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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4rulfq | how does the us government spending increase year after year when income and corporate tax rates have been dropping (based on charts found on google)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rulfq/eli5_how_does_the_us_government_spending_increase/ | {
"a_id": [
"d547h3p",
"d547qls",
"d54mmbq",
"d54tjrx",
"d54wkvb"
],
"score": [
40,
282,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Let's say I'm taxing 100 people 10% of their $100,000 income:\n\n$100,000 x 10% = $10,000\n\n$10,000 x 100 people = $1,000,000 in tax revenues\n\nPopulation increases, economy falls, now I have 140 people making $90,000 each. To make people feel better, I reduce the tax rate to 8% (that's a 20% reduction in taxation! People went crazy thanking me!).\n\n$90,000 x 8% = $7,200\n\n$7,200 x 140 = $1,008,000 in tax revenues\n\nHey, tax revenue went up, even though I reduced the tax rate by 20%! The rate of taxation doesn't affect spending, it's the actual tax revenues that count. If corporate incomes are skyrocketing, you can reduce the corporate tax rate in such a way to maintain or slightly increase tax revenues (in other words, if corporate profits are increasing 10% a year, you can decrease the taxation rate by a smaller percentage and still have increasing tax revenue). ",
"The U.S. government has a budget deficit; it spends more than it takes in. It can continue to do so as long as people are willing to cheaply lend money to it by buying bonds, and U.S. bonds remain the standard safe investment on which the global financial system is based.\n\nTo more directly address your question, though, the relevant measure is how much the U.S. government earns and spends *as a percentage of GDP*. If the economy is growing, then tax rates can be lowered while keeping the same amount of revenue. (20% of $100 is $20, but so is 10% of $200.) The deficit as a percentage of GDP has been decreasing in recent years because of a strong recovery from the 2008-2009 financial crisis, see data from the [Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis](_URL_0_).",
"Because income is not tied to nor limited by spending in government books. In fact, many of them believe this is good and the more spending the better.\n\n\nAn increase of income, be it taxation or some group or another, will never result in any long term tempering of spending.",
"Average person doesn't understand the Govt. gets money from the Federal Reserve which they borrow w/ interest.\n\nYour tax money pays their loans...the Govt. is not spending the money they take in, they're spending the money they borrow.",
"First off, income and corporate tax rates have not been dropping. They took a jump in 2013.\n\nBut tax rates only tell part of the story. The government has many sources for revenue and the tax code provides many exceptions to those tax rates. \n\nThen there is the matter of personal and corporate incomes. They aren't steady from year to year. Revenues coming into the government in 2009, just after the crash, were down to $2.1 trillion from the $2.5 trillion the previous two years. As the economy and taxes increased, the revenue coming into the government jumped to $3.25 trillion last year - a 54% increase over 2009.\n\nOne thing that hasn't changed is government spending. It has increased every year. If spending was held at 2008 levels, the U.S. would be running a $300 Billion surplus today. Instead, government spending has risen $1 trillion a year over that period."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5nkghz | why do nfl teams claim they cannot survive without a brand new state of the art stadium? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nkghz/eli5_why_do_nfl_teams_claim_they_cannot_survive/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcc58vj",
"dcc6x6o",
"dcc6zgz",
"dcc7lee",
"dcc9kr8",
"dccbcd3",
"dccbt3c",
"dccd2zh",
"dccdhrg",
"dcceh9b",
"dccfbcr",
"dccgwp2",
"dcch60n",
"dcch8di",
"dcci0nr"
],
"score": [
181,
49,
12,
3,
34,
17,
7,
4,
5,
3,
2,
3,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"New stadiums are good for business, so the owners want them. They try to convince taxpayers to fund the stadiums, because obviously that's better than paying for the stadiums themselves. So they try to convince taxpayers that existing stadiums are not usable.",
"Newer, nicer stadiums mean more profit for the teams. So, clearly, they want newer facilities so they can make more money.\n\nMajor sports leagues intentionally have fewer franchises than there are cities that can support them. This means that the team owners will always have leverage with the city when it comes to things like this, because there is always another city they can move to.",
"Because the owner really wants a new stadium. Older stadiums typically don't have large amounts of luxury suites that they can charge insane amounts of money for. The 49ers for example, were able to collect 400 million from Personal Seat Licenses just for their luxury suites. Keep in mind those aren't tickets to the games, and it doesn't count the 60,000 plus regular seats in the stadium. Those Seat Licenses just allow you the right to purchase tickets going forward.",
"Because fans will stay home to watch the game rather than spend their hard earned money going to a dump of a stadium. ",
"Newer stadiums generate more profits for several reasons:\n\n1. Corporate Boxes. These are bought for a whole season atexorbitant prices. These are relatively new phenomenon and 20-30 year old stadiums don't have them.\n\n2. Sells more regular tickets because with the advent of HD TVs the quality of watching games at home has gone through the roof and no one want to go to a old stadium as opposed to a new one with huge jumbotrons and wifi.\n\n3. New stadiums get Super Bowls and these generate huge amounts of money for the team (and city I might add).\n\nSan Diego's stadiums was at least 20 years out of date. I went there last season.",
"The John Oliver segment tells it well _URL_0_\n\nIn short, it's nothing to do with the sport and all to do with big business trying to palm costs off onto local states. It's a pretty shitty move TBH.",
"The luxury suites are not subject to revenue sharing. So teams want new facilities with more luxury suites. ",
"For a couple reasons. The first is the most practical. Sometimes stadiums either fail entirely (most recent example is the Vikings stadium from a few years ago that collapsed in snow), or the stadiums are so old that it needs upgrades that cost so much is makes it pointless to keep the existing stadium. For example, would it be smarter to buy a $4000 car and spend $16000 in upgrades/parts, or buy a new $20000 car that doesn't need any work?\n\nThe more common reason, however, is money. Every new stadium gets to charge more for tickets because it's a newer stadium. Also, in the NFL, every new stadium typically gets to host a Super Bowl within a few years of opening. So not only do the owners get to earn ticket revenue from regular season games, they get to cash in on the championship game the NFL hosts each year. This also benefits hotels and other businesses in the immediate area as well.",
"Because if they claim that, they can convince gullible politicians to buy something they should have to pay for themselves.",
"I believe it was the Coliseum where the Raiders play that they had cups taped to the ceiling to catch leaks in the press box. \n\nSure the foundation is stable and the walls will stay up and the field is playable, but it is showing age. It was first opened in 1966, which means it's been open for just over 50 years. \n\nNow if it was a simple leak in the press box they might be able to fix that and move on. But the issues are more than than, and they start adding up. The stadium was recently renovated in 1996, for $200 million. Now you're getting into the situation /u/supermclovin described\n\n > For example, would it be smarter to buy a $4000 car and spend $16000 in upgrades/parts, or buy a new $20000 car that doesn't need any work?\n\nSure the numbers don't work out so cleanly in reality, but it explains the situation the Raiders are in. ",
"I am still amazed at the cost of football stadiums. I wonder if this is because of unions, corruption or a bit of both. IIRC the niners stadium cost over $1B. For what? It's just a large steel and concrete structure with some seats. Forgive my ignorance but where is all this money going? I wonder how much $$$ was land and how much was for the actual building. And I wonder how much it would cost to build the same stadium in China or early 1900s America. ",
"Another reason I don't think has been posted here is that people are flocking from NFL stadiums for living room couches. In a lot of cases, the experience at home is just better than what the stadium can offer, especially now with Red Zone, Sunday Ticket and the high cost associated with attending games now. NFL teams are building new stadiums to try to bring the home experience to the stadium. They have better concession offerings, fantasy football areas so people can follow their teams, large screens to display tons of information and replays etc, all designed to make the fan experience more like it is at home.",
"I wish all teams were run like the Packers. Publicly owned and they have been in the same stadium for 60 years.",
"I'm a raiders and warriors fan. Trust me it's bullshit. It's all about the probability of making wore money than now. The niners barely had justification in moving. The stadium was in a bad/smelly location more than it was time for a new one. The niners knew the demographic and potential of getting more upperclass people if they moved just like the giants did. \"Upper class people don't like coming to this swamp so...\" same reason the warriors want a place Sf, won big, check, selling out every home game, check, exploiting blind following of wealthy people? Nope cuz the arena is in the hood, let's move to sf. The giants were the pioneers of this. I remember when the giants sucked I could get lower 3rd base seats on weekday for 40$ ",
"What happens to the old stadiums?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
35ycvl | the friendship paradox. how can the average person's friends have more friends then them? | Bonus question: How does this apply to graph theory? It doesn't seem to include any graphs! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35ycvl/eli5the_friendship_paradox_how_can_the_average/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr8yk1q"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Imagine you have six people: Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Eric, and Zorp. A-E are all friends with Zorp but not with each other. Zorp has 5 friends, all the others have 1. On average, each person's friend has more friends than them, because 5 have only one friend who has 5 friends. Only one person has friends with fewer friends.\n\nAnother way to think about it is that people with more friends are more likely to have you as a friend in the first place."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
azvyzw | why won't the vacuum cleaner noise make me go deaf but listening to high volume music (which i can't hear over the vacuum cleaner noise) through earphones will? | Hope it's not a dumb question | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/azvyzw/eli5_why_wont_the_vacuum_cleaner_noise_make_me_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiai4ov"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If the vacuum cleaner noise is that loud it does have the chance to damage you hearing such that you go deaf. So I am not sure what you are basing you assumption on. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8ustor | how do those free movie streaming sites get all of those movies? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ustor/eli5_how_do_those_free_movie_streaming_sites_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1htoc2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's basically a big international \"collective\" of pirates who upload the content individually to multiple sites at the same time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9gk3x9 | why is a pin number considered safe with 4 numbers while a password needs 8 chars with numbers and capitals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gk3x9/eli5_why_is_a_pin_number_considered_safe_with_4/ | {
"a_id": [
"e64oje2",
"e64otfo",
"e64q25b",
"e6519be"
],
"score": [
8,
100,
19,
3
],
"text": [
"I think it's because you only have 3 attempts for PIN where you have unlimited for password. No brute force hack.",
"Because anyone on the internet can have a go and guessing my username and password, often an unrestricted number of times. Only people with access to my PC or my credit card can guess my PIN, and usually only 3 to 5 times.",
"For a credit card, the PIN is an *extra* layer of security on top of needing to physically possess the card with the magnetic stripe. The card itself is the primary security layer, with the PIN adding extra protection against theft. For an online service, the password is the *only* layer of security, since the login is often public information. Because of this, the PIN doesn't need to actually be very secure in order to do its job.\n\nConsider the PIN to be a type of 2-Factor Authentication. The 2 factors are, as the saying goes, \"something you have and something you know.\" For an online account, \"something you know\" is the password and \"something you have\" is your phone. For your credit card, \"something you know\" is the PIN and \"something you have\" is the card itself. In both of these cases, the second factor is usually pretty weak--most 2FA tokens are what, 6 characters tops? This is because the security comes from the fact that they're a second factor. Making the second factor stronger has a poor cost/benefit trade-off.\n\nNow I have no idea why your PC has both a PIN and a password. This only makes sense to me if either a) the password is for the (online) microsoft account and the PIN is just for the PC or b) the PIN gives user-level access but the password is required for admin functionality. ",
"The pin is local to your laptop and does not use the online Microsoft account, however it links to the MS account after allowing login. Or to put it another way, when you log in to your Win 10 pc using a Microsoft account and password, the credentials are sent to Microsoft (close enough) which determines if you are allowed on the computer. When you log in with a PIN, it checks against its internal database, allows 4 attempts and then times you out and forces you to reboot the computer. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf someone manages to install spyware on your computer that monitors key strokes, they will not be able to capture your password and compromise your files at OneDrive or [_URL_0_](https://_URL_0_), because they will only have your pin that works on that one computer and not your Microsoft account. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"Outlook.com",
"https://Outlook.com"
]
] |
||
2l7soh | - with both options made available through evolution, how does the human body prefer/naturally choose how we breathe - through the nose or mouth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l7soh/eli5_with_both_options_made_available_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"cls8rw0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The nose tends to prevent bacteria and other stuff from getting into your [body](_URL_0_). Seems like a solid choice. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7730587/Having-a-big-nose-prevents-sniffles.html"
]
] |
||
1gpxbu | why wasn't there a nuclear war between the soviet union and the u.s? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gpxbu/eli5_why_wasnt_there_a_nuclear_war_between_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"camlkkr",
"cankxdu"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they BOTH knew to start a nuclear war would be DUMB.\n\nProblem is some idiot will start one some day.",
"*[mutual assured destruction](_URL_0_)*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction"
]
] |
||
1nym7o | how is money released into the economy. | When the federal reserve increases the money supply how is the new money it released into the economy without "giving it away". Do they buy stuff and just throw the stuff away. I'm confused. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nym7o/eli5_how_is_money_released_into_the_economy/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccn9j0u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Contrary to popular belief, the government actually *printing* money doesn't really impact the economy much at all. Nor does the government simply give money away. Money is primarily created through banks lending it to other people.\n\nWhen you get paid by your job, do they pay you in cash? Of course not. They give you a check (or direct deposit) So now your job just paid you, say, $1000. What do you do with your check? Carry it around? No, you put it in a bank. So now you deposit your $1,000 into your bank account. You have $1,000.\n\nOf course, the bank has 100 customers, each with $1,000 in their accounts. What does the bank do with that $100,000? They loan it out to someone. So they find someone who wants to buy, say, a $100,000 house, and this person put down 10%, so the bank loans them $90,000.\n\nNow this homeowner pays off the old owner of the house with his $90,000 check, so what does *that* guy do? Does he wander around with $90,000 in cash? Of course not. He deposits it in *his* bank account.\n\nSo now:\n\n* You & your friends have $100,000 in your accounts\n* The old homeowner has $90,000 in his account\n\nTotal amount of money in the economy now? **$190,000**\n\nLet's do it again. The old homeowner's bank loans out $81,000 to another guy to buy a house. The old owner takes the $81,000 and puts it in **his** bank. Now:\n\n* You & your friends: $100,000 in your accounts\n* The first old homeowner: $90,000 in his account\n* The second old homeowner: $81,000 in his account\n\nTotal amount of money in the economy? **$271,000**\n\nLather, rinse, repeat: That's how banks create money in the economy. Now that you know that, you can understand what the *Federal Reserve Bank* does.\n\nThe Federal Reserve (putatively) controls how fast this money is created by controlling the interest rates they charge local private banks. Banks are required to keep 10% of the money they have out on loans available in cash.++ (That's where I came up with that 90% multiplier.) But they can make up temporary shortfalls by borrowing directly from each other, or the Federal Reserve. They pay one interest rate for borrowing from each other, and a slightly higher one for borrowing directly from the Federal Reserve. These are known as the *Federal Funds Rate* and the *Discount Rate*, respectively.\n\nThe Federal Reserve directly controls the Discount Rate and indirectly controls the Federal Funds Rate, and these two interest rates which impact how aggressively banks can make loans. The higher those rates, the more it costs banks to borrow money to cover the loans they have out. This is a very fine-grained, gentle way to stimulate or reign in economic growth. When the Fed decides the economy is going too slow, it lowers rates. When it decides it's heating up (read: *inflation*) it'll raise the rates."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
20j7ih | what does a computer do when starting up and how can this process be slowed down? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20j7ih/eli5what_does_a_computer_do_when_starting_up_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg3soai",
"cg3t0vg"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your operating system is just a large program. Have you noticed that when you open a bunch of programs at once, it slows down a little? When your computer starts up, it needs to open a bunch of little programs at once. There are 2 categories: windows programs and your programs. Windows programs are things like; your display, hard drive, desktop and all the little things that make your computer work. However, you cannot change these. These windows programs are essential for your computer to work. \n\nThe ones you can change are your programs. You have start up programs, and these can really effect your power up time. Some of these are; updating processes, those icons next to your clock in the bottom left corner and all of the programs that open when your desktop comes up. What you need to do is get rid of all the things you don't need immediately when you log in. \n\nA good program is Ccleaner. Download it and go to google for a good guide on what to remove. \n\nMessage me if your need more help.\n\nSources: IT and programming",
"\"Booting\" a computer is short for \"bootstrapping\" which if you've ever heard the phrase \"pull yourself up by your bootstraps\" you'll know this roughly means to leverage your current limited resources in order to achieve some desired end state where you have access to more resources. In terms of computers when we say resources we mean capabilities of the system to do something. Ultimately we'd like to go from a unpowered state to one where the OS has control and is able to manage system resources and support user programs.\n\nAt the start when the system is off it has 0 capability to do anything. When you press the power button you send power to chip that is responsible for initializing the hardware of the computer which will include the various systems on the motherboard and any peripherals that may be attached (disk drives, network interfaces, etc.). This sends power to all the chips an devices in the computer and sets them up in a good initial state so they can be used in the next step. Once the hardware is initialized we can now start using it's capabilities to run some software. The first chip will hand over control to a chip that contains some ROM (Read only Memory) that has a little program on it for taking stock of the system's hardware configuration and then takings he appropriate actions to continue booting. On most PCs this program is the BIOS or Basic Input Output System. It will examine things like how much memory the computer has, are there any drives attached, are the network interfaces up and running. This process is called POST or Power-On Self Test. Once POST gets all of the information of the machine's hardware capabilities it will select a device that contains the OS (usually the HDD) and hand over control to another program called a bootloader. At this point we have the hardware up and running, we're running some software but we still don't have an OS so we're still limited in what the system can do. The bootloader's job is to read the data that makes up the OS off of whatever storage media it's kept on and load it in to the system's main memory so we can use it. The bootloader starts looking at the predefined location where the OS is supposed to be stored, copies the necessary OS files into main memory, initializes it, verifies that everything is working, and then hands off control to the operating system. Once the OS has control it can start creating processes (opening programs) to do things like draw the UI, manage the file system, ask you for your password at the login screen, etc. at this point the system is up and running and you can start opening your own programs to do whatever you want. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
dlr5fk | what exactly is happening when an isp sends a refresh signal to your modem? why does it sometimes improve the connection speed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dlr5fk/eli5_what_exactly_is_happening_when_an_isp_sends/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4twml7",
"f4u1wpj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Over time, the modems at both your end and the ISP end react to noise on the line by slowing down to maintain a stable connection. Resetting the calibration settings on a noisy line can temporarily make the speed faster when it goes back to the default starting speed, but the speed will just decrease again if the underlying reason for the poor line conditions isn't resolved. \n\nThis is an issue with both Cable and DSL connections, but is more pronounced with DSL, especially if the modem isn't kept powered on continuously for 10 days when the line is first installed (or subsequently reset).",
"A few things here.\n\nYour ISP can’t fully power cycle your modem (or router, used interchangeable here for simplicity). They can log into it the same as you and tell it to reboot via software, but that’s not a power cycle. Electronics like to use capacitors that store energy. Unless you leave your modem UNPLUGGED long enough to drain that energy, your device can hold on to certain parameters (even bad or incorrect ones). This is why a full “unplug it for 30 seconds” can usually do more than just flipping the switch on and off. Same goes for a lot of electronics.\n\nYour ISP’s equipment on the other end of your connection is an electronic device just like your modem. Power cycling everything from your side can help ensure YOUR device has a fresh start, but that doesn’t mean the ISP’s side is happy and refreshed. “Bouncing the port” on their equipment isn’t a full power cycle, they’d reset multiple customers if they did that, but it does reset a lot of things that simply cycling your device doesn’t do. In extreme cases, yes, they do have to reboot their equipment but that usually happens in a maintenance window (12AM+) when hopefully most folks are sleeping.\n\nAs for what it does? When your modem first reaches out to the ISP’s equipment, they go through a negotiation. They identify the frequencies that have the least interference; frequencies that transmit and receive your data. Through that process they find the cleanest signal between them. Let’s use channels as the verbiage (again, it’s actually frequencies). Let’s say they decide channels 1-10 work the best. Great! But uh oh, 3 days later, there’s something interfering with those channels. Most equipment isn’t smart enough to monitor the quality and adapt on the fly, so your modem and the ISP are now trying to push data back and forth across “clogged” channels. The fix? Reboot or power cycle! Now when they negotiate again, they’ll see channel 3 is crap, it has noise, so maybe they’ll use channels 5-15 instead and avoid that noise.\n\nThe short version is that electronics just flat out need a good reboot or power cycle from time to time. How long you can go between those cycles has a lot to do with how expensive they are, and a cheap modem isn’t built to run for a year without needing a refresh. On top of that, line noise is an issue, and the best way to get around it sometimes is to let the modem and the ISP’s equipment go back to the basics and find the best channels (frequencies) to talk over."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1rzwdb | why are my motor skills so bad for the first few minutes after i wake up? | So, I broke a mug this morning - intended to put it on my kitchen counter, but my stupid body dropped it on the stupid floor.
I don't usually feel dehydrated or cranky or anti-social after I wake up (some people have posted on ELI5 about those kind of morning symptoms), it's just that my coordination sucks. My balance is wonky, too. I realize that some of my systems must be "coming back online", but what exactly is going on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rzwdb/eli5_why_are_my_motor_skills_so_bad_for_the_first/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdskw5y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain is still rebooting.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2q3bti | is foam soap or regular soap better? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q3bti/eli5_is_foam_soap_or_regular_soap_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn2evbs",
"cn2hsy9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Seems like the answer to that question will depend mainly on personal preference. Me, I like regular soap, and I deliberately don't use the kind with triclosan if I have an option.",
"Depends on your priorities, regular soap is more cost effective, foam soap is a gimmick to get kids to wash their hands."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3liloc | heart attacks, cardiac arrest, arrhythmia - when are cpr and defibrillators used and how? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3liloc/eli5heart_attacks_cardiac_arrest_arrhythmia_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv6m7ly"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A heart attack is a blockage in an artery that feeds the heart and so the heart muscle is being starved of oxygen.\n\nCardiac arrest is when the heart stops beating. This is quite often wrongly referred to as a heart attack by the media. \n\nArrhythmia is when the heart beats incorrectly. Basically this happens to everyone every day but is usually nothing to worry about. Some times though it can cause the heart to beat poorly which means it can't even feed itself with oxygen, or beat too fast and tire out, or beat too slow and you pass out, or just quiver and not pump at all.\n\nCPR is used when you can't detect a pulse....... and the person is obviously unconscious. Just because you take your friend's pulse while he's sitting next to you chatting with you and you can't find it doesn't mean he needs CPR. \n\nDefibs are used when the heart has an incorrect rhythm. It stops the heart and then the heart should, hopefully, restart with a correct, or less shitty, rhythm. They're not used to start hearts which have stopped.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
29to95 | what are tennis players looking for when they request 3-4 tennis balls and immediately toss 1-2 of them back? | (also, go Djokovic! :P)
Edit: Thank you all for a good discussion/explanation! I hope you are all ready for the Wimbledon final! Djokovic v Federer. :) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29to95/eli5_what_are_tennis_players_looking_for_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciode5k",
"ciodgsh",
"ciogpq8",
"ciohh1q",
"cioiado",
"ciolw7y",
"ciomeru",
"ciondys",
"ciooveu",
"ciougdj",
"ciouvqh"
],
"score": [
13,
394,
45,
3,
5,
7,
2,
2,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe it is to do with their wear i.e. some balls will be more worn/used than others which when they hit the ground or are hit with the racket, can produce very slight advantages.\n\nAlternatively, it could be the other way around!\n\nEvery so many games, there is a call for \"New balls please\" so it is apparent that players may be looking for an advantage of sorts by choosing differently worn balls.",
"To explain this to a 5 year old, essentially they are testing (for lack of a better word) the bounce of the ball. Because they hit the ball so hard they wear and tear causing the balls to bounce in different places making the game difficult. It also loses the energy that is put into the ball when hitting it. For example, when you kick a flat football it will stop much quicker than if you were to kick a fully inflated football.",
"I'll assume you're talking about serving. They look for how much \"fur\" is on the ball. If there's less fur then the ball will go faster through the air and is normally used for their first serve. They also look for a really furry ball to generate more spin on their 2nd serve.",
"Is there a limit to the amount of balls that are allowed to be used in one game?",
"You need two balls to serve and they wanna make sure the ball isn't dead. In theory checking every point makes for evenly worn balls, but its largely just a routine thing. Tennis players create an incredibly specific between-point routine as a sort of mental reset before the next point. It helps maintain focus, calmness, and rhythm. Watch a player and take note of what he does before he serves, it is likely the same or similar every time. Lendl always bounced the ball 3 times. I remember my coach told us this story of an old player who always took his hat off and rubbed his head before serving. One day he forgot his hat and went down 2 sets and a break(or something). His coach finally got him a hat and the guy came back to win it because he could then collect himself with his routine. ",
"Ball rules from the Grand Slam Championships.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI. BALLS \n\nEach Grand Slam Tournament will provide tennis balls in accordance with the following: \n\n1. Six (6) balls are to be provided for each Main Draw match and are to be changed after the first seven (7) and thereafter every nine (9) games throughout the tournament. Ball changes and the number of balls used per match shall be the same for all matches throughout the tournament and may be altered only with approval of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors. \n\n2. If a ball is lost or becomes unplayable then another may be added as soon as possible for use in play; when there are fewer than four (4) balls remaining, then another ball must be added for use in play. During the warm-up or within two (2) games after a change of ball, a new ball shall be used as a replacement; otherwise a used ball of like wear shall be supplied. Play must be continuous even if a ball needs to be replaced. \n\n3. In case of a suspended or postponed match, the balls used in the warm-up will not be the balls used when play resumes. \n\n4. At least three (3) new balls per day for practice must be available free of charge to each player accepted in the Main Draw or Qualifying competition from the day prior to the commencement of the tournament until he is eliminated. Balls of the make to be used in the Main Draw tournament are to be available for a reasonable period prior to the commencement of the tournament. Players must return practice balls. ",
"Imagine having several balloons. \n\nSome of them are full and bouncy, some are not as bouncy, some are deflating. Every time you hit a balloon, it loses air. As players, we are checking for the 'balloons' with the most air. ",
"I want to know what the deal is when they just take a single bite out of a banana between rounds and put it away until the next? WTF.",
"They're looking for the one that's the least fluffy, i.e. the one that's the least worn.",
"Lot of generic replies here, which is fine for ELI5. Coached at the D-1 college level in tennis. Balls wear unevenly, people who need to serve well to win want the most aerodynamic ball. If you want points to be longer, you use the most fluffed ball - add to this the fact that a ball with more surface area will generate more spin and control for those who want that. In fact, there are rules against players holding match balls in between games so they can not scuff them up and slow so as to slow them down to their advantage. In college, this was not regulated much and was a tactic used. Its not really about bounce at all, at a high level its about control of the kind of points the match will be determined by.",
"I'm going to add to this but keep it very simple. Alauer16 hit it pretty spot on. Different players play a different tennis game. Some players hit the ball with a lot of pace. This players will probably take a bull without a lot of fluff on it. Other players are more counter punchers and will want to slow a faster player's game down they will take balls with more fluff. First second serve can also play a part in it as well. I had a friend and I would watch him play and pluck at the fur of the balls. His opponent would get pissed and whenever he got a chance would try and smooth the balls down."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.itftennis.com/media/136151/136151.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8mlc6u | how do the patterns on cows (or other animals with patterns on their skins) form? what determines their forms? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mlc6u/eli5_how_do_the_patterns_on_cows_or_other_animals/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzojevm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Following question: What determine our finger printing?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1exxa2 | why does water clean everything? | I got to thinking... if we want anything clean, we use water. You can wipe off a chalkboard better than an eraser. We take showers. It goes in the washing machine & dishwasher. We wash our cars with it. We could try with rags or anything else, but it's never as clean.
