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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8e4cfj | why do sound deviations from “normal sounds” like those used in horror movies and games cause a fear response in us? | Thinking of A Quiet Place and Doki Doki Literature Club; not just predator noises and such | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8e4cfj/eli5_why_do_sound_deviations_from_normal_sounds/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxs98rw",
"dxsea5n",
"dxskj8e",
"dxsleaf",
"dxsz34n",
"dxt512l"
],
"score": [
22,
7,
2,
65,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you notice how they’re always minor?",
"I think i read an evolutional theory about this a long time ago. Something about sounds outside of normal background noise, especially high pitched ones, indicating a nearby predator. Sound from the predator itself or from other prey animals fleeing.",
"I watched a program on TV that said before scary scenes they use a sound below human hearing range. You can't hear it but it causes a feeling of dread for people listening to it.",
"Another factor not mentioned in the comments is that some music is different and dissonant on purpose, not fitting into the rhythm or the harmony of the normal music, making you feel a sense of unease. They feel different and wrong, like it doesn't belong there. This appears in classical music as well, but it's usually used as a passage, with complementary notes played straight after. Meanwhile, using such notes gets you ready for complementary notes that are not going to come, if that makes any sense. It's the heart and soul of horror: suspense. It the same as when in a horror movie a protag explores a dark and creepy place and you expect a jumpscare and never get one, anticipating it more and more.",
"Humans love patterns. When the Sayo-Nara scene happens, your mind is primed for the pattern of the song that's been playing for hours up to that point. But instead, the song breaks the \"rules\" for nice-sounding music that just about every song follows, such as sticking to a key, keeping a consistent timing, and playing in tune. This creates an unsettling effect. ",
"How bout those creepy clicking noises and sound effects used in Sinister, huh? I thought whoever developed the sound effects/soundtrack in those movies did a great job (with creeping people out)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6shlmz | the psychological reason people can still not believe an argument when presented with evidence. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6shlmz/eli5_the_psychological_reason_people_can_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"dld8y9b",
"dlddrki"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because one person's irrefutable evidence, is total bullshit to someone else. Evidence is subjective. When you say something is a fact, how often is it that you do not really know that for a fact. You are relying on \"studies\", \"statistics\", lots of things you don't really know to be true yourself, but have accepted as \"the truth\". \n\nWell if you get into an argument with someone that does not accept the word of all of those people, or their electron microscopes that allegedly show what things look like at very small scales, or other things you consider scientific fact, than they are going to be unmoved by your argument, as you are unmoved by the things they believe the truth to be. \n\nIn short, there is no universal truth.",
"It's because they believe in something else more than the validity of the argument. The argument might have flaws, after all. \n\nLet's say you think wine causes lung cancer and they think cigarettes do. If they are 99.99% sure that cigarettes cause cancer and your argument that it's caused by wine has only a 95% chance of being valid, they should rightfully (given their beliefs) ignore it. And in this case, they ARE right!\n\nSince people can have irrational beliefs that they are near-certain of, no amount of argument can change those beliefs - they always think it's more likely that the argument is wrong rather than their belief."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7op85x | why is seafood much more fragrant/smelly than land based animals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7op85x/eli5_why_is_seafood_much_more_fragrantsmelly_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsb9k4m"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Trimethylamine oxide. It's odorless, but after you kill the fish bacteria break it down into ammonia. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3gc1u6 | why does faraway smoke look like it's staying still? | For example, the steam coming out of cooling towers always looks static, as does smoke from a fire that you aren't close to. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gc1u6/eli5_why_does_faraway_smoke_look_like_its_staying/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctwqld2",
"ctwqmyb"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The same reason airplanes look very slow. A plane flying 400 mph looks like its crawling along because its so far away. Smoke rising a mile away is only going, I dunno, ten miles per hour, so it looks completely still because of the same principle.",
"It's a phenomena named parallax, u might google it to find visual examples along with explanations (far more effective than a simple explanation)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6ode2m | how do it departments handle frequent cyber attacks? | Context: the director of my organization's IT department mentioned in a presentation that we encounter hundreds of cyber attacks every week (this organization is well-known globally). How is it possible that we are attacked so frequently and how do the IT folks handle it? I know nothing about CS. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ode2m/eli5_how_do_it_departments_handle_frequent_cyber/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkgk8ag"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Almost any publically accessible IP address is constantly bombarded by various attacks and scans. At home your router most likely protects you from a direct assault on your home computers by forbidding direct connections unless you've explicitly set up your router to allow it. \n\nSame is true in the corporate world. Depending on your organization's IT department, budget and policies they may have one more of the following\n\n* Firewalling routers that block desirable internet traffic.\n\n* Application level proxies, that check internet traffic, inspect it for undesirable content and relay it on to the actual application. \n\n* regular updating of software and applications and virus scanning\n\n* various intrusion detection systems that monitor what applications are running on various servers, a fingerprint of various files on the servers and what type of network traffic patterns those servers typically have. \n\n* Maybe even a honey pot system which can mimic vulnerable targets that appear to be easy targets. Once an attack on a honeypot is detected, steps can be implemented to block them. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7x15fv | shouldnt we burn a lot of calories when eating ice cream because our body works to raise the temperature of the ice cream? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7x15fv/eli5_shouldnt_we_burn_a_lot_of_calories_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"du4n45n"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"We do burn calories when eating cold food - it takes energy to keep the body warm, and to counteract the effects of cold food - but it doesn't take that to heat up a few scoops of ice cream, especially compared to the calories you take in by eating it.\n\nFor one thing, ice cream really isn't that cold - a freezer is typically between -10 and -20 C, a fridge between 0 and 10 degrees. So compared to something out of the fridge, you don't net more than 30 degrees, and probably less, since it's warming up from the air. It will also largely melt in your mouth, which has a lot more exposure to the outside air, and it's not only your metabolism warming it back up.\n\nSecond, a single food calorie - kilocalories - is enough to raise 1 kg of water by 1 degree. Presumably, you're not eating a 1kg of ice cream at a time (if so, mazel), but let's say you've got a hearty serving of 100g. Each Calorie raises that by 10 degrees, and you're only going up 50 degrees or so. So, that's no more than six calories, tops: which you'd replenish with a gram and a half of sugar."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1rlfaw | the moral and ethical implications of genetically modifying people | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rlfaw/eli5_the_moral_and_ethical_implications_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdoesf1",
"cdoksd9"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Glad there are some people out there who care. In my undergraduate degree in Biochemistry & Molecular Biology there was no bioethics course taught. We spent only one lecture in my course on Proteins touching on this subject. The reality is that we are not far from a day where we will be able to screen and prevent many diseases, as well as provide a unique map of every individual's genetic makeup which could be used to both identify and discriminate. Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection, so we should at least ask ourselves if it is a good idea to manipulate it like humans like to do to everything so much.",
"I could be all nerdy and shit and direct you to Gundam Seed, but that would waste too much of your time. Imagine this:\n\nYour friend James is perfect in every sense. He won the genetic lottery - Blue eyes, blond hair, 6'4, face to die for, amazingly healthy, and has a 12\" dick just to top it off. Not to mention, he has Einstein's IQ. \n\nJames becomes an astro scientist and builds spaceships with lasers, forcefields and warp drives on them before anyone else does. Also, he cures cancer. Go figure.\n\nOne day, some sleazy two bit journalist makes an amazing discovery; James was genetically modified at birth. All undesirable traits and genetics were removed so he could become the perfect human being. \n\nSuddenly, James's achievements are meaningless to the general population. He still produces amazing works and breakthroughs, but he is no longer one of us. He's something else. \n\nReligious people will try to kill him. He is not a product of God. He is Satan incarnate brought forth by evil scientists to disrespect God. \n\nAthiests will be jealous. Why weren't they lucky enough to be genetically modified at birth? Why couldn't they be born for greatness? Just living and dying. It's bullshit! Why should he get to be so great?\n\nYour average person won't entirely understand the issue, but get that genetically modifying anything is bad (Vegans), people aren't experiments (Right's activists), Male Privilege can now be sold in a test-tube (Feminism), We need more people like this to go fight our wars (Military). Whatever the reason, or what kind of person you are, everyone is unified in the same idea: This person should not exist. \n\nEveryone begins to hate James. He couldn't have done any of this if he wasn't grown in a lab. He's an adbomination. He must be destroyed! KILL HIM!\n\nYou, finally find out James is genetically modified to be great. You form your own decisions on the matter. \n\nOne things lead to another, James is killed by extremists. Everyone like James is killed. The people like James try to fight back.\n\n > In the end, no one wants to admit being born inferior to anyone else, but we can come up with a billion reasons as to why we're all \"equal\". When we start genetically modifying humans, we are no longer equal to each other. Equality is the social contracts that we all sign to live in peace with one another. When we start making **better** humans, that inferiority and jealousy takes over. What's the point of your own sad, pathetic existence when James over there was literally born to be better than you, and always will be, and will enjoy the success that comes easily to him, that you will NEVER obtain no matter how hard you try. \n\nThat's why. Maybe when humans are actually capable of accepting one another, we can move on as a species. Right now, it'd just end as a blood bath."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
392cds | why are untruthful political ads still protected under the first amendment while ads that lie about consumer products are not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/392cds/eli5_why_are_untruthful_political_ads_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"crzrwwb",
"crzsr6x"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Most political ads are misleading, not fraudulent. They are careful not to say things which are demonstratively and objectively untrue. ",
"Well, both are protected by the First Amendment, just to varying degrees, and both only until they do--or rather, say--something that makes them *un*protected speech. \n\nPolitical speech, historically, has been given a very, very wide berth of protection by the First. The reason? A free society needs to be able to be critical of the government, those currently *in* it, and those *wanting* to be in it.\n\nHowever, patently false, injurious claims can be slanderous and libelous, and are decidedly *not* free speech. So, how do the two coexist? \n\nActual malice. \n\nThe Supreme Court ruled, in the landmark *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* that speech becomes its unprotected forms of slander or libel when the *public figure* about whom false claims are made can prove the claims were made with *actual malice*. \"Malice\" in this context doesn't mean \"I wish to hurt you\", instead it has to do with whether the publisher of the claims either knew the claims to be false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. If either of those can be proven, the published claims (in this case of a political nature) are *not* protected by the First, and damages can be awarded or other penalties enacted. \n\nSo, for those \"untruthful\" political ads, the bar is set rather high for whether the statements they make cross into \"unprotected\" territory, as the need to be able to openly discuss and criticize political goings on is essential to liberty, and thus more important than the reputation of those in government, up to a point.\n\nCommercial speech (advertising) is similar: it is \"protected\" by the First so long as it doesn't cross an abstract boundary, though in this case the Supreme Court decided that the bar should be much lower.\n\nIn *Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission*, the Supreme Court decided that \"commercial speech\" isn't protected by the First (i.e. governmental regulation of the speech isn't unconstitutional) when it fails what is now referred to as the *Hudson Test*, the first \"prong\" of which reads: \n\n > At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.\n\nSo, if an advertisement is \"misleading\", it is not protected by the First, and is opened up to regulation at the Federal or State level. This boundary is quite a bit more abstract than the *Sullivan* actual malice standard for defamation of a public figure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2je13o | in the wolf of wall street, what did they do involving the steve madden stock that was illegal and how did it make them so much money? | I thought it was because they bought lots of the stock at a low price, sold lots to customers therefore inflating the price and then selling their shares and the new higher price. However later in the film Jordan states he still owns 85% | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2je13o/eli5_in_the_wolf_of_wall_street_what_did_they_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"clau9pr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It was a \"pump and dump\" scheme. Buy up a company that is doing terribly, talk it up like it is doing wonderfully along with faking your income reports, then sell off some shares while everyone thinks it is hot stuff. Then vanish with your gains before people discover it was all smoke and mirrors."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1su3td | why are some colour combinations painful to look at when placed alongside each other (eg. red and green?) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1su3td/eli5_why_are_some_colour_combinations_painful_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce18mxn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThis kicks me right in the eye-nuts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Painful_7aa431_1008344.jpg"
]
] |
||
31ixlh | how does a knife work on a molecular level? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31ixlh/eli5_how_does_a_knife_work_on_a_molecular_level/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq1zdlu",
"cq1zdyc"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Knives work on the micrometer level, either tearing out tiny chunks of the material, like a saw, or forcing themselves into, and then forcing open, gaps in it, like a wedge.\n\nThose chunks that are torn out, or those gaps that are opened, are the size of hundreds of millions of molecules, which get on with their molecular lives, so to speak, without any real relation to the bigger picture, with its knives and tomatoes.",
"it doesn't. knife works on a microscopic but non molecular level. a knife is just a wedge that's very thin. it seperates material due to force applied on a very small area."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2y51o6 | traditionally, why do conservatives support israel while liberals do not support israel? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y51o6/eli5_traditionally_why_do_conservatives_support/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp69zdm",
"cp6a1w3",
"cp6a7pm",
"cp6bilb",
"cp6c9ix"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Both parties in the US support israel. At this moment, however, we've got political gamesmanship. The GOP invited a foreign leader to speak to Congress in an unprecedented move, because they want to undermine the POTUS and Sec. of State's negotiating power so that they have an election item to sqwauk about. Similarly, the POTUS administration when it heard the foreign leader was coming and had set up the appointment to speak, decided to snub him because it was the other party doing the inviting.\n\nBoth Liberals and Conservatives have supported israel and the middle east peace process, back to Jimmy Carter. ",
"Traditionally in American politics there has been broad support of Israel by both Democratic and Republican politicians. The current situation is more that American conservatives and Israeli Likudniks have become very, very closely aligned, to the exclusion of some American liberal support Likud ",
"'Neoconservatism' is a branch of conservatism which deals with the creation and maintenance of popular social myths.\n\nDeveloped in response to the perceived failure of the civil rights movement to bring racial unity, the American Neoconservative movement promoted the myth of the Cowboy - that America was a heroic nation which rides in to save the day when the bad guys are all around. This myth was dependent on the existence of an enemy - the soviet union.\n\nBack in the 1970s, Donald Rumsfeld (later to be Bush's secretary of defense) sat on a special intelligence task force known as [Team B](_URL_0_). Among their findings were that the soviets had an underwater laser sensor net and directed energy weapons (eg laser beams). The later collapse of the soviet union necessitated a new lie - the idea that there is a War on Terror where America is Freedom and Terrorism is Tyranny.\n\nWhat makes these myths dangerous is that they're mostly-truths. The US does intervene positively in international affairs, and Terrorism is scary. But when we believe these things on a mythological level, where they evoke emotions in us, we can make terrible errors, invading the wrong country or escalating tensions when there could be peace.\n\nThe current leader of Israel is a neoconservative. He is facing increasing division at home due to the many disparate cultures that his people come from, and is attempting to promote the myth of the 'Bastion of Democracy', that Israel stands with barbarians at the gate under a constant siege.\n\nThe danger of this myth is that it blinds us to opportunity. Israel does have enemies beyond it's border, but when we believe on a mythological level (eg, one that makes us feel an emotion) that Israel is under siege, then we fail to notice chances to improve the situation. A permanent peace with Iran is a good example of an idea like that - Mossad has made it clear, both publicly and via wikileaks, that Iran does not have weapons of mass destruction and is not presently trying to acquire any. The peace under the current terms poses no risk.\n\nLiberals are often seen as opposing Israel because they do not support the neoconservative fantasy of the Bastion of Democracy. We believe that Israel is best served by increasing it's integration with other regional powers through bilateral trade agreements and avoiding insulting rhetoric.\n\nThere is also the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the West Bank that defies solution. The present administration in Israel has done nothing to halt the expansion of political radicals from Israel into the west bank, leading to increased violence and deteriorating chances for peace.\n\nIn short, everyone in the west supports Israel as a nation, but many believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is little more than an Israeli George Bush, crying for war on false pretenses with little regard for the innocents he destroys in the process.",
"Liberals and conservatives tend to have a very different perception of violence. Liberals tend to view violence emotionally, as a negative part of life. Conservative tend to view violent neutrally, as a regrettable part of life.\n\nYou see this manifesting in everything from foreign policy to law enforcement to gun control. In terms of Israel, what liberals see is the powerful Israelis beating up on the weak Palestinians. What conservatives see is the civilized Israelis defending themselves from the barbaric Palestinians.",
"On top of what's been said already, you may also want to look at things like this : Israel is a pretty conservative country, and since 2001 has been mostly governed by conservative parties. So it's only natural that conservatives love them while liberals don't so much. Liberals would probably love Israel if it was left-leaning. I think Clinton had a pretty good relationship with the Israeli government in the late 90s / early 2000.\n\nAlso, the conservatives are very much in an \"us vs them\" view of the situation : Israel is part of \"us\" (they're white, they're non-muslim, they have a \"western\" culture) and its neighbours are part of \"them\" (they're less white, they're muslim, they have a different culture, they're not democracies...)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2bpzr8 | flat personal tax/consumption tax. | Here's my thinking. The tax code (in the US but I'm sure other countries have similar problems) is SO complex that a million loop holes exist. If the tax were changed to twenty pages of simple layman's jargon these holes would be closed. The economic drain that occurs as a necessity of employing so many people as tax professionals, could be put toward productive endeavors. So besides political objections, what's wrong with this plan?
Edit: Along the same lines, you could cut campaign finance law down to a single page of law. "All contributions to a campaign must be disclosed publicly." And the, literal horde, of people who works to write/understand these laws could move on to productive things. Any reason this is a bad idea? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bpzr8/eli5_flat_personal_taxconsumption_tax/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj7r7o4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A flat tax is inherently regressive, and puts more of a burden on the people who can least afford it.\n\nA consumption tax is even worse, because the people who can most afford to be taxed also spend the lowest percentage of their income on essentials.\n\nA progressive income tax solves these problems, but is complex to implement.\n\nThus, we have a progressive, but complex, tax system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ekwie | why is audio/voice quality so bad between crucial communication lines (soldiers/police/pilots etc.) | Why in 2016 is the quality still so bad? It's like they're using happy meal toys. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ekwie/eli5_why_is_audiovoice_quality_so_bad_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"dad76sn",
"dad85ke",
"dad8e4m",
"dadhwdn"
],
"score": [
3,
16,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Oftentimes the audio quality is fine, but when they record it, they use a very low bitrate, which makes it sound junky. They do that to save space, obviously. And for 99.99999% of the time, that recording is archived and never heard again, so it makes sense to save as much room as possible.",
"Main reason is bandwidth - I'm not talking about the amount of data you use a month, but the range of frequencies a radio signal takes up. Soldiers, police, pilots, truckers, taxi drivers, firefighters, and lots of other businesses and professionals all want their own radio frequencies so they can communicate. \n\nAs a rule of thumb, the more bandwidth, the better the sound quality. But the more bandwidth, the fewer frequencies can be assigned to different groups within a given range of frequencies. So if the government let people have super high quality radio signals, they wouldn't be able to assign them to everyone that needed it. Instead, just enough bandwidth so they get usable quality. As the technology improves to get better sounding audio in a narrower bandwidth, regulatory bodies would rather that they fit more \"acceptable\" quality channels in a frequency range, rather than letting people have great quality channels at the expense of others who need a new channel.",
"The requirements for military or first responders (fire, police, ambulance) or for aviation are drastically different than for cell phone wireless. \n\nCall quality is based on data rates which has _some_ impact by frequency; higher frequency usually = higher data rates. Call quality is less important than other features: no call drops, much larger range (lower frequency = more range), the ability for peers to communicate directly in the absence of infrastructure (towers), ability for radio to penetrate into buildings through concrete and a bit underground (within limits). You need to have encryption and security so people/bad guys can't listen in, you need to be able to re-organize subscriber units or even your transmit/receive infrastructure on the fly. Add to all these other non-call quality requirements the fact that the amount of testing required is an order of magnitude higher - if a network switch in a GSM network gets a poorly tested firmware update and brings down a few cells, well probably not the end of the world. If a trunked radio cell used by fire/police/ambulance is out, people's lives could be at risk. If a military radio can be temporarily messed by someone's microwave, someone can't call in the evac helo or call in the cavalry. \n\nSo long as the call/transmission is clear enough to be understood, that's all that is required. Other requirements are more important.\n\nsource: used to work in emergency radios and telecomms.. a long time ago. An amusing story that sort of illustrates my point - I asked a senior design guy once \"hey, my $60 flip phone can get three days of normal usage out of this tiny battery AND it can play Tetris. How come cops still like lugging around these two pound bricks? Certainly we can make a radio that slips into a pocket?\" and he said essentially that there's a reassurance knowing that the two pound brick on your belt will _always_ be able to reach dispatch or talk to a partner... through concrete or across miles; a solid brick lends to that. Its big, you know that in a pinch if you're trapped you have a while before you have to start worry about how many bars of power you still have. John McClane didn't have to worry once about plugging in his radio. If he'd had a small cell phone sized radio, he would have had to plug it in at least once before Hans fell off the Nakatomi Tower. Also, if a cop has to take out their gun or their nightstick they have to fill out all this boring paperwork. They don't however have to fill out paperwork to take their radio off their belt. ",
"Also, going out on a limb here, they don't update their systems with the frequency that say a cellphone is updated. \n\nThey can use the old units and integrate New without having to overhaul everything provided you can make out what's being said. It's designed for brute force ugly functionality. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
24dgze | what is a high functioning alcoholic and what is the problem with that? | The term "High Functioning Alcoholic" seems to be meaningless to me. Reading the literature it states that an HFA has
* The ability to be professional
* The ability to maintain and create relationships
* Does not display any signs of struggle in their life
* Has not gotten into trouble due to alcohol
Yet, they're still classified as an alcoholic. How can one be professional, liked, respected and have no outward signs of problems and still be alcoholic? If one is an alcoholic, but has no outward issues, what is the actual problem they have that needs to be solved? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24dgze/eli5what_is_a_high_functioning_alcoholic_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch617zj",
"ch61ayp",
"ch63jwf"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"(1) They are doing a lot of damage to their liver and physical health in general - which is entirely their choice and right.\n(2) They may have underlying psychological issues which they are very good at masking, but may turn out to be a problem in the long-term (e.g. PTSD)\n(3) They may not be a High Functioning Alcoholic forever. They could get better, they could get much, much worse. Addressing the problem while they are still high-functioning is a much better option than crashing and burning.\n\n(I don't necessarily think that all heavy drinkers are high-functioning alcoholics, or that high-functioning alcoholics are in desperate need of treatment, just presenting some counter-arguments).",
" > How can one be professional, liked, respected and have no outward signs of problems and still be alcoholic? If one is an alcoholic, but has no outward issues, what is the actual problem they have that needs to be solved?\n\nBecause they're still dependent upon alcohol and thus liable to have some kind of crisis at any moment. This could be because for whatever reason they don't get their drink that afternoon. Or it could be because today is the day that they stopped being able to hold it together. They're a ticking time bomb.\n\nThe \"actual problem\" is not precisely something that they've done something bad or screwed something up, but the fact that they are at significantly increased *risk* of doing something bad or screwing something up precisely because they're drinking too much. \n\nIn essence, a \"high functioning alcoholic\" is a lucky alcoholic. They haven't had any overtly negative consequences from their drinking *yet*. But they're still drinking more than is good for them, and they are almost certain to face some negative consequences for that sooner or later.",
"Also, they are drunk when they do everything. It's a huge liability, and can be dangerous. My friend's mother was a high functioning alcoholic for many years. You know what she did? She was a registered nurse. Would you want a nurse running an IV into you with her breath reeking of vodka?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
49q2ua | what causes that feeling a split second before your realize you're about to have a very big accident? | Like when you're walking downstairs and miss one step and you're about to take a tumble, there is that fraction of a second where it feels like your heart is jumping into your throat?
