people that can no longer pass electrons along in a chain don't really matter, provided that there are a few of them - since we're talking about tiny atoms, there's thousands if not millions of those chains going at once. \n\n2) Permanent damage can happen when the amount of ionizing radiation is so high that there's a great deal of electrons being added to the system. A lot of electronics are built only to handle a certain amount, if they get too much, the excess will be released as heat and you can damage them, literally burn/melt them. Another thing that can happen is that devices that normally let out a certain amount of electricity are changed, so that they might let out a lot more or less. Like a stretched out sweater, it no longer really fits, and whatever its job was, it can't do it anymore.\n\nSatellites (both old and new) have many of these tiny electronics inside. Some of the radiation can be shielded, but the best radiation protection is shielding with heavy metal plates that are harder to send into space. There are other ways to make or design electronics that are more resistant from radiation damage, and some of those techniques do make their way into satellites. On the other hand, older satellites were probably simpler in construction, with larger parts with larger tolerances. Radiation in space has been known for quite some time, so they dealt with it with the technology available at the time. However, nothing will completely shield high levels of radiation - for example immediately after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, even remotely controlled robots shielded against radiation couldn't last long in that environment (at those levels, the radiation was high enough to degrade plastic insulation in large wires). "
]
} | [] | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly"
] | [
[]
] |
|
9pswpm | why does the greenhouse effect doesn't work both ways? | So, i had a discussion with a friend who denies that climate change is man-made.
I refered to the greenhouse effect, and he asked why it wouldnt work both ways.
I was a litle bit baffled, because i couldnt awnser that question, and noticed that i dont actually know in detail how the greenhouse effect works.
So, if the gasses in the atmosphere stops the light to leave the atmosphere, shouldnt it also stop the light to get inside the atmosphere, and cancel itself out on the topic of global warmth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9pswpm/eli5_why_does_the_greenhouse_effect_doesnt_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"e841u8r",
"e841yhu"
],
"score": [
10,
25
],
"text": [
"Perhaps because we arent talking reflection but absorption.\n\nGreen house gasses DO stop a lot of radiation from reaching \"the surface\" by absorbing the photons energy increasing its energy level. This increases its heat.\n\nThis heat is convected to other atoms near by, which convect it to other atoms so on and soforth..and eventually there is an effect at the surface.\n\nRadiation leaving from the surface causes the same problem.\n\nSO IT DOES work both ways :) IE radiation in either direction HEATS up these gasses.\n\nBut its not what your friend wants to hear",
"It’s different wavelengths of light. The sun sends us a broad spectrum of light which warms the earth. The earth radiates back to space light primarily at longer wavelength infrared spectrum. Greenhouse gasses only block infrared light. It’s similar in concept to blue blockers sunglasses which also only filter out a narrow range of light "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5fw9lc | how do cows pollute so much and why is this happening? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fw9lc/eli5how_do_cows_pollute_so_much_and_why_is_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"danhsaq",
"daniazd",
"danil7u",
"dann8us"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Cows, due to the way their stomachs and digestive tract work produce a lot of Methane by...well...~~farting~~ burping.\n\nMethane is estimated to be 23x worse in regards to negative effect on the climate than CO², so with the amount of cows we breed, this has a huge impact.\n\nObviously the meat production itself has a large climate footprint due to transports and energy consumption overall but this is true for any mass produced meat in large quantities. The unique effect of cows lies in their ~~farts~~ burps.\n\nScientists have actually begun developing pills and treatments aimed at reducing the Methane production of cows. Some of which work by cutting a permanent hole in the stomach wall of a cow, so that drugs can be \"injected\" directly into the cow. [The hole is closed with a simple, removable plug.](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: \nBurps not farts, thanks u/homeboi808",
"Cows release methane and a lot of it, approximately 70 to 120kg a year. Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas. However the negative effect of methane is much higher than carbon dioxide (what we breath out and what plants breath in to make oxygen), the amount worse methane is for the climate compared to carbon dioxide is debateable but its around 30 times worse. The effect of cows on the environement from pollution is not limited to methane but also includes: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, run off, land use, water use, water to grow feed for cows (grain/soy), land to grow feed for cows, the list goes on. The resource's needed to breed cows for food is huge and overlooked by most of society not to mention the environmental effect farming cows has. You have to factor so many things in with farming cows (farming cows is what I assume you are referring to), things often overlooked includes water used to make the feed (soy/grain), feeding/watering the cow from birth to adulthood, transportation of cows/meat, land use (which includes land for feed) that could be used for beneficial things (e.g. a forest which would decrease carbon dioxide emmisions as plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen), species extinction due to deforestation and land use, there's many more but I think you get the point. The resources needed for cows not to mention the gases they excrete is vastly overlooked by the general society. The impact of beef/milk farming is far bigger than most think. The fact that always gets me is that animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the combined exhaust from all transportation. Yet all we hear about is \"drive less, bike more, catch public transport instead, its better for the environment\". I highly recommend you watch the documentary \" cowspiracy\" its all about this stuff and is extremely interesting. ",
"Here is a tldr: \n\n- Cows have a digestive system that produces a lot of methane (a worse greenhouse gas than CO2). Cow farts are a way for cows to get rid of it. \n\n\n- Meat industry and growing meat consumption globally requires a lot of cows. Such a high concentration of cows is not natural. \n\n- as a side note the food, waste management and health management of these many animals has a huge carbon footprint. \n\n ",
"Modern cattle, especially those raised in feed lots don't really eat an ideal diet for a cow, they eat an ideal diet for making fatty meat.\n\nIn an ideal world, cows would be pasture raised, and graze on grass, hay and occasionally silage. Feedlot cattle eat a lot of corn, and blended feed that messes up their digestive system. Sort of like how beans give people farts. So cows fart and burp a lot of methane. \n\nPlus cows in feedlots are stored in an unnatural high density, so instead of having their feces spread across a wide range, it's concentrated in a small area. It's more than what can naturally breakdown. Run off from the huge manure piles pollute rivers and sometimes shallow ground water."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/21/article-2635309-1E10CA9400000578-463_634x431.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1uxvur | what happens when a limb loses and then regains it's feeling? | specifically, if the brains impulses move so quickly, why doesn't the feeling come back immediately when the pressure from the nerve is released? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uxvur/what_happens_when_a_limb_loses_and_then_regains/ | {
"a_id": [
"cemt3x0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hi there, excellent question.\n\nWhen pressure is placed on a nerve(neuron), this prevents signals from getting through. \n\nThere are 4 main types of primary afferent axons:\n\n**A-alpha(I):** Control skeletal muscle. Fancy name is Proprioceptors\n\n**A-beta(II):** Mechanoreceptors of the skin. Innervate touch, hair receptors. Many kinds of dermal receptors for many kinds of stimuli\n\n**A-delta(III):** Nociceptors (pain), temperature\n\n**C(IV):** Temperature, pain, itch. These are the smallest diameter and are not myelin-insulated.\n\n\nBack to your numb limb. They do need a minute or two for the muscles to get their feeling back, but it is relatively quick since those are controlled by Group I axons. The itchiness, or pins and needles feeling is a result of those much slower Type IV axons getting signals through.\n\nYour brain moves pretty quickly- but the signal cannot travel up and down if the highway is blocked. It could send the signal down the Efferent (ventral) path, but it wouldn't make it. Any signal meant to return to the brain up the Afferent (dorsal) path would be delayed.\n\nI hope I have provided an adequate explanation. Please respond if you need something clarified. It sort of morphed into a ELI25\n\nSource: Neuro student"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3bexft | why don't video game industries use sd cards instead of discs? | Let's say on average (cause I don't know if they can be bigger than this) a disc is 25GB and 54Mb/s
but SD cards can hold more and are WAY faster. Why don't gaming companies switch over and use SD cards? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bexft/eli5why_dont_video_game_industries_use_sd_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"csliax7",
"cslib85",
"csliid5"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Compared to SD cards, Blu-ray discs are extremely more cheap to mass produce. Even with DVD's, you as a consumer can buy a 50 pack for pretty cheap.",
"well, consider the costs of them. you can buy a blank bluray disk for like.... 20cents? \n\nwhat would a 64gb sd card cost? a quick amazon search says $20-$25.\n\nOf course, they would not be paying retail prices, but the fact is that an sd card is probably atleast $5-10. as we probably dont want to jump the price to 65-$70 and they dont want to take a hit on their margins, blurays are just cheaper.",
"A 32 GB SD card costs about $10. Let's say the video game company can get them for super cheap by buying in bulk and get them for $5. \n\nI couldn't find the cost of pressing a Blu-ray but a DVD costs $0.30. Let's say that a Blu-ray costs three times as much (it probably doesn't but let's be conservative) That means a blu-ray costs $1. \n\nThat' a difference of $4. What does that $4 get you? You say that SD cards are way faster. It's true that a fast SD card is a lot faster than a slow Blu-ray but it doesn't make that much difference. Most games read very little off the disk. They install their data to the hard drive.\n\nThe company doesn't want to lose millions of dollars just so you can have a slightly faster load time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ensj6 | if police officers are not required to tell us when they are undercover, what stops all police offers from just wearing normal clothes and always being undercover? | I don't see why police officers wouldn't just always stay undercover so that people didn't know they were there. I know this would be a bad thing for then to be able to do, but I don't know why they can't do it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ensj6/eli5_if_police_officers_are_not_required_to_tell/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctgo6gg",
"ctgo6n3",
"ctgo7f1",
"ctgo81d",
"ctgphak"
],
"score": [
35,
18,
8,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Why would they?\n\nClearly marked police presence is a crime deterrent. Very few police activities involve being sneaky and doing undercover stuff (though that's what you see on TV and the movies). A lot of what police do, like helping people, really isn't possible if you don't know who they are.",
"A visible police presence generally prevents crime. Police departments interested in preventing crime will want to be as visible as possible.",
"They could just wear plain clothes, as detectives typically do. However, a large part of the role of police is to be visible and deter people from committing crimes in the first place. It's generally a good thing for people to know that the police are there, hence they wear uniforms.",
"Cops aren't always out to give tickets/make arrests (shocking!). Oftentimes the mere presence of a uniformed cop or a marked police car can make people follow the law because they don't want to get in trouble. In my area cops often park their cruisers near the side of the road in an openly visible place while they do paperwork to enforce the speed limit in a passive way (nobody wants to speed by a cop). Of course if someone flew by them going way too fast they would probably ticket them, but barring that they are multitasking efficiently and effectively by meeting both their duty to enforce laws and their requirement to get paperwork done.",
"Visibility is a way to establish authority. It is a way to let everybody know that the police is in charge and the rule of law will be enforced. Compare that to an area where you might never see the police. It would feel lawless."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
kpaa4 | can someone please eli5 why accretion hasn't affected saturn's ring? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kpaa4/can_someone_please_eli5_why_accretion_hasnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2m52wg",
"c2m52wg"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Can someone please ELI5 accretion?",
"Can someone please ELI5 accretion?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
ch5k3b | how do ads load on bad service but normal content doesn’t? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ch5k3b/eli5_how_do_ads_load_on_bad_service_but_normal/ | {
"a_id": [
"euplngk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Youtube (through Google) have many, many servers across multiple regions of the world to store their data. Very popular content may be hosted on multiple servers to constantly have it closer to the viewer, and on faster servers.\n\nLess popular, more normal content will not necessarily be copied on multiple servers, or stored on very fast servers, making the video load more slowly. \n\nAds, on the other hand, will be stored in servers geographically close to you, and fast enough to always let them play as smoothly as possible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1896ed | what the pirate bay are fighting for and what they hope to achieve in the future | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1896ed/eli5_what_the_pirate_bay_are_fighting_for_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8ctoz7",
"c8cub9v"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The right to get free copyrighted stuff on the internet so that you don't have to pay content producers.",
"Their fighting for piracy since thats the business model for the website."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
42hp0g | weightlessness scenes in movies | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42hp0g/eli5_weightlessness_scenes_in_movies/ | {
"a_id": [
"czadlsp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know what they did for the expanse, but Apollo 13 was filmed on the vomit comet, it took several hundred runs according to [IMDB](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/trivia?item=tr0775381"
]
] |
||
4rdg2w | the recent cs:go gambling drama with differnt streamers and the website csgo lotto | So What actually happend there ? The only thing i know is that the website has no gambling permit like other csgo website and allow kids to gamble. What is exactly happening there and whats make it illegal ( except dont have gambling permit ) ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rdg2w/eli5the_recent_csgo_gambling_drama_with_differnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"d50505y",
"d509qat"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nthis explains a lot. You can't gamble on your own site. You can't advertise for something you own without expressly stating you own it.",
"Let's say I have a casino. But I ignore all the laws that restrict gambling. I also gamble in my own casino, and have the ability to make decks of cards be shuffled in an order of my choosing as opposed to purely random. I might not be manipulating the shuffling of cards, but I could be. Also I market my casino towards children. This is why people are upset."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/4r4luf/deception_lies_and_csgo_h3h3productions/"
],
[]
] |
|
41vhz9 | why it took this long to find another planet behind pluto? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41vhz9/eli5_why_it_took_this_long_to_find_another_planet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz5g312"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The further out you go, the less light planets reflect and the harder it is to see them against the backdrop of the stars. Pluto was only discovered with very painstaking comparison of images of the sky, with it very faintly moving between images (unlike the stars). Modern technology has made this easier and helped us discover very many Pluto-like objects, but we know many more bodies in the Kuiper Belt remain to be discovered, as well. What is special about the recent news is that we think there might be a much larger body, perhaps one that has cleared its orbit (and therefore not a *dwarf* planet).\n\nWe haven't \"found another planet\" yet--however, by tracking some of the dwarf planets we've found and looking at their orbit, some scientists have concluded they are being influenced by a planetary mass. Historically this has sometimes been the first step in the discovery of a new planet--it gives us a clue about where to look, but we don't know that conclusion is correct until we actually spot the planet. Often, the prediction has been wrong."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
28yrrs | how does gmail's undo a sent email feature work? | I have some comp sci background from Uni, but didn't focus on networking and this feature seems very interesting to me and I can't imagine how it works. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28yrrs/eli5_how_does_gmails_undo_a_sent_email_feature/ | {
"a_id": [
"cifqfbp"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"they send the mail not instantly, they hold it back for a moment. if you decide not to send the mail it had never left your mailbox."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
x4a1m | how is beer made | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x4a1m/how_is_beer_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5j1upc",
"c5j21lg"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I make beer and wine so I guess I should chime in on this one.\n\nFirst, let's look at the basic ingredients:\n1. Grain\n2. Water\n3. Hops\n4. Yeast\n\nThe basic overall concept is to get the yeast to eat what's in the grain and the waste of the yeast is what we use to get tipsy.\n\nIn order to do this we first water the grains until they sprout. We do this because inside the grains at first is starch which is form of sugar but not easily digestible by yeast. Grains are seeds and to get them to turn the starch into sugar we wet them to get them to sprout. Enzymes are activated in seeds when they start to sprout and the dormant starch is turned into something more usable by the plant by those enzymes which is sugar. The point at which the sugar is the highest and the starch is the lowest is when the sprout is about a half an inch high (varies per grain). We then stop the seed from continuing it's path to plant-hood by drying it out which kills it after which we shake off the sprouted part. Now you have malt, the same kind of stuff that is put in milk shakes (and if you don't do this, ask for it, it's awesome) and what is Milk Duds (malt balls covered in chocolate). \n\n Now on to brewing! You have the sugar and now you just need some yeast, water and hops. Hops are the buds of a plant closely related to marijuana! They are vary fragrant and are used in beer to add balance, more flavor and longevity. I'll add a neat piece story of beer at the end of this. Before hops were added to beer, the Egyptians and others used various spices.\n\nNow basically you boil the malt in water with the hops after which you have what is called \"mash\". After it is cooled down to room temperature (so that the heat doesn't kill the yeast) and add the yeast. After the boiling you need to make sure you do everything in a sterile manner so other things don't eat the sugar and your yeast is able to become the dominant power in the war to eat the sugar water you created. Note: There are many different species of yeast, it's best to use ones that are bred for beer though their spores do float around in the air and will naturally introduce themselves. Back before the knowledge of microscopic creatures, people thought spirits (where the nickname for hard alcohol comes from which starts it's process similar to this), gods and other things would transform the liquid!\n\n So long as everything goes to plan your yeast will eat the sugar and poop and pee two things, the gas CO2 and the liquid Ethanol. Ethanol is the toxin that most humans are ok with drinking in moderate quantities! Most of us have enzymes which can convert the ethanol back into sugar! Don't drink things other alcohols, especially Methanol, the human body can not process it and it will do very bad things to you!\n\nOnce the sugar is all or mostly eaten up your beer is done! You can get those neat bubbles in your beer by trapping them instead of allowing them to just bubble away! (same thing they do with sparkling wine!)\n\nNeat story time: \nDuring the time of British imperialism, soldiers and others who were stationed in India were used to drinking beer and desired it greatly; especially when they were away from home. The beer would many times go bad on the journey from Great Britain because of the heat especially on those long sea voyages. Since hops are an excellent preserver they just added more hops to make sure the beer would be more palatable when they reached India. This created the style of beer that is known today as IPA or India Pale Ale!\n\n Believe it or not, beer was one of the main things if not the main thing that much of civilization built itself upon! It contained calories so it was almost a meal in itself, all while for most people being much much safer to drink than the local water. It could be traded as it always held a value and of course it was an excellent stress reliever and social lubricant! Of course it helped to keep populations from revolting as well, the people would never quite get mad enough at their horrible situation because they could always fall back on their pain reliever, alcohol!\n\nWine:\nGrapes are pretty damn near perfect to ferment. They already contain sugar and they have the perfect balance of micro-nutrients for the yeast to thrive. Simply: Grow grape vines, pick grapes, crush crapes, add yeast, strain out wine, drink.\n\nHard alcohol:\nDistilling involves taking beer, wine or a similar substance containing ethanol and separating it from a portion of the water it's in. Brandy for instance is made from wine and basically all you are doing is taking the ethanol out of the mixture. Ethanol has a lower boiling point than water so all you are doing is heating it to a point between the boiling point of ethanol and water and the steam that comes off will be mostly ethanol. Instead of it just going away in the air you re-route the steam into a cold environment (usually into tube with water around it), at this point the gas falls in temperature thereby becoming a liquid again and it drips drips drips into a new container as hard alcohol!\n\nHaving the drinking age at 21 instead of 18 (or even at all) when you considered an adult is dumb. You can vote, get imprisoned as an adult and be sent to war to get your limbs blown off but you can't decide to consume alcohol into your own body! I know this drinking age is not the same everywhere, but it's like that where I am and it's absolutely silly.\n\nHope you've enjoyed this!",
"Yeast are little creatures that eat sugar, fart CO2 and pee alcohol. They create bubbles and buzz. They will live as long as alcohol levels are below certain value (I think you can get up to 20% on special strand of yeast alone) You can mix them with grapes and let them ferment in bottles to get champagne, or let them ferment longer in barrels to get wine.\n\nFor beer it's malt for sugar (grains that were soaked in water and later dried) and humulus to add some bitter. Different types of beer are made in different ways. Stout beer is made out of roasted malt, lagers are made at lower temperature. Some are made out of barley and some are made out of wheat. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2zgypu | why is there so much competing information when it comes to fitness? for every weight loss or fitness "fact" you can easily find someone saying the exact opposite, to the point where it's very difficult to find reliable information on fitness/weight loss/diet. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zgypu/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_competing_information/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpistd3",
"cpitanv",
"cpj7jne"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of people with very little knowledge or training making a lot of claims. These people, be they famous fitness personalities or just gym trainers, make money by sounding like they know what they're talking about.\n\nIn reality, there are a lot of things that we don't know about the human body.",
"This is social economics. Everyone wants to be fit and healthy (except crazy fat-acceptance nuts), and this creates a very large market for ideas, products, assistance, and services. A huge market calls in many under-qualified people trying to make a quick buck. Additionally, many fitness enthusiasts are not super intelligent and are victim to pseudoscience, celebrity endorsements, and cool factors of fitness routines; which are all terrible reasons to buy something.",
"I understand your frustration OP.\n\nMy mother became a fitness instructor at about age 18 unexpectedly. She worked the front desk at a gym when one day they told her to cover a fitness class on the spot. That was roughly 32 years ago. My mother recently turned 50-ish and she is still a fitness instructor, and is still gorgeous. Over the years she has gained certifications, competed in marathons, became affiliated with professional organizations, etc.\n\nMy mother is living proof of what the other comments are suggesting. A huge market demand leads to under-qualified people entering the market as suppliers in order to meet the increasing demand capacity because there is profit to be made. Unfortunately not every \"supplier\" has the consumers' best interests at heart like my mother did. It pollutes the waters of knowledge on the human body which still has many mysteries. Take the claims with a grain of salt and investigate for yourself before opening the wallet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3bcyo1 | the shape of bread | Why is the shape of bread not a square, but has an M shaped curve near the top. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bcyo1/eli5_the_shape_of_bread/ | {
"a_id": [
"csl0ico"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The split in the top is a line cut into the top by the baker. As the yeast in the bread is warmed, it bursts into activity and releases a bunch of gas causing the bread to rise. As it rises above the edges of the pan, it starts to spill over. If the baker does not put a line down the center, the bread can split in random places causing a misshapen loaf. The line creates a point of least resistance to facilitate the split."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
g1ao41 | how come we instantly recognize faces (the eyes, nose, and mouth) when we look at a certain arrangement of objects? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1ao41/eli5_how_come_we_instantly_recognize_faces_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fneeq07"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Basically our brain is tuned into finding patterns and faces, even where there are none. \n\nHere is the link:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia"
]
] |
||
2ne9ze | when an active, obese person gets liposuction and surgery to get rid of the extra skin, are they muscular underneath all the fat because of how much weight they had to carry before? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ne9ze/eli5_when_an_active_obese_person_gets_liposuction/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmcu0v7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Probably not. Chances are, the obese person moves everywhere quite slowly and struggles up steps - just like you would if you were carrying an extra 100-200 pounds. Their muscles may be slightly stronger, but it's not significant or enough to generate big muscles just sitting \"under\" rolls of fat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1wz7dl | why can i go a day without food at home but when i am at school i feel so hungry after a lesson? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wz7dl/eli5_why_can_i_go_a_day_without_food_at_home_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf6pa4r",
"cf6pg4b",
"cf6ph1h",
"cf6plrh",
"cf6pqbg",
"cf6wd2m"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Possibly because you are much more active at school/see other kids eating/smelling more food?",
"Just a sidenote: It is the opposite for me, I rarely eat in school.",
"Are you bored at school and entertained at home?\n\nIf so, it may be to do with your attention: if you're bored you will notice the bodily sensation of hunger. If at home you are interested in a game, book or film and TV then you are distracted and don't notice the hunger pangs.",
"We know that your brain requires sustenance. Presumably, it would require more [if you are using it aggressively](_URL_0_). It's probably also psychological as well as physiological. ",
"If you're used to a routine at school which involves eating at the same time every day, your body will get used to it and make itself hungry at around that time. At home you break the routine. This could work both ways (either making you hungry sooner or later). Since you're more active at school (the brain consumes a lot of glucose when assimilating new information), you spend more energy at school and less at home. So at home you become hungry later.",
"Your brain is working a lot more when trying to learn things compared to watching TV/redditing. Also, the brain is about 2% of your body weight, but uses around 15% of your energy and oxygen consumption."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/5NubJ2ThK_U"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
e0kurs | why does heartburn become more of an issue when you get older? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e0kurs/eli5_why_does_heartburn_become_more_of_an_issue/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8etgcj",
"f8eyltk"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not so much your increasing age that makes it a problem, it's the recurrence. The longer you suffer from chronic heartburn or GERD, the more damage occurs to your esophagus. As a result this increases your risk of heightened symptoms such as difficultyswallowing, esophageal bleeding, vomiting, and an increased risk of esophageal cancer.",
"Things break the older they are right? So does parts of the body. The 'door' that separates the stomach from your esophagus becomes loose and doesn't shut all the way sometimes. \n\nAnd when the door has a tough time keeping the acid in your stomach down, that acid can escape into the esophagus. See, your stomach is designed to hold acid, but your esophagus? Not so much. You feel a burning sensation in your chest because the acid managed to get through. \n\nNow, it's difficult to repair the damage done, and instead, the more the acid gets through (because of age) the more damage there is."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1wre2z | how expensive would it be, and what would be the effect if we launched a nuclear warhead at the moon? | Title misspelt - I meant what would happen if we launched warheads to destroy the entire moon.