How come? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1exxa2/eli5_why_does_water_clean_everything/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca4uawe",
"ca4uyxo",
"ca4wdy5",
"ca4zlob",
"ca518eg"
],
"score": [
11,
8,
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Water is a fantastic solvent. It is often called the universal solvent. ",
"I don't know the answer, but I just want to say I think the question is one of the best questions I've heard here in ages.\n",
"Hmm... first we have to ask ourselves what is \"clean\".\n\nIs it objective? Subjective?\n\nPerhaps we use water to clean is because... well... to use humans that is something natural and clean.\n\nI'm sure if we were some other form of creature or alien we might say something else to be used to clean.\n\nA rock monster to clean with sand or an Autobot would use WD-40 to clean.\n\nI guess to us humans we 'clean' with water because it is 'non-toxic' to us.",
"Water, like u/wackyvorlon explained, is a fantastic solvent. But what is a solvent? Think about when you mix your Kool aid, or powdered drink in water. When you mix it, the powder disappears into the water. The same applies to dirt, grease, or even chalk. Think of them as a powder so fine, that you can't see it, and the dirty powder disappears into the water.",
"Well water doesn't clean everything. Oil and water for instance. The reason water is used so commonly in cleaning though is it dissolves other things really well (as others have said its a great solvent). Water is also very abundant. Water can evaporate in most instances without delibate attempts to do so. The real cleaner in what you have mentioned is soap. You wouldn't clean very much with just water. Basically water is polar and oils are non polar. These are just names we use to distinguish to categories of matter. Polar sticks to polar and non polar sticks to non polar. Put some oil in water and see the oil bunch up even if you mix it. Well soap is made of molecules which have a polar and an non polar end. The polar end attracts water and the non polar end attracts oils and other non polar substances water can't normally attract. Once the soap has attracted the non polar substances its washed away with more water. I supposed you could use a non harmful polar solvent to replace water, but if water falls from the sky why would you look elsewhere?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
byjdjj | can a us state declare independence? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/byjdjj/eli5_can_a_us_state_declare_independence/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqi6u8z",
"eqi6wy8",
"eqi78df",
"eqi79ad"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It would require an act of Congress and the President to allow something like that, and they would never allow it. \n\nThe last time states tried this it started the Civil War, which was one of the bloodiest conflicts in US history.",
"After the civil war no, Texas had that ability for a while, but a recent court case over turned it.",
"There is currently no process for a state to secede from the United States of America. So as of right now, no, a state cannot declare independence.",
"They can declare whatever they like. However there is no legal process provided by the constitution that allows states to peacefully seceede, and the few times the matter has in some form come across the supreme court the answer is pretty clear: Statehood is eternal.\n\nThere are only two ways a state can leave the union:\n\n* By getting a constitutional amendment passed, essentially having other states and the federal government *permit* them leave.\n\n* by starting a very one-sided civil war and somehow not being defeated in the first month of combat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9wcoso | why does benadryl feel stronger sometimes than others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9wcoso/eli5_why_does_benadryl_feel_stronger_sometimes/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9jmfl0",
"e9jnpld",
"e9kgnov"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"I’m not quite sure but I always take the same dose of melatonin and it definitely hits faster/better on an empty stomach. Could be related to absorption rate?",
"There's a few different potential reasons here. Let me break them down from simplest to most complex. \n1: Alcohol can increase the drowsiness. If you've had something to drink a short while before, it will feel stronger. \n2: Because you swallow the tablets, the Benadryl is absorbed through the stomach. If you've got an empty stomach, the concentration in the stomach will be higher. A higher concentration means faster absorption, and faster effects. \n3: Antihistamines work by doing the opposite of what histamines do, rather than stopping the histamines. If you have more histamines already in your brain, the net effect will be less. This includes the drowsiness.",
"Not ELI5 but I would strongly advise finding a different medication to use daily, Benadryl will be unhealthy for your brain and can cause Alzheimer's if taken too much. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9d7jwq | why does coffee give me weird jittery anxiety, but other caffeinated drinks (such as tea or red bull) do not? | I drank a cup of coffee the other day, and then remembered why I never drink coffee. Is there some sort of chemical in the coffee that causes this? It can't be the caffeine because other caffeinated drinks don't have the same effect. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9d7jwq/eli5_why_does_coffee_give_me_weird_jittery/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5ft55q",
"e5ftjx3",
"e5ftkja"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Do you for example, put sugar and cream in your coffee but drink sugar-free energy drinks? Sugar would do that. Tea also generally doesn't have a ton of caffiene, and as 12oz red bull has about the same caffiene as a cup of coffee (maybe a little more). So if you're drinking a couple cups of coffee instead of a single red bull, you're getting more caffiene.",
"Did you drink it faster than you would the same sized energy drink?\n\nI think the energy drinks are sort of meant to be chugged while coffee is more a slower drink. \n\nAlso how strong was a coffee? I had a similar problem when I started drinking coffee again after over a decade of not. It got much better after I found the right caffeine ratio, which had been much to high, and was an adjustable option on the machine at work. ",
"Is there food in your stomach when you drink energy drinks vs when you drink coffee? When I have an empty stomach but still decide to drink anything with caffeine I get the weird jittery anxiety. \n\nFood before caffeine helps"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2h6n27 | why are spicy things generally red? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h6n27/eli5_why_are_spicy_things_generally_red/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckpv19q",
"ckpvi6p",
"ckpwfp7"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Capsaicin (the chemical usually responsible for 'spicyness') is produced by a specific group of peppers. The best known and most popular is the chili pepper, which is - you guessed it - red. But it's perfectly possible to make spicy foods that aren't. Immature peppers, for example, can be green or yellow.",
"chili peppers most famously come in red color. but they come in other colors too. \n\nthe thing is...the part of the chili that's hot isn't red. the white membrane that holds the seeds is the main concentration of capsaicin. ",
"Plants have coevolved with animals to a very high degree, and lots of plants rely on certain animals to pollinate them or spread their seeds (by eating their fruit and pooping out the seeds). They can be very specialized in how they appear in order to attract the animals they want - think of those orchids that look an awful lot like bees.\n\nTurns out a lot of fruit-eating birds go after red fruits. Peppers, with somewhat more delicate seeds than some plants, like being eaten by birds because they don't do a whole lot of damage to the seeds. On the other hand, mammals chew up the seeds. So, they're red to attract birds, and spicy to drive away mammals. Birds, it happens, don't feel the pain from capsaicin.\n\nBut it turns out humans are fucking crazy and like that little zing of pain (well, some of us do), so we eat them anyway."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
54c2hx | why is oversleeping even possible? shouldn't your body wake itself up once it has gotten enough rest? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54c2hx/eli5_why_is_oversleeping_even_possible_shouldnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"d80k45d",
"d80rwfv",
"d80sgsu",
"d80ua2k",
"d80ytce"
],
"score": [
87,
286,
10,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Your definition of oversleeping may be different than that of your body's. If you go to sleep at midnight, knowing you have to get up at 6 a.m., but your body needs more than 6 hours of sleep, then without an alarm, you're likely to oversleep because your body needs more than the 6 hours that you've allotted for sleep. ",
"Back before the invention of artifical lighting, we had sunrise and sunset to tell us when we needed to be asleep and awake. Our bodies evolved to react to those cues, with a chemical in our brain that makes us sleepy but only when it is dark (melatonin). This chemical works along with other systems to give our sleeping times a natural rhythm (the circadian rhythm). Added to that is the natural rhythm of the wildlife around us, with different and more muffled sounds at night, and birdsong in the morning. Lots of cues from the environment that your body will get used to over time.\n\nIn the modern life we have artificial lighting and artificial stimulants that interfere with melatonin and the other ways that our sleeping rhythm is regulated. We often live cut off from nature so we don't get as many cues from our environment. Instead we regulate our sleep with alarms, which wrench you from sleep often when your body isn't ready for it at all.\n\nAnd then there's all the psychological reasons we find getting up hard. The alarm often signifies time to get up and do something we don't particularly want to do. We associate it with displeasure of rude awakenings to unpleasant mornings. So we tend to fight against it, rebel against this machine telling us what to do.",
"Besides sleep debt, there are medical issues such as sleep apnea, chronic inflammation, or other chronic disease that make sleep less restful and in effect you're more tired and sleepy, even after 8 hours. Furthermore, you could have a viral, parasite, or bacterial infection that you don't even notice anymore, but it's always raging like a quiet fire in the background, exhausting you. ",
"Now that I work a job with a consistent schedule, I literally only oversleep if the schedule changes to be earlier. I wake up \"naturally\" at 715 *every single day.* That's because my body is used to it. I go to sleep at 9pm, I wake up at 715am. I go to sleep at 11pm, I wake up at 715 am. I go to bed at 3am, I wake up at 715am. That's it, end of story. There is no such thing as oversleeping. Only sleeping until when you're \"supposed\" to, or not. Do yourself a favor and set a regular bedtime that also provides you with an adequate amount of sleep. Your body will be happier. \n\nOh and if your body is forced into an irregular schedule and is simply sleeping until whenever you set an alarm, a) you're getting disrupted sleep and b) you are going to be late to something important at some point and be irritated w yourself. Trust me on that. 😂\n\nAnd if by \"oversleeping\" you meant sleeping \"for too long\" there is also no such thing. If your body is done needing rest, you will wake up. Unfortunately in the world many of us live in, we are chronically tired and don't have time to become magically well-rested. You'd be better off going to bed somewhat earlier each night, versus trying to catch up all in one long rest, which isn't possible. \n\nIf you're able to set a schedule where you go to bed at the same time every day and get up at the same time every day (with an appropriate amt of hours in-between), that's the best thing for your body. Personally I set myself a \"get ready for bed\" alarm for 1030 evey day. Not saying I follow it, but it helps keep me balanced.",
"Oversleeping is possible because we as humans rarely ever sleep till rested. Instead we sleep to a schedule where we have to get up to go to work/school/etc. \n\nOversleeping is when you miss the system that you have set up to wake you up and you get up later than intended. This is normally due to exhaustion and you not resting enough. \n\nHumans naturally need between 6 and 12 hours of sleep with most needing around 9. 8 hours is not scientific, that is from a philosophy of dividing the day into thirds. 8 hours for sleep, 8 for recreation, 8 for work. Your actual sleep cycle is a multiple of 90 min. \n\nAdditionally if you are under the age of 25 you actually do need closer to 12 hours of sleep a night. This is particularly true for teenagers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ffsopa | why did "window duplication" happen on older pc systems when programs got frozen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ffsopa/eli5_why_did_window_duplication_happen_on_older/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk0clug",
"fk0k2zb"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The screen back then was a frame buffer so when a window was displayed it was stored as pixels in it. The result is that the hidden part of a window or desktop is not stored when not visible. This was done because of the low amount of memory you had in the system compared to the amount needed to store the display information.\n\nIf you had a window and move it was back then the window or desktop behind it that har to redraw the now displayed space. \n\nSo when you move a window it gets copied or I supposed redrawn when you move it and multiple copies are created. The OS then call the window or the part of the OS responsible for the desktop and tell it to redraw its a window. If the redraw does not happen fast enough you get a trail all drawn copies of the current window when you move it\n\nToday you draw it to a buffer that all the time or what a window is supposed to contain. The OS then uses features of the graphics card and mixes them all together so when it behind a window is always stored and can directly be displayed with help of hardware acceleration in the graphics card. this makes semitransparent windows possible in a way it was not in the past.\n\nIf you have a monitor that is 1024x768 and 16 million colors you use 1024\\*768\\*3/1024/1024=2.24 megabyte for a buffer for the display. It does not sound a lot today but windows 95 had a min requirement of 4 MB and 8 MB was recommended. So to store visual information of each window was problematic because of the low amount of system memory\n\nToday with a 1080P display you only need 6MB for a complete screen. But memory today are in most cases 1000x larger than back in the win 95 days. So the windows design changes when computer have enough memory to store what is needed.",
"In Windows (tm) the desktop background is a WINDOW object (an object being a container that collects other GUI elements most of which are actually WINDOW objects themselves) owned by explorer (or equiv). All applications are child windows of this object. If for whatever reason explorer application is blocked (say by a system call from another process that has locked up the OS) it won't get re-drawn which means if you move other objects over it the stale contents will be left.\n\nBasically, the desktop application that manages the background is blocked from re-drawing.\n\nThis hierarchy is another reason why Windows doesn't really have \"multi desktop\" support like typical *NIX window managers have. Even when you add multi-desktop support typically you can't move applications from one desktop layer to another (because they are owned by a parent WINDOW object)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7dkxf4 | auditing the federal reserve | Don't we already get transcripts 5 years later? Is it just for conspiracy theorists? Would the Federal Reserve be politicized by congress? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dkxf4/eli5_auditing_the_federal_reserve/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpyiyv5",
"dpz30cj"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The way we currently audit the Federal Reserve allows for several things to occur that aren't awesome. First, the annual audit has no deadline. This means that the audit from 2002 (random number) could still be in progress in 2017, or be sitting on someone's desk until they get around to filing it. So, even though annual audits are currently required, they never actually have to be finished. \n\nSecondly, the audit currently does not have to be made available to Congress/Senate or the American population, which is a pretty significant problem. This means we don't really have a clue what they're doing at any given time.\n\nLast, and perhaps most significantly, the current auditing process allows the Federal Reserve to omit their dealings with foreign nationals, foreign banks, or foreign countries, as well as omit its dealings with other banks in the USA. Because of this, we don't know if they're violating ethics laws by leveraging control on our open market system. \n\nMost simply; the current auditing system is broken/flawed, and needs updating to meet new national standards and guidelines. ",
" > Don't we already get transcripts 5 years later?\n\nMore than that. The fed is audited: internally, by the GAO, and by an outside firm, usually ~annually.\n\nOn top of that, the head of the Fed reports directly to Congress bi-annually.\n\nYou can access those here:\n_URL_0_\n\nThe transcripts are just things like FOMC meetings. The audits include all of their financial assets etc.\n\n > Is it just for conspiracy theorists?\n\nThere's 3 people who want to \"audit the Fed\": conspiracy theorists, regular people who don't understand how the Fed works (unfortunately, the way it's set up makes it look shady to the average person), and people in Congress who want more direct control.\n\n > Would the Federal Reserve be politicized by congress?\n\nYes, almost definitely, which is why it was created (mostly) independent in the first place, to avoid those pressures. The current audit the fed movement is by people who want more politicization (currently, it tends to be people who disliked/distrusted the Fed's \"easymoney\" response to the 2008 crisis)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12784.htm"
]
] |
|
3dfijo | why is there much talk about building human colonies in space (i.e. moon, mars), but no talk about building in earth's oceans, which is seemingly easier? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dfijo/eli5why_is_there_much_talk_about_building_human/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct4mr39",
"ct4mw8p"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Building colonies in space or on other bodies in space would actually be easier in a lot of ways than building in the ocean. Pressure is the big one here; past a certain point and we just don't have the materials or science to manage it.\n\nFewer people have visited the bottom of the Challenger Deep than have walked on the moon.",
"Well, we already have access to the resources of the ocean while living on land, so building an undersea colony, other than being really cool and giving us more of an opportunity to study the depths of the ocean, wouldn't do much. A colony on another world would be autonomous, could survive an event that destroyed earth, and could potentially have a whole planet's worth of resources previously out of human reach."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5jq1rf | what does it take for a war to become a world war, and why isn't the current war against isis and other groups in syria a world war? there are so many countries involved. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jq1rf/eli5_what_does_it_take_for_a_war_to_become_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbi20zm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I would have to say it has to do with the fact that\nA) Isis isn't a country\nB) no one is aligned with isis"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
g3nlhp | currency invention | ELI5 How can currencies, crypto in particular, just be invented? And how do they become so valuable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g3nlhp/eli5_currency_invention/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnsb7d4",
"fnsct0v",
"fnsd9f6",
"fnsejej",
"fnslu71",
"fntfu01"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
2,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"they go beep boop and a currency is invented.\n\nseriously this is how it happens. I can invent noodles dollars and say 1 noodles bucks is worth 100 USD but unless everyone agrees 1 noodles dollar is worth 100 USD then it is worthless. Money and currency in general are only worth what everyone agrees that it is worth. Their is no inter government organisation like the UN that determines whats is a currency or not.\n\nin terms of crypto it is literally just programming. i dont know the exact specifics but it has to do with blockchain tech that writes ledgers that are distributed openly to everyone. How a person \"mines\" the cryto is when a consensus of what happen in the last block of time in the chain is agreed upon by most of the miners. \n\nThis is just in general dont talk everything as gospel but",
"Why is gold valuable?\n\nIt’s not because it’s shiny. Fool’s gold is shiny too. What makes gold valuable (aside from being pretty and a good conductor) is that it’s a good currency. So what makes it a good currency?\n\nA good currency ought to represent the value it is a token of. So:\n\n- a good currency is physically stable. Gold doesn’t decay like food. \n- a good currency is hard to counterfeit. Gold is rare and fakes can easily be detected. \n- perhaps less obviously, a good currency requires a fixed amount of work to produce. If I’m a young man in colonial Spain and you offer me 1 piece of gold a week to work your fields is that a good deal? Well, if I can go to the mountains or the colonies and dig up three pieces of gold a week, I’m not going to work your fields. Mining gives gold a fundamental value in terms of hours of human labor. Spending that time working allows us to imbue the gold with value because that’s what it took to get it. \n- good currency is easy to trade. Gold is heavy and kind of hard to break into small parts. This is why gold got replaced by hard to forge notes (paper money). \n\nBitcoin is digital gold. \n\n- bitcoin is physically stable. Your account is just your knowledge of the password. As long as there is internet, it won’t rot. \n- bitcoin is hard to counterfeit. It relies on consensus of everyone participating. Really clever cryptography makes it basically impossible to forge bitcoin. \n- bitcoin requires a fixed amount of *computer* work to produce. It costs computational power and electricity to “mine” a new bitcoin. Your computer has to solve hard math problems to do it and each hard math problem solved makes bitcoin more secure. That means there is fundamental computational value stored in it the same way gold represents human labor put into mining rather than farming. If bitcoin becomes less valuable, those computers can be put toward rendering for Pixar movies or computing chemical models for drug development. But mining pays more so they mine. \n- bitcoin is (supposed to be) easier to trade online than gold because gold is not electronic and has to be physically moved around at some point. In a digital world, bitcoin is a digital version of gold.\n\nUltimately, what makes something valuable is that people value it. Bitcoin has the properties of gold but with many of them better for today’s world. The question is, how much will people recognize and utilize that value? How much do people understand or trust that value is there and will be long term? And how many people can actually use bitcoin?",
"I recommend reading Terry Pratchett's 'Making Money' for an in-depth understanding of currency, how it's created, how it acquires and maintains value, and why it's necessary.",
"For a sovereign currency like the US Dollar or British Pound or British Tally Sticks (used before the pound) the currency creation goes like this:\n\n1) Government creates the currency, but nobody wants it because it has no value.\n\n2) Government creates a tax, which gives the currency value. A head tax would be an example, or a frontage tax. This effectively makes everyone unemployed because they are seeking the currency to meet the tax liability.\n\n3) Government spends to make the currency available to the citizens.\n\nBefore the government spent, it cannot collect taxes, as nobody has the money. After spending occurs then people can collect the money to pay the tax liability.\n\nIn this way, any more that the government spends in a year without taxing is called the \"deficit\". That money is held by people as their savings.\n\n\nEdit:\nI missed the crypto part: Speaking of bitcoin or other cryptocurrency, that is better described as an asset. The asset has value because others value it, they want to possess it, like gold, silver, toilet paper, or tulips. Crypto will maintain its value so long as people value it. As long as there is someone willing to trade it for another asset, or a sovereign currency, then it continues to have value.",
"Money used to denominated in gold. If you had a ten dollar bill you could go to the treasury and get ten dollars worth of gold. This provided a check on the government because they could not print more money than the gold they had. This preventing hyperinflation. \n\nWorld War 1 caused a disruption in the supply of gold because warring countries needed to buy so much food and weapons from neutral countries and the US which came to the war late. After the war countries tried to get the gold back and hoard gold for preparation for the next war. This caused severe deflation around the world and caused a worldwide depression. Eventually almost every country went off a strict gold standard and the depression ended just as WW2 began.\n\nAfter WW2 they tried to go back on the gold standard but it didn't really work. Instead money became fiat currency. It is worth only what the government says it is worth and you can't exchange it for anything at a fixed price. People warned this would cause inflation and they were right. During the 1970s inflation became a huge problem in the west as governments tried to spend more money than they had. Inflation went to double digits in the late 70s and early 80s. People were advocating a return to the gold standard because they saw that the government was apparently incapable of maintaining a steady currency. \n\nAt that time Volker of the Federal Reserve drastically cut the money supply, which provoked a severe recession. However, it also got inflation under control. Inflation rates went down and have stayed down for over 35 years. This produced what was called the great moderation where recessions and inflation were much rarer than before. It was the golden age of central banking until they got caught flatfooted by the subprime credit crunch and caused the great recession.\n\nThe experience of the 1970s and early 1980s created a group of skeptics that don't trust the government to handle the money supply and who think inflation is always around the corner. These are the types who buy gold off of radio and tv ads aimed at old people. Cryptocurrency is a way to get around government control of the money supply. The supply is fixed so that it can't be inflated and it is very difficult to counterfeit. They are valuable because to a certain group of people, independence from government and freedom from inflation risk is valuable. They are also good at evading currency controls in repressive nations and good for anonymously buying illegal things on the web.",
"Crypto is \"invented\" just like companies invent gift cards and Chucky Cheese Fun Bux. Just \"print\" it and distribute it. Crypto is printed with coin miners, ie: software algorithms that generate blockchain hashes.\n\n Question is is crypto money? ie: Does anyone accept it outside of the Fun Bux community?\n\nIs it fungible? ie:\n\n- Can I pay rent with crypto?\n- Can i buy groceries with crypto?\n- Can I buy gas with crypto?\n- Can I buy stocks with crypto?\n- Can I buy \"the weeds\" on Silk Road with crypto?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bkad87 | is it possible to have a heavy element to have the same amount of neutrons as protons and would it be stable? | I've noticed the further up in the periodic table the more neutrons an element has. Would it be possible to have an element like Uranium have exactly the same amount neutrons as protons? Would it be possible with other elements? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkad87/eli5_is_it_possible_to_have_a_heavy_element_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"emf6sso",
"emf9jes"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
" > I've noticed the further up in the periodic table the more neutrons an element has.\n\nYes. [This plot](_URL_0_) shows the stability regions for stable isotopes. As the elements get heavier, there are more neutrons required.\n\nHunting and pecking I found an isotope of Xenon which had the same number of protons and neutrons (54 each). It had a half-life of a few microseconds. I couldn't find anything heavier than that.",
"The reason for the \"banana-shaped curve of stability\" is the short range of the nuclear strong force. Nuclei are held together by a sort of \"color polarization\" effect between the protons and neutrons in there (like van der Waals forces in molecules, if you've studied chemistry, only with the nuclear \"color\" force instead of with electric charge). \n\nThat nuclear binding force works best in nuclei with equal numbers of protons and neutrons. It's also quite strong. So strong that it can attract protons together despite their immense electrostatic repulsion. BUT it has short range. So short that it diminishes noticeably across the size of a typical atomic nucleus. The electrostatic force is a long-range force and does not diminish as much with size. So the strength ratio between binding force and repulsive force differs for large nuclei compared to small nuclei.\n\nThe stable nuclei are the ones that are more tightly bound than nearby nuclei (on the mass-charge diagram) into which they can decay. The optimal proton/neutron balance is set by the strength ratio. Energetically, it's worth detuning the neutron/proton balance to reduce the amount of electrostatic repulsion.\n\nThat short range of the nuclear force is a double edged sword. It's why nuclear fission works, and it's also why fission products (nuclear waste) are highly radioactive: since fission products are formed by breaking apart heavy nuclei into two or more lighter ones, they tend to be too neutron-rich for their size."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes#/media/File:Isotopes_and_half-life.svg"
],
[]
] |
|
42c24j | how to rubix cube world records work? | Of course certain solutions would be easier to do then others right? Whats stopping me from turning the thing twice and saying that i got the world record? Is it just an agreed upon thing that it must be scrambled in a certain way? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42c24j/eli5_how_to_rubix_cube_world_records_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz95m3i"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They are scrambled randomly. There is a minimum number of turns (turning one way, and then back doesn't count. Turning one way once, and the same way again once more only counts for 1) that I don't remember. Once you get that many (I think it's 7 or some other surprisingly small number) it's considered sufficiently random. Also, clearly you wouldn't be randomizing it for your own world record attempt, since it would be too easy to simply reverse your turns."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1mfl94 | how can one drop of poison kill so many people | When I hear that one drop can kill 20 people, I think "How can one drop of poison be that potent?" How does that exactly work? What makes the poison so potent? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mfl94/eli5how_can_one_drop_of_poison_kill_so_many_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc8rbxq"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The potency of the poison depends on how strongly it binds to its target, how large the molecule is and what the target is.\n\nFor instance, ricin prevents cells producing proteins. This process is essential for cellular function. Botulinum prevents a neurotransmitter, which is responsible for muscle movement, being released. Muscle movement is important for breathing and preventing this is dangerous. Paracetamol is significantly less toxic and causes death by liver failure, this happens because it's metabolites cause depletion of a particular protein. Toxic levels only come with a relatively high dose.\n\nSome drugs bind really strongly to their targets, for example LSD is extremely potent when compared to a similar drug, mescaline. Both drugs bind to similar targets but have different potencies.\n\nThe size of the molecule alters how many molecules make up a drop, a minor difference but important when comparing doses.\n\nI hope that this helps."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4fgz6n | why is google (online search) such a great spell checker whereas my inbuilt spell checkers in ios, or even android is so rubbish in suggesting the right spelling? why can't they integrate both? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fgz6n/eli5_why_is_google_online_search_such_a_great/ | {
"a_id": [
"d28qgiq",
"d28qi6x",
"d28ru9b",
"d28vvnm"
],
"score": [
48,
5,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"I would assume Google is a much better spell checker because it draws on the almost limitless amount of words on the Internet and recognizes phrases and sentence structure better then petty android or ios spell checkers. \n\nThey most likely won't integrate because they don't want to release their amazing technology. \n\n(If your company made a car that runs on air you wouldn't go around telling every other company to use your new design, you would patent it and bathe in money)",
"Spell checkers are mostly just a dictionary that searched for fairly simple matches. More than a certain % of matching letters for example \n\nBecasue google search is waaay more powerful than than. They have a huge database of queries and information, and they've worked out how those are all related to one another, and then they can feed that information to a serious server farm to crunch through it. If you're computer or phone tried to do that, you'd run out of hard drive space very quickly and it would take a very very long time for your poor device to process it. \n\nAlso if you use Chrome, there's totally integrated google search for spell check. ",
" The privacy concerns are just... massive. I would never consent to every word I type on my phone being sent to google's servers to be \"spell checked\".",
"Are you in the UK? I only ask because you used the word 'rubbish.' If that's the case, make sure the language selection on your computer matches your country to accommodate the various spelling discrepancies between countries. 'Colour' versus 'color' for example. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bhxtca | why are the clips on all car seat belts different to clips on all airlines? | Push the red button vs. Lift the flap | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhxtca/eli5_why_are_the_clips_on_all_car_seat_belts/ | {
"a_id": [
"elx0505"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"While the red button is easier to push, there is less room for mechanical error with the lift the flap method, which means less maintenance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7y4ua5 | what is bank fraud? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7y4ua5/eli5what_is_bank_fraud/ | {
"a_id": [
"dudpjw9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Intentionally doing something to defraud a bank and get money you dont own.\n\nSimplest easy to execute example:\n\n If you have 3 bank accounts and you are broke. \nToday is the 12th. You know you get paid on the 15th and will have money but you need $100 to get by till payday. You go to bank one and cash a check *(written from bank two) for $100. Boom now you have $100 but theres an inbound check going to bank 2 in 2 days and u have no money in that account.\n\nOn the 13th - you go to bank three and cash a check for $100. Then you take that $100 and put it in bank 2. \n\nNow on the 14th - the original check is processed thru bank 2 and it doesnt bounce because you had money in the account. But you gotta look out because the $100 check from bank 3 will got thru tonight or tomorrow. So now you go to bank two and cash a check from bank 1 and put that money in bank 3 to cover the inbound check\n \n\nBoom. You just borrowed $100 for 3 or 4 days without paying any bounced check fees. \n\nAnd you just committed bank fraud.\n\nThats a very simple example. I knew a guy 15 yrs ago - he constantly had between $1500 to 2000 in bad checks floating from 4 different banks constantly. He made more trips to the bank than Any person i ever met. Im talking at least 2-3 trips to different banks every day. And always to different banks. Finally i asked him and he explained it all to me. Pretty crazy. \n\nAnd there are plenty of individuals and companies who do this type of thing on a much larger scale. I'm talking hundreds of thousands of bucks floating with money they dont have.\n\nAnd theres other examples that just one thats easy to explain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8u4242 | how are different marijuana strains made? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8u4242/eli5_how_are_different_marijuana_strains_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1ckfvv",
"e1cmj4g",
"e1d3lzf"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"What the previous guy said but also by mixing these different plants. And I quote \"This is like if that Blue Oyster shit met that Afghan Kush I had - and they had a baby. And then, meanwhile, that crazy Northern Light stuff I had and the Super Red Espresso Snowflake met and had a baby. And by some miracle, those two babies met and fucked - this would be the shit that they birthed.\" - Pineapple Express",
"Marijuana is a flowering plant. To make seeds you need to take pollen from a male plant and put it in a female plant which you allow to grow to seed. Those seeds have a mixture of the DNA from both parents. \n\nLike other flowering plants, you can mix and match how you move the pollen to get a wide variety of hybrids.",
"This is the same traditional way you produce different cultivars or strains of any crop, or livestock for that matter. That is, through selective breeding. This has been done for thousands of years by humanity.\n\nCannabis reproduces sexually, like most multiple-cell life forms.\n\nThat means that the offspring or seeds are rarely genetically identical to the parents, but consist of a somewhat random combination of the chromosomes from both parents. Just like in humans.\n\nCannabis plants typically have all male (pollen producing) or all female (fruit producing) flowers. (This is not the case with all plants, many of which are hermaphrodites. )\n\nIn the case of cannabis, you take pollen from male plants and fertilize female plants. \n\nThe resulting seeds will have some variations in traits like size, color, speed of growth, shape, just to name a few. This is for the same reason that human siblings look different from each other and different from their parents.\n\nThere may also be 1-2 plants with genetic copying errors or *mutations* that produce an interesting trait such as purple leaves. Although strictly speaking most mutations are harmful and likely to cause the seed to be nonviable.\n\nThe breeder then selects the plants he decides he likes, and then breeds them with similar plants. This process is repeated over several generations of inbreeding until you have a population of plants with traits that you desire, and similar genetics. \n\nAlso note that it's fairly easy to *clone* cannabis plants by cutting a side stem and then treating the cut end with rooting hormones. This creates a new plant that is genetically identical.\n\nOnce you've created a plant with traits that you like, you can clone a dozen or two shoots from it, then several hundred clones from those, so you have a decent crop, but this is often more trouble than simply pollinating and growing seed.\n\nIn fact a lot of plants such as poplars, grasses, or strawberries can naturally clone themselves this way by producing new shoots from exposed surface roots. But cannabis isn't prone to this."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2x0x0f | please can someone translate this in layman's terms? (an excerpt from an academic journal) | Hope this is appropriate for ELI5
Trying to analyse this academic article. However I don't understand half the words in this paragraph
> The headlines were randomly collected by an automated news aggregator (RSS-reader)7 during the period 1 January,
2013--31 December, 2013. This was done in order to (a) inductively-deductively develop a multimodal phoric reference
model fitted to analyze online news headlines (presented in section 5), (b) examine which types of forward-referring
expressions are used in the headlines, (c) find the most frequently used cataphorical and discourse deictic lexemes in
order to pave the way for an automated lexeme search in a bigger data set, and (d) map the distribution of forwardreferring
headlines on news sites such as _URL_0_.