I feel like whenever this happens I become way more alert than previously. Is there a natural way to reproduce this feeling with food or drugs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49q2ua/eli5what_causes_that_feeling_a_split_second/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ttwfg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Its your fight or flight response.\n\nWhen you sense that you are in danger, your body releases a bunch of chemicals that prepare you to either fight the threat or run away from it. Your get more alert, stronger, faster and more coordinated to facilitate either action."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
22axk7 | why is air less dense at higher altitudes? | This is probably a really dumb question so sorry in advance. I guess there are formulas which will explain this, but what properties of air make it less dense at a higher altitude? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22axk7/eli5_why_is_air_less_dense_at_higher_altitudes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgl1c25"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Imagine you stacked 100 cardboard boxes on top of each other. The one on the bottom would be crushed due to the weight of the other boxes on top of it. It being compressed would cause it to become denser than the other boxes above it. \n\nReplace the cardboard boxes with air and magnify the effect. That is why the air is less dense at higher altitudes. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ggx16 | why does american culture put so much emphasis on "moving out of the house" and being independent from one's family, when other cultures (e.g. asian and spanish) live with their extended family under the same roof throughout their lifetimes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ggx16/eli5_why_does_american_culture_put_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"das3yej",
"das4o89",
"das4rxc",
"das5tpr",
"das6080",
"das63s9",
"das6861",
"das6cb8",
"das6heg",
"das6nma",
"das6oum",
"das7ete",
"das7ruz",
"das8f3d",
"das8imo",
"das8jdq",
"das8v34",
"das8x1b",
"das8xhm",
"das8xzr",
"das8y2f",
"das8zmj",
"das95zk",
"das9659",
"das96bp",
"das96xr",
"das980v",
"das99vr",
"das9edu",
"das9f7a",
"das9keg"
],
"score": [
19,
137,
12,
12,
4,
3,
101,
61,
421,
2,
55,
7,
26,
22,
2,
5,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
5,
64,
2,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In this culture, It is viewed as \"the bird leaving the nest\". In a sense it reflects on the parents and how well they did preparing their children for the world. ",
"Being self sufficient is a major part of they American Mythos and cultural identity. It is the same reason that we are resistant to socialized health care and welfare programs. ",
"Because that's how you keep housing inflation and construction up. Can't have lazy kids living with mom in the basement because then our consumer based economy suffers. ",
"Those old world civilizations don't quite have the same surplus of property that we do in America. And so from the colonial days, the aspiration (or expectation in many cases) is that you become self sufficient and move out because thats what a strong individual is capable of. ",
"At some point an individual could support themselves on a single job... Now a days you need two people working full time jobs to stay above debt... \n\nIts unfortunately the same where I live in Canada too... ",
"In cultures where the family lives together, think of the family as an individual. This is where we misunderstand these cultures in things like honor killings -- it's akin to amputating a gangrenous arm for someone who lives in an individual-focused society. It's like metric, and standard societal units, where one is the individual, and one is the family. ",
"I'm spanish and that's not true. We also get out of the house when we become auto-sustainable in economic terms.\n\nEdit: by spanish I mean SPAIN, EUROPE, yeah that spot between africa and france. ",
"Some aspects of American culture are that you can strive to be/do anything you want. Another aspect to that is going out and doing it. There's a very 'can do' attitude that doesn't always fit with staying at home and perpetuating the family unit. \n\nPeople don't live in the same area (let alone the same house) their whole lives, they move to new places, explore new opportunities, and build the life *they want* for themselves. Not necessarily the life their parents (and grandparents) have laid out for them. ",
"Rugged Individualism. It's the concept Americans have hard wired in our brains. The mark of being an adult is going out on your own and providing for yourself. It's a sense of pride and accomplishment to leave the safety of your parents house and pave your own road to success. This mindset has its advantages, as well as some disadvantages. Moving out is an extension of the mentioned \"rugged individualism\" but there are several faucets to this concept. \n\n_URL_0_",
"As an American I know what you are saying. I am a country manager of oil and gas companies in the middle east. My guys buy houses to move their parents in with them. I honestly ask them WTF but that is they way they think. We GTFO as soon as we can, I joined the damn USMC!\nThis is a good question though.\nPlease ELI5",
"Isn't it (also) to do with individualist vs collectivist societies? Ie. One society views an individuals needs as most important, while the other society believes your job is to maintain a strong community.",
"Because it stimulates the economy. If everyone lived at home, that's so fewer houses, cars, kitchen gadgets, etc that would have to be sold. \n\nConvincing the populace they must be independent is how corporations sell more goods.",
"This was present in Anglo Saxon culture since the 7th century but the kids would move into a house pretty much next door so it wasn't really about independence, probably because English women had a lot of say compared to other cultures they refused to have their mother in law living in the house with them and telling them how to raise their kids (which is still pretty much what happens in many Mediterranean families). ",
"Mainly because I could never ever bring a girl to my parents house.\n\nThey would either cockblock the fuck outta me or imply that we are both sinners and going to hell before informing me that they will not tolerate that evil in their house and that if it ever happens again they'll kick me out.\n\nSo I'm basically stuck with no dating prospects until I can get out. But I guarantee they'll be nagging me before too long about why they dont have grandkids.",
"Because Asian culture benefits/ profits/ gets a sick pleasure out of enslaving and forcing their own family to do things for them\n\nEg: Carry on generations of lineage, heirlooms, superstitions, religious beliefs. Also making children follow in their footsteps due to harsh circumstances (like the economy or business ethics) or simply out of fear (God will smite them and send them to hell)\n\nYes, even wax the windows or dropping the jacket and picking it back up...\n\nAm Filipino. Can confirm",
"Because by living by yourself, you have more bills to pay, thus need to put in more hours at your job or jobs to pay for them, and get additional expenses such as hiring a babysitter for the children, or things of that nature. All of this directly benefits capitalists.",
"Canada is similar. I think it's because we have so much space and are a nation of immigrants. We're descended from people that moved far away from their families in many cases, so it makes sense that that idea is carried down a bit. ",
"Idk why but then they all complain about not having money and not being able to afford rent, bills, college debt, etc. You save thousands of dollars a month by not moving out. More people should try it (that is not moving out immediately after high school/college, not living with your parents til your 30)",
"Because we're a country of people that values self reliance, independence and individualism (often at the expense of others and the greater good..)",
"One reason among many is because it's much easier than other countries. Income is generally higher and the land space is proportionally cheaper.",
"I have spanish family - that's simply false - most people I know from Spain move out as soon as they can.",
"I'm actually in the middle of moving out of my parents house today and this is very interesting to see the different responses. I'm leaving because I just want to be out on my own. I make plenty of money to take care of myself and I just wanna do my own thing. ",
"Singaporean here, thought I wanted to share a bit about the Asian perspective on this. \n\nFYI, we're a multiracial country, Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasians. I'm a Singaporean Chinese (we form the majority of the population), so I can try to speak for my demographic, although some values are shared across races. \n\nWe usually stay with our parents sometimes even after we're married for a few reasons. We're only reasonably expected to move out after marriage. \n\nFirstly, houses in Singapore don't come cheap, because land space is super limited. And if you want to get government housing (from the Housing Development Board), you have to apply for that and wait years before you get the keys to your house (also you only can purchase HDB apartments if you're married). Even then, housing's still not cheap. We have financial schemes like the Central Provident Fund to help us out, but there are other issues, too. Basically, it's ~not easy~ impossible to find a house when you're a youngish adult unless your family's shitting money. \n\nSecondly, Asians value filial piety a lot (something something Confucianism). Living with your parents means you care for them. Moving out before marriage is kind of a stigma, like you're trying to get away from your parents - that sort of thing. Again, unless family is super rich and has different ideals and values, this would be different, but I'm talking in generals. Around 18 is still a very young age for us, too. As long as we're studying (and even during our first years in our first jobs), we're still our parent's children. With Singapore's focus on education, more and more of us are studying for longer periods, and slower to find jobs, especially in the current economy. Plus, all guys have mandatory national service so that's another extra 2 years staying with the parents. \n\n\nI think the main difference between my Asian culture and an American one is 1, land space and 2, different values on life. \n\nMore land space = more (financially accessible) houses. Purchasing more houses = better economy. \n\nAlso I think I saw in a few other comments about individualism. I obviously can't speak for Americans, but it is clear that Asian and American values are very different. Moving out means being financially capable and growing out of your own. It may even be filial piety in a Western sense - no longer living off your parents and being a responsible human. It seems like an important moment of being/becoming an adult. \n\nEdit: found out that you can purchase a HDB apartment if you're over 35 or your parents have passed on. Basically some other conditions to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads regardless of financial/social disposition. And grammar.",
"In American culture it's considered a weakness to live with family above a certain age. It's really an illogical cultural conformity. Just one more thing implanted into the minds to fuel the materialistic consumerism society. However, the recent economic decline, among other things, seems to be changing such views.",
"That´s one thing i cannot understand. I am mexican, I will be living with my mother until I get married, and...\n\n\nI began providing money for the house since I was 7. Nobody can tell me I live with my mom just because a fear of independence, I lived 5 years alone and still sent money. \n\n\nI am anxious to see the answers this gets.",
"As with rugged individualism, it's a sense of ownership and permission to use mutual spaces.\n\nI've been living with my parents for 4 years, as I'm married and have 2 kids, it's getting harder and harder to find acceptable times and uses for these common areas. It makes us feel like we are unable to invite school friends over, because we don't know what mood/events my parents have going on in the common rooms.\n\n9 and 6 is where my kids are, and it's increasingly difficult to find activities that you can do in public places that still cultivate a relationship with classmates ",
"There's a lot of comments here about Old World vs New World attitudes. It's not explicitly an American thing and Most of Western Europe does also emphasise leaving home.\n\n[Here's a map](_URL_0_) showing how actually a lot of European youth does actually move out of their parents'.",
"I think you overestimate and misunderstand how people live with their family in other cultures. The idea is that you leave the house when you become an adult, go out and make your way in the world, and then you come back and take over your parents' household or you get your own place and they join you. There's a difference between you living with them and them living with you.\n\nOn the other hand, a house being tied to a family is more prevalent in \"Old World\" cultures, since that was the way things were up until urbanization skyrocketed in the early 20th century.",
"Americans can afford it. People in less prosperous countries would like to move out and live in their own home as well, but they lack the means to do so.\n\nThere's a saying in Brazil that goes \"quem casa quer casa\". People who marry want a home. That's a word play between the verb \"casar\" meaning \"to marry\" and the noun \"casa\", meaning \"house\".\n\n",
"There are many things that have shaped that aspect of American culture; I would go so far as to say that it is a relic of the quasi-religious basis for Manifest Destiny (which in fact, shaped Rugged Individualism). When the expanse of the American western frontier seemed to stretch forever ahead of mostly WASPs, the Old Testament mandate \"Be Fruitful and Multiply\" became a life goal for couples - the large family was actually useful when running a homestead. Reactively, the most significant social rite of passage was creating a new family. While today it would, at most, be considered only slightly shameful to start a new family without being able to provide (this attitude varies with age/community/location/etc - I experienced it a lot as a child in a very religious, rural part of West Virginia), at the peak of westward expansion it would likely mean death. \n\nAdditionally, there have been a variety of religious (again, mostly Protestant variations on a theme, from what I can gather) attitudes influencing the push for new couples to carry out their mating in a house other than that of the parents.\n\nSo, while I don't see these motivations as being prevalent or conscious at present, I believe they have established a pattern and a set of \"norms\" that are outdated and slowly changing.\n\nI would also add that a common \"rite of passage\" for many young adults is a complete rejection of the ideals of their parents - at least for awhile. During that period, it is good to have them out of the house :-)",
"I'll offer an explanation that is a bit more historically oriented.\n\nThe grand ol' USA is a very new country. With the exception of a few old East Coast cities, the USA is a land that was found, developed and lived in during a time of plenty. The US is basically a product of a civilization formed during industrialism, and also in the context of having an enormous amount of square feet of land per capita.\n\nThe US therefore \"grew into\" the land and the historical context that it developed into. Contrast this with anywhere in Europe or Asia, where all the nice places have towns or cities that have existed for a very very long time, and were developed with the constraints of non industrial agrarianism. Not only is the physical infrastructure there already, but the culture is ingrained.\n\nOnly a very wealthy people can have most people move out when they turn 18, and the US is fabulously wealthy when you compare it to the historical norm of the human race. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugged_individualism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/europe-living-with-parents.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ce0ew | how comic distribution works? | I got into comics in 2013, and while I only keep up with two series (Mega Man and X-Men), I'm still really confused at how comics get released, just because I go to my local bookstore every so often instead of a comic book store (which I go to once every few months). I don't understand how back issues or rarity works either. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ce0ew/eli5_how_comic_distribution_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"csuo6kc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most American comics are produced on a monthly basis, about 22 pages per month. These comics are published by a publisher (DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, Etc.) and then distributed by a company called Diamond, who pretty much have a monopoly on comic distribution. These individual issues are pretty much only sold in comic book stores, though, some book stores carry some.\n\nMonths later, these comics may be recollected into \"trade paperbacks\" which will have 4-12 issues all together. Even more issues might also be recollected into even bigger collections- the biggest I've ever heard of in a single volume is The Invisibles Omnibus, which is 59 issues in a single book.\n\nBack issues you generally have to hunt down in comic book stores or at comic conventions. Rarity is sort of pointless to track, but in short, certain first-editions of first-issues become popular collectors items. Finding non-first-editions of these first issues is pretty easy, but they aren't considered rare or valuable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
at3p9k | what causes the urge to move around after hurting yourself? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/at3p9k/eli5_what_causes_the_urge_to_move_around_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"egydkqm"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"You gotta run the pain off. For real, in the wild, if you get hurt, there's probably someone or something that hurt you and your body wants to get away from them asap so you don't sustain any more injuries. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2lirdu | how is it the island of java can support it's 140+ million people in area the size of north carolina? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lirdu/eli5_how_is_it_the_island_of_java_can_support_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"clv8szd",
"clvcqlb"
],
"score": [
12,
6
],
"text": [
"by depending on trade for food and other resources, and coping up with less personal space. there's still some farms and forests, but yeah its hard to get away from other people.\n\nthe total north carolina population is about 10 million? heck, Jakarta (the largest city in Java) alone has 20 million people...\nsource: i live there.",
"The answer here is slums. Slums allow a very large amount of people to live in a very small piece of land. Jakarta and other cities around Java have very large slums. Also, Indonesian mothers have families that are typically large as a result of cultural circumstances and they end up cramming one another into very small living quarters. Multiply this millions of times and you have Java. The fact is that 140 million Indonesians would not fit in Java if they decided to live like Americans, Canadians, or Australians. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
64b3r5 | why is chemotherapy used the way it is? | As a general treatment of the body, rather than a local treatment of the area affected by the cancer? It just seems like if we are able to use anesthic locally, or generally, then why can't we choose to do the same with chemo? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64b3r5/eli5_why_is_chemotherapy_used_the_way_it_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg0rj2e",
"dg0rqcx",
"dg10oyj",
"dg12k1v"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think that is what radiotherapy is. Radiotherapy focuses on one spot but chemo kills cancer cells which are trying to spread. I could be wrong tho.",
"Chemo attempts to stop cells from dividing. Ideally the cells that stop dividing are targeted (hence the plethora of drugs for various cancers; different drugs = different targets) but because the chemistry is nowhere near an exact science, lots of other fast-dividing cells get hit too (hair, muscles, skin, white/red blood cells, etc). \n\nThe logic is that the cancer itself is a mutant, and won't survive more than 'a little while' without constantly dividing and replicating, so if you can specifically poison the body, stop cellular division for a while, and otherwise keep the person alive, the cancer will die off while (most of) the rest of the person stays alive.\n\nThink of it like having a castle full of people, and there was one group of particularly troublesome monks inside you wanted to kill off. The monks only ate apples, but your intel was shitty and you knew only that the monks ate sweet foods. You siege the castle and prevent anything sweet from getting in, sugar, fruits, plants...anything that contained or could become sugar. Many people develop scurvy and other malnutrition related problems and die off, but the monks all die too. You celebrate that the monks are dead, and get on living with whatever is left alive in the castle as the population slowly recovers.\n\nThe monks are cancer, the people are the healthy cells in the body, and everything else is the process of treating and living with the aftermath of cancer.",
"Chemotherapy can be given locally, this is sometimes done for example in the bladder for bladder cancer and by intra-arterial chemotherapy (TACE) for liver metastasis. However many times metastases are not in one place and you want to treat every metastasis, even if it is too small to be detected, and therefore systemic administration is more beneficial.",
"Cancer is particularly nasty because of its ability to metastasize. If you remove a cancerous tumor from someone there's no guarantee that you got all of the cancerous cells. Some may have escaped in to circulation and set up residence elsewhere in the body. Chemotherapy targets rapidly proliferating cells, as others have mentioned, and so it is useful to \"mop up\" these rogue cells.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6dp3y9 | what causes the cloud rings to form around and above a nuclear or thermonuclear bomb? | Example of [high-yield fusion Castle Bravo shot](_URL_0_) with rings. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dp3y9/eli5_what_causes_the_cloud_rings_to_form_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"di4bnyl"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The immense force of the blast creates a wave of high pressure in the air, traveling outwards from the centre.\n\nFollowing this high pressure is an area of extreme low pressure, this low pressure causes a drastic temperature drop.\n\nDropping temperature results in water in the air condensing, causing the ring of \"cloud\" that you see."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2I66dHbSRA"
] | [
[]
] |
|
g3pjxv | what does hormones actually do to our brains, how it makes us think, and if we extract all the hormone and hormone producing glands will the person be dead or lose his ability to think and feel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g3pjxv/eli5_what_does_hormones_actually_do_to_our_brains/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnsnhy2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hormones is a functional name for dozens of chemicals that serve as messengers between organs, and mediate physiological processes. They basically change what cells/tissues/organs do by changing the chemical environment in which said cells are. If you removed all glands, yes a person would die, probably in a diabetic coma from lack of insuline."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
apx17e | could an organism living in the ocean at a pressure of 5 tons/in^2 survive a hit from a sledge hammer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/apx17e/eli5_could_an_organism_living_in_the_ocean_at_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"egbr5j7",
"egbsjbj"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It would die. Constant even pressure from all sides is not the same as non-uniform pressure hitting you from one direction, which would splatter the poor thing in the other direction.",
"You have to remember that organisms living at the bottom of the ocean are filled with water. They aren't resisting 5 tons of pressure like a submarine would. The water inside their bodies is at the same pressure as the water outside their body. So, they don't feel the pressure at all."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
31xmlg | how do united states defence contractors make money when they are not needed? | I searched! Don't kill me!! :)
There aren't any major battles right now (that I know of), so what exactly do companies like General Dynamics do during these times? I would assume production of their vehicles and tanks, and planes, and missiles and everything that they produce is on hold. Its not like tanks and APVs are getting blow up constantly, and its not like you can go down to the General Dynamics dealership and purchase a used F-16 or M1, where do they make their money during times like this?
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31xmlg/eli5_how_do_united_states_defence_contractors/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq5xjgp",
"cq5yemg",
"cq5zd2w"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Many still have personnel overseas re-building infrastructure, training foreign and US troops, and cleaning up everything afterwards. Weapons and equipment are still used and destroyed in training (things wear out or break), even in peace time. Some of them sell to foreign governments. A few do environmental cleanups, demolish unused military sites, and return polluted parcels of land to other uses. Most, if not all, are diversified enough that they still make money in seemingly unrelated things. ",
"Congressman: Looks like this war is wrapping up, we can probably wind down that airplane contract.\nContractor: This war is almost over and you're still fighting with last war's planes, surely you don't want to fight the next war with the same planes too...we'd be happy to continue work on development of the next generation of fighter jet.\nConcerned Citizen: _URL_0_",
"General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and other contractors have several business units. Some build planes or tanks or misses but others are for IT, Intelligence or other administrative services. They diversify across multiple contract vehicles so that there is a steady revenue stream. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA"
],
[]
] |
|
45sbv3 | are the black panthers a racist hate group? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45sbv3/eli5_are_the_black_panthers_a_racist_hate_group/ | {
"a_id": [
"czzt5zy",
"czztalt",
"czztotl"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"That's gonna be a touchy subject and one just asking for a Reddit War. However, here is the wiki on them _URL_0_ and you make your own conclusions. Remember that when they were active it was a very different time for African Americans and they were quick to be demonized. For the record, I have no opinion on them either way.",
"The Black Panthers started as a community activist group meant to protect the Black community. You gotta remember that during that time period, law enforcement's idea of \"due process\" in a lot of places consisted of rounding up the nearest black guy and beating him until he confessed to whatever you needed. So, the BP formed to protect the black community from abuse. This protection often included armed patrols in black communities that were needed to protect innocent black folk from police. In their early days, they did a lot of positive organizing, including many social programs such as community health clinics.\n\nOver time, the group became more radical, more isolated, and several leaders turned to criminal activities to fund their activities or just line their own pockets. \n\nSo, it depends on what you're remembering. Most people who aren't black remember the crime, the corruption, and the violence. But many who are black remember that, at a time when law enforcement and many in the government were committed to victimizing the community, the Black Panthers were ready to stand up and fight back. ",
"The easiest way to describe it is that the KKK is an anti-black group, with its primary goal being the punishment of black people. The Black Panthers weren't anti-white, they were pro-black. They worked to protect and help black communities suffering from racism. They used the threat of violence to make it clear that attacking black people was no longer acceptable. But their primary actions included ensuring that poor black families were fed, serving as neighborhood watch, they protested. \n\nBut they were armed black men, and that scared people. And yes, the Black Panthers did attack white people on occasion. But it wasn't their primary goal. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
l2jh9 | nominalism | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l2jh9/eli5_nominalism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2pd3ed",
"c2pd3ed"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"4 upvotes and no comments, wtf?!?!?",
"4 upvotes and no comments, wtf?!?!?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1me92i | what exactly is a time share? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1me92i/eli5_what_exactly_is_a_time_share/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc8d2ug"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's partial ownership in a property. In a simple example, you and 25 other people would get together to buy something very expensive, like a condo that would cost millions of dollars. Then you all agree to each spend two weeks per year in the condo.\n\nThe problem with timeshares is they are almost always run by predatory management companies who have no interest but to squeeze as much money out of the tenants as possible. The industry is rife with scam artists."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4w5ev1 | in the restaurant industry, why do prices increase from breakfast through lunch and into dinner? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w5ev1/eli5_in_the_restaurant_industry_why_do_prices/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6449ye",
"d644qug",
"d644xre"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure about breakfast, but my first guess would be that most breakfast ingredients are cheaper. \nAs for lunch to dinner, the basic answer is portion sizes. Even ordering the exact same entree, if you order from the lunch menu, your potion will be smaller than if you order during dinner hours. I've worked in kitchens/restaurants since I was 15, and this is what I've always found. ",
"It's a combination of higher cost of dinner ingredients, and supply and demand. Unless it's a niche restaurant that primarily serves breakfast, restaurants generally bring in more customers during the evening hours when dinner is served. In order to take advantage of this increase in customers, as well as to avoid depleting resources, prices are generally increased. ",
"Pricing is part of marketing. Prices are lower during hours where the restaurant wants to attract more customers.\n\nSource: I am not from the restaurant industry but I do marketing for my company."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ync4i | how is exercise an anti-inflammatory? | Specifically, what does exercise do to the body that reduces inflammation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ync4i/eli5_how_is_exercise_an_antiinflammatory/ | {
"a_id": [
"deredm6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Think of inflammation as coming in two different flavors. \n\nAcute inflammation is temporary and strong. It breaks down your body in a temporary way and when your body is done repairing itself, you just made it stronger and better than it was before.\n\nChronic inflammation is a different beast. It's asymptomatic. You don't know you have it and you can't feel it. It's little but it sticks around and quietly, slowly just breaks down your body. Without it getting stronger at all. It happens so slowly your body doesn't really react. It makes it weaker over time and harms your body.\n\nThey aren't 100% sure why, but exposing yourself to acute inflammation *consistently* over time, reduces your levels of chronic inflammation. There are a lot of theories for why that is, involving stress reduction and various hormone levels. But study after study shows that it is true. \n\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
c34lta | why are animals and fauna no longer as large as they once were? what has changed about our world that mega fauna and mega animals no longer exist? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c34lta/eli5_why_are_animals_and_fauna_no_longer_as_large/ | {
"a_id": [
"eroluag",
"eromavr",
"eromo6r",
"eroo5f1",
"erp2ys9",
"erpe2a0",
"erpi1xo"
],
"score": [
2,
35,
19,
11,
3,
2,
18
],
"text": [
"Cold. Bigger bodies are better at retaining heat in cold climate. As the climate warmed over the past 10-20,000 years smaller bodies that shed heat quickly became more advantageous.",
"We don’t *actually* know but some theories are that temperature of the earth was the major factor for mammals getting so big. If the ambient temperature is lower, the heat/energy of a larger mammal is much easier. \n\nFor insects (and maybe plants), there was a much higher concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere that helped produce gigantic bugs (we think) and when birds were getting bigger and preying on them (we think) they started to die off (we think)",
"I will point out that the blue whale is the biggest animal to have ever existed as far as we know",
"Humans. Look at Australia, Europe, America. Wherever humans spread to, megafauna vanish. They’re either really good food sources or dangerous predators to exterminate, and early humans had zero interest in conservation.",
"The oxygen levels were about 30% as compared to the 20% we live in now ...due to Oxygen rich atmosphere the plants and animals would be larger than those existing today",
"Do you mean fauna and flora? Fauna are animals.",
"First off, it isn't strictly true. \n\nBlue whales are the largest animal by mass ever to exist. \n\nGiant redwood trees are amongst the largest trees ever to exist. \n\nElephants are pretty big too.\n\nBut the world has seen larger insects, fish, birds, reptiles and land animals that is true. So why?\n\nInsects don't have lungs. They breathe through their skin. As size goes up, volume increases faster than surface area so the amount of insect increases faster than the amount of skin it can breathe with. The limit to the size of insects is directly related to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. \n\nThis was higher in the past. \n\nReptiles and fish - cold blooded. The maximum size depends on temperature and the amount of food available. It was hotter in the past so they could get bigger, and so did the stuff they ate. That's not the full story, as there are many things that will limit the size of an animal, but it a the major difference between today and the dinosaur age.\n\nBirds and land animals - These mega fauna lived not so long ago in the grand scheme of things. Their extinction suspiciously coincides with the arrival of a new breed of predator spreading across the globe. \n\nAnimals such as giant sloths, giant kangaroos, mammoths, moas all survived ice ages and subsequent warm periods before the world plunged into another ice age, again and again. \n\nThen, during the last ice age, they start disappearing. \n\nBecause of us. Humans spread out of Africa and the mammoths of north Europe and Asia started dying out. Humans spread across the Indonesian archipelago to Australia 40000 years ago, and that's when the giant kangaroos died off. 12000 years ago and humans rapidly swarmed through the Americas starting in Alaska down to Patagonia in only a few centuries, driving the extinction of giant sloths and other megafauna southwards with them. \n\nThe big animals living on the Caribbean islands outlived their mainland cousins by a few thousand years until humans reached the islands by boat. \n\nMoas were big flightless birds native to New Zealand. They had lived there for thousands and thousands of years. \n\nThey only had one predator - the Haast Eagle aka the largest eagle ever to exist. \n\nThis was the last major landmass (other than Antarctica) that humans reached. The Maori arrived sometime in the 13th century. \n\nBy 1445, all Moas were dead. Haast eagles followed shortly after. \n\ntl;dr there are big animals, but the planet isn't warm enough or oxygeny enough for big reptiles and insects. Humans ate the rest."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2o5xzp | why don't 'unincorporated territories of the united states pay taxes? why aren't they considered a state? | "The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States..." | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o5xzp/eli5_why_dont_unincorporated_territories_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmjzz0j",
"cmk00on",
"cmk0cmt",
"cmk49vk"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Well in the US we have a thing about taxing people who don't have representation in the body that decides what those taxes are. They aren't states either because the don't want to be, or Congress won't admit them, or both.",
"They just don't pay *federal* taxes. Since they don't have representation in the federal government, they aren't taxed by it.",
"They do pay taxes, and even some federal ones, like Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes. The exemption is on federal income tax, although most territories will have an income tax of some sort.\n\nThey aren't considered states because Congress hasn't admitted them as states. There are probably a few reasons - tradition, their small size relative to other states, possibly partisan reasons (territories tend to elect Democratic non-voting members of Congress, so if they had full-fledged representation in Congress and the Electoral College, it'd give Democrats a huge boost relative to the population).",
"They *could* legally be required to pay taxes like other citizens, but are not. All territories receive far more assistance from the federal gov't than their taxes would provide, so it is kind of counter productive to tax them just to give that money back.\n\n > Why aren't they considered a state?\n\nMost territories just don't have enough people to form a state. The one that does, Puerto Rico, doesn't want to be a state."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6a6wa7 | how are open-world video game maps designed? | Some of them are so big, I don't understand how they do it. I presume nobody has to draw every inch of them!? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6a6wa7/eli5_how_are_openworld_video_game_maps_designed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhc5h1v",