EDIT 2: Also, what would it do to the waves? I read somewhere that earth's gravity depends slightly on the moon, so what would it do to gravity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wre2z/eli5_how_expensive_would_it_be_and_what_would_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf4o977",
"cf4ofpm",
"cf4q8e1"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Very expensive.\n\nAnother crater on the moon.",
"There are not enough nuclear weapons by far. See the craters on the Moon? It's already survived countless hits by asteroids. A few nuclear weapons aren't going to destroy it. \n\n",
"[The minimal energy necessary to destroy the moon is probably around 1.2 x 10^24 Joules.](_URL_0_) In terms of nukes that is about 287,000,000 million tons of TNT. The largest nuke ever set off was about 50 million tons of TNT. So if we just used those nukes that's around 6 million 50 Mt nukes. \n\nEven then, a nuke isn't really the ideal way of distributing that energy to the moon (in the absence of an atmosphere, a nuclear explosion is mostly nuclear and thermal radiation, which isn't great for blowing up rocks). \n\nHow expensive would it be? \"Expensive\" doesn't really cover it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/"
]
] |
|
4x37eu | why does a slight change in glasses prescription cause headaches and eye ache? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x37eu/eli5_why_does_a_slight_change_in_glasses/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6c598e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because your eyes are trying to focus through your new lens as if it was your old ones. Your eye are a muscle and this causes strain on it as it tries to focus again and again.\n\nTry putting the new ones on as you wake up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
emsmo7 | how do electric cars heat the cabin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/emsmo7/eli5_how_do_electric_cars_heat_the_cabin/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdqu6dx",
"fdr3t32",
"fdr9izz",
"fdrxd1v"
],
"score": [
2,
55,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"The engine of a car gets hot and air blows that heat inside the cabin\n\nElectric cars use electric heaters. They engineer the cabins better to maintain the heat and make the electric heaters as efficient as possible since it uses the battery pack and it reduces mileage.",
"Electric heaters blow warm air.\n\nBut they also tend to have heated seats and steering wheels since it's more efficient to heat you directly than to heat the air, which then heats you.",
"Typically they still use a heater core and coolant like a normal car, but use a heating element/resistive coil to heat the coolant rather than engine heat. Yes, using the heater can have a significant impact on ev range. To improve efficiency, the car will preheat this coolant when the car is plugged in/charging in low temperatures.",
"The 'pre-heating while charging' information is very interesting information for me. This possibly explains why rodents (rats in the garden and neighbor's outdoor structures) built a nest on top of the engine (elec. motor) of my nissan LEAF. They even used the hood insulation available right there as the building material. They came for the heat in the winter probably."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2r5pjy | how is it that someone can post the same question on askreddit every day, and it gets thousands of upvotes and tens of thousands of people answering the same thing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r5pjy/eli5_how_is_it_that_someone_can_post_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"cncpf40"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because it the question has easy answer that get tones of upvotes, people will upvote the question just so their response gets more upvotes. \n\n\nExample\n\n\"What show should have gotten another season?\"\n\nThe first person that says Firefly get thousands of upvotes as long as the post gets popular. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4sg9t5 | why is it possible to order something from china on ebay and pay zero postage, but ordering from australia to australia costs so much more? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sg9t5/eli5_why_is_it_possible_to_order_something_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"d591g13",
"d591yay",
"d592mzw",
"d592o7k",
"d5937a8",
"d5949hl"
],
"score": [
6,
13,
38,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"You pay for postage directly or indirectly either way, just sometimes it is included in the total price for the item sometimes it is a separate charge.",
"Relevant article: _URL_0_\n\nThere is a treaty called the Universal Postal Union treaty with a system of sub-agreements under it. E.g.\n\n > According to the terms set out in Universal Postal Union treaty, the USPS in 2014 gets paid no more than about $1.50 for delivering a one-pound package from a foreign carrier,\n\nThe treaties will presumably have been made without an expiration date, based on a presumption of \"evenhanded\" trade, or with a discount to poor nations in order to give them a leg up. Just because a country wants to charge a higher rate doesn't mean it can, when it some decades earlier committed to charging the lower rate.",
"Probably still relevant (2014):\n\n[ELI5: Why can a Chinese company ship me an eBay purchase for $1.06 including the product, when it costs me a minimum of $1.97 to ship something across town in the U.S.???](_URL_0_)\n\nMore about how the UN and the USPS wind up subsidizing Chinese shipping: [The United Nations is helping subsidize Chinese shipping. Here's how.](_URL_1_)",
"Idk about Australia but in America the USPS has a deal with China and a lot of stuff gets shipped free to encourage trade. So taxes are paying for it. ",
"Isn't postage for exported goods very heavily subsidised in China?",
"China subsidies international shipping from certain areas of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Korea also has some similar programs. It's to help stimulate small to medium businesses and increase export to the west.\n\nIt's all a part of their grand vision \"[One Belt, One Road](_URL_0_)\" and their [Thirteenth 5-year plan](_URL_1_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2evxw8/eli5_why_can_a_chinese_company_ship_me_an_ebay/",
"http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese-shipping/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Belt,_One_Road",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China#Thirteenth_Plan_.282016.E2.80.932020.29"
]
] |
||
9xou8u | is there a reason why there are no indian fast food chains? | It seems like every well-loved cuisine has a fast food chain variant (Italian: sbarro/pizza hut, mexican: taco bell/chipotle, chinese: Panda Express, british: Long John Silvers, etc) but I've never seen an indian food chain. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9xou8u/eli5_is_there_a_reason_why_there_are_no_indian/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9twlst",
"e9txh3i"
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text": [
"In the US it's not popular enough to support fast food, especially amongst the demographic that eats fast food. ",
"Not in the USA, in England there’s plenty of fast food Indian shops. \n\nEngland has a long history with India (massive subject in of itself) where as the USA doesn’t. The culture didn’t intermingle as much and so there isn’t a large representation of it. \n\nAn opposite one would be that there aren’t any(many) Mexican restaurants in the UK while the USA has tons as it shares a border with the country and has a log history with Mexico. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5k31bj | contact with heat | Why can I briefly light my hand on fire with the Germ-X trick and have a flame run over my hand but when I contacted a hot grate from a deep fryer it instantly peeled back layers of skin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5k31bj/eli5_contact_with_heat/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbkw87k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Germ-X is a poor conductor of heat. Even though it's on fire on the outside, on the inside it's still cool because heat takes a while to transfer from one side to the other.\n\nHot oil and hot metal are much better conductors of heat, so you're not only exposed to the *source* of the heat (as they're hot in and of themselves), it also allows heat to transfer out of the material and into your hand much quicker."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1h3iqp | what is the war on terror? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1h3iqp/what_is_the_war_on_terror/ | {
"a_id": [
"caqisjz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The \"War on Terror\" isn't so much an actual war as much as a declaration of an initiative to devote resources to stopping terrorism. I'm not an expert on the matter but after its declaration we increased funding in airport security, CIA, NSA, and probably many other areas (maybe military but not sure as a % of GDP). We also invaded Afghanistan, specifically looking to target the Taliban, probably the largest terrorist group that was also responsible for 9/11. \n\nWe also invaded Iraq, but that was more on the presumption that they had weapons of mass destruction that could potentially be used to attack us or our allies. And of course if that's the new bar for when US can invade a place, then guess what, US can invade anywhere it wants (in its own head)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1je9yu | why do i have need to use 4g on my phone for gps but on m garmin it's free? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1je9yu/eli5why_do_i_have_need_to_use_4g_on_my_phone_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbdsvdm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because part of the purchase price of your Garmin includes a library of maps. The downside of this is that access to updated maps can be somewhat limited, in addition you sometimes need to chose what area you want maps for.\n\nYour cell phone does not store any maps. If it needs a map it downloads it from an online source. Therefore it requires an internet connection.\n\nIt is possible to get a navigation map that does not require a data connection. For the most part you need to pay for these apps, and they often are not as cheap as you might like.\n\ntl;dr a Garmin (and Tomtom) stores it's own maps in internal storage. Most phone map apps do not. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cy0oug | if you have 2 credit cards, and one has debt, can’t you just use one to pay the other, then the next month do the same, and so on and so on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cy0oug/eli5_if_you_have_2_credit_cards_and_one_has_debt/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyowtr8",
"eyoyws4"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Credit cards basically always have debt unless youre paying off your balance. Doing this essentially is like giving the credit card company a bunch of I.O.U's. All you're doing is adding more to your balance that needs to be paid off eventually.",
"Well, no, because while balance transfers might be available, they aren't normal credit card transactions. Usually they won't let you do them several times a year and if they do, they'll charge a 3% or so fee per transaction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1n8nb8 | why do beverages like coffee and beer taste better now than when i was young? | I used to hate the taste of beer especially and now I love it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n8nb8/eli5_why_do_beverages_like_coffee_and_beer_taste/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccgccq2",
"ccgcdyu"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Children are really sensitive to bitter flavors. This makes sense, as many poisons taste bitter. But this bitter sensitivity fades as you get older, allowing you to enjoy things that have bitter flavors.",
"My theory:\n\nWhen we were younger, our natural affinity for taste is sweet. Somewhere along the lines of becoming a teen our taste buds became apt to begin liking coffee and beer's bitter taste either through acquired desensitization or enough social norms that say it's what we should like and eventually it becomes that. \n\nMany teens start drinking coffee due to academic pressure. Many teens also start drinking alcohol due to academic pressure. It's not the taste at first we desire. It's the chemical effects. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4t4d9d | how can a lawn survive a full winter covered by snow, but start dying and turn bright green from 2 days of being covered by a tarp (or something similar)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t4d9d/eli5_how_can_a_lawn_survive_a_full_winter_covered/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5ehuvq",
"d5ejwqt",
"d5ekczo",
"d5et7m9",
"d5f2lri",
"d5fc2zj",
"d5fjucu"
],
"score": [
33,
125,
1605,
10,
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Snow actually insulates the ground, keeping the grass at a near constant temperature at which the grass can survive. Additionally, thin layers of snow do not block light very well, so the grass continues to use photosynthesis. Chemicals in the ground that the plant needs such as nitrates are still present in winter.\n\nA tarpaulin doesn't keep the ground at a constant temperature, and almost totally prevents sunlight.",
"In winter grass goes dormant due to the soil temperature. The roots survive and all of the sciencey things are still happening, just at a snail's pace. When you cover it with say, an inflatable kids pool you're doing several things, the main being suffocating the plant by restricting the exchange of gasses, cutting off its supply of light and normally also cooking the plant and soil in the process. ",
"This is all about temperature. In the cold the grass is dormant, most processes shut down. In the summer, the grass is going full tilt with its biological processes- covering it with a tarp is like putting saran wrap over someones mouth while they are trying to run a marathon.",
"Leaving a tarp on your lawn creates a mini-greenhouse effect, bringing the temperatures up so high it wilts or completely kills the grass. \n\nThis technique is often used to kill off stubborn weeds, and is called [soil solarization](_URL_0_).",
"This is not all all about temperature, it is also about moisture. If your lawn doesn't receive enough water in the summertime, it will go dormant. Putting a tarp over a plant shuts out sun, which we all know are something they need to grow. Grass, if it isn't a red fescues, or other shade handling variety, will start to die real fast if the light source is taken away. ",
"In the winter, the green body of grass goes to sleep. The feet that are underground keep the grass alive with nutrients from the ground. When winter is over, the grass wakes up and needs sunlight and air to stay healthy, because an awake body needs more nutrients than a sleeping one. However, you should keep your grass inside. Preferably in baggies or a glass jar of some kind.",
"Because it takes nature a full season (some more, some less) to throw it's tarp (snow) over the grass. The grass has almost 3 months to prepare. \n\nIt takes you 10 seconds to put the tarp down. That's not enough time for the grass to hold it's breath."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_solarization"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
448zs2 | why did martin shkreli raise the price of life saving medicine a ridiculous amount? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/448zs2/eli5_why_did_martin_shkreli_raise_the_price_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"czof8ft",
"czofhzn"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Why did you ask your boss for a raise, your parents to give you more money for your allowance? Same exact reason. ",
"Yeah pretty much that last one. Given that he's been [indicted on securities fraud](_URL_0_), it's a pretty cut-and-dry case of \"dude was a greedy asshole and didn't care who he hurt in the process\".\n\nThere *is* more to the story, though, at least why he thought he could get away with it.\n\nApparently, his idea was to redirect anger from the general public to the insurance companies. Basically, \"Hey, you can have your drugs except those greedy, nasty, no good *insurance companies* won't pay for them! It's not *my* fault. You shouldn't have to pay for them no matter what they cost!\"\n\nUnfortunately for him, he underestimated the blow-back he would get from the doctors themselves. Not only did the insurance companies get on his case, the doctors suddenly found themselves incapable of prescribing these life-saving medications because the partnered insurance companies wouldn't let them. As well, I think he underestimated the power of the internet, which [never forgets](_URL_3_) anything. I think he expected the average Joe Shmoe to have no clue how much the drug *should* cost, but the story exploded and everyone knew how he jacked up the prices. Faced with opposition on all sides, he did whatever he could, like [lie through his teeth](_URL_1_), and then stop caring and say \"[fuck you](_URL_2_), I own the drugs, you should be thankful I don't charge more.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-martin-shkreli-securities-fraud/",
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/22/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-explains-that-4000-percent-drug-price-hike-is-altruistic-not-greedy/",
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-turing-doubles-down-1205-biz-20151204-story.html",
"http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b015390947f9e970b-450wi"
]
] |
||
2hjh9d | if we couldn't stop ebola from spreading from 1 person to over 6,000 people (current estimation), how can we stop it from spreading from the 6k infected people to a much larger number? | Doesn't the containment problem grow exponentially as the number grows? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hjh9d/eli5if_we_couldnt_stop_ebola_from_spreading_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckt7r7x",
"ckt86sj"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The containment problem gets harder but we have had more time to prepare. Ebola got out of hand because people were not treating the threat properly, and hopefully now they will be.",
"There's lots of parts to the containment problem. \nProblem 1: \"We don't know there's an ebola outbreak\" \nThis is a problem we had when one person had ebola. We didn't know anything about it until it had spread quite a bit already. That's no longer a problem \nProblem 2: We have nothing in place to fight an ebola outbreak \nThis was a problem when we realised what was happening, but we've since moved people and resources in to help deal with the problem. \nProblem 3: People don't know what precautions to take against ebola \nThis is one that is still ongoing, and is being tackled by trying to inform people. \nProblem 4: People don't trust that help is genuine, or don't believe the threat is real. \nThis is another similar problem and it is partly borne out of the fact that the most affected areas are very poor areas with very little education. 3 & 4 would be far less of a problem in more developed areas. \nProblem 5: We don't have effective treatments for ebola \nPartly this is down to there not being a lot of effort put into researching ebola compared to illnesses that effect more people. If ebola spreads, there is going to be a greater and greater effort in trying to cure it as soon as possible. \n \nAll of that adds up to it being harder for the disease to spread, the more it spreads. It doesn't mean it's not going to spread, but it's not exponentially easier for it to spread as more people are infected. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6ea96z | why is it that 4k makes such a big difference in quality against 1080p for a videogame but barley for a tv series/movie | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ea96z/eli5_why_is_it_that_4k_makes_such_a_big/ | {
"a_id": [
"di8t0hj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The difference is between something that is already rendered vs. something that is being rendered at that time.\n\n1080p resolution is 1,920x1,080, while 4k resolution is 3840×2160. That means that 4k has _a lot_ more pixels available to it and, if those pixels are utilized, will produce a much sharper image. However, the resolution available on your TV is only part of the equation; you also need to think about the resolution of the _source_ files.\n\nIf a video is recorded at 1080p, then it doesn't matter if you play it back on a 4k TV - the source video only has 1,920x1,080 resolution so that is all that you have available; some TVs or decoders can \"upsample\" but as a general rule you can't get clearer than the source file - you can't magically make more pixels. Video games, by contrast, are being rendered _at that moment_ so if you have a console that can render at 4k, it will do so (3840×2160) and if you only have a 1080p TV it won't (1,920x1,080).\n\nIf you are watching 4k video (the source file) then you will see a difference from a 1080p source file, but odds are you are not getting 4k video so you are limited to the lower resolution that is being provided to you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4irhtf | why is primer needed for a paint job? why not just use paint? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4irhtf/eli5_why_is_primer_needed_for_a_paint_job_why_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d30hhgy",
"d30htkf"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"So the color that was originally under the paint doesn't show through the new color. Also, for latex paint, it lets the paint grip on to the new object so it doesn't chip as easily.\n\nPaint can be used on its own in some cases depending on the paint (oil based).\n\nAlso, I'm not a paint expert, I just spent 20 minutes researching. Sorry if I missed a thing or two!",