We have coded headlines as forward-referring if they
The journal is titled
Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines
by
Jonas Nygaard Blom 1, Kenneth Reinecke Hansen *
For anyone who's interested :)
Cheers! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x0x0f/eli5_please_can_someone_translate_this_in_laymans/ | {
"a_id": [
"covvk6l",
"covwn1s"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically:\n\nThey collected headlines from articles using some sort of software. This collection took place all of 2013. They did this to A) develop a model of what types of headlines are being created, B) analyze the words in the headlines, and C) find out the words that were used most frequently. They hope to be able to use this data to be able to better analyze a larger set of data and make an even bigger, even better model. ",
"They are looking at how to analyze speech patterns used in headlines on news aggregators.\n\nA lot of the terms used are contained in this Wiki article on Deixis: _URL_0_\n\nBasically, some words need a context to make sense of them. They are creating a model to try and use context to understand words that need that context to be uniquely defined."
]
} | [] | [
"tv2.dk"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis"
]
] |
|
adco9s | why do some greenscreens look painfully obvious and lower quality than others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/adco9s/eli5_why_do_some_greenscreens_look_painfully/ | {
"a_id": [
"edfrz99",
"edfsjod",
"edftev5"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Bc some people rush through and basically just copy and paste the picture in in the background while others take their time",
"A myriad of reasons ranging from a poor camera setup and staging/lighting of the green screen plates to limitations of the vfx software/compositor skills in pulling a decent key of the foreground object. There are relighting/edge blending issues that also have to be addressed when combining the foreground fill/matte and background plates to achieve a high-quality result.",
"CaptainDisillusion did a great video about it ([video for reference](_URL_0_))\n\nTo sum it up: most green screens are just poorly lit. The foreground isn't seperated from the background as well or the color keying, the process of removing certain colors from a picture, just hasn't been tuned in all that precisely.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3JgPUJ6iQ"
]
] |
||
1jqo3p | does rogaine work, and if so, how? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jqo3p/eli5_does_rogaine_work_and_if_so_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbhcdej",
"cbhd9jz",
"cbhdbej",
"cbhds0q",
"cbhe4cu",
"cbhe8j8",
"cbheb1q",
"cbhebt7",
"cbhecu8",
"cbheir3",
"cbhep0u",
"cbhetp9",
"cbhff03",
"cbhfjo4",
"cbhg3vy",
"cbhg4qo",
"cbhgg7v",
"cbhglyz",
"cbhh0gm",
"cbhhdp4",
"cbhhtbi",
"cbhhw4y",
"cbhi1d6",
"cbhl9fg",
"cbhlccb",
"cbhlipj",
"cbhnckc",
"cbhnen1",
"cbhou9z",
"cbhp4zx",
"cbhpvxq"
],
"score": [
856,
9,
230,
2,
7,
7,
102,
5,
3,
31,
7,
3,
4,
7,
3,
2,
2,
41,
9,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Interesting story. Science isn't perfectly clear on the why/how.\n\nMinoxidil (Rogain) is a [edit: *anti*hypertensive] ~~hypetensive~~ (high blood pressure) drug, and they discovered the hair growth as a side effect of prescribing it for high blood pressure. They think that maybe the drug widens blood vessels and opening potassium channels which allows more oxygen, blood, and nutrients to the hair follicles. And, yes it often does work, for Male Pattern Baldness, especially in younger men who have only begun to show the balding pattern. If you've been bald for a long time it doesn't work as well (or maybe not at all).\n\nalso, as an interesting side fact, in even small quantities, it's FATAL to cats.",
"*EDIT:* Looks like I've been operating under a few mixed-up facts. I'd recommend reading the comments below for the corrections; I'm leaving the original post intact for sake of historical continuity.\n\n\nThe hair on your head grows out of little bits called \"follicles,\" which are basically special clumps of cells in your skin. All they do is make hair, kind of like that old Play-Dough toy that squeezes out clay noodles.\n\nThere are two kinds of follicles on your head, and one kind is more sensitive than the other to a natural chemical in your body called \"testosterone.\" This is the chemical that, among other things, makes men typically more hairy than women.\n\nWell the extra-sensitive follicles don't like too much testosterone, and after being exposed to it for a while -- the amount and time is different for everyone -- those follicles basically turn off. They stop making hair, and it's like when you have no more clay to squeeze into noodles. When enough of those follicles turn off, you start noticing that your hair isn't growing as much as it used to. You start seeing more hairless skin and that's when you're going bald.\n\nThis happens in women too, it's just less common because women typically have less testosterone than men so it doesn't come up as often for them.\n\nAlso, everyone has different amounts of the testosterone-sensitive follicles. Some people have hardly any and they keep most of their hair for their whole lives. Some people have lots and they go completely bald. Some people have the sensitive ones in only certain places, which are usually the tops of their heads.\n\nThe medicine in Rogaine, called Minoxidil, works by making sure not as much testosterone makes its way to the follicles and it lets them turn back on again. That's when they start making hair like before. If you use it long enough, you'll get back more and more of the hair that you had lost and you become less bald.\n\nThere are a few problems with Minoxidil, though. For one, if you stop using it, the testosterone will start affecting your follicles again and eventually the hair you regrew will start falling out like before. Sometimes the follicles that weren't the sensitive type before can get turned into the sensitive types from exposure to the Minoxidil, which means you could lose even more hair than before. Lastly, there are other side-effects of making your testosterone less effective, and that can make you have trouble making babies as well as other things.\n\nSo it does work, but it works better for some people than others, and sometimes the downsides end up being more trouble than the upside.\n\n[Source: I am not a doctor, I'm just a guy with thinning hair who read a bunch of stuff a few years back before trying it. I stopped using it because it gave me headaches and might have actually sped up my hairloss.]",
"I won't speak to the science behind Rogaine. But I would like to just talk about my own baldness and my use of products like Rogaine. \n\n\n\nWhen I was growing up in high school I started to lose my hair, not completely, but it was thinning out quite a bit and I started to get a receding hair line. Of course I was teased and bullied for most of high school because of this and I threw myself into reading and studying. I didn't have many friends either because I developed many antisocial behaviors as a result of being on my own. Who am I kidding, I had no friends. My mom would make my lunch and I would throw it out, and go sit in the library. Anyways, during this time I became obsessed with my hair, it was the reason why I had no friends, it was the reason why I was so weak, it was the reason why people spit on me. I had to find a cure, I tried many things including Rogaine, and nothing worked for me.\n\n\nWhenever I would try a new product, I would think \"yah, it's working!! it's finally working!\" I would get my hopes up for about a week or maybe even a month. My mood would improve, I would start going outside and even to the corner store to buy a drink. I should add, I became a person that could not even go outside, going to the store to buy some chips became a major psychological challenge, I had to plan everything out before hand. I had to anticipate what the clerk would say, and what my responses would be. Anyway none of the products worked, my hair got so bad that I began to cut it on my own early on, I didn't want the shame of a barber working on it. \n\n\nEventually I started to wear fedoras, my weight problems got worst. I had to start going to the doctor for heart palpitations, he put me on medication. After high school I basically gave up on life and decided I would live in my parents basement, fixing computers and playing WoW.\n\n\nI'm 28 years old now, I still live at home, I still play WoW. I cry myself to sleep at least twice a week. I used to cry everyday. I wish I could tell you that Rogaine works, but it didn't for me. \n\n\n\n\nLooking back if I had one piece of advice, forget about your hair. Cut it very short or shave it off, then start exercising and meet new people. Start working on your body, that is something you can change, and something you can actually improve on. When you exercise I suggest you also socialize with others. I wish I had done that 10 years ago, but I chose the other path. It was a mistake I am trying to correct, but it's hard when you weigh close to 300lbs and you have a ton of anti social behaviors. \n\n\n\nI don't want anyone's pitty, I just want a younger version of me to read this and hopefully see what's down the path of Rogaine and all that other bullshit.",
"Will Rogaine work for growing a beard? lol",
"I used Rogain before and it worked. I had a bad case of allopecia. I lost a large chunk of my hair at the vertex of my skull. It looked someone shaved off part of my head. I proudly supported the worst combover ever. So I started using a generic Rogain, its the same medicine and cheaper. It took a few months, but hair follicles started sprouting like a grade school science experiment. \n\n\nTips and pointers \n1) there is other chemicals in the solution that will dry up and flake off. not a good thing in the middle of the day or on a date.\n2) the dyes will stain you pillow case. I know that sounds like a punch line for a bunch of bad eel jokes. but make sure you use a throw away pillow case\n3) give it time. \n4) if your going to be bald... shave your head. shaved heads are a choice. baldness is not. shaved heads look better to me. do not support comb overs for long term baldness. if you know there is a treatable cause (dumbass friends, allopecia, angry ex-girlfriend) then wait for the hair to grow back. \n\n\nEnjoy. \n\n ",
"I'm not bald, but my hair is definitely thinning, so I started using Rogaine foam in June. I can say me and the wife are seeing less scalp. It probably helps that I'm still pretty young (26) and have a lot of hair.",
"No one really knows. But, it increases bloodflow to the area, which could help with the growth.\n\nI've been on Rogaine and Propecia for about 7 years, and those drugs in combo work for hairloss.\n\n[7 years ago](_URL_2_)\n\n[4 years after starting](_URL_1_)\n\n[2 year frontal difference](_URL_0_)",
"has anyone tried using this product to promote facial hair growth?",
"How about Alpecin Caffeine Shampoo, does it stimulate hair growth?",
"Been using it for about 4 years now in combination with Propecia, I'll share my (positive) experiences since all I tend to see on the Internet is \"STAY AWAY FROM THAT STUFF MY NEPHEW TOOK IT AND IT RUINED HIS LIFE.\"\n\nIt is not exactly clear how Minoxidil (Rogaine) helps hair growth. The best explanations are increasing blood flow and nutrients to the scalp, protecting follicles, etc. Whatever the case, the bottom line is that studies have shown that it reduces or stops hair loss in most men, and actually regrows some as well. There are little to no prevalent side effects other than occasional dry/itchy scalp. But of course, you have to keep using it or the follicles will start to die again, since they are no longer getting the benefit/protection/whatever that the drug provides.\n\nPropecia, on the other hand, treats one of the sources of the problem, DHT (Di-hydrotestosterone). DHT is converted from testosterone, the male hormone. For the most part, DHT has very little positive benefits and more negative ones, including decaying genetically sensitive hair follicles and sometimes contributing to prostate cancer, among others. Contrary to popular belief on the Internet, Propecia does NOT affect testosterone, only DHT. It stops the conversion of testosterone into DHT, thereby cutting off the enzyme that contributes to hair loss. Again, the effects only continue while you take the pills, so stopping it will slowly allow DHT to seep back into the scalp, and start destroying hair again.\n\nNow, lots of people will tell you that stopping the production of DHT will have negative sexual side effects (erectile dysfunction, decreased sexual desire, etc). While this may be somewhat true, they are greatly exaggerated, and personally I have not had any side effects over the 4 years I have been using it. If you actually look up the blind studies on the FDA website, you will see that the group given the drug had about 1-2% of the patients report some degree of these side effects. The funny thing is though, if you look at the placebo group (the ones given a SUGAR PILL), they also reported some sexual side effects to the order of about 0.5-1.5%. Some (read: a few of the millions of people who take it) have reported lasting sexual effects, but these have not been scrutinized to any degree by science. Personally it seems strange to me that after discontinuing the drug, even though it has clearly stopped providing the beneficial effects to your head, it would continue to hamper your sex drive. But whatever, I suppose the small chance is still there. But so is getting in a car accident going on a road trip.\n\nThe bottom line, in my view, is that you just have to make a decision. I am happy with mine. I know that I would be more or less completely bald right now if I didn't do anything about it - I was loosing it fast. Now you wouldn't even know unless you looked very closely at my scalp. If you are committed, these drugs will stop the loss and probably even grow some back. And they work better the earlier the hair is preserved as well. But you have to be in it for the long haul or don't even bother. It buys you time; who knows if a more permanent cure will come or not. But in the meantime you still have hair. There is nothing wrong with being bald, but there is nothing wrong with using some modern medicine to avoid it if you would like.\n\nedit: typos and stuff",
"Personal experience: It works ok, but you have to use it EVERY DAY and dont miss a dose. You could use it for years and all your gains will be lost if you stop using it for 2 weeks. ",
"I, also, am going bald.",
" wait some famous people are bald. Patrick Stewart. Does the British accent cancel the bald? ",
"Coming from a dude that starting losing his hair around 18 years old, just shave it. You will drive yourself crazy trying to salvage what is left of your hair. I did for a long time and I even went to a hair regrowth center to see what they had to say andddd that should make any balding man say fuck it. It no joke can cost up to 10,000 dollars for transplants and on top of that you have to use special shampoos, go in and sit under weirdo head lamps and other shit. I know rogaine isn't as intense and this, but also remember that if you ever stop using rogaine at any point YOUR HAIR WILL START TO FALL OUT AGAIN! So just shave your head and go on living your life. It really isn't worth the money or time to stress about it. \n\nAlso, the best thing I ever did hands down to boost my self esteem about going bald was start watching Curb Your Enthusiasm and Seinfeld more. Larry David is a saviour for bald men and more balding men should think like him cause ya know us bald brothers gotta stick together.",
"Doesnt work..tried for 1.5 years. ",
"and why the hell is it called \"regaine\" in germany?",
"Side effect of rogaine....hair loss. ",
"Uhhh, it has minoxidil, what hairs crave.",
"Here's a strange (but kind of related) question: If I were to apply Rogaine on my face, would it make my beard come in more full?",
"Embrace the bald, I started losing my hair in high school, by 23 I had a major bald spot. At 28 I shaved my head... correction, my wife shaved my head. I never went back. I love being bald, my wife loves my bald head, and frankly other women seem to as well. Pleasant side effect: everyone applies a tougher stereotype to you as well. I am now referred to as that \"Big Bald Guy\" often and I am 5'9\". I shave twice a week and I can shave my head faster than my face. Love it!",
"My bro uses propecia and it works.",
"Also - buy generic on this too. Rogain is about 2x more expensive than the just minoxidil solution. \n",
"In my experience, Yes, for sure.\n\nI have baldness in my family, both grandparents, uncles dad etc...so I started on Rogaine when i still had a full head of hair.\n\nI used it once a day until I was about 27 when I got married and started to notice some thinning.\n\nI doubled down and now at 32 still have a pretty full head of hair. Slight recession on my hair line but no bald spots at all.\n\nMy older brother is fully bald, bic bald and all of my cousins are starting to go.\n\nStart early and it will really help.\n\nI hear when you stop using it you will lose all of the hair you would have had you never started, so there's that.\n\n",
"Forget Rogaine, bimatoprost seems to be the future baldness cure. Looks promising at least. ",
"I took Minoxidil for bloodpressure while I was on kidney dialysis.\n\nI took it as a pill, once a day. It was very effective at lowering my bloodpressure without some of the annoying side effects of other drugs. \n\nI was 25-27 when I took it. I had no sign of receding hairline and in fact my 90 year old grandfather and my 65 year old father had full, thick heads of hair.\n\nI was particularly hairy on my body. In fact, even today at 40, I have very little chest hair.\n\nWhile I was on Monoxidil, I turned into a Gorilla.\n\nI got hair on my arms from the shoulder to the tips of my fingers. And fairly thick and bushy - like unkempt pubes.\n\nBy pubes (if not trimmed) would grow up to my belly button and down my legs almost to my knees. I had hair all over my toes. My feet looks like a Hobit costume.\n\nMy eyebrows grew completely together and actually grew the other direction down next to my eyes and kinda met up with my beard on my cheeks.\n\nI wish I had pics of myself from this time, but it was 15 years ago and I've gone through several computers since then, and all I had back then was a really crappy sub-megapixel digital cam anyway.\n\nOne month after being taken off of it, I was 99% back to normal, except that I have a few thick single hairs here and there on my body in weird places... but that might just be my age...",
"i have the opposite problem, my hair is fucking ultra-thick and only getting thicker. I recently developed a tuff on the back that makes it so i have to buzz cut everytime. I have to cut my hair like once every 2 weeks down to a quarter inch. I wish I could donate my hair somehow to help all those less fortunate but my hair is so thick its like dog hair and is basically water proof (water rolls right off it, and it takes like 20 minutes to actually wash it correctly). Wish I could grow it long but it just fros out. Maybe I should find the gene in me that does this so we can fix the hair problem one in for all.",
"Hey, dude. So I don’t know if it works but I would recommend getting a transplant. I got one at 27. Best decision I ever made, I know they seem expensive but when you work it out it isn’t really. Rogaine in the UK costs £150 for 6 months supply. 10 years then would cost £3000. A transplant lasts (if taken care of) much more than 10 years, so I am told. I was saving up to buy a car, and decided to spend it on my head instead. In 5 years a £7,000 car is worth shit all but I will still have my £7,000 hair transplant.\n\nI’d rather have hair and drive shit car, than have a sweet car and be bald!",
"I cant shave it i have an awful egg head and depression and anxiety and no money bc of the 2nd two things. What's my point? Idk help or feel bad or me please",
"This may be a stupid question but is Rogain meant to only fix balding that occurs at the back of the head and not balding due to a receding hair line? Are there different biological causes for balding in the back of the head as opposed to a receding hairline?",
"I never used it but I do have a very underappreciated piece of advice for bald guys. If you are balding and decide to shave your head, make sure to use a lotion with at least some SPF. SPF 20 is good enough if you're simply in the sun on your way to and from work and other places. Otherwise, you'll QUICKLY get those little brown spots (sunspots/freckles). I'm 26 and already have some. Bald heads also look better with a little tan, which sucks since the sun can cause freckles. If you want the tan without the sun, just use Jergens Natural Glow. Look up the reviews on Amazon. It's pretty good. I had to find these things out the hard way so hopefully I can help somebody else. These things are never talked about can be super helpful.",
"**STOP** using that stuff! Most people know that it 'works', *but* once you begin using Rogaine you *have*to keep using it. Once you stop, the re-grown hair *will* fall back out *including* hairs that *never* would have fallen out to begin with *and therefore* you are *more* bald than when you began using Rogaine. So, you become dependent on it and the vicious *and* very expensive cycle repeats. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Mi5Yf4lh.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/BvzclD1.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/6uLYZPK.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8zs36b | can you explain me why or why not we should refrain from killing spiders in one's house? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8zs36b/eli5_can_you_explain_me_why_or_why_not_we_should/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2l20by",
"e2l2t0d"
],
"score": [
13,
9
],
"text": [
"More spiders, less other bugs? At least, that’s what I tell myself when I’m too wimpy to squish the 8 legged demon spawns.",
"Spiders are our bros! They eat ants, flies, and other bugs! They also usually keep to themselves. \n\nMy spider bros and I have an unspoken agreement that they can live wherever and eat all the bugs they want as long as they stay out of my bedroom. Unless they're really big. (Quarter sized or bigger) Then they scare me and I have to squish them if I see them for my peace of mind. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1p5es1 | how this scientists draw the conclusion that the universe will one day 'collapse on itself', why can't it grow forever? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p5es1/eli5_how_this_scientists_draw_the_conclusion_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccyx1f5",
"ccyyyh2"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"That's no longer scientific consensus. Originally, we thought the big bang flung everything apart, but eventually the energy would be dissipated and gravity would slowly pull everything back together.\n\nWe've since discovered that the universe is expanding even faster than it was before. We don't know why, but we call the effect responsible dark energy.\n\nSome scientists think rather than collapsing, this dark energy will tear the universe apart.",
"The Big Crunch is not what all scientists have agreed on, in fact there are several theories about the end of the universe.\n\n**The Big Freeze:**\n\nThe universe expands indefinitely, eventually all gasses from every star are exhausted and extinguish. All life then dies from extreme cold during eternal night.\n\n**Heat Death:**\n\nThe universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium and the transfer of heat can no longer be used as a source of energy. This could not happen if any life or reactive elements still existed in the universe because chemical reactions give off temperature changes in a form of energy loss. Basically, the universe would have already been \"dead\" long before full Heat Death occurs. \n\n**The Big Rip:**\n\nSomething about phantom dark matter. It can accelerate indefinitely or something. After a certain amount of time, all elements are ripped apart into the most basic particles.\n\n**The Big Crunch:**\n\nAssuming that the universe is dense enough for gravity to stop expansion, the universe would start receding and eventually all matter would collapse into a single point with infinite mass (which by every law of physics makes no sense).\n\n**The Big Bounce:** Basically after the Big Crunch, some theorists believe that another Big Bang would happen and the universe would just start over.\n\n**Multiverse Theory:**\n\nThis universe is just one of infinite universes side-by-side, who cares what happens to us?\n\nFor interested parties, all theories can be found at the link below with a short explanation not unlike what I've given.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe"
]
] |
||
6m4vz2 | how did people not question all of the words shakespeare came up with? | How did so many of Shakespeare's words catch on? Now adays if someone made up a bunch of words we would say "wait what?! Those aren't words!" So how did Shakespearean words like "blushing, impede, mimic, torture, etc." take root and become normal in English language? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6m4vz2/eli5_how_did_people_not_question_all_of_the_words/ | {
"a_id": [
"djywtkf",
"djyygx7",
"djyygy6"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"It is unlikely that Shakespeare made up words out of nowhere. He recorded words known at the time, invented basic words by combining others in ways that would be easily understood. What he did invent was *phrases*, and those could be understood in context because they were metaphors or were parts of the play ",
"People are still making up a bunch of words today too, and we don't go 'that isn't a word!!' because those words are related to already known words or easily understood from the context. The words selfie or upvote or reblog also didn't used to exist, but they easily caught on because it is clear what they mean.\n\nThe words Shakespeare came up with are most contractions of already known words or words where it is very easy to guess from the context of the scene what is meant, or things like turning a noun into an adjective. That sort of playing with language is really easy for people to accept. ",
"Surely you're joking.\n\nNSFW, ROFLOL, airball, up-fake, five-hole, malware, botnet, bingewatch, truther, alt-right, Obamacare, Trumpcare, .....\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4aolk0 | what do antidepressants do for people who are not depressed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aolk0/eli5_what_do_antidepressants_do_for_people_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"d125600",
"d125e2a",
"d126t7k",
"d129djf",
"d129tzo",
"d129vwf",
"d129z2a",
"d12a2z4",
"d12a7g2",
"d12b2y5",
"d12bpt8",
"d12c5c0",
"d12cbmu",
"d12d47o",
"d12d81h",
"d12efwv",
"d12ej6k",
"d12euuc",
"d12ewvb",
"d12exux",
"d12f767",
"d12ftf3",
"d12gfuk",
"d12ggvi",
"d12h7pp",
"d12iz3l"
],
"score": [
884,
363,
11,
2,
9,
6,
5,
3,
2,
7,
2,
2,
46,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not much. An anti-depressant is more of a brain chemical regulator, putting things in proper order. Taking one doesn't make you happy, it just makes you capable of experiencing a normal range of emotions. Most studies on this indicate that mainly you'd get the various side effects of the medication, and some medicines may influence social anxiety either positively or negatively.",
"I think this is the wrong sub for this question, but the answer is: it would depend on the anti-depressant. They have different mechanisms of action, so the effects are little bit different. However, a healthy person would still have all of the side effects that depressed people get from their medication (again, that varies with the drug).\n\nFor SSRIs, I would predict that some people might find them calming, some people would have difficulty in achieving orgasm, and some people might find a decrease in appetite. They're considered to be pretty \"abuse-safe\" drugs because they don't actually cause feelings of pleasure...although I'm sure some people have abused them because some quirk of their individual brain chemistry found that they help them feel good in some way.\n\nBut as for other classes of drugs? Not sure, and it depends on the mechanism.",
"For me personally when I first took them in my early twenties because I was strung out and wanted to hide my drug use so I said I was depressed. The first dose I took gave me a kick that was like really weak mdma. So I would save the until Friday and take 7 at once. 6 swallowed, 1 snorted. That went on for about 2 months but I stopped because I no longer liked the mix of that and my other drugs.\n\nI got clean at the age of 28 and 4 years later after running on a clean system I couldn't deny my depression. Emotional I felt pretty good but suicidal thoughts were coming and going with unpredictable frequency. I never had the feeling of \"I want to die.\" More like \"what the fuck is this.\" Moving my body was incredibly hard. Getting out of bed was next to impossible. When I was talking to someone, I had a lot to say with personality, but only got out one word answers. \n\nTalked to my doctor and took my medicine responsibly, all better. It's still there, but I can manage it ",
"Well, for me, they reduce the pain i feel from the two herniated discs i have pressing on my sciatic nerve. Gabapebtin, it turns out, is dual purpose.",
"There are different types of antidepressants. The ones you're talking about are probably SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The antidepressant action that they have takes a few weeks to kick in because your body has to get used to the higher amount of serotonin in the synapse due to less reuptake into the axon terminal, causing downregulation of the serotonin receptors. It's actually likely that SSRI antidepressant function is more regulated to dopamine release than serotonin, it's just achieved through a complicated path because serotonin modulates dopamine release in parts of the brain. Serotonin has a lot of functions, and SSRIs are prescribed for many purposes other than depression. Particularly noteworthy is the effect it has on obsessive behaviors. When you prescribe an SSRI to someone with OCD, they become less obsessive. This is also one of the reasons it works for anxiety and depression. You have less obsessive symptoms and obsessive thoughts about guilt go down. Serotonin has a LOT of different effects on multiple neurotransmitter systems as does almost any neurotransmitter, and most drugs have very many effects. Don't listen to anyone that says there's not much of an effect.\n\nThere's a really good lecture by Robert Sapolsky about neurotransmission and depression if you want to look at it, it's on youtube.",
"In some circumstances of chronic pain, some antidepressants can be used for neuropathic pain relief. I currently take nortriptyline for fibromyalgia, and it mitigates the large majority of the muscle pains without any noticeable side effects. ",
"They can help treat anxiety. Serotonin is one of those neurotransmitters that can make you pretty anxious (along with things like norepinephrine, et al). Anyway, things like SSRIs and SNRIs (which increase serotonin and/or norepinephrine) are thought to indirectly lower the brain's sensitivity to those neurotransmitters. The exact mechanism isn't very well understood, though. \n\nThey will also give anti-depressants to treat some forms of pain because there is a pretty heavy psychological component to pain perception and pain experience. ",