"dhc5k31"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Yep, someone draws every inch. Well, \"models\" is the correct term since it's mostly done in 3D programs now, and there are usually entire teams of designers and the work gets split up among them. It takes a long time to build those kinds of worlds.",
"They actually do \"draw\" the world piece by piece. It's usually done by groups of people, not just one dude. They first make a rough terrain curves (hills, rivers, canyons...) then they just polish it till it looks really nice. Then they have to add all the props, like trees, buildings, people... \n\nSo yeah, they are actually modeled inch by inch, there's nothing more complicated in it. \n\nException could be randomly generated games like Minecraft, where the game continues to load new piecea of world. It's not really random, the blocks are dependent on their neighbours. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2iff24 | why is drinking sea water lethal, but soups with massive sodium content are acceptable? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iff24/eli5eli5_why_is_drinking_sea_water_lethal_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl1pocu",
"cl1pq9b",
"cl1psh2",
"cl1rd0h",
"cl1sakn"
],
"score": [
83,
69,
14,
75,
8
],
"text": [
"Because soups with massive sodium content are still much, much, ***MUCH*** less salty than sea water. That's not to say they're healthy, though, Americans eat way too much sodium as it is. \n\nEdit: in fact, salt water is so salty, that getting a mouthful of it is known to cause immediate vomiting. It's happened to me before. We in the SCUBA diving community call it \"feeding the fishes\". (and yes, when it happens, fishes often crowd around your face to eat your vomit. It's disgusting and cool at the same time)",
"Salty soup is still far less salt than is in sea water. ",
"As others said, huge sodium difference. \n\nAlso, if you are in reach of soup, you're probably not dehydrated as it is. If you're stranded in the middle of the ocean, you're already at a disadvantage. ",
"The advisory against drinking sea water is made under the assumption it is your only source of hydration. Unless you can get non-saline water to balance your salt/fluid ratio from somewhere else (like you probably can when your're eating salty soup in a civilized context) then the salt content in the sea-water will kill you.",
"Sea water is around 3% salt by weight. Brine used for preserving stuff is at 5%. Chicken noodle soup typically has about .3 grams sodium per 240 gram serving, plus about 1.5 parts by weight chlorine per part by weight sodium for a total of around .8 grams salt per 240 grams, or around .3% salt by weight. Guesstimates made by a drunk person to one significant digit to account for instrument error."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4c1fan | why is it that whats politically correct sometimes isn't the same as the opinion of the majority? | For example supporting gay marriage has been politically correct for a much longer time than the US has had > 50% that supported it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c1fan/eli5_why_is_it_that_whats_politically_correct/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1e7755",
"d1e9sn5",
"d1ec08s",
"d1efrg7"
],
"score": [
12,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's start off with a statement, society evolves towards increased compassion for all members of society. On the forefront of that evolution is radical thought that tends to be less judgemental of others. For example, native Americans are equal humans (1920s), women are equal humans (1940s), Blacks are equal humans (1950), Gays are equal humans (1990). The population in general is conservative, they find radical though scary. Thus social regulation has to be created to help move on society (equal opportunities acts, etc.) This is called \"political correctness\" in that the politics of the time have moved on past the status quo of the population. \n\nOf course, there are always people looking to mock evolution of society because it scares them a lot. This is usually because they are in some way inadequate and need oppression of sectors of society in order to keep their inadequacy \"punching above their weight\". These people use \"political correctness\" as a mocking term. They are trying to undermine a fairer society so that they don't need to address their own failings. \n\nSo, to answer your question, leaders need to create political correctness in order to evolve our society forward to a better place. By that definition PC will always be pushing the majority ",
"Because \"politically correct\" is a term used to describe compliance with a certain set of values -- either liberal/progressive, or highly tolerant/sensitive, or something like that depending on the speaker.\n\nThis set of values is not necessarily held by the majority of people. In fact some firmly oppose these.",
"There was an interesting point that my sociology of cultures teacher brought up, that if laws were made to serve the majority, it would lead to up to 49% of the population being marginalized and discriminated against. It leads to a situation of classes and power differentials. Laws are better off made to serve the needs of the minority groups in a community/society. In this way the majority still has their freedoms and rights and will always be more privileged, but no one is left out of the equality. It took me a while to wrap my head around it but I really agree with that position now. \n\nI also believe that there is always a disparity between the speed a society evolves, grows and improves, and the speed at which individual members of society are able to adapt or grow as people. It takes a lot of personal introspection and energy to, for example, change the way you see someone of a different race after a lifetime of believing something that is actually wrong but is the bedrock of your belief system. Change is scary, and shaking the very foundation of what a person has thought their whole life is a scary place for them, so sometimes people have to be pushed a little, and even if they go the rest of their lives believing that change was wrong, it's to be expected and is no reason not to make that change. \n\nThe American civil rights movement is a good example. The majority of voters in places like Alabama were actually against integrating black people into schools and so on, but it was forced upon them since it's clearly the right thing to do. Most people accepted it once it became clear the sky didn't fall. Others will go to their graves never accepting it, and that's their right. As long as their beliefs are no longer infringing on the rights of someone else, they can be as angry as they want. \n\nAnother example is recycling. A lot of communities full of older people just want to throw everything in the garbage. They're having recycling programs forced on them and told they'll be fined if they are caught throwing recyclables in the garbage. They might hate it, but it's the better way to do things and so they'll have to learn to live in a world where we recycle now, or face the consequences. Ultimately their way was hurting other people, (by polluting and causing environmental damage,) so it has to be changed. Change is hard and scary though... ",
"Because \"politically correct\" is subjective, and for the most part, doesn't really mean anything.\n\nIt is mostly a straw man used to mock those who would use fear of offending others as a tool to silence those who disagree with them.\n\nConsider gay rights. Some people would call getting offended over an anti-gay slur to being \"politically correct\". Others stalk message boards and call people as homophobic if they don't use the exact labels they consider to be correct. \n\nThe whole politically correct thing runs the gamut between the two, and there is no precise, objective definition of what is or is not politically correct. So it is kind of meaningless to say things like \"gay marriage has been politically correct\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4exz9i | is gordan ramsay actually a good chef? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4exz9i/eli5_is_gordan_ramsay_actually_a_good_chef/ | {
"a_id": [
"d24a64n"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's not really an objective way to answer your question, tastes can certainly vary. His restaurants have earned 16 Michelin stars, which are pretty sought after, so you may take that as an endorsement. At least some of these stars have been earned while he has been head chef at a location. He's undoubtedly technically skilled. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
jjxny | the plot of the legend of zelda series | Preferably in Hyrulian chronological order. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jjxny/eli5_the_plot_of_the_legend_of_zelda_series/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2crpo8",
"c2csl1f",
"c2crpo8",
"c2csl1f"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's hard to attribute a chronology to Zelda, though some aspects can be assumed ( like Wind Waker seems to be a post-apocalyptic Hyrule, the Great Sea having flooded the world ), and each of the games has similar themes for the most part. Seeing as Link is the \"hero of time\", I always saw the series as two omnipresent \"forces\" that are epitomized by Link and Ganondorf, good and evil, a conflict that reoccurs every century or so. We can be sure all this is happening within the same world, seeing as certain constants exist (the goddesses, zelda, hyrule, termina, deku tree, faeries, etc) but I dont think anyone knows for sure",
"[This](_URL_0_) is the best description of the chronology of the Zelda Series I've seen.",
"It's hard to attribute a chronology to Zelda, though some aspects can be assumed ( like Wind Waker seems to be a post-apocalyptic Hyrule, the Great Sea having flooded the world ), and each of the games has similar themes for the most part. Seeing as Link is the \"hero of time\", I always saw the series as two omnipresent \"forces\" that are epitomized by Link and Ganondorf, good and evil, a conflict that reoccurs every century or so. We can be sure all this is happening within the same world, seeing as certain constants exist (the goddesses, zelda, hyrule, termina, deku tree, faeries, etc) but I dont think anyone knows for sure",
"[This](_URL_0_) is the best description of the chronology of the Zelda Series I've seen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.gametrailers.com/video/zelda-retrospective-the-legend/15194"
],
[],
[
"http://www.gametrailers.com/video/zelda-retrospective-the-legend/15194"
]
] |
|
p79ph | what makes facebook so valuable? why would it be a 100 bn $ company? | Facebook is not making any products/ selling anything. Why would it be valuable? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p79ph/eli5_what_makes_facebook_so_valuable_why_would_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3n2mqt",
"c3n2n9i",
"c3n2uas",
"c3n2y2k",
"c3n33l1",
"c3n42hr",
"c3n462n",
"c3n48a9",
"c3n4jjz",
"c3n4wh4",
"c3n5km6",
"c3n6gd7",
"c3n6lap",
"c3n6r61",
"c3n7bz8",
"c3nauxw"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
177,
10,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"valuable market research and advertising revenue",
"The 800 million users' profile information is theoretically worth twice as much as that.",
"They do have a product they sell, a very valuable one... You.\n\nAll those statuses, all those 'likes', all those location check-ins... That data isn't just there for your friends to see. It is organized and categorized and analyzed and creates an unbelievable source of data for directed advertising. You dump every detail of yourself onto Facebook which tells them exactly what to try and sell you. The ads may be small and seem insignificant, but they are the digital equivalent of real estate on Manhattan Island. Add to that the ads beyond the actual _URL_0_ site itself. The 'like' button you see on virtually every website now, ever wonder why you don't log in every time you use it? A cookie based system is essentially tracking your every online movement while at the same time allowing advertisers to customize ads anywhere based on your FB info. Not just Facebook either: Google, Yahoo, Foursquare, Twitter... All these 'free' products we take for granted as \"Innovative communications tools for the 21st century!\" are vast information fishing nets for well-paying corporate clients.\n\nI always chuckle when the semi-annual \"Facebook is going to start charging a fee!\" outrage kicks up. No they aren't. They have zero need to ever extract a penny from us, more likely they will keep tacking on new free feature after another. When you sell something you charge the fee to the buyer, and we aren't the customer... we're the product.",
"Facebook is valuable because so many people use it. \n\nPeople tend to include their demographic information (asl) in their profile as well as their interests.\n\nWhen people \"Like\" a topic or post about a topic, Facebook can track this activity. \n\nAll this information is valuable to a lot of industries, advertising companies in particular. \n\n*An example:* You work for a television studio and want to know whether you should release a new buddy sitcom. Facebook has access to statistics on the number of people who have \"Liked\", mentioned, or posted references to similar sitcoms (Big Bang Theory, Always Sunny in Philadelphia, How I Met Your Mother, etc.)With this information, you can gauge what the interest might be in *your* sitcom.\n\nNow, when you release your sitcom you have limited advertising dollars. So you want to make sure your target audience (let's say males 18-30 in the United States) is the primary consumer of your advertising instead of, say, old people. Facebook lets you target this demographic with ads directly on the Facebook site and can tell you which venues are more popular (they've been \"Liked\" or mentioned more) with your targets so you don't waste ad dollars. \n\nFinally, once your sitcom's ad campaign is up and running, Facebook can give you data on how many times people have \"Liked\" or shared your ads as well as mentioning the show in their status or in a wall post to a friend. \n\nFacebook doesn't need to make a product. *You* and your information are the product. ",
"Can someone explain where the $80B valuation number comes from? What exactly is worth that amount of money?",
"Basically, Facebook's wealth lies in how much information they have on it's users. How do they get this information? We give it to them! While most of this information they sell may not be directly about you, Facebook uses millions of data points to essentially paint a picture of the social network and the world it has created.\n\nBecause so much of the information they have on users is accurate, the picture Facebook paints with its millions of data points is very similar to real world demographics. This concept of metadata or \"data-about-data\" is essentially what Facebook utilizes to create a bridge between companies that want you to buy stuff, and you.\n\nPersonally, I think it would actually be interesting to see how this continues. Imagine if the only ads you saw, were ads that you actually enjoyed. This is slowly becoming a reality. Because of this, the web is essentially being tailored to fit YOU. Google does this with your searches as well. Some say it is convenient, as relevant websites are more easily available. Others suggest this is a soft censorship.",
"**real answer**\n\nIt isn't. ",
"It has hundreds of millions of unpaid workers creating content (us)",
"They just filed for an IPO and have revealed their financial standing as part of that procedure. Here's a nice, simple explanation:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn broad strokes, Facebook made $3.71 billion last year. They divide up that revenue as 1. money made from advertising and 2. payments and other fees. The advertising makes up most of the revenue.\n\nBecause they have a big, popular network, investors think that Facebook is a good, safe bet (i.e. it will continue to grow and make money in the next few years). Their thinking is that if it made almost $4 billion last year and seems to have strong, reasonable plans to make more than that next year and the year after, that the company could make at least $80-100 billion over its lifetime.\n\nThis valuation can and will change, especially once it becomes a publicly traded stock. You will be able to see investors' opinion change in near-realtime as the expected value of the company fluctuates.\n\nTo address your question directly:\n\n > Facebook is not making any products/ selling anything.\n\nThey are selling ad space. That's where most of their revenue is generated. Zynga is a big chunk of their income as well -- they get a cut of every real-money transaction that takes place on Facebook.",
"The Thing I don't understand, which was brought up by some new programs I was watching, is how they plan and making MORE money. I mean I assume they use adverts as a large source of income, but how will they increase their worth? I would say a majority of people already use facebook, and there is no real competition, so they won't be gaining a significantly greatly client base. Does anyone know how they plan on increasing their value, if at all?",
"To be honest this damned facebook IPO is giving me an identity crisis of sorts since I, shockingly, was a computer nerd in high school and thus had a cute nerd friend who later on became one of the first facebook employees. Me? I had a really bad experience with a computer science instructor who basically turned me off of making a career of it. And now I'm here posting at 8AM on reddit after a night shift, six figures in student loan debt wondering whether or not I really made the right life decisions after all. Oh well, I'm sure it'd be a pain in the butt to be a billionaire, amiright?\n\nI could post an actual explanation of why it's fairly valuable but I think everyone else had that covered, though I do think that the valuation based on the IPO is a little optimistic. Their revenue is pretty awesome but to really justify a $100 billion valuation they'd have to keep growing their revenues and profits at insane rates which I find really hard to believe since there's limited advertising dollars out there so it'll get harder and harder to grab more of those dollars. And they're also not in a great position in the Chinese market at this point-right now the Chinese market has limited advertising dollars to earn but the problem is that there are players there cementing their positions for the future where advertising spending will be significantly higher in China. Facebook really has to break into that market for optimal long term revenue growth.\n\n",
"So, once they go public and have a board of idiots, won't Facebook become quite shitty like other corporations? Not a lot of faith in publicly traded businesses here. Google's doing OK so far but I think that's only because they are swimming in mountains of money like Scrooge McDuck.",
"It's the power of applied bullshit",
"In a nutshell, if you're using a service and you're not paying anything for it, then you're not the customer. You're the livestock. ",
"It's not that valuable. Facebook is really big and they do make money, but like almost every other dotcom they have a grossly inflated market valuation that isn't based on their potential performance as much as fervor and speculation. ",
"They made $1B in profit last year."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"Facebook.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mashable.com/2012/02/01/how-facebook-ipo-makes-money/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
25ev3s | is there an evolutionary benefit to the type of hair you have? | For example why is it that africans have a certain type of hair, a lot of irish people have red hair, and asian people have the black straight hair. (I am generalizing of course.) Was this natural selection? What is the significance of hair? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25ev3s/eli5_is_there_an_evolutionary_benefit_to_the_type/ | {
"a_id": [
"chgjcw6",
"chgplz8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I can tell you that having really curly afro hair in the summer heat means that I can sick my fingers in my hair and it feels like there is a little private AC unit in there. It keeps my head cool, I imagine it does, and has for other afro haired humans who are almost entirely of recent African descent, where it would have been beneficial in the hot environment.",
"About 70,000(a small time on an evolutionary scale) years ago, the human species was bottlenecked to a small population. That is why we have very little genetic differences between two humans as opposed to other populations. Now these physical traits such as eye color or hair type, were most likely sexually selected among small populations. I think it is still a debate why the traits such as blue eyes were sexually selected, but it is pretty clear that there is no to little economical function that they serve, or else other populations would have evolved them in the same environments."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2s1066 | when nasa created the golden record that they sent with the voyager probe, how did they know that another intelligent species who found the probe would be able to read/play it? | What makes them think that if an alien race finds it, they'll know what to do with it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s1066/eli5_when_nasa_created_the_golden_record_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnl53cr",
"cnl63k6",
"cnlai6x"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They printed instructions on how to play the disk in pictograms onto the disk cover.\n\nsee this picture on the explaination of the pictograms\n\n_URL_0_",
"It was also used as a memorial of humanity to be sent through space for when we get extinct. ",
"They don't know, it's sort of a blind hope. Furthermore, it's pretty unlikely that the probe will ever hit any celestial object, let alone a planet, let alone a planet with life on it, let alone a planet with life on it capable of understanding what it is (imagine an alien probe landing on Earth in dinosaur times). It's a symbolic gesture. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record#mediaviewer/File:Voyager_Golden_Record_Cover_Explanation.svg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
89qgl1 | what's a tarif? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89qgl1/eli5_whats_a_tarif/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwsq0li",
"dwssgyw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A tariff is a tax on imports or exports.\n\nFor example, if you have a 100% tariff on iron, that means someone wanting to import (or export) iron into your country must pay 100% of the value of the iron in taxes.",
"You have a lemonade stand and your friend bakes 2 dozen cookies. You let your friend sell their cookies for $1 each at your stand and he sells them all for $24. You ask him to pay you $0.50 each to let you keep selling them tomorrow. He agrees, but now he raises the price to $1.50 so he still makes $1 each cookie.\n\nThe next day you baked cookies too. You sell your $1 cookies right next to his $1.50 cookies. No one wants his and everyone wants yours. You sell 20 cookies and they make $20 and he sells 4. He gives you $2 and he keeps $4 and hates that your cookies are cheaper and he's still paying you for access."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
qpxrf | what went down in the ows subreddit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qpxrf/eli5_what_went_down_in_the_ows_subreddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3zjp5o",
"c3zjsnj",
"c3zkby7",
"c3zkzwe"
],
"score": [
10,
97,
14,
9
],
"text": [
"What is the OWS subreddit?",
"I only have a tenuous grasp of the situation, but what I gathered was that some dick (username: [TheGhostOfNoLibs](_URL_0_)) finagled his way into a moderator spot on [/r/occupywallstreet](/r/occupywallstreet). Several people were complaining that he directly opposes just about everything the OWS movement stands for, has a war hawkish disposition, and regularly makes inflammatory and offensive comments. A lot of people were banned from the OWS subreddit for pointing out that this guy is an asshole and has no business being anywhere near an OWS community. Evidently he was stripped of his position recently. [source](_URL_1_)",
"This doesn't really need to be ELI5, does it? Sorry I can't answer because I'm unaware, but this seems like a pretty simple question more fitting of ask reddit. \n\nEDIT: See Not_Me's reply. ",
"[Here's](_URL_0_) a link to r/subredditdrama explaining the situation\n\n\nHope this helps :)\n\nEdit: [And Here's](_URL_1_) a thread from [/r/worstof](/r/worstof) discussing what happened"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/user/TheGhostOfNoLibs",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/ronpaul/comments/qo7uo/enoughpaulspam_moderators_have_become_moderators/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/qonx3/update_roccupywallstreet_allegedly_taken_over_by/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/worstof/comments/qoyau/neoconservatives_gain_moderator_status_at_rows/"
]
] |
||
b1gyrh | why are some seasonal fruits, like apples, available all year round, but others aren't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1gyrh/eli5_why_are_some_seasonal_fruits_like_apples/ | {
"a_id": [
"eilln99"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Seasonal fuits are grown in both the northern and southern hemispheres and shipped all over the world. A lot of summer fruits that are available in grocery stores in the winter in northern countries are grown in Chile, Argentina, New Zealand etc. The same is true of winter fruits that are available in grocery stores in the summer in northern countries. \n\nFruits that cannot be shipped and stored easily are not available out of season. Apples, for example, are very easy to ship because they are hard and so do not bruise easily, and they can be stored in refrigerators for months. Strawberries, on the other hand, are too delicate to ship long distances or to store for months because they will bruise and rot quickly. \n\nSome of these more delicate seasonal fruits can be grown out of season in greenhouses, but they tend to be very expensive. They can also be grown in more temperate regions like California and Mexico, which have much longer growing seasons, but they still still have to be shipped on trains and trucks. Avoiding bruising and spoilage is a difficult process. \n\nTropical fruits like bananas, pineapples, and papayas are grown year-round in tropical climates. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4js7a2 | how do they fake apps/operating systems in movies/tv | For example when a character is using a smartphone or computer and it shows the screen as they text, browse files, or use a website. Is that all done in post-production? Or is it a skin on an OS or an app created specifically for the show? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4js7a2/eli5_how_do_they_fake_appsoperating_systems_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d39346l",
"d3934wu",
"d3938hi",
"d39o74q"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Usually you would want to do it in post-production because screens don't film well due to different refresh rates. They may have prompts on the screen if the scene calls for it though. ",
"These days the screens as filmed are all green screens, and the contents of the screens are added in post.\n\n[Generally like this](_URL_0_)",
"Simulated screens can be created with graphic design and editing programs. Then the fake program - which is now just a collection of images, video or a mix of the two - can either be put on a device/computer OR it can be put into the original footage (an actor sitting at a computer with a blank screen) to make it look like its running on that system.\n\nFor some background, I've worked in the film industry both in front of and behind the camera for the last 12 years.\n\n",
"There are people who are paid by studios to create the \"OS\" that are seen in movies and shows. [Mark Coleran](_URL_1_) is one such person. The idea is to tell the story of what the character is doing with the computer in a way that can be understood by the audience en masse. Most of the time, this is usually done in real time. The actor \"psuedointerfaces\" with the computer via a dummy keyboard and mouse while the images on the display are triggered off camera by an operator. \n\nAs a side note, I recalled that [The Matrix Reloaded](_URL_0_) was praised back in the day for its semi-realistic portrayal of hacking, with Trinity running nmap to find an open SSHv1 port, utilizing [a known exploit](_URL_2_), then logging into the remote system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xd/492406308.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=DF8D445051B40C7410989D060BD8CDE2DD9BE2D9A1DB104CA41314691DF08E4AEB30ADFDF762C549"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PxTAn4g20U",
"http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1268048/",
"https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/20617/"
]
] |
|
az97nm | why do game consoles not need a 3 prong plug with a ground wire but things like amplifiers and pcs do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/az97nm/eli5_why_do_game_consoles_not_need_a_3_prong_plug/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei66567"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The 3rd prong is just an added safety precaution. To be approved by the UL anything with an exposed metal case needs to have the 3rd prong so if a wire inside the device comes loose and into contact with the case the current will go down the ground prong and not to you if you touch it. game consoles have plastic cases, computers have metal cases around their power supplies which is exposed on most systems."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
s0rih | how is downloading movies/books online any different than going to your local library to check out movies/books for free? | Do libraries have to pay extra to these companies (i.e. distribution fees?) or is it just like one person buying a copy and distributing it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s0rih/eli5_how_is_downloading_moviesbooks_online_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4a5o71",
"c4a5rlh",
"c4a60p2",
"c4a8g5l",
"c4a8jph",
"c4a8o8n",
"c4a8r5r",
"c4a8wpc",
"c4a9wld",
"c4aa3e5",
"c4aa9yj",
"c4aaa8d",
"c4aaawb",
"c4aahvs",
"c4abkg8",
"c4ac49f",
"c4aegu7",
"c4afnt2",
"c4afujk"
],
"score": [
266,
42,
7,
4,
4,
2,
18,
6,
3,
10,
54,
7,
8,
5,
2,
2,
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First sale doctrine applies to libraries, video rental outfits, etc.\n\nFrom [Wikipedia](_URL_0_)\n\n > The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been legally obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy.\n\nThey purchased the copy legally, so they can lend, sell, or rent it out as they see fit so long as they're not duplicating it. ",
"Books traditionally do not have licensing rights attached to second hand distributions. Music, video, and software (among other things) do have licensing rights.\n\nIn Copyright Law, the owner of the copyright has ultimate say-so in the copy, distribution, and licensing of the work she owns.\n\nWhen you buy a book (or check out from the library) you do not own the text. You only own the medium in which the text is imprinted (like the pages of the book, or the disk a digital book is written to), but not the content. The rights to that content is still reserved by the copyright holder.\n\nWhen you download content (legally) you are downloading the availability of the content, and through some agreement, you have permission to do so.\n\nWhen you download content (illegally) you are bypassing the rights of the copyright holder and in effect \"stealing\" her opportunity to capitalize on the content.",
"Libraries have a limited number of copies, so only a small number of licensed volumes are available at a time which are paid for with taxes. Even with eBooks they have a set number of copies that can be checked out based on the amount of license they have purchased.",
"Essentially, I figured it's because libraries pay for the books or films you borrow. If you don't return the book or film, you're charged an overdue fee or eventually a replacement fee. \n\nWhen you download something online for free (illegally), nobody is paying for it.",
"I think the most interesting thing about this point is the fact that its unlikely the library system could be established the way that copyright law is currently written.",
"(I'm assuming US law)\n\nThe concept of the public library is ancient and (until recently) so well accepted that it had occupied a special place in copyright law. Digital downloads are a new phenomenon and more vulnerable to the industries' efforts to restrict it. As more library content becomes digitized, this will threaten the library's ability to fulfill its mission.\n\nNote that when someone illegally torrents digital content, they most often are not just downloading the files but also uploading (pieces of) them to other users. The penalties for illegally distributing content are very steep compared to the penalties (if any?) for merely obtaining it. Thus we end up with situations where massive media conglomerates are able to pressure common citizens using statutory penalties that were originally intended for professional pirates.",
"The clue is in the word *copyright*. A copyright is the right to make a copy.\n\nWhen you're checking a book out of a library you're not making a copy which doesn't require permission from the person who owns the copyright (the \"rightsholder.\") On the other hand, when you download something you're making a new copy.\n\nIn order to legally make a copy you require permission from the rightsholder. In order to get permission, you have to do whatever the rightsholder says, which is usually to pay a fee.",
"I wouldn't mind \"renting\" a movie from TPB for free and then \"returning\" it. I don't need to keep my movie files, who wants to develop a free, literal, online library that utilizes the notion of the \"first sale doctrine\"? I'd subscribe.",
"In my opinion, morally, they are not any different.",
"TIL (after reading through the comments) that no one really understands all the this shit, especially all us 5-year olds. ",
"Librarian *and* bookseller here:\n\nPublishers are getting less and less happy with allowing libraries to purchase and loan downloadable ebooks (which have special DRM to prevent transfer, and \"expire\" on your device after a specific length of time), because there is no **\"friction\"** with downloadable content. **\"Friction\" = \"The inconvenience of actually borrowing a physical object, and having to return it\"**. To loan a physical object requires two trips to the library: one to pick it up, and one to return it. Anyone can download an ebook or eaudiobook from their home computers, and because it is so easy they are borrowing lots and lots of them, more than they would have if they had to actually visit the library building. ",
"Actual ELI5 answer: WTF are you doing downloading things on the internet! You're going to pick up tons of viruses, and see things you shouldn't be seeing yet! You're grounded. \n\nAnswer you were looking for: \n\nThe Library is OK because: \n\n1. Someone bought the books for the library to use in the first place.\n2. The rights to use materials from the library are restricted to the local residents. \n3. The library only holds a specific amount of copies to share within the community. \n\nThe internet is a different animal since it may or may not have been purchased ever, and is open to the entire world instead of just the local township. Also, software's non-physical nature means that infinite copies can be shared instead of just the 2-3 per municipality. \n\nI'd be interested to see what would happen if the Library of Congress scanned/transcribed everything they have and opened it's internet doors to the municipality of America. I imagine it'd make a pretty interesting supreme court case. ",
"Duplication is the key difference. It would be illegal to take said book from the library, photocopy it and hand out copies to friends.",
"When a library lends a copy of a physical book, they are within their rights under the first-sale doctrine. They do not violate the rights of the copyright holder.\n\nDownloading them online (illegally, I presume) violates the rights of reproduction, duplication, and public performance.",
"Short version: copying is the difference\n\nIf you checked out a book from the library, and you (somehow) made an exact copy of it and kept the copy, it would be the exact same thing as pirating movies/etc online",
"The library purchases the material, and is essentially lending the material in a \"one at a time\" scenario. The library uses your tax dollars, so you are still paying for it. This is logically equivalent to anyone else purchasing material and lending it to their friends one at a time, which the media producer should expect to happen anyway. There is still a bottleneck of availability that was enabled by a purchase. At worst the media producer makes a profit from each copy bought (this depends on demand) for each library where the media becomes available.\n\nWhen you download movies, the argument is that you are breaking this paradigm and performing a one to many distribution. The cost is paid once, and a potentially unlimited number of people have simultaneous access to that media. This changes the economics in a way that removes the profit associated with the inefficient distribution system of the library.\n\n/ELI5\n\nRant about copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc begin:\n\nI don't think stretched comparisons is the right way to argue this. We have to be honest and realize that \"downloading\" is a different paradigm. And the real argument is about availability, efficiency and cultural enrichment (from remixing, for example) that downloading enables versus the one sided economics of the old publishing paradigms.\n\nThe old guard argues that good works are only produced by the incentives that exist with their economically based system. However, the easy counter argument is to observe that this is a monopoly (over each particular work), and that reduces choices like any other monopoly. Take a look at the film: \"This films is not yet Rated\" or \"Orgasmo\" (or the recent movie about Bullying whose name escapes me at the moment) -- the MPAA uses its censorship powers to prevent those films from getting better distributions for no other reason than their own corporate driven agenda. It blocks culture that can be formed from remixing or other unlicensed usages of the media. And wikipedia is proof that economic funding is not the only way to incentivise the production of valuable media.\n\nThink about rage comics for a second. Can you imagine if the heavy hand of copyright was applied to them? People suing each other because their joke was too similar, others copyrighting/tradmarking certain characters, people trademarking \"derp\", etc. It would absolute wreck the whole concept of rage comics. Remixing, reusing, a blatantly ripping off others is what makes rage comics work, and its what makes them so good. I feel that the best rage comics are pretty much at the same level of the best Newspaper comics -- and that should surprise nobody. After all, how did wikipedia become as high quality, if not higher than Britanica?\n\nDownload and remix is the not some marginal fringe thing. And who cares if nobody makes money off of media based culture? Who says that the existence of such media giants is a good thing? You can't just rattle off a list of good media and claim it was all due to the economic media monopoly system -- you don't have anything to compare against. What would people have produced if the copyright regime were not enforced? Would the aggregate creativity of people go down because there was no media conglomerate to pay for a few high quality pieces? The lesson of wikipedia, rage comics, musical sample based remixes, redubbed videos, autotune, etc is that entertaining media is just a matter of giving people an outlet and just letting the art happen.\n\n",