"1.Better paint adhesion\n2. Protects the painted material \n3. Prolongs life of paint\n4. Hides imperfections or former paint color that can bleed through\n\nIt is a pain in the butt step but if you have ever tried to turn an olive green room to canary yellow you will get it. Also if there are any oily/greasy spots primer can help absorb it so it doesn't affect the final paint color. \n\nI am not a pro but I have painted exterior and interior walls for the last 20yrs. Primer is important especially exterior. It's worth the effort."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
bzx6z4 | why do jury verdicts need to be unanimous? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bzx6z4/eli5_why_do_jury_verdicts_need_to_be_unanimous/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqy0952",
"eqy0zn3"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text": [
"Because we have agreed that to convict someone the standard they are held to is \"beyond a reasonable doubt.\" That is an extremely high bar, and it is assumed that if as a juror you don't believe that burden has been met, then the person is not guilty. \n\nMost civil cases don't require unanimous verdicts. The burden there is a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lighter burden..",
"They don't, always. In a criminal case, where the burden of proof is very high, one not-guilty vote means you're not convicted. It doesn't mean your innocent, like 12 not-guilty votes would, rather the decision is undecided, unless the prosecution wants to try again.\n\nSome civil cases in some states, with different rules, only require a majority of the jury to make a decision, so you can win/lose 7-to-5."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2is73j | why can you just tag the base to get a runner out at first in baseball but it seems like you need to tag the runner himself all other times? | I am a Brit and have never understood when it is OK to just tag the base and under which circumstances you need to whack the dude with the ball in your glove (which are entirely unnecessary by the way - catch the ball with your bare hands like gentlemen do). | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2is73j/eli5_why_can_you_just_tag_the_base_to_get_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl4yak5",
"cl4yat9"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's an issue of \"forced\" or not. If the runner has an alternative destination then you have to tag them, if they do not...you can tag the base. In the case of a runner stealing from first to second, the runner could return to first base if they decided to do so, so...you must touch them. When the player has just hit the ball, they _must_ go to first base, so...you can just touch the base. For an advanced (!) example, if there is a runner on first and someone hits the ball, the runner on first can be made \"out\" by just touching second base, because the runner on second can't go back to first base because it's occupied by the person who just hit the ball.",
"It's called a \"force\" out. Meaning that the runner has no choice, or is *forced* to run to that base. Anytime this is the case, the defender can touch the base to get the out. \n\nOnly in situations where the runner has a choice to move forward, or go back to the previous base does the defender have to tag them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2tzj7y | what is the difference between sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tzj7y/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_sleep/ | {
"a_id": [
"co3r82h",
"co3rhur",
"co3sr3h",
"co3tfxf"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In sleep paralysis you don't feel asleep, just trapped in a sleeping body. In lucid dreaming you feel freed into a dream world. So they are basically opposite, even though they both result from the conscious realization that you are sleeping.",
"In sleep paralysis you cannot physically move even though your mind is awake. Some people report that they can sense the world around them during sleep paralysis, like hearing the clock tick. In lucid dreaming, you know you are dreaming and you can control your dream's direction to some degree. ",
"Lucid Dreaming is being aware you are dreaming and having some control over things in your dream\n\nSleep Paralysis happens when you wake up (easy to do when practicing lucid dreaming). Your body turns off the link from the brain to the body when your sleeping so that if you dream about playing basketball your not jumping all over your bed, so when you wake up quickly before your body has a chance to turn the body link back on you can have a few moments of being awake but feeling like you can not move, this can be scary if your not used to it. It is a common thing to happen while you are doing lucid dreaming as it is sometimes hard to manage the degree of wakefulness, it takes practice to wake enuf to control the dream but not so much so that your wake up all the way.\n\n",
"Sleep paralysis is the scariest thing. You basically wake up and you realize you can't move, not even your mouth or eyes. So even screaming internally does nothing. Most of the time it happens when I fall asleep on my back, and let me tell you I avoid that at all costs! I get the kind with fun hallucinations too, like someone standing at the foot of my bed or hearing the most horrible sound imaginable then something is circling above me. Plus, half the time it's not just paralysis, it's full on seizure-like shaking. No fun. \n\nLucid dreaming, on the other hand, is quite nice. Sometimes you don't even realize you're lucid dreaming until something happens in your dream and you say \"I don't like how that went, let's change it\" and suddenly you're back at the beginning and it's going differently. But I don't lucid dream on purpose, and many people do. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9ur2nr | how does electricity get into a battery | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ur2nr/eli5_how_does_electricity_get_into_a_battery/ | {
"a_id": [
"e96bp8e",
"e96btyt",
"e96c94m"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"It doesn’t get into the battery, that’s what a battery is. By combining different elements that undergo a chemical reaction that produces extra electrons. There’s a natural “pull” whenever an imbalance of charge exists and that’s what allows the current to flow. ",
"Imagine a magical scoop of ice cream. As it melts, it can push electrons around, which makes it melt. Once it is all melted, it can't push electrons any more. But you can put it in the freezer and refreeze it and form it back into a scoop. Now you can melt it again so it can push electrons around again. ",
"The electricity starts as chemical energy. When a regular one use battery is built it has two different salts that will react with each other loaded into it separated by a porous membrane called a salt bridge. Electrodes are placed into each solution of an appropriate type for the salts being used. The reaction doesn't take place until something connects the two electrodes, because in order for the reaction to happen electrons need to flow between them. Generally one of the electrodes is slowly turned into more salt and the other collects more metal from the salt. How much the reaction wants to happen is what \"pushes\" the electrons through the wires making electrical energy.\n\nFor rechargeable batteries plugging the battery in to charge forces the electricity to run the opposite direction undoing this reaction and allowing it to happen again when it's unplugged."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
354fhl | why are blackberry phones considered more secure/unhackable compared to apple or android phones? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/354fhl/eli5_why_are_blackberry_phones_considered_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr0w8zg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I believe it is the same reason Macs seemed more virus-resistant for quite awhile, too-- because fewer people use it, fewer people are creating viruses for it. Why create a massive virus to affect a minority of users when you can put your effort into hacking Apple or Android, which take the largest part of the market? It's more secure because there are fewer users. It's also likely more secure due to fewer app options."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1v6xwd | why does non-dairy creamer dissolve more quickly in hot coffee/tea than cold? | When my coffee has been sitting in a mug for a few minutes before I decide to add non-dairy (powdered) creamer, the creamer tends to clump up and dissolve more slowly than if I add it when the coffee is piping hot. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v6xwd/eli5why_does_nondairy_creamer_dissolve_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cepalob"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When something is hot, the molecules are moving around in it much faster. That's actually what heat means on a physical level. All that moving around is kind of like stirring on the molecular level. Things get mixed by the motion and there's more energy available for the chemical reactions that we see as dissolving. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1mnzqe | what is database indexing? | I've got a general idea as it speeds up processing of searches, but I'm not quite sure what exactly is being done on the back-end. Can someone please explain indexing? What is it exactly, and how is it done in regards to databases? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mnzqe/eli5_what_is_database_indexing/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccazn4n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A database is like a library - it holds information.\n\nA completely unindexed table is called a \"heap.\" It's analogous to the books just being piled in a heap on the floor. The info's still in there, but it's going to take forever to find the exact piece you need.\n\nWhen the books are all on the shelves in the correct order, that's comparable to a clustered index. You can probably find what you need by walking the stacks until you get to the Dewey Decimal number you need and looking around.\n\nThe card catalog is a nonclustered index. You can look stuff up in the there and then walk to a specific section and shelf and pick up the book you need."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
40a08n | why are polygraph tests inadmissable in court? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40a08n/eli5why_are_polygraph_tests_inadmissable_in_court/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyslx4f",
"cysm2uf"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"They're not considered very trustworthy. They really only measure heartrate, and while it is common for your heartrate to elevate while lying, your heartrate can elevate for a LOT of reasons- like stress for example. Do you know what's stressful? Being accused of things, while taking a polygraph test.",
"They're really nothing more than stress detectors. They measure things like heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, and skin galvanic response. \n\nThe operator asks you control questions for which you'd tell the truth, and then the question where they suspect that you might lie, and then looks at the responses and uses their best judgment to decide if it looks like you were more stressed during the potential lie than during the control questions.\n\nAnd that's not a particularly reliable method for detecting lies. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
nqtz8 | it's nearly 2012...eli5 what problems are still preventing a hoverboard from being created and mass marketed. | Why is this technology still not available to us? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nqtz8/its_nearly_2012eli5_what_problems_are_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3b7rve",
"c3b7rve"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"This isn't my area of expertise, but I can think of a few reasons:\n\n1) The amount of energy needed to power the device. The weight of a person plus the board plus the engine could easily weigh over 200 lb. That means that when the board is hovering in place, it must generate 200 lb of force upward to prevent the board from falling. This isn't an insane amount of force in terms of building a device, but you might have to use gasoline for power or constantly replace D batteries. Either way, it's a lot of power for a modified skateboard, making it impractical and too expensive.\n\n2) Safety problems. Other forms of transportation, such as cars, motorcycles, and bikes are dangerous enough. A hoverboard has the potential for some really bad crash landings. A similar issue is that if a hoverboard malfunctions, causing an injury, expect a lawsuit.\n\n3) What purpose does a hoverboard actually serve? Could a motorized scooter work just as well? Don't get me wrong, hoverboards sound cool, but they probably won't have a purpose beyond being a really cool gadget. ",
"This isn't my area of expertise, but I can think of a few reasons:\n\n1) The amount of energy needed to power the device. The weight of a person plus the board plus the engine could easily weigh over 200 lb. That means that when the board is hovering in place, it must generate 200 lb of force upward to prevent the board from falling. This isn't an insane amount of force in terms of building a device, but you might have to use gasoline for power or constantly replace D batteries. Either way, it's a lot of power for a modified skateboard, making it impractical and too expensive.\n\n2) Safety problems. Other forms of transportation, such as cars, motorcycles, and bikes are dangerous enough. A hoverboard has the potential for some really bad crash landings. A similar issue is that if a hoverboard malfunctions, causing an injury, expect a lawsuit.\n\n3) What purpose does a hoverboard actually serve? Could a motorized scooter work just as well? Don't get me wrong, hoverboards sound cool, but they probably won't have a purpose beyond being a really cool gadget. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
33hdw4 | why being quiet is so taboo. | I hear all the time how people get so offended when someone is quiet. Quiet people aren't making small talk with you, but it's not about hurting your feelings, and how often do you see quiet people make someone feel like shit over a "stupid question" or for whatever reason people insult others? When people do insult others and the person is offended, they're considered weak but it's ok to be upset over someone just minding their own business? I don't mean people who won't acknowledge you at all or scowl, just people who don't make small talk very often and stay to themselves but are still polite.
When you're quiet, is it to offend others or because shit is on your mind? I thought taking things so personally was also socially taboo. **I don't mean this post to be inflammatory**, I just seem to missing something here/am an idiot and I just want to get on the same page. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33hdw4/eli5_why_being_quiet_is_so_taboo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqkvfjs",
"cqkvsqr"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's considered a natural trait of humans to communicate and love. Most people consider the purpose of life to be \"To live and love\". When you are quiet, you make it seem like you don't want to be a part of our party. It's not as taboo as it was back in the mid century, but in upper sects of society it's still frowned upon to not be personable. ",
"Being quiet in a social context is often a symptom of being shy, introverted, or both. Most people are extraverts, and because they're the majority, they don't learn about or understand introverts. They can only interpret quietness according to how *they* might choose to be quiet, and not why an introvert or shy person is quiet. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7s2qwx | how did people living before the modern ages survive and get different sources of food which grew far outside their nation if global shipping came very later on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7s2qwx/eli5_how_did_people_living_before_the_modern_ages/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt1k9s4",
"dt1kpmt"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"What makes you think that the essential vitamins weren't available locally?\n\nVitamins are basic chemicals needed for life. Any stable ecosystem will have sources of them.",
"Your question contains a false assumption. You can easily get all the nutrients you need with locally-grown food. Not having foreign trade does not result in any nutrient deficiencies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4iaory | how low would gravity need to be for a human to survive falling at its terminal velocity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4iaory/eli5_how_low_would_gravity_need_to_be_for_a_human/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2whk15",
"d2wij9v",
"d2wkfx3",
"d2wm5zy"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends what you land on. Humans have survived falls at terminal velocity on earth: it's just not pleasant, and not massively likely. ",
"I think the problem here is twofold.\n\nHumans survive falls at terminal velocity on earth. There are all sorts of records out there of people who fell out of planes etc without the benefit of a parachute and survived because they landed on something that allowed them to decelerate in several steps instead of at once: trees, powerlines, glass-roofs, snow piles, ant-hills etc.\n\nOne the other hand humans can and rather frequently do get killed falling over their own feet. The number of people who died after stumbling and hitting their head on the ground from falling over is a lot higher than the people who survived terminal velocity falls.\n\nIt is not really the speed that kills you but the intensity of your deceleration, especially the one of your brain inside your head.\n\nSo that is sort of hard to calculate.\n\nThe other problem is that terminal velocity comes from the friction of the air breaking you so much that gravity can't accelerate you any further.\n\nOn a planet with lower gravity you would be accelerated less but the air would also be thinner (most liekely).\n\nMars has a gravity that is much lower than Earth, but the terminal velocity of objects is actually higher than on Earth.\n\nIf you want lower terminal velocity you need a denser atmosphere.",
"There is no fixed speed that separates \"survivable\" and \"not survivable\", but let's make a toy example: the impact should be similar to a 3 meter fall on Earth. Something that is unpleasant, but you can survive it easily and probably without damage if you land feet first. At that height, you land with about 8 m/s. Also, we assume the density of air does not change (that would be another way to slow down terminal velocity).\n\nThe terminal velocity grows with the square root of the gravitational acceleration. A typical terminal velocity for skydivers is ~50 m/s. We have to reduce the speed by a factor 50/8, so we have to reduce acceleration by a factor (50/8)^2 = 39. If g would be at most 0.25 m/s^(2), a free fall at terminal velocity would be fine. That is **about the gravitational acceleration on Ceres (0.29 m/s^(2))**. Unfortunately, objects where g is that low cannot hold an atmosphere over longer periods without artificial domes or similar things.\n\nIf we increase the density: on venus, you would fall slower than 8 m/s^(2). You would also get crushed by the atmospheric pressure. If you go in a massive spacesuit to handle that pressure, you are so heavy and stiff that you fall faster and probably get hurt again.",
"This sort of thing gets tricky because as gravity decreases, the density of the atmosphere decreases too. With a less dense atmosphere, terminal velocity increases, which makes falls more dangerous, and I have to admit that I'm not sure where the sweet spot between gravity/air density is. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a8inq0 | why do people irrationally hate things that are popular, e.g fortnite, musicians etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8inq0/eli5_why_do_people_irrationally_hate_things_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecaze66",
"ecb01tb",
"ecb09lp",
"ecb3g94",
"ecb3k0y",
"ecb561p",
"ecb7csj",
"ecb7mm0",
"ecb7xtf",
"ecb8h0z",
"ecb9zil",
"ecbabjt",
"ecbdmj7",
"ecbdmuq",
"ecbfyh8",
"ecbgaan",
"ecbglw4",
"ecbi0dc"
],
"score": [
32,
222,
27,
3,
9,
244,
110,
48,
16,
2,
7,
3,
16,
3,
6,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Vague dislike for something + media surrounding them being inundated with it + people constantly talking about it causes growing frustration which gets directed toward the thing itself. ",
"You don’t really like it, so hearing about it/seeing already frustrates you. But since its popular you see and hear about it EVERYWHERE. On top of that, you know a lot of people who like it, and they always make a point to single you out as the only person who doesn’t like that thing, which makes you wrong because you don’t follow the crowd. I’ve ended friends by simply saying, “I don’t like Fortnite, it’s just not very fun to me.”",
"Its like someone poking you with a stick, its slightly anoying and dosnt hurt you. But when you are constantly exposed to it, it becomes and unignorable anoyance that you just cant excape from :(",