"I'm taking one, but not for treating depression. The neurologist who prescribed it mentioned that side effects can include depression, withdrawal, weight gain and possibly feeling dull ( where the mind takes longer to process stuff ). I experienced weight gain immediately and some withdrawal symptoms once in a while, but didn't feel depressed so far. I also felt that I'm sometimes slow to react and my mental acuity is lower. My dosage also kept changing due to weight gains and migraines. Overall nothing alarming but am experiencing some side effects for sure. ",
"A mild anti-depressant works very well for me for hot flashes. I have recommended it to friends, who've found it helpful too. Plus I haven't killed or maimed anyone but maybe that's not because of the anti-depressant.",
"Not much. They increase the amount of serotonin available, but there's only so much you can use. If you already have enough, more isn't going to make you any happier, just give you all the side effects with none of the benefits. ",
"I've always wondered this I take an antidepressant that is also an analgesic for my migraines, I'm not depressed so in curious as to how is effects me? ",
"Taking Tylenol/ibuprofen while having muscle pains will help. Taking it while having none of those pains won't do much of anything. I'm guessing it's the same with antidepressants, except they will experience the side effects:\n\n- Delayed orgasm, inability to orgasm for a while\n\n- Sleepyness, tiredness\n\n- Numbness to the world around you\n\n- Change in weight\n\nSome people experience an increase in appetite. However, during the first few days of taking SSRIs, for me, I experienced weight loss. Why? Because I felt NO sense of hunger nor thirst. Dead serious. I literally had to make myself eat and drink, otherwise I would simply feel no need to eat or drink.\n\n- Weird as fuck dreams\n\n/Not a doctor",
"Yes but it has nothing to do with the transfer of momentum. It has to do with the fact that the surface it reflects off of isn't a perfectly reflective surface. The less reflective a surface, the more the energy is lost. If the surface was perfectly reflective, there would be no loss.",
"Was on an SSRI for depression/anxiety, legit have both but have since been switched to a different class of medication that works really well for me.\n\nBoth SSRI/NERI's I was on made me shaky, restless, my mind cluttered. One actually made me pull over my car because my mind feel so \"racing\" and actual blurred vision. Depression isn't 100% understood at this time and can be from differing neurotransmitters problems in the body. \n\nMy current medication helps me feel more in control of my anxiety, and less \"affected\" by my mood. I have always been a fairly laid back person, and recent life events were the beginning of anxiety and depression that made me seek help. Though I feel down land have trouble occasionally still, I feel much more adaptable and more like my old or real self. I'd compare to being crippled by a broken back vs having a chronic back problems you learn to adjust with and live with. ",
"As a pharmacist, I'd just like to assure you that the problem with civilization is not the large number of eccentric or melancholy people who occasionally need medication to feel normal, but the small number of egomaniacal jerks who are \"normal\" and never get medicated.",
" Many antidepressants have side effects like decreased libido, sleeplessness, nausea, diarrhea, etc. but these all vary based on the medication, dosage, and person.\n\nPersonally, I've had \"severe depression\" for years and have tried what seems like every antidepressant available over the past 4 years I've been in college. Turns out I'm bipolar and they've all been making my symptoms worse. So in my case, I'm somebody who's depressed, but since the cause is bipolar and not just depression, antidepressants have done more harm than good.",
"I'm on anti-depressants even though I'm not depressed because I have pain that prevents me from sleeping. The pills have sedation as a side effect so that's the reason they help. ",
"I took prozac because my wife thought I was depressed. I became much less the people person I am. \n\nI also became a work machine, I was numb though, no thoughts about others feelings, just go Go GO!",
"I knew a girl who was prescribes antidepressants to treat post-shingles nerve damage. Poor girl was in considerable pain as a result of her outbreak. ",
"I use antidepressants to control cataplexy, not depression. Without it life is hell. I'm sure other medical conditions use them for similar neurological disorders.",
"It really depends on the type. There are several main classes: \n\n1) SSRI/SSNRIs -- the newest, around the 1980s. Possibly the safest but least effective. They work on monoamines like serotonin and/or norepinephrine. They don't make people \"high\" so well people *might* feel calmer but mostly likely will just get side effects. They are most effective in severely ill people.\n\n2) tricyclics -- discovered in the 1950s or so. They act on some of the same chemicals as newer SSNRIs but aren't quite as safe, so you don't see them used as much. Probably wouldn't make you feel high if you're normal -- mostly just side effects for the well. \n\n3) MAOIs -- older, sometimes more effective for depressed patients. They work on all three \"monoamines\": norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine. Dopamine is the main one that might make a \"well\" person feel even better (until they crash). Cocaine, Adderall, narcolepsy drugs, Parkinson's drugs to prevent tremors, etc. can increase dopamine. MAOIs are mainly avoided by docs because many require pretty strict dietary restrictions. They are usually 2nd, 3rd, or 4th line treatments. However, some Parkinsons and other drugs are relatively safe and show some AD benefit (e.g. pramipexole). \n\n4) Other/atypical antidepressants -- basically anything not included in the top three categories. Things like Wellbutrin (it may raise dopamine so \"well\" people may feel some effect). \n\n5) NMDA/AMPA drugs -- ketamine, for instance. One ketamine infusion has a strong but short-lived (a few days/week) ability to take someone who is suicidal and make them feel much better in an hour or two. Too much and you're in a k-hole though. Well people will only get the psychoactive effects -- especially if they do too much. \n\n6) Mood stabilizers -- lithium and lamotrigine, among others. Healthy people won't feel much. \n\n7) Antipsychotics like seroquel (which has some antidepressant properties). If you aren't depressed these will just make you REALLY sleepy and cause weight gain. (They do those things too if you are depressed, but the side effects may be worth the gain for certain patients.)\n\n8) ECT, rTMS, and other neuromodulation therapies -- focused on mood regions you probably won't notice much other than a possible headache if you are well. They are looking into some neuromodulation treatments to improve brain function, but they are targeted at other areas. \n\n9) Benzos -- they are long-term downers and anti-anxiety agents, but they can be really helpful for anxious depression and may be life-saving if someone has slipped into catatonia. Healthy people will just get a little loopy and probably fall asleep on these. \n\n10) Opiates -- traditionally not used as antidepressants, but one is currently in Phase III trials. They increase people's sense of well-being (for healthy people and sick people). The AD being tested is supposedly combined with a molecule that makes it less addictive. Until it hits the market, though, opiates are not and usually have not been considered antidepressants, though some docs who are completely out of options have tried them. They take a special DEA license to use. \n\n*****Short answer*****: the only ADs that will make you \"high\" or make you feel better than well are those that act on dopamine and/or the opiate system (though opiates are not currently considered an antidepressant class of drugs). ",
"When the VA was trying to diagnose me with everything except what I had (two and a half years later, they figured out it was temporal lobe epilepsy caused by a TBI which affected the temporal and frontal lobes), they put me on SSRI's--a decision which turned out to be a huge mistake, because that class of drug sends me straight into orbit and keeps me bouncing off the walls like they are trampolines.\n\nAs someone else noted, you have to be careful with brain chemistry because when it's already a bit sideways because your head isn't quite as hard as everyone told you it was, strange things can happen when drugs that affect the brain are added to the mix. Each individual is different though, and just because SSRIs are a huge no-no for me, doesn't mean that everyone will react to them in the same way that I do.\n\n",
"A couple of years ago I was put on an SSRI by a GP I had just starting using. The guy was script happy and incentivize by the company that made the pills. \n\nA year later later on a shrink said I should have never been prescribed them.\n\nI had hand tremors, shakes and grinding my teeth in the night (something i've never done), my sex drive went to zero, zero ability to have an orgasm and felt dead below the waist for months... almost a year. \n\nI had previously ask what the common side effects were specifically sexual because I had heard horror stories from women. He said in men it makes you last longer and is prescribed off label to men for premature ejaculation (one problem I never had).\n\nThis is only being on them for a few weeks. ",
"I sometimes think I am depressed. I wonder if its real. Its pretty hard for me to be excited about something. I do get excited about a few rare events (like seeing my favorite artist which happens once every 4 years, or things like falling in love with a new girl). But generally I have nothing to complain, but there's no real happiness either. Just neutral.\n\nBut honestly, i think it has more to do with being an introvert than being depressed.",
"Antidepressants don't have to be prescribed just for depression. Antidepressants have effects that can be beneficial to help with other things. Antidepressants can be prescribed for someone to help with anxiety. Antidepressants can also be prescribed for sleep. They can also help with eating disorders and appetite. ",
"My uncle is antivax and anti psych meds, anti bla bla...\n\nThis reminds me of a conversation I had with him:\n\nUncle: \"OMG don't take those, here are 20 pages of cases where depressed people took anti depressants and then killed themselves or others.\n\nMe: : \"Thanks for your concern, but if I don't take these meds I am going to kill myself anyway.\"\n\nHere I am a decade later, not suicidal, living a mediocre boring life, but alive!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c3e8zx | how does an international debit/credit transaction work? | For example, I go to the UK with a US debit card and purchase something. What actually happens from that moment all the way until the transaction completes? Obviously, there are no British Pounds in that US bank account, yet people do it all the time. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c3e8zx/eli5_how_does_an_international_debitcredit/ | {
"a_id": [
"erqfx4e"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There are 5 parties in any card transaction: the purchaser, the issuing bank (the bank who issues the purchasers card), the payment network (Visa, MasterCard, etc.), the merchant's bank, and the merchant.\n\nThe merchant and the purchaser approve the transaction.\n\nThe point-of-sale system, using the payment network, sends a request for money to the issuing bank.\n\nThe issuing bank then sends money to the acquiring bank. The banks take care of any currency conversion and the issuing bank decides on the exchange rate/fees"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
e88f6x | what is a military security clearance in the us, why is it beneficial to potential employees, and how do you get it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e88f6x/eli5_what_is_a_military_security_clearance_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fa9sg4g",
"fa9z7b0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Ok. Security clearance have various levels. It’s basically you being investigated for all aspects to determine who you are, how trustworthy you are and whether there is something you did that’s a warning sign. For instance if you have bad credit and a lot of debt, someone might bribe you with money to get you to steal some information that might seem harmless to you, while those people gather whole bunch of data to gather important intelligence. But that doesn’t mean you can’t get a security clearance if you are in debt. If you show them what you are doing to take care of it and your plan to work on it, then you are fine. If you try to lie about it, then they know you aren’t trustworthy to begin with. Say you have mental illness. They want to see based on your records if you are taking care of it. \n\nSo they check your family members, your health records, your financial background, who lives with you and so on. Depending on the level of clearance you are trying to attain it changes how in-depth the investigation is. \n\nOnce you obtain a clearance you become more marketable to the government contractors, because that means they don’t have to spend the money and the time to investigate you. In order to start the process you have to be an employee of theirs. If the job is clearance required, you can’t access the classified location or the information. That means they have to pay you while you can’t do work. If you can’t do work they can’t bill the government, which means you are hitting their overhead. When it comes to investigation you never know how long it will take. It all depends on the individual and what’s in their background. I was lucky to attain mine within 2 weeks. There are people who go months and months and even lose their job over it. \n\nGovernment works on need to know basis. They will classified everything for different levels of access. So they ask their contractors to bring in say top secret staff. Sometimes in order to bid they have to already have the staff or they have so many days to fill the positions. Finding a qualified candidate for the job that’s also cleared is a difficult task. They still prefer to hire people who is already cleared though instead of finding someone and paying for the investigation. \n\nI highly recommend getting a job that’s looking for clearable people. All that means is you don’t have complicated situations and it won’t take too long to investigate you. In reality nobody really knows though. Once you attain your secret level you are automatically worth more money. Then, you could go for Top Secret. Then, Top Secret with polygraph or with SCI. These aren’t the only ones and there many little types within I think but you could guarantee these are the ones you will see most. \n\nGood luck. Let me know if you have any questions.",
"It is an in-depth background check performed on certain members of the military that need access to Secret or Top Secret material. The process is fairly long and expensive so having a current clearance can save the potential employer money as well as letting them know the employee has already passed one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
112e5v | what does it mean if your sample size is smaller than your margin of error? | I'm specifically referring to something like the recent unemployment report released for September by the B of Labor Stats. Their sample size is 60,000 households per month but I was reading it and noticed their margin of error is 100,000. What gives? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/112e5v/eli5_what_does_it_mean_if_your_sample_size_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6iombw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It doesn't mean anything. They're two different numbers that aren't really related; the sample size is the size of your sample, while the margin of error shows you the range of possible results for the entire population."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4x67a5 | how is it possible for ocean currents to shift or stop entirely? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x67a5/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_ocean_currents_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6d1lv2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"See _URL_1_'s article on [*High-latitude volcanic eruptions affect ocean circulation for decades*](_URL_0_)\n\n > But the volcanic event also brings long-term changes to two ocean circulation fronts: The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), and the El Niño–Southern oscillation (ENSO). In fact, the model demonstrated strong perturbations in these circulations for nearly a half-century following eruption. After a six-month weakening of AMOC, a progressive strengthening occurs, reaching its maximum around five to 10 years after the eruption, declining to a minimum at about 35 to 40 years after the eruption. \n\nIf I remember correctly, the devastating Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815 that caused the winter without a summer in 1816 due to the amount of dust in the atmosphere was also very near the Thermohaline Circulation as it flows between the islands of Indonesia."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://phys.org/news/2015-11-high-latitude-volcanic-eruptions-affect-ocean.html",
"phys.org"
]
] |
||
8av3yp | why was new orleans spared during the civil war? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8av3yp/eli5_why_was_new_orleans_spared_during_the_civil/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx1t7hy",
"dx291nf"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Spared how? The US Navy ran the forts and seized the city. The South never mounted a serious effort to retake it. However, maybe you should look up Benjamin “Beast” Butler.",
"As an European I would love to know and read more about the US civil war. Any suggestions? Some good books, websites,...? Thank you"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
606h4b | doesn't it make more sense to spend than save, considering inflation is degrading the value of my savings year by year? | To a certain extent of course. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/606h4b/eli5_doesnt_it_make_more_sense_to_spend_than_save/ | {
"a_id": [
"df3u846",
"df3udr3",
"df3udrc",
"df3upwl",
"df427u1"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4,
22,
2
],
"text": [
"Sure, if you know for a 100% fact that nothing bad is ever gonna happen ever and you're gonna die right as your last penny runs out or sooner than that.....\n\nBut life is nothing if not uncertain. So while saving does take some minor losses to inflation, the security of not being on a knife's edge financially is worth the cost.",
"If you plan on working till you die, then yes.\n\nIf you ever plan to retire then you need to invest your savings so that they outpace inflation. Most people recommend a balance of stocks and bonds, more stocks when you are young since they are higher risk but higher yield (average 7% yield over 10 years for the last several decades) , then as you get older and closer to retirement, switching over to bonds which are lower risk but also lower yield. ",
"Putting money in a savings account could be worse than spending it. If it doesn't have an interest rate that is bigger than an inflation rate, than you are losing worth over time. This is why people can purchase things like gold or other items our society says \"store worth\" and whose worth will also increase with inflation. (Using this logic to buy stuff like a new TV would not work, because in our society the value of these non-commodities decrease (you can't sell your used car for more than you bought it for if it is easily replaceable. It does not store value )\nThis system is not as good as, but can be easier to understand than, purchasing stocks and having their value increase. Hopefully someone with more knowledge than me can give you a better explanation. \n\n(Just as a disclaimer, I am not an investment banker or anyone like that, so don't start buying gold bricks because of this. This is my general understanding of this topic)",
"This is precisely why the Federal Reserve has targeted inflation in the first place. It punishes people who keep their assets in cash. They want money to keep moving because that's better for the national economy.\n\nHowever, if rather than saving in a bank you invest the money in something like mutual funds it insulates you from inflation concerns. Because your assets aren't in \"dollars\" anymore if the value of the dollar falls your assets aren't affected. ",
"Economies function better when people do spend instead of saving. In fact the more people spend and the more frequently they spend, the better off the economy is in general up to a point. If everybody spent themselves into massive debt, it might temporarily be good for the economy, but later many of those people might go bankrupt or otherwise not be able to make their repayments and so it would hurt the economy in the long run. \n\nSo ideally you want a sustainable amount of spending in an economy and a minimal amount of savings. It is also better for the economy if people re-invest their money instead of saving it as it keeps currency flowing in all directions. \n\nPart of what causes recessions and depressions are a sudden locking up of money where people withdraw it from banks and are afraid to spend it, which has a snow ball effect making it more and more likely that the banks could fail, which further makes people withdraw money and not spend it, which can be catastrophic to an economy. \n\nOnce a depression or recession is hit, it can take decades for people to start spending with confidence again and for a recovery. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2pdbex | when i touch a radio (specifically the antenna), signal comes in clearer | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pdbex/eli5_when_i_touch_a_radio_specifically_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmvl7uo",
"cmvo5hw",
"cmvtnyk",
"cmvx3a1",
"cmw2ew0"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
4,
217,
20
],
"text": [
"Your body is being used as an antenna when you do that. \n\nBigger antenna = better signal. Simple.",
"Followup question:\n\nI've noticed this phenomenon when i'm not even touching the radio, just standing near it. Please explain!",
"Sometimes the only way I can watch TV is by doing this. It makes tuning impossible because it's clear when I'm adjusting but not strong enough when I move away. Sometimes I just lie on the floor with my head propped up and my foot touching the antenna. /sigh",
"Amateur radio operator here... Its actually because you are helping further ground the antenna and thus, allowing it to work more efficiently. \nEffectively grounding an antenna and radio system is a way to help eliminate noise ie. Static etc.\n\nYour body doesn't act as an antenna, as your body isn't an efficient conductive mass. That's why antennas are made of metals and not body parts.\n\nEdit for typo",
"im going to school for stuff like this right now and i can tell you your body is not forming some kind of antenna extension, you are providing a good ground for interference as /u/aboula stated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2uez1p | why are dogs in general more friendly than cats? | Edit: Cats are independent assholes | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uez1p/eli5_why_are_dogs_in_general_more_friendly_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"co7s1pz",
"co7ukm8"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"they're more social animals. cats are solitary in nature.",
"They're pack animals, thus more social by nature."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
y4p98 | why does water increase grip for fingers on pages etc? | Why does water decrease grip for most things like tyres on roads, but wetting fingers allows easier turning of pages/opening plastic bags? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y4p98/eli5_why_does_water_increase_grip_for_fingers_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5sbaww"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Okay, imagine you just spilled some coffee on a book. You know how it sort of spreads out from where it originally hit the page and winds up being like twice the size of the original stain? This is because of how water interacts with paper--it's called \"hydrogen bonding\", but all you need to know about that is that it's way stronger than almost any other kind of surface-surface interaction. Some things hydrogen bond, others don't. Paper does, human skin does a little, and rubber doesn't at all. So, when you lick your finger and then touch the page, the water is bonded to your finger, the page, and itself, which winds up effectively bonding all three together much better than just the finger and page alone. This leads to easier turning of pages. \n\nTires don't hydrogen bond at all; in fact, they actively repel it (think of how \"waterproofed\" things are often covered in rubber). This means that this bond does not exist, and the water actually gets in the way of the bond that normally exists between the tire and the road, leading to decreased grip. Hope that helps!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3e0jxh | why do companies like hbo rescrict their content to usa? as a non usa resident this only motivates me to pirate game of thrones instead of paying for it so why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e0jxh/eli5why_do_companies_like_hbo_rescrict_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctaddx7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because they made a deal with distributors outside the US to give them the rights to distribute that content in their area of operation. If they didn't restrict the content, people in that region could easily go to the source and this would understandably piss off the people they've made deals with. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1m2lsx | how did tony abbott win? | Hey ELI5, I am a bit of novice when following politics from other countries. Can someone simply, but thoroughly explain how Tony Abbott won the Australian election when it seems like so many dislike him? It also seems like he has very strong views on certain controversial subjects; this usually doesn't appear in politics, how did it work in Australia? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m2lsx/how_did_tony_abbott_win/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc560h7",
"cc5660i"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In Australia one man owns 3/4s of all the newspapers and other media outlets. It turns out that that man supports Tony Abbott's party. This means that the average Australian will be constantly inundated with stories about how good Tony Abbott and his party is and how bad all the other parties and party leaders are.\n\nPeople tend to react very strongly, quickly, and emotionally (as opposed to slowly and logically) if they are scared. This can be a good thing in emergency situations, but more often than not it is just a remnant of our ancestors running from lions on the plains and isn't helpful. If all pundits only published fair critiques then Australia, indeed any country, would be good to go, but instead pundits skew their opinions to conform to whomever is employing them (since they want to keep their job).",
"In Australia, you don't vote for a person, you vote for a party. They party vote for their head, who if the party is elected, will be Prime Minister. The title itself is self-explanatory - all Australian politicians are \"ministers\" and the Prime Minster is the, well, \"prime\" one. The number one. The one who is a member of the other party is the opposition leader. \n\nThe Labor party (Kevin Rudd's mob) have been fighting internally for a few years now and the Australian populace cracked the shits and got rid of them. Many don't WANT Tony Abbott as PM, but are jack of Labor fighting within themselves (Rudd V Gillard) rather than running the country. \n\nTony Abbott got in on the basis of, \"Liberals don't fight, I've been here since 2009, I'll stop the boats, axe the (Carbon) tax, and save money. And over half of Australia went, \"alright, you try.\"\n\nAbbott didn't win because he was the better option. He won because Australians are jack of Labor's bullshit, so they picked the other option, which is the Liberals. \n\nNot much will change. But at least we can sleep soundly knowing that we're not going to wake up to another fucking leadership challenge. \n\nBTW, I voted Labor. I hate Tony Abbott. If Malcolm Turnbull had been in, I probably would have done with them. I like Malcolm: fiscally conservative, socially Liberal. Rock on. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
16g336 | the affordable care act enables us to buy insurance "across state lines." why is this valuable and what was stopping us from doing it before? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16g336/the_affordable_care_act_enables_us_to_buy/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7vq6y8",
"c7vq81v",
"c7vq9o0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Insurance is regulated, historically, at the state level based on state level mandates and state level departments of insurance, so what is a compliant plan in one state may or may not be a compliant plan in another state, and the same goes for business practices or other operations of an insurer. \n\nMore importantly, insurance rates and certifications are filed with the state department of insurance, and so although a national insurer may offer the same plans (perhaps even at the same rates) in various states, the plans are regulated and rates are filed at the state level and may only be offered in the state that reviewed the filing.\n\nHowever, I'm not really sure that the ACA totally revamps this procedure for all policies. Plans will still be compliant by state. EHBs will be mandated across state lines by the law, but states may add to those EHBs based on what the state feels is appropriate. Therefore, what is compliant in one state may or may not still be compliant in another. Furthermore, health plans will still file rates with the state, and if they have an HHS certified rate review program rates will never be filed at the federal level. \n\nThe one thing that is different is that the federal government will \"sponsor\" two plans that are at the nationwide level. The issue that has arisen is that those plans will have to be compliant with the most stringent requirements in any state in order to be offered in ever state. So, for example, California was considering mandating acupuncture as an \"essential health benefit\" and therefore, the government sponsored plan would have to cover that. The issue, of course, becomes that in order to price that policy, it may make those plans unaffordable (relative to other plans) in states that have less stringent requirements as the benefits would be much richer than those offered in that state.",
"Are you sure the PPAAC does this?",
" > The Affordable Care Act enables us to buy insurance \"across state lines.\" \n\nThat's a vast simplification of Obamacare, but:\n\n > Why is this valuable\n\nMore people competing for your business tends to yield better results for customers. Why pay $100 a month for company A if company B charges $95?\n\n > what was stopping us from doing it before?\n\nThe government."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5hq653 | why is it that one persons brain will be really good at understanding knowledge in one subject that someone else really struggles with but is able to understand other subjects really well? | To clarify further..