"**Why Libraries Are Different From Piracy**\n\n*by John Green*\n\n(Sorry if this is to complicated for a five year old)\n > Yesterday on twitter, I expressed annoyance with the hundreds of people who send me emails or tumblr messages or whatever to let me know that they illegally downloaded one of my books, as if they expect me to reply with my hearty congratulations that they are technologically sophisticated enough to use google or whatever. (I dislike it when people pirate my books. I know that not all authors feel this way, but I do. As I’ve discussed before, I think copyright law is disastrously stupid in the US, but I don’t think piracy is an appropriate response to that stupidity.*)\n\n > I then pointed out that my books are already available for free at thousands of public libraries not just in the US, but also in Europe, South America, Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, the UK, etc., to which many people replied, What’s the difference between pirating a book and checking it out from the library?\n\n > * 1) Libraries are broadly collecting institutions curated by experts. The curation facet of a library is hugely important: We train these librarians to organize information based not solely on what is popular (which is what piracy does), but also on what is good. The truth is you can’t get “anything” via piracy; there are hundreds of thousands of books you can’t get, because they aren’t yet popular. American public and school libraries play a huge role in preserving the breadth of American literature by collecting and sharing books that are excellent but may not be written by YouTubers with large bulit-in audiences.\n\n > Libraries improve the quality of discourse in their communities in ways that piracy simply does not. And if it weren’t for the broad but carefully curated collection practices of libraries, the world of American literature would look a lot like the world of American film: Instead of hundreds of books being published every week, there would be four or five.\n\n > * 2) Libraries buy books. Lots of them. And there are tens of thousands of libraries around the country. That is good for me and good for my book. (Like, the average library copy of The Fault in Our Stars might get checked out 100 times, or even a thousand, but single files of Looking for Alaska have been illegally downloaded more than 50,000 times.)\n\n > * 3) For the more than 100 million Americans without Internet access at home, libraries are the only free places to use the web to search for jobs or connect with family or buy t-shirts at _URL_0_. I am very happy if my books can help add value to institutions that facilitate such important services. I do not feel the same way about BitTorrent.\n\n > * 4) And this is the most important: I believe that creators of books should have control over how their work is distributed. If, for instance, a musician doesn’t want her songs played during Rick Santorum rallies, then Rick Santorum should not be allowed to use them. I don’t want my books to be available for free download (unless you borrow an e-copy from a library, that is). I just don’t. It’s not because I’m a greedy bastard or want to keep my books from people who might otherwise read them. It’s because I believe books are valuable. Right now, on Amazon, my brand new hardcover book costs about $10, which represents 1.2 hours of work at the federal minimum wage. I believe books are worth 1.2 hours of work. \n\n > One last thing: A lot of people compare the world of books with the world of music. I think this comparison is unfair. For one thing, CDs were overpriced before Napster. I really don’t believe that books—at least my books—are currently overpriced**. More importantly, most musicians have a secondary source of income: They can charge for live performances. Writers—or at least the vast majority of writers—can’t do this. The book is The Thing. The book is all we have to offer.\n\n > And in my opinion, libraries preserve the integrity and the value of the book in ways that piracy simply does not.\n\n > Based on how many of you have already seen Season 2 of Sherlock, I realize that most of you disagree with me. And I’m happy to acknowledge that I might be wrong. I welcome your thoughts and responses on these complicated questions.\n\n > * The whole argument that piracy is some kind of civil disobedience in response to unfair copyright laws is ridiculous and indicates to me that not enough people are reading Civil Disobedience, or even the wikipedia article about it.\n\n > * As pointed out by no less an authority than John Darnielle, CDs weren’t overpriced by many independent record labels. Also, I should add that many books—particularly literary fiction hardcovers published for adults—are overpriced, sometimes dramatically. I think this is a bad and discouraging trend, which is one of the (many) reasons why I like publishing my books the way I do: It’s still possible for a hardcover to cost less than $20, and if you adjust for inflation, it always should be.",
"Cause having fun isn't hard, when you've got a library card.",
"The biggest difference is the ease of doing it. I guess from the text of the post that's not what you meant though. \n\nAs lots of people have said, the difference is that content distributors get paid for each physical copy and, the library is only able to supply one person at once so, to supply everyone that wants the content, we need lots of library copies. Also, the inconvenience of having to go to the library to borrow it every time you want to use it makes you more likely to purchase it. \n\nPersonally, I am very dissatisfied with copyright law as-is. I think most people would be given the facts. I don't have any faith that it can be sorted out by our current political system (I live in the UK but, I think the same is true in the US and practically anywhere). I also don't really accept the validity of imposing laws like this, that limit people's freedoms without protecting someone else's, on someone who disagrees with them, just because the majority believes they are ok so, I wouldn't really accept the moral validity of copyright law even if I did think it was democratic. I'm also pretty pissed of with how the content industries have acted and curtailed my freedoms to protect their arbitrary and artificial rights. All in all, I don't feel that there is any moral problem with me flouting copyright law. I know that if everyone did, there would be a problem without some reform but, I hope more people do so that it makes reform more urgent for the content industries. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"dftba.com"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
21rgzl | what would happen if somebody broke the nato treaty? | lets say a NATO country were to be attacked. they would obviously seek help from their allies, but what would happen if we did not follow through on our treaty? say the balkan states were attacked by russia and the US, not wanting to risk ww3 refused to send military support, would the world stand and watch or is that like a war crime? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21rgzl/eli5what_would_happen_if_somebody_broke_the_nato/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgfszaw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sending military support is only one way NATO countries can show support. They can also provide financial aide, legal aide, or advisory aide.\n\nUnless one NATO country attacked another, I can't imagine a situation where the other NATO countries wouldn't provide some sort of support, no matter how indirect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
e0a1gy | why does putting the air conditioner on 25°c in a cooling mode feel different from the same 25°c in heating mode? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e0a1gy/eli5_why_does_putting_the_air_conditioner_on_25c/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8ct7hk",
"f8cu174",
"f8d0ams",
"f8d7y28",
"f8dbflp",
"f8ddruo",
"f8dgfdx",
"f8dhk97",
"f8dkpwl",
"f8dmube",
"f8doh0j",
"f8dt55p",
"f8dv0hm",
"f8e3q0i",
"f8e5rku"
],
"score": [
188,
5436,
57,
11,
2,
2,
2,
9,
2,
2,
15,
3,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In cooling mode, the thermostat will wait until the temperature goes over 25°C and then turn on the AC until it falls back under 25°C. This produces a 'spike' of cold air when the AC is on, followed by the temperature slowly drifting up toward warm.\n\nIn heating mode, the thermostat will wait until the temperature goes under 25°C, then turn on the heater until it is back over 25°C. This produces a 'spike' of hot (and dry!) air when the heater comes on, followed by the temperature slowly dropping back down toward cold.\n\nNaturally, these feel different from one another.",
"The unit isn't putting out air at 25 C.\n\nIf it's in cooling mode, it's putting out very cold air until the ambient temperature reaches 25 C. \n\nIf it's in heating mode, it's putting out very warm air until the ambient temperature hits 25 C.",
"Humidity is also important. \n\nAir can hold a certain amount of water. The closer it is to capacity, the less additional water it can absorb and the more humid it feels. The farther from full capacity it is, the more water it will absorb and the drier the air feels.\n\nHot air can hold more water than cold air, and the A/C doesn’t change the amount of water in the air, it just adjusts the temperature.\n\nSo if you start with cold air, there will be very little water in it, because it can’t hold much, but because it can’t hold much, that little bit of water gets it most of the way to full, so it doesn’t feel very dry. If you heat that air up, there is now a lot more room for water in the air, but it is still only holding that little bit of water, so now it’s going to feel very dry.\n\nIf you start with hot air, it has more room for water, so it will be holding a good amount of water. Cool it down, and now it has less room for water, but is still holding that larger amount, so it feels more humid.\n\nIf you’re heating the air to 25C, the end result is going to feel drier than if you’re cooling the air to 25C, because the amount of water in the air to start with is likely to be different depending on which direction you’re coming from temperature-wise.",
"Top tip: if the day is t too hot but it’s really humid, some air cons have a ‘dry’ mode. Use this to remove the moisture front he air and the air will ‘feel’ cooler whilst using less energy",
"An AC is designed to put out air 20F cooler than the ambient temp. Doesn’t matter if you set the thermostat to 25 or 0, same temp will come out. It will just stop once it reaches the temp you set.\n\nSo the air you are feeling isn’t 25C",
"It is mentioned else on this thread that the output temperature is going to be different whether you are in cooling or heating. In addition, the air has a different level of humidity between in heating or cooling. When in cooling the dew point is like 54F. In heating it can be much much lower. The lower dew point will feel colder because it more readily allows moisture to evaporate.",
"I would have had to pay the difference of the previous month’s electricity bill to get my grandpa to keep the temperature at 25C",
"Humidity. If you heat to 25, chances are it is colder outside and dryer, so the humidity is lower and it feels colder. If you cool to 25, the opposite is in effect.",
"Holy moly I thought this would be covered already... your body loses/ gains heat by radiant heating/cooling according to the heat differential between you and the walls. If the walls and windows are cold (I.e. you’ve got the heat set to 75) you’re going to feel the heat loss. Same thing if you’ve got the A/C set to 75, that means the outside is probably hotter than 75 and you’re gaining heat from radiation.",
"Also to add on to this, why does it feel different inside when it could be the very same temperature outside? I feel dumb for this but I have wondered forever.",
"Don’t forget: you perceive the average radiant temperature of your surroundings. \nIn summer with HVAC at 25C, the walls might be 28C so you feel warm. \nIn winter with the HVAC set at 25C, the walls could be 18C, so you feel chilled.\n\nAlso, HVAC is always playing catch up- if the unit is on in summer, the air is warmer than 25, if it’s in in winter the the air is cooler than 25.",
"Moisture/humidity. Key factor to get to the standard \"comfort zone\" in heating and air design. Combine latent temp with actual temp at the standard levels and as long as the unit is properly sized and removing the moisture during summer you feel comfortable. In winter the heat is dominate with less moisture so often it \"feels\" different to different people. The standard is pretty close for most people though. If you add a humidifier to your system you can control the psychometrics and feel more or less the same year round indoors if you wanted to go that far.",
"Mean radiant temperature also plays a part, a heated room will have colder walls and you will feel less radiant heat from them. A cooled room will have warmer walls radiating more heat towards you.",
"This actually has more to do with the humidity of the air. When your unit is cooling mode, the air’s humidity is reduced. With the reduction in humidity it is easier for our bodies to evaporate sweat, carrying off some of your heat. Heating increasing the humidity of the air, which will slow down the rate of sweat evaporation, making you feel warmer. Most people like a humidity of 40-60%.",
"Air conditioners also work buy lowering humidity, heating doesn’t so in addition to temp, there could be a measurable change in humidity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1r281s | land bridges | How did the land bridges work? I've always imagined they were really narrow isthmuses (maybe ancient people could even see water on either side of them as they were crossing). My friend, however, says they were much narrower, and that people were essentially waist-deep in water as they crossed them. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r281s/eli5_land_bridges/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdita75",
"cditglh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Here's a NOAA map of the last ice age sea levels at their peak (trough) _URL_0_\n\n",
"It depends on what land bridge and when. The Bering straits land bridge connecting Modern day Alaska to Russia is said to be at one point 1000 miles wide. But as Ice melts and sea levels rise, it shrinks into nothing so your friend is technically correct if people/animals were making the pass when the water was starting to rise above it.\n\nTL;DR Sea freezes water levels drop, crossing possible. Ice melts sea rises crossing disappears. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo/pictures/GLOBALsealeveldrop110m.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
qvtve | what's the deal with tuxes, blazers, etc, when is each appropriate, what kind of occasions? | i didn't have a dad =( | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qvtve/whats_the_deal_with_tuxes_blazers_etc_when_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c40vg51",
"c40ygin"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In descending order of fanciness:\n\n- **[White Tie](_URL_2_)**, otherwise known as Evening Dress or Top Hat And Tails.\nThis is as formal as it gets in Western fashion, and is generally restricted to very high occasions like state dinners, royal functions or very formal balls and evening weddings. White Tie is strictly to be worn after 6 PM, though many agree that anytime after dark is fine. For events of similar importance during the day, [Morning Dress](_URL_0_) is the thing.\n\n- **[Black Tie](_URL_1_)** is for any highly formal occasion for which White Tie is not required; charity galas, formal weddings, awards ceremonies. It is generally considered good etiquette for the host of an event to indicate on the invitations whether or not Black Tie is appropriate, or whether Formal Wear will suffice.\n\n- **Formal Wear** is sometimes called \"informal attire\" to set it apart from Black Tie, but as often as not that ends up with Bob from Accounting showing up in khakis and a Hawaiian shirt. Formal wear is pretty basic, just a suit and tie. Lots of leeway here in terms of colour, fashionable cut, accessories etc., if you want to know more about this in detail I think it's done in detail on GQ's website.\n\nThe only big things to keep in mind with Formal Wear are that one should always wear black or very dark grey to a funeral, and one should never wear black to a wedding unless the event itself is listed as Black Tie. While we're talking funerals, even if the only black suit you own is a tuxedo, never wear it to a funeral as Black Tie is considered to be for celebrating.\n\n- Below Formal you might see \"Smart Casual\" or \"Business Casual\"; the former usually refers to some variation on a blazer and dress pants, while the latter is a nightmarishly vague reference to \"any pants nicer than jeans, paired with virtually any shirt with a collar and no logos\". When to wear either of these gives many men great difficulty; if in doubt, ask your host or employer in advance.\n\n",
"Tuxedos are super formal. You'll look really out of place in a tuxedo in anything other than an event that *specifically* states it's a black tie (or white tie). Basically you never want to be the only one in a tuxedo because you'll look like a goof. Tuxedos absolutely require matching pants and a bow tie. If you're wearing a neck tie you're doing it wrong.\n\nA blazer is a jacket, similar to a suit jacket, but it does not have matching pants. They are more casually cut so they have features likes flap-less or patch pockets, metal buttons, and are made of heavier clothe. They can be worn with a tie or without, and tend to be used in less formal settings.\n\nA blazer is similar, but not exactly the same thing as a sports jacket, or a boating jacket. The terms are used somewhat interchangeably. Blazers tend to be solid colours, while sports coats tend to be patterned clothe like tweed, herringbone, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_dress",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_tie",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tie"
],
[]
] |
|
21hsv3 | why do stores offer cash-out, if it seems like they don't make any profit off it. (they charge your card, and give you that amount in cash) | when you go to the grocery store and they offer you cash out, they charge your card 20$ and give you 20$ cash, seems like a lot of effort and they haven't made any profit from it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21hsv3/eli5why_do_stores_offer_cashout_if_it_seems_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgd5b5l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The store benefits by getting rid of physical money and using electronic funds transfer - less money to transport in an armoured truck, less loss if they are robbed"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ciy7p9 | how was space x able to build better rockets than nasa having less budget and experience? | How come space X, blue origin and other private space companies are capable of building better rockets than NASA, when NASA has +50 years of experience in the industry and a massive budget? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ciy7p9/eli5_how_was_space_x_able_to_build_better_rockets/ | {
"a_id": [
"ev9wpif",
"ev9xi9p",
"eva6m6q",
"eva6tk8",
"evaf0vn",
"evaihjg",
"evapauu"
],
"score": [
112,
13,
13,
3,
5,
120,
3
],
"text": [
"They haven't really. \n\n1) They utilized all of the science that NASA learned thus they \"had\" the same experience level as NASA. \n\n2) NASA has never had a massive budget. Even during the Space Race their budget was relatively small. Companies like Space X's budgets are comparable in size. \n\n3) NASA stopped designing new Rockets for a time when they were operating the shuttle. When they retired the shuttle they started designing new Rockets again and will be constructing them for the upcoming missions.",
"Aside from using known published resources from NASA and likely the old Soviet era, technology has changed dramatically since the 60s. \n\nThey’re able to run many simulations in a short time period that would have been impossible for NASA back in the day. \n\nThere’s likely less politics involved too. \n\nComputer technology I’d guess been the key difference that has allowed them to do things like reusable components. I’d assume material science has had a big change since the 60s too. \n\nIn all fairness, NASA built the shuttle which was a pretty damn impressive bit of tech. Not without it’s issues but it was cutting edge.",
"To build a new rocket, lots of design and testing is needed. Problems will be found, so how quickly these are found and fixed decides how quickly a new rocket can be completed.\nBecause of restrictions due to it being run by the state, Nasa can't adapt anywhere near as quick as spacex; for example, when spacex realised carbon fibre wasn't the way to go for the BFR, they fired all the workers working on carbon fibre designs. This was necessary, but would not be possible in Nasa.\n\nThe fact that they have to be acting in the best interests of the country means that designs from Nasa are dictated by created jobs, and less by the actual advantages of the design, leading to many issues that are delaying many programs.\n\nThey also have major direction changes with each election, meaning that they work towards one goal for 5 years, then a new leadership tells them they want a different project doing, so they cancel the first one, and end up getting nowhere.",
"A point I do not see mentioned yet is that SpaceX does not need to please any governors in different states, so they can have their production wherever they want, and basically SpaceX can do whatever they want in that regard. In comparison, Nasa has widespread production and facilities, and is a much older organization.\n\nIf Nasa were to be completely wiped and restarted, I doubt that they would not be able to do similar things to what SpaceX has done.",
"NASA is heavily regulated, risk avoiding, and making decisions by committee.\n\nSpaceX has been able to build on all of NASA's experience, as well as take advantage of more modern underlying technology. The other big innovator in this field is Elektron, in my opinion.\n\nI think the elephant in the room is nothing to do with NASA, but rather ULA. Why is SpaceX able to build such a better business model than ULA, who has the years of experience and the resources?",
"I think the other people have missed the critical element here.\n\nThe critical element was the shift from disposable to reusable rockets. Now, to their great credit, NASA did make that move in the 70s with the space shuttle, but it was a bit too early, and the whole shuttle project was a bit of a logistical and political shitshow. \n\nBy the time SpaceX came along, technology had advanced considerably. Here's a great talk by Raffaello D’Andrea explaining it [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nIn short, between the Space Shuttle and the Falcon 9, feedback control got good enough, and cheap enough, that the idea of landing an otherwise traditional rocket vertically was very feasible. By this point, the Shuttle was seen as a failure - technologically impressive, but economically unviable, and increasingly outdated. So NASAs focus was off of reusability and onto cheap disposability. In that environment, dumping money into R & D is a bit pointless if you have designs from the 60s that are reliable and well understood. They'll only fly once, and the cost of space flight is really in the minimization of failures. So, advances in engines and control systems largely stopped. \n\nSpaceX saw things differently. Believing they could take what looked like a conventional rocket and land and refly it, meant they could change the economic model. Launches were rare because the cost of disposing a rocket each time was high, and because the cadence was low - there was no incentive to build out production lines that could spit out a rocket every two weeks. But if you could reuse the rocket, even just one more time, you'd need half as many of them. Refly it 4 times, and you need to build only 20% as many. So, SpaceX went for a commodity strategy - build one really really good motor to serve first and second stage, rely on modern control electronics to regulate 9 motors operating together in the first stage, and engineer for reusability, and get your reliability that way, and dramatically cut costs to fly the rocket and use that money to pay for the new R & D. Digital feedback control wasn't the only thing that had dramatically advanced since the 70s, so had manufacturing techniques and materials engineering. So SpaceX could build simpler rockets that performed better than was possible in the 70s. \n\nNASA didn't want these rockets, believing in their tried and true approach, but private companies did want them and with time SpaceX won them over. Bezos saw the same opportunities, as did others. Existing companies didn't see the opportunity because their value was in their tried and true methods, their decades of engineering experience at this, their detailed knowledge of how these old system worked, which made them reliable. \n\nThis is also a story of why established companies rarely pivot their business model to adapt to changes, and why startups and other new entrants are key to advancing industries. They can take these risks, they can invest in the new technology and not invest in the legacy technology. Had SpaceX failed, we wouldn't even be talking about them - so there's some survivors bias baked in here too.",
"SpaceX has a few advantages, but I'd say the core thing here comes down to two main factors. \n\nFirst, big NASA rocket projects (and by this I mean something like the Shuttle or SLS), which are not exactly made by NASA but are designed and built by them in cooperation with oldspace companies like Boeing and Rockwell, have to answer to a large number of competing interests. The companies of course want to make a profit and NASA wants their science, but also congressmen want some of the contracts for building these rockets to go to their states, and sometimes the military wants specific capabilities, and sometimes the system needs to be designed to use a specific set of preexisting resources or expertise, etc. And since all this stuff is subject to funding bills, etc, it can't be easily or cheaply changed. SpaceX, in contrast, is more or less answerable only to themselves (except when fulfilling a specific contract). If they need to switch an approach or try a new thing or whatever, they can just decide to do it. This gives them a lot more flexibility and helps them do things for a lower price.\n\nThe second is the drive of necessity/lack of money/lack of being established. Oldspace companies (who are a better comparison here than NASA, which doesn't really build Falcon style rockets) have been launching rockets for ages and were dominant in the market. Sure, their rockets were expensive, but they got the job done effectively and all their customers were willing to pay the price and no one was undercutting them. Spending a lot of research money to make it possible to build rockets for cheaper and maybe even reuse them just didn't make sense to them. Why take the risk and expense when life was already good? But SpaceX didn't have that option. If they wanted to survive at all, they had to be able to figure out a way to undercut the competition and win their contracts. That means taking risks and working hard to make rockets for cheap, using more cost efficient manufacturing. That was the first revolution of SpaceX, and more important to their past success than reusable landings (though that will be more important going forward). There have been other new rocket companies that tried this and failed..it is a risky approach, but SpaceX made it work. Worth noting that this is not limited to the rocket industry, many industries have had established players get overturned by new upstarts who were better because only a better company could break into the market in the first place. It's not even limited to industry for that matter.\n\nA factor I _don't_ think is as important: technology...the stuff SpaceX is doing is impressive but not due to any particular unique technological breakthrough on their part. It was within the capacity of NASA or ULA or Boeing or whoever to do the same thing if they chose to put in the engineering work. They couldn't have done it in the 60's (and SpaceX probably couldn't have existed at all back then) but they could have done it when SpaceX was doing it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4IJXAVXgIo"
],
[]
] |
|
qsuob | what is cancer? (specifically leukemia) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qsuob/eli5_what_is_cancer_specifically_leukemia/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4067vk",
"c406fzq",
"c406h5e",
"c407w4o"
],
"score": [
26,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"You, my ELI5 friend, are made of cells. Billions and billions of them, and they all have special jobs, shapes, and grow a different rates.\n\nSometimes we want cells to grow and divide a lot, like skin cells. And sometimes we don't want cells to grow and divide a lot, like brain cells. Each cell knows, because it is in the DNA, when to stop dividing. \n\nBut the biochemical machines that run cells don't always work properly, and sometimes a cell doesn't stop growing. The reasons why are complex and varied (i'll go into them if you want but it's not very ELI5ish). \n\nThis broken cell keeps growing and dividing, consuming resources from surrounding cells, and getting bigger, which will cause harm to surrounding organs. This is called a tumor.\n\nCancer is named from what kind of cell it arises from. Leukemia is a special kind of cancer, where the broken cell is a white blood cell or leukocyte. Leukemia doesn't usually have a tumor, but can be found in the bone marrow (where all blood cells are 'born') and will destroy the bone there. ",
"Sounds like a great question for [/r/ExplainLikeAPro](/r/ExplainLikeAPro). I am going to x-post this there. :)",
"Not-so-shameless plug: A gamer acquaintance of mine (redditor, too, I think) has leukemia and [we're doing our part to spread word about marrow donation](_URL_2_). If you live within an hour of New Castle, PA, you should go there March 24^th to get swabbed!\n\nOr, head over to [_URL_0_](http://_URL_0_), where you can sign up to be mailed a free cheek swab kit. You might save a life!",
"uncontrolled cell growth"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"marrow.org",
"http://marrow.org",
"http://www.pittco.org/blog/2012/03/11/marrow-registry/"
],
[]
] |
||
3zxi88 | why are neanderthals always depicted with caucasian features? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zxi88/eli5_why_are_neanderthals_always_depicted_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cypsb1b",
"cypssbn",
"cypt1ue",
"cypufnt",
"cypv7wn"
],
"score": [
8,
9,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because when you take the bones and perform the same reconstructive methods used on modern skeletons, they end up looking like some old Polish people. They were, generally, European.",
"Most, if not all, skeletons found of Homo neanderthalensis were found in Europe, especially places like France. As you may know, the people native to most places in Europe are Caucasian, including people like the Gauls (the tribe whose descendents make up a quite large percentage of native French people).",
"Europeans often have a decent amount of Neanderthal DNA, and it appears as though there was significant interbreeding in Europe.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI'm told that redheads in particular often have a higher percentage of Neanderthals, and I'd call red hair a pretty Caucasian feature.",
"The genes for pale skin, light colored red or blond hair, and being particularly hairy compared to most of the rest of the world, are traits Europeans probably [**picked up from Neanderthals**](_URL_0_).",
"It's speculative. Historically older species of hominid were often given vaguely African features, in accordance with the scientific racist notion that black people are less evolved than white or Asian people. This is countered in modern times, partly based on DNA studies that show some or all Neanderthals had fair hair (blonde or ginger), and partly as acknowledgement of the fact that they lived in Europe for well over 100,000 years - significantly longer than Homo Sapiens who developed white skin in a much shorter evolutionary time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33226416"
],
[
"http://www.dailytech.com/NeanderthalHuman+Breeding+Was+Hard+But+Yielded+Benefits/article34236.htm"
],
[]
] |
||
2vgf5t | why doesn't the us military replace the m9. i'm sure there are better pistols out there. | Thanks for the replies so far! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vgf5t/eli5_why_doesnt_the_us_military_replace_the_m9_im/ | {
"a_id": [
"cohdpj5",
"cohdr32",
"cohdsfh",
"cohdtsx",
"coho17b"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The US Army is actually looking at replacing the Beretta. Probably within the next two years.",
"They're in the process of evaluating new pistols. As I understand it the current M9, even with updates, is already out of the running...I don't think they were invited to participate.",
"Some folks have reportedly reverted to the ancient 1911 pistol. I'm not too familiar with firearms, but the logic is simple enough - for a backup weapon, reliability and durability are the way to go. \n\nMeanwhile, in the Air Force...",
"Military firearms tend to have a long life. They like to standardize. When you've got a million of *anything* it's a big deal.\n\nThat said, they're [currently looking into a replacement](_URL_0_). These things can take time. Since handguns haven't fundamentally changed in decades, there's no major rush.",
"If which pistol your troops are using matters, you have already lost the war. Modernizing pistols just isn't much of a strategic priority.\n\nThat said, I believe they are in the early rounds of picking a successor.\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Handgun_System"
],
[]
] |
|
34tpp6 | apparently there are tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from ireland in places like new york. isn't life very difficult for them? how do they earn money? can they get things like houses, driving licenses, healthcare, etc? | a | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34tpp6/eli5_apparently_there_are_tens_of_thousands_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqy298x",
"cqy3kzk"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The same way that the millions of illegal immigrants from other countries living in other places do those things. Some get a stolen social security number. More often they just pay in cash, get paid in cash, drive without a license or don't drive at all (or live in a state that allows illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses), and wait for medical problems to get bad enough to go to the ER. ",
"Housing: rent and pay cash. Find landlord that doesn't care if you're illegal.\n\nDriver license, just don't get one. Take bus or subway. Or drive illegally and not get pulled over.\n\nHealthcare, go to emergency room, pay in cash or don't pay at all"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
46rb6a | why do most aeroplane hangars have curved roofs regardless of their size? | Note that the strongest structure is a dome so it's not for strength & it's not for design as it uses more materials & costs more.
EDIT: If it is for strength then wouldn't it be best to use a dome rather than an arch? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46rb6a/eli5_why_do_most_aeroplane_hangars_have_curved/ | {
"a_id": [
"d079919",
"d079ayn",
"d07bs6i",
"d07ipg8",
"d07ttxh",
"d080q2a"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually it is for strength. An arch is incredibly strong and puts far less strain on the materials than a flat surface. ",
"Since most of the curved type of hangars are military or government use, it often comes down to one factor. Price. The engineering of these large building is already done and tested, they can be prefabbed and moved with the pieces stacked into each other so that part is cheap, and they can be assembled without specialized construction techniques so they can use fewer highly trained workers to put them together. ",
"Everyone seems to be hitting around it, but *technically* it's to optimize load-strength-per-unit-weight and -per-unit-cost. For all of the reasons mentioned. Just sayin.",
"The tallest part of the aircraft is the tail. A dome-shaped hangar would have to be much larger to fit the same airplane.",
"Dome is indeed stronger that arch, its also significantly more expensive, longer, and harder to build, while the need for such extra durability is aren't exist.\n\nyou gonna need so many stuff in order to build a dome hangar such as extra heavy lifting, extra precision, and extra professionals help.\n\nWhile arch just need little effort to build compared to dome, and all contractors can to build it.\n\nConstructing flat roof hangar as easy and cheap as constructing arc roof, but flat roof significantly weaker. You gonna need extra funds for reinforce beam truss to have the same result as the arch beams.\n\nThus, the most optimum option for those hangar between those three are arch.",
"Apart from the structural benefits of an arch it allows rain water to run off it and not pool."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1t9hqt | how are the nsa intercepting my data? | For example I just finished a transaction for rail tickets. I submitted my credit card details online (encrypted), and received a confirmation email to my gmail containing travel information.