" Most media interests, specially recently, are demographic focused but it's ongoing as an issue, use herd mentality, or the hype train as their advertisers. It's pandering, and often very generic material.\n\nThose that are not the current demographic, or just already curate for themselves end up being socially bullied. They dread it when it comes up with people because the herd types act like having no interest in their 101 bag of culture makes that person a snob, a hipster, a jackbutt whatever. That one person already knows they do not have to like everything that comes out, or an indie/counter culture thing, just because everyone else likes it. That person finds their joy elsewhere. \n\nInstead of being led to the beaten path of consumption, they found their own way. Now they are being bullied via social conformity pressure for being different. Usually causing futher disinterest in said media, even the people interested in that media. This causes the hype train herd consumer to be more sardonic. Thus the individual starts to associate further that the media with herd people circling the wagons around defensively, is not suited to them themselves as its tailored for the group conformity consumer. \n\nAs this cycle continues consistently, the two types of consumers build walls of scoffing and shaming to protect themselves. \n\n",
"Things tend to become popular because of the herd instinct of the group. Once enough members of a group or culture enjoy something, it reaches a tipping point of popularity. Then it is up to the rest of the people in that group to either push back against that popularity to curb its growth, or to also conform and adapt to its popularity as well. Expecting people to conform to the popularity of something just because you might enjoy it would naturally cause some things to become more popular than they should naturally be. People expressing their disdain for certain popular things is their natural way of stating that they believe something else should be more popular instead. It takes courage to take a nonconformist stance to shape culture for the better in this way, according to their own preferences.",
"In the beginning, you don’t care about the thing. But after countless mentions from TV, friends, social media, family, school, etc., you start getting tired/annoyed at the thing. And thus, you start hating the thing. \n\nAlso, this is like being Pavlovian trained to hate the thing, just like making your favorite song your alarm clock. ",
"**This is going to be both controversial and anecdotal unfortunately**. But a lot of it has to do with *how young people consume media*.\n\nWhen you're younger, opinions on entertainment and trends are more polarised. As you're typically forced to be around a mix of people not of your selection (ie school), and you are in the process of building up much of your identity based on the crowd you associate with, the trends you emulate, the clothes you wear, the games/films you consume, etc. And by extension the groups you *distance* yourself from.\n\nNo young person wants to be in the middle-ground. You want to find a tribe. We're social creatures and that's how we do. So you'll find yourself fanatically devoted to [Boy Band], whilst hissing distain as another group who like [Boy Band 2].\n\nAs you get older however the equation changes. Your experiences broaden, so your tastes evolve. You gain control of your environment and finances. You intentionally fall out of touch with the people who do not share many common interests and have fewer friends as a result. And you identify the sorts of hobbies/music/films you like with the rest simply not being on your radar. And then become a *connoisseur* of said hobby, because you only want the best examples of it. Because your time is precious now, what with work and/or family consuming everything else.\n\nAsk someone over 30 what they think about something polarising to young people and you'll more likely just get disinterest. Or reasoned explanations about *why* something isn't very good, backed up by more experience in said hobby.",
"A lot of the time, it's not about hating the thing itself, but hating the thing's popularity.\n\nI don't irrationally hate the Kardashian family, but I do hate that they receive so much unwarranted attention.",
"It's not so much that they hate things that are popular, it's that they hate that things they hate are popular. \n\nFor example I didn't like Fornite when it came out (for fair reasons like the repetitive gameplay etc.), but now I *hate* it because a) it's everywhere but more importantly because b) other games are changing because of it (for the worse, IMO). I dislike PUBG for the same reasons but I don't hate it because it doesn't really affect me.\n\nVery little of this hate is \"irrational\". Most often you'll find a fair reason for the hate, even if it's just because the popular thing is taking attention from something they consider more deserving.",
"The problem is when people automatically assume that you must like a certain thing and won't let you not talk about it/not participate. For example I hate everything about Facebook even before the full extent of their deviousness about data collection and usage came to light but a girlfriend was insistent I was on there even to the point of starting to create a profile for me until I was forced to explain forcefully how much I hate it.",
"There are basically 2 reasons, and people have talked about both, but seems to think their reason is the only reason.\n\n1) \"Because everyone else is doing it\". Your friends hate it, and you like your friends, therefor you agree with their judgment and hate that thing too. It is about fitting in with your group.\n\nMany people absolutely hate Nickelback BECAUSE other people hate Nickelback. Or at least they SAY they hate Nickelback in front of their friends while secretly singing their songs on full volume while driving with nobody else in the car. Me personally? I don't give a shit about Nickelback. They are successful at what they do, and good for them. I just won't go out of my way to listen to their stuff. I hate Bieber because the kid is a fucking tool. Good on him for doing his music thing, but my judgment is because he's a terrible human being.\n\n2) \"Leave me alone!\" You don't really hate something yet. It gets repeatedly mentioned and you can't escape it. You start to roll your eyes when it appears. Then you start clenching your jaws when you hear it. Then you can't fucking take it anymore. You hate it.\n\nFor me it is currently Destiny 2. I didn't care about it when it came out. I heard from reddit and other sources that it was a shitty game. I figured that's all I had to know. Then my friend is playing it and is bugging me at literally (not figuratively) every contact with me to get the game so I can play with him. I tell him I am not really a huge fan of multiplayer shooter games. He KNOWS I hated watching him and our friend play Halo. It's been that way for many years. But he keeps talking about it and talking about it. I hate this game. Then I get word I can get it for free, so I go ahead and get it to try it out. It's okay. But that's it. You can only get to level 20 for free. It's not good enough for me to want to buy into it further. But then he keeps bugging me to play with him. Then he's texting me while I am at school or at work asking why I am not currently on right this minute playing with him. I hate Destiny 2 all over again. Or maybe I just need a new friend.",
"Because a lot of very popular music or games tend to have the “bandwagon” crowd, or those who follow it because it’s what everyone around them also likes, not based on whether it is objectively good or not. \n\nThose who are critics of popular things tend to be those who know much more about the genre or topic at hand, and are disappointed to see better music or games ignored in favor of an “inferior” but popular version. \n\nHence why there is a lot of hate for Fortnite: it’s not an objectively better game than the others in its genre, but because it’s popular it gets more attention than it deserves.",
"I hate Fortnite because I’m a teacher - it’s all I heard about for a good 6 months.\n\nWhen you have 6 hours a day of kids obsessively flossing, dabbing, etc. non stop you get sick of it incredibly quickly.",
"I think it’s because if a thing is popular, you hear about it very regularly and maybe can’t even easily avoid it. So if you dislike it, it just stays in your face all the time making you dislike it even more.",
"When every human on earth is doing Fortnite dances is when the hates starts to rise up in me.",
"yeah, for the most part, it isn't irrational. For example. I used to like Minecraft. then I had my fill of it. but then it kept showing up in front of me. people talking about it. trying to get me to play it again. One of my friends won't shut up about his Roleplay server. It just gets to a breaking point.\n\nAs for why I hate fortnight. crosshair bloom. I tried it. every time I lost it was not because I was lacking skill. it was because of crosshair bloom",
"I am a teacher. When the kids obsess over something is consumes them, and when you have 20+ people consumed with something, omg it becomes irritating. Fortnite - imagine every time you try to talk with someone, especially a serious conversation, and you have to tell them to stop dancing. \n\nTeach, they said. Spend your day with children, they said. It will be rewarding, they said. ",
"I prefer more realistic video games. The whole structure building thing is very strange to me and extremely unrealistic. On top of all that, the game is just FLOODED with adolescents playing. They, by nature, are extremely immature. Then there’s the carryover I to real life where kids incessantly do the stupid dances. Makes me cringe every time I see it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3phgjp | why do we believe that "this is the one" and fear we "will never meet somebody like him/her in our life again"? | Is this a healthy thought, based on biology or psychology or is this an indicator for fears of loss? Is such thing even possible, regarding that there are over 7 billion people living on the world?
Edit: Of course I meant: why do SOME people believe that. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3phgjp/eli5_why_do_we_believe_that_this_is_the_one_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw6arib",
"cw6bgwc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't believe either of those things. I just want to be clear that not everyone believes this. Or feels this.",
"Carl jung believed we have archetypal images in the psyche which can manifest unto people. He gave a story once about one of his sessions with a patient. After a period of time with a patient, the lady began to see Jung as a \"father\" or \"old wise man\". She felt extreme love for him. And this was one sided even after Jung confronted her about it, she said, she knew he wasn't her father but she still FELT like he was. She projected her archetypal father onto Jung. As some men project the archetypal mother, maiden, or some other ideal unto their partner and they can become instantly infatuated with them. Some people manifest a lot of archetypal images in their life without realize it. My personal favorite is the trickster. But we have to remember they are not real representations of people. Think about it. Have you ever met someone and instantly felt like you knew them or something about them? They might be a manifestation of an archetypal image. You may not have a word to describe them. You may say they look familiar, maybe an essence about them, a character, or just a strong feeling. And to answer your question. It can be unhealthy depending on what you manifest and on who you manifest it on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9r163x | why is ios said to almost never be affected by viruses, whereas other operating systems are? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9r163x/eli5_why_is_ios_said_to_almost_never_be_affected/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8d7x22",
"e8d7yir"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"With mobile phone operating systems, a challenge is getting malicious code onto a user's device. With web browsers limiting plugins like Flash and Java, and blocking installation of apps from outside offical sources, that is a very challenging task. A properly implemented permissions system would also limit what malicious code could do without asking the user for permission to do so.\n\nDesktop operating systems are generally far more permissive on what programs can be run, and unfortunately that also runs the risk of executing malicious code or code with a flaw that allows malicious code to run ",
"It’s a combination of less people use it(so it isn’t as practical to make a virus for it) and the closed nature of the OS."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4drpbg | why is the standard dose of just about all medicines two tablets? couldn't they just make one that's twice as concentrated? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4drpbg/eli5_why_is_the_standard_dose_of_just_about_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1tohxc",
"d1tokie",
"d1tp2wj",
"d1tp4cv",
"d1tt0nu",
"d1tvatl",
"d1u5qbc"
],
"score": [
6,
20,
9,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"But what if you needed to give a smaller dose to someone who was physically smaller, or whose body was weaker and couldn't handle a standard dose? A twice as concentrated dose would make it easier for most people, but impossible for other uses. ",
"Some people have trouble swallowing larger tablets, children take smaller doses, larger people can take larger doses without taking a double dose (when I was over 300 I would take 3 Tylenol for instance) and a myriad of other reasons that I don't know.",
"As part owner of a vitamin/ supplement distributor I can tell you that it all comes down to capsule/tablet/softgel size. We'd love to have all one a day serving sizes but many raw materials have fills that necessitate multiple daily doses to achieve desired end dosage. A one a day in these cases would be far too large to swallow. However there is one exception. Many supplements come in 30 day supplies. In the case of a one a day product, 30 capsules require a small bottle. Small bottles can negatively impact the perception of value. A reseller may want to split the dose, keep the capsule size by adding filler and use a larger 60 count/ two a day bottle size to increase perception of value. This is especially true where the product will be sold in brick and mortar retail where a larger bottle will help the product to stand out.",
"It's only really 'standard' for over the counter tablets. i.e. where people are self diagnosing and choosing their dose based on the information on the packet rather than as prescribed by a doctor. It does happen with prescription only too but usually on quite potent drugs. \n\nDoctors prescribe some drugs based on body weight. The majority of people fall into the 'take two of these' category but children, elderly, very thin people might need smaller doses and breaking tablets isn't precise enough. Sometimes people are given a slightly higher dose and the same thing applies. Easier to take 1 or 3 tablets than half or one and a half. \n\nStronger tablets means it is easier to overdose. People are likely to read a packet and think that taking three instead of two will help them quicker. Or not leave six hours before taking the next dose etc. Taking three of a standard tablet is less dangerous than taking two of a concentrated tablet. \n\nTablets are often designed to dissolve a certain way or at a certain speed and cramming more dose into a tablet affects the dissolution time. It can also affect the friability - either of which might mean that a dose isn't delivered in the right way.",
"I have trouble swallowing most pills and sometimes wish that they made them smaller so then I'd have to take 2 instead of one massive pill. Antibiotics are the worst :( ",
"The top comments seem to be talking about pill sizes, but for most drugs that's completely wrong (vitamin/supplements and antibiotics being the exemption, but most people would be talking about standard medications). Tablets are almost entirely filler material so you can actually swallow the pill, to make one pill the strength of two you wouldn't have to double the size of anything.\n\nThe correct answer is controlling dosage. Standard dosage may be two pills, but every person reacts to drugs differently, and a dosage may need to be increased or reduced to get the desired effect. Having to split a pill, or jumping from 2x dosage to 4x dosage rather than easily trying 3x dosage is inconvenient and problematic for all involved.",
"It's marketing, to cause you to consume the bottle faster. It started with tums or alkaseltzers or something, they had a jingle "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bw89oj | why does the water pressure drop a little bit once the water heats up? | When I have a shower, I leave the hot water on to heat up and I can hear the drop in pressure when it's done. I also notice this when using the kitchen sink and the water seems to become less oxygenated(?) Always wondered why, if the water heats up in the pipe shouldn't it expand and the water pressure rise? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bw89oj/eli5_why_does_the_water_pressure_drop_a_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"epvut5u",
"epvuuoi"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you mean water flow? Usually rubber in taps expands when it heats so the flow decreases.",
"It shouldn't have anything to do with the water per se, but with the supply chain, since technically, if you heat water, the pressure should only increase.\n\nCold Water comes directly from the pipes that supply your whole area, there the water pressure is maintained to be fairly high. Hot water, however, is usually produced inside your house, there will be a heater somewhere that heats up your water. Since that is local and takes time, the pressure used will not be that high."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4bol8e | what is a site's robot.txt? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bol8e/eli5_what_is_a_sites_robottxt/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1b19dz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's a file containing instructions telling search engine spiders and other programs which parts of the site they shouldn't look at, for example _URL_0_ on Reddit. It won't stop an evil program from reading those pages, but a polite one like Google's will do as you tell it. Sometimes those pages will still show up in Google searches if lots of pages link to it using relevant words, but Google doesn't know what's actually on the page because you asked it not to look."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/robots.txt"
]
] |
||
2jkz8i | why does having bigger muscles enable someone to lift or push more weight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jkz8i/eli5_why_does_having_bigger_muscles_enable/ | {
"a_id": [
"clcp1ne",
"clcsscg"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually the 650 skeletal muscles in the human body contract when they receive signals from motor neurons, which are triggered from a part of the cell called the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Motor neurons tell your muscles to contract and the better you become at having those signals tell your muscles to contract, the stronger you can get.\n\nWhen someone like a powerlifter is able to lift very heavy weight despite not looking very muscular, it’s due to their ability to activate those motor neurons and contract their muscles better. This is why some powerlifters can be relatively smaller compared to bodybuilders, but can lift significantly more weight. Motor Unit recruitment also helps to explain why, after practice, certain movements become easier to perform and most of the initial strength gains will be when you first start to lift weights. Muscle growth tends to occur more steadily after this initial period of strength gain because you are more easily able to activate the muscles.\n\nSo you can be very strong without having huge muscles. But my experience is even these people still look strong, just skinnier than bodybuilders.\n\n",
"Let's say that we have a tiny piston. That tiny piston can push one unit of weight, and only one piston can push one unit of weight. When the units of weight go up, we need more pistons to push it, as each piston can only push one unit. \n\nThat's how muscles work - each muscle cell can only do so much work, so, to do more work, more cells are required. \n\nDudes (and ladies) with huge muscles just have trained their bodies to provide more pistons to push more units."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3ymppp | is it possible to change the structure of molecules using electricity or vibrations? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ymppp/eli5is_it_possible_to_change_the_structure_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyer1v7",
"cyer77d"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
" > I.E: Change water into quartz\n\nNo. Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms bound to a single oxygen atom. Quartz is composed of two oxygen atoms bound to a single silicon atom. Short of using a particle accelerator to bombard atoms with protons to increase their atomic number (or split them apart into smaller atoms), you cannot change one element into a different element. And you certainly cannot do so with vibrations or electricity.",
"Yes, but not in the way you are describing. We can use a technique called electrolysis to cause an otherwise non-spontaneous reaction like turning water back into hydrogen and oxygen. This process doesn't work beyond the molecular level though, so we aren't going to get different atoms from the process (so no water into quartz). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1w55p7 | legally speaking, how does recanting a confession work? | I'm in the US so US law in particular is my interest here. Let's say I walk into a police station and tell them I killed Jim Smith. Boom, confessed, nice nice. Three days later, I decide I'd rather have not told them that and recant my confession. Pain in the ass me, right?
Seriously, though--how, in a legal procedural sense, is the bell unrung? Why can a confession be recanted?