I'm doing a CS degree, I'm able to pick up the knowledge of the subject really well, but I seriously suck at geography, so what's going in my brain to allow me to understand CS really well but not geography, and that allows the other person to understand geography really well, but not CS (not specifically these subjects, this is just an example to illustrate the point). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hq653/eli5_why_is_it_that_one_persons_brain_will_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"db21ysz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you are doing a CS degree you might have heard of Neural Networks in Computational Intelligence. Our brain works kind of like a neural network (or rather: neural networks try to mimic how a brain learns). Depending on the design of the neural network, it will be better at learning some functions than other functions. Our brains are similar: depending on how your neurons are wired some patterns might be easier for you to train/learn than other patterns.\n\nThat said, a lot of the times people say they can't learn a certain subject it is actually just that they aren't interested in it... and when you are not interested it is just so much harder to pay attention."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
j3cou | can someone explain the difference between roman and greek mythology li5? | I understand that Romans have different names for what appear to be roughly the same set of gods that the Greeks have. Why is that? Why couldn't they just use the same names? Better yet, why not invent their own system? Are there any other differences other than names? Are their myths any different? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3cou/can_someone_explain_the_difference_between_roman/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28se41",
"c28sgyi",
"c28t2oo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Ancient Greeks liked to [compare foreign beliefs with their own](_URL_0_) (sorry, the link isn't LI5). Romans did too. So when they heard about each others' ideas, they just mixed them together, probably keeping the names they had already known but throwing in personality traits of the other set. So some myths are different, but other stories got mixed up between the Greeks and Romans.",
"The Greek Mythology is much older than the roman. The Roman Mythology got many of its influences from Greek mythology, and Greek from Minoan (Island of Crete). \n\n\nThe Roman gods were often moral, and worship was about family, ancestors and saftey. Greek gods, on the other hand were often less moral (Zeus out for girls all the time for example), and in my opinion more like real human. \n\nThe similarities you mention are just adaptations over large time periods, similar to things we see today. Christians worship differently now than in 600 AD for example. Although many similarities exist, there are adaptations to fit the different Roman lifestyle.\n\nSay if you want more detail",
"From what I remember, I believe that the *reason* why the Romans incorporated the Greek religion is that Romans highly respected the Greek culture and wanted to be as good. \n\nHowever, the Romans were also once the Etruscans, and their specific gods and goddesses had their own set of names, so they sort of just applied those names to Greek deities and combined some of their value systems with it, such as those of morality (which is stated by Whammer).\n\nSome of their myths are different, such as the myth of [Psyche and Cupid](_URL_0_), both of which are Roman and not Greek names. (Cupid = Eros) This is sort of a creation myth as to why the soul and love are so connected.\n\nThe ones about Romulus and Remus, you can probably assume, are also different, considering that they are creation myths about the foundation of Rome, and are definitely not from the Greeks, who probably would have liked to stay not Roman."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_graeca"
],
[],
[
"http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/cupid.html"
]
] |
|
jmhos | why are americans so ant-tax and anti- government | I live in Canada, which is to the north of the US and for the most part we have slightly higher tax rates, but for the most part we get more for our taxes, IMHO. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jmhos/eli5_why_are_americans_so_anttax_and_anti/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2dbmk9",
"c2dbs5e",
"c2dd3xy",
"c2ddwpt",
"c2dbmk9",
"c2dbs5e",
"c2dd3xy",
"c2ddwpt"
],
"score": [
20,
6,
2,
2,
20,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because among the very first subjects cut (30 years ago) from public school curricula were civics and critical thinking skills, leaving students inundated with cultural norms derived from profit-driven, entertainment-centered media -- and this all happened during a series of economic bubbles that inflated personal expectations of material reward far beyond reality. During that same period, unions were under direct attack from the corporate-funded political right. Many Americans under 40 seem to have almost no concept of common good, let alone how their own government is supposed to work. And all Americans, old and young, have been bombarded with corporate-sponsored anti-tax, anti-federal scapegoating that only seems to be spontaneous grassroots sentiment -- it's all Astroturf, but few have been able to see that until now.\n\nThe internet, esp. conversational media, are making some headway in fixing this, but changing the paradigm will be a long, hard slog.\n\nThis isn't exactly LI5, but it's a huge question.",
"Because they have slowly been conditioned over the past two hundred years to believe that whatever benefits corporations and the extremely rich will benefit themselves as well. This conditioning has been paid for by corporations and the extremely rich.",
"I think part of it is a regional issue, part of it is a historical issue, and part of it is a ideological issue. \n\nWhen you look at the US today, the region with the strongest anti-tax, anti-government is generally considered the Deep South, whereas regions like the Northeast and Pacific Coast and generally fairly tolerant of both. I've read that one reason this delineation exists goes back to the Civil War. After the Civil War ended, the USA was faced with tremendous debts from having waged it. What the USA did in order to pay for it (as is a common practice) is they made the losers of the war pay for it. This amounted to taxing the South into the ground.\n\nIf you view from a certain perspective, the mindset makes a certain amount of sense. The USA government viewed an accepted practice of the South (slavery) as unacceptable and demanded they stop. When the South declined to do so, and chose to break away from the USA instead, the USA went to war with the South and kicked its collective ass. Then, after the USA defeated the South, the South was forced to pay for the ass-whooping it had received. Not hard to see why people could be bitter about that.\n\nAs to why that mindset has lasted in that region to this day, I don't have a spectacular answer short of parents bringing up their kids in that mindset. I view it as something akin to choosing a sports team. If you're a boy and your dad is a Red Sox fan, odds are you're going to root for the Red Sox, and similarly with the Yankees. And if you're brought up with your parents pointing out every injustice the government acts against you, odds are good you're going to start noticing them as well.",
"Your response partly answers your question: \n\n > we get more for our taxes\n\nA large amount of people do not see their tax dollars being used very well and therefore would rather hold it themselves than see it \"wasted\" on issues they do not feel is important. On a related note, they don't want to see the money they have earned taken away and given to someone who doesn't work. This is a fairly common complaint whenever entitlement programs are discussed.\n\nThis all boils down to lack of trust in the government, the people feel like they can spend their money more appropriately than the feds.",
"Because among the very first subjects cut (30 years ago) from public school curricula were civics and critical thinking skills, leaving students inundated with cultural norms derived from profit-driven, entertainment-centered media -- and this all happened during a series of economic bubbles that inflated personal expectations of material reward far beyond reality. During that same period, unions were under direct attack from the corporate-funded political right. Many Americans under 40 seem to have almost no concept of common good, let alone how their own government is supposed to work. And all Americans, old and young, have been bombarded with corporate-sponsored anti-tax, anti-federal scapegoating that only seems to be spontaneous grassroots sentiment -- it's all Astroturf, but few have been able to see that until now.\n\nThe internet, esp. conversational media, are making some headway in fixing this, but changing the paradigm will be a long, hard slog.\n\nThis isn't exactly LI5, but it's a huge question.",
"Because they have slowly been conditioned over the past two hundred years to believe that whatever benefits corporations and the extremely rich will benefit themselves as well. This conditioning has been paid for by corporations and the extremely rich.",
"I think part of it is a regional issue, part of it is a historical issue, and part of it is a ideological issue. \n\nWhen you look at the US today, the region with the strongest anti-tax, anti-government is generally considered the Deep South, whereas regions like the Northeast and Pacific Coast and generally fairly tolerant of both. I've read that one reason this delineation exists goes back to the Civil War. After the Civil War ended, the USA was faced with tremendous debts from having waged it. What the USA did in order to pay for it (as is a common practice) is they made the losers of the war pay for it. This amounted to taxing the South into the ground.\n\nIf you view from a certain perspective, the mindset makes a certain amount of sense. The USA government viewed an accepted practice of the South (slavery) as unacceptable and demanded they stop. When the South declined to do so, and chose to break away from the USA instead, the USA went to war with the South and kicked its collective ass. Then, after the USA defeated the South, the South was forced to pay for the ass-whooping it had received. Not hard to see why people could be bitter about that.\n\nAs to why that mindset has lasted in that region to this day, I don't have a spectacular answer short of parents bringing up their kids in that mindset. I view it as something akin to choosing a sports team. If you're a boy and your dad is a Red Sox fan, odds are you're going to root for the Red Sox, and similarly with the Yankees. And if you're brought up with your parents pointing out every injustice the government acts against you, odds are good you're going to start noticing them as well.",
"Your response partly answers your question: \n\n > we get more for our taxes\n\nA large amount of people do not see their tax dollars being used very well and therefore would rather hold it themselves than see it \"wasted\" on issues they do not feel is important. On a related note, they don't want to see the money they have earned taken away and given to someone who doesn't work. This is a fairly common complaint whenever entitlement programs are discussed.\n\nThis all boils down to lack of trust in the government, the people feel like they can spend their money more appropriately than the feds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1slxlr | why hasn't there been a concerted effort to create cities or large communities underwater? | Everyone seems to have a [huge science boner](_URL_0_) (SFW) for expanding civilization into space whenever there's talk of global populations becoming too large. It seems like a no-brainer to set up cities or large colonies (as opposed to scientific outposts) underwater, and certainly something that is well within any technical limitations over the next few decades. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1slxlr/eli5_why_hasnt_there_been_a_concerted_effort_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdyvd6h",
"cdyvf0y",
"cdyzxds"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's very expensive, and not very safe. ",
"Pressure at the bottom of the ocean is too high.",
"Because everyone's played Bioshock."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/yvQ3nmc.gif"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
92rwk1 | why do commercial radio stations only go from 80.x to 107.x fm and 530 to 1600 am? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92rwk1/eli5_why_do_commercial_radio_stations_only_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"e37xj2e",
"e37xjyb",
"e37xvm4"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Those are the frequencies the government has designated open for public radio transmission and issue the radio station licenses.\n\nThey reserve other frequencies for air traffic control. CB radio. Ham radio. And other purposes (including banning the one elemental hydrogen transmits on because it is a frequency they think aliens would use as a hello universe beacon.) ",
"Fcc controls bandwidth in America and that's the band that they've set for commercial radio. ",
"What mmm3says said. There's so much competition for radio frequencies. There's mobile phones and TV too. The military get loads of radio frequencies assigned to them, oh the fast mobile data we could have if they didn't hog the airwaves.\n\nOn a separate note, higher and lower frequencies are no good at penetrating walls or carrying over long distances which is of course essential for a decent radio service. Even if you put a radio station on them you'd have to be standing right next to the radio tower!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ekgsy | why is it not faster for airplanes to fly lower to the ground if the distance traveled would be shorter | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ekgsy/eli5_why_is_it_not_faster_for_airplanes_to_fly/ | {
"a_id": [
"diazinq",
"dib0eu9",
"dib1bxn"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the air is much thinner at altitude. Closer to the ground the air is as thick as pea soup for an airplane. It would be like you trying to crawl through a kiddie pool of honey.\n\nHigh in the sky costs MUCH less fuel and is MUCH faster because there is very little drag 35,000 feet up. Drag is the #1 enemy of a jetliner. Plus you get the added bonus of avoiding storms and any other weather along the trip. And mountains. Mountains are the #2 enemy of a jetliner. :)",
"For a plane to fly steady and level you want lift on the wings to equal the plane\"s weight and thrust from the engine to equal drag.\n\nBoth lift and drag are proportional to air density and to speed squared. This means that if you double the speed and quarter the air density then you don't increase drag or decrease lift. \n\nIf you double your speed then you halve the time that you need to run your engines. That would all be for naught if you had to run the engines twice as hard, but you don't. \n\nThe approximation of drag being proportional to speed squared is only good when well under the speed of sound. As you approach Mach 1 the drag goes up rapidly.\n\nCommercial jets cruise at about 85% the speed of sound. They try to fly at the speed that's most fuel efficient and they fly at the altitude that allows that speed.\n\nFlying lower would require them to go slower and would therefore require them to run their engines longer. Their path would only be a couple miles shorter on a trip hundreds of miles long. ",
"The extra distance from flying higher is negligable. On a new york to london flight flying at ground level vs flying at 10km up would save you less than 9 km flight distance which is how far you fly in 36 seconds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
862i0r | why are cells living? i know they’re the building blocks of life but what defines living? are plants a different type of “alive” because they have a different cell structure? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/862i0r/eli5_why_are_cells_living_i_know_theyre_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dw1u2bk",
"dw1u3jz",
"dw1urfq",
"dw1vbes"
],
"score": [
6,
32,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Living is a somewhat nebulous term, but mostly comes down to a range of ongoing physical processes. It's important to note that there's not necessarily one definition, and all of the components of a definition aren't necessarily agreed upon. These components tend to include things such as stimulus response, adaptation to the environment, maintaining an internal environment, reproduction, and the like. As an example of the 'fuzzy'-ness, there is disagreement whether viruses constitute life or not, more often being considered something akin to a biological machine rather than life in its own right. \n\n > Are plants a different type of “alive” because they have a different cell structure?\n\nThere are a number of different ways of categorizing life. The distinction between plants and other forms of life is one that is frequently made. I'm not sure specifically what you mean by a \"different kind of alive\" however, as that's a bit vague. \n\nI would stress to say something being \"Alive\" isn't really an intrinsic property of a bit of material. Carbon in a lifeform isn't distinct from carbon in a rock. Rather, life is a description of processes involving the whole of a given system. ",
"The current definition of life simply states that for an organism to be considered living, it has to maintain **homeostasis**, which is the technical way to say \"it has to maintain itself through its metabolism\".\n\nA cell maintains itself by breaking down resources to extract the energy and elements it contains, making up complex structures to achieve survival and reproduction. From bacteria, to protozoa, to algae, to plants, to fungi, to animals, we observe this behaviour, regardless of the cell type.\n\nIn a sense, all lives are the same, they're just living - and have been living - under different circumstances that greatly affect how they \"express life\". ",
"There's no official definition of what it means to be alive, but the most commonly accepted one in science is that in order to be classified as being alive, something should have the ability to\n\n1) grow/develop over time\n\n2) reproduce in some way\n\n3) react to something outside of itself\n\n4) maintain a stable environment within itself\n\n5) utilize energy received from chemical reactions\n\nAs I said though, there's no official definition. It's more of a description than anything. Scientists still argue about this list and whether or not to add or remove things from it, because the list has to be broad enough to cover everything that we agree is alive. Also there are some who argue that maybe viruses should be considered alive, although I think the majority believe that viruses are not living.\n\nPlants, animals, bacteria, and fungi are all made of cells, so they're alive. There are more groups, but I won't list them all out it will get more confusing without helping answer your question specifically.",
"Living is when something has DNA and can multiply and uses energy to do so.\n\nViruses are not alive. They are basically like documents or instructions. A cell takes these instruction and carries out the will of the virus. Pretty crazy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29m4sr | how does a court stenography machine work? | I have been watching a lot of Law and Order, and the interwebs isn't coming up with any decent answers beyond "it's hard and you have to go to school for 3 years."
So how do they work? What is being typed with only a few keys? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29m4sr/eli5how_does_a_court_stenography_machine_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cim9ybr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A [stenotype machine](_URL_0_) works with a special keyboard layout. You press keys simultaneously, but the output keeps the letters in a specific order. You basically type the sounds in shorthand. There are some standards, but stenographers often have their own abbreviations. This lets you type up to 300 WPM."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype"
]
] |
|
5eqobj | why can't synthetic diamonds be as hard as mined diamonds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5eqobj/eli5_why_cant_synthetic_diamonds_be_as_hard_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"daehi5g"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"They are just as hard. \n\nSynthetic diamonds are identical to natural diamond is virtually every chemical and physical way. It is anti-synthetic propaganda put out by De Beers and the few other diamond companies that exist that make the public think they are inferior, but that is not based on truth. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
b8ox4m | why does a ticketing app/website not work at all when there is too much traffic? how much traffic does it take? what measures are available to prevent the app/site from crashing? | I checked AMC minutes after the tickets went on sale, and it was unusable. I mean I get it, if I’m AMC I would also forget that the biggest movie ever is about to put their tickets on sale and take no precautions to prevent their stuff from not working. But I’m still pissed as this whole situation ruined my vacation and I want to know if my anger is justified or if I’m just not understanding something. I mean cmon, it’s just buying tickets, how could it have gone so wrong. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b8ox4m/eli5_why_does_a_ticketing_appwebsite_not_work_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejz8fkb",
"ejzcbnw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They try to estimate how much traffic there will be and allocate servers and other necessary infrastructure accordingly. If they underestimated the traffic, you get slow connection or even no connection.",
"One thing that wasn't mentioned here already is that running a ticketing website takes more power than running a regular website because it needs to be super precise.\n\nWhen you want to run multiple servers theres always the problem of synchronization. On a youtube video it doesn't really matter if the views take a while to update because the servers are not super synchronized but when servers are not synchronized on a ticketing website it could happen that you sell the same ticket to two people because another server hasnt gotten the info yet that the ticket has been sold\n\nSo you either have to run only one server or take the extra time to look at every request and check if the ticket is still there to prevent errors"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
aof0bs | why are 12v, 5v and 3.3v so special in electronics? | Is it an industry standard or is there a physics based reason for using these voltages? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aof0bs/eli5_why_are_12v_5v_and_33v_so_special_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg0e149",
"eg0f5if",
"eg0fv6o",
"eg0heal",
"eg19dr8"
],
"score": [
6,
23,
5,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"As chip fabrication shrinks, the breakdown voltages of the silicon get smaller and smaller. They also get more efficient because of this.\n\n12V and 9V used to be very common, but now really 5V has taken their place - mostly because of USB. If you design your product to run on 5V, power supplies are abundant. Everyone has a 5V charger.\n\nThe standard voltages exist so that you can use power rails (often 3.3V) to supply multiple chips on a single circuit board from different manufacturers, and also interconnect the logic without needing level converters.\n\nThe numbers 12, 9, 5 and 3.3 are fairly arbitrary. There just needed to be an agreed standard.",
"There's nothing special about those voltages. They were simply what worked best at the time.\n\n12 volts is a good voltage to run a DC motor at for fans and spinning hard drives.\n\n5 volts was the original voltage that almost every integrated circuit used. As the fabrication process shrunk they started using 3.3V because a smaller wire needs less voltage. But, they quickly realized that the process of chasing the improvements of chips wasn't going to work and computer components started including voltage regulators that would take an input voltage and convert it to whatever the chip needed instead of relying on the power supply to provide the correct voltage.",
"Five volt for robustness of digital electronics. A low signal is between 0 and 0.8 volt, a high signal is between 2.0 and 5.0 volt. This huge band is to make it immune to noise\n\nOlder chips are power hungry, specially when switching between a high or a low signal. That's why you place a small capacity next to a chip to provide the extra power. To make sure that all the high signal stayed high during this switching, the output can drop from 5.0 volt to 2.0 volt and all that time it is considered a high signal.\n\nNext thing, power usage: When difficult chips running on 5 volt got faster, they used more power and thus got warmer and burned out. Power is (I forgot the real formula) Voltage^2 * frequency. So if you increase the frequency by 10%, the power used is 10% more. But if you decrease the voltage by 10%, the power used decreases by the square of it.\n\nNow 3.3 volt for digital electronics: Backwards compatibility. A high signal of 3.3 volt against an 5 volt input is still considered a high voltage since it's between 2.0 and 5.0 volt. Plus you lose about 1.6 squared of the power needed. So you can increase the frequency with 300%.",
"Side note: the reason we have different voltages is because higher voltages can 'arc' further, and higher amperages mean more resistance and thus more heat. You need to put 12v wires further apart than 3.3v wires to maintain electrical separation. \n\nIf a device needs 12 watts it could be built as 12 volts 1 amp, or 3 volts 4 amps. There will be less losses if it's built to be 12 volts, but the PCB tracks will need to be further apart.",
"Batteries, transistors, and chemistry, mostly. Sadly those are more ELI6 than ELI5.\n\nMany types of chemical cells (individual parts of a battery) are around 1.3-1.6 Volts. Some other chemical reactions generate about 2V like the lead acid cells used in car batteries. Still other chemical reactions generate about 3V. These individual cells are bundled into batteries. \n\nYou get about 1.5V in most of the flashlight-style cells like AA, AAA, C, and D cells made from alkaline chemicals or zinc-carbon cells. You also get 1.5V in many tiny button cells. Put them together and you get many easy ways to make 3v, 6V, 9V, and 12V. Each configuration has more electrical pushing power. \n\nCar batteries that use lead acid cells are each just over 2V. They were commonly made with six cells pushing together. When fresh and new it works at about 13V. Over time it drops to 12.5, 12.2, eventually 11.9 or 11.8 reaching too low for use.\n\nMany lithium cell formulas start at around 3.7V or 3.8V when fresh, slowly dropping to about 3.0V. Electronics that are designed for 3.3V can handle the slightly higher voltage of fresh batteries and still operate on the low voltage of a nearly-drained cell. Lithium button cells have many 3V varieties.\n\nSo that's the batteries.\n\nNext, the electronics.\n\nFor transistors, the switching voltage in common early silicon transistors was about 0.7V. They were often used in DTL pairs, meaning a diode and a transistor, which needs two 0.7 volt drops to switch. 0.7V + 0.7V = 1.4V, which is close enough to 1.5V for most purposes. That is a convenient match for many of those chemical cell voltages. There is a bit of wiggle-room in voltage allowed.\n\nWhen transistors need symmetric logic gate levels, it becomes double that, the high output needs to be about 3.0V. Conveniently, that matches the chemistry of many batteries, given the wiggle-room in the chemistry.\n\nIn the 1960 and 1970s TTL logic gates were popular. The logic gates needed about 5V to because of the chemistry and how they were combined, but they could handle a little extra power, perfect for four 1.2V or 1.3V cells. Many 5V electronics can handle 6V or a little extra, giving four 1.5V cells to power the device, or two 3V lithium cells.\n\nSome 5V electronics don't have the tolerance. AA and AAA alkaline cells are often a little on the high end, around 1.6V or more when fresh, but NiMH or NiCd rechargeable batteries are about 1.2V or 1.3V. This is a reason some electronics only work with rechargeable batteries, since four rechargeable batteries are almost exactly 5V, but four fresh alkaline batteries can easily reach 6.5V, too much for the parts involved."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7wtqai | can you drink warm tap water or only cold? (without boiling) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wtqai/eli5_can_you_drink_warm_tap_water_or_only_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"du32ima"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I would seriously advise against it as it isn’t made to be drank I’ve heard that the tanks for hot water aren’t as clean so don’t do it x."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
56o4hc | the difference between over the counter and prescription ibuprofen. | I've been told that taking (4) 200mg OTC ibuprofen is bad for you, but the doctor will hand you a prescription for 800mg ibuprofen. Is it not the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56o4hc/eli5_the_difference_between_over_the_counter_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8kw1nh",
"d8kw6dd",
"d8kw6ue"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"I'm almost 90% sure it's the same. I think the only difference is that your doctor has looked at why you're gonna take it and has decided the benefits outweigh the negatives.",
"Yes, it's the same. And yes, it can be bad for you, which is why you need a prescription - the idea is that with a prescription, your doctor or pharmacist will talk to you about it and tell you how to be safe with it. \n\nWith OTC ibuprofen, the instructions will tell you *not* to take that amount all at once. ",
"The difference isn't the pills, it's who is advising you. The doctor presumably knows what justifies this high dose (usually prescribed in the immediate aftermath of trauma, for short-term use). Nobody should regularly take that much ibuprofen. But if you need it to reduce inflammation or injury pain, you can take 4 of the OTC as if it were one of the 800 mg.\n\nA few people may be sensitive to the binders in these tablets, but most people in enough pain to need that much IB are not going to quibble about such minor adverse effects.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ybk1e | what the numbers mean on county roads and interstates (i.e. route 70, i-95, etc.) | There are various roads where I live, and I'm sure throughout the United States, that are identified by numbers such as Route 527 or Route 37, with no distinguishable meaning behind the numbers. Where do they come up with these, or is it just a random selection? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ybk1e/eli5_what_the_numbers_mean_on_county_roads_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfj1h1r"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"For federal highways and interstates, they're numbered according to which direction they run in and where they're located. East-west highways are even-numbered and north-south highways are odd numbered.\n\nFor interstates, the lower numbers are in the west and south, and increase as you move north or east (such as I-5 in California and I-95 on the east coast, or I-10 in Florida and I-94 in Minnesota). This system is reversed for federal highways: lower numbers are found in the north and east and increase as you move south or west (US-1 on the east coast and US-97 in Washington).\n\nThree-digit highway numbers indicate a spur (first digit is odd) or loop (first digit is even) off of a highway. In Washington DC, which Interstate 95 passes through, you'll also find the loop I-495 (the Capitol beltway, which loops around I-95) and the spur I-395 (which branches off of I-95 and ends elsewhere). This same principle holds true for federal highways: a spur off of US-1 might be numbered US-301, while a loop around it might be numbered US-401. Finally, numbers for spurs and loops may be re-used in other states: there is another spur numbered I-395 in Maryland, which is not in any related to the highway in Washington DC.\n\nI don't know how state and county routes are numbered; in my state, they seem to be pretty random."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8sqcgs | breath out under water | Why can't we breath out a huge amount of air while being under water, but bubble-by-bubble (making blurp blurp sound)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8sqcgs/eli5_breath_out_under_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"e11fmui"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You can breathe out as much air as you like. But each time you've breathed out a small amount, the pressure of the water will close round it and make a bubble. If you were to breathe out, say, mercury instead of air, the \"bubble\" would be bigger."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
80zr81 | when you numb your arm by sleeping on it what happens and why does it not hurt it permanently? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80zr81/eli5_when_you_numb_your_arm_by_sleeping_on_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"duzd498"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The numbness comes from pressure restricting blood supply to the nerves which convey sensation. While restricted enough to mess up their usual operation it typically isn't enough to cause permanent damage, although in more extreme cases it actually can cause permanent nerve damage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5woedm | how does the fbi impact the everyday life of american citizens? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5woedm/eli5_how_does_the_fbi_impact_the_everyday_life_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"debm4p6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hopefully, not much. The FBI is designed to investigate federal crimes on a nationwide level, and so it should generally only be impacting the lives of those who commit those crimes. \n\nHowever, they can expand their understanding of what that investigation requires, to include surveillance or interrogation of a broader section of society. The Patriot Act of 2001 allows the FBI to search phone, email, and financial records without a court order, to access stored voicemails through a warrant (rather than requiring a harder to get wiretap order), and on and on. Basically, now the FBI can do a fairly high level of surveillance on the broad population of American citizens without much oversight or any need to prove that they're suspected of a crime. \n\nIn addition, the FBI has a \"bully pulpit\" -- when the FBI issues a statement, it generally gets taken seriously as news. That's what happened last fall when FBI Director Comey said that they were continuing to investigate Hillary Clinton's emails -- several credible statisticians believe that might have been the deciding factor in the US Presidential election, casting renewed doubt on Clinton's credibility, even though the investigation eventually revealed nothing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
zpyh3 | under the affordable care act, patients can't be refused coverage if they have preexisting conditions - but what stops insurance companies from pricing it beyond what they can afford? | I have a family member who was recently diagnosed with a severe health issue. I think he may be cruising by on COBRA from his last employer, but he's been shopping around for insurance and, he hasn't been refused coverage, but the effect is the same as all providers have priced it outside of what he can afford because he's so high risk.