Assuming I am US, by what method did the NSA just get hold of either/both the credit card details and travel information? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t9hqt/eli5_how_are_the_nsa_intercepting_my_data/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce5xlli"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Assuming I am US, by what method did the NSA just get hold of either/both the credit card details and travel information?\n\nSo the NSA is a spying agency, that also is involved in technical standards. They have court oversight through FISA, who can issue warrants that compel companies to turn over data. \n\nLets walk through what you just did.\n\n > I submitted my credit card details online\n\nYou sent communications over a telecoms channel. The NSA has (literally) secret black closets in telecom company centres. If it's running over telecoms is most of the world they can intercept it, either via submarine cables, collaborating agencies or their own equipment in big telecom company centres. \n\n > encrypted\n\nSince the early days of encryption standards the NSA has been involved in, and deliberately weakening crytographic standards. Kinda. This is a bit complex, but the NSA, since the DES days, has wanted encryption that is strong enough that you need to be a big organized outfit to break. That sounds contradictory but isn't. Imagine you came up with a trivially bad encryption system - well then anyone could break it. That's not any good. But imagine you came up with an encryption system that required 100 million dollars in hardware to break efficiently. Ah, that's secure enough for most things, but vulnerable enough for an intelligence agency. With DES they shortened the key to make it vulnerable to brute force attacks, but eliminated an exploit that would have made it much easier to break. More recently they put an (obviously ridiculous) random number generator into standards that was bizarre in how sloppy it was at trying to be a back door. \n\n > gmail\n\nThe NSA has had people working for them from inside Google for some time, particularly communication between data centres, some officially and some not. So they could easily be looked at your data inside the google data centres network. Your data is only useful if it can be read after all, so there has to be a recoverable form and key. \n\n > Assuming I am US\n\nIf you are a US citizen they can spy on you to be sure you aren't also an agent of a foreign power, or they could get a FISA warrant to see what you are up to. \n\nBack in June Yahoo's efforts to fight a FISA warrant were revealed. In short. Yahoo lost.\n\n > credit card.... US\n\nThe NSA is a US government agency, with courts who virtually never say no. You should presume that if the government ever wants access to anything about you stored with a company then there is nothing you can do to prevent that. \n\n\n\nMost likely the NSA is not spying on your random credit card transactions. They don't need to. For that they can get metadata about your transaction history from the banks. But if someone there is specifically trying to track what you're up to, then there's an issue. The NSA doesn't really need (or want) to decrypt or credit card details - that they have access to anyway. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6prw04 | why does increased air flow extinguish flames? wouldn't you be adding the necessary ingredients? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6prw04/eli5_why_does_increased_air_flow_extinguish/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkrp16a",
"dkrpa9g"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Fire requires fuel, oxygen, and heat. When you know out a flame, you're removing the heat necessary to continue the self-sustaining combustion reaction.",
"Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: Why can air both extinguish and stoke up a fire? ](_URL_2_)\n1. [ELI5: Why does blowing air on a small flame put it out, but doing the same on a big fire only fuels it? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5: Why does blowing on a flame put it out, but glowing on coals makes them brighter? ](_URL_4_)\n1. [ELI5: If fire thrives on oxygen, then why does wind blow a fire out? ](_URL_5_)\n1. [ELI5 Why does a flame (like on a match, lighter, etc.) go out when you blow on it but when I blow on an ember it intensifies? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5: How does wind blow out fire, like on a match? ](_URL_0_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34y4gj/eli5_how_does_wind_blow_out_fire_like_on_a_match/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23w5ck/eli5_why_does_blowing_air_on_a_small_flame_put_it/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55upp6/eli5_why_can_air_both_extinguish_and_stoke_up_a/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ii9jp/eli5_why_does_a_flame_like_on_a_match_lighter_etc/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iqmrk/eli5_why_does_blowing_on_a_flame_put_it_out_but/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pa3ia/eli5_if_fire_thrives_on_oxygen_then_why_does_wind/"
]
] |
||
5hmxgz | why do people feel comfortable with themselves in the mirror, but hate themselves in flipped pictures? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hmxgz/eli5_why_do_people_feel_comfortable_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"db1de3v",
"db1riqa"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer: Because mirrors show a mirrored version of your face that you are used to/comfortable seeing. Photographs show a \"correct\" version of your face where it is not mirrored and it looks off to the person who perceives sees their face in a mirror on a regular basis\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's similar in a way to how people hate hearing audio recordings of their voices. We have an internal visualization of how we look and sound that we have grown accustomed to. To see or hear it presented differently than that makes us uncomfortable because it's not what is expected. In a mirror, or a photograph of ourselves, we have expectations of how we would look. Our brains already anticipate the image being flipped, so when we see the opposite of that, it triggers anxiety in our brains because we know something is off. We may quickly be able to reason out that \"Oh the image is just flipped\" but our cognitive process in our brain tends to be a bit slower than our reactionary processes, so it's already too late to stop the uncomfortable feeling of anxiety from happening because it's triggered almost instantly based off the sensory input."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://imgur.com/iRL3DT5"
],
[]
] |
||
2s5wdf | -if lance armstrong and his generation were doped to the gills how is it that this generation of cyclists is breaking their records absent significant technology advances and without drugs. | I love cycling and frankly don't care that they dope since it seems pretty clear they are all doing it and it's a "problem"in every sport nit just cycling, but the UCI would have us believe that banning Lance and stripping him of his wins fixed the problem when this generation is breaking the records his generation set. Is there any way this is remotely possible without drugs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s5wdf/eli5if_lance_armstrong_and_his_generation_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnmg7si",
"cnmganw",
"cnmhw15",
"cnmirsf",
"cnmjgxd",
"cnmjmqy",
"cnmk13g",
"cnmkfu6",
"cnmkx13",
"cnml03c",
"cnmqgpt",
"cnn1gfk",
"cnn6ym2",
"cnn8byc",
"cnncf9i",
"cnneakw",
"cnnhqri"
],
"score": [
6,
13,
105,
12,
5,
4,
12,
259,
9,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not just about speed, it's about consistency.\n\nArmstrong won event after event for a very long time, if he weren't cheating he'd unquestionably be history's greatest cyclist when held up against today's.",
"The riders today are not absent of technological advances. Carbon fiber is much better than it was when lance was in his prime. Components on bikes have made huge strides as well with electronic shifting, lighter and more accurate sensors/ computers, and not to mention the advancements in the science of training and nutrition. Riders today shave ALOT more than the guys 10 years ago did. \n\n\nEdit: hahahah I meant HAVE not shave. They have alot more. They might shave a lot more too but I haven't given it much thought :)",
"Modern high-performance athletic competitions are as much about circumventing drug testing mechanisms as they are about human endurance. It's getting to the point of ludicrousness, to be honest. ",
"In addition to the fact that the riders are not now and never will be clean, as time goes on, the goalposts for what counts as clean also moves a bit.",
"Because they are too?\n\nIt's very easy to find out where the drugging starts. The first big gap between bikers.\n\nYou cannot keep up with doped byciclists, so if you do, you are no prodigy. You are doped. Very simple.",
"They made an example out of Lance, while at the same time going all-in on his observation that the sport had cleaned up when he made his comeback. Pretty hypocritical of the UCI. Riders are still doping, that is how a climber like Nibali is rocketing across cobblestones and dropping a Pro Tour FIELD.\n\nDrugs-wise, I think riders are using the same drugs in smaller amounts and with better timing. You don't see the out-of-this-galaxy performances you used to see, but you still see feats that are pushing the limit of what is humanly possible on the best day ever....at the end of a 3-week race. \n\nAlso, I don't think Lance was as heavily doped as his competitors, which is how he was able to be at that level consistently for his 7 tour wins. The campaign against Armstrong is both a lot of truth and a lot of hyperbole. \n\nThe thing you should focus on is how cycling is at least doing SOMETHING...at the very least cycling is at a place where an athlete who does drugs to an extent that they risk their health/life WILL be found-out. No more U23 development kids dying in their sleep from syrup-blood. We also still have exciting racing, but the hero's are no longer invincible! ",
"What records are being broken?\n\nIts hard to compare in cycling because race routes are different every year. You also have strategic reasons that not everyone is setting their best possible time all the time. The closest thing we have to comparable segments are the most famous mountain climbs that are reused every few years. [This article gives times](_URL_0_) for two of them. \n\nNo one recently is anywhere near record times. The top times are all from the doping era. Does this prove the top riders of today are clean? Nope. But I just don't see what records you are talking about being broken today. ",
"what records are you referring to exactly? if we're talking about the time it takes to climb Ventoux or Alpe d'Huez, [those times have actually gotten markedly worse since the doping crackdown](_URL_2_). in both cases, the best certifiably clean result isn't in the top 10 times up those climbs. or the top 20 (i'm looking at Sanchez's 2011 and Froome's 2013 attempts, Sastre is still a bit questionable in my opinion). this doesn't seem surprising at all in context--not doping should cause the time it takes to ride these climbs to increase. they certainly aren't record breaking. i'm mentioning this because this is the only sort of record Armstrong would really have been able to take, as this was kind of his forte.\n\nhow about a one-day race then? paris-roubaix is (arguably) the most important of these. [the fastest average speed was set in 1964](_URL_3_). though i give credit to cancellara for an excellent ride in 2013, there are plenty of fast editions of this race that have been ridden over the years--they don't seem to be concentrated on a particular time period.\n\nok, so maybe you mean the [hour record](_URL_1_)? the hour record rules have been officially changed in the last year. several people have attempted or are planning on attempting to beat it. it's a brand new metric, and it isn't comparable to either of the old hour record definitions, which top level cyclists largely ignored.\n\nrecords in track racing? sure. those get beaten at an incremental rate. but then again, doping doesn't really seem to have hit the track discipline quite as hard as it did with road, [as evidenced by the amount of doping cases in either](_URL_0_).\n\n**tl;dr** this generation of cyclists really *aren't* beating records, at least not on the road.",
"They aren't. As pointed out by several people here, there are no records being broken by today's records. The 20 fastest times for fastest ascent up the Alp d'Huez were all in 1994 or 1996. \n\nThe only notable record broken recently is the hour time trial. And there's a simple technological reason for that--before this year, the record had to be done on a specific bike with 1970s technology. As soon as they opened the record to modern bikes, the record was broken.",
" > Is there any way this is remotely possible without drugs?\n\nNoop!",
"I thought Lance Armstrong wasn't using drugs but \"blood doping\".... which is just where you filter your own blood with 100% oxygenated blood that makes it harder for your muscles to burn out and you can just keep going for longer periods.\n\nIs that true or did he use some drugs like HGH or something?",
"Someone should photoshop a what a cyclist would look like if he could dope all he wanted. The ideal cyclist. Powerfull ripped legs. Aerodynamic body and arms. Huge barrel chest for heart and lungs. ",
"Everyone in professional sports uses some doping. Some more than others but just because a test doesn't pop means nothing. Dopers stay ahead of the testing curve.",
"What makes you think they do it without drugs? They use drugs to do it and you have to be crazy to think otherwise. There are always ways around tests. Always. ",
"what records? lol\nNibili was climbing around 5-6 minutes slower than patani/armstrong era guys in the tour and he was still winning. ",
"Testing also found that the other top ten cyclists were doping too, so I wouldn't be so sure to say it's all \"un-aided\" now\n \nAs Bill Burr said \"Our doped up guys beat their doped up guys\"",
"I would bet they are using newer drugs/techniques that the authorities haven't discovered yet....its a cat-mouse game and the dopers will always be a step (or pedal) ahead"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bikeroar.com/articles/biggest-climbs-shortest-times-cycling-drugged-vs-clean-comparison"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record",
"http://www.bikeroar.com/articles/biggest-climbs-shortest-times-cycling-drugged-vs-clean-comparison",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2%80%93Roubaix#Fastest_editions"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cojrh6 | why do people think that jeffrey epstein’s death seems like a coincidence? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cojrh6/eli5_why_do_people_think_that_jeffrey_epsteins/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewin1dq",
"ewinf5j",
"ewio92u",
"ewio9l2",
"ewirj31",
"ewirlik",
"ewiu9jv",
"ewium2x",
"ewiuxd1",
"ewiv1bb",
"ewiv2ik"
],
"score": [
102,
7,
15,
34,
59,
9,
10,
2,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"At this point he was ready to bring down the people around him with him. He was a liability for all of the guilty elites that took advantage of his services. He already almost died once due to a cop beating him senseless, so this isn’t that big of a surprise.",
"the only reason it took so long was every government agency, elite assassin, paramilitary group, and illuminati sleeper cell on the planet was outside his jail cell fighting over him for two weeks",
"He may have done it himself.but he was placed on suicide watch which means someone is actually watching you 24/7 to prevent it.. why was that person not doing their job",
"There’s been a lot of evidence brought to light in the last month or so, mostly showing Epstein’s shady connections to very powerful people across the world.\nThe idea among some of the more suspicious folk eyeing this case is that such powerful people will do anything to ensure they aren’t found to be complicit in any potential crimes associated with Epstein. \nSeeing as he is dead, the idea is that he isn’t in a position to bargain with prosecutors for a deal anymore. There’s literally no incentive left for Epstein to provide evidence of other powerful pedophiles.\n\nI’m also seeing comments that he was on suicide watch as well, so I suppose that adds to the suspicion.\n\nEpstein’s suicide has been a running joke on a lot of threads since the day he was arrested, so it’s a little unnerving to see it all play out so coincidentally.\n\nFeel free to school me, or add any information to my comment. I’m not 100% informed on the entire situation, but that’s the general idea I’ve been able to formulate so far.",
"Because he was an ultra-high profile prisoner who had already attempted suicide. \n\nSo he would have been stripped of anything dangerous and watched very closely..\n\nSo how did this happen?",
"$$$ = power. You can buy people with very little money; equivalent to pennies to the rich and powerful that were potentially going to get ratted out by Epstein.",
"There are a few factors:\n\n1. He was on suicide watch already. He was [found unconscious with neck injuries](_URL_1_) not long ago. This means he should not have had any means to kill himself, and would be getting checked on constantly to make sure he hadn't found an unexpected way to hurt himself.\n\n2. There was a batch of names of co-consprators [released recently](_URL_0_)\n\n3. The names released so far are theorised to just be the small players.\n\nSo the overall theory is that some *very* powerful people were about to be implicated, and they had him killed in prison. \n\nThere's a slight chance he killed himself, but that would only really happen if the guards were incompetent (possible, but unlikely given how high-profile the case is), or they were paid to look the other way while someone provided Jeffrey the means to kill himself, or they provided those means themselves. So either they killed or helped kill him, or they let someone in that killed him.\n\nIt's pretty fucky whichever way you want to call it.",
"I know that the answer to this question may seem obvious, and that is due to said high profile people not wanting him to squeal on them, but surely him dying of suicide while under 24/7 suicide watch makes it all seem too coincidental? Won’t the prison guards and others close to him now be investigated? The circle of people that they can investigate just grows every time someone new is introduced (aka a prison guard paid to “look after” him).",
"Dude, trailer park moms have the resources to successfully hire hitmen to kill people. There isn't a single billionaire that **doesn't** have the power and resources to whack him.\n\nThe only reason I think Epstein even lived this long is because all of the hitmen kept tripping over each other and fucking up each others' plans. Hell, the prison guards probably were taking bribes from half a dozen sources and kept getting confused.",
"Imagine you have $200,000.00 in the bank. And someone has information that could potentially mess your life up for good and they have nothing else to lose. Now imagine for $200.00 you could silence them and your problem forever . For 1/1000 of what you own, you could make a potential life altering problem disappear. Now instead of 200,000 assume you are worth 10,000 to 20,000 times that much money but would still lose it all. What would you be willing to do to make sure it never sees the light of day? Now imagine if you have 100 friends in the same boat as you, all of who could be destroyed by the same single problem, a problem that you and your friends have almost unlimited resources to take care of, if you decided to. Would you just sit Idly by and say well I deserve this outcome, or would you perhaps try and fight for what you currently have. Now hypothetically, an inmate on suicide watch who is the center of one of the biggest scandals of the century, who is ready to give up everyone would have literal round the clock guards. Yet, he was able to hang himself in a room that should have been literally empty, wearing a fabric that can’t be torn up, with check-ins every 15 minutes, that’s some major good luck to a bunch of billionaires and powerful ppl who had a lot to lose potentially and very hypothetically of course",
"Hopefully there's enough evidence already to take down many of Jeffrey's peers. Not that the justice system will want to punish their own."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-unsealed-documents-name-powerful-men-in-sex-ring",
"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/25/epstein-found-unconscious-new-york-cell-neck-injuries/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3h9x19 | why do bad smells seem to be so much more resilient than good ones? | Like, a sweaty pair of running shoes can be detected right across a room for days but a bowl of potpourri has a radius of maybe 20cm. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h9x19/eli5_why_do_bad_smells_seem_to_be_so_much_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu5p4ox",
"cu5ttl0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I would assume that it is because bad smells are most often things that can negatively affect our health, like feces and rotting food and we should avoid as long as it is around. \n\nThe running shoes example doesn't exactly fit, although that may be due to cultural/evolutionary distance from apes in the same way that sweaty stinky men don't attract women like pheromones do in other animals.\n\nOn the other hand, good smells like flowers and fresh fruit are often not directed at humans specifically but other mammals and birds that the plants \"want\" their seeds/pollen spread by which likely have stronger senses of smell.\n\n(I can expand on it more if it isn't ELI5 enough)",
"To me it is like taste. Say you were making a sauce, it is difficult to get it tasting 'nice' because there must be a delicate balance of different flavours. Similarly 'nice' smells are a delicate blend of aromas. However if the sauce contains an unpleasant ingredient (rotten egg for example), like your room with the running shoes, the balance is lost and the whole thing loses all appeal. \nAs for the power of smells, some things are just more pungent than others. It is not a case of bad things smelling more than nice things, since things like perfume and deodorant are extremely powerful. No it is more that bad smells are more pervasive since they overpower anything nice. Someone with a more science-oriented education may be able to explain the details of smell particles and what makes one things smell more than another. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3akn2d | when i bend my little finger, why do my other fingers also move? | And then why, when I move my index finger, do my other fingers remain still? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3akn2d/eli5_when_i_bend_my_little_finger_why_do_my_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"csdhqx8",
"csdlns8"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"[This page](_URL_0_) has a pretty good explanation of it. In some cases, it's because the part of your brain that controls the movement isn't fine-tuned to only move that one finger, so the signal to bend get sent to the other fingers as well. The index finger and thumb are the most used fingers of each hand (dominant and non-dominant), so your brain has refined control of those fingers, and only moves that specific finger when your brain sends the command.",
"What happens between the pinky and ring finger is nerve signals sent to the pinky get picked up by the ring finger because your brain can't actually control the pinky very accurately so to do more it sends signals intended for the ring finger. All of your fingers do this to a degree. Try extending all your fingers, and then closing the last 3 while keeping the index finger pointed. You can't do it. It will try to close and after your fingers close then you will be able to straighten it back out.\n\nNow with other fingers, like your index finger closing all the way forces the middle one to go down, involve tendon lengths and muscle connection.\n\nGenerally, if it's the top knuckle moving any restrictions are muscular but the second knuckle movement restrictions are nervous."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.psychologyinaction.org/2012/02/18/muscles-and-the-mind/"
],
[]
] |
|
8mjf9h | in court how do they compensate swearing the oath on bibles for people who arent religious or are not christian? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mjf9h/eli5_in_court_how_do_they_compensate_swearing_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzo18x7",
"dzo1a3m",
"dzo2295",
"dzo2e9z",
"dzo60qz",
"dzo6utu",
"dzoa5py",
"dzoavvc",
"dzobyzy",
"dzod4ru",
"dzof46d",
"dzogjwm"
],
"score": [
60,
255,
4,
5,
25,
3,
11,
8,
5,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You don't have to swear on a Bible, or swear at all. You can simply affirm that you will tell the truth. As you noted non-religious or non-Christian people may have an issue with swearing on the Bible. Likewise some Christian denominations do not believe in swearing or oath-taking and aslo affirm/attest rather than swear.",
"In the US, very few jurisdictions have people swear on bibles anymore. Those that do offer alternates to non-Christians. Some religions, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not allow swearing, are allowed to affirm instead.\n\nNote there is no legal significance to swearing on the bible or any religious book, it is purely symbolic. All the swearing process means is that you are promising to tell the truth and acknowledging that you can be charged with perjury if you do not. Any religious trappings are legally irrelevant to that purpose.",
"By not swearing the oath on bibles. I've seen several courtroom oaths and taken a few, and have never seen a prop offered or used. In places that do still want a prop, you can replace it with some other religious book, a non-religious book like a law book or simply blank pages in a black binding. Heck, you could use the phone-book (if you can still find one), it wouldn't change your legal obligations. Or take an affirmation with no prop at all.",
"The most common place to see someone swearing an oath on a Bible is on a TV show. Very few places in the US administer oaths in this manner, and even when it was commonplace, the witness has had the opportunity to affirm instead of swear the oath if that makes a difference to them. Under the law, it makes no difference at all.",
"Good answers here; it's worth adding that \"some people don't want to swear on a Bible\" is not a new problem, and the US constitution has avoided it from the very start. In the American colonial era, the Quakers were a common religious group that thought swearing an oath was forbidden. So the constitution requires the president and congress to \"swear **or affirm**\" that they will obey the Constitution.\n\n_URL_0_",
"You do not have to swear on a bible. You just have to swear an oath or affirm that you are telling the truth. You can do this without anything, with any religious text you want, with a book of law or copy of the constitution, etc. You could even swear on a comic book if you wanted to do so. ",
"I recently was called as a witness in a grand jury proceeding and while I wasb's terribly surprised that no Bible was offered, I was a little taken aback that the oath the foreman read didnt even contain \"so help me God.\" As an atheist who isn't hung up on such things but still feels it's important not to particpate in civil religion, I had given some thought to how I should respond and in the end it didnt matter.\n\nI was a little amused that I was asked to \"swear or affirm\" but didn't really have a choice (I didn't have to repeat the oath, just say \"yes\" or \"I do\") so only God knows if I was swearing or affirming.",
"In Canadian courts they have a stack of holy books for the person to chose from and the option of none at all. When I was in jury selection, I counted 8 holy books. Only about 3 of the 12 jurors chose a book.",
"In my jurisdiction the courts have a bible, Torah and Quran. You pick whichever text you want to touch, if any. The judge then says “do you swear or affirm” and ends with “so help you God or whatever you personally believe in”. In addition to Jehovah, some Jews won’t swear and never on the Sabbath, and a few other religions don’t allow swearing at some times of the year, etc. \n\nBut legally all you would need to say is that you agree under penalty of perjury to tell the truth. The religious element doesn’t have any basis in my local law and it’s more tradition that anything. \n\nLocals expect it when they sit on a jury (tv will do that to you) so the lawyers (hi!) ask for the swearing on the book so the jury doesn’t misjudge the witness as a dirty atheist (hi again!) ",
"I've given evidence as a witness in court and also been a jury member. Both times, I affirmed which is pretty much promising to tell the truth (\"I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\") and to determine if the defendant was guilty or not guilty fairly when I was a jury member (\"I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.\")\n\nFor other religions, I understand courts generally have the holy books of major religions. I ought to point out that I'm referring entirely to the English and Welsh court system here. I expect other countries have different wordings but with similar meanings.",
"I work in a courthouse so I can answer this! This is particular to Canada.. \n\nWhen a witness is sworn in, they are given the option of swearing an oath on the bible or making a solemn affirmation. The ladder is essentially a promise to the court that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, etc., rather than a religious oath. If either party (prosecutor, defence, plaintiff, whatever) is planning on calling a witness that prefers to swear in their own religion, they make arrangements with the court staff prior to the trial. The courthouse I work in has options for several different religions. For example, for Sikhs, we would administer the oath on their holy script, and provide them with a head covering, water to wash their hands, and allow them to remove their shoes. The script that we recite (the “do you swear to tell the truth..”) is also different according to the religion. ",
"I’m a notary public so I can provide some insight.\n\nThere are oaths and affirmations. They’re functionally the same thing, but they’re worded differently. The point is to make them understand that what they’re saying needs to be true, to the best of their knowledge, or they’ll face criminal penalty.\n\nHere’s what each sounds like (may be different in different states or contexts):\n\nOATH: \"Do you solemnly swear that the statements contained herein are true to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help you God?\"\n\nAFFIRMATION: “Do you solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that the statements contained herein are true to the best of your knowledge and belief, under pains and penalties of perjury or false statement?”\n\nBoth are equally valid legally and lying after taking an oath or affirmation does subject you to being penalized for perjury. There are other kinds of oaths, like oaths of office, but the same thing applies. Neither oaths nor affirmations require a bible or any sacred text for them to be legally binding. The usual custom is for the person taking the oath to raise their right hand.\n\nHere’s what an oath of office sounds like... \"You solemnly swear that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, your duties as.......to the best of your ability, so help you God?\"\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99539230"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
azfq5l | how do we get propane and other gases from the ground? | If there are pockets of gases in the Earth how do we get them from the ground without the gases just dispersing into the air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/azfq5l/eli5_how_do_we_get_propane_and_other_gases_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei7g1b7",
"ei7mdjy"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We refine crude oil which contains gases in the oil(similar to carbonated beverages but less fizzy) and can undergo chemical reactions which will take bigger molecules and break them down into smaller molecules, like propane, which we then seperate out. ",
"Propane is a product of the refining process of crude oil. The longer hydrogen carbon chains are cracked into smaller ones, propane, hexane and benzine are common products.\n\nNatural gas is different, it formed naturally is often found in pockets above crude oil and I think coal "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
499dxh | why do stenographers use those tiny typewriters? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/499dxh/eli5_why_do_stenographers_use_those_tiny/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0q10ff"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They're [stenotypes](_URL_0_) which are much faster than typing, but don't transcribe speech directly into readable English but into a form of shorthand.\n\nWhy? It's quicker - the words are formed with \"chords\" rather than letter at a time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype"
]
] |
||
n3rh6 | how did the wwii enigma code machines work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n3rh6/eli5_how_did_the_wwii_enigma_code_machines_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c361utk",
"c361ze2",
"c361utk",
"c361ze2"
],
"score": [
33,
8,
33,
8
],
"text": [