EDIT: I'm just curious about this after watching Law and Order; I'm not seeking legal advice, nor have any need of it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w55p7/eli5_legally_speaking_how_does_recanting_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceys3vl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This](_URL_0_) wikipedia article is actually a pretty good survey briefing of the topic of both coerced and voluntary false confessions. \n\nTypically, short of evidence of coercion, once a confession is out there it's usable by the prosecution (there are other ways of getting a confession thrown out, legal technicalities, the subject was mentally incapable of understanding what they were doing when they confessed, etc...) \n\nThat's not to say that it's insurmountable, if other evidence suggests that the accused was not the actual perpetrator it can be used to argue against the truthfulness of the confession. \n\nAs always, the reddit disclaimer applies. If this is a situation you or someone you know is actually facing then you should be asking a lawyer in person and not looking for legal advice from the reddit hivemind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession"
]
] |
|
93sny5 | what is the funny taste we experience after hitting our heads too hard? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/93sny5/eli5_what_is_the_funny_taste_we_experience_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3fragq",
"e3fs2ln"
],
"score": [
71,
9
],
"text": [
"Post traumatic dysgeusia\n\nThe short version is that it's your body undergoing trauma and your salivary glands sort of going haywire temporarily. \n\nIt is not an adrenal response or spinal/brain fluid as most people falsely perpetuate. ",
"This is most likely post traumatic dysgeusia.\n\nRight now, we're unsure why we get it, but there are some ideas. Certain chemicals in our body tend to be much lower after the head gets hit, and we think that's the reason why our taste buds and sense of smell gets weird."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1xefu8 | what is wifi, like, physically? electromagnetic radiation? if so, what kind? | I've never fully understood the properties of a WiFi signal. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xefu8/eli5_what_is_wifi_like_physically_electromagnetic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfalfra",
"cfanlfd",
"cfapuip"
],
"score": [
30,
13,
4
],
"text": [
"Radio waves. Very high frequency, approximately what you use for good cordless phones. ",
"Yes, it's electromagnetic radiation. Depending on what type of WiFi set-up you have (or are using if you're out in public), it will probably be either somewhere between 2.4 - 2.5 GHz (gigahertz, or billions of cycles per second of the carrier wave... hold that thought) or somewhere in the 5.8 GHz range. These two bands, the one at 2.4 & 5.8 GHz, have spectrum set aside for use with something called \"Industrial, Scientific, Medical\" or \"ISM\". Put simply, these are two bands that anyone can use so long as they play be certain rules (maximum transmission power, have to accept interference).\nAs for \"what\" the transmission is, yes, it's electromagnetic radiation, photons of very low (relative) energy.\nBonus points: \"WiFi\" is a term used by a set of companies who have developed a way to ensure that their equipment, built to different IEEE 802.11 standards, will work properly with each other. So if you see something that has \"WiFi\" on it, that means its been certified to work to a certain set of the various 802.11 standards (a,b,g,n,ac, etc).",
"I make hardware and software for living. I've made radio, IR LED, and laser transceivers from scratch. I'll give it a try to explain with ELI5 spirit.\n\nWi-Fi signal is just light that you can't see, because its frequency of 2.4Ghz is far too low for our eyes to pick it up. Visible light spectrum has its frequency range of 430–790THz and only at this frequency range does it interact with the retina of our eyes, allowing us the see.\n\nWe have long known that alternating or pulsing electrical current emits electromagnetic wave at the alternating/pulsing frequency. Electromagnetic wave and light are literally the same thing. In ELI5 spirit, let's just call it \"light.\" When these light particles hit another piece of wire preferably a well-designed antenna on the receiver end, it induces alternating/pulsing current of more or less the same waveform when it was created, albeit at much lower power, within the range of nanowatts. It didn't take long for us to utilize this phenomenon to transmit and receive light signal.\n\nAt fundamental level, the WiFi radio transmitter transmits the data, one small chunk of 10 to 16 bits of data at a time. The chunk of something like 101010100011 is distinguished from other data like 111111111111 by varying both the brightness (or amplitude) and the color (or frequency). This process is called encoding and modulation. The receiver picks up this stream of faint light of varying brightness and color, amplifies it to a much higher power that is readable by the digital signal processor which then demodulates/decodes the signal back to the original digital data. Different chunk of bits is seen by the receiver as having different shade of color and brightness. The same data (e.g. 101010100011) is always seen as having the same color and brightness when sent repeatedly.\n\nWhile what I described is simplified (not mentioning about the encryption and the protocol), it is not an analogy. Wi-Fi signal is light, and if it were visible, it would look pulsing lights of different colors and brightness. In fact, the visible version of Wi-Fi is coming out. It's called [Li-Fi](_URL_0_) and it promises much faster speed than this invisible WiFi."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trYBogpHHGY"
]
] |
|
2ek7lo | how did we learn to make fire? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ek7lo/eli5_how_did_we_learn_to_make_fire/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck09eq3",
"ck0c2tq",
"ck0dyx3",
"ck0gh6p",
"ck0hhd0"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Someone else will probably have a better informed/cited answer. But I did a quick 5 minute research session and will back up what I found with a wikipedia link and some wild speculation.\n\n\"Claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 0.2 to 1.7 million years ago...\" \n\n_URL_0_\n\nSo probably as human ancestors began walking upright and covering larger distances they encountered fire more and more often as a natural occurance. No doubt there were dead animals in the fire which would be a super bonus since it would mean no hunting.\n\nThese early protohumans would likely have found that the cooked meat was softer and easier to chew and probably tasted really good. So it would have been obvious that fire was useful for food.\n\nAll the other stuff about fire would have also made it very attractive to human ancestors: it's light at night - as our night vision is not as good as the other animals, it's warmth in cold - as we lost body hair, it scares away other animals.\n\nSo at first the coals from the fire were probably carried around in a pouch to start new fires, but eventually someone must have been striking a stone and noticed that the sparks started a fire.\n\nHow they realized that friction could cause a fire was probably happened upon as someone was making weapons like a bow and noticed how hot the wood would get when they ground another piece of wood against it.",
"There are many naturally occurring sources of fire: lightning, gas deposits, magma, decomposition. Early hominids encountered these, found them useful, and kept the fires going without having to make them.\n\n",
"Lightning. Forest fires. Cooked corpses of dead animals. Took a while to control the thing and make it ourselves. Now we can all make it. Only you can prevent forest fires.",
"Observation of how fire forms in nature. You don't have to understand the physics and chemistry behind combustion to create and use fire.\n\nPhlogiston is a good example. It wasn't that long ago that 'some of our brightest minds' on the 'bleeding edge of scientific discovery and innovation' thought phlogiston was a real thing, and we were well into advanced-ish civilization by that point.",
"Lightening started it. But someone creating a tool from flint figured the sparks that were released could make fire under the right circumstances. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cxxn39 | why are lakes so calm but oceans and rivers so unpredictable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxxn39/eli5_why_are_lakes_so_calm_but_oceans_and_rivers/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyo5uyc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Lakes are smaller than oceans by a lot, and so they end up with fewer instances of turbulence or choppiness compared to ocean water.\n\nFor example, the spin of the Earth causes a band of high winds and ocean currents near the equator, which churns the oceans continually, but a lake will generally only get disturbed by rivers flowing into it or animals swimming in it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6pxut7 | the human body maintains a core temperature of around 37℃. how does the body know its temperature ? how does it know if its above or below its ideal temperature ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pxut7/eli5_the_human_body_maintains_a_core_temperature/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkt11wo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"your skin is covered in cells that detect temperature. These react very quickly to any temperature outside of a very narrow range. When it goes too far from that range, it transmits signals very similar to pain. these signals go to your brain, which immediately responds by doing things to return temperature to stable levels.\n\nThis is also why if it goes WAY too far beyond the safe level, you react faster than the signal can reach your brain. its just forcing muscle contraction at the site. Its really neat.\n\nAnyway. These cells are extremely specialized in that they are only stable at this extremely specific temperature range. It would be well beyond an ELI5 answer to try and go into the details of how they do this or the large number of responses your body has to them, but the system does work extremely well.\n\nIf you want ot learn more, you could ask the r/science folks for information on how thermoreceptor cells work. Here's a wikipedia article for a slightly less detailed but much less ocmplicated overview: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoreceptor"
]
] |
||
66g6o1 | why do we, as humans, often make decisions contrary to what our brains "know deep down" that we're supposed to do? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66g6o1/eli5_why_do_we_as_humans_often_make_decisions/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgi8wm0",
"dgi9pbg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If I recall correctly, our limbic system dictates our \"gut instincts\" and our prefrontal cortex dictates decisions based on logic. The more data we get, the more our prefrontal cortex gets overloaded with information causing us to overthink things.\n\nThe limbic system would be more tied into our emotional decision making, versus our rational decision making.",
"cause often what \"we know deep down\" is actually social conditioning that is separate from reality. and the the conflict between what you want and think you should do reflects ideology"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
megw9 | how mao got into power and why china is one of the most successful communist countries. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/megw9/eli5_how_mao_got_into_power_and_why_china_is_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"c308w7g",
"c309bja",
"c30abad",
"c30bn5e",
"c308w7g",
"c309bja",
"c30abad",
"c30bn5e"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
5,
3,
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I can answer the second part of the question\n\n* organised labour workforce\n\n* firewall is semi effective (they still have connection to the net) - still focusing on technology\n\n* has focused on getting raw materials from Australia\n\n* Police/Army have removed any trouble makers.\n\n* huge population - workforce quantity\n\n* low minimum wage\n\n* allows foreign investment + visitors",
"It became more successful by loosening up and becoming less Communist. I think they took notice of Hong Kong's success and tried to implement some of that without giving up full control.\n\nSince they opened up to the US in the 1970s, they have managed to continually grow their economy on exports. That will eventually have to change.",
"China is not communist in the sense that Marx described. China has a market economy. Communism is defined as a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. ",
"First Part: \n\n* He got the **support of the peasants**, who made up 80% of the country during the civil war. He did this by instilling order, having a considerate army who didn't rape or pillage, and redistributing land to peasants in areas of china they occupied. \n\n\n* He got the **support of the minority middle class** and urban population by again creating order and calming inflation in the cities they took over, as well as a ferocious propaganda campaign. This focused on expelling 'foreign devils' (China was really xenophobic) from the country, which was this group's main concern\n\n \n* His opponents were **hopelessly weak**. The GMD (Nationalists), who had ruled parts of China for a few decades before hand, had created widespread chaos (hyperinflation) and had not solved the country's main problems harking back from Western colonization of the country. They also used conscription for their army, which in contrast to Mao's, was rude and violent towards any civilians they came across. This led to less support for them and more support for Mao and his army. \n\n\n* Mao used **tactics** that suited Chinese rural terrain. He used guerrilla warfare and infiltrated the GMD Army and in doing so managed to overcome an enemy army that started out 3 times bigger than his own. \n\n\n* When the CCP (Communists) won the war in 1949, Mao consolidated his power by allowing opposition groups to form and them outlawing them or assassinating their members to drive them to extinction. His own paranoia and the purges and political murders that resulted from that secured his own personal position as Chairman Mao. \n\n\nHope this helps! (: \n(also: feels so good when studying has paid off :D) ",
"I can answer the second part of the question\n\n* organised labour workforce\n\n* firewall is semi effective (they still have connection to the net) - still focusing on technology\n\n* has focused on getting raw materials from Australia\n\n* Police/Army have removed any trouble makers.\n\n* huge population - workforce quantity\n\n* low minimum wage\n\n* allows foreign investment + visitors",
"It became more successful by loosening up and becoming less Communist. I think they took notice of Hong Kong's success and tried to implement some of that without giving up full control.\n\nSince they opened up to the US in the 1970s, they have managed to continually grow their economy on exports. That will eventually have to change.",
"China is not communist in the sense that Marx described. China has a market economy. Communism is defined as a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. ",
"First Part: \n\n* He got the **support of the peasants**, who made up 80% of the country during the civil war. He did this by instilling order, having a considerate army who didn't rape or pillage, and redistributing land to peasants in areas of china they occupied. \n\n\n* He got the **support of the minority middle class** and urban population by again creating order and calming inflation in the cities they took over, as well as a ferocious propaganda campaign. This focused on expelling 'foreign devils' (China was really xenophobic) from the country, which was this group's main concern\n\n \n* His opponents were **hopelessly weak**. The GMD (Nationalists), who had ruled parts of China for a few decades before hand, had created widespread chaos (hyperinflation) and had not solved the country's main problems harking back from Western colonization of the country. They also used conscription for their army, which in contrast to Mao's, was rude and violent towards any civilians they came across. This led to less support for them and more support for Mao and his army. \n\n\n* Mao used **tactics** that suited Chinese rural terrain. He used guerrilla warfare and infiltrated the GMD Army and in doing so managed to overcome an enemy army that started out 3 times bigger than his own. \n\n\n* When the CCP (Communists) won the war in 1949, Mao consolidated his power by allowing opposition groups to form and them outlawing them or assassinating their members to drive them to extinction. His own paranoia and the purges and political murders that resulted from that secured his own personal position as Chairman Mao. \n\n\nHope this helps! (: \n(also: feels so good when studying has paid off :D) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4uc08q | why is a scratch on a black car white and on a white car black? | I usually only buy white or black cars and over the years I have noticed one annoying thing about all of them.
If I get a scratch on my white car it shows up black. Very obvious.
If I get a scratch on my black car it shows up white. Very obvious.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4uc08q/eli5_why_is_a_scratch_on_a_black_car_white_and_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5ohnak",
"d5ohuuz"
],
"score": [
10,
8
],
"text": [
"It's nor white or black: it's grey and being half way between the 2 colors, it appears to be dark against white and fair against black. ",
"There are 4 major layers in the paint on a car, from bottom to top they are: \nThe substrate: metal or plastic, this is what the car is actually made of. \nPrimer: almost always gray, some high end car companies will tint their primer to be closer to the final color. \nColor coat: It's what gives your car its color. \nClear coat: As the name implies this layer is clear, but designed for durability to protect the paint underneath it. \n\nWhen you get a scratch that you notice it has almost always penetrated the first two layers, and what you are seeing is the gray primer, which as VentoSolar said, is halfway between white and black and sure to stand out. There is also the possibility that you have a VERY deep scratch, and are actually seeing the car body itself, which in the case of modern cars has a pretty good chance of being plastic, particularly on bumpers, which is usually black. A scratch that deep is almost always the result of a significant impact though, not just a loose shopping cart."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
13zknj | how wireless charging works and why it can/can't be put in roads to power electric cars? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13zknj/eli5_how_wireless_charging_works_and_why_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c78ipu7",
"c78jfw9",
"c78jkiy",
"c78jrgp",
"c78lkxf",
"c78nifa",
"c78vuh7",
"c78wtuw"
],
"score": [
67,
2,
3,
16,
2,
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Imagine you have two loops of wire very close to each other. You put an electrical current through one of the wires. This current creates a moving magnetic field around that first wire. This magnetic field drags the electrons in the second wire, creating a second current. \n\nThe problem is that, even under the best circumstances it's not very efficient. A lot of energy gets wasted as heat. That, combined with the extreme cost is why we are unlikely to see it in use on roads anytime in the near future.",
"This is called electric induction. This is commonly used in heating pots and pans on your stove, and also in water boilers. \nSee _URL_0_",
"It can't be put into roads because you either have to put loads of power into it to get a good effect, or lots of live metal on the surface which is dangerous. ",
"Think of a battery like a bucket. To charge the battery by plugging it in is like taking a garden hose and putting it right in the bucket... using the 'wireless charging' is like trying to fill the bucket with [fire hose set in a fog pattern.](_URL_0_) You can do it when the bucket is small, but the larger the bucket, the larger the mess.",
"I thought that there was an article some time ago about using the roads as an electricity grid - if that could be possible, then I am sure you could have wireless charging of cars on the go somehow.",
"Idea: Put the chargers in the parking spaces and garages. You would just park your car and it would automatically charge itself. ",
"Way too many bad assumptions being made in this thread.\n\nWireless charging CAN be used to power electric cars. I saw the demo for [this news piece](_URL_0_) (pdf warning). **Tl;dr** we currently can get 90% efficiency with a 10\" air gap for 5kw transfer.\n\nNow it's more practical just to add charging stations in parking lots and replace the meters with credit card readers, but you can build a road that has the car recharge on it. It hasn't really been done but estimates are around double the cost of a normal road.\n\nI do know some of how they do it, but am unable to share it. I'll allude that it's mostly standard engineering elbow grease.",
"I wish a mouse manufacturer would build charging into a mouse pad so we could have wireless mice that don't have to be plugged in to charge or require a battery swap."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction"
],
[],
[
"http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WYjBARlQnps/TLy0Nb3zdDI/AAAAAAAAA64/vkR6Nf6esHc/FogPattern_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usu.edu%2Fust%2Fpdf%2F2011%2Faugust%2FMH0825115.pdf&ei=IgO4UPOnL6a3ywGx1oDACA&usg=AFQjCNGoa5SYPoKlqzxCVKEHwbAAFuRJwg"
],
[]
] |
||
vaxpk | ipv6, the new and improved internet protocol? | Maybe start with what an internet protocol is, and how IPv6 differs from IPv4 (is there an IPv5?)
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vaxpk/eli5_ipv6_the_new_and_improved_internet_protocol/ | {
"a_id": [
"c52vrue",
"c52w8t3",
"c52wjgo",
"c52xmro"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Watch this [video from Google regarding the differences.](_URL_0_)",
"Imagine you invent the telephone. Telephones are complicated and expensive, and not many people can afford them. You sell a bunch, and give them three-digit phone numbers -- the first customer's phone number is 001, the second customer's phone number is 002, and so on.\n\nThis works well for a while. But then 20 years pass, and oh snap! Phones are getting cheaper now, and everyone seems to want one! In fact, THOUSANDS of people are asking to buy phones, but you only use three-digit phone numbers, and all the switchboards, handsets and phone books are set up that way. There are only 1,000 three-digit numbers. So what do you do?\n\nWell, the only thing you *can* do is switch to say, six-digit phone numbers -- so Joe is 000001, and Sarah is 000002. Now you have *one million* numbers to give out. But you have to change the way the phone systems work, which is a major pain.\n\nWell, that's very much like what's happening with the internet. \n\nEvery internet connection has what's called an *IP address.* Your address right now might be 123.222.104.110, for example. IP addresses are like postal addresses. You send a letter that says \"Dear Google (IP: 16.239.51.99), please send me the search results for *pumpkins*. Sincerely, 123.222.104.110.\" That signal/letter gets transmitted through the internet until it arrives at the correct address, and then Google sends the results to *your* address. Internet providers work just like mailmen, keeping track of who lives at what address and sending all the signals to the right houses/computers. \n\nThe exact systems by which the 'mailmen' deal with the 'letters' is called the internet protocol.\n\nCurrently, most people use Internet Protocol Version 4 -- IPv4. The problem with this is like the problem we had with those three-digit phone numbers: the way IPv4 addresses are written means there can only be 4.29 billion of them. Back in the 80s, this didn't seem like a problem -- 4 *billion* people on the internet? Madness! But the internet has become much more popular than people in the past expected it to get, and it turns out we actually *do* want to use more than 4 billion connections at once.\n\nThat's where IPv6 comes in. IPv6 is a new way to write addresses down. Instead of being Mr. 122.104.110.205, you're Mr. 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf. It's a much longer and more complex number, now includings letters. Just like having 6-digit phone numbers let us have more phone customers than 3-digit numbers, IPv6 lets use have more internet customers than IPv4 did. In fact, with IPv6, we can have 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 people on the internet at the same time. That's a lot of people.\n\nIt doesn't differ from IPv4 in any other ways that would be important to the man at home; it's not faster or more reliable or anything. It just lets more people online.",
"The main advantage of IPv6 as I understand it is the addition of an extremely large number of IP addresses. Basically an IP address is like the address to your house or a phone number; it is a unique number that allows other computers to send letters (or packets of info) to your computer and you can send letters back to them.\nWhen IPv4 was developed they never imagined they would use up all of the IP addresses but now since everyone has so many devices connected to the Internet we are reaching the limit so they created IPv6. The same thing can happen with phone numbers, almost everyone has a cell phone now so eventually we will run out of phone numbers. IPv6 is essentially like adding another sub-area code to a phone number or like another sub-zip code to an address to accommodate the ever expanding human population. (This is a gross over simplification but hey, you are five so what do you know?)\n",
"The term \"internet protocol\" is very generic. But, why internet (short for internetwork) protocol and not network protocol? Over the years, there have been network protocols that do not allow information to pass between networks. Computers on one network could not \"talk\" to computers on another network. Protocols like NetBEUI from Microsoft only worked on the local network. (like within your own home or within your office) You could not use it to allow communications among networks. Thus, an internet protocol allows computers on different networks to \"talk\" to each other. The Internet Protocol (capital letters) is a name for an official internetwork protocol. It could be called Bob's Internetwork Communications Protocol, but it's not.\n\nThere was an IPv5. It was a streaming protocol that never gained traction. One must understand that there is a lot of experimentation that gets done. Regular people (although usually quite bright) come up with ways for computers to talk to each other. Those people don't always agree and are even sometimes wrong. Network communications protocols change over time in order to allow computers to talk to each other. It may all see to be easy and orderly from an end-user standpoint, but I can assure you it is not.\n\nThe biggest difference between IPv6 and IPv4 is the the sheer number of addresses IPv6 has. IPv4 has a little over 4 billion address combinations, but a lot of that gets wasted by the way it is used. With almost 7 billion people on the planet, and each person having more than one device that needs an IP address, you can see that there simply aren't enough addresses. IPv6 has enough addresses to allow for billions of addresses for every person in the world.\n\nIPv6 is NOT backwards compatible with IPv4. The really big problem with IPv6 is that applications use IP addresses to communicate with. Ideally, applications would not know what an IP address is. They would communicate using names or something. So, over the next decade or so, IPv6 will be turned on in parallel with IPv4 in order to allow a transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Once most of the world is running on IPv6, IPv4 will be retired. \n\n/network architect"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uwjt32NvVA&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLXgJVc_9yMPjQfXRcMPvtXA"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2brd9z | how is it that we are the most advanced species on the planet, yet our young take so long (much longer than most species) to be self-sufficient? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2brd9z/eli5_how_is_it_that_we_are_the_most_advanced/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj85h8l",
"cj85hmy",
"cj85icc",
"cj85m6q",
"cj873r3"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That's just it. It takes a while to amass information and use it.\n\nAn animal just does whatever comes natural, aka 'instinct'. But humans are taught and trained and learn and practice and... and...\n\nLayers and layers of information and training to get us to the point where we can actually achieve more than the previous generation.\n\nNone of that comes easily, nor quickly. For to run, one must learn to walk. Apply that to any activity in life. Building. Theorizing. Testing. Proving.\n\nAll these require layers of previous knowledge. For we are not animals, just here to eat and procreate. \n\nWe are more than animals. But it takes practice to stay that way. Years of it. ",
"It is a built in evolution trait. The more time a mammal protects and nourish the young means more time for developing the brain. Without that step in evolution we would never have gotten to where we are. ",
"Because our brains need to develop to a point beyond any other animal, they start off a lot smaller which makes birth easier. We're very social animals so having slower developing, vulnerable young isn't an issue.",
"Most animals are born fully developed, they have the ability to walk and join the heard very quickly. The only think left is for them to grow larger and learn from the heard. Their limited capabilities only require so much time in the womb.\n\nHumans take a long time to fully develop our brains because they are so complex. After 9 months the baby is about as large as it can get and still be birthed naturally. In fact the baby skull is made of plates that compress during birth allowing the baby to pass. As the baby grows the plates fuse to a solid skull. After birth the baby continues to develop and grow. By the time a human is fully developed, it would be impossible for them to be birthed.",
"Indeed the reason we're so advanced as a species is because our young take so long to be self-sufficient. Part of the requirements for our bipedalism is that our offspring are born premature, so they can fit out of a narrower pelvis. Many animals, even advanced mammals are born and within hours are walking, playing, interacting socially. Human babies can't do a single thing, they can't even hold their own heads up. Literally the one skill a newborn baby has is the instinct to suckle. Everything else is learned and takes time. But because it takes so long and parents invest so much time, resources, and affection in the child, we can grow to have hefty brains that are more capable than any other in the animal kingdom. For animals that mature quickly, there's a hard limit to how smart they can get. For us, you have fifteen to twenty-five years to become a highly intelligent being. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3slcw2 | what are the differences of viral, fungal, and bacterial infections in the human body. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3slcw2/eli5_what_are_the_differences_of_viral_fungal_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwya6ie"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The difference is the type of critter that is making you sick/causing the infection. Viral infections are caused by a maybe alive, maybe not depending on who you talk to, bit of protein and RNA that hijack your cells to produce more copies of itself, making you sick. Fungal infections are caused by single cellular fungus (think mushrooms) which normally eat dead things but in some cases can attack living tissues (e.g. athlete's foot). A bacterial infection is caused when a single cellular bacterial organism invades and starts to attack your body. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ph2vb | how come potatos float, but things just as heavy sink? | Also, how do boats really work (without the engines) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ph2vb/eli5_how_come_potatos_float_but_things_just_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd27pe5",
"cd27rs2"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"If something (like a potato or wood) is less dense than the liquid (like water) you place it in, it will float. It is about density, not weight.",
"Floating doesn't have as much to do with weight as it has to do with density.\n\nAn object will sink if the weight of the object is than heavier the weight of the water it displaces! Two objects of the same size will displace the same amount of water (when completely submerged). Suppose that water would weigh 10 pounds. However, two objects of the same size will not necessarily weigh the same amount. One object might way 8 pounds and another might way 12 pounds. The heavier object is more dense. If the object is more dense than water, it will sink. If it is less dense than water, it will float! The 8 pound object will float, the 12 pound will sink!\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
unkde | what is the difference between private property and personal property? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/unkde/what_is_the_difference_between_private_property/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4wx0g1",
"c4wx4y0"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"*Personal* property is stuff that you just like... have lying around. Your clothes would be personal property, along with your phone, dog, and TV.\n\n*Private* property is stuff like an office or factory. You're not holding it in your hands; if everyone else did not agree that you owned it, you would have no grounds for saying \"that's mine\".\n\n(For anyone who doesn't know why this distinction is important, it's a communist thing. Communists want to get rid of *private* property, but don't mind the existence of *personal* property.",
"Personal property refers to moveable property, essentially it is everything you own besides real estate.\n\nPrivate property is a much broader term that includes: real estate, ownership of the means of production, and power over employment. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4vhhow | how does helium in a sealed balloon "wear out" after a few days, and what do blimps do to counteract this effect? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vhhow/eli5_how_does_helium_in_a_sealed_balloon_wear_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5ydw5f",
"d5ylgc3",
"d5yvesp"
],
"score": [
291,
38,
2
],
"text": [
"Helium is the smallest stable molecule there is. It is so small that it can fit between the molecules of most solid materials. So keeping helium in a rubber balloon is like keeping water in a cloth bag. It will slowly leak out over time. Blimps use denser and thicker materials for their balloons but still have to refill once in a while.",
"Two good answers, so which is it? Helium atoms leak through the rubber, helium escapes through an imperfect seal, or both?\n\nEdit: Downvoted for asking for clarification in an ELI thread. Thanks!",
"As Gnonthgol said, Helium is a the smallest molecule (Helium usually exists as a pair of helium atoms). It can, over time, escape through the rubber or thermoplastic layer of a balloon or the inner linings of a blimp or derigible. Even a completely sealed balloon will leak through its walls. \nRubber and plastics are made of very long chains of molecules and can do a great job of keeping most molecules in (or out) but Helium is so small and unreactive that it slips through faster than most."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2j7r0y | if my computer can watch gameplay of a game on the highest quality why can't my video card support it's graphics. | (I know I'm being stupid just can't figure it out) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j7r0y/eli5if_my_computer_can_watch_gameplay_of_a_game/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl94ou4",
"cl94qr2",
"cl954is"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you play the game, your computer has to calculate many things like how the light is going to bounce off different objects, it has to load texture files, render complex 3d models and many more.\n\nWhen you play a video, its just playing pictures, its not having to \"build\" what's in them.",
"The step your computer is doing when you're playing but not when you're watching is called rendering, and it's very compute-intensive.\n\nThis is why a shitty phone can watch a Pixar movie that takes hundreds of servers a day to render from source.",
"Think of it this way. You can look at a painting a lot more easily than you can draw one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1a6bjd | why when repaving a freeway is the concrete under an overpass never paved over | every time i drive on a freeway, I always see that the new pavement never extends under an overpass, I just drive on the old pavement until I am about 50-100ft clear of the overpass, the the new pavement begins again. this is in California btw, don't know about other states
here's a image to clear it up...or confuse you more
_URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1a6bjd/why_when_repaving_a_freeway_is_the_concrete_under/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8uhf90"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The dump truck which feeds the paving machine often has its [bed extended high into the air](_URL_0_), which probably exceeds the clearance of many overpasses. I'd imagine they just skip them and finish up with smaller equipment after the main drags are completed."