What prevents this from happening under the ACA as it was passed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zpyh3/eli5_under_the_affordable_care_act_patients_cant/ | {
"a_id": [
"c66pnj0",
"c66sybf"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A few things,\n\nFirst: A certain amount has to be spent on patient care, so if they charge more in general, it'll have to be refunded.\n\nSecond: [Exchanges. ](_URL_0_) this comes with a tax credit if he makes less than 400% of the federal poverty rate, which is $92,000 for a family of 4. Unfortunately that's a few years out.\n\nThird: Medicare eligibility\n\n",
"The community requirement in the ACA says that the most expensive person can't be charged more then 3 times the cheapest under a particular plan."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_exchanges"
],
[]
] |
|
7g9r94 | why when we pour a waffle or pancake mix in a pan it gets solid rather than becoming more liquid or evaporating? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7g9r94/eli5_why_when_we_pour_a_waffle_or_pancake_mix_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqhjuwu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Batter isn't liquid or solid. It's a solid (the flour/other dry ingredients) suspended without a liquid. Pour it into a cool pan, and that's what you've got. Add heat, and those suspended starch molecules burst and further trap the liquid. The end result, you wind up with a sold as you cook those starches into their final form. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
aym0xz | why are overbites much more common upon people than underbites? why are underbites more common in animals? | Just an odd thought I had. It seems like overbites are 100x more common than underbites for people. And I've only ever seen underbites in animals, never overbites. Are they just less common? Or are overbites just much less noticable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aym0xz/eli5_why_are_overbites_much_more_common_upon/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei1rqx5",
"ei2d771"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Probably because overbites can be caused by behavior and bad habits (thumb sucking, prolonged pacifier/bottle/sippy cup use). Also chronic mouth breathing can cause all kinds of dental issues. ",
"Humans evolved from apes. Apes have an protruding jaw; it sticks out from their face. Humans have flat faces. But when our jaws receded, our teeth lagged behind. They don't always fit into our mouths. This causes problems like overbite and impacted wisdom teeth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3ig8m1 | why was europe "lagging" in scientific discoveries and knowledge during the medieval period? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ig8m1/eli5_why_was_europe_lagging_in_scientific/ | {
"a_id": [
"cug465z",
"cug61kg"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It wasn't lagging as such, it certainly wasn't behind the Roman Empire, but progress wasn't particularly fast.\n\nThe problem in a word: Aristotle.\n\nWhen Aristotle was re-discovered, everything he wrote was taken as fact. Perhaps it needed to be re-interpreted with the help of the New Testament, but it was factually correct.\n\nThe problem was that Aristotle was a terrible scientist. Sure, he was a great philosopher, but his scientific observations tended to be wildly inaccurate, even allowing for his limited tools. He also pre-dated the scientific method, so nobody actually checked that he was right.\n\nWith so many of Europe's greatest minds dedicated to studying Aristotle and the Bible rather than pursuing knowledge, inevitably there weren't many breakthrough discoveries.\n\nOther issues: the oppression of woman and the lower classes meant that the pool of potential geniuses was much smaller than today. Short life expectancies meant people couldn't make much progress in their lifetimes. Wars, tyrannical rulers, and general unrest meant a lack of stability; whilst wars can lead to innovation, I imagine they weren't particularly helpful in the Middle Ages when so many other factors were stacked against innovation.\n\n(Note: I do not know much about political history so take those aspects with a pinch of salt, but I'm confident on the philosophical and scientific history)",
"The Middle Ages certainly weren't dark as in Dark Ages. There was some decline in technology and many books were lost during the late Antiquity. No one really knows for sure why exactly that happened. One could argue that the collapse of the Roman Empire had something to do with it, but the Eastern Roman Empire lost just as many books, even though in the East, the Byzantine Empire managed to prosper for a few centuries more. The Christian Church wasn't directly responsible either. In fact, they tried to protect as many books as they could. Sure, they were unhappy with many Pagan teachings but Christianity as such wasn't the reason.\n\nBy 1200 or so, Europe had recovered however and had achieved many things that the Roman Empire never managed to do. Mediaeval architecture for instance was in many ways superior to Roman. Also farming techniques had progressed tremendously, allowing to support a much higher population.\n\nThe supposedly decline during the Middle Ages was more of a myth invented during the Renaissance. During that time period, people started to glorify Antiquity and dismissed everything coming from the Mediaeval time period. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4pgvfq | why is the ar-15 not considered an assault rifle? what makes a rifle an assault rifle? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pgvfq/eli5_why_is_the_ar15_not_considered_an_assault/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ks135",
"d4ks29x",
"d4ks2dg",
"d4kss50",
"d4kszv4",
"d4ku4xn",
"d4ku9l4",
"d4kubw2",
"d4kugkp",
"d4kuzwt",
"d4kv5su",
"d4kvc1z",
"d4kvfbt",
"d4kvg4e",
"d4kvkk1",
"d4kvla0",
"d4kvpdh",
"d4kvre8",
"d4kvw11",
"d4kw355",
"d4kwf0w",
"d4kwkzn",
"d4kwr2p",
"d4kwy9j",
"d4kx5ug",
"d4kxeib",
"d4kxm3j",
"d4kxtux",
"d4kxx4b",
"d4ky1v9",
"d4kydnj",
"d4kyhjv",
"d4kyj07",
"d4kysd6",
"d4kyu0q",
"d4kz0cd",
"d4kzauo",
"d4kztog",
"d4kzx1v",
"d4kzz8t",
"d4l00bl",
"d4l05kr",
"d4l0aj9",
"d4l0ara",
"d4l0r9c",
"d4l0tk6",
"d4l0vox",
"d4l140w",
"d4l14l9",
"d4l17qk",
"d4l191w",
"d4l1fqb",
"d4l1h9g",
"d4l1hee",
"d4l1ks5",
"d4l1la3",
"d4l1mwn",
"d4l1scm",
"d4l1xe6",
"d4l1xzq",
"d4l28l1",
"d4l2f0i",
"d4l2iyt",
"d4l2jq6",
"d4l2mby",
"d4l2md3",
"d4l2nox",
"d4l2q54",
"d4l2uig",
"d4l308p",
"d4l30uq",
"d4l3am4",
"d4l3cl4",
"d4l3kqm",
"d4l47c3",
"d4l4fy0",
"d4l4i1s",
"d4l4t82"
],
"score": [
74,
55,
5276,
9,
100,
16,
3249,
3,
4,
82,
17,
434,
7,
9,
9,
412,
4,
2,
340,
39,
62,
6,
12,
26,
3,
4,
6,
12,
4,
2,
11,
28,
3,
3,
2,
3,
4,
10,
3,
2,
45,
41,
2,
9,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
9,
3,
9,
2,
4,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
4,
13,
12,
3,
3,
6,
13,
8,
3,
109
],
"text": [
"The AR in AR-15 does not refer to Assault Rifle, but to its brand, Armalite.\n\nAssault Rifle is not a real \"type of weapon\", it's at best an invented term to describe a machine gun or a selective fire arm with a military design.",
"The AR-15 is a gun that fires one bullet each time you pull the trigger, and you don't have to manually put a new bullet into the chamber (that is the definition of \"semi-automatic). \nIt shoots the same ammunition as an M-16, but the M-16 has the ability to basically squirt out bullets as long as the trigger is held down. \nAssault rifles have this capability -- fully automatic fire. ",
"An assault rifle, by definition, must be capable of selective fire and/or automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire; hence it is not an assault rifle.\n\nEdit; A problem with many of the other responses you're getting here is that they are confusing \"assault rifle\" and \"assault weapon.\" The first is a very well-defined term that the military, gun manufacturers, and gun owners have been using for a long time now. The second is, essentially, a recently-invented term that doesn't really have a set definition, but is generally used to describe a \"military-looking\" weapon.\n\nEdit 2: The \"AR\" doesn't refer to \"assault rifle,\" but instead to \"Armalite rifle,\" after it's parent brand Armalite.\n\nEdit 3: Many thanks for the gold.\n\nEdit 4: My apologies, didn't realize so many of you have no idea what the difference in semiauto/auto/selective fire actually means. Copied from [another one of my posts](_URL_1_) further down:\n\nSemiauto; pull the trigger once, you get one shot, and the weapon automatically cycles to ready for the next shot (i.e. you don't have to recycle it like in a bolt-action weapon).\n\nAutomatic; pull the trigger once, and the weapon keeps firing until you either release the trigger, you run out of ammunition, or the gun malfunctions (likely from overheating). Often, you see burst fire instead of full auto, where the weapon cycles a certain number of times (usually 3 or 5 shots), and then stops, requiring you to release the trigger before you can fire again.\n\nSelective fire; the ability to select different modes of fire on a single weapon (i.e. single shot, bursts, and/or full auto).\n\nEdit 5: From the suggestions of numerous users, and for visibility; if you'd like to learn more you can always check out [this site](_URL_0_). I haven't looked through it extensively, but it lays out a good explanation of the AR-15, and how it relates to other firearms.\n\nEdit 6: Taking a break for a while, but there are others in the thread that can answer questions. Also, thanks for the updoots, my highest rated comment is now no longer about Adam Driver. =D",
"An assault rifle is a military weapon that was created to bridge the gap between submachine gun and machine gun. Assault rifles were designed to fire an intermediate cartridge that is slightly smaller than a full size rifle cartridge but larger than a pistol cartridge. Some people consider the stg 44 the grand daddy to the assault rifle.",
"An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi auto[one round fired per trigger pull] plus burst [typically three rounds fired per trigger pull but could've two, four or more] or full auto [continuous fire until trigger release or ammunition exhaustion]), intermediate cartridge (larger than pistol, smaller than full battle rifle rounds like the ~~7.62x54mm NATO/.30-06~~ 7.64x51mm/.308), self loading, box fed, high capacity (greater than 10 rounds) weapon that performs both point target and area suppression roles well. Hence \"assault rifle\", it's a rifle meant to perform fire and maneuver squad assaults like assaulting machine gun nests and mortar pits.\n\nI single fire weapon isn't very good at area suppression, so it's not an assault rifle.\n\nNow, the AR-15 PLATFORM can easily be an assault rifle (magazine fed, high capacity medium size cartridge) IF it has a military trigger grouping. Which is illegal for civvies to own.\n\nNOTE: typically \"assault rifle\" is defined by the media as something you might see a military carrying, despite appearance not being descriptive of function",
"Well the civilian AR15 let's you fire 30 rounds only as fast as you can pull the trigger.\n\nThe military M16 or M4 version has a switch that let's you fire 30 rounds as fast as you can, in 3 round bursts as fast as you can pull the trigger, or all 30 rounds with one pull of the trigger. But you sacrifice a lot of accuracy, so most soldiers control their rate of fire and only fire as fast as they can pull the trigger.\n\nNow a lot of media persons confuse cyclic rate of fire(700-900ish), which is always discussed as a selling point, with actual rate of fire, which allows those of us who own guns and rifles to make fun of them. But as you can see, there's a vast difference between the civilian and military platforms.",
"So in ELI5 language, on the civilian AR-15, when you pull the trigger you get one pew. Not an assault rifle. Most civilian guns are 1 pew guns.\n\nOn a real assault rifle, you have a switch that allows you to choose between 1 pew, sometimes 3-pews, and finally many-pews. So, when you have 3-pews selected, every time you pull the trigger the gun goes pew-pew-pew.\n\nWhen full auto is selected, the gun will go pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew until you run out of ammo or let go of the trigger. That's an assault rifle. Regular everyday folk aren't allowed to go to the store and buy one of these.\n\n\nEdit: Thank you for the gold!",
"It appears that the difference in a number of these cases is difficult to understand, and the nature of many guns, especially the AR-15 and related guns are that pieces are interchangeable. This means that one illegal gun can be altered in a short period of time to become a legal one. \n\nFor instance, a hunting style rifle would be okay with one type of grip, but changing out this grip for another would be illegal. \n\nAs a metaphor, this would be like buying a computer that's allowed to play certain games, and then you put in some extra RAM, and now you're not allowed to play those games anymore. \n\nHere's a video that best explains it. _URL_0_",
"The difference between a civi AR-15 and your grand-daddy's .22 is literally just how it looks, and maybe a few advancements in the firing mechanism.\n\nJust pointing that out.",
"An interesting read is the specifics of the AR-15 ban in California, which explains how and when an AR-15-like weapon can legally be owned in California.\n\n'prohibited features (pistol grip, telescoping or folding stock, flash hider, grenade/flare launcher, forward pistol grip)'\n\nSo besides the grenade launcher, most of them are cosmetic features that make the gun look more 'scary'\n\n_URL_0_",
"an additional thing worth noting is \"semi-automatic\". \n\nThe media likes using this term since it makes thing sound scary. All that really is means is that after you pull the trigger and ONLY ONE bullet comes out, the weapon reloads itself so you can then pull the trigger again. Think of this as your standard weapon / gun of any type. The only thing \"less automatic\" is \"bolt action\". That means the shooter must manually place the next round in the chamber. Think of a sniper rifle. You tell me which one is scarier.\n\nFuck the media by the way. \n\nEDIT. Pump action, muzzle loading, etc. are other types of \"non-semi\". I was trying to keep it simple for those who don't know what semi-automatic means. It boils down to either the weapon chambers the next round vs the shooter having to manually chamber the next round. ",
"A reminder that ELI5 is for *friendly, simplified and layman-accessible explanations*.\n\nWe appreciate that guns, gun control and related topics can inspire heated debate from all sides, but please remember:\n\n* Top level responses must be an attempt at an explanation of the concept \n* Remain civil. We do not tolerate abuse or attacks on other posters.\n\nThanks",
"I'm probably late to the party, but here's some weapons terminology. \n\nIn the US, \"Machine Guns\" are capable of firing more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. \n\nAn \"Assault Rifle\" is a type of machine gun, firing an intermediate rifle cartridge. \n\nAll machine guns have been heavily regulated in the US since the '30's. Machine guns produced after 1986 cannot be owned by civilians. \n\nSemi-automatic weapons fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. The only way to make them fire a second bullet is to release the trigger, and pull it again.\n\nIn the '80's, [Josh Sugarmann](_URL_0_) publicized the term assault weapon, arguing:\n\n > Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.\n\nThe features that define an assault weapon are cosmetic (and arguably ergonomic) such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs, etc. They don't make the weapon easier to fire, more accurate, more deadly, increase their rate of fire, or make them more powerful. They just look scary. ",
"semi automatic rifle: \npew \n \npew \n \npew \n \nassault rifle: \npewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpew \n...empty",
"Here's a website which effectively describes some of the differences in layman's terms: _URL_1_\n\nHere is the California assault weapons flowchart, which is a tool created by CalGuns to determine if a weapon is an \"assault weapon\" or not. California still has the assault weapons ban in place, so it is presently relevant. It explains the legality in more detail: _URL_0_",
"Quick history of military rifles.\n\nIn the beginning (a bit before WW1) we invented modern rifles. There were bolt action battle rifles for the grunts (one pew, chamber the next round yourself) and machine guns for squads (many pews, gun does the work for you).\n\nGrunts hid in trenches, used big heavy rifles to fire big heavy bullets at enemies a long way away, and it was good.\n\nAnd then WW2 came.\n\nAnd some grunts said \"what if I want many pews myself?\" And so the automatic battle rifle (one pew or many pews, gun does the work) was born. And it was big and heavy and fired a big heavy bullet a long way. And it was good.\n\nBut some grunts said \"what if my enemy is close to me? Also this gun is really heavy.\" And so the submachine gun (many pews, gun does the work) was born. And it was a little light gun that fired little light bullets at enemies a short way away. And it was good.\n\nBut some grunts said \"What if my enemy is sometimes close and sometimes far away? Also these rifles are still really heavy\" And so the Assault Rifle (many pews, gun does the work) was born. And it was a light gun that fired bullets that were neither big nor little, but just right. And it was good.\n\nThat is what \"Assault Rifle\" means. It is a Goldilocks solution to a specific problem -- a light military rifle that fires an intermediate bullet in automatic or burst mode.\n\nThe civilian AR-15 shares most of its design with an Assault Rifle (M16), but only fires one bullet per trigger press, so it isn't one.\n\nNow, the fun thing is that this difference matters hardly at all for lethality, as full-automatic fire tends to run you out of ammo so fast that it's not that useful. Also, hunting rifles are more powerful and therefore more lethal. However, it *does* matter for legality, as actual Assault Rifles are already *strictly* regulated, as are all automatic weapons, and therefore incredibly rare and expensive.\n\nEdit: One thing to take note of here is that the way these rifles work is essentially unchanged from the end of WW1. And the specific modern AR-15 design dates back to the 60's (AKA 60 years ago!). The big updates have all come in the form of optics and ergonomics, which both make the gun a bit easier to use, but don't change the base weapon much.",
"I shall try to add some information but although I was in the US Army for eight years I was not Combat arms. If a better informed person cares to correct me I am fine with that.\n\nTactics in WW2 ofttimes involved assault teams. This would involve crews for one or two automatic weapons and several riflemen. The automatic weapon fire would keep the enemies' heads down while the riflemen would work around to where they could fire for effect.\n\nThe Germans invented a rifle that could perform both rolls merely by flipping a switch.\n\nThe Armelite 15 only performs as a regular rifle.",
"An assault rifle is defined as a rifle that can fire in both fully and semi automatic. It fires a cartridge that is between a pistol round and a rifle round. The civilian ar15 only fires in semi automatic.",
"When it comes down to it, THIS is an AR15 from a legal standpoint \n_URL_0_\n\nIt's a lower receiver. Everything else is accessories. \n\nThe Term \"Assault Weapon\" is a political one. If you look at the actual legal definition from the CA and Federal Bans, it's basically a gun that looks like a similar military weapon. \n\nIf you have 11 min to spare this (very dry) video does a good job explaining how futile the Assault Weapon term is \n_URL_1_",
"An \"assault rifle\" is a military term referring to a rifle caliber weapon that can fire fully automatic (that is to say you hold down the trigger and it sprays compared to semiautomatic meaning you pull the trigger for each shot). The AR15 is not an assault rifle because it's a semiautomatic. The catch you hear about in news media is a ban on \"assault weapons\" which is not a military term and is a sort of vague category encompassing any weapon that looks tough. Black casing? Pistol foregrip? Lots of composite bits? \"Assault weapon\". The reason for the controversy is that it's basically declaring something mean looking dangerous and would be the same to a gun owner as declaring a jeep with olive drab paint military hardware and illegal because of it or banning a trendy urban clothing line because some gang member wearing similar styles commit drivebys.",
"True ELI-5 here:\n\nThe AR15 is like a dollar store squirt gun, where you have to pull the trigger to get a momentary squirt. An Assault rifle is like a super soaker, where the water keeps flowing as long as you have the trigger pulled down. (And you have water and pressure).\n\nYou can get people wet with both of them, it's just a lot harder to miss with the super soaker.\n\nAn \"assault weapon\", or assault \"style\" weapon looks like a super soaker, but works like a squirt gun.",
"What makes an assault rifle an assault rifle is 50% political and 50% cosmetic and 0% Websters Dictionary. It's about how a rifle looks. Common identifiers are larger capacity magazines and bolt on accessories but you can modify just about anything if you're handy enough to have the same features, functions, and capacities. An assault rifle \"looks scary\" to those that lack the immersion therapy or basic information to understand firearms. Naturally many of those people are in positions of power or being exploited by people in positions of power and they are creating a new class of weapon in an attempt to ban that class of weapon while pretending not to tread on Americans rights. But if they can ban a weapon based on looks what can't they do? ",
"I find it so funny that so many people lack knowledge on guns but are the main people to talk about gun violence and its effects. ",
"* AR15 - one trigger pull = one 'pew'\n\n* \"Assault rifle\" - one trigger pull = 'pew pew pew'\n\n* Machine-gun - one trigger pull = 'pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew' until you run out of ammo.\n\nCivilians can own AR-15's, but not 'assault rifles' --- those are reserved for military and law enforcement. You can legally buy a pre-1986 machine gun, but it'll cost you [$10,000+](_URL_1_), you have to register it as an NFA item, pay a tax stamp, have the Chief LEO in your jurisdiction sign off on it, and can't have it cross state lines.\n\nThe term in the media of 'military-style assault rifle' is a made-up buzzword to scare people --- just like a Hummer is technically a 'military-style assault vehicle', or GPS is 'military-style navigation technology'. \n\nThe hoopla over 'military-style' weapons is just that civilian AR's can be made to LOOK like military weapons:\n\n* They'll have a red-dot sight (where you aim is where the bullet lands, great for teaching beginners)\n\n* a foregrip (makes it easier to hold the weapon), \n\n* \"high-capacity\" magazines (AR's ship with 30-round magazines, standard. Some ship with 10 round. \"high capacity\" is the $200 90-round magazines you can buy)\n\n* a collapsible buttstock, because not all users have the same length arms, and this just makes it more comfortable/safer to shoot. If you look at Vietnam-era M16's, they had the old-school pentagonal stock, which wasn't accommodating to people with long/short arms and could cause distress when shooting if the gun isn't properly placed against the muscle in your shoulder.\n\n* A \"pistol grip\" -- again, this is just about usability/comfort more than anything else. It's an ergonomic grip and has nothing to do with how fast the weapon will fire or how many people you can kill.\n\n[This graphic](_URL_0_) describes some of these features that are ALREADY BANNED in states like CA, NY, MA and a few others. They are purely cosmetic and have no effect on the lethality of the weapon (because at the end of the day, it is a weapon and it will kill if used in that purpose.) ",
"Alot of people think the \"AR\" stands for assault rifle or automatic rifle. And that's completely false AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle design 15 after the arms company that manufacturing it in 1957 i believe. \n\nEdit- They started making them in 1957. ",
"Here's a good video explaining the difference between an Assault Rifle and an Assault Weapon - and it pretty much indicates why gun laws don't work (which, IMHO is by design):\n\n_URL_0_",
"I don't know anything about guns, but I'm pretty sure you call it an assault rifle if it tastes salty when you lick it.",
"An assault rifle must be capable of both semi-automatic (fires one shot per pull of the trigger, with no need to manually reload between shots until the magazine is exhausted) and automatic (fires continuously as long as the trigger is held down) fire. Additionally, they fire an intermediate cartridge, smaller than the 0.30 inch/7.62mm caliber traditionally used in rifles, but more powerful than pistol ammunition. The reason for this is that they produce less recoil than full-power rifle cartridges and also allow a soldier to carry more rounds, both of which are important for automatic fire. Finally, assault rifles must have a detachable/external magazine, which generally holds more rounds than an internal magazine and is easier to reload.\n\nThe AR-15 fails to qualify as an assault rifle because it lacks automatic fire capability, being able to fire only in semi-automatic mode. The M16, which is basically the military version of the AR-15, is however capable of automatic fire. So in a sense, the AR-15's design heritage is closely related with the concept of the assault rifle, but it is not itself an assault rifle. \n\nThe AR-15 does however qualify as an \"assault *weapon*\" which is a US legal term for a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine.\n\nAnd AR stands for ARmalite (the company that makes the AR-15), not \"assault rifle\" or even \"armalite rifle\". Some weapons in the AR series are not actually rifles, but nonetheless are given an AR designation.",
"Short rant: \n\nThe \"Assault Weapon\" debate is the most idiotic fucking debate ever. \n\nHandguns are responsible for most of our gun violence. \n\nThey also have absolutely nothing to do with the \"need for a well regulated militia\" and are utterly useless in any perceived need to defend against a tyrannical government bent on subjugating a population.\n\nWeapons like the AR-15 are *exactly* what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the 2nd, and NOT handguns.\n\nIf we would all pull our heads out of our respective asses, both sides of the gun control debate should be in full agreement that what we want as the protected right is to be able to own rifles, and not pistols. Rifle ownership is consistent with the stated aims and ideals of both groups: upholding the 2nd and reducing gun violence in the US. Pistol ownership is not.\n\nWe have the whole approach to the gun debate fucking backwards.",
"The definition of \"assault weapon\" is vague and depends on the whims of whoever is writing the legislation. Here's what the hippies in Cali think it means...although \"\"Assault weapon\" does not include any antique firearm.\" So an old fully auto machine gun is thumbs up there! It could be compared to the difference between crack and cocaine in the eyes of the law...whatever appears scarier and leads the local news gets the attention/legislation. _URL_0_\n",
"From another angle: \n\n\"Assault rifles\" or \"assault weapons\" are any weapon you'd like to pass legislation to restrict access to. \n\nBasically forcing these terms into common usage was a huge win for gun control advocates, as it forces association of aggression and malevolence with whatever the term is being applied to, and makes it so that people who don't have much interest in the topic politically are likely to side with them, as assaulting is bad, so weapons under that umbrella is bad. It also fosters fear of certain guns. Sure, military weapons were originally designed for military use, but that's semantics. Aston Martin started as a race car, but nobody is trying to ban them because they can only exceed the speed limit. People like the way things look, and buy those things. \n\nSo if we strip away the marketing that both sides do to convince others of their positions, the gun control debate really comes down to this question: \n\n**1) Where is the point at which we as a society feel that the marginal benefits (social and economic) of further gun control no longer exceed the marginal costs?**\n\nCurrently there are two portions of the population which place very different values on guns. There is a portion of the population that uses guns for commercial or recreational activity, or feels strongly that possession of guns by the populous is critically important to maintenance of a democracy and the right to ensure one's safety. \n\nThere is another portion of the population who will likely never interact with firearms. \n\nWhen gun legislation is proposed, these two groups come up with completely different marginal costs of further gun control. It follows that the second group, likely never to interact with firearms, would be willing to enact legislation to restrict access to guns up until the point at which there was zero risk of gun-related violence in the country. But for the first group, which receives substantial value from gun ownership, both social and economic value, the marginal cost calculation is completely different. These people see guns similar to cars. Due to the utility that guns provide, some risk to life is acceptable. Accepting the societal risk of gun violence is no more callous than that accepting the societal risk of injury from driving, or the societal risk of health effects from production of consumer electronics. \n\nBecause the value what different components of society place on guns is so different, and because of political/marketing campaigns on both sides, we end up with a very emotionally charged debate. But the truth is that the perceptions of guns as a tool vs as a weapon is largely cultural in this country, and for many people TV commercials and talking politicians won't change that. \n\nI'm not saying we can't find a spot on the marginal benefit vs cost plot that works for 51% of people, but I'm skeptical we'll do better than that. ",
"An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. A firearm need to have 3 things to be considered an assault rifle.\n\n* Fire an intermediate cartridge.\n\n* Use a detachable magazine.\n\n* Be selective fire: full-auto, burst. This is why your standard AR in the states in not an assault rifle.\n",
"Some decent explanations here, but I don't think anyone is addressing a few key points. An AR15 *can* be an assault rifle. But most \"AR-15s\" are not. They are simply air cooled, detachable magazine fed, direct impingement gas operated, semi automatic rifles. Whew. Said it all in one breath. Now you ask what makes an \"assault rifle\" an \"assault rifle\". We have lots of different kinds of rifles. In World War 2 we had \"main battle rifles\" which were large, heavy guns that fired a full power cartridge. Most were bolt action, but the Americans made a semi automatic one right before the start of the war (M1 garand). There were also machine guns. Fired the same large rounds, just.. Like.. Well a machine. Then you had \"sub-machine guns\" that fired pistol rounds, such as the Thompson. What the Germans found fighting the Russians is that it didn't really matter how accurate you were, if you just shot a lot of bullets, you'd be more likely to hit someone. they were using sub machine guns frequently, and with better results than bolt action rifles, particularly in urban terrain. Now the problem the submachine guns had is that a pistol round isn't that powerful, and doesn't go that far. So they wanted a full automatic gun, but using the full cartridge and full auto made it uncontrolable. So the solution was a smaller cartridge so that it was more powerful than a pistol round, yet could be controlled on fully automatic firing. They called this an \"intermediate round.\" The first weapon to use this concept was the German StG44 (short for Sturmgewehr (translates literally into \"storm gun\", or \"assault rifle\") 1944) It had an intermediate round, detachable magazine and select fire capability. Full auto or single shot. It is the first \"assault rifle\" and the basis for others after it. So not all AR15s are \"assault rifles\" but they can be as long as they have select fire, either full auto or burst. Also AR15 stands for ARmalite model 15. Its a brand name. It's like referring to all tissues as \"Kleenex\" or all carbonated drinks as \"Coke\" and so on. The term \"assault weapon\" or \"assault style weapon\" didn't even exist before the AWB (assault weapons ban) of 1994. They had to come up with arbitrary things in order to get banned what they wanted banned. To put it in the simplest of terms, if they wanted to ban the ability to easily use computers, they would make an \"assault computer ban\" where they ban arbitrary features such as wireless keyboards, LED monitors and optical mouses thinking that it would somehow impact someone's ease of using the object. ",
"The AR-15, aka the Armalite Rifle 15, is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are military weapons that allow more than semi-auto fire.\n\nThe AR-15 is actually of relatively low power compared to most hunting rifles and its military *look-alikes.*\n\nDoes anyone here know why a gun would look like that? It's not to be more threatening, and it does not make it more lethal, it only looks like this so you can add flashlights, laser pointers, sights, etc. They are called, I believe, modular rails.",
"Assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire.\n\n\"Assault weapons\" are simple semi-automatic rifles with a fancy military looking stock and pistol grips. \n\nBanning assault weapons literally does nothing because the difference is only cosmetic. You could take a \"normal\" semi-automatic rifle such as a Ruger 10/22 and fire just as many rounds and kill just as many people in the same amount of time. \n\nAssault Rifles are already banned since 1986. \n",
"Assault rifles can fire full auto. A standard AR-15 is basically just a normal hunting rifle (except worse quality and lower power) with a \"skin\" on the outside that makes it look like an M16/M4",
"Basically in the context you're used to hearing it assault rifle isn't actually a kind of rifle, its just a media buzzword for any gun that \"looks scary, like in a movie\"\n\nthe ar in it's name stands for something different",
"A couple of terms need to be defined before you get a little deeper into the weeds:\n\n-Semi Automatic: This means that you pull the trigger and one bullet comes out at a time.\n\n-Burst Fire: This means you pull the trigger and 3 to 5 bullets come out at a time.\n\n-Fully Automatic: This means you pull the trigger, hold it, and bullets keep coming out of the gun until you run out of bullets or the gun malfunctions or release the trigger. This is the most ineffective mode of firing because the gun quickly becomes inaccurate, especially in the hands of the untrained. \n\nAn assault rife is a rifle that has a dial or switch that allows you to select between these different modes of fire. An AR-15 that you can buy in the US at a gun store is not an assault rifle because it can only do semi-automatic mode. Politicians and anti-gun people like to use the term \"assault rifle\" because it sounds scary. They are either ignorant or willfully using incorrect language to scare people. The made up term \"assault weapon\" is just that...a made up term. It doesn't mean anything, but again, people use it to scare others. \n\nThe reason the AR-15 is so popular is because is it is easy to shoot, easy to load, and has very little recoil. The funny thing is the anti-gun crowd says \"just get a shotgun for home protection\", and while that might be good advice for experienced shooters, shotguns kick like a mule (at least the ones worth using) and can be very inaccurate. You can look up multitudes of videos online showing and explaining this. An AR-15 is great for people of small stature because it won't hurt them when they shoot it and they can be accurate quickly with it. \n\n\nTL:DR - There are no assault rifles available for commercial purchase in the US. \n\n\n\nedit: changed one word because I didn't proof read before I posted. ",
"Assault Rifle by definition is burst or fully auto. An AR 15 is only semi auto, therefore is not an Assault Rifle. ",
"Assault rifle = ability to toggle fire rate (single load / auto) and generally has higher capacity rounds. \n\nAR-15 = single load only, no different than a bolt action hunting rifle in terms of operation. AR is for the manufacture of a SPECIFIC type of that rifle",
"Hold up. The problem that gun rights people have with media terminology is not really about the definition of assault rifles. There are a few technical things people will mention (size of cartridge, the way it fires) but the real issue is the term \"assault\" now has a bunch of different meanings. If you'll notice, the media often uses the term 'assault-type rifle' or 'assault-style' which has actually a different meaning - to them, what they are trying to say, is 'military-looking'. \n\n\nPeople concerned about gun laws (on both sides) need to be talking about real things in order to have a meaningful discussion. Focussing on the 'look' of a rifle is not a very good way to protect gun rights or to enhance gun related safety, because the way guns work is not dictated by their appearance. Using terms like 'assault-type' is very misleading in several ways, and is basically categorizing and making important judgements about firearms by their color rather than they way they work. ",