"It's pretty cool, actually. I'll start with the basics. Each letter on the keyboard is connected, or paired, to another letter. So, if you press the A key, for example, you might see K light up. Similarly, if you press K, you'll see A light up. So, if you were to press H-E-L-L-O, you might get something like T-W-I-I-M. You send the new message \"twiim\" to the recipient. The recipient's machine is wired the same as yours, so pressing T-W-I-I-M will result in the letters H-E-L-L-O. Make sense so far?\n\nHere's where it gets interesting. On each Enigma Machine is three rotors that can each be set by the user. Each rotor has a setting from A to Z. So, when I'm using my Enigma, I can set the three rotors to anything I like, such as: G-E-K. The rotors basically take all the letter pairs and scramble them; all the wires that go from and to each letter are shuffled depending on each rotor setting. Imagine a railroad junction where the track can switch between two paths; it's like that, but with 26 different options, 3 different times in a row.\n\nHowever, if I were to type a message scrambled in this way, it would be very easy to crack because each letter just corresponds with a different letter. If somebody were to intercept the message, he/she could just guess which letters are which and eventually come up with the original message. In fact, this is so simple that newspapers publish puzzles with this encryption format, sometimes known as a CryptoQuip. [Try it yourself!](_URL_0_)\n\nThis is where the brilliance of the Enigma machine comes in. Every time you press a letter on the keyboard, the rotors turn. (kachunk!) So, the letter pairings are completely rescrambled with every letter you choose. Suppose my rotors were set to: G-E-K. After I press a single key, the rotors will shift to: G-E-L, and so on, until G-E-Z, and then G-F-A. Anybody who intercepts the message won't be able to pair up letters because every single character uses a different pairing schematic as defined by the rotor setting. Even if the interceptor has an Enigma Machine, he/she can't decode the message unless the rotors are set the same way. The rotor settings can't efficiently be guessed by hand because there are 26 * 26 * 26 = 17,576 different settings to try. This, combined with the plugboard settings for each letter, and the option of shuffling the rotor order, means there are about 10^21 possible combinations to go through. (Modern computers can do this with some work.)\n\nSo, as long as the sender and receiver use the same rotor settings, the letter pairs are matched. Plus, each time a key is pressed, the rotors rotate, including for the receiver. So, the receiver's rotors stay in sync with the sender's, allowing for total encryption and decryption for both parties.\n\nFun Fact: The Enigma was cracked not because its encryption method was flawed, but because radios were very poor quality. The protocol was to repeat certain key letters to make sure that the receiver didn't miss any info, but the extra information made the messages mathematically feasible to crack.",
"Nice try, Time Hitler.",
"It's pretty cool, actually. I'll start with the basics. Each letter on the keyboard is connected, or paired, to another letter. So, if you press the A key, for example, you might see K light up. Similarly, if you press K, you'll see A light up. So, if you were to press H-E-L-L-O, you might get something like T-W-I-I-M. You send the new message \"twiim\" to the recipient. The recipient's machine is wired the same as yours, so pressing T-W-I-I-M will result in the letters H-E-L-L-O. Make sense so far?\n\nHere's where it gets interesting. On each Enigma Machine is three rotors that can each be set by the user. Each rotor has a setting from A to Z. So, when I'm using my Enigma, I can set the three rotors to anything I like, such as: G-E-K. The rotors basically take all the letter pairs and scramble them; all the wires that go from and to each letter are shuffled depending on each rotor setting. Imagine a railroad junction where the track can switch between two paths; it's like that, but with 26 different options, 3 different times in a row.\n\nHowever, if I were to type a message scrambled in this way, it would be very easy to crack because each letter just corresponds with a different letter. If somebody were to intercept the message, he/she could just guess which letters are which and eventually come up with the original message. In fact, this is so simple that newspapers publish puzzles with this encryption format, sometimes known as a CryptoQuip. [Try it yourself!](_URL_0_)\n\nThis is where the brilliance of the Enigma machine comes in. Every time you press a letter on the keyboard, the rotors turn. (kachunk!) So, the letter pairings are completely rescrambled with every letter you choose. Suppose my rotors were set to: G-E-K. After I press a single key, the rotors will shift to: G-E-L, and so on, until G-E-Z, and then G-F-A. Anybody who intercepts the message won't be able to pair up letters because every single character uses a different pairing schematic as defined by the rotor setting. Even if the interceptor has an Enigma Machine, he/she can't decode the message unless the rotors are set the same way. The rotor settings can't efficiently be guessed by hand because there are 26 * 26 * 26 = 17,576 different settings to try. This, combined with the plugboard settings for each letter, and the option of shuffling the rotor order, means there are about 10^21 possible combinations to go through. (Modern computers can do this with some work.)\n\nSo, as long as the sender and receiver use the same rotor settings, the letter pairs are matched. Plus, each time a key is pressed, the rotors rotate, including for the receiver. So, the receiver's rotors stay in sync with the sender's, allowing for total encryption and decryption for both parties.\n\nFun Fact: The Enigma was cracked not because its encryption method was flawed, but because radios were very poor quality. The protocol was to repeat certain key letters to make sure that the receiver didn't miss any info, but the extra information made the messages mathematically feasible to crack.",
"Nice try, Time Hitler."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.wordles.com/getcrypto.aspx"
],
[],
[
"http://www.wordles.com/getcrypto.aspx"
],
[]
] |
||
4upyg4 | the lean six sigma methodology | Any help would be much appreciated! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4upyg4/eli5_the_lean_six_sigma_methodology/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5rtcxw"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"LEAN and 6sigma address two different aspects of factory production.\n\nLEAN applies analysis to find the minimal cost steps needed to produce the item. It could mean the difference between giving a power tool to a worker instead of a manual tool. or having a conveyer delivery belt move the component to the worker instead of the worker walking around the factory to get the components from their bins. all of it centers on the methods to measure and reduce the cost of the production in both time and money (which boils down to same thing).\n\n6sigma is concerned about whether items that come out of production all meet quality control standards. bad items are categorized as errors vs defects. errors are caught inside the production area. defects make it out of production area. the total cost of an error is the time and cost to remanufacture the item within the production area. the total cost of a defect is error cost PLUS defect management overhead cost PLUS potential customer impacts. 6sigma goals is to measure the existing rates and find ways to reduce the rates. \n\n1sigma is 69% mistakes. \n\n2sigma is 30% mistake.\n\n3sigma is 6.68%.\n\n4sigma is 0.6%\n\n5sigma is 0.0233%\n\n6sigma is 0.00034%"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
cds2jn | how do the "check to ensure you're not a robot" things actually work? what prevents computers from "clicking all pictures with a car"? i'm especially confused with the ones that dont require you to do anything except check the box. does somebody have an explaination? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cds2jn/eli5_how_do_the_check_to_ensure_youre_not_a_robot/ | {
"a_id": [
"etw117b",
"etw4kzd",
"etw4myb"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It checks the way that the person clicks the button (path, speed, etc) to determine if the clicker is indeed a human",
"There's some secret sauce behind these tests, but they check a lot of things.\n\n1. How your mouse moves; if you move in straight lines at a constant speed or instantly jump from place to place, you're probably a robot. There's an amount of random motion they expect from a human.\n\n2. If you click the correct things; computer vision and object recognition is one of the hardest practical problems in computer science today, so it's virtually guaranteed that you haven't written a bot better than the absolute giants of the tech industry throwing millions of dollars a year at the problem.\n\n3. Your IP address; if you're coming to a website from somewhere that has historically had users up to no good, the system is more suspicious of you.\n\n4. Cookies; if you have cookies (small files websites place on your computer that let you save your settings or login status) on your computer that look like a normal person's, the system is more likely to think you're a real person.",
"The ones that require to click all pictures with a car are/were being actively used to train computers to do the task. They're cases that computers have trouble with so a computer can't just click on the pictures. \n\nthe ones that require you to just check a box rely on an advanced algorithm to determine if you're a bot or not. The details of how it works aren't publicly available (for obvious reasons)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
34oxaj | how did mayweather win that fight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34oxaj/eli5_how_did_mayweather_win_that_fight/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqwpbxr",
"cqwph1c",
"cqwpj8m",
"cqwpow2",
"cqwpu8y",
"cqwpw0x",
"cqwq0ep",
"cqwq1jn",
"cqwq3bh",
"cqwq781",
"cqwqbtu",
"cqwqmfq",
"cqwqwks",
"cqwr2lx",
"cqwr3p4",
"cqwr3up",
"cqwr5a1",
"cqwr8ee",
"cqwripe",
"cqwrnbx",
"cqwrnp4",
"cqwrpe6",
"cqwrrjo",
"cqwrtgi",
"cqwrukd",
"cqwrvt3",
"cqwrw2m",
"cqws09v",
"cqws28o",
"cqws3dl",
"cqwsd8q",
"cqwsiuh",
"cqwsk0a",
"cqwslv2",
"cqwsmpt",
"cqwsrhm",
"cqwst5q",
"cqwsx3q",
"cqwte7z",
"cqwtg38",
"cqwti8h",
"cqwtjjp",
"cqwtjwa",
"cqwtrxe",
"cqwtsfc",
"cqwu7gj",
"cqwu915",
"cqwue6r",
"cqwugoi",
"cqwuptp",
"cqwv3b1",
"cqwv3pi",
"cqwv4wy",
"cqwv6d3",
"cqwv87m",
"cqwvfgu",
"cqwvlx6",
"cqww9ft",
"cqww9mv",
"cqwwaqz",
"cqwwewu",
"cqwwgq6",
"cqwwogg",
"cqwws8l",
"cqwwvq6",
"cqwwzc8",
"cqwx3oh",
"cqwx8jr",
"cqwxe3t",
"cqwxpap",
"cqwy0qo",
"cqwy344",
"cqwy9a9",
"cqwy9rq",
"cqwyd66",
"cqwye0f",
"cqwynyw",
"cqwyphu",
"cqwytzl",
"cqwzaqk",
"cqwzes4",
"cqwzguk",
"cqwzzxs",
"cqx09f0",
"cqx0agf",
"cqx0v1k",
"cqx0xwu",
"cqx1h8l",
"cqx2q8l",
"cqx2ra3",
"cqx44yh",
"cqx45o8",
"cqx5wlj",
"cqx7j67",
"cqx8kah",
"cqxbol4",
"cqxoxk3"
],
"score": [
542,
19,
3799,
29,
211,
46,
399,
1780,
8,
31,
4,
22,
135,
3,
51,
147,
2,
2,
9,
2,
2,
167,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
29,
2,
39,
6,
2,
2,
3,
30,
7,
3,
14,
2,
4,
509,
4,
6,
4,
56,
20,
2,
2,
47,
85,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
13,
2,
2,
8,
5,
3,
7,
3,
386,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
5,
3,
2,
7,
2,
29,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
8,
2,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Mayweather is the greatest defensive boxer of all time. I don't like him, but he is a clever boxer. \n\nI wish neither him or manny played it safe, but that is the way it is.",
"Mayweather outboxed Pacquiao. He threw less punches and connected more and Pacquiao wasn't nearly active enough to make up the difference.",
"Pacquiao was the aggressor for most of the fight, and he swung a lot more. The crowd was clearly on his side, and Mayweather rarely drove forward. \n\nBut these things don't matter to the judges, or at least they shouldn't. Who was better at landing punches, who dictated the pace, who did the most damage, these things matter. And Mayweather did all those things. He threw less, but landed more. His hits were doing more damage. It was very rare that Mayweather ever seemed trapped, even buried in the corner. \n\nPacquiao need a lot more of those flurry pieces, and he didn't get through Mayweather's defense most of those times. \n\nEDIT: it's been brought to my attention that MW actually threw MORE punches as well. Paq threw more power punches but MW threw more total punches. Thank you fellow redditor for pointing that out. ",
"Winning a round scores you 10 points. A close loss of a round will normally score 9 points. Penalties (no penalties were awarded in the match) will deduct from your final score. Mayweather won more rounds. I believe one scorecard was 8 round Mayweather to Manny's 4 rounds. Winning 8 rounds out of 12 is 116 points. ",
"Because just because you are the more aggressive fighter doesn't mean you are the fighter that deserves to win (and rightfully so) Mayweather landed many more punches/power punches despite being much more defensive and it paid off",
"Mainly his defensive skill.\n\n\nPacquiao was more offensive indeed, threw a lot of punches, did flashy combos and was a victim of lots of pace killing clinches.\n\nBut he didnt land that many clean hits. Most of his punches hit Mayweather's guard or the air. \n\n\nMayweather not only is great at defending and setting the pace, but also in counter punching. He scored a lot of points with those shitty counter jabs he kept throwing.\n\n\nIn the end its all about punches thrown and punches landed ratios. And Mayweather landed more clean hits.",
"ELI5: What is clinching and why's it allowed in boxing? Opponent is trying to punch me? Let me subdue it by hugging him.",
"Wasn't too big on boxing before this fight. Definitely not a fan of it after.\n\nIn my little knowledge of boxing, it seemed pretty clear that Mayweather's strategy was to avoid as much contact as possible, and issue a few counter punches.\n\nHe executed his plan to perfection and made Manny statistically look bad, which I assume won him the fight. As for actual fighting, though, I feel that Manny participated.",
"If you look at the stats Mayweather landed ~140 punches were as Manny only landed ~80. I think they threw about the same #. A lot of Manny's flurries didn't connect and refs will sometimes discount that as well. Manny also did not adjust well and was getting hit all night with the jab. Mayweather is a defensive genius ",
"he threw more punches and landed a higher percentage of punches. I really don't understand how an unbias person could watch this fight and not see Floyd winning it. Too many people see boxers rush in and throw 5 - 7 punches while only landing like 1 or 2 and assume it's hurting them and having some sort of effect.\n\nManny had only one or two moments of decent success while Floyd would just picking him off and countering him the entire fight in the centre of the ring. This is boxing. The art is hitting the opponent and not getting hit. If you want to watch a brawl go watch UFC, or even better head down to your local bar on a friday evening.",
"Remember that fully and partially blocked punches do not count. Pacqiao didn't land near as many scoring blows as Mayweather. Ring generalship also went to Mayweather in most rounds as he was controlling the pace of many of them.\n\nYou can't expect to win when the judges only remember you going for it when your opponent is on the ropes -- it's just not enough. ",
"Boxing isn't fighting. Its a sport. The only sport that comes close to true fighting is MMA, and even that isn't a perfect comparison. Just because Pacquiao was more aggressive and impressive doesn't mean he did a better job of boxing. Mayweather was the greater boxer, and the lesser man.",
"Fights are somewhat loosely scored on several criteria I'll try to address each. \n\nClean Punching- Put simply who land the most punches on scoring areas, Floyd has an unparralleled defence and very rarely takes hits to scoring area deflecting or avoiding most shots thrown at him, he did this effectively in this fight. \n\nThe stats for punches: _URL_1_ \n\nYou'll see that Mayweather threw more and landed a lot more punches. One point I've seen floated is about his light touch jabs but please also note he also landed more power punches. \n\nPretty clear win for Floyd on this one. \n\n\nEffective Aggression- This one is really a matter of opinion Pacquiao did come forward a lot but probably not enough to counter the natural style of Floyd to any extent, it appeared as if Floyds counter punches caused more damage than people give them credit for and Pacquiao was hesitant about pushing forward too much but at this stage it is like much of boxing scoring, opinion. I would perhaps tentatively say that Pacquiao takes this category. \n\nRing Generalship- This refers to dictating the pace and nature of the fight. The general discomfort with the result seems to be that Floyd turned it into anti boxing with his movement and clinching. The fact that people see this as an issue at all basically proves that Floyd was dictating the flow of the fight giving him this category also. \n\nDefence- This is basically the opposite of the clean punches and refers to making sure your opponent cannot score. Whilst people may call Mayweathers movement and clinching \"hugging and running\" and that it shouldn't score him points the important aspect is it prevents Pacquiao from scoring. You might not call Floyd a winner in this category but he certainly inhibited Pacquiao's ability to score. \n\nFinally so you can get an idea of how this all transpired to the ultimate result here are the judges scorecards: _URL_0_",
"The same thing happened between Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran in the 80s.\n\nLeonard was a dancing clown and Duran was a man. But in boxing, dancing clowns win. ",
"Staunch Pacman supporter here. Take it for what you will...\n\nIn a word, reach. Mayweather controlled that fight from the start. Other than his 5\" reach advantage, which severely hampered Pacman, he controlled the tempo of the bout. Pacquiao lost that fight partially due to corner mistakes and misinterpretation (bias) of his performance...\n\nTo the people giving Money shit about bouncing around: Did you watch the same bout I did? Did you see the surgical precision that Mayweather exacted on Pac in the first few rounds? That can't be ignored...\n\nPac did what he could against an adversary who commanded something he obviously didn't have enough respect for, and lost. Pure and simple. He put up a hell of a fight. Even with the bullshit lack of calls early, I doubt he would have caught up on the cards. I saw this as Pac in 8...\n\nI did appreciate that both of them were very classy afterwards. But, damn. Money won this bout, fair and square, and it fucking sucks...",
"Lets think of it like riding a bike, Manny was pedalling hard but the chain came loose so he wasn't going anywhere (lots of swings but nothing connected). Mayweather only pedalled 20 times or so per round but most of those helped propel the bike forward. In the end Mayweather won the distance travelled race. Scored 116-112 meaning Mayweather won 8 rounds and Pacquiao won 4.",
"basically, he kept his percentage and points high by landing a bunch of sissy love taps, and a few good punches, then running away, dodging and hugging. just as far as points go, I agree he \"won\". but he looked like a pussy. I want a rematch in Manilla, Philippines ",
"and this is why no likes boxing. mayweather pretty much ran away...waited till pacquiao got aggressive and got hits in when he was off balance. i feel sorry for the people that paid $100 for this fight. ",
"The simplest explination... look at punch count.\n\nThey threw an almost identical amount of punches... mayweather landed 5x as many... \n\nThats all it comes down to. People complaining dont know what they are talking about..there ARE measurables in boxing..and Floyd dominated the measureables... chasing a guy around a ring isnt \"controlling\" it..if you never actually hit him, and are constantly getting popped in the face.\n\nPeople saying it was a bad fight or was Mayweather \"running away\" just dont know shit about boxing or strategy...\n\nMayweather knows if he keeps a shorter, heavier fisted opponent at a distance..he CANT lose... so thats exactly what he did.. he didnt try to out-brawl a boxer who prefers to brawl...\n\nIt was a strategically brilliant fight from Floyd... play it EXTREMELY safe in the first 5,6 rounds. Once you KNOW he no longer has the power/speed to knock you out on a single combo, due to exhaustion, you can start making small exchanges, pick him apart, and take the win.",
"Boxing is like those David Copperfield magic shows that used to be on tv. They'd build it up for weeks like it was going to be the best thing ever. At the end a plane would disappear and we'd all feel ripped off.",
"If mayweather had lost this fight, subsequent fight would probably not be worth as much and make less money right?",
"I'll just add, because it's implied but not spelled out,\n\nDodging someone like Manny for 12 rounds like that is NOT easy. People seem to think that being a defensive fighter is some simple process that just requires you to run away, but it's really not. He's excellent at dodging and blocking punches, and then being accurate on counters. Seriously accuracy is king in these lower weight divisions where people can really move, and that's not just why he won, but honestly why he deserved to win (and I wanted him to get his teeth knocked out).",
"Where were the chairs? And nun-chucks?",
"Wait is this the first time most of you guys have watched boxing? ",
"ELI5 what's the big deal about this match, and why is everyone suddenly interested (or pretending to be interested) in boxing?",
"He's a counter puncher. Manny moving forqard was only to his own detriment. Good fight by both, they both fought their fight. Floyd proves why he will most likely remain unbeaten. Hes hard to tocuh and even harder to get inside on. Good night for boxing I dont care what all these People say. Anyone who is a true boxing fan knows this fight played out exactly as expected.",
"The goal of any boxing match or any fight in general is not to knock someone out, but to win that fight. You survive by any means necessary. Floyd is great at that he picks his punches and he deflects and dodges the rest. Manny needed to throw a lot more punches and land them in order to win and he just didn't have that in him.",
"Mayweather was more efficient in throwing his punches. The art of boxing is to punch and to not get punched. When scoring, the judges award you points for making a clean hit which Floyd was able to do better than Manny. Although it looked like Manny was punching more, he simply was throwing ineffective punches because none of them hurt Floyd albeit a couple and most were blocked and deflected by Mayweathers standard highly defensive strategy. Another thing that sways your opinion is listening to the crowd and commentators. The crowd was anti Floyd and everytime Manny threw combinations the crowd was cheering, but the punches he was throwing weren't effective. Alot of boxing fans watch a fight on mute to get rid of factors that may skew your judgment.",
"Boxing is such a lame sport. Run around the edges of the ring while dodging punches. Then after 12 rounds, collect your absurd paychecks and go home without even a cut on your faces. That fight was incredibly boring. The only way I'll ever watch another goofy-ass boxing match is if they remove the damn judges and just let them fight until one of them goes down from exhaustion or a K.O. I'd rather watch a 30 round actual fight than the crap that was going on in that ring tonight.",
"Just look at it like a game of Mortal Kombat...you maybe throwing all kind of combos but if you never make contact...it doesn't matter the life bar will stay the same for the opponent!\n\n...I play to many damn video games...smh",
"You know how when you're playing a fighting game, and no one get's knocked out in time, so the winner is who had the most health? That's pretty much what boxing is like. Manny threw more punches, but didn't do a whole lot of damage overall. Mayweather connected much more and landed more good punches. Liu Kang threw a bunch of punches at a blocking Scorpion, but Scorpion landed three Spear Throw to Uppercut combos.\n\nGot [the comment](_URL_0_) from /u/PatriArchangelle.",
"Mayweather sticks his head out and pulls back in order to lure Pacquiao to throw punches. He then uses his extra reach to connect jabs when his opponent closes in. He then re establishes distance through footwork manoeuvring or clinches. Eventually he tires Pacquiao to a point where he starts to make more mistakes. More counter power punches can be taken when this happens. A pretty straight foreward strategy.",
"He was clearly the best fighter. His head movement was amazing, his footwork was great and his punches landed. Pac man only landed 18 of 189 jabs. He was not as accurate and focused as Mayweather. Just because the other guy was liked more is not an excuse for judges to have decided anything else",
"Not a huge Mayweather fan but he deserves his props. His first 35 fights produced 24 knockouts. His last 13 fights only two knockouts. When mayweather got older and lost his punching power he changed styles. When other champions got older and had diminished punching power they lost fights. ",
"Because moneyman knew this fight is 5 years to late for pacquiao ,\nbut the perfect moment to cash in ",
"Movies have ruined boxing for people. NOT getting hit is much more important than hitting your opponent. Floyd avoided being hit and dealt more damage with the punches he threw, it's that simple. ",
"I personally think Floyd is a insufferable douche. He might think he doing an Ali type head game, but Ali was funny, Floyd is just ignorant. He is however a smart boxer. The days of slug fest boxing is pretty much over. No one want to end up punchy. Yeah I see how it can how it can be boring, but seeing the technical aspects might help people find enjoyment. ",
"I came to a conclusion today after seeing the decision...Admittedly, I am more of a fan of UFC over the past few years. I used to be more of a boxing fan prior, but it finally hit me that I was holding boxing to the standard of UFC from an entertainment and physicality standpoint. I personally felt that Pacquiao fought better just because he appeared to have a bunch of powerful flurries and was more aggressive throughout the fight...However, in the boxing world, those things don't dictate the winner and the loser. The more technical boxer typically wins. And in this fight, Mayweather was the more technical fighter. Based on the way he skirted around the ring, dodged punches, and chose his punches more wisely...He was the better fighter. \n\nBut in my eyes, Pacquiao was more exciting to watch. It was very frustrating to see Mayweather dodge and hug whenever things got tough, but he did in a way that is more \"Technically sound\". In comparison to UFC, we are always looking for the knockout punch or the crushing blow that allows the aggressor to get in a full mount and go to town. \n\nSo in conclusion, make sure we are looking at the winner and loser from the perspective of a boxer rather than UFC. This conclusion became obvious very soon into the fight just by listening to the announcers, who are obviously more knowledgable about the sport of boxing than I am. The entire time they were seemingly \"sucking Mayweather's dick\" by constantly talking him up, even during an aggressive flurry from PacMan. Initially I thought it was unfair but I suppose it is just the technical ability of Mayweather that someone like myself may not be able to see, IMO of course. ",
"Mayweather is the best defensive boxer in the world. He's too quick to hit, and unfortunately that means he won last night. If he'd gone toe to toe and trading blows with Pacquiao it could've been different.\n\nHowever, there have been times where he took more of a beating and the judges have still scored it as a unanimous decision when it should've been much closer, but most people agree boxing is corrupt and Mayweather has the judges in his pocket.\n\nUnfortunately, that style also makes him incredibly boring to watch, which made for a terrible fight and ruined it. Buy hey, he got his $180m so who gives a shit about the fans. ",
"Is there a stream for the replay, or at least a video with highlights? \n",
"As someone who actually boxes (amateur featherweight/lightweight): All these armchair Mayweather advocates are full of shit. Congratulations, you know the rules of scoring. Nobody is fucking impressed, we all know how this idiot won. In no way does the fact that Mayweather (notice his shills refer to him as 'Money') fights like a terrified robot make this a clear victory. Pacquiao deserved this win, and had enough power hits connect on target that would have resulted in a strong KO if this fight's entire ruleset weren't meticulously decided by Mayweather.\n\nThose gloves didn't allow a KO to be part of the equation, and Pacquiao sure as shit knew that. Listen to his post-match interview, the dude has never been that angry. Mayweather spent more time running than he did fighting, including counters. He never ONCE got deducted for clinching, which he was doing entirely too much, as per usual.\n\nFucking apologists are making me sick. Good job everyone, you're helping to ruin boxing further. I don't even want to fight knowing that it's no different than fencing at this point. The only people interested in modern boxing all seem to think it's fucking hip or meta to back Mayweather, like they're on some secret level knowledge because they understand how rounds are scored.\n\nFucking annoying. Glad I didn't buy this fight, knew it'd come to a decision and that Mayweather would take it handily due to A) rigging the contest from the start and B) Pacquiao having no answer for the inevitable penalty-free clinch escape from every corner play.\n\ninb4 b-b-but Manny had a lower % of punches land!! I'm through watching this sport at a professional level. Fuck it. There isn't a reason to both with this boring fuck Mayweather at the top. RIP Sweet Science. Wish I hadn't seen this coming.",
"Nah the real winner here was both the boxers, the boxing promoters, the celebrities who got their few seconds of me time and the companies. The biggest loser here is folks like us. I seriously could have just donated the money to charity at least I would have felt good about that.",
"Floyd won a boxing match. The key is hit the other guy and don't be hit yourself. It's a sport not a fight to the death.\n\nAll the people criticising him and all those booing when it was over aren't boxing fans. If you just want to see two guys slug it out just wait outside a night club on a Friday evening, 2 drunk idiots are bound to give you what you want to see.\n\nWanting Pacquiao to win and supporting him is fine, but show some respect to Mayweather. He won fair and square.",
"This fight was so boring. the only time I've ever truly enjoyed watching boxing was with Mike Tyson in the ring. He had no gears. It was either 100 mph or a knockout in the first 3 rounds. ",
"It's my own fault really, I should have stayed off reddit.\n\nnewsflash, not everyone can watch stuff live...",
"Because about 30 years ago, they secretly changed boxing to Tag. \n\nFloyd \"Tag, You're It!\" Mayweather is the undisputed Tag champion.",
"How he won, by scoring points within the rules of boxing, period. You get points for landing hits on the face and body cleanly. And he landed more, he always does, and if you analyse the tapes you can see he landed about 75% more punches. In other words, he completely dominated this fight. And the judges saw that and awarded him between 8 and 10 of the 12 rounds.\n\nNow punches landed, that goes into scoring. But it's difficult to see when a punch takes a fraction of a second. So subjective things like pace, aggression, poise etc all play a non-official role in scoring. Here we see Mayweather dictate the pace of the fight and showing ring leadership. We perceive aggression from Pacquiao because he comes forward more, the key way in which aggression is measured. But aggression can also be measured in punches thrown, although it's less striking as you can punch while backing up (like Mayweather does), and here we surprisingly see that it's Mayweather who threw more punches by a very tiny margin. While Pacquiao was clearly more aggressive, he threw nowhere near the normal rate he usually does, which gets him the win.\n\nSo why not? What prevented Pac from throwing volume? Mayweather is a master of defence, and has the physical advantage of length and more reach. This allows him to hit at a distance where Pac can't hit him, requiring Pac to lunge in and punch from a relatively less stable position. Mayweather can anticipate and counter, or move away. When he did get pinned down on the ropes, he carefully timed his exit and pivoted around Pac towards the center of the ring, where he can dictate the range of the fight. If Pac came in with too many angles preventing Mayweather from escaping, he'd go in for the clinch and pivot. After they break up, he's center ring again. By doing this, Pac's offence was neutralised.\n\nThat's mostly it. There are details, but that's the gist of it. \n\nMost people don't like watching Mayweather fight, they want to see a slapfest while Mayweather plays chess. Mayweather barely does combinations because combinations put you at risk of getting hit. Instead, he takes potshots, controls distance, his stamina, his position in the ring etc. That's why May's KO percentage is relatively low and why many consider him to be a boring fighter. The people that watch him do so because 1) he is unbeaten and they want to see if he'll get defeated or worse, KTFO 2) some are starstruck by his earnings and think he must be interesting to watch 3) he's a very complete and tactical boxer. Number (3) is pretty rare among mainstream people who watch one or two boxing matches a year, but it's the reason he is considered the pound for pound best fighter active today.\n\nAt the end of the day this is boxing, a sport with certain rules, within which he thrives. He's not the most exciting or powerful fighter, not the one who brutally beats people up. He is unbeatable by today's fighters within the parameters of the sport of boxing, but loses out within the parameters of most spectators. ",
"Why is everyone saying Mayweather ran all night? He threw as many punches, landed more, and out boxed Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't show up for this fight, plain and simple, which sucks because I would have loved for him to pound the shit out of Mayweather.",
"If two boxers faced off against each other both utilizing Mayweather's strategy would there even be a fight? ",
"Even a tap to the stomach is counted as a \"punch\", Mayweather did a lot of his \"scoring\" punches on the Body. \nPacman looked more aggressive because, well he was more aggressive, but also he was aiming for more upper punches and harder punches too.\n\nMayweather fought NOT to lose, he back pedaled, jabbed whilst on a defensive stance, Pacman went forward almost 80% of the time. \n\nEntertainment wise, Pacman delivered... but judges look for the punches... Mayweather blocked a lot of Pac's punches too... whilst he connected with a lot of body shots... even if those were weak punches... they count. \n\nBasically, Mayweather's strategy was to win via jabs and decision all along... he had the reach advantage. Pacman was going for the knock out.. sadly he allowed Mayweather to put him in a range where Mayweather got a lot of jabs in.",