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/174S8us"
] | [
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Ar5ina5.jpg"
]
] |
|
2deq3j | why can't we bring in sealed beverages through tsa checkpoints but we can buy those same beverages on the other side at 200% markup? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2deq3j/eli5_why_cant_we_bring_in_sealed_beverages/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjosfyz",
"cjosg66",
"cjov6kc",
"cjovdi5",
"cjow46o",
"cjowcw7",
"cjoysdw",
"cjp23rl",
"cjpf2lf",
"cjpfdah"
],
"score": [
12,
35,
4,
4,
2,
26,
10,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You just answered your own question.",
"For the fear that you might have sealed the beverage yourself and it might actually contain gasoline or other dangerous substances instead of an actual can of coke.",
"Back in the day, if you had a beverage at security they made you take a sip before passing through. That was a completely reasonable solution. Why did they get rid of it?",
"BOMBS! bombs everywhere!!",
"They were taking away lighters in Seattle the other day. The newsstand inside the terminal sold them. ",
"I bring an empty water bottle from home and fill it up from a water fountain when I get through security. ",
"If you wanted to take out an aircraft under the current security conditions it would not be difficult. \nThe liquid restrictions are not about reducing threat, they are a way of reclaiming revenue for unchecked weight. \nLiquid is heavy and if everyone bought on one liter of unchecked luggage it would cost the airline in fuel charges. \nAn example would be that if 200 passengers bought a liter each that would add an extra unlisted 200 Kg to the flight. \n \nIf you were to convert your clothes to nitrocellulose and use a particular type of case, your items would pass inspection while retaining a large explosive potential. \nMany types of explosive can be formed and decorated into common looking items. \nIf terrorists were really looking to bring down aircraft it would be a weekly news event by now. \n \nMost planes have a crew area that is locked, a key placed on a hook by the door is easily observed. To gain access to an area with exposed cable and hydraulics becomes an easy job. \n \nI mean, just on a basic panic inducing theme, I may think about filling the cabin with smoke. \nA quick look at the Anarchists handbook tells me that salt peter and sugar make an effective and hard to detect smoke pellet. \nMelt your mixture and pour into candy molds, color if required. Place into a candy box, reseal and you are set for mayhem. \n \nTL'DR \nIf terrorists really wanted to target aircraft it would be a daily issue. The TSA's job is to recover revenue and to create new opportunities for revenue recovery.\n ",
"Bear in mind that TSA people cannot reliably identify a Washington DC drivers' license as being from the US, or tell a Kindle from a smartphone. I wouldn't trust them to tell if a tin can had been opened, never mind a plastic bottle.",
"An even better question might be: why can't I take my nail scissors through security, but the restaurants within the terminal can equip me with a steak knife like nobody's business. ",
"I'm more confused as to why they will give you glass bottles and glasses post security, but bitch and moan over way less lethal things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6lb5vu | if fireworks are illegal, why do people get them anyway and don't get penalized? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lb5vu/eli5_if_fireworks_are_illegal_why_do_people_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"djshi8a",
"djshy2u",
"djsi34g"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Fireworks are illegal in the same way that jaywalking is illegal. They're a minor infraction punishable by a small fine. So unless you're causing trouble, most cops aren't going to waste their time writing you a $25 ticket.",
"Oh my friend they get penalized, in parts of Southern California the ticket for illegal fireworks (which in some parts is all fireworks) can go from 180.00 to 350.00 depending on what type they are and where.",
"Most places where fireworks are illegal just don't have the police manpower to patrol or cite everyone who uses them. In general, as long as you're not being a dick and drawing attention to yourself, you can get away with it. But don't take that as permission to go break the law."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bk5nqn | how does ritalin work? | So from what I have gathered, Ritalin leads to the release of dopamine and noradrenaline at synapses. It blocks the dopamine transporters, leading to the effects of dopamine being longer-lasting.
& #x200B;
My question is: Why and how does the release of dopamine and noradrenaline help with concentration and ADHD? And how exactly does Ritalin stimulate this release of dopamine and noradrenaline? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bk5nqn/eli5_how_does_ritalin_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"eme3akx",
"eme8ew7",
"emefchk"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"For me it doesn't help directly with concentration, but I don't get frustrated and angry so easily, which then leads to being able to concentrate easilier.\n\nSource: got adhd and been on ritalin uno for almost a year, 60mg a day.",
"So to answer the 2nd part of your q, ritalin blocks [re-uptake](_URL_0_) of the neurotransmitters by pre-synaptic neurons - they have a higher affinity for the transport proteins and physically block the neurotransmitters from binding these proteins. So more of the neurotransmitters remain in the synaptic cleft and are available to activate post-synaptic receptors.\n\nAFAIK the exact neurobiology behind ADHD is unknown but ritalin likely ultimately works by correcting an imbalance between the norepinephrine and dopamine systems in the prefrontal cortex. (_URL_1_)",
"Another aspect to understanding how stimulants help to maintain a more stable and controlled neural activity is the concept of stochastic resonance. \n\nFor a signal to be successfully delivered, it has to reach a certain threshold. The neurotransmitter-imbalance in ADHD causes signals to reach this threshold less reliably. To compensate for this unreliable signal-transmission, signals are fired more often and more intense.\nHere is a picture from the german wiki-article: _URL_0_\n\nNow if you increase the base level of the needed neurotransmitters with medication, it is like moving the whole graph up a bit, closer to the threshold. Now signals reach the threshold more reliable, less \"overshooting\" is required and the \"overactivity\" is no longer necessary. This is why stimulants \"relax\" people with ADHD.\n\n\nNow the ELI5 version:\n\n\nIts like you try to talk through a bad connection and both parties start shouting constantly to make sure the other hears them (welcome to the ADHD brain). If you improve the connection by upping the general volume, the chance of non-shouting to reach the other side is much better. Soon both parties will stop shouting and everybody will be much calmer and communication is improved."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO10z7FX13c",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24259638"
],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/6/6f/Stoch_reson_example1.png"
]
] |
|
3e6vdj | they had rc planes and helicopters way before and no one cared so what's the big issue with people and drones? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e6vdj/eli5_they_had_rc_planes_and_helicopters_way/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctc0kva",
"ctc0nas",
"ctc1qnj",
"ctc1wgz",
"ctc2d1b",
"ctc3caq",
"ctc433z",
"ctc4hmg",
"ctc4ld8",
"ctc63z4",
"ctc7tkd",
"ctc7uq7",
"ctc826o",
"ctc8kkg",
"ctc8xg5",
"ctc9mze",
"ctc9ywv",
"ctca219",
"ctcaay8",
"ctcag9b",
"ctcb4nl",
"ctcbq8p",
"ctcbyzt",
"ctcc16w",
"ctccfdv",
"ctcclp6",
"ctcctys",
"ctcda32",
"ctcdd2p",
"ctcdiq8",
"ctce2z7",
"ctceg6q",
"ctcexsu",
"ctcf99r",
"ctcfhav",
"ctcfix3",
"ctcgakq",
"ctcgaz6",
"ctcgi46",
"ctcgszq",
"ctcgvtz",
"ctcgyja",
"ctch6jk",
"ctchkw3",
"ctci2j8",
"ctciepu",
"ctciori",
"ctcithx",
"ctciweg",
"ctcj2yb",
"ctcje2c",
"ctcjtl0",
"ctckja5",
"ctcl07n",
"ctclj29",
"ctcmdha",
"ctcn01r",
"ctcngzy",
"ctco0ll",
"ctco6a3",
"ctcoxj7",
"ctcp08x",
"ctcpei8",
"ctcqgdl",
"ctcsf3u",
"ctcso0g",
"ctcsv68",
"ctct49t",
"ctcu5dv",
"ctcuhn5",
"ctcv3nr",
"ctcvxp4",
"ctcw72p",
"ctcwjtc",
"ctcwml5",
"ctcy926",
"ctcz9cm",
"ctcztlg",
"ctd2lil",
"ctd3710",
"ctd3pqz",
"ctd3xz0"
],
"score": [
2083,
42,
21,
11,
74,
555,
176,
1254,
30,
21,
2,
7,
25,
2,
24,
5,
12,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
4,
10,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
10,
3,
2,
2,
3,
8,
3,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I would say part of it would be the recording video aspect. Since you could theoretically fly a drone and peek into your neighbors house. South Park did an episode that is quite entertaining on the drone issues\n\n\nEDIT: Here is a link to the [south park](_URL_0_) episode",
"I think it's less the technology itself and more the fact people are only just becoming aware of the fucked up stuff people could do with an rc aircraft. That and with go pros and shit it's far easier to film with them. Even just a few years ago there weren't many cheap, small video cameras to strap on an rc craft.",
"Previous rc aircraft required a lot of skill to fly, especially helicopters - and could typically only be flown withing the line of sight.\n\nBecause drones look after the hovering part by themselves, they are much simpler to fly. Armed with onboard gps, a camera and a 4g connection you can fly them far beyond line of sight.",
"As someone who actually knew what was around 20 years ago, there is nearly no meaningful difference. They even used live video feeds on drones when Carter was president. They became widely available in the late 1990s. \n\nThe number of \"drones\" is also NOT increasing. Its far less than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. And they still didnt cause problems. People just didnt know about them because every hipster blogger or TV host wasnt constantly making a huge deal about them. \n\nTHEY HAD ENTIRE RC AIRPORTS FOR DECADES. Ya, they had so many of them, people would buy land and pave little runways. Really. \n\nNearly everything that exists today existed nearly identically 20 years ago. The funny thing is that the \"drones\" people are using today werent used in the past BECAUSE THE DESIGNS SUCK. They are slower, have shorter range, and shorter endurance. \n\nFrom my perspective, the new fad and the concern about them is absurd. It only serves to prove that people have no idea what they are talking about. Drones this and drones that. Its not a friggin drone. Its RC and its been around since before any of us were even BORN. \n\nMy grandfather used to run a store completely dedicated to this kind of stuff back in the 1980s. A store right in the middle of town, that tons of people used to shop at. \n\nThe most absurd thing about this drone BS is that the very same people COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM when they were growing up. Then someone changes the name, and all of a sudden every hipster is talking about them. \n\nGuess what? Nerds used to use this shit all the time. Its not new. People were just being ignorant and blowing them off because it wasnt what the in-crowd was doing. \n\nThe problem with drones is not the drones. Its people being overly dramatic and having no idea what they are talking about. All of a sudden they start using a new word and being dramatic about it, and people go out of their minds. \n\nIts like calling a hunting rifle a \"sniper rifle\". Its overly dramatic and uncalled for. \n \n\n\n\n\n ",
"People are stupid and when they hear \"drone\" they think of the predator drones the US uses to bomb Iraq/Yemen. ",
"As an avid RC airplane/helicopter/\"drone\" hobbiest my opinion has two aspects:\n\n1) FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt). This is the biggest part of the equation. People are overly fearful of various possible things that \"drones\" can do. Mostly related to taking pictures of you. Americans believe they have a \"right to privacy\" no matter where they are and what they are doing. This is simply NOT the case. First of all, the right to privacy is only concerning the government snooping on you. Private people can snoop on you all they want as long as they don't harass or trespass. Americans seem to believe you even have the right to privacy (from everyone) when your in a public space (such as a beach or park). So the american overly exaggerated sense of privacy is fanning a lot of hate-flames towards drones. \n\n2) Idiots with money and a lower barrier of entry. 5 years ago the best to learn how to fly RC was to find an instructor and have them slowly and methodically teach you how to control the aircraft because they were relatively expensive and if you crashed you had weeks of work to re-build them. With modern technologies it is now possible to build a flight brain that basically flys the aircraft/helicopter/drone for you. So no instructor, no club, and readily available parts to fix or replace. \n What this has resulted in is the idiot wall being much much lower. People who have zero training, zero knowledge of the laws regarding flying and zero respect for other people are buying ready-to-fly drones and causing all kinds of news because they are idiots. Flying inside the airspace of an airport is already illegal and every RC flyer who follows the rules knows this, Flying low over private property is already trespassing so it's already illegal. Again those who follow the rules know this. It's the idiots with no respect for others that are going to ruin the hobby for the vast majority. \n\n",
"A big issue in my opinion is that generally a \"drone\" implies autonomous operation. People associate \"drone\" with negativity due to the use of drones in military operations. \n\nAn RC quadcopter flown by a 13 year old is nothing to be worried about. \n\nFollow the rules set for RC models by the FAA and AMA and everyone should be able to have fun. The emergence of literally thousands of different quads coming out on the market and being sold to people who do not know the rules is a big contributer to the freak out.",
"Lower barriers to entry (low price, ease of operation) = way more people flying them, and less education on proper use due to the lower barrier to entry. If you spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours learning, you're more likely to obey the rules. If you spend a couple hundred dollars, and you can fly your craft right out of the box without any need for research or practice, you are more likely to do something stupid.",
"1) Media sensationalism that make people think drones are all on autopilot and spying for Obama, when the overwhelming majority are actually the same RC junk we've had since the 80s.\n\n2) Lowered barrier to entry for new pilots, who aren't trained by veteran hobbyists, and who then don't understand etiquette or why the need to listen to the FAA.\n\n3) GoPro cameras and the like that can be easily attached to RC platforms.",
"There are several factors in play here:\n\n- First, older RC planes were more expensive and harder to fly. This acted as a barrier to entry and only allowed serious hobbyists to enjoy flying. Today, most \"drones\" can somewhat fly themselves and a modest setup can cost as little as $120, to both get a real time video feed and record high definition to an onboard video card.\n\n- Second, FPV (First Person Video) and video recording drones are much more prevalent. This allows 2 things, which are the capability to record in flight video (duh), and to fly beyond line of sight, greatly extending the RC drones range.\n\n- Last, and I think this is a minor one compared to the other two, is the ability to share these videos. Even if you managed to take a video from your RC plane 20 years ago, good luck getting that to Youtube. Now, videos that are taken by hobby drones can be instantly available to billions of people.\n\nTLDR: They are way more RC aircraft in the air and they can take video in real time, then upload it to Youtube.",
"I would say a combination of things: The ability to record is paramount of course, but from a tech standpoint the drones ability to hover and the cameras ability to zoom allow it to focus on one person and watch silently in the background. Older RC planes didnt have these features and were much harder to operate and the cost of upkeep and skill level needed to operate kept it to a small percentage of people. ",
"People weren't flying them close to big airports trying to get cool video, or over working fires by fire fighters on roofs and other random shit that a normal person would realize is probably a pretty dumb idea.",
"It's because \"Drones\" are tainted. The military ruined the name of \"Drones\" forever, and people will never again look at them the same. Drones are 100% equated with spying, bombing, missiles and killing people. When you hear about someone on the news getting in trouble for flying a drone, people don't think \"oh some kid with a RC plane\". They think, oh my god some kid with a dangerous piece of hardware.\n\n\"Drone\" is tainted. RC planes are fun toys. \"Drones\" are dangerous hardware. Also, drones are inherently a bad thing.\n\n > \na person who does no useful work and lives off others.\nsynonyms:\thanger-on, parasite, leech, passenger, bottom feeder; More\n3.\na remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.",
"I have owned two RC helicopters in my life (about ten years ago) but never a plane. I've never owned a drone. Helicopters aren't very stable, and it's difficult to tune in that rear rotor so that it doesn't do 360's while hovering making it's ability to take video almost impossible. Not to mention WiFi at the time wasn't applied to small devices like phones and cameras. A quad copter or octa copter is very very stable. Gyros, altimeters and gps censors make today's drones the most stable thing even with wind. If you try to fly an RC Helicopter and a gust of wind comes by it will knock it to the side and it strong enough cause it to plant itself firmly into the ground. The rotors on drones are smaller and less expensive to replace than the huge single rotor of a helicopter. People can enjoy a drone with little fear of it crashing while also recording video simultaneously in HD. If they crash it's usually $20 for two rotors. Very rarely does anything else break on a drone unless you fly it 5 ft off the ground over an interstate. ",
"The difference mainly is that a drone can piloted without line of sight with the aircraft. Whereas the classic RC aircraft needs to always be in the line of sight of the user. This difference, though trivial, adds a whole lot of issues. \nThe operator can fly the drone further without being noticed themselves. If they are in the vicinity of manned aircraft they may not be as well equipped as a humans eyes to see and avoid that traffic. \nThat and all the points about how cheaper and easier to fly they've become mean that drones need a little extra attention to regulate them and keep them out of sensitive areas.",
"The RC helicopters were miniature versions of the real thing, and much harder to fly. Plus, they were costlier, noiseier and fewer people had them. The clever little computer control systems the little ones use for balance are super easy to use and have been incorporated into ALL quad-copters. Plus, they're cheaper than shit and are finding new uses daily...",
"People started calling them drones. Suddenly they're a new thing with parallels in the scary government and not to be trusted. People are stupid.",
"The camera and the skill required to fly. If you put a camera on an RC anything before it was fun, but not really that useful. A $100 drone can easily outmaneuver a $1000 RC helicopter/plane even while being flown by an amateur, and even the cheapies are usually equipped with good HD cameras.",
"The issue is cameras and the ability to fly beyond line of sight. Previously RC aircraft could only be flown within line of sight now they have the ability to be flown well beyond that while transmitting real time video. ",
"Because things like this are happening. \n\n_URL_0_",
"As an aerial photographer whose job is to ride around in helicopters near populated areas, my opinion is that RC aircraft pilots in the past tended to be better informed and actually give a damn about regulations and safety. RC aircraft have long been a popular hobby, but in the context of a community that policed itself. Now, drones are a huge fad, and tons of people are buying them with no knowledge of or concern for laws and safety. \n\nSweet, I just bought this thing that can fly, let me see how high it goes!\n\nUh, regardless of how high it *can* fly, keep it below 400' and away from airports so you don't send it into my tail rotor, jackass. And keep selling those shitty real estate aerials for $20 per property, that's a real solid business plan you got there. ",
"Wow, niche enthusiasts are really sensitive. \n\n\nI think the problem isn't the equipment, it's people. Drones are neutral. All of the technology involved is neutral. The concern is that the range of possible abuses is long and hits where it's ticklish. Do I love the idea of Amazon packages landing on my roof? Yes! Do I love the idea that some shitbag teenager could drop a water balloon full of ink over someone's wedding for a laugh? No. The genie is well out of the bottle on this one, so wishing it away is mindless. I feel regulation is the key here. The little copter I fly around my living room is a toy, and these aren't. I think there should be classes of drone types, and ranked licenses with legal age limits required to operate each outside of one's own property, like any motorized vehicle. I think the drones should, by law, be registered to their owners, just like any motorized vehicle. \n\n\nHaving your own multitasking flying surveillance unit (If you put a camera on it, that's what you have. Stay thy tongues) is power, and as we all know power without responsibility kills Uncle Ben. \n\nTL;DR The problem is stupid people not smart drones.",