"A basic list of military firearm types:\n\n[Heavy machine gun](_URL_9_) : Crew-served Full automatic, may be select fire, fed by belts of ammunition. Typically > .30 caliber/ 7.62mm, typically mounted to vehicles, vessels and/or fixed installations. No shoulder stock, examples include the incomparable, timeless, ageless wonder of the 20th century, the [M-2](_URL_22_) [.50 cal](_URL_0_). (note the comparison of cartridges in photo)\n\n[General Purpose machine gun](_URL_21_): Crew-served Full automatic, may be select fire, fed by belts of ammunition in the .30 cal/ 7.62mm NATO class. usually with a shoulder stock, may be mounted or carried by infantry.Examples include the[ M-60](_URL_2_) and [M-240](_URL_10_)\n\n[Light Machine Gun](_URL_17_): Full automatic, may be select fire, fed by belts of ammunition. Uses intermediate caliber ammunition, such as the 5.56mm NATO round used by modern infantry rifles. May be fed by belt or magazine. Examples include the [FN minimi](_URL_13_)\n\n[Battle Rifle](_URL_4_): Select fire (semi or full auto) rifle in a high-power caliber, fed by a box magazine, examples include the [M-14](_URL_20_) 7.62mm rifle. These are no longer issued as standard infantry rifles, but many remain in use in specialist roles. Also includes the venerable[ M1 Garand](_URL_1_), although it is not select fire. \n\n[Assault Rifle](_URL_15_): select fire infantry rifle, fed by a box magazine, in an intermediate caliber, such as the 5.56mm NATO. Examples include the [M-16](_URL_16_), [SA-80](_URL_14_) and many others. \n\n[Personal Defense Weapon](_URL_12_): Select fire, hybrid of assault rifle and submachine gun, fires small rifle-type bottleneck cartridge in a small weapon, fed from a box magazine. Examples include the [P-90](_URL_18_). \n\n[Submachine Gun](_URL_8_): Select fire, magazine fed shoulder weapon that fires pistol ammunition. Examples include the [Thompson submachine gun](_URL_6_) and [MP-5](_URL_7_).\n\n[Pistol](_URL_5_): Semiautomatic only, magazine fed, handgun firing pistol-type ammunition. Too many examples to mention, but the greatest of all time is the [M1911](_URL_19_). \n\nThere are also \"sniper rifles\" but these are essentially no different than your average hunting rifle, a high-power, low rate of fire rifle, like the Remington 700, or others. \n\nNow, nowhere in that list is a semi-auto only, box magazine fed, shoulder arm like the AR-pattern sporting rifles. it looks like the Assault Rifle category, and commonly uses the same intermediate caliber ammunition, but your average deer rifle uses the same [.30-06](_URL_3_) ammunition as the [Browning Automatic Rifle](_URL_11_). \n\nThe functioning of the firearm, select fire vs. semi-auto only, makes all the difference. The term \"assault *weapon*\" is a bit of legal mumbo-jumbo with no fixed definition, and was deliberately created out of thin air in the 1990's by anti-gun groups to deliberately confuse voters. ",
"Late to the party, but an assault rifle is a military term. It is a magazine fed, usually intermediate caliber(full rifle caliber is usually called a battle rifle) rifle with full automatic or burst fire capability.\n\nIf it's not that, it's not an assault rifle.",
"There are the actual military defined classes of weapon, and there's the popular culture terminology for them. \n \nThe Armalite Rifle Model 15 was *originally* a selective fire assault rifle, which was then sold to Colt when Armalite was going broke, and Colt used the design to create the M16. So the name \"AR-15\" *can* be a bit confusing if you're referring to the true Armalite Rifle Model 15 selective fire prototype assault rifle, of which very few exist, or if you're talking about the Colt AR-15, which is the semi-automatic civilian version of the M16 and is *not* an assault rifle. \n \nNow, as for \"Assault Weapons\", those are any semiautomatic rifle, pistol or shotgun that are either named explicitly in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, OR any semiautomatic rifle, pistol or shotgun that has/accepts two or more features from the following list: \n \n##Rifles \n----------- \n- Folding or telescoping stock. \n- Pistol grip \n- Bayonet mount \n- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one \n- Grenade launcher mount \n \n## Semi-automatic pistols \n---------------- \n- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip \n- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor \n- Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator \n- Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more \n- A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. \n \n##Shotguns. \n------------- \n- Folding or telescoping stock. \n- Pistol grip. \n- Detachable magazine. \n \nSo that's what an \"Assault Weapon\" is, vs an Assault Rifle. The Colt AR-15 is definitely *not* an assault rifle as it does not have selective fire. You insert a magazine, aim at your target, disengage the safety feature, and squeeze the trigger... One round is fired. If you want to fire another, you need to squeeze the trigger again. On an assault rifle, you could flip a small toggle near the safety feature switch to select between semiautomatic (one round fired per squeeze), \"burst\" (2+ rounds per squeeze depending on the weapon), and fully automatic (when you squeeze the trigger it will continue to fire until you release the trigger or the magazine and chamber are empty). Note: even without fully automatic, having a fire select switch between single and burst fire constitutes an assault rifle. \n \nSo, to clarify, there have **NOT** been any shootings in which a civilian has used an *assault rifle*. Assault *weapon*, yes. Assault *rifle*, no.",
"An assault rifle is defined as a long gun (as opposed to a handgun), which satisfies 3 criteria.\n\n1. It is fed by a \"high capacity\" magazine (20 rounds or more).\n2. It fires carbine rounds (like the 5.56×45mm NATO, where battle rifles fire full rifle rounds, like the 7.62×51mm NATO and sub-machine guns typically fire pistol ammunition like the 9x19mm Parabellum).\n3. It has a select fire mechanism (as opposed to a machine gun, which is fully automatic, a bolt action rifle which needs to be manually reloaded, and a semi-automatic, like the AR-15.\n\nThe thing about the AR-15 is that it's not even the only semi-automatic rifle. The M1 Garand, the SRS, and other WWII era are also semi-automatic, what it ism though is essentially an M-16, which is an assault rifle, just with a semi-automatic trigger mechanism.\n\nSo the AR-15 as it is shipped from the factory and sold in gun shops is not an assault rifle. But you can buy an aftermarket trigger mechanism which will turn it into an assault rifle.\n\nThere are two aspects of this whole debate that is problematic. First of all, in the mindset of most people there are only 2 kinds of rifles. One is the normal (bolt-action) rifle, and everything else is an assault rifle. Secondly the misguided idea that if you did have a 30 round capacity assault rifle, \"Spray and Pray\" has a higher fatality rate then \"One shot, one kill\", which is simply nonsense.",
"You put $20 in a vending machine and hold down the button. No matter how long you hold it, you only get one coke unless you press it again. One press, one coke. (Not assault rifle)\n\nYou put $20 in a vending machine and hold the button down. Twenty cokes come flying out as long as you hold it down or run out of money. One press, 20 cokes. (Assault rifle full auto) There's also selective fire, which is like 3 cokes per press.\n\nIt's like that, except cokes aren't used to kill people in an Orlando nightclub. \n\nFor more info and fun statistics:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Automatic and Burst fire capability are the requirements for a sporting rifle to be considered an assault rifle. The AR-15 does not have this capability because its internal components do not allow for this kind of firing capability, unlike the M4/M16 rifles which are AR-15 adaptations for the military, they were designed with these automatic and burst fire capabilities in mind.",
"An assault rifle is:\n\n* An armament usable by a single person\n* Capable of selective fire (Single-Fire and Burst or Automatic Fire modes)\n* Using more powerful ammunition than a pistol but less powerful than a full-powered hunting or marksman's rifle\n* Fed by a detachable box magazine, typically with a capacity of 30+ rounds\n* Having an effective range of greater than 300 yards.\n\nThe AR-15, and its many clones and competitors, are not assault rifles because they do not have selective fire. Otherwise, they're virtually identical to a military-issue assault rifle.\n\nAnd outside of a gun control debate, pretty much any firearm enthusiast will tell you automatic fire is just a good way to waste ammunition, and select-fire weapons spend 99% of their time in semi-automatic mode.\n\nThe AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle because of a technicality, and gun control opponents like to use that technicality to paint gun control advocates as ill-informed.",
"ELI5: Why does the AR-15 always get brought up every time there's a shooting, even if there was no AR-15 involved?",
"I'm going to waste some space here since the bots don't like short answers. But this is a very short one.\n\nTo be classified as an assault rifle, the weapon has to be a magazine fed rifle capable of firing in automatic.\n\nNow while the AR-15 can be modified or purchased as an assault rifle (see m-16). The standard single fire semi automatic rifle is not capable of automatic fire. There for it cannot be classified as an assault rifle.\n\n",
"There is nothing special about an AR15, except that it's the current whipping boy. There are far worse guns legally available. Even a shotgun with buck shot shoots the equivalent of 9 9MM's at once, and its easier to hurt a lot of people with one of those. An AR is just a rifle.\n\nYou might not want to hear this, but I legally own a gun called a dragunov. I fucking bought it on the internet, and it was shipped to a gun dealer near me, who ran my background and gave it to me.\n\nIt only has a 10 round magazine, but it shoots a bullet the same size as an AK47, but it shoots it far faster than an AR round. Speed is much more important than mass in determining the energy a bullet imparts, so in the end, this heavy, fast bullet is ridiculously more powerful. Its actually the strongest bullet most gun ranges will allow, unless they let 50 caliber bullets go, which is very very very rare.\n\nAs a final frightening fact, Bullets are not expensive, so to get them reasonably I ordered 880 rounds for the gun on the internet. They left those on my door stop, without even needing a signature.\n\nTo be clear, I've never done anything violent in my life, I got it because I made a lot of money, and wanted a cool gun. When I shoot it, people next to me get very scared, but everyone is curious.",
"An assault rifle must be capable of fully automatic fire and be chambered for 5.56 ammunition.\n\nThe AR-15 is only semi automatic, as it's legal to own in the U.S. \n\nA battle rifle follows the same criteria, but with 7.62 ammunition.",
"It's an Armalite rifle. Not Assault rifle. Stupid leftist scare labeling has been sadly, very effective.",
"In the most layman of layman terms an assault rifle has automatic fire and anything without it is often not considered an assault rifle, though burst fire often sneaks in.\n\nI'm sure there's an even more technical definition, but in common usage that's usually what's meant by assault rifle.",
"Ok: To be an assault Rifle you need these settings:\nNo Pew\nPew\nPew Pew Pew\n\nAR-15's only have\nNo Pew \nPew.\n",
"Hold trigger, go bang once: rifle\n\nHold trigger, keeps going bang: assault rifle. \n\nselect fire/full auto rifles are considered assault rifles and with the current laws in place, you can only own one that was produced before 1986, and even then, hard to get a hold of, very expensive, and would require a lot of paperwork, months of wait times and background check.",
"What kind of mechanism does the burst fire use to limit the number of shots? I'm guessing some sort of spring coil with stop.",
"While we're on topic, can I ask, why is it legal to own an AR-15 but not a M4/M16? I mean really the only difference I can see so far is that the AR-15 shoots 1 bullet bursts while the M4/M16 typically shoots 1 or 3 bullet bursts.\n\nLike if I wanted to go on a massacre it would seem like a smei-auto is still more than capable of killing lots of people. Or likewise, if I had to defend myself, I'm pretty sure I could still inflict a ton of damage with a semi-auto rifle.",
"The official definition is \n\n- selective fire (semi/full auto selection)\n\n- intermediate cartridge (between a pistol round and a hunting rifle type round)\n\n- detachable box magazine\n\nThe AR-15 does not have the first feature, thus is not an assault rifle.",
"A leftist news media and an ad driven news economy. The general public are idiots and think mass shooters have full auto weapons.\n",
"It was an attempt by the Wehrmacht in WW2 to combine a battle rifle and sub machine gun into one gun. The term \"Assault rifle\" is an anglicization of Sturmgewehr, which literally means \"Storm gun\".\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis is useful because you simplify the logistics chain, and you can carry one gun to do two jobs. a battle rifle out in the open, and a sub machine gun storming bunkers.\n\nSo it combined features of both, a long box magazine, pistol grip, with both automatic and semi-automatic fire(select fire). The bullets are short rifle rounds, a go between the high power rifle rounds used by battle rifles of the day, and the pistol rounds used by sub machineguns.\n\na defining feature of an \"assault rifle\" is select fire. the weapon can go from semi-automatic to fully automatic with the flip of a switch. \n\n\"Assault weapon\" is a term coined by the US media for any weapon that looks menacing.",
"It means everything and nothing, all at the actual legal definition from the .223 it's not really an AR-15 and does qualify as an assault rifle.",
"An assault rifle fires a medium powered round such as 5.56, and has a receiver that can fire in semi auto, full auto, or sometimes a burst. A battle rifle does the same thing except it fires a full powered round like 7.62. So, in reality what consitutes as an assault rifle is pretty specific. For example, an M16 which fires a 3 round burst as well as semi auto is an assault rifle, but an FN SCAR-H that fires the 7.62x51 is not an assault rifle, it is a battle rifle. The old school M14 rifles used in Vietnam were battle rifles even though they didn't even have a pistol grip because they fired 7.62 in full auto. The AR-15's found in America are neither, contrary to popular belief I would just consider it a sporting rifle. Even though it has a pistol grip and can hold from 10 to 100 rounds, so does a glock pistol if you buy a 30 or 100 round magazine. In my opinion the term people like to specify them as, \"assault weapon\", doesn't make any sense because you can assault someone with any weapon. Even a fork. A fork can be an assault weapon. ",
"The more salient point is this--if, by some reason, the 2nd Amendment was voted out of existence, seizure of > 300 million guns would be tantamount to a civil war.\n\nAnd that's just the legal ones.\n",
"The main reason is because the M-16 is actually based on the AR-15 not the other way around. So the M-16 is the Assault Rifle variant of the AR-15. ",
"AFAIK, assault rifle is a term that was made up by the media to attract viewers to newscasts\n\nIMNSHO all firearms can be used for assault - but so can all cutlery, all cars, your laptop, the pencil on my desk, my head and so on",
"I am answering in a simple way to make this easy to remember for those who are not familiar with guns. \n\nA semi-automatic is not an assault rifle. By semi-automatic I mean you pull the trigger once and you get one bullet. You can buy this sort of weapon in stores. \n\nWith an assault rifle you have the option of semi and rapid fire. This is still not a fully automatic weapon. With rapid fire you normally get 3 bullets for one pull of the trigger. Most assault rifles we think about are the M16 service rifles and such. You will never see these in a store, ever. \n\nWith fully automatic you get continuous fire until your magazine or belt runs out. Think of .50 caliber machine guns when thinking of fully automatic. Now some rifles are capable of this but you will never see either of these in a store, ever. \n\nThis is why the AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle. That description is reserved specifically for weapons that have more options other than semi-automatic and you cannot EVER buy an assault rifle in a store. \n\n\nI hope this helps in some way. I am not going in to depth because it creates confusion. Just to reiterate though, absolutely no assault rifles are sold in stores here in America ever. To do so is illegal. \n\nEdit: a word",
"Why isn't a knife considered an assault knife?",
"most people assume guns become less able to kill once the bullets touch deer flesh vs. human flesh. they're all lethal and banning scarry features does nothing to reduce lethality. better to side on the side of your rights. ",
"Like you are five...maybe more like fifteen but ok.\n\nFirst, take all the \"they look scary!\" and all the other political bullshit and throw it in the trash, including a good percentage of the posts here. \n\nAn assault rifle is first and foremost a military small arm, specifically a rifle. It is different from a battle rifle in that it is generally made lighter and fires a less powerful bullet, and different from most machineguns in that it can be fired in both semiautomatic and either burst or fully automatic mode (aka selective fire). All assault rifles have ammunition supplied by a detachable box magazine, a shoulder stock, and have an effective range of at least 300 meters. Features such as bayonet lugs, optic sights, and collapsible stocks may or may not be present.\n\nThe first assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44), used during World War II. The StG 44 impressed the Soviet Army so much, soon after the war they made their own version the AK-47. The first true American assault rifle didn't actually appear in service until the mid-1960s, the M-16, and variations of it have been used by the U.S. military ever since.\n\nThe AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It lacks the aforementioned selective fire capabilities. Versions of the AR-15 sold in the U.S. may also lack a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, or other features depending upon the laws in a given state. Some AR-15s are made with less expensive components than their military counterparts, and are therefore less durable. Others aren't as accurate due to the way that the rifling is done in the barrels. On the other hand, a quality AR-15, while expensive, can in shoot right along side an M-16A4 in semiautomatic mode. While the hysterical may try to argue that makes the same thing, it does not in anyway. The deadliness of the M-16A4's controlled bursts of automatic fire cannot be understated.\n\nRegardless of how \"military\" an AR-15 can be made to look, the reality is that it is no more or less capable than any other civilian semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles in the U.S. aren't the \"weapon of choice\" for any particular crime, even mass killings, and are only used in a tiny portion of all violent crimes in the U.S.\n\nHope that answers your question.",
"This right here, is a serious reason as to why people are so ignorant when it comes to tools used to defend or aggress an individual. :C I'm glad everyone's learning! Yay reddit",
"the simplest response is that the common ar-15 is not an assault rifle. it is just a semi-automatic rifle. the ar does not stand for assault rifle. it stands for armalite rifle, the company that developed the rifle.",
"As simple as it gets. \nAn ar-15 fires 1 shot per pull of the trigger.\n\nAn assault rifle can fire more than one shot per pull of trigger.",
"The term Assault Rifle is incorrect because that description is supposed to reference military grade firearms.\n\nThe AR15 is the civilian version of the M16. In fact, The M16 was patterned after the AR15 however the caliber is roughly on par with a 22.\n\nThe AR15 just looks dangerous because it's all black and has a scope and things on it that people don't know what they are, and they think it looks aggressive.\n\nJust like practically every modern gun in existence today (other than a revolver) , it is only a semi-automatic rifle in that it can only fire as often as one can pull the trigger.\n\nFor the record, automatic weapons are illegal for purchase by consumers and have been for roughly 80 years now. Somebody please tell that to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS.\n\n[Dana Loesch Educates Don Lemon on AR-15s and Gun Laws](_URL_0_)",
"An assault rifle is, according to the NRA-ILA glossary,\n\n**By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power.**\n\nThe term \"assault rifle\" is not an invention of Hollywood or the mainstream press. \n\nThe trouble is the Marines no longer use a full-auto setting on some of their combat rifles. Three round burst then things come to a halt. But it is a selective fire.",
"Not only is it NOT an assault rifle, a semi-automatic deer rifle does more damage than an AR15. Just saying.",
"TL;DR\nIt's all about the single trigger pull. \n\nAssault weapon or \"Full Auto:\"\n1 trigger pull = pew pew pew pew pew.\n\nAny other weapon \"Semi Auto:\"\n1 trigger pull = 1 pew.\n\n\nMilitarized AR-15? Assault.\nCivilian AR-15? Not assault.",
"An assault rifle is a rifle with the following three attributes:\n\n* Selective fire\n* Fires intermediate cartridges\n* Has a detachable magazine\n\nSelective fire means that the weapon can have different firing modes selected, including one or more modes which fires multiple bullets when the trigger is depressed. This may be a set number of rounds (2-3 rounds, known as *burst fire*), or it may continue firing as long as the trigger is depressed (*automatic fire*).\n\nAR-15s sold to civilians lack selective fire; they can only be fired in semi-automatic mode, meaning that every time you press the trigger, the gun fires a single bullet. Therefore, they aren't assault rifles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.assaultweapon.info/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pgvfq/eli5_why_is_the_ar15_not_considered_an_assault/d4kvp53"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann"
],
[],
[
"http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf",
"http://www.assaultweapon.info"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://aeroprecisionusa.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/a/p/apar501101_ar15_stripped_lower_gen2_anodized_1.jpg",
"https://youtu.be/yATeti5GmI8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2013/0118/20130118_053941_ssjm0118assaultfWebFIX2.jpg",
"http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx"
],
[],
[
"http://www.assaultweapon.info/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_and_Koch_MP-5",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_machine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_defense_weapon",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_machine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_machine_gun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_machine_gun"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.assaultweapon.info/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2016/06/22/dana-loesch-educates-don-lemon-ar-15s-and-gun-laws"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9mqvh9 | why has the world or if easier to explain, solely the u.s. not abandoned coal mining and the burning of coal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9mqvh9/eli5_why_has_the_world_or_if_easier_to_explain/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7gm1wp",
"e7gmfic",
"e7gncam",
"e7go0ba"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
8
],
"text": [
" > Are there no other feasible energy option to supplant coal at this time?\n\nNope. Fossil fuels are the only fuel capable of supporting the bulk of our energy needs and the choices truly are to either keep burning them or not perform many of the tasks which make modern life possible. That may be changing but as much as people would prefer to \"save the planet\" they aren't willing to cut power to their homes in order to do it.",
"To abandon coal, you need to abandon coal plants - and those are major infrastructure investments that you need to somehow replace. Most of the options for doing so have drawbacks of their own.",
"There are feasible options. But they require investment. Those who have invested in coal and oil, would like to keep making money.\n\nChina is actually moving rapidly towards renewable energy, but will still be dependent on coal for many years. In the US, companies lobby to keep coal and oil. Any progress/shift towards other energy sources is a threat to these companies, so they have no choice but to protect their investments. That's what companies do. ",
"Yes, coal is bad for the environment. Certain technologies employed in modern coal plants provide marginal improvements by reducing some toxic emissions, but they still dump CO2 into the atmosphere.\n\nThere are no other viable replacements for coal existing today. Wind and solar provide less than 10% of our power demand and are unreliable and much more expensive. Nuclear provides about 20% and is carbon free, but costs to build new plants have made investors too afraid to build more, and there's all the people who are (IMO unreasonably) worried about the risk of meltdown.\n\nIn fact, the only viable replacement for coal in the current economy is natural gas, which is exactly why it's replacing coal in the US. Natural gas produces less CO2 than coal so it's better for the environment, but it's another fossil fuel. The price is cheap now but it's also volatile, so it could be expensive tomorrow. This was the case with oil years and years ago. Fuel oil was the predominant source of electrical power in the US at one time, but when demand for oil grew, coal took over.\n\nCoal plants are shutting down, but if natural gas suddenly drops off or other regulations make it undesirable, you wouldn't want to abandon them entirely. And keep in mind that, thanks to supply and demand, the fewer coal plants you have, the cheaper it becomes for those few plants to purchase coal.\n\nIf/when fusion becomes a viable source of electricity, then it would absolutely make a good permanent replacement for coal (and natural gas). Until then, our options are few."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1mnklv | why do people ask questions on eli5, _url_0_ and other internet forums instead of just taking the five minutes to research their own answers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mnklv/eli5_why_do_people_ask_questions_on_eli5/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccav8xa",
"ccavcz6"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Most people have no idea how to Google or research honestly. Most people I've seen Googling don't search using Google, they ask it questions as though it has an understanding of human speech. (It doesn't... yet.)\n\n\"What's the weather?\" is a terrible Google search for example.",
"Honestly, because it's easier than googling stuff. And people are lazy. Compare: \n\nQuestion! Ask the googles. Google comes back with a few billion results. First two don't answer the question, third result is someone else asking the same question (with an unsatisfactory answer) and then read through the wikipidia article which may be littered with jargon and formatted in a way that is hard to comprehend. Get most of your answer.\n\nVs.\n\nQuestion! Ask ELI5. Get an answer that is cohesive and easy to understand. \n\nWhy wouldn't you want to do things easier and more efficiently? "
]
} | [
"answers.com"
] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
a2tzkz | what is a dns record composed of? what data can it store? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2tzkz/eli5_what_is_a_dns_record_composed_of_what_data/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb1637b",
"eb16c7c"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"A \n\nAn A record (Address Record) points a domain or subdomain to an IP address. For example, you can use it for _URL_12_ or _URL_5_ and point it to where you have your store. This is a common practice for people who use Amazon, eBay, Tumblr, etc.\n\nAs an example, an A Record is used to point a logical domain name, such as \"_URL_8_\", to the IP address of Google's hosting server, \"74.125.224.147\".\n\nThese records point traffic from _URL_13_ (indicated by @) and _URL_4_ to the IP address 66.147.224.236. They also point _URL_3_ to the server that the domain is hosted on. This allows the end user to type in a human-readable domain, while the computer can continue to work with numbers.\n\nCNAME\n\nA CNAME (Canonical Name) points one domain or subdomain to another domain name, allowing you to update one A Record each time you make a change, regardless of how many Host Records need to resolve to that IP address.\n\nThese records point _URL_9_ to _URL_13_, _URL_6_ to _URL_1_, and _URL_7_ to ghs._URL_8_. The first record allows the domain to resolve to the same server with or without the www subdomain. The second record allows you to use an alternative subdomain for email hosting an delivery. The third record allows you to use the _URL_7_ subdomain with Google Apps, where you can use Google's document management system. This type of record requires additional configuration with Google.\n\nMX Entry\n\nAn MX Entry (Mail Exchanger) directs email to a particular mail server. Like a CNAME, MX Entries must point to a domain and never point directly to an IP address.\n\nTXT Records\n\nA TXT (Text) record was originally intended for human-readable text. These records are dynamic and can be used for several purposes.\n\nThe TXT Value is what the record 'points to', but these records aren't used to direct any traffic. Instead they're used to provide needed information to outside sources. \nThe First record is used for a SPF, Sender Policy Framework, records, those records are used by many email systems to help identify if email is coming from a trusted source, helping filter out spam or messages pretending to be from your domain (called spoofing). More information on SPF records can be found at _URL_2_ \nThe second record is used for DomainKeys, which is also used to verify that email came from a trusted source. More information on DomainKeys can be found at _URL_11_\n\nSRV record\n\nAn SRV (Service) record points one domain to another domain name using a specific destination port. SRV records allow specific services, such as VOIP or IM, to be be directed to a separate location.\n\nDNS Glossary:\n\nZone File:\nThis is where all the DNS records are stored for a domain.\nHost Record:\nThis is the domain or subdomain you wish to use. The @ symbol is used to indicate the root domain itself. In our example the Host Record 'ftp' would be for the subdomain _URL_0_ and '@' would be _URL_8_ itself.\nPoints to:\nThis is the destination server that the domain or subdomain is sending the traffic to.\nTTL:\nThe 'time to live' value indicates the amount of time the record is cached by a DNS Server, such as your Internet service provider. The default (and lowest accepted) value is 14400 seconds (4 hours). You do not normally need to modify this value.\nAction:\nThis allows you to modify or remove existing records.\nWeight:\nThis is similar to priority, as it controls the order in which multiple records are used. Records are grouped with other records that have the same Priority value. As with MX Entries, lower numbers are used before higher numbers.\nPort:\nThis is used by the server or computer to process traffic to specific services, ensuring that all traffic comes through the door that it's expected on.\nTarget:\nThis is the destination that the record is sending the traffic to.",
"Your question didn't make clear if it was about what goes on the wire or what is defined on the name server.\n\nOn the wire, there are requests and there are replies.\n\nRequests only had the requested label and some basic options in it, modern requests also have a bunch of options it which could be of importance of the answering name server to answer the question. One of these new options can be \"I'm located in Australia\", so that the answering name server knows the return information most relevant for Australian users. The label is the thing which is requested, for example the name \"_URL_0_\". The basic options are which protocol to us (yes, this was designed in the time before the Internet Protocol overtook everything and you had different protocols on the wire) and what the request is for (an IP address or a mail gateway or a something else)\n\nReplies have more things in it: It has the requested label in it (the \"_URL_0_\"), it can have an answer in it (Either a real answer for the request or a \"you should ask these name servers\" referral), it can have a \"these servers also know all about this\" in it, it can have some extra information in it (\"I told you to talk to these others servers, here is their IP address\").\n\nOn the server, each DNS record consists of various fields:\n\n- A label, for example \"_URL_0_\" or \"4.3.2.1\" or \"_ldap._tcp._URL_2_\".\n\n- A protocol, these days it's all \"IN\" from Internet but in past you had different protocols.\n\n- A record type, A for an IPv4 address, A6 for an IPv6 address, MX for a mail server, TXT for a text record, SRV for a service record etc.\n\n- A time-to-live, the maximum time the answer for this request can be used by others.\n\n- And an answer, which format depends on the record type.\n\nSome examples in BIND format:\n\n_URL_0_ IN A 3600 1.2.3.4\n\n_URL_2_ IN MX 7200 _URL_1_ 10\n\nThe first one is the A record (address) for _URL_0_, with a TTL of 1 hour and the answer 1.2.3.4. The second one is MX record (mail server) for _URL_2_ with a TTL of 2 hours and the answer of _URL_1_ which has a cost of \"10\".\n\nEnjoy your travels through DNS land, it's very exciting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"ftp.google.com",
"mail.example.com",
"http://www.openspf.net/",
"localhost.example.com",
"ftp.example.com",
"blog.website.com",
"imap.example.com",
"docs.example.com",
"google.com",
"www.example.com",
"ghs.google.com",
"http://www.dkim.org/",
"store.website.com",
"example.com"
],
[
"www.ibm.com",
"mail1.ibm.com",
"ibm.com"
]
] |
||
a2gx6v | why are only a small percentage of shishito peppers very spicy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2gx6v/eli5_why_are_only_a_small_percentage_of_shishito/ | {
"a_id": [
"eayhxoe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The small percentage of peppers that are spicy can be due to genetics or changes in environmental factors such as less water which makes it produce more capsaicin. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
a121tz | are the gm plant closures just about closing us union factories and moving to non-unionized locations? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a121tz/eli5_are_the_gm_plant_closures_just_about_closing/ | {
"a_id": [
"eam77o9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's more to do with the recent tariffs driving up the cost of materials, I believe. If they produce the cars outside of the US they don't have to pay the tariffs, and since they're only on raw goods they won't have to pay them when they import the completed cars to sell."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1yzq42 | what is securitization? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yzq42/eli5what_is_securitization/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfp71rc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Taking an asset and making a security from it. In the case of Freddie and Fannie the asset is a pool of mortgage loans. A mortgage loan is quite hard to trade because the credit of each borrower and each home's value differs slightly and the seller almost certainly knows more than the buyer about both (recipe for a rip off). \n\nIf 1000 mortgages across geographic boundries are pooled, however, the resulting securities will be quite similar to each other and even other pools of loans (ie the oddities of one mortgage are statistically pretty predictable and when grouped in a pool that large suprisingly similar). Now they can be traded pretty easily. \n\nHowever, since there are two separate companies that securitize mortgages, there's still an important difference, their products follow separate standards in how they are assembled, data is reported, etc. The common securitization platform is a way to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (or any other mortgage securities) similar enough to also be interchangable. Imagine if AMD and Intel agreed to use a common, shared CPU socket (or Ford and GM a common engine mount and bay so their products could be interchangable). \n\nIt's important because there's currently a lot of uncertainty about what form Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will take if they ever exit conservatorship and the CSP offers several new potential paths. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8e7jps | why do people from the us say ass instead of arse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8e7jps/eli5_why_do_people_from_the_us_say_ass_instead_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxt0lb9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It appears that the shift from arse to ass came about from a dialect shift in 1785 to 1860 which tended to remove the leading r from in front of an s (burst/bust, curse/cuss, barse/bass, etc.). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3ryx36 | what would happen if the russians dropped and atomic bomb on the yellowstone super volcano? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ryx36/eli5_what_would_happen_if_the_russians_dropped/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwsje2m",
"cwslv6a",
"cwsm7ni",
"cwsma4i",
"cwsmbkr"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's hard to know what would happen, since the super volcano structure is not well understood. However, since it's not in a densely populated area, the damage might be superficial. The US would be quite unhappy, and nothing good would come of that. Hardly the sort of thing one would want to experiment with.",
"Also, what would happen if the US dropped one, or maybe North Korea or Iran. I imagine a North Korean nuke would be the worst.\nEdit: Sarcasm...",
"Certainly not an expert, feel free to correct me.\n\nLooking at the damage to bikini atoll, the largest I could easily locate, the damage extended 160 feet, basically 50 meters. The Yellowstone supervolcano is 3 miles (15000 ft, 3000 m) from the surface at its shallowest.\n\nConsidering that there are multiple geysers, pools, etc that extend deeper than 160 ft, I think the supervolcano damage would be minimal. I suspect the damage would be very similar to Bikini Atoll. A nice big fat hole, the geysers, pools, etc would be destroyed, but I doubt the volcano would be triggered. Even if the damage extends to twice the bikini depth I doubt it would be a problem.",
"We would retaliate for them bombing the US, and nuclear Armageddon would likely ensue.\n\nYellowstone would be turned into a radioactive wasteland, but the volcano would not be affected. Nuclear bombs do not set off volcanoes, except in Scientology myths.\n\n\n",
"My understanding is that atomic bombs, while powerful, are many orders of magnitude less powerful than the kinds of geological forces that govern seismic events like earthquakes and volcanoes.\n\nAlso, not really sure of the relevance of the Russians to your question. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
emfml9 | why does a smaller f stop number in camera gives a shallower dept of field? | During photography, when a small f number aperture is applied, it opens a wider hole and lets more light coming in to the sensor. So shouldn't this create a a picture with everything in focus and a large depth of field?
PS. Excuse my English I'm not a native speaker. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/emfml9/eli5_why_does_a_smaller_f_stop_number_in_camera/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdpm4c5",
"fdofpfg"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"You can make a pinhole camera by poking a very small hole in the side of a box and viewing the resulting image on the inside of the far wall of the box. The pinhole acts like a very small aperture lens. \n\nImagine a man standing some distance in front of the pinhole. The light reflecting off the top of his head has only one way to get to the back wall of the box and that’s through the tiny pinhole. Conversely, the only light hitting that exact spot on the wall can only have come from something directly in line with the top of the man’s head. The same goes for light reflecting off other parts of the man. Rays of reflected light from different parts take unique paths through the pinhole and hit the back wall at their own unique spots, recreating the image of the man in focus. It should be noted that the image will be upside down and reversed. But because each spot on the back wall only received light from a single direction, the distance between the pinhole and the man doesn’t matter. The image will be in focus. \n\nNow imagine a larger hole. The light rays reflecting off the top of the man’s head have multiple paths to use to get to the back wall of the box. One ray can pass through the top of the hole, another through the bottom, others to the sides or anywhere in between. Likewise, depending on how large the hole is, the spot where one of those rays hits might also be getting hit by rays reflected from the man’s forehead, eyes or chin also. Every spot on the wall is receiving light from a range of parts of the man (or objects in front or behind) depending on the size of the hole. \n\nThe same concept works with an optical lens and aperture. The smaller the aperture, the fewer options the light rays reflected off the object have to get to the image portion of the camera. Larger holes mean the lens is needed more to get the desired object into focus. Larger apertures allow more light but at the cost of a smaller depth of field.",
"It can be hard to explain without a diagram, but I'll try. The camera's lens focuses light from something into a point. The distance from the lens where this point is formed is based on the arrangement of the lens elements and how far the item being focused is from the camera. When you adjust focus, it's moving some lens elements to change where this focal point is so you can focus on things at a particular distance from the camera.\n\nThe light being focused into this point is effectively a cone, with the tip being the focal point. If the focus is off, then the cone gets cut off and instead of a point you have a blurry circle, which is what makes things out of focus.\n\nNow, the pixel sensors are tiny but they still have a size. So, there is a small range around this focal point where the circle that is created (called the circle of confusion in photography) is still smaller than the pixel so it still seems to be in focus. The range of distance away from the focal point is called the depth of focus (related to but distinct from depth of field). The wider open the aperture of a camera lens is, the steeper the cone of light being focused, and the quicker this circle of confusion grows as you get further from the focal point. Thus, with a wide open aperture, this depth of focus is smaller than it would be when the aperture is closed down more.\n\nDepth of focus correlates directly with depth of field, however depth of field is also determined by how far away the thing being focused is from the camera. Close focus has a smaller depth of field (irrespective of aperture) than does far focus.\n\nI hope that helps."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4z485c | why is papa john's garlic sauce's consistency not...consistent? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z485c/eli5_why_is_papa_johns_garlic_sauces_consistency/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6src9w",
"d6srmzl"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Yeah my experience has been that if its cold, it gets creamy, and then eventually to the consistency of unrefrigerated butter if I put it in the fridge, but if its warm like when it has been in the hot pizza box for a bit or it I stick it in the microwave it gets thin and oily\n\nEdit: spelling because im drunk",
"Do you shake it up before opening it? The garlic sauce is primarily oil, water, and salt. Oil and water naturally repel, but if you shake it vigorously enough I'd imagine you should be able to create an emulsion that'd be more like the creamy consistency you're describing.\n\nI haven't had the stuff in ages, so I can't say from experience, but that's the hunch orgo gives me"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5fowp8 | what happens in the body if one exercises immediately after eating a full meal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fowp8/eli5_what_happens_in_the_body_if_one_exercises/ | {
"a_id": [
"dam1si7"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Blood shunting occurs. Essentially the body is using blood to digest whatever the person has eaten. However blood is also needed to distribute oxygen around the body. This is why people sometimes get cramps or stitches around the stomach."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4qeijq | where did the "butt craze" come from and why is it so prevelant | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qeijq/eli5where_did_the_butt_craze_come_from_and_why_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4sbvu5",
"d4sc5ih",
"d4sce4z"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > but there almost no scientific reasoning behind it\n\nthat's where you're wrong, a nice butt tells you:\n\n1) sexual maturity\n\n2) overall fitness/wellbeing\n\n3) whether or not they're sufficiently nourished to bear children\n\nevolution, not rap videos",
"As a Classicist/ancient historian I can tell you with absolute certainty that the \"butt craze\" is not some new thing, buttocks and breasts have been lusted over for their particular features for the entirety of recorded history. While different cultures DO seem to enjoy different features in terms of the \"perfect\" butt or breast/s, there is no universal agreement and these things do change with time. \n\nSome scientists have pointed to the similarity between breasts and buttocks (just think about it for a bit) as to why we're sexually attracted to both. \n",
"It is not cultural, at least not primarily cultural. A woman having a large firm butt tells you that they are sexually mature, that they are fit, and that they have enough resources to safely have and nourish a child. These are evolved traits that we look for in every culture. It is also a trait found in most apes and some like baboons has evolved seeking those traits to the extreme. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
43eneh | in days of american slavery, were africans the only people who were forced into slavery, or were there other races as well? why were some groups forced into slavery while others immune? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43eneh/eli5_in_days_of_american_slavery_were_africans/ | {
"a_id": [
"czhn5k2",
"czhnd9n",
"czhotpm",
"czhplbk"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends heavily on the period you're asking about. Nowadays, people usually have slavery in the 19th century in mind, which was racial and essentially limited to Africans. The practice was justified through moral and religious arguments--that the uncivilized man of Africa needed to do labor to obtain a good work ethic, and that he could be educated and Christianized. The ban on the international slave trade in 1808, which Congress enacted as soon as the Constitution permitted, meant that primarily the descendants of slaves would be slaves themselves, which added to the distinction along racial lines.\n\nHowever, the earlier practice of slavery was much less formalized and culturally entrenched. In the early colonial period, many people from Britain voluntarily or forcefully entered into contracts for transportation to America in exchange for their labor, but often they had a hard time obtaining their freedom when their term was up and had few legal protections from their masters. In this period, slavery was not really based on race.\n\nIt is worth noting that in the Spanish Americas, Indians were also put to large-scale forced servitude, and slavery in e.g. Spanish Cuba continued after the United States had abolished it.",
"Columbus started off by enslaving Carribs in the islands; the Spanish continued the practice and virtually exterminated them; then went on to enslave the Aztec and Inca people they conquered, silver mines being an especially lethal place where they were forced to work. \n\nThe early British settlers used 'indentured servants' or temporary slaves from their own country, until the African connection was made. But there were also slaves from Britain: Lord MacDonald ( a large landowner in Skye) was found to have kidnapped several hundred of his tenants whose ship went aground in Ireland, where they all escaped. Robert Louis Stevenson's novel 'Kidnapped' centers around a young man sold into slavery who manages to escape.",
"Systemic trade by companies that established a source of slaves were able to procure, distribute, and trade/sell Africans. Trade routes along African coast was already established. War slavery was normal in Africa still (usually the slaves are set free later in life as opposed to Portuguese/American slavery). Trading companies had wealth and capital. America had an industry that needed lots of cheap manual farm labor.\n\nOther groups didn't have the means to be sold into slavery en masse.",
"Native Americans were enslaved. Though it was harder because they were able to run away more easily because they knew the landscape. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4bxw7b | why most high caliber sniper rifles are shown as having low capacity magazines? | Of course, This is not the case for some FN weapons such as the SCAR rifles, but yeah, ELI5 why some .50bmg rifles have los capacity magazines. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bxw7b/eli5_why_most_high_caliber_sniper_rifles_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1dcwr6",
"d1dd13v",
"d1ddw4q",
"d1dh74v",
"d1dprw0"
],
"score": [
19,
17,
7,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Because if you had a 30 round magazine of 50bmg, it would be 2 ft long, weigh 10 pounds. ",
"[.50bmg is a BIG bullet.](_URL_0_) This means it takes up more room in magazines and is heavier to carry around. \n\nThe most famous gun to use that round, the Barretta M82 (better known as the Barrett .50) is for the US army legally an anti-material rifle. It is supposed to take out things like bombs, enemy weapon stockpiles, or unarmored vehicles from a safe distance (although it can and often is used against humans directly). The range these kinds of guns are used at rarely require that many shots immediately, so the Barrett only has ~~five~~ TEN round magazines.\n\nHowever, in video games, many smaller caliber sniper rifles/dedicated marksman rifles that can accept larger magazines often only accept a few bullets for balance reasons. An absolutely realistic war video game [would be both heavily unbalanced, boring beyond belief, and absolutely frustrating](_URL_1_).\n\nEdit: Correction",
"It's a sniper rifle, not an assault rifle. 1 (maybe 2 or 3) carefully placed shots, and done. No need for a large capacity magazine.\n\nAlso, as stated by others, sniper rounds are heavy. Why carry more than you need?",
"Whenever a sniper takes a long range shot, they almost always do it while laying down with either a bipod, or the front of the rifle propped up on something. If you use a smaller capacity magazine, you can have a shorter box sticking out of the bottom of your rifle. That makes it easier to get a comfortable low position.\n\nHere is an [M16 with a 30 round mag] (_URL_1_).\n\nLook how much lower this [Remington 700] (_URL_0_) is in comparison.",
"Because typical \"sniper\" rifle ammunition, such as .308, .300 winchester magnum, .338 lapua magnum, .50 bmg, etc. are long, heavy rounds compared to standard \"assault\" rifle ammunition such as 5.56, 5.45x39, or 5.8x42. A 30 round magazine of .50 bmg, .338 lapua, or .300 win mag would all be ridiculously long and heavy. In the field, this directly implies a much lower amount of ammunition on the individual level, and the unit as a whole. More bullets in hostile territory is more better."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg",
"https://youtu.be/ePv7ZdWVjY4?t=8"
],
[],
[
"http://s268.photobucket.com/user/jsatienza/media/Remmy700.jpg.html",
"http://s477.photobucket.com/user/rainierhooker/media/M16A4RCOA4-1sm.jpg.html"
],
[]
] |
|
6oliit | why do some headphones have a frequency response of 40khz even though human hearing range is only 20khz at best? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oliit/eli5_why_do_some_headphones_have_a_frequency/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkianmz",
"dkipngh"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I can only think of two reasons; \n1. A bunch of 'headroom' above and below what we can hear means no compression is needed.\n2. I suspect its simply a marketing ploy.\n",
"Like someone else said: it's hard to make a small speaker have that tight of a roll off without distortion. \n\nAlso, some harmonic freqs outside of your hearing range can still be felt even if not actually heard. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2s58md | if you arrive in a country with some sort of incorrect visa, do they just send you back home? | a | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s58md/eli5_if_you_arrive_in_a_country_with_some_sort_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnmbfzp",
"cnmbku7",
"cnmbq0w"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, they will detain you in some holding area in the checkpoint, while they try to ascertain your identity - whether it's a genuine mix-up or error, or if you are someone more sinister - like a drug mule, terrorist, or a refugee who has no actual business in this country you are in. The immigration officials may ask you some questions, and maybe run some checks with your embassy and make some calls.\n\nIf it's a harmless error, your visa gets corrected and approved, and then you get to pass on. If it requires more time, you might just have to be sleeping in the airport or train station for a few days while the things clear up. If ultimately they are dissatisfied and refuse to grant you the visa, well, you are plainly treated as an illegal immigrant and arranged for deportation/jail etc. (the former is more common for genuine mistakes). It sounds harsh, but well, you gotta understand that legally on paper you are no different from the other \"wetbacks\" and \"boat people\" and \"border crossers\" and what-not they are getting.\n\nMoral of the story: Don't fuck up your visa. It's as bad as crossing borders without getting your passports checked and so on. Basically, you are seen as just going into another country illegally. Period.",
"I went to Israel for the year. I told them that i would fill out my visa once I got there. I spent the entire year there once I cane to the airport they were all shocked but didn't care and let me go. So i",
"The trick here is that it's the carrier's responsibility to remove you in these circumstances. If an airline allows you to fly in to some country and you are refused entry for lack of correct paperwork, the airline is required to take you away again. This is why they will be keen to check your documents at departure. The immigration officials don't have to worry about this cost."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47n30n | are household pets aware that they eat the same thing everyday? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47n30n/eli5_are_household_pets_aware_that_they_eat_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0e5t9j",
"d0e9vzq",
"d0egsat"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They know, but they dont care, in nature what matters is food, not variety. Cats will even refuse sudden changes in diet.\n\nYet, they know there are other options out there. My cats eat the same thing every day, but if I open a can of tuna, which I only do for them, they go nuts before I csn even put in their plates, they know it is something else and tasty.\n\nIn short, they know, but they dont care",
"I mean you wouldn't really care so much about variety yourself if you were not aware of the choices or if the choices were not made available. Just remember that people used to eat a much more limited diet - one constrained by what was available locally and seasonally. ",
"Speculation on my part:\n\nHumans need more variety in their diet to be healthy. So we are drawn to variety when it is available. Most pets are not drawn to variety for its own sake, they are drawn to missing nutrients. Pet food is designed (or is supposed to be designed) to fulfill most of the animals needs.\n\nBut again, this is just speculation. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
25hioh | how pushing a magnet through a coil of wires creates electricity. | On the last episode of Cosmos, Michael Faraday was showing an experiment where he pushed a magnet into a coil of wires, and it created electricity, but only when the magnet was moving. How did that create electricity? What magical forces are going on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25hioh/eli5_how_pushing_a_magnet_through_a_coil_of_wires/ | {
"a_id": [
"chh7tcb",
"chhcgsf"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The movement of the magnet (and thus the magnetic field) pulls the electrons into the conductive material (the coil of conductive wires).",
"This is going to be my first crack at ELI5. (Won't be perfect, might not even be pretty.)\n\nEverything is made of atoms. \n\nEach atom has electrons that orbit the core at different levels or orbits. (The proper term for this are valence shells. Chemistry will explain this better. No I am not going to discuss electrons as non determinate entities in their shells or any of that because I don't understand enough to be useful.)\n\nEvery orbit has a certain number of electrons that can orbit it, the next electron that needs to orbit for a particular material will then goes to the next higher orbit if there is no room. When a valence shell is full it is very difficult to move electrons out of that orbit.\n\nConductive things like copper have an outer orbit that only has one or two electrons in an orbit that could hold many (32? 64?). Electrons like these are very easy to move out of their orbit. (Things like mica and rubber have very full valences and don't allow electrons to move easily and as such are insulators instead of conductors.)\n\nYour moving magnet provides enough additional energy to move that outer electron out of its orbit on one atom to the next atom in line in the material. This bumps an electron on the next one and on down the line. These moving electrons are an electro-motive force or voltage. (Look up the scientist named Volta.)\n\nThe circuit in the above example is the coil of wire and the meter. As the magnetic field moved through the coil of wire it disturbed enough electrons to cause a measurable flow through the meter and gave you a measurement reading.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4jaezz | how did the irs "catch" al capone? what did al do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jaezz/eli5_how_did_the_irs_catch_al_capone_what_did_al/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3512l4",
"d35168n"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"He ran a massive criminal organization and wasn't the least bit subtle about it. Which made the FBI and a lot of other law enforcement agencies rather cross with him. One day, somebody said \"Hey, you think Capone pays taxes?\" and a great idea was had.\n\nGuy is rich, he flaunts it, and he has no legitimate income. Which means he has an illegitimate income that he is assuredly not paying taxes on! So you get the proof, you get his books, and all of a sudden you have America's Public Enemy #1 dead to rights on a boatload of counts of tax evasion. Don't have to prove he is running a criminal empire, or even that his money is illegal, just that he has it and he didn't pony up to the IRS.",
"His real income was demonstrably larger than his declared taxable income.\n\nSince most of his income was illegal and couldn't be put on a tax return (\"i made x dollars last year smuggling liquor\") it created visible discrepancies in his paper trail. He spent more money than his tax return said he made, and his lawyers when pressed revealed more income than was declared, which is tax evasion.\n\nAs for why they went after him so thoroughly, it's not like they didn't know he was a mobster. They knew he was making money illegally and that it wasn't being taxed, they just needed to pick his finances apart enough to find the discrepancies to bust him."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2ufvo5 | why isn't the supreme court chief justice chosen from existing supreme court justices? | For example, when Bush nominated John Roberts as chief justice, Roberts had never been on the court. I'm assuming this is how it usually/always happens, but why? Is there a part of the Constitution or other document that requires it to happen this way? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ufvo5/eli5_why_isnt_the_supreme_court_chief_justice/ | {
"a_id": [
"co80bq7",
"co824k5",
"ct82t7g"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The Chief Justice may be selected from those among the court or from those outside the court. For example, William Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan while sitting on the court. There's nothing requiring it to be either way.",
"The chief justice position becomes open when the previous one dies or resigns. The chief justice doesn't step down from the chief justice position and just become an associate judge instead.\n\nIf the President nominates someone to fill that position, only one person has to be confirmed by the senate. If he chooses to elevate an existing judge to be the chief justice, then he needs to fill the vacated position too, meaning two nomination fights, and a longer delay.\n\nSo, the President usually goes for expedience. But not always, take Rehnquist for example.",
"When the Chief Justice of the United States dies or resigns, the President may select any person to replace him. If the President picks someone on the Court, he's choosing the best option out of only eight people, perhaps none of which he really agrees with. If he picks a judge outside the Court, he's got hundreds of options and can get the perfect choice for his own goals/beliefs about the Court."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6s1ogu | why men sometimes piss in two streams? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6s1ogu/eli5_why_men_sometimes_piss_in_two_streams/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl9e720"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I love when front page posts trickle down into other subs. Its when a substance dries up over the pee hole. Usually experienced after sex.\n\nEdit: Just saw OP is named Tristan. Either we are getting trolled, or Tristan isnt getting laid. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
40s6er | why does some commercial airplane wings are bend and the end? | Picture explains better
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40s6er/eli5_why_does_some_commercial_airplane_wings_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cywm19l",
"cywm1yi",
"cywm697",
"cywmouj"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you mean the wingtip? Your question is hard to understand.\n\nAnyway, because of the way air flows around the wingtip, little vortices are crafted there that cause the wing to oscillate making thr aircraft unstable. The upturned wingtip reduces the formation of vortices.",
"It makes the wing more efficient.\n\nWings basically work by increasing the pressure below the wing, and decreasing the pressure above the wing. The difference in pressure causes lift to be generated.\n\nBut one problem with this is that the high pressure air below the wing naturally tries to find its way into the low pressure area above the wing. This generates [wingtip vortices](_URL_1_) - a swirling pattern of air behind the wing, which results in lots of drag, and poor performance.\n\nThe bends in the wings are known as [\"winglets\"](_URL_0_), and their purpose is to reduce the amount of air which moves from below the wing to above the wing, and in turn, reduce the size of wingtip vortices and improve the performance of the wing.\n\nEdit: fixed a link",
"Those are called [winglets](_URL_0_) and the help to improve efficiency and decrease the magnitude of vorticies created by the wings that could result in unsafe conditions for other airplanes behind it.",
"If you mean the Winglets (Wing tip) that is all about reducing drag, better aerodynamic specially for bigger planes. If you refer why the wing flex its all about absorbing load pressure on them. If they were stiff they will break easily.\n\nEDIT: Grammar"
]
} | [] | [
"http://images.clipartpanda.com/airplane-with-banner-png-ho1.png"
] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device#Winglet",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device"
],
[]
] |
|
2d2vsk | why does rolling clothes take up less space in a suitcase? | I'm packing my suitcase and realized that I always have more room in my bag when rolling my clothes. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d2vsk/eli5_why_does_rolling_clothes_take_up_less_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjliy51"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"When the clothes are rolled, there is less air content between the layers of fabric. This can be seen to a more extreme extent with vacuum sealed clothes. You could fit the same amount of clothes by cramming it into a bag, but the rolling keeps it in that position without external pressure.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4wisvb | why does the signal from the stomach to the brain (i'm full) take 20 minutes as opposed to all other signals which seem to be instant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wisvb/eli5_why_does_the_signal_from_the_stomach_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d67bj1e",
"d67bkju",
"d67c9yq",
"d67ejqi",
"d67g0ua"
],
"score": [
14,
27,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there is an evolutionary advantage to being able to gorge yourself. You never know when the next meal is coming. ",
"The signal that you're full is mainly transmitted via hormones and not nerves. Unlike electrical signals that travel through nerves very quickly, changes in blood hormone concentrations take a while to occur and to be detected.",
"You have many signals from many systems that all take different lengths of time based on how they are transferred. Pain signals are primarily electrical, fairly instant, and short lived. Some signals are almost as quick, but longer lasting. Signals like hunger are both chemical, which is slower, and based on several interacting systems (glucose blood levels being a big one that takes time to change) makes this overall a slow process. ",
"Your tum tum needs time to unwrap it's food present before it can tell your tiny little brain that you're happy with the new gift, Timmy.",
"It uses hormones not nerve signals. Nerves are instant and don't last a long time. Hormones take longer and last longer than nerves."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3b7qha | why do mosquito bites leave bumps and getting a shot at the doctors office doesn't? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b7qha/eli5_why_do_mosquito_bites_leave_bumps_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"csjm1zx",
"csjm5kk",
"csjnaoe"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The bump isn't from the small hole, it comes from the chemical that the mosquito injects into you. The saliva chemical they use prevents the blood from clotting and clogging up their tube. \n\n",
"Mosquitoes inject a chemical* into the site of the bite which stops the human blood from clotting. The reaction of your body to this chemical causes the bump. Fortunately shots at doctors office don't use such a chemical. \n\n* I think the chemical is called heparin.",
"The little bump (wheal) is a result of histamine release caused by inflammatory response to the mosquito's saliva. Inflammation is basically produced to limit the spread of infection by increasing the amount of blood supply by dilation of blood vessels, among other responses."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.