"Calling it a fight is kind of misleading in the first place and can often confuse people, it happens in MMA as well. He won a boxing match.",
"Reading all these top comments proves that boxing did not do their job of turning new people on to the sport. ",
"Remember when the winner was the guy not flat on his back?",
"He basically won because he threw more punches throughout each round. Last I heard he threw like 120 punches while pacman only threw like 110. ",
"And people wonder why the sport of boxing is on life support. Yes, I know this event was a huge draw but it was obviously and rather predictably a disappointment to people looking to watch a fight. Instead they saw the sport's reigning champion do what he does best, that is dodge and win on points. It's an effective strategy to win the fight but it's little more than that. The sport needs a Tyson and Maywether and Manny are not, and have never been it. Great boxers they are, but last night was not a great boxing match, it was about fat paychecks and fighting not to lose.",
"Boxing fan here backing up /u/ArthurRiot\n\nThe fight is scored by 3 different judges using a 10 Point Must system. Every round, each fighter starts with 10 points. Who ever the judge sees landing more punches wins that round, keeping his full 10 points. The other fighter gets deducted 1 point so he scores a 9 for that round.\n\n\nThe rounds are scored separately meaning the scoring or activity does not carry over from previous rounds and shouldn't affect future rounds.\n\n\nAs a Manny Pacquiao fan, it was obvious to me Mayweather won the fight. In 9 out of 12 rounds, Mayweather landed more shots. Floyd Mayweather is an elite boxer and has figured out low risk strategies that pull him through rounds.\n\nWhen scoring fights, you have to make sure you don't put your emotion into it. Just because Pacquiao was throwing more and being more aggressive does not mean he wins that round if Mayweather landed more. The crowd in the arena usually erupt when Pacquiao throws combinations even if they all miss. You need to ignore that and not let it affect your scoring.\n\nNow, speaking as a Pacquiao fan, I was disappointed with his punch output. He usually throws double the amount of punches per round in other fights. Here may be an explanation why he was throwing less. _URL_0_\n\n\nWas it boring? To a casual viewer, yes. Even as a boxing fan it didn't look very exciting. But the right \"fighter\" was awarded the victory.\n\n*On scoring a round, a fighter can also gets a point get deducted if they get knocked down or if they foul the other fighter and the referee decides to penalise them.*\n\n\nEDIT: Ahh shit wrong link haha. Thanks /u/ChildishFiasco\n\n",
"He won because he landed more punches. More clean and effective punches. He made Manny miss a lot. Actually as well he stayed true to his style at times with counter punching which apparently according to post-fight Manny said felt a bit like Margarito's punches so it had a little bit of power, this of course made Manny hesistant to throw. Look at the CompuBox stats if you want to see the accuracy. It was a boxing match not a match of who can keep coming forward. Although, had Pacquiao taken the old Maidana route and thrown his hands more it wouldve been more competitive",
"I feel like Floyd Mayweather is the Chelsea FC of boxing. Is that somewhat accurate?",
"Landing clean punches is the most important criteria when judging boxing and frankly, Mayweather was streets ahead on that count. ",
"This fight was easy to judge. Mayweather hands down won. Pacquiao had the exciting moments in the fight but Mayweather completely controlled it. This is Mayweathers script. It is boring but effective. ",
"I thought the Mayweather win was obvious. He's the only one who landed a significant number of punches. I had Manny winning three rounds and one of those was just because I wanted him to and I was probably bias. Mayweather was a standoff boxer but he executed flawlessly while Pacman scraped and flailed for the points he got.",
"I hate this whole \"running\" bullshit people are saying. What Floyd was doing was not running it was something extremely dangerous. He draws Manny into the corner than defends, counters, and moves away. Manny had the advantage every single time but Mayweather's defense and counters were almost perfect. It seems most people here don't actually know what boxing is. If they did they would've seen a master that perfected his craft with skill and calculation instead of a guy \"running\" which is pretty far from what really happened. Mayweather is pure boxing at its finest. That near perfect performance last night puts Floyd among legends. Its clear 95% of peeps commenting have no idea what they are talking about and have never seen a Mayweather fight. Its sad that people don't get it.",
"I was actually surprised when all 3 judges scored in favor of Floyd. Thought at least 1 would call it in favor of Manny. God those last 2 rounds were brutal for a Manny fan to watch...",
"Might not be exciting but there was no chance at all that Pacquiao could have won that fight.\n\nMayweather is boring as fuck but his technical play and defense are basically perfect it is frustrating to watch. ",
"He out Boxed Manny. He made Manny miss while Mayweather connected at a higher percentage. They threw roughly the same amount of punches but Mayweather landed more. Thats pretty much why he won. I only gave Manny one round, i think it was the fifth or fourth. The 2 other rounds that Harold Lederman? (if i remember correctly) gave Pacquiao could be argued about but im pretty sure those were the rounds where Mayweather put his hands up and let Pacquiao throw punches at him. And while yes Pacquiao was obviously connecting he was not connecting on body parts where he could score points like the body or the head. Instead almost all those punches that he threw landed on Mayweathers arms and elbows. He also could have wom those rounds on aggressiveness but Mayweather still landed more in those rounds so i gave it to him. Even if those rounds were given to Pacquiao Mayweather still would have won the fight. He won a guaranteed 9 out of the 12 rounds. But could be argued that he won 11 out of the 12 like i had him at.\n\nThats really it, Pacquiao just got out boxed and couldnt land on Mayweather. Mayweather spent his time moving and landing at a higher percentage. Most casual Boxing fans call what Mayweather did as, \"running,\" but what its really called is Boxing, the art of hit without being hit back.",
"This is why boxing fails. The way it is \"scored\" encourages pansy-asses like Floyd Mayweather not to take any risks at all, not to try to finish the fight in any way, but rather to play the entire fight \"safe\" and \"touch\" his opponent with punches that have no power, no significance beyond the fact that they \"touch\" the opponent. This is why MMA will always be superior to boxing. Boxing is out-dated and archaic, like fencing. No one gives a damn about it anymore, and last night's fight was a perfect illustration of why.",
"Because Floyd came into the fight with the advantage of being taller, stronger, faster, greater reach, better technique, all of which lend him more power.",
"I'll add that from the beginning to the end, Mayweather was using a ton of subtle psychology* to throw off his opponent. I'll give some examples:\n\n* For the first 6 rounds, the round would end with MW hugging Pac which was a neutralising tactic in showing that Pac's offense \"wasn't doing much\".He would also add in some \"good round\" talk too...which is also another psych out tactic.\n\n* Often, MW would lower his guard and push his neck out taunting Pac to try and hit him. It had two advantages, one, it would tire out Pac quicker(from him trying to punch MW) hopefully leading to a KO and two, there was a counter waiting for Pac if he tried.\n\n* MW often put himself in a corner so that when Pac came in to punish the supposed \"cornered\" foe, he would easily escape. This helped neuter Pac's thoughts on being offensive.\n\n* Clenches are a big part of MW's game as it stops whatever pace or form his opponent can make. Whenever Pac was about to lay some punches in, MW would instantly neutralise them with a clench.Important as the first 6 rounds were basically laying the foundation for the rest of the match so Pac's strategy might have changed because of how those rounds went.\n\n* Before the match ended, MW put up his hands signalling that he KNEW he won. Pac never done that till the bell rung, but even then Pac knew he didn't win but couldn't hide it. To make things worse, MW went up on the top rope to shout to both fans and haters that he was declaring his victory and even went to Pac's corner for another hug. Not sure if the judges noticed this but this all helped create the atmosphere that MW had won which was important.\n\n* One time, Pac got MW into the ropes and gave him a flurry of punches. It DEFINETELY did damage to MW but when Pac had to back off, MW shoulder shrugged as if to say \"didn't do anything\" even though it clearly did because MW stopped doing the \"come to me, I'm at the ropes\" tactic.\n\nThat, combined with MW's excellent agility and stamina ensured that Pac never got the decisive hit he needed. \n\n*(Subtle psychology may not be subtle)",
"I just dont understand how everyone is so mad if you know Mayweather, that's exactly how he fights and how he wanted the fight to go, its no surprise.",
"Mayweather's what's known as a technical boxer, meaning that, in a way, he exploits boxing's rule set rather than physically dominating his opponent. When you're only concerned with the numbers on the scorecards, there's no need to burn yourself out after four rounds. He outlasts and chips away at them, luring them into launching clumsy volleys of blows that lower their hit percentages. All the while he patiently dances about, throwing fewer punches but connecting more often.\n\nThis intrinsically defensive approach has also granted him a much longer career than many of his contemporaries. ",
"Because Mayweather landed about 60 more punches than Pacquiao did, with a roughly equal number of punches thrown. He was far more efficient and accurate, and his timing was far superior as well. ",
"They both loss that fight in my opinion.. They should go 15 rds in title fights .. Or more they didn't even break a sweat .. ",
"Step 1: Delay the match by six years so you won't have to face your opponent in his prime, like the coward you are, Floyd, and you damn well know it.",
"I think it's interesting how many people were surprised by this being a snoozefest. Mayweather is constantly billed as one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time, and add to that the fact that both men are in their upper to late 30s. I don't know what people were expecting. From a technical standpoint, that was a beautiful fight by Mayweather.",
"how can this even be a question, it was clear Mayweather landed more blows. He played fantastic defence and shut down Pacman. Not the way I wanted it to go but he pretty much put on a clinic on how to play defence.",
"Seemed like this fight was judged more on Olympic rules where the number of punches landed outweighs the total quality of the fight ",
"Because technically mayweather won, and that is all that matters. The rules are not tailored to produce the most exciting fight, they are based on who landed more punches.",
"To those complaining about the 'boring' fight. Real Boxing is nothing like you see in movies like Rocky.",
"Summary of this entire thread :\n\nMayweather won because he knew how to game the points, not because he was a showman or a passionate fighter, so, it's not their fault the match was shitty, the match was shitty because box is shitty. \n\nDon't pay $$$ for this shit anymore! ",
"Problem was, Pacman wasn't aggressive enough. Although he tried to corner Mayweather, Mayweather would run away escaping the myriad of punches. This was basically the whole fight.\n\nBut in comparison regarding the strategy, to be the only one that's the aggressor for 12 rounds (Pacquiao)..that's more tough and you expend more energy than being a defensive fighter/counter for 12 rounds. Therefore if you continue to choose the path of extreme offense, you'll also be vulnerable to an elite defensive fighter (Mayweather).\n\nWhat this fight was missing as in all Mayweather fights is the purpose of 2 fighters \"boxing\" vs chasing. It's always at Mayweathers pace. Fans want to see boxers going at it heads up, Mayweather doesn't engage in a fight like that. Therefore Mayweather doesn’t care about boxing lol he doesn't care about pleasing or catering to the fans of boxing, he's all about his legacy and money.\n\nMayweather is a business fighter and pacman is a show fighter ",
"I'm by no means a Mayweather fan but he fought the fight everyone knew he was going to fight. He slowed the pace down and used footwork to avoid Manny's punches in bunches. A lot of people are mad at him for running and yes his fights can be boring but he's a defensive genius, he uses the shoulder roll to counter perfectly, and even when he did take shots he covered up and rolled to his right...something he ALWAYS does. Be disappointed in Manny because he knew Floyd was going to do all these things and he did nothing to combat them. Floyd fought the same fight he always fights so if you thought he was going to stand in the pocket and trade shots with a fighter like Pac I can see where your frustration would be.",
"I fully agree mayweather won but all this taught me is how shitty of a sport boxing is. $100 for that \"Fight of a lifetime\" pssshhh",
"He won by avoiding an actual fight. Anytime Pac got good hits in May would just clinch him to end it. ",
"He threw more punches. He landed more punches. He landed more power punches. He did this in 9 of 12 rounds. He completely dominated because he hit manny and barely let manny hit him.\n\nThe casual boxing fan has no business watching any weight class other than heavyweight, casual fans wanna see knockouts. mayweather is an elite boxer but 150lb guys don't beat each other to death. they avoid being hit if they're smart and they land precision punches. ",
"This thread, TLDR:\n\nCasual: Wow, that was a superfight? Boxing is super boring.\n\nBoxing fan: MAYWEATHER OUTBOXED PACQUIAO!!\n\nCasual: Yes. Boxing is boring.\n\nBoxing fan: But Mayweather OUTBOXED him!!! \n\nCasual: It looked like a lot of running away and hugging.\n\nBoxing fan: IT'S REALLY __HARD__ TO RUN AWAY AND HUG LIKE THAT!\n\nDana White: lol",
"Mayweather and Pacquio threw almost the same amount of punches... (Pac 6 more) Mayweather landed 148 of them and Pacquio 81... Pac could barely touch floyd. Floyd dodged and countered all night. it wasn't close. Pacquio got destroyed. ",
"Pacquiao landed around 10 good head shots & everything else was blocked. Are you kidding me?",
"This is why Boxing is and has been a dying sport. Big fights are questioned by the public but then nothing is done, because everyone just forgets about it within a week. ",
"Defensive boxing. You win points by counter punching and controlling he fight. Manny never landed any real shots while Floyd controlled him with jabs and counters. Though Manny was the aggressor, Floyd won by fighting his usual style.",
"easy he outpointed him, mayweather's style is defensive outboxing he keeps his distance, chips away at his opponent and scores points from landed punches while avoiding his opponent's punches.\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"Easily. \nTo hit out, avoid being hit back. \nProtect oneself, while dictating the fight. \n\n20years unbeaten, never taken damage, record earnings that's the ultimate boxing display. \n\nStyles make or break matches, there are fighters and there are boxers ",
"Mayweather kept landing those jabs and counters, that theatrically don't look at appealing to fans, compared to Pacquiao's combinations, which rarely landed. \n\nI'm pretty sure just like the bar I was in for the fight, the place erupted anytime Pacman busted out a combination but you could clearly see he wasn't landing them that much..\n\nMayweather was surgical like always and boring like he always is. ",
"Because he landed more punches.\n\n\n| | Mayweather | Pacquiao |\n|:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|\n| Punches thrown | 435| 429 \n| Punches landed | 148| 81 \n| Jabs thrown | 267| 193\n| Jabs landed |67|18 \n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"Pretty much like playing whack a mole it only counts if you land a hit and the more hits you land the more points you get.",
"Pacquiao is most damaging when he gets in close and lands a flurry of punches, and Mayweather negated that strategy by keeping his distance (which he had the reach advantage to do) and landing mostly long bombs *and* by counterpunching effectively when Pacquiao did throw punches.\n\nIt was a classic case in boxing of one overall strategy winning out over the other.\n\nMy biggest disappointment in the fight, however, was not seeing Pacquiao's mom trying to put a hex on Mayweather, like she did against her son's last opponent.",
"On points. Pacman made more attempts at punches, mayweather made more connections. He wasnt running and bobbing for no reason lol",
"At it's simplest, boxing is about hitting the other guy without being hit. Pac looks good when he throws in bunches but if you pay close attention or watch it frame by frame most of his shots land on the arms or shoulders of Mayweather... they don't count. Meanwhile Mayweather is lighting him up with straight right hands without setup or left hooks when Pac starts considering coming in.\n\nMayweather actually lands the same amount of power punches that Pac lands TOTAL. Then factor in all the jabs.\n\nThere's also another thing that judges base decisions on which is basically who controls the fight more. This can be broken down into a few parts, who sets the pace / dictates the fight / pushes forward.\n\nSo each of these is judged based on a per round basis. Mayweather consistently dictates the fight by establishing the jab which keeps Pac at range. Then about half the time Pac comes in he gets caught with one of those two shots and Mayweather pivots away back to the center of the ring. Most of the time Pac doesn't get caught he still cant generate anything before he gets tied up in a clench or Mayweather ducks under and pivots out. (I'll also note here that in the first third or half of the fight Pac was clenching more than Mayweather)\n\nTo illustrate how smothering the counterpunching and defense is, Pac averages landing 35% of his punches. This fight he landed 19%. Typically fighters against Pac land about 25% of punches. Manny usually throws something like 650 punches. \n\nMayweathers averages? His landing average is 43% and he only takes about 19% of his opponents punches.\n\nIn this fight, Pac landed only 19% of his punches and was lit up by 38% of Mayweathers. And he only threw 430. Why the significant difference? He throws a lot less because of how often he got caught on the way in. Getting punched in the face sucks. Getting punched in the face while your moving INTO the punch sucks a lot more. It makes you kind of hesitant to keep doing so. And when he picks his spots to move forward and doesn't get caught he can't land through Mayweathers defense.\n\nSo looking at the match, looking at all the numbers Mayweather controlled the fight by boxing. He made the next best fighter in the entire world look like just any other \"average\" fighter. A lot of people deride Mayweather as not having ever fought anybody good. What if he just makes good people look.... average? \n\nLast note, Pac didn't even do best against Mayweather. Maidana did a lot better."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/TUUgUPj.png",
"http://i.imgur.com/BXNv0Ax.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34oxaj/eli5_how_did_mayweather_win_that_fight/cqwrzb5"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing/manny-pacquiao-fought-with-injured-right-shoulder--denied-shot-in-locker-room-060910259.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/480790/sports/boxing/look-stats-show-mayweather-threw-and-landed-more-punches-than-pacquiao"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/32574434"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
27om2o | at the large hadron collider, how do the scientists get the 'right' protons into the machine? | I'm useless as physics and have a basic grasp of the LHC. I wondered how the scientists know what they are firing around inside the LHC or if they have to put stuff in there how do they make sure it's the 'right' stuff? It's all really tiny isn't it? Thanks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27om2o/eli5_at_the_large_hadron_collider_how_do_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci2ui42"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're overthinking the way it actually works.\n\nWhat happens is they use a source that generates literally billions and billions of protons, these are all then accelerated around the machine and then finally allowed to crash into each other. Most of them don't even hit each other and are just absorbed. If the scientists are really, really lucky some of the protons WILL hit each other, if they're luckier still then when they hit each other they'll decay into simpler particles, and if it's the scientists' best day ever they'll decay into the exact simpler particles they've been looking for."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2ldjjq | (if your country has them) why do drinks in king-size cans cost less than the normal cans? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ldjjq/eli5_if_your_country_has_them_why_do_drinks_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cltri7t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of fixed costs in packaging drinks and the price of a bigger or smaller can may not make much difference. Most of an items price has nothing to do with the size.\n\nI designed labels for a big box store once and learned that the difference in cost to make a 16oz can of soda and a 32oz can is often less than 1 cent per can.\n\nNaturally, even if it is priced less than the smaller cans, there's still room for profit. \n\nHere's an example of all of the math involved. Hope this helps!\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.pdco.com/node/88289"
]
] |
||
8iacl3 | 4 continuous hours in the sun results in a sunburn, but 4 hours broken up into 15 minutes chunks does not. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8iacl3/eli5_4_continuous_hours_in_the_sun_results_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyq6hkd",
"dyqeagb",
"dyqf8yu",
"dyqlx1u",
"dyqn2u6",
"dyqq2ub",
"dyqqcri",
"dyqsa17",
"dyqtbnq",
"dyqtpym",
"dyqu16s",
"dyqukcl",
"dyqve3l",
"dyqvpek",
"dyqy4ce",
"dyr41cs",
"dyrbwyb"
],
"score": [
166,
127,
83,
3910,
19,
3,
2,
2,
60,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Light is radiation. Radiation is like a really tiny bullet that can shoot through important stuff in your cells (like your DNA). Damaged DNA can cause cancer. When your body detects that the DNA in a cell has been damaged, the cell kills itself for the greater good of the body. No cell, no potential cancer. \n\nNow think of a tinted window in a car. Not as much light gets through it, right? Like a tinted window, your body releases a “tint” called melanin which is what makes you darker when you’ve been in the sun. Your body does this to avoid as many radiation “bullets” passing into skin cells and making them commit suicide. \n\nIf you expose yourself to 4 hours in a row, you don’t give your body time to release the melanin to protect your cells so they die and cause sunburn.\n\nIf you give your body enough time, it can tint your skin to protect you and you don’t burn (or not as severely).\n\nEdit: \nI could go into detail about basal reversal repairs and the issue with double helix breaks, but would it be an ELI5? I’m not going to explain enzyme metabolic rates n shit to a 5 year old. The melanin vector is easiest (and is one of the primary factors).",
"Something I think folks are missing is how much the sun's power depends depends on time of day- if that four hour window includes noon-2PM, you are getting way more light intensity than 15 minutes at 8 AM or 10 AM.",
"Imagine having to drink 5 gallons of water in one hour. Now imagine have to drink 5 gallons of water over the course of a week. Same amount of water, different amount of time. You're giving your body more time to process the 5 gallons of water.",
"The explanations so far are not correct. 4 continuous hours of sunlight will give your damaged cells less time to repair DNA and less time to apoptose (safely die without causing inflammation).\n\n4 hours spread out over increments gives your cells time to repair DNA and, if need be, apoptose irreparable cells in-between exposures.\n\nIf you do not have this break time in-between exposures, cells will become damaged so badly that they cannot die in a safe, organized manner (apoptosis). Instead, they die quicker and release their proteins into the space between cells. Nearby cells sense this, freak out and release chemicals that cause inflammation and pain.\n\nAdditionally, immune cells in skin undergoing DNA damage from UV may directly contribute to inflammation.\n\nFun fact: When you feel heat, when you are out in the sun, it’s from infrared light. A lot of people have the misconception that they aren’t feeling the heat from the sun, so they aren’t getting burned. The “heat” (really just pain) from a sunburn will come on much later, and is produced by inflammation and hypersensitive nerve endings.\n\nEdit: I should add. Even if your 4 hours is broken up into increments, if you’re fair-skinned, you’ll probably still get burned.",
"Vary basicly spoken. \nIts the same as if you wave your hand trough a candle light flame for 1 secund 60 times, or keep your hand in the flame for a full minute in 1 go. \n The warmt/heat/radiation will be spread over longer time or not.",
"Put your hand in 130 degree water for 10 seconds, take a 10 minute break, and redo 10 times. Now put your hand in 130 degree water for 100 seconds and see which hurts more and damages more. \n\nIt’s the same concept. Your body has time to reset and recover if there are breaks in between. ",
"UV when it come into contact with cells messes with alignment of DNA. This DNA has 4 possible things it could be ACGT (adenosine, cytosine, guanine, thymine) these 4 nucleotides in a order make up our genetic make up and have a complimentary antiparallel strand holding them for stability. when UV touches a part of DNA with 2 Ts together they break their bond with the antiparallel partner and bond with the other T. This is a thymine diaper this causes DNA damage. The body has the ability to fix this but over time these diapers build up and eventually cells have to go kaplooey. When you do tests between UV and nonUV your body has time to fix these diapers and not constantly bombarded (think like those cartoons with leaks and how everytime Tom plugged a hole another leak would be sprung, that's what happens to DNA except each leak is another TT diamer.",
"Exactly the same thing as running for exemple, It’s not hard to run 15 minutes, rest? and do it 16 times.\nOn the other hand, it’s extremely hard to run 4 hours.\n\nThe simple answer is that, in the second case, your body gets to recover.\nThe more detailed answer is already in the comments. ",
"This seems like a good time to remind everyone that May is Skin Cancer Awareness month, and folks in the states can get a free skin cancer check courtesy of the American Academy of Dermatology. Find your nearest screening here: _URL_0_\n\n",
"ELI5: You regenerate. You don't regenerate fast enough to maintain 4 continuous hours of sun. ",
"60 seconds underwater results in death but 60 seconds broken up into 10-second chunks does not. \n\nSunburn is a result of cell death, let them recover and you can bombard your cells with UV again. ",
"Touch a hot stove for 1 second and pull you hand away before it burns it. You can repeat that a dozen times as long as there's a break inbetween.\n\nMeanwhile, touch a hot stove and hold you hand on it for 10 seconds, you're going to burn your hand.",
"Holding your hand to a stove for 5 seconds burns you, poking the stove once every 10 seconds does not",
"4 hours? I was thinking more along the lines of 4 minutes. ",
"4 hours? You haven't experienced sun until you can't go out for more than 7 minutes without protection or staying in the shade.",
"Nurse here with related topic: I just completed a Skin Check clinic with an MD. We saw 55 people in 6 hours. Our job was to do a quick skin check, and refer them to their primary MD or a dermatologist if we found something suspicious.\n\n11 people had something that needed to be addressed, but wasn't urgent. \n\n5 people had something that was very likely skin cancer. In two of those people, the condition had progressed due to lack of diagnosis and care. One of those was almost certainly melanoma, but a biopsy would be needed for any diagnosis to be sure. They were all urged to get to an MD asap.\n\n1 case of undiagnosed psoriasis, lots of eczema, and acne, and a whole host of other skin conditions.\n\nThis is what I have learned as a nurse and as someone with a history of squamous cell skin cancer: get yourself checked out. Yearly. The things that you are worried about? Probably nothing. The things that you aren't worried about? Might very well be something.\n\nMake sure your MD is doing a thorough check... you have to get nude, and you have to part cheeks. If your MD wants to rush through the body check, get another MD. Better yet, go to a dermatologist. Dermatologists are best, because skin conditions are so nebulous, even a primary MD might not know what they're looking at. \n\nRemember: most of the really scary skin stuff is caused by sun exposure, so be aware of that! Everyone thinks of the beach, but consider gardening/yard work, outdoor exercise, walking to and from your car, even driving (your left arm is almost always exposed to the sun because it's against the window). Beaches and snow reflect the sun. Don't play outside between 10 and 4. \n\nSo: sun screen, sun screen, sun screen. Reapply every 2 hours, even if you don't get wet. Hats. Long sleeved shirts. No sunburns allowed! Wanna look good as you age? Avoid the sun and don't smoke.\n\nFinally: go online and learn the ABC's of skin cancer. It could save your life, or the life of someone you know and love.\n\nedit: words, and then some more words.",
"A few second of water down your throat is drinking. A few minutes of water down your throat is drowning. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.aad.org/public/spot-skin-cancer/programs/screenings/find-a-screening"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7pq8nz | what are these new-age solid-state batteries? how are they different from conventional batteries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7pq8nz/eli5_what_are_these_newage_solidstate_batteries/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsj5sa9"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"They're batteries that use solid electrodes or electrolytes instead of liquid.\n\nThey have potentially higher energy density, and are safer since they're not flammable. They also have longer lifespans and don't produce as much heat.\n\nI think the problem at the moment is that they're not ready to be mass produced and so they're expensive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
23auwm | how does a bike roll down a hill (balance) with no assistance? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23auwm/eli5_how_does_a_bike_roll_down_a_hill_balance/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgv84l4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Conservation of angular momentum. The wheels of the bike are spinning on a particular plane, and they naturally \"want\" to continue spinning on that plane, so they resist any change in that motion. In this case they resist the bike tipping over due to gravity. The faster they are spinning (meaning the more momentum they have) the more they will resist a change in that momentum. Once they slow down and lose momentum the bike will tip over."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
66hq9v | why (in the u.s) we are taxed twice, and in many cases a third time, on the same income? | So I get the reason for taxes. 100% makes sense, you contribute to the society you live in. I'll even go as far as saying why I get that there are federal and state taxes(counting that as one) even though I think the state should tax and the federal government should then collect from the state and not waste time on every individual but I digress. So then why do we have to pay taxes on purchases? 28% of my paycheck is taken out in taxes. So for every $100 I make I can only spend $72. But I can't use that $72 to its fullest because (in Ohio) I have to pay 7% tax(not exact). I'm not sure why there is this second round of taxes but even that I have accepted. But my last obstacle that is where I genuinely don't understand why there are taxes is on used items. Those items were already bought at full price and taxes paid at its max. For example a GameCube game that passes back and forth to a used game shop will eventually have more spent on taxes than the game was ever worth. If there was tax paid in by the laborers. Tax paid on the raw product. Tax paid on distribution. Tax paid when the game was purchased. I don't receive anything back tax wise when I now sell this used game. But when it's sold again it will be taxed once again!
Why is this system set up this way? And how is it fair that your $100 turns into $50 by the time you spend it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66hq9v/eli5_why_in_the_us_we_are_taxed_twice_and_in_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgill1s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's nothing illegal for different taxation at different levels of government for different purposed. Different taxes are for different governing bodies, some are more regressive, some more progressive, some go to specific uses while others go to general revenue streams. The amount needed to be collected is the same, so whether it was a 50% state income tax that also got distributed to cities and the Federal gov't or paying 3 different levels of taxes don't change the totals... in fact they might be higher, because different levels have different types of credits, etc. Like you might lose mortgage interest deduction if you didn't pay the Feds directly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2jwufu | the "internet" to someone from the 1950s | Let's say someone from the 1940s/50s era gets magically transported to our present day.
A lot of things are fairly easy to explain - phones, cars, trains, planes, etc, these all existed in the 40s so things like cellphones, huge TVs, modern transportation, etc, wouldn't be that difficult.