"In my mind, safety and privacy. Drones can be dangerous for other aircraft. Just look what happened in California recently with the wildfires. Or imagine a police helicopter aiding a pursuit and having to back off because enthusiasts are also zipping their drones around recording the action. Or even worse, a chopper ambulance being delayed for the same reason. \n\nAnd then there's privacy. If I had kids and saw a drone hovering over my back yard while the kids were out, I'd worry some creeper is on the other end recording my children.\n\nAs others have pointed out, the new generation of RC drones are cheap, easy to fly and can carry high-quality video cameras. With the skill and cost barrier gone it's easier for irresponsible persons to harass or endanger others with their toys. ",
"I think this has more to do with the perception of privacy than anything else. For example, everyone is pretty used to the fact that over 90% of people you run into are carrying a cell phone with camera. And that person can choose to take a picture of you or not assuming everyone is on public property, with or without your consent. However attaching a camera to an r/c aircraft is perceived as being more invasive despite all other things being equal. This is further complicated by a few butt holes, who use cameras and r/c gear for nefarious purposes, such as flying their aircraft over private property, or near full sized aircraft. ",
"Airplanes and helicopters have some barrier to entry involving skill, location, and money. Drones are only money. Any idiot, myself included, can go buy a drone and crash it on the White House lawn.",
"I have been flying RC planes and helicopters for years, so I guess I am a little qualified to answer this one. \n\nThe big difference is that airplanes and helicopters require skill to fly. You have to put some time in flying and everyone crashes many times in the process. So it takes time and expense of fixing/replacing damaged equipment. \n\nWe have been putting cameras on them for years also. So that hasn't really changed. \n\nThe big attraction now is that they are comparatively cheap, and extremely easy to fly. \n\nI think every little kid wants to fly at some point. It was just not very attainable for most kids. They didn't have the money, space, or experience to do it. But now, for $200 you can be flying in your backyard. ",
"Because they call them drones and people associate them with things like predator drones, not rc helicopters",
"A fixed wing RC plane is pretty useless for surveillance. A helicopter is expensive and difficult to fly. A quadcopter costs from $50 upwards and can be flown by anyone with a few minutes of practice. Also, \"drones\" are in the news every day with reports of unlawful killings and collateral damage. ",
"The drones are much easier to fly, and often come with pre-installed cameras, so any idiot can do it.\n\nRC helicopters actually require quite a bit of practice, and you would need to custom install the camera and figure out how to broadcast the video feed. Quite a bit of expertise, experience, and work would go into it. This limited the number of idiots doing idiot things.",
"easier to use and popularity. once it's not niche, the idiots start causing problems on a scale that draws attention. ",
"There were vastly fewer of them, they didn't tend to have cameras, and YouTube didn't exist. Now, there is a tremendous incentive for thousands of people to use them in inappropriate, intrusive, obnoxious, and/or dangerous ways in order to make a \"cool\" YouTube video and \"get lots of views\". There is an endless supply of idiots who will do this because they are now plentiful and easily available to anyone.",
"Multirotors are extremely stable, easy to fly, precision machines due to the computer controlled flight operation. For that reason, they can very easily be used to mechanize a lot of things aerially. Just recently some idiot put a hand gun on one as a demonstration of his engineering prowess (right, the PID did all the hard work for you buddy).\n\nPrior to multirotors, it was extremely hard to get precise stable flight (you'd need to know how to fly helicopters, which are very hard). So, you didn't have idiots strapping cameras to them and filming women on beaches or strapping guns to them (same guy btw).\n\nSo yea... Basically, the cost, barrier to entry, and easy of semi-autonomous flight has allowed for these things to be used for all kinds of stupid stuff now.",
"Serious answer: the fear is as stated on another answer, the camera. Paranoid people spread fear to the uneducated. The cameras that can be carried by amateurs or home users are generally VERY wide angle and require you to get VERY close to a subject in order to really see detail. In my experience it's generally the \"stay off my property\" gun nuts that have an issue. I like guns, but not gun nuts. These kind spread rumours, lies, and threaten to shoot you out of the sky EVERY single time. \n\nThe reality of these cameras is that you can't fly using just the camera because you don't have any situational awareness and the resolution sent back to the pilot is usually standard definition (480 tv lines as opposed to your tv at 1080) and that doesn't allow you to see wires, small branches, or really feel how much you're drifting or even tell how close to an object you are. \n\nAdditional info: the reasons that fire helicopters or planes don't just take out drones when dumping water is because they may damage another plane to do to lose of control or even worse, crash and cause another fire. What most peiple don't realize is that the batteries on multi rotors (aka drones) are Lithium Polymer and what this means is that the battery is very light weight, which makes it attractive to use and had a very high discharge rate, so you can pull about 200amps (on the cheap batteries) which mashes that desirable for quick climbs, tricks, etc. But the downside is that lithium doesn't like water and there's water in the air and lithium fires are self oxidizing do water doesn't help. If you were to picture a Li-Po battery you will most definitely get a fire, if you stroke or hit hard a Li-Po then you can damage the silicone layers and internally short causing... A fire. And of course shorting week cause a fire. Li-Po fires are NASTY and VERY aggressive. The battery will literally shoot out a flame measuring at least a couple feet and then your back to square one. Li-Po is pretty dangerous but when handlers handled properly, perfectly safe. \n\nBecause of all the reasons listed above and the fact that you really have to understand flight, air currents, air temperatures, and so on, I actually advocate licensing EVERYONE on anything that flies over 2lbs. \n\nHope this helps. ",
"Honestly, I feel it's the connotation of the word \"drone\". As a culture we have always used drones in sci-fi to represent faceless, often deadly robots. As opposed to say rc-quadcopter, which sounds like a toy, seems less threatening right off face value.",
"i didn't quite get the sudden boom regarding quadcopters and other \"drones\" neither, but thinking about it, there are a couple points that could amount to a plausible explanation. the points are in no particular order.\n\nthe first thing that comes to mind is that quadcopters are simply cooler than planes and helicopters. we've known planes and helicopters for ages, but a little helicopter-thing with four rotors is much more novel and futuristic than what we had in the past.\n\ni'm not much in RC anymore, but it seems that \"drones\" are more beginner friendly with their self stabilization, often rather compact size and more videogame-like control. you have to train for hours on end to really get good in controlling (and landing!) RC planes and especially helicopters, getting a quadcopter to lift off, fly a couple meters and land again without crashing i should be easier to manage, if your model isn't a cheap POS.\n\nyou need much more space to fly planes and helicopters safely, while you can make a quick round in you quadcopter basically in your backyard.\n\nthings like programability, gps, cameras, first person view etc seem to be made for drones. you can also put a camera or FPV-kit on your plane or helicopter, but a quadcopter seems to be a more natural choice for things like these.\n\ndrones are also much more present in the media than other RC gear, which might be the most important point. through the use of military drones, the name itself has something sinister and interesting, even if a reaper drone has nothing to do with a dji phantom. \nthe surveillance aspect and conflicts with airports (or as seen recently, firefighers) is also a reason drones get media \"air time\", but that won't hinder hobbyist chasing life-sized planes and helicopters, the contrary will very much be true.\n\ncontinuing with the media aspect, once you have seen some aerial footage taken with a gopro mounted to a drone, the inner geek instantly wants to do the same. and what is 500 bucks if it means you get to control your own eye in the sky?\n\ni'm sure there are other reasons as well, but in the end it's simply \"cooler\" and more futuristic than a plane, easier to control, you need less space and they have cooler features than anything else. \ni'm still only reluctantly calling quadcopters etc. drones, but that's not really important now.",
"it comes down to popularity/availability. as technology becomes more reasonably accessible, more people use it, and there is more opportunity for abuse. \n\nthere were no traffic lights at one point in our history, but then more people started driving cars necessitating regulation. ",
"Fun became cheap, thanks to huge advances in technology.\n\nAt the low end the required technology has gotten dirt cheap. The price of entry is low, units under 60$ are now easy to find. The skill level to enjoy using them is almost zero. It took me hours of practice with my model helicopter before flying really became 'fun'. \n\nThere is a common joke in the model helicopter community that every time you have a bad landing on a flight simulator, you save yourself 15$. Drop a cheap quadcopter 'drone' from 8' into a grass lawn, and chances are you can snap some parts back together, and be flying again in 10 minutes. \n\nBatteries that were both powerful enough and light enough to be useful in a model helicopter really are a fairly recent thing.\n\nThe electronic hardware needed is also only recently cheap enough for things like a quad-copter.\n\nThe very sensitive accelerometer needed to keep these stable is only recently cheap thanks to them now being made by the billions for smartphones.\n\nThe motors used in the inexpensive quadcopters are another made by the billion item, they are low quality, have poor electrical and mechanical specifications. A quick look shows similar motors for less than 1$ at a retail, quantity 1 level. By comparison, the motor is my lower end of the 'serious' r/c helicopter is about 50$\n\nControlling cheap motors takes lots of processing power, but thanks to things like smartphones, powerful processors are damn cheap.\n\nInexpensive drones can be made by the millions for a few $ each, sold by the millions for not much more, and suddenly the air seems full of the things.",
"Because \"drones\" kill people in the middle east. Quadracopters are what people are playing with. They should be called different things. But they aren't and people are stupid.",
"Because one day we stopped calling them RC Planes and Helicopters and started calling them Drones. And that word is scary. ",
"The AC 91-57 that governs hobby drone use was written in 1981. The rules are the same as the ones for RC helicopters and planes. Exactly the same, the problem is with people who don't think they need to follow them.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Why are they called drones now instead of RC Toys like they have always been?",
"Way back then, your RC helicopter couldn't carry a VHS camcorder -- it would have been too heavy.\n\nToday, your RC helicopter can easily carry a stabilized, high definition camera that can record hours of footage.",
"RC planes and helicopters required great skill to fly, were very expensive and cameras were uncommon. Modern-day multicopters are very accessible thanks to better software and your average joe with no regard for safety or privacy having one is becoming a problem, especially now they're interfering with the safety of normal aviation. A recent example of multicopter/drone abuse: hindering firefighting helicopters and airplanes in taking care of wildfires.",
"The goverment never used RC Helicopters to fly over the middle east and kill people. I think people started caring when they added the guns......",
"in my opinion, there seems to be an unwritten american rule where for a little while, something is awesome and everyone is happy about it, and then one person is unhappy but very loud, and that one person is, through uncertain means, able to shit all over it. it's a wonder vegas exists at all. ",
"The big issue is that people started calling them \"drones\" instead of quad copters. People relate \"drones\" to military versions that are capable of flying on their own, along pre-programmed paths, taking long-range surveillance pictures and video, and possibly shooting at stuff from the sky.",
"Because you or anyone else can buy one at the toystore or online for pocket change. You can buy one with telemetry and first person controls for under 1,000 with automatic stabilization and programmed control parameters that doesn't require you to be skilled in any way to fly them. So, therefore, they will be potentially abused. And, now they are, ruining it for all the hobbyist RC folk out there that have been enjoying it for decades.",
"I would preface this by saying that I am a software developer and an aviation enthusiast though I have also never owned one of the machines to which OP is referring. The field however is incredibly interesting to me, as the flight software that goes into some of the more advanced chips can be incredibly powerful.\n\nI really think the industry needs a new name for the machines that we commonly refer to as \"drones\", because the term is too broad and has too many unrelated negative connotations associated with it. But for the purpose of this post I will refer to these RC planes and Helicopters as \"drones\". I personally think there are several issues at play here, many of which have been significantly exaggerated. \n\n* There is of course privacy issue. This has become more of a concern in the last ~5 years as people have become more concerned with their own privacy in general. There was a video a couple of years ago that showed a predator UAV with a camera so powerful it could see many city blocks at once. This further adds to the privacy concern. \n\nBeing that the question is only relevant to hobbyist drones, I would raise the argument that there is no law preventing a person from walking or driving down the street with their camera and recording everything they see. Furthermore, there are much easier and less conspicuous ways of spying on your neighbor if you really wanted to. I think the privacy concerns are mostly unfounded when it comes to hobbyist drones.\n\n* There is also potential for someone to do something dangerous with a drone, being that there is no oversight or required training. In the last ~10-15 years many people have ideological disagreements regarding how UAVs have been used by the military. I believe this, even subconsciously adds to the idea that they are unsafe. Though I think these concerns are also exaggerated, I do share a concern that there needs to be safety standards set for piloting remote aerial vehicles.\n\nTL:DR; There are privacy concerns and safety concerns related to drones. I believe the safety concerns to be well founded while the privacy concerns are not.\n\n*edit formatting ",
"The big issue is that once again the government has added to the list one more thing they don't want you to do. Post 911 hysteria.",
"This issue has nothing to do with drones. As you said, the technology has been around for some time. What is happening is more of an evolution than a revolution in terms of the technology. \n\nWhy this seems like a big deal is because of the public perception of it. Specifically the ideas that come from the media, like magazines, television, and radio. These stories all sound scary because that helps sell magazines or ad space. It is the same thing with \"news\" about the next big earthquake, vaccines causing autism, the LHC creating mini-black holes, and the like. How many news shows have you seen with a story that begins \"The new X that is killing your kids\"? This is the same thing. \n\nIn reality, this is basically a non-issue. If your gun kills someone, it doesn't really matter if you are holding it, or it is on a stick, or on a drone. The same is true of cameras. Again, it doesn't matter if the camera is one you are holding, on a stick, or on a drone. The same privacy issues apply. It is all media hype and it doesn't really matter.\n\nAs a counterpoint in order to show you how silly this all is, what Facebook and Google are doing is given almost no media attention. Yet these companies are even more invasive than the worst of what drones are capable of. Relentless day and night tracking of where you are and what you are looking at. Pictures and videos. Facial recognition. So before you get all angry about what someone could do, look into the stuff that they are doing right now. ",
"I think inexpensive cameras are a big part of it as well.\n\nI had an R/C helicopter when I was a kid in the early 90's, but it didn't have a camera on it that could capture awesome footage which I could then upload to my pc and share online with everyone. ",
"I think you bring up a good point with your question. You could theoretically mount a camera on a RC helo or vehicle and \"spy\" on people. I think the word drone brings up connotations that people may be uncomfortable with, like government spying and stuff, so they jump to unreasonable \"doomsday\" conclusions.\nOnly difference I can think of is that drones can be automated be things like Amazon for their deliver service, so that may change air space. If people are okay with humongous planes flying over head, carefully adding in drones should be okay as well.",
"RC places could mount a camera, could be purchased for a reasonable price, and could be flown by a relative beginner. However, they could not hover (easily), making it more difficult to \"spy\" on a neighbor.\n\nRC helicopters could mount a camera, and hover. However, they were not cheap, and required some skill to fly effectively.\n\nQuadcopters and other \"drones\" could mount a camera, hover, be purchased for a reasonable cost, be flown by a relative beginner, and have some capacity for automatic flight.\n\nMost people's experience with \"drones\" is from what they see on TV. And since most people have some level of narcissism/paranoia, they're sure that anybody flying a \"drone\" must be spying on them.",
"The word \"drone\" sounds scary. \"Drones\" kill people in far away lands and take pictures of you sunbathing in your backyard. RC airplanes and copters are nerdy and fringe.",
"Back in the day RC vehicles can only operate in your line of site. You had to see it to navigate it. This limited the range of where they can go and you really needed open areas to fly them. Of course there were a few hobbyists that added cameras but there were so few of them that it wasn't an issue.\n\nFast forward to today and these devices are mass marketed. You no longer need to work to build them special. They are cheap and readily available. They have a slew of sensors making them hard to crash and cameras so that you can be in your living room driving it anywhere you wanted.\n\nSince there is no training required, and no laws people being people can do things that may not be the smartest. How were they supposed to know that firefighters couldn't get to the Cali blaze? No, it isn't your god given right to take a photo of a forest fire. No, you shouldn't run your drone through fireworks. Firework hits drone and either the drone tumbles to the ground hitting people or the firework veers off course. Drones are a groundbreaking invention but there need to be some regulation and rules around it. And people need to be punished for breaking them.",
"Because R/C planes and helicopters were around before the media started using scare tactics to get viewers... ",
"Because we incorrectly call these new quadcopters, drones. Drones first got big as surveillance tools and then terrorist bombing mobiles. Now use the same term for something you can fly for relatively cheap in your backyard. Scary words and loud noises, man. Fuckin aye. ",
"RC helicopters and planes were always constrained to some degree by the line of sight of the pilot. Some people did fly them irresponsibly in urban areas, but most people didn't for obvious reasons. Drones changed all that. Especially, ready to fly commercial drones.\n\nThe community suddenly had an influx of untrained rich idiots who had no responsibility and who could go wherever they liked. I took the long path to drones. I've got hundreds of hours flying RC helicopters and planes. I've had three hundred dollar crashes. I've set fire to a plane before because I landed in a puddle. I still make mistakes and am terrified of urban flying. \n\nThere were dicks and risk takers in the community even back then. People that would fly planes right at the flight line. People that would fly out of hotel windows. The difference was that they were generally very smart dicks who built their own planes and knew exactly what they were doing. ",
"What I don't understand is why people started calling quadcopters \"drones\", as if they're anything like the predator drones used by the air force. It's like it was done on purpose to create as much confusion as possible. \"First they used drone strikes to kill Americans in Pakistan, and now people are flying them in my back yard!? Rabble rabble rabble etc\"",
"Because when people hear 'drone'they think Predator-drone and Reaper-drone first, and then they think about how these can kill people without much effort. You can probably hang a handgrenade off of one of those quadcopters too. Be easier than shooting a movietheater full of people.",
"It's probably to do with the terminology - referring to them as drones. \nThe same term is used for aircraft operated by the army/airforce in war and surveillance situations - those things kill people and invade their privacy in a sense. In general people are uneasy with that type of drone. \n\nThe same feelings are brought up if you use the term drone for a personal RC device. \nThink about it this way - for some reason the term Quadcopter instinctively seems a lot less sinister than Drone, even though you could be talking about the exact same object. ",
"I'd say the media hype. Like everything else that gets blown out of proportion. People made a story about it being controversial and everyone banwaggoned it.",
"As an Air Traffic Controler the problem is that there are just too many shitheads who either are too fucking stupid or don't give shit about the saftey of others. Ever increasing numbe of jackasses are flying these near and over airports (it happens more often then it makes the news BTW). It is just now a matter of time before one of these things takes down a fucking passenger plane and kills a few hundred people. Once that happens the goverment is going to come down like a ton bricks on the manufators and the people who fly them with licencing, registration and laws.\n\nIf I am coming off as angry it is becuase I am. I recently had to deal with Medflight helipcopter that couldn't land at an accident scene because of fucking idiots flying these stupid things over a accident. ",
"Photographers only care about getting the shot, at all costs for some. Its not the drone, its the small digital camera its carries that changed everything.. RC hobbyist's actually like aviation. ",
"No expert on this in any way. But as a person I think it has to do with the all increasing confrontation about privacy violation. \nMainly these days all the news talks about when it comes to privacy is how other people, companies, government agencies are violating it. \nThis by the use of Camera equipment on the street, Cell phone cameras, or even just hacking your personal belongings like a phone or computer. \nOur personal information is just out there now, that is what we are all being told. And that makes people worried, you don't want someone else to have access to your private info. Even though in this day and age we share our private lives on facebook, post our medical history to twitter. \n\nBack then this wasn't the case. And if someone posted something of himself on the interweb it wasn't immediatly going to be seen by everyone and their grandmother. \n\nBut nowadays we are more educated, and more scared. Knowing what the power of having knowledge about someone else can cause. \nWe are more aware of privacy now than that we where 10 or 15 years ago. And we are now more than ever trying to protect every aspect of our privacy. \nAnd a Drone is just something we see as a tool to break our privacy. And that's without people looking at all the positive things a drone can and will do. It's just a minority of people that abuse these things. \n",
"I'll keep this short and simple. \n\nDrone's are what the media are calling multi rotors. Drone's are Autonomous devices which nowadays can be a plane or a multi rotor. The main reason \"drones\" are an issue is that they can use GPS. Most off the shelf GPS enabled units can fly upwards of 2KM's and still remain in radio frequency or fly further in an autonomous path. Gps controlled planes haven't come in to the mass market until recently. Planes (unassisted) and heli's are also very difficult to fly comparing to multi rotors. Someone with no RC flight experience cannot just pick up a plane or heli and expect to fly it proficiently. Multi rotors are very simple to fly, they will basically fly them self. GPS enabled units will usually hover within a 3ft radius or better. at that point you can point and shoot it in the direction you want it to go. \n\nCameras are another issue with multi rotors. Cameras on RC craft is not a new thing however, multi rotors and emerging technology made using a camera MUCH easier. Say if you are flying by sight of camera and you cannot see the aircraft yourself. At that point you do not know whats around you, only what the camera sees. Be it powerlines, trees, or real planes carrying people, they could all be hit. \n\n\nDrones, Multi rotors, Rc flight, are not the issue. The issue is the responsibility of the flight operator. ",
"Because the PR battle was lost. They're not Drones, they're RC quadcopters. Drones are autonomous killing machines. ",
"100% the word \"drone\" is why.\n\nIf more people called them multi-rotors (or really anything else) I feel it wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue.\n\nDrones refer to big ass unmanned surveillance aircraft that the military typically uses in a war. These... are not that.",
"RC planes and helicopters you need to see them to fly them. Drones you do not have to. they have cameras you can use to see where they are and what they are facing. \n\nHere in California Firefighters can now legally damage or destroy drones if it is hampering fighting a fire",
"My grandpa has been really active in the model community for decades so I think I have a bit of expertise.\n\nModel fliers are a special breed, the cost to entry is high, your first few flights will end in destroyed planes, and the knowledge required to fly something of size is immense.\n\nAs a result these guys were pretty serious, they knew the laws better than I'd wager most faa inspectors do, at least in their field, and they take compliance very seriously.\n\n\nModern quadrotor drones let a relative amateur put a hunk of plastic and aluminum that could do some real damage in the air higher and further than an r/c enthusiast would dream of doing, at least without serious cash and a safe private place to fly.\n\nAs a result you have people without much knowledge of the law doing dumb things with drones because they think of them as toys and not extremely capable machines.\n\nNo one ever noticed or cared about a bunch of 60-year-old guys flying models at an abandoned air force Base or land a club bought to fly on in the 50s when land was cheap. Now these devices are thrust into the public eye because people are taking them into public.",
"Cause they're getting much cheaper, are easy to fly, and you can do some really cool stuff with them.",
"Because of YouTube, social media, and cheap HD digital video recording. Take away any one of those and the trend doesn't happen. I would say that all of these factors are far more important than the aircraft technology itself.",
"In a nutshell DJI !!! Before they came along and put a drone in a box on a shelf, you had to actually learn about what it takes to get a quad or other copter in the air. This would normally involve general building skills, some electrical knowledge, rf interference etc and lots and lots of reading and interacting in forums. You soon learned what to and what not to do and what is plain stupidity. (Well most did) since they became readily available to anyone with a wallet it became very easy for the dumb masses to think I'm gonna fly my drone over that big crowd and not think of the concequences l, giving a bad name to any one else flying anything even related\n",
"Because people are hysterical and stupid and easily roused into a panic by sensationalist news. ",
"I'm going to add one more thought: these modern RC aircraft have cameras which make people want to fly them in scenic locations. Before that, an empty field in the middle of nowhere was just as good a place to fly as any.\n\nNow you have people flying them in national parks and stampeding wildlife. You have people flying them in cities. You have people flying them where people are around.\n\nAnd you have people flying them close to things in order to get a good shot, where before you wanted to fly them *away* from things to reduce the chance of a crash.",
"Excuse my name....\nOkay so I've been flying multirotors or *drones* for about 6 years now, I have been to multiple seminars about multirotors and I think the number one cause of the whole scare about multirotors is the media using the word drone. The word drone is associated with the military death machine, not the almost harmless flying box. People just hear the word drone and get all freaked out and say they are bad. \nSo, don't fucking call it a drone or I'll shag ya mum.\n",
"Lots of good statements here.\n\nAlso, I think part of it is that drones are designed specifically for the purposes of carrying cameras around whereas the RC planes and copters were designed for flying and playing with.\n\nIn a lot of people's minds drone = flying spy camera but RC helicopter = toy.",
"**ELI5 answer**: RC planes & helicopters have become much better now - faster processors (stability, wind correctors, loss-of-signal safety etc), better GPS sensors and most importantly, they've become more autonomous, even run-of-the-mill ones. Now, add to those: *affordability*, HD cameras and more powerful motors capable of heavier payloads. \n\nBasically, it's technology becoming better & cheaper to the point that it becomes its own bane.\n\n**Further explanation**: Whatever was approx. $2000 semi-pro level glo-engined RC helicopter with 6-8min flights is now $500 with slightly better handling. And for $2000, you can now get something that's much more controllable, more powerful quadcopter powered by reliable & long lasting ( > 20min flight) rechargeable batteries and with all the frills like 4K recording, GPS-programmable autonomous flights, live video streaming, crosswind correctors with multi-axis gyros etc. That's awesome stuff! :) \n\nWhat required you to spend many many hours learning helicopter & aeroplane aerodynamics is now an hour (at the most) of learning the characteristics & controls of a quadcopter. So any kid with enough pocket money saved up can go out and fly one. Heck, Amazon sells really good quadcopters for $40!!\n\n**tl,dr**: Affordability & better tech are what made RC toys & autonomous drones such a big deal.",
"I've looked thro most of the responses and no one has really specifically answered your question, so here goes: The main issue starts with the fact that the range for the radios used to control R/C aircraft used to be limited to basically line of sight. You could control the plane further away than you could see it in some cases, but why? If you can't see the plane, what good is having the ability to control it? Enter FPV. First Person View. Someone decided to strap a small video camera to the nose of an aircraft and figured out a way to broadcast that image to a computer monitor sitting right next to them. Now you can fly the plane from the perspective of a pilot and you can fly it much further than you can see it because you're now seeing things from the point of view of the plane itself. Then came FPV googles. A set of goggles with small screens for each eye and an antennae to receive the image broadcast from the camera one pad the aircraft. The problem is not just one of voyerism and invasion of privacy. That is actually a minor concern. The problem is the long range and long flight time capabilities of these aircraft. With some aircraft fling as far as ten miles away from their launch point, the problem becomes when these small aircraft fly into the same airspace used by life sized commercial and private planes. Those tiny aircraft don't show up on the on board radar and a plane without such radar would likely be traveling too fast to avoid hitting it by the time the pilot saw it. A mid air collision could potentially cause the life sized plane to crash, potentially causing large loss of life. These small aircraft are unregulated by the FAA because up to this point, there's been no need for FAA regulations. R/C hobbyists are trying to keep the government out of their hobby by self regulating, but you're always liable to have some asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to him (or her) who chooses to fly his drone above the clouds for that epic video. This basically sums up the reason R/C aircraft were never a problem before.",
"I'm a little late but let me try to give my perspective as someone who's not into RC stuff. Its not so much the word 'drone' or the skill/money stuff everyone else is saying but the ability for quadcopters to be abused significantly. I like to compare them to something I enjoy very much, guns, but before you say guns and quadcopters are not the same thing at all let me explain. Both are easily obtainable for low cost to almost any person. Both are very easy to learn to operate. Both have many fun and lawful uses and big fan bases who only intend to use them as such. But both also have the ability to be used to cause a lot of harm and to commit numerous crimes by a few asshats. You guys have probably already seen the quadcopter with the pistol attached and heard about hackers using them to steal info through WiFi. The thing people are afraid of is what's to stop people from putting a pipe bomb on one and flying into a crowd, or taking photos of you inside your own home, or casing a business or house to commit a crime later, or used to stalk someone, or steal info from someone. I'm not into RC flying at all but I can see why you guys like it and I think people should be allowed to do it and it's really cool when used the right way, but I wouldn't be surprised if you guys face some opposition or some kind of special rules and regulation. As a gun enthusiasts I can shoot for fun on my property or a range and carry my gun open or concealed for self defence in public but if I use it in public it has to be to save my life. It comes with a lot of responsibility. Would it be fair to say you can fly a quadcopter on your property and the quadcopter range but in public it has to stay in your quadcopter holster on your belt? Or you need a special license or background check to use one? Or you you can fly one but if you put a camera on it it's instantly a felony? Again this isn't the way I feel about them but trying to give a differing opinion or explain why some people might not like it. The bottom line is the have a multitude of uses ranging from insignificant fun to really malevolent harmful crimes that could keep the perpetrator anonymous and I hope you guys don't feel like people are out to bash your hobby, similarly to how pro gun people feel anytime we hear anti gun proposals, but things need to be looked at from both sides to give people the most freedom while also keeping people safe and feel secure.",
"Cameras and aerial photography have been possible for awhile now. That's not it. It's the ease of use of RC vehicles prompting adoption by non RC people who use and abuse them. \n\n2005, digital cameras were cheap. RC planes and helicopters were more than capable of lofting them thousands of feet into the air and beaming a signal back to a base station. No drone problem. Helicopters used flybar systems and required years of patient training and dozens of crashes to become proficient in operating them. RC planes similarly had a steep learning curve, usually had to be built by hand, and you either joined an RC club and got taught how to fly, or you did it on your own and crashed repeatedly. \n\nNo gyroscopes, no auto leveling systems, none of the aids that exist on even inexpensive modern RC aircraft. \n\n2015, The only thing that's changed is that small inexpensive computers with 3 axis gyroscopes arrived on the scene that basically fly themselves, allowing even a complete novice to control them. Basically they are smart enough not to crash into the ground and to limit their angle and speed to be comfortable for a complete novice to fly. \n\nSo instead of joining an RC club, and patiently building something that cost hundreds of dollars, required a bit of knowledge, and spending months or years learning to operate it, IE building discipline and knowledge of the hobby and ettiquite, you now have people who can plunk down a few hundred dollars and walk out of the store with a ready to fly aircraft, no knowledge or discipline to use it in a safe or respectful manner, and they abuse it. \n\nIf you were a moron in 2005, clubs would kick you out until you shaped up and stopped being an ass. In 2015 if you're a moron with a visa card, you can bother your neighbors and piss off people all around you by being careless, and having absolutely zero skill or discipline learning how to fly. \n\nNon RC people don't know about RC culture. RC culture is centered around your local hobby store, and the fields or track where you run your vehicles. It's a friendly, boy scouts, or church type of vibe. People are helpful, knowledgeable, and laid back. Rude people, unsafe flyers/drivers, and people who don't follow the rules, get major push back and if they ignore the rules they get the boot and are on their own. \n\nValues of the culture\n\nIngenuity\n\nSafety\n\nFabrication\n\nSafety\n\nFriendliness\n\nSafety\n\nKnowledge\n\nSafety\n\nindividual discipline and accountability\n\nSafety. \n\n\nWe are not morons buzzing your house with a drone or using flying lawnmowers (helicopters) around children and bystanders. We have AMA insurance to cover accidents. We have a set of rigid safety guidelines to prevent injury to ourselves, property, and others. And we only want to enjoy our hobby with likeminded people. We don't want to spy on people, piss people off, or get our hobby banned. ",
"You know that ex girlfriend that always accused you of cheating and it turned out to be a self reflection of her guilt for already having cheated? The government knows all the fucked up shit that they do with drones and don't want other people doing the same"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s18e05-the-magic-bush"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150720/san-bernardino-county-fires-spark-bills-aimed-at-drones"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/22425"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6kbgdr | why aren't bluefin tuna more commonly bred? | I heard recently that a bluefin tuna sold in Japan for half a million dollars and some places sell a single sashimi piece of bluefin tuna for over $600. I've also read that the bluefin has become so overfished that it's thought to be near extinction or endangered at the very least. So why not breed/farm bluefin tuna? Not only for the salvation of the species but also you'd think people would be economically inclined to breed them considering one adult tuna could provide you with $500,000. Is there a factor that makes bluefin tuna more difficult farm or breed or a law preventing them from being in captivity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6kbgdr/eli5_why_arent_bluefin_tuna_more_commonly_bred/ | {
"a_id": [
"djkr9hb",
"djl4u9t"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not as profitable as you would think. Bluefins require *massive* amounts of food per pound of weight gained. They also are 1000+ lbs so you need a huge amount of space and heavy duty equipment to do it. The land and equipment eats into that profit tremendously, but the big reason is that their diet of fish isn't cheap either - and pound for pound, they require ten times as much food as salmon. \n\nStill, there are plenty of people farming and breeding them.",
"Okay, here's the thing. Most fish like tuna spawn millions of eggs. In the wild, only a few will mature to breed. Fish (and similarly valuable crustaceans like lobster and abalone, etc.) hatch out as tiny, delicate glassy slivers. They ride the currents as plankton with a rich buffet of tiny, living foods to eat.\n\nLarval tuna are so, so fragile. They cannot touch a surface or they risk their lives. They require living planktonic food sources that change as they grow. The effort involved into getting something that is even recogniseable as a small tuna is astronomical. \n\nThen you have variables: temperature, electricity supply, disease, storms, parasites, open water mesh habitats getting damaged. Adult tuna can't stop moving and require huge open ocean pens. I'd wager like all aquaculture, farmed tuna are not as esteemed culinarily as wild. You're not getting a half million for that farmed tuna, sorry.\n\nBottom line is it's a huuuuge pain in the ass. I hope this helps. If I need a qualifier, my parents ran an aquaculture facility growing shrimp and tilapia."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5xzxhg | why do pets have "favorite" toys? | Is this behavior also observed in nature, or is there some other instinct that it is mirroring? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xzxhg/eli5why_do_pets_have_favorite_toys/ | {
"a_id": [
"dem57ct"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Pets are just like us. They have smells they prefer, colors (if they can see them) etc. They also often like predictibility and routine at times and may find relaxing with the same object often soothing. Other features that cause a pet to enjoy a toy may include the sound it makes, the way it moves or what the toy reminds them of. Just like the way most people have favorite objects for similar reasons!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.