But what about the internet? Basicaly, what would the ELI5 be for the concept of an internet connection and the world wide web be to someone who would have never seen a computer and has no background of modern technology at all? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jwufu/eli5_the_internet_to_someone_from_the_1950s/ | {
"a_id": [
"clfsc9t",
"clfsjjm",
"clfspz8"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
5
],
"text": [
"Think about it this way; you get your newspaper every morning, you sit down, and you read the headline story. Let's say it's a story about a car crash; you get an idea of what happened, who was involved, etc.\n\nNow imagine that instead of just reading *one* report, you could read several different reports with different opinions, all without going out and buying a whole stack of papers. *That's* what the Internet is.",
"Basically just go over the history of computers so that each step is easy enough to imagine from the last:\n\nYou know adding machines? Well we've made them better. Much better. Instead of being mechanically constructed to do sums or other things with numbers we enter with some buttons we've extended them to be able to do all that calculating from instructions written on 'punch cards'. The punch cards specify what numbers to work on and how. This way we can, without needing a human to press all the buttons or work it all out, get this computer to perform complex calculations. It can count up all the numbers fed into it by the punch cards or get the ratio of how many of the values are above or below 5 or something, etc. Basically we replaced the buttons on the adding machine for pre-made punch cards that let you do the same thing without needing a human to push all the buttons. By putting census data or something on the punch cards we can feed it data and cards quickly without a human punching it all in manually.\n\nNext we started advancing it further - instead of punch cards we made electricity the 'card'. Just like in a radio a current is used to make the speakers vibrate differently - and thus make noise - we can use a current to signify data or instructions to the computer. Varying voltage is used rather than holes in cards. This lets us feed things into the computer much faster.\n\nAdditionally we found ways to store the data without the cards. It's possible to make extremely small 'marks' on special-made disks. It's almost like grammophone records. We mark these disks and can read them back with a very small head.\n\nThis lets us store data and instruction sets on these disks which are far smaller than punch-cards and can be fed in more quickly.\n\nWe then took these so-called 'drives' and integrated them into the computer directly so we didn't have to load every instruction set or data set in disk by disk. Now you could save commonly-used instruction sets to the computer and the computer had a mechanism added so you could just ask it to load these programs from the drive. This meant we no longer needed to load the new instruction set every time we wanted to do different things; an operator could switch what it was doing quickly.\n\nNext we made typewriter like 'keyboards' for the computers that let us start interacting with the computer. Special instruction sets were made to react to things we typed into it. If I typed in 'echo 5 + 5' the special instruction set would get the computer to add 5 and 5, then put the result on the monitor. (The monitor being like a TV that the computer can control to produce images for us.)\n\nIn time these computers were connected to the phone networks. Now computers could place calls to one another and exchange data using the phone network. This let us share things between computers. People started making centralized centres of knowledge for all sorts of things and we could ask our computer to call them to see this data on our own computer. \n\nEventually the phone-line system was replaced with a dedicated cable network just for computer to talk to one another.",
"It's like a telephone that can call anyone, anywhere, and you can see through it like a television. You can choose what you want to see, like visiting a library, but you never have to leave your house. There are classifieds like in a newspaper, business listings like the yellow pages, movies like in a theater, and a seemingly endless library of magazines, journals, and bulletin boards. You can use it to buy things like you would from a catalog, and you can even see what other people who bought that item think about it. And you can write to other people looking at the internet, like a letter, but it's delivered almost in an instant. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
71tztk | why do space craft enter the atmosphere at full velocity, requiring heat shields and risking burning up? | It seems like reverse thrusters could be used, at the expense of additional fuel, to control the entry of a space craft back into the atmosphere. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71tztk/eli5_why_do_space_craft_enter_the_atmosphere_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"dndfujv",
"dndfuzk",
"dndhj33",
"dndhs34",
"dndi4mc",
"dndm9am"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
4,
2,
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Extra fuel is extra weight. Extra weight requires more fuel to lift it and slow it down. More economical to use the atmosphere as a brake",
"\"at the expense of additional fuel\"\n\nThat's a really big expense, both in cost and weight. Its just literally not economically viable right now to do it that way. Though things like space x are starting to work on it.\n\nRight now it makes most economic sense to just let it burn and crash and rebuild it, because thats how much more expensive that extra fuel is.",
"The reverse thrusters would increase the total fuel required for the trip by over 2x! You need the fuel to slow down from 8 km/s which is going to be almost your full starting fuel load, *AND* the fuel required to lift all that fuel into orbit and speed it up to 8 km/s\n\nAny additional weight results in a significant increase in fuel requirements which requires a bigger rocket. It took a Saturn V rocket to get the Apollo mission to the moon, to use retrorockets to slow the command module for reentry would likely have doubled the payload mass requiring an even bigger rocket, bigger than any rocket ever made by anyone ever! Its just not feasible, a heat shield works pretty damn good and is pretty reliable and light",
"A spacecraft like The Shuttle or The Soyuz cannot physically carry enough fuel to slow it down enough to where it will not require a heat shield when it enters the atmosphere. Think about how freakin big the rocket was just to get it up there in the first place. Now when in orbit, your speed is directly related to how high the craft flies over the planet. Add additional speed and your craft will fly higher and vice versa. If you slow your craft down too much, it will enter the atmosphere at a very steep angle, this is bad. Heat shields can only handle so much and diving through the thicker layers of the atmosphere at sub-orbital velocity is a great way to burst into flames. The easiest and cheapest way to land a spacecraft is to slow it down just enough to dip into the higher layers of the atmosphere. Then using these thin, upper layers to slow the craft down. That way the heat shield can take the heat and you don't have to spend so much fuel slowing down.",
"Everyone else here has given great explanations. If you want to see how fuel, weight, and all of that interact, go download a copy of Kerbal Space Program. You'll get to see what all it takes to get things into orbit and back down.",
"People are saying that it would take much more fuel, but I want to try to quantify that a little bit. This isn't exactly ELI5 but I feel that it's illustrative. You can skip the maths and just read the conclusion, if you want.\n\nThe relevant equation for changing the speed of a rocket is the imaginatively named [rocket equation](_URL_0_), which looks like this\n\nΔv = v_exhaust * ln((m_fuel + m_rocket)/m_rocket)\n\nwhere Δv (pronounced delta-v) is how much your rocket can change its velocity, v_exhaust is the exhaust velocity of your rocket engine, m_fuel is the mass of all the fuel you're starting with, and m_rocket is the weight of your rocket with no fuel in.\n\nRearranging a bit gives us \n\nm_fuel = m_rocket * (e^(Δv/v_exhaust) - 1)\n\nWe can plug some values in from a real rocket now to get a sense of how much more fuel we'd have to carry to completely slow down before entering the atmosphere.\n\nThe Space Shuttle weighs about 69 tons empty, and its engines have an exhaust velocity of about 4.4 kilometres per second. If it were coming back from, say, the International Space Station, and we wanted to completely slow down then it would need about 7.7 kilometres per second of delta-v. Plugging these values for v_exhaust, m_rocket and Δv into our equation gives us \n\nm_fuel = 69 tons * (e^(7.7/4.4) - 1)\n\nYou work that out, and you'll find it's almost 330 tons of fuel. That's almost *5 times* the weight of the Space Shuttle itself. You can clearly see that this is a wildly unrealistic amount of fuel. Conversely, slowing down just enough to be able to use the atmosphere for aerobraking takes only on the order of 100 m/s of Δv, which is easily achievable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation"
]
] |
|
6dksc3 | the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but at what physical point do scientists classify a planet's age as 0? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dksc3/eli5_the_earth_is_about_45_billion_years_old_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"di3f5v1"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"When it started to be a planet.\n\nTo be a planet, it needs to fit three criteria:\n\nA planet is an object in orbit around the Sun with a diameter greater than 2000 km.\n\nA planet is an object in orbit around the Sun whose shape is stable due to its own gravity.\n\nA planet is an object in orbit around the Sun that is dominant in its immediate neighbourhood.\n\nSo, basically, it needed to coalesce into a stable shape and clear out the immediate neighbourhood.\n\nThere's no hard-and-fast answer of when it \"became\" a planet. There's no point where you can say \"Before this instant, it was not a planet, but now it is.\"\n\nJust like how if you have a pile of seeds, and then take one seed away at a time, you can't say there's a specific time when taking away a single seed made it from a pile into something that isn't a pile anymore. Obviously if you have only one seed, it isn't a pile. Is two seeds a pile of seeds? Probably not."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5mvtdr | why do ladybugs seem to appear inside every time the temperature drops? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mvtdr/eli5why_do_ladybugs_seem_to_appear_inside_every/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc6qxyo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"These insects, among quite a few others are doing something called over wintering. I'm short, they are looking for shelter. Homes/buildings are about the best fit for that. So as the temp drops they look for these places to survive. You'll actually end up seeing activity change with temp, sometimes with recurrences!\n\nThis is actually a pretty big topic that gets complicated fast. Especially when it comes to helping prevent these pests.\n\nI'm a certified pest control technician. \n\nEdit: you living in a new house has nothing to do with it. You can caulk and seal holes to help reduce activity, and residual pesticide treatments in key areas before the first real good drop in temp can help."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
357n0v | why are pretzels shaped like... well, pretzels? where did that shape originate from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/357n0v/eli5_why_are_pretzels_shaped_like_well_pretzels/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr1rmmx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Can't remember specifics but something about nuns creating a shape that looked like children folding arms."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3iodt6 | why does software randomly not work or crash at times but is fine after a restart? | One way of the first ways to solve a tech problem is to just restart it, but why does that fix most problems? Shouldn't the same event just repeat again and again if in the same circumstances? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iodt6/eli5_why_does_software_randomly_not_work_or_crash/ | {
"a_id": [
"cui7pre",
"cui85zk",
"cui8e0q"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Computer programs ALWAYS have bugs, it's the nature of programming as software is usually so complicated with thousands upon thousands of lines of code, some situations weren't thought about or someone just made a mistake when making it. Little bugs often exist that cause programs to become unstable over time, and there isn't anything built into the software to detect that it's unstable and fix the problem on it's own. Restarting the program clears out everything and starts fresh, as it was before it got into that unstable state. As far as restarting your computer, everything on your computer is software, and is included in the above description including your operating system (windows, mac, linux) and your drivers which are software that lets your operating system talk to the hardware and accessories it's working with.",
"When a program runs for a while it creates a lot of \"work product\" which is it's internal state and if there are bugs then that state can get corrupted. On the other hand when you start a program, and maybe open a file with it, it's usually the most well thought out and tested thing you can do with software so it rarely fails.\n\nSo it's a case of using more of the programs code for a longer time (more bugs can be encountered and errors can/will accumulate) versus running a smaller part of the code once.",
"In the same circumstances, yes. But there are lots of moving parts -- did you click on that button before or after it finished loading some file in the background? Programs use things called \"threads\" for multiple tasks -- the user interface thread and a worker thread definitely will not ever have exactly the same timing relative to each other on different runs. Since the OS switches threads, it depends on what computational loads other programs are putting on the system. Which depends on external factors -- the exact timing of the network depends on your ISP, the user is pressing keys and moving the mouse at unpredictable times.\n\nYou're almost never running the program \"in the same circumstances\" twice if it has multiple threads.\n\nFor programmers, random crashes are the hardest problems to solve. Normally the first step to fixing a bug in your program is to reproduce the \nproblem. If it's a random freeze or crash, it's hard to get past that first step. There might be something that the user's doing with the program, or something in the user's system environment -- OS, hardware, specific versions of all related programs, unrelated programs interfering somehow..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d2wszx | how is it possible for light to not have reached us from parts of the universe yet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d2wszx/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_light_to_not_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezx9tqs",
"ezxanxw",
"ezxbbt4",
"ezxbz9v"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The limit of Speed of Light only applies to particles moving through spacetime, it does not apply to spacetime itself. Two points in spacetime can be pushed apart by the expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. The further any two points in spacetime are from each other, the faster they move apart based on the expansion of the universe, so for every point in the universe, there is horizon beyond which all points are moving away from it faster than the speed of light, and no light emitted from those points over the horizon will ever reach the former.",
" > Now if all observable mass blew apart from this singularity, any objects whose relative velocity vectors were less than the speed of light would be able to observe eachother from the start\n\nYou are fundamentally misunderstanding the Big Bang. It was not all mass exploding outward from a central point. Instead it was **space** expanding everywhere at once. All **places** were closer together during the singularity and when the Big Bang happened space itself began to expand causing all *locations* to become more distant from each other. Matter itself didn't obtain a velocity through space.\n\nThe speed of light then applies to things moving through space, it doesn't govern the rate at which new space can appear between two locations. In fact given a sufficient distance between two points then any expansion of space, however small, will eventually add up to exceeding the speed of light.",
"The Hubble Constant is about 74 km/second per megaparsec. That means that the comoving velocity of something 1 megaparsec away from us is about 74 km/s (pointed away from us) due to the expansion of space. \n\nAs an example, the most \"distant galaxy\" you'll see reported as 13.4 billion light years. What this really means is that the light we observed today was emitted from this galaxy when it was less than 13.4 billion light years away. However, due to the expansion of space, we expect this same galaxy is now actually over 50 billion light years from us. The universe simply isn't old enough for anything over ~13.4 billion light years of travel time to have reached us yet (the universe is ~13.8 billion years old, but for various reasons we would not expect galaxies to have formed during the early portion). \n\nFinally, it's worth noting that you shouldn't view the Big Bang as a singularity exploding from a central point. That simply isn't the model of it that's ever been proposed. Rather, the Big Bang refers to a point in time about 13.8 billion years ago where the energy density of the universe was infinite. One Planck time after the Big Bang, there is no evidence that the universe was not *infinite* in diameter. In other words, the expansion of space may be a change in the density of the universe, but in terms of actual size we're just going from infinite to ... well, infinite.",
"Imagine a big, flat rubber sheet. That'll be our universe. \n\nImagine a magical marble that moves forward all by itself, at a fixed speed of 1 inch per second. That'll be our light particle. \n\nIf you sit down anywhere on the sheet, and someone puts the marble down anywhere and aims it at you, it'll reach you eventually, right? Ok, cool.\n\nNow let's add a catch. You sat on the sheet, and someone put that marble down and aimed it at you again...but then people grabbed all the edges of the sheet and started pulling *it* at a speed of 6 inches per second. Now, even though that marble is still zooming towards you, the sheet itself it stretching out *faster* than the marble is moving, so the end result is that you and the marble are moving further and further *apart* even though it's still moving towards you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1zrvsj | how to become a programmer when /r/learnprogramming goes over my head? [serious] | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zrvsj/eli5_how_to_become_a_programmer_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfwdmt3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Just how far over your head are we talking? Do you have any sort of math background? Do you know what a computer is?\n\nYou might try to start with some sort of interactive tutorial like [Code Academy](_URL_0_) or a book that's meant to teach everything from the ground up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.codecademy.com/"
]
] |
||
3iqev1 | how do professional boxers have (decently) long careers if they're getting concussed everytime they fight? | I've always wondered how they manage not getting severe permenant brain damage from getting knocked out all the time and then keep fighting? I know in other sports like hockey, concussions are very serious and there are long recovery periods. A buddy of mine who I played hockey with got 4 concussions in 2 years and had to quit or he'd risk brain damage. So with boxing, are there long periods between matches? Are they actually all fucked up permenantly after their careers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iqev1/eli5_how_do_professional_boxers_have_decently/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuiov15",
"cuisrf0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nIt is a problem in boxing, although today's boxers and trainers know more about it and boxers have adopted a much more defensive style (lots of clinching, few face-to-face brawls) that prevents them getting punched in the head as much. See any recent Klitschko fight or the Mayweather - Pacquiao fight to see this defensive style.",
"To add to flipmode_squad's comment, boxers also only fight a few times a year. Sometimes only once. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_pugilistica"
],
[]
] |
|
1jka9i | what are the 165,000 new jobs the us economy says has been added in july and how are they created so quickly? | Obviously not every single one description for description, but generally are they government jobs or jobs that have sprung up through government projects? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jka9i/eli5_what_are_the_165000_new_jobs_the_us_economy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbfhqlg",
"cbfivxd",
"cbfjn5e"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"there is nothing quick about it, this economy has been producing about 140,000 new jobs every month this year.\n\nBovernment employment has been going down steadily for the last few years and is one of the reasons for weak job growth overall. \n\nAccording the the BLS the jobs are primarily in the service sector, meaning retail sales and things like that so they are not even the result of government projects",
"They are private-sector jobs.\n\nHowever, some of them may have been spurred by the federal government's discretionary investments in the economy.\n\nFor example, let's say the Department of Transportation gave a hypothetical $1 million grant to build a bridge. The engineering plans for the bridge had already been approved by the city, and the city just needed this last piece of financing to actually afford to build it. A private company put in a competitive bid to actually build that bridge and its build was accepted because it offered to build it at the lowest cost. The private company then hired 1 engineer, 4 supervisors, and 20 construction workers to then build the bridge. That government investment created 25 private sector jobs.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA more detailed description of those jobs created this month is available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics or Department of Labor website (report here: _URL_1_). The report states the following:\n\n\n\"Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in July, with gains in retail trade, food\nservices and drinking places, financial activities, and wholesale trade.\n\nRetail trade added 47,000 jobs in July and has added 352,000 over the past 12 months. In July, job\ngrowth occurred in general merchandise stores (+9,000), motor vehicle and parts dealers (+6,000),\nbuilding material and garden supply stores (+6,000), and health and personal care stores (+5,000).\n\nWithin leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places increased by 38,000\nin July and by 381,000 over the year.\n\nFinancial activities employment increased by 15,000 in July, with a gain of 6,000 in securities,\ncommodity contracts, and investments. Over the year, financial activities has added 120,000 jobs.\n\nEmployment increased in wholesale trade (+14,000) in July. Over the past 12 months, this industry\nhas added 83,000 jobs.\n\nEmployment in professional and business services continued to trend up in July (+36,000). Within\nthe industry, job growth continued in management of companies and enterprises (+7,000) and in\nmanagement and technical consulting services (+7,000). Employment in temporary help services\nchanged little over the month.\n\nManufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in July and has changed little, on net, over\nthe past 12 months. Within the industry, employment in motor vehicles and parts rose by 9,000\nin July.\n\nEmployment in health care was essentially unchanged over the month. Thus far in 2013, health\ncare has added an average of 16,000 jobs per month, compared with an average monthly increase\nof 27,000 in 2012.\n\nEmployment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction, transportation\nand warehousing, and government, showed little change in July.\"\n\n\nAlso see: _URL_0_\n\nSecretary of Labor Tom Perez issued the following statement about the July 2013 Employment Situation report:\n\n“Today's report shows that our economy continues to improve, modestly but steadily. The unemployment rate inched downward to 7.4 percent, the 11th straight month under 8 percent and the lowest level in more than four and a half years, since December 2008. The private sector added 161,000 new jobs in July, marking the 41st straight month of private-sector job growth and a total of 7.3 million new private-sector jobs added over that time period.\"",
"[Many of them are part-time](_URL_1_).\n\nPerhaps even more to the point, [they are often replacing full-time jobs](_URL_0_). The number of full-time jobs has declined in many sectors, so that's *part* of your answer. Fire your full-time employees, hire two part-timers for the same position, et voila - you don't increase your payroll, actually save money on pesky things like benefits, and *still* \"double\" the workforce.\n\nNot saying that this accounts for *all* of the increase, but just be careful when you cite numbers like \"165,000 new jobs\" - they can be quite misleading."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA20131589.htm",
"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm"
],
[
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/07/14/the-untold-unemployment-story-a-loss-of-162000-full-time-jobs-in-june/",
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/11/06/half-the-new-jobs-in-the-us-are-part-time-no-matter-who-is-in-the-white-house/"
]
] |
|
6f81c2 | what do we measure in mhz when we are talking about cpus, does it have any moving parts like a hard-disk does? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6f81c2/eli5_what_do_we_measure_in_mhz_when_we_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"dig663w",
"digmf64"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"A CPU is essentially made from switches. Tiny areas on a piece of silicon - a microchip - can be created such that they allow electricity to pass from one place to another when there is electricity supplied at a third point and not otherwise; or the inverse, they prevent electricity from passing through when there is electricity applied to the control point and not otherwise. These are then wired together by making areas of the chip conductive, or by just layering metal on top of the chip. All logic is built out of these. (Good things to Google for are pnp / npn junctions, logic gates, flip flop, half adder, ALU, VLSI if you want to read more about this stuff).\n\nAt this level, electricity isn't always \"fully on\" or \"fully off\". The switches take time to switch. When the inputs change, the output takes a while to settle down to a stable level. When a bunch of switches are wired together into a circuit, the whole thing takes time to settle down.\n\nHuman programmers working with the CPU need to be able to reason about its behaviour as a whole. It is easiest to reason about a system that, as a whole, goes from one well-documented stable state to another in response to some input and has no unpredictable behaviours.\n\nFor this purpose we introduce the idea of a clock: something that regularly pulses electricity. \n\nWe design all the various circuits such that, when a clock pulse starts and only then, they latch onto their inputs and all the switching starts; this means that as all the switching happens and all of the various outputs fluctuate before settling into the resulting states, we can ignore this fluctuation since the things the outputs are wired to won't look at them before the next clock pulse. \n\nThe closer together we space the clock pulses, the faster we can go from one state to another, and so the faster we can do work. But we have to wait at least as long between them as it takes for the part of the CPU that takes the longest to settle to a new state when something changes to do that.\n\nThis rate at which we decide to run the clock - the clock speed, the number of pulses per second, or Hertz - is the MHz (megahertz, million hertz, million pulses per second) figure you are asking about.\n\nThere are alternative ways of designing a CPU; e.g. \"dual rail logic\" allows each circuit that makes up the CPU to individually tell the things reading its outputs when its outputs are ready, so no overall clock is needed and each part can potentially run at its own speed.\n\nThis makes the system as a whole much more complex and harder to reason about, and so is rarely done.",
"Anything that has a repeating cycle can be measured in Hertz. CPUs utilize a small crystal that creates an electric pulse billions of times a second to synchronize its various operations. The rate of that pulse is what we measure. For many years it would be somewhere in the MHz range, but these days many processors use a clock in the GHz range. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2t4cyj | you know that feeling when you're drinking something, and there's like a pause almost i'm not sure how to put it, a throat-cramp of sorts when it's going down your throat? sorry if nobody knows what i'm talking about | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t4cyj/eli5_you_know_that_feeling_when_youre_drinking/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnvl85v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. It hurts. I think it's an air bubble so there's not room for the liquid and the bubble so it feels like a trying to swallow big lump."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6g7z71 | how can energy companies guarantee a customer getting '100% green energy', when they also produce energy from fossil fuels? | Since the cables are all the same, and probably the storage too. How can utility companies make such guarantees without lying? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g7z71/eli5_how_can_energy_companies_guarantee_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dio6296"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Electricity isn't a physical object that's being piped around, so the idea of there being specific energy being produced in one place and then shipped around doesn't really work.\n\nWhat the energy company is guaranteeing is that they'll supply, either by producing it themselves or buying it from another producer, enough energy from green sources that they could power all the people who signed up for green power without needing to use any other source."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1rghun | from where did country music emerge? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rghun/eli5_from_where_did_country_music_emerge/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdn69h3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hank Williams Sr."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1nuoui | why toddlers are happy one moment then screaming and crying the next moment | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nuoui/eli5_why_toddlers_are_happy_one_moment_then/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccm704l",
"ccm8goo",
"ccmayf5"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
12
],
"text": [
"Because for a toddler a moment is a really long time and lots can happen.",
"Babies process information slowly because their brain cells lack the myelination necessary for fast, clear nerve impulse transmission. During the second year, there is a major increase in the rate of myelination, which helps the brain perform more complex tasks. Higher-order cognitive abilities are developing: a toddler is now more aware of outside stimulus but has little control of their own emotions. [Source](_URL_0_)",
"One theory I have heard is that basically *everything* is a new experience for them, and they don't yet routines in place for dealing with things that seem trivial to adults. \n\nMe: I dropped my pen. Drat. I will pick it up and then resume writing.\n\nToddler: I dropped my toy. FUCK! WHAT DO I DO? IT'S ALL SO INTENSE!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/why-0-3/baby-and-brain"
],
[]
] |
||
fxn3bd | why do so many animals like deer, boars, and tapirs all have dapple camouflage only when they are babies? why do they lose it when they grow older? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fxn3bd/eli5_why_do_so_many_animals_like_deer_boars_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmvd2h7",
"fmvfrrd",
"fmvftdp"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I think I’ve heard that the camouflage babies have only really works if they’re sitting completely still, which is fine because their parents will bring them food. But when they move, those spots become sort of a bulls eye, and they can’t afford to sit still anymore.",
"Their only self protection is not being seen, as they aren’t fast or strong enough to run away from predators yet. So their instinct when mom isn’t with them is to lay down in a perfectly still little ball in vegetation. The pattern mimics light filtering through the trees and dappling the forest floor. \nAs they grow, they transition into being up, moving around and the pattern no longer hides them, they transition into adult coat.",
"I've read that with that camouflage they blend easily with the fallen leaves on the ground which protects them from predators."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
33ict6 | why do loud noises (e.g gun shots) trigger car alarms? | Is it a safety feature built in my car manufactures or some sort of regulation? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33ict6/eli5_why_do_loud_noises_eg_gun_shots_trigger_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"cql5emx",
"cql6a35"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Loud noises make the air vibrate. The louder the sound, the greater the magnitude of the vibration. The sensor in the car also vibrates because of this and it goes off.",
"(10+ years selling/installing car security)\n\nThe part of the alarm that does this is called the \"shock sensor\". It's a little device that detects a \"shock\" to the vehicle via vibration.\n\nThe most common is a \"504D\" made by DEI. Feel free to search the part number if you'd like to see what it looks like/how it's installed.\n\nIt's a security feature, not a regulation. It's uncommon with a factory security system but extremely common for aftermarket systems.\n\nThe point is, if someone was to hit your car (ex-gf takes a Louisville Slugger to both headlights for instance) the impact would create a vibration (shock) that is detected by this device and sets off the alarm.\n\nThe issue is, sound is just a vibration in air. Very loud and low-frequency sounds can also vibrate solids, like the metal body of your car. Thunder, gun shots, and motorcycles are commonly loud enough to set off these sensors (and I'm sure you've noticed, you can feel the vibration from these loud and low-frequency noises).\n\nThey do have a sensitivity adjustment, but there's a fine line between false-positives and false-negatives, and for safety sake, we generally err on the side of false-positives to limit the chances of a false negative."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4ukddo | how do people "live" in an embassy for extended periods of time? i've never visited an embassy, are they like hotels or something or it just a very awkward situation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ukddo/eli5_how_do_people_live_in_an_embassy_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5qezsd",
"d5qkfq4"
],
"score": [
28,
6
],
"text": [
"It really depends on the countries involved and the situation. A lot of embassies are nothing more than office buildings with no living accommodations.\n\nThe U.S. Embassy in London is an office building and the U.S. amabssador lives in a huge mansion called Winfield House in Regents Park. Most of the staff are locals and live in the area surrounding the embassy. \n\nOn the other hand, the U.S. embassy in Iraq is a fortress where everyone lives in the compound.",
"From what I gather Jullian Assange is basically living in a small guest bedroom and it is rather awkward because it isn't like a hotel, it's like a residential building turned into an office which had a place to host visitors but doesn't anymore since Assange is living there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2e61mt | how do soldiers in modern armies accurately direct artillery fire? | In movies, it is very common to see soldiers direct accurate artillery fire with their radios. How exactly is this firing process done though ie. how does a soldier on the ground who may or may not know exactly where he/she is direct artillery against enemies? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e61mt/eli5_how_do_soldiers_in_modern_armies_accurately/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjwdyt4",
"cjweatu",
"cjweu77"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
55
],
"text": [
"Firstly, thanks to GPS, soldiers usually know where they are. Secondly, movies never show the whole process. In reality soldiers call in artillery, then stay on the radio to guide them in \"a little to the left next time\", and so on.",
"Pre-tech way:\n\nThey use topographical maps to identify their location. Then they fix the position they want to be blown up and tell the artillery that location.\n\nThe artillery has already fixed their own position and the cannon's direction. So when they have the target location, they can change where the cannon points and move it up and down to change how far away the exploding part lands.\n\nSome cannon ammunition isn't like a big bullet and their distance can be also be changed by how many charges get added with the exploding part.\n\nIt's just some geometry and map reading.\n\nTech way:\n\nGPS and laser rangefinding/targeting. The info is relayed to the artillery and turned into the cannon's setup.\n\nAn alternative method is to obtain it from drone or satellite imagery.\n\n\n\nOh, the artillery guys also need to have charts for how elevation affects range for the kind of cannon shell they are firing, too.",
"I had to learn artillery fire when I was a scout in the Army. Back then we didn't have GPS and our range finders never worked.\n\nBefore you go out, you and your artillery-men you are likely to be working with on the radio are given specific maps. On these maps are pre-designated areas with codes, you could use anything for a code, a word or name.\n\nAs you are driving or marching, you figure out where on the map you are, usually by looking at ridges and buildings. If you then take your compass, and compare it to the map, the squares on the map show you how far you are to other buildings, or terrain (90% of the time, we would look for ridges).\n\nThe map is divided in squares that are predetermined widths, almost always in increments of 1000x1000 meters squared. So, basically 100 square football fields of area. The squares are labeled. On a perfect map, the top left square would be called 1,1, etc.\n\nIf you called in an artillery strike on 1,1 you would be giving the artillery man what is called 2 significant digits. Which means the round could hit ANYWHERE in that huge square.\n\nFrom here you could simply make an educated guess, and start giving more digits, by subdividing that square by eyeball. So if you pretended the square was itself divided up into 4 little squares, you could call artillery into the top left corner by saying 11,11. This would tell the artillery to hit a 100 meter square instead of anywhere in the 1000 meter square. But it would hit the VERY top left corner of the map...if something was sort of near the center of the top left corner, you could be very far away.\n\nKeep subdividing the square, or use the centimeter side of a ruler, and you can call in accurate six-digit coordinates, which is almost always where you should be starting with. So if I wanted to call for fire on someone dead center in the top left square of the map, I would tell the crew to fire at 150,150. Basically you treat every square like it could be divided into 1000 little pieces and try to figure out which piece you want to hit. Each square on the map that has a label should be thought of as having 10 little ticks on the top and left sides. Find the point on the map you want to hit and draw a line up, and see which tick it is near, then draw a line left. The two ticks it is near are your 4 digits. Decide whether you need to nudge the artillery a little in any direction, and use your guess as the 6 digits. 150,150 would be the top left square, 5 ticks right and 5 ticks down, exactly where the lines cross.\n\nAt this point, you could tell your mortars or artillery to mark this position with a name, for use later. Or you can call what is called \"adjust fire\".\n\nWhen calling for adjust fire, the artillery will fire one round exactly where you indicated. When it hits, you start switching the way you call for fire. Instead of using squares on a grid, you can use the much simpler method of adjusting fire.\n\nTo adjust fire, you say Drop, Add, Left, or Right, followed by a number of meters.\n\nIf you say Drop 50, adjust fire, the artillery man will look at where you are on the map, and simply send the round 50 meters closer to where you are standing in a straight line.\n\nWhen you have the first round on top of the target, you tell the artillery to Fire For Effect. At this point, all batteries will fire on the last adjusted fire.\n\nOh last part of your Q: How do you call for fire when you don't know where you are? We were trained to never not know where we were. When studying we were driven to 6 points on a 100 kilometer square map with blindfolds on and had a few minutes at each stop to give our 6 digit grid location to within I THINK 50 meters. You did this basically by looking at the sun and terrain around you and remembering turns the humvee had taken and feeling hills and valleys. I don't think any out of the 50 people in my troop failed the first try.\n\nThere are more advanced concepts like magnetic north vs polar north and lots of classroom and getting blindfolded and dumped in the forest, but it's mostly just instinct after a little while."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
87hlmy | why does so many people hate the baby boomer generation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87hlmy/eli5_why_does_so_many_people_hate_the_baby_boomer/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwcvoz9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The current economic, political, and environmental climates were almost entirely influenced by members of that generation to where they are today.\n\nThe housing market, education costs, this team mentality for politics, climate, all are in pretty shitty shape for the next generation to deal with. Its also not super uncommon to hear complaints about how the younger generation is dealing with these issues, which is frustrating.\n\nNot to mention the acute issue that few of them are retiring, which restricts job markets.\n\nPersonally I think its an unfair sweeping generalization, but its not untrue for a subset."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4asn7z | why does this paper shatter after being folded seven times with a hydraulic press? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4asn7z/eli5_why_does_this_paper_shatter_after_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"d136mo0",
"d13871x"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"Paper, when folded in half, effectively doubles its thickness. When folded six times in half, there is too much thickness and not enough surface area for anything to make an effective seventh fold.\n\nHowever, the hydraulic press has enough force to fold it, but that puts extreme stress on the paper, which is eventually so much tension it breaks into pieces like glass.\n\nThe reason for this is most likely because when paper is folded, stress is put onto the cellulose within the paper which helps the crease hold its shape. After enough folds, there's so much potential energy in the paper that when the seventh fold is completed, it literally overflows with energy and shatters.",
"can read through this post from yesterday as well: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [
"https://youtu.be/KuG_CeEZV6w"
] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4alxf1/eli5_what_the_hell_happened_here_after_folding_a/"
]
] |
|
2r929b | why can i usually smoothly fast forward a digital video (netflix, hbo go, dvds, etc) but reverse playback is always a jerky mess? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r929b/eli5why_can_i_usually_smoothly_fast_forward_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cndkton",
"cndp09r"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Digital video generally only actually stores a few frames then just stores what changed. Like if it's a closeup of someone talking frame to frame it'll be 80% the same so it just stores the first frame then a bunch of small frames that say \"just change these pixels\". That means going forward is real easy but going backwards means going back to the last real frame then calculating forward a bunch of frames that aren't fully stored. ",
"Vidoes general are usually buffered forwards not backwards. Basically they assume that once youve seen it already it's unlikely that you will go back to see it again.\n\n So if you do have to go back all the currently buffered data is tossed out and then you are basically starting fresh from that new point that you jumped to. If your going forward in the video though there's a chance that part of it is already buffered and can just be played immediately."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits