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
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
108og2
|
why isn't there a better alternative to animated gifs?
|
Why is GIF the de facto standard for animated images? Why isn't there an animated jpeg format?
To give some better context, I was trying to create an animated gif banner of 3 frames that was under 39kb and to get it in at the right size I had to lower the colours a lot, lower the dither and up the lossy so it was really grainy.
I then took the 3 frames and saved them as individual jpgs under 13kb each and they looked great.
I don't really know what would go into creating an animated jpeg file format or anything so I would like it if someone could explain it to me like I'm five.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/108og2/eli5_why_isnt_there_a_better_alternative_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6bbt6d",
"c6bbtfh",
"c6bbvvd",
"c6biwp8",
"c6bkxdp",
"c6bs5rg"
],
"score": [
4,
25,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Old things make for the best supported standards. Png has two animation extensions, apng and mpng, both with little support. Gif is from the 80s and almost died due to patents. ",
"There is one. Two, actually.\n\n[MNG and JNG](_URL_2_) were animated PNG files and JPEG files, respectively.\n\nAPNG is another alternative:\n\n* [APNG spec](_URL_0_)\n* [APNG demos](_URL_1_)\n\nThey just haven't caught on the same way PNG has.",
"The only need for animated gifs seems to be forum avatars that try to be funny but most of the time are just obnoxious. Or websites from the 90s when people thought that flashing buttons were cool but, again, are just obnoxious. Maybe no one thinks that there is need for a better format.\n\nIf you want an actual movie then use one of the many movie formats. If you're only trying to sneak in an animation in a place which really should have a still image, then I'd advice to reconsider. If you have some other case where you think a small animated picture would really be justified but you can't use an actual movie, then I may be able to offer other alternatives if you give some more details.",
"There is, it's called aPNG and nobody wants to adopt it.",
"There is an animated jpeg format. It's called [motion Jpeg](_URL_1_). \nBut a gif, by its structure ([raster graphic](_URL_2_)) is a very efficient way to display a still image or a series of images on a computer screen. Efficient but really low resolution.\n\nmotion Jpeg is a [codec](_URL_0_). It's used in professional video production. A video encoded with it is pretty high resolution and would take quite a lot of time to stream/download from the internet.\n\nSo, for now, animated gifs are a good and quick solution for short, online \"movies\".",
"/r/apng\n\nIf you can't see the animation, your browser doesn't support it but an add-on might be available"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://wiki.mozilla.org/APNG_Specification",
"http://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/apng/demo.html",
"http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics"
],
[]
] |
|
6a6w7h
|
what is/are "alternative news/facts" and why have i just started hearing the phrases in the last year or so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6a6w7h/eli5_what_isare_alternative_newsfacts_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhc575r",
"dhc5jhk",
"dhc8wou"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"In a press Conference the U.S. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said something that wasn't true. When he was later ridiculed because of it by reporters, he said he wasn't lying, he was giving out \"Alternative Facts\"\n\nThat's where it started and is why you have only heard it recently.",
"A Trump press representative, I thought it was Conway, complained that the press were focused on the facts that portrayed President Trump in a negative light. They said that \"alternative facts\" would show him in a better light, and argued for a more balanced treatment. I think they meant \"don't focus on how the Russians are working with Flint unless you also mention that the Russians aren't working with Pence\". It was an odd turn of phrase, but not actually wrong. Then the next day Sean Spicer was called called out for a false statement, and said he was promoting some \"alternative facts\" that the press wasn't covering. But, since the \"alternative fact\" in question turned out to be false, it's become a meme for \"lie\". I don't think that was the plan. Spicer was supposed to use the line on a fact that the press was ignoring, but he messed up.",
"Trumps inauguration didn't have a great attendance in comparison to Obama's (one of the busiest ever), Sean Spicer then went out to say Trumps inauguration had the biggest crowd of all time. \n\nWhen media pointed out this was obviously false (aided by the now famous picture of the lacking crowd) and asked why Spicer had lied, Conway said that Spicer had not lied but \"Supplied alternative facts\"\n\nSince the sentence is just all kinds of preposterous, the internet, media, and social networking communities ran with it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3dvspk
|
why would any country sign a deal that makes it easier for corporations to sue them?
|
Is it because individual politicians or parties are getting their pockets lined at the expense of the country? I just can't see how it benefits anyone but the corporations to be able to sue in secret courts for perceived loss of profits.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dvspk/eli5_why_would_any_country_sign_a_deal_that_makes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct95nj5",
"ct9c18g"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's about bringing in foreign investment. Companies want a back up an if a country decides to nationalize and entire industry or make other drastic changes that devalue the investments.",
"The TPP has a lot of text in it. That's just one of the provisions. It is possible that the politicians involved know the costs, but feel that the benefits outweigh them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
apf058
|
what are the shadows we see for a split second out the corner of our eyes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/apf058/eli5_what_are_the_shadows_we_see_for_a_split/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eg7x17w"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Your peripheral vision is useful, but also pretty low quality. It's out of focus and doesn't receive quite the same attention in our minds - it's more of a subconscious image processing meant to alert us to nearby predators or other danger lurking out of your main field of vision.\n\nYour brain may be picking up on any number of things it perceives as dark or movement (or both), but it's hard to say what you're seeing. As far as I know, this isn't a phenomenon with a name but I'll be interested if I'm wrong.\n\nIt's worth nothing that I've never personally noticed lots of \"split second\" shadows out of the corner of my eyes, so it may be worth a mention to your general physician next time you're in.\n\nOr you could have ghosts. 🤷♂️ "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1l6741
|
how does a pickleback work?
|
After you take a shot of whiskey, if you chase it with pickle brine, the burn of the whiskey vanishes. It also tastes delicious.
What is the physiological explanation behind the fact that the burn of the whiskey is immediately extinguished by the pickle juice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l6741/eli5how_does_a_pickleback_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbw5vpn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"TIL what a pickleback is.\nMust try this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3mgom0
|
how are those scary clown pranks not illegal?
|
Recently I've been coming across some videos on Youtube where people dressed up as scary clowns scare the shit out of random passerbys. These seem to really cross the line, and I could imagine them possibly traumatizing someone, causing a heart attack, or leading to some other kind of accident. In the video I'm linking, they even impersonate policemen and doctors. How is this not illegal?
_URL_0_ Fast forward to 0:50 for the action
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mgom0/eli5_how_are_those_scary_clown_pranks_not_illegal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvesar5",
"cveuqjo"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"IANAL: But I am not aware of any laws that prohibit one from dressing as a clown and going to a gas station.",
"I didn't watch the entire video. I just scanned it. We're they dressed as clowns when they \"impersonate policemen\"? \nIf so that's not a crime. Since no police officer would wear clown make up on the job. So it's clearly not a police officer. However if not then it's a crime. \n\nIt's not illegal to dress as a clown and scare people. But they do risk being punched or even shot. Which has happened. \n\nIt's childish and stupid but legal. At least in the US. Also someone could sue them if the scare was bad enough. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSm3uGf-0OY"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8q4waz
|
does braille also use silent letters such as the b in thumb?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8q4waz/eli5_does_braille_also_use_silent_letters_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0ghf9x",
"e0gigqu"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Braille is not an independent language. It is an alphabet that mirrors the language it is paired with and there are several variants including English, French, and Chinese as well as others. As such it uses the spellings of the language it is paired with including all silent letters that a word may have. ",
"I’ll add to the first post, which is correct. Braille is important for students learning how to correctly apply spelling, grammar, and writing. Children who learn Braille have the same spelling tests as sighted students. That’s a major reason Braille won’t be completely replaced with audio (like Siri). Older adults who lose their sight generally do not learn Braille. They usually use audio or magnification (if they still have some sight). \n\nThank you for your question. It is good you care about these things. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4ohm58
|
a doubt regarding the out of africa theory
|
Hello everyone
I searched the topic before posting but didn't find an answer to a doubt I have regarding the above mentioned theory.
If it has already been answered, apologies for the repost and I would appreicate it if someone could share the link to a post which answers my query.
From what I've understood, it's accepted that there were three major waves of migrations that made Humans move out to Europe, Asia and the Americas.
How did our prehistoric ancestors have the capability to make trans-oceanic journeys to populate remote islands like Australia, Japan?
And why did we lose this capability for thousands of years before rediscovering long distance sailing?
Thank you for your answers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ohm58/eli5_a_doubt_regarding_the_out_of_africa_theory/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4cobil",
"d4cog40",
"d4cohjd"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"They were not trans-oceanic in the most part. From China to Japan, or Indonesia to Australia, long trips out to the pacific islands, all can be done from in boats just floating on the water. From Russia to America, I'm pretty sure it was by land/ice. Sure, lots and lots of deaths, but eventual success for some.",
"The move from Asia to North America was made via the Bering Strait which is a narrow channel of wqater. During ice age, it was possible to cross it without ever having to touch the water.",
"I checked the [wikipedia page](_URL_0_) for the history of human migration. Starting from Africa you can easily walk into Europe and Asia. This is over thousands of years btw. From Asia you can walk to North America via the Bering Strait or what land used to be there. Migration to the Americas is more recent in the total time people have been around. As for the pacific islands and Australia. Thats just a series of boat rides and island hopping from the edge of Asia. People are curious and some like to explore."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_migration"
]
] |
|
6n5g0k
|
. how do they come up with the clues for shows like jeopardy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6n5g0k/eli5_how_do_they_come_up_with_the_clues_for_shows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk6xwqd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They have writers. The writers research the questions and answers for a dozen or so questions per topic. Then they are graded for \"hardness\" and used appropriately. Alex Trebek did a great interview on the process for making the show, hopefully somebody will post a link to it. I can't find it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
kebaz
|
american football for an englishman.
|
I know absolutely nothing about it
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kebaz/eli5_american_football_for_an_englishman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2jkl6v",
"c2jkm3p",
"c2jl726",
"c2jld9o",
"c2jlfs1",
"c2jlm7r",
"c2jlp7f",
"c2jlyuu",
"c2jm9r9",
"c2jmcz3",
"c2jmo20",
"c2jn5c9",
"c2jna0e",
"c2jnqxb",
"c2jntn5",
"c2jo0ri",
"c2jp9u2",
"c2jpbbi",
"c2jw72w",
"c2jkl6v",
"c2jkm3p",
"c2jl726",
"c2jld9o",
"c2jlfs1",
"c2jlm7r",
"c2jlp7f",
"c2jlyuu",
"c2jm9r9",
"c2jmcz3",
"c2jmo20",
"c2jn5c9",
"c2jna0e",
"c2jnqxb",
"c2jntn5",
"c2jo0ri",
"c2jp9u2",
"c2jpbbi",
"c2jw72w"
],
"score": [
104,
27,
18,
12,
2,
6,
3,
2,
3,
16,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
104,
27,
18,
12,
2,
6,
3,
2,
3,
16,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's sort of like rugby, except the players line up before each play and there are stricter rules about contact.\n\nEach team gets four tries, or 'downs' to move the ball as far as possible down the field. They can do this by handing the ball to a fast player, the 'running back', or by throwing it to a receiver down the field. The thrower is called the quarterback. A down is over when the player currently holding the ball is tackled. If the team can move forward ten yards in four downs, the counter for downs starts over. \n\nOne touchdown (moving the ball to the other end of the field) is worth 6 points. After that , the team can either kick the ball through the upright goal to gain another point, or try to run the ball past the other team for another two points. \n\nAfter 4 downs or a touchdown, the ball is given to the other team for their attempt at a goal.",
"2 teams each have a goal of getting the ball to one side of the field (the endzone). They take turns, going 1 'play' at a time, to get the ball down the field. During a play, the quarterback (the one who is first given the ball when everyone starts moving) can run with the ball on his own, throw the ball, hand the ball off for someone else to run, etc. All of these are different types of plays. There are hundreds of plays that various teams use, with their own twists on them, etc. \n\n\nIn order to get down the field, a team has 4 'plays', also called 'downs', to get there. However, if the team is able to gain 10 yards in 1-4 downs, they gain 4 more turns (get their counter reset to '1st down'). The ball is always placed at where it was held when the person holding the ball was tackled (basically). So if the quarterback runs for 5 yards and is tackled on their 1st down, when they start up again it's now 2nd down, with 5 yards remaining, or as it's commonly referred to, \"2^nd and 5\". If the quarterback was tackled behind their original 10 yards, they have to make up those extra yards too. \n\nWhen a team reaches the endzone, that's called a touchdown. This grants 6 points. The team then has the option of either kicking the ball through the posts for 1 extra point (which happens a lot because it's relatively easy) or running another play from the 10(right?) yard line. if during that extra play they get into the endzone again, they get 2 points. \n\nIf a team is close enough to the endzone but doesn't want to risk running a play on a 4th down (a lot of teams won't because if they don't make it, the ball is given to the other team), they'll try to go for a field goal, which is where the offense has a kicker that tries to kick the ball from whereever it is into the slot between the 2 posts. This is worth 3 points.\n\nIf a team is on 4th down but they're too far away for a field goal, they will often (but don't HAVE to) punt. In this case, a kicker kicks the ball as far down field as he can (without kicking it out of bounds) in order to make the other team, who is now on offense, have to go as far as possible to gain their points.\n\nThere's a few other more advanced rules, but those are the basics I wish someone had told me when I started watching.",
"Don't think of it like a \"ball in goal\" game, think of it like a \"territory capture\" game. ",
"I would just like to point out that the linemen (the guys in the middle of the line smashing into one another) in American professional football are Men of Unusual Stature. These guys average around 350 pounds (25 stone, or 160 kilos) and spend a great deal of their time in the gym weight training. Until you have stood next to one of these giants, it is hard to comprehend this.",
"This is a very complicated game to explain. I would advise starting here - _URL_0_\n\nBe patient while learning it because there are several aspects of the game that are very complicated to understand, even for people that are very familiar with the game.",
"This may not help, but if it's possible for you to watch a game with someone who knows what they're talking about, that's the best way to do it.\n\nI'm a woman, and I'm one of the few among my female friends who really knows what's going on in a football game. I've found that trying to explain the game to my female friends while we're *not* watching the game is a lot like trying to describe to someone how to ride a bicycle: it really works a million times better if you just learn as you go.\n\nHope you can figure it out enough to enjoy it; football is a wonderful sport because it offers hard hits and great speed for the casual fans, but also has really complex and cerebral strategy for more in-depth fans. Good luck!",
"Here's an interesting take on the [\"which sport is more dangerous?\"](_URL_0_) question. ",
"do you know the rules of Rugby League? _URL_0_",
"Linemen are the key to the game. Just saying",
"Essentially, American football is like a Chess match where you get to carefully choose where you place you pieces prior to each \"play\". Then and enormous black man comes and fucks ups all your plans.",
"A friend of mine explained american football like this to me one day: \"Football is gaining land by force while wearing fabulously tight pants\"",
"Football is like war.\n\nYou have 2 sides. We'll call one side the British and the other side the Scotts. The Scotts are trying to get a special \"package\" behind the British line. Keep in mind, there are special rules of war, but the basic concept is that each side will try to guess how the other side will line up the troops. The Scotts are trying to line up their troops to exploit weaknesses in the British defense and the British are trying set up defense that will effectively counter the Scotts' offensive. If the Scotts successfully get the package across the British lines, then they get 6 points. They can then try to kick the package through the enemy headquarters window for an additional point.\n\nNow the Scotts have 4 attempts to move the package 10 yards. If by the 3rd attempt there is no chance to move the package the requisite distance, then they have a choice. If they are close enough, they can attempt to kick the package through the window for only 3 points. If they are too far, then they want to kick the package as far back to the enemy line as possible where the British can then pick the package up and attempt to do the same to the Scotts.\n\nThere are a few additional things...but that's the basic concept.\n\n",
"It's similar to rugby in that if you watch it, you get some vague idea of what is going on, but probably won't understand it fully unless you've played it.\n\nAt its heart it's a war game, where the offensive team attempts to move a ball forward by either breaking through or circumventing the defensive team's lines in a series of set-piece battles.\n\nAs long as you reach periodic checkpoints you can keep going. If you get stalled, you have to give the ball up.\n\nOnce you get close to the end of the field, there are a couple of ways of scoring, that are worth various numbers of points.\n\nThat's enough that if you watch it, you can develop understanding.\n\nI've never played football, and only have a general idea of what I'm seeing, but I still enjoy it. The announcers for the most part assume that the audience has played the game, so you really can't learn complexities by watching.\n\n[Typical American college football recap](_URL_0_); youtube is full of this kind of stuff.",
"Probably not going to see this but here goes nothing! \n\n[George Carlin's take on American Football](_URL_0_)",
"Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls hotbox. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine. ",
"I wish I had those digital \"down lines\" they add on TV broadcasts when I was a kid. Would have made it a lot easier to understand.",
"For those interested, this has a great LI5 definition of the Superbowl, and American Football in general: _URL_0_",
"You might find more information in this askreddit post from 2 days ago\n\n_URL_0_",
"Rugby plus chess. Every time the ball hits the ground, you stop, lineup again, and execute specific strategies instead of just hocking a ball back and forth.\n\n4 chances score, called \"downs\". If you get more than 10 yards from where you started, you start back at the first \"down.\" Ususally, on the 4th down, you kick it to the other team and try to prevent them from getting too far with it, so they have to start their 4 downs from as far back as possible. If they're close enough to the 1st down line though (like 1 - 3 yards) they ususally just go for it and try to get a first down without kicking to the other team.\n\nAt the start of each play, the \"center\" tosses the ball backward, between his legs, to the \"Quarterback\" (\"hiking\" the ball). Everyone starts moving. The line of guys in front of the Quarterback tries to block a line of the other team's guys from getting to the Quarterback to keep him from throwing or passing. The Quarterback can either let a \"Reciever\" run way down the field and make a really long pass to him, or just hand it to the guy next to him and let him try to run as far as he can, avoiding the lines of players trying to block him. That is, \"passing\" plays or \"running\" plays. If nobody catches a pass and it hits the ground, they start the next down from the same spot again.\n\nThe field has a 50 yard line in the middle, and zeroes at either end. When they get to the zero yardline, they've reached the \"end zone\". This is a \"touchdown\". 6 points, and a free chance to kick through the high-up goal posts for an extra 1 point. The kicks can be either \"good\" or \"no good\".\n\nOnly one forward pass is allowed per play, then the guy with the ball is usually expected to run as far as he can before he gets tackled. If someone has the ball and he falls with it, the action stops for another lineup... starting right where the guy with the ball fell. If you have the ball and you're about to get tackled you can, if you want, pitch it backwards to someone else who keeps running, but this almost never happens. I dunno why. I think it would be a cool element to the game.\n\nAnyway, that's a dirty, haphazard explanation.",
"It's sort of like rugby, except the players line up before each play and there are stricter rules about contact.\n\nEach team gets four tries, or 'downs' to move the ball as far as possible down the field. They can do this by handing the ball to a fast player, the 'running back', or by throwing it to a receiver down the field. The thrower is called the quarterback. A down is over when the player currently holding the ball is tackled. If the team can move forward ten yards in four downs, the counter for downs starts over. \n\nOne touchdown (moving the ball to the other end of the field) is worth 6 points. After that , the team can either kick the ball through the upright goal to gain another point, or try to run the ball past the other team for another two points. \n\nAfter 4 downs or a touchdown, the ball is given to the other team for their attempt at a goal.",
"2 teams each have a goal of getting the ball to one side of the field (the endzone). They take turns, going 1 'play' at a time, to get the ball down the field. During a play, the quarterback (the one who is first given the ball when everyone starts moving) can run with the ball on his own, throw the ball, hand the ball off for someone else to run, etc. All of these are different types of plays. There are hundreds of plays that various teams use, with their own twists on them, etc. \n\n\nIn order to get down the field, a team has 4 'plays', also called 'downs', to get there. However, if the team is able to gain 10 yards in 1-4 downs, they gain 4 more turns (get their counter reset to '1st down'). The ball is always placed at where it was held when the person holding the ball was tackled (basically). So if the quarterback runs for 5 yards and is tackled on their 1st down, when they start up again it's now 2nd down, with 5 yards remaining, or as it's commonly referred to, \"2^nd and 5\". If the quarterback was tackled behind their original 10 yards, they have to make up those extra yards too. \n\nWhen a team reaches the endzone, that's called a touchdown. This grants 6 points. The team then has the option of either kicking the ball through the posts for 1 extra point (which happens a lot because it's relatively easy) or running another play from the 10(right?) yard line. if during that extra play they get into the endzone again, they get 2 points. \n\nIf a team is close enough to the endzone but doesn't want to risk running a play on a 4th down (a lot of teams won't because if they don't make it, the ball is given to the other team), they'll try to go for a field goal, which is where the offense has a kicker that tries to kick the ball from whereever it is into the slot between the 2 posts. This is worth 3 points.\n\nIf a team is on 4th down but they're too far away for a field goal, they will often (but don't HAVE to) punt. In this case, a kicker kicks the ball as far down field as he can (without kicking it out of bounds) in order to make the other team, who is now on offense, have to go as far as possible to gain their points.\n\nThere's a few other more advanced rules, but those are the basics I wish someone had told me when I started watching.",
"Don't think of it like a \"ball in goal\" game, think of it like a \"territory capture\" game. ",
"I would just like to point out that the linemen (the guys in the middle of the line smashing into one another) in American professional football are Men of Unusual Stature. These guys average around 350 pounds (25 stone, or 160 kilos) and spend a great deal of their time in the gym weight training. Until you have stood next to one of these giants, it is hard to comprehend this.",
"This is a very complicated game to explain. I would advise starting here - _URL_0_\n\nBe patient while learning it because there are several aspects of the game that are very complicated to understand, even for people that are very familiar with the game.",
"This may not help, but if it's possible for you to watch a game with someone who knows what they're talking about, that's the best way to do it.\n\nI'm a woman, and I'm one of the few among my female friends who really knows what's going on in a football game. I've found that trying to explain the game to my female friends while we're *not* watching the game is a lot like trying to describe to someone how to ride a bicycle: it really works a million times better if you just learn as you go.\n\nHope you can figure it out enough to enjoy it; football is a wonderful sport because it offers hard hits and great speed for the casual fans, but also has really complex and cerebral strategy for more in-depth fans. Good luck!",
"Here's an interesting take on the [\"which sport is more dangerous?\"](_URL_0_) question. ",
"do you know the rules of Rugby League? _URL_0_",
"Linemen are the key to the game. Just saying",
"Essentially, American football is like a Chess match where you get to carefully choose where you place you pieces prior to each \"play\". Then and enormous black man comes and fucks ups all your plans.",
"A friend of mine explained american football like this to me one day: \"Football is gaining land by force while wearing fabulously tight pants\"",
"Football is like war.\n\nYou have 2 sides. We'll call one side the British and the other side the Scotts. The Scotts are trying to get a special \"package\" behind the British line. Keep in mind, there are special rules of war, but the basic concept is that each side will try to guess how the other side will line up the troops. The Scotts are trying to line up their troops to exploit weaknesses in the British defense and the British are trying set up defense that will effectively counter the Scotts' offensive. If the Scotts successfully get the package across the British lines, then they get 6 points. They can then try to kick the package through the enemy headquarters window for an additional point.\n\nNow the Scotts have 4 attempts to move the package 10 yards. If by the 3rd attempt there is no chance to move the package the requisite distance, then they have a choice. If they are close enough, they can attempt to kick the package through the window for only 3 points. If they are too far, then they want to kick the package as far back to the enemy line as possible where the British can then pick the package up and attempt to do the same to the Scotts.\n\nThere are a few additional things...but that's the basic concept.\n\n",
"It's similar to rugby in that if you watch it, you get some vague idea of what is going on, but probably won't understand it fully unless you've played it.\n\nAt its heart it's a war game, where the offensive team attempts to move a ball forward by either breaking through or circumventing the defensive team's lines in a series of set-piece battles.\n\nAs long as you reach periodic checkpoints you can keep going. If you get stalled, you have to give the ball up.\n\nOnce you get close to the end of the field, there are a couple of ways of scoring, that are worth various numbers of points.\n\nThat's enough that if you watch it, you can develop understanding.\n\nI've never played football, and only have a general idea of what I'm seeing, but I still enjoy it. The announcers for the most part assume that the audience has played the game, so you really can't learn complexities by watching.\n\n[Typical American college football recap](_URL_0_); youtube is full of this kind of stuff.",
"Probably not going to see this but here goes nothing! \n\n[George Carlin's take on American Football](_URL_0_)",
"Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls hotbox. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine. ",
"I wish I had those digital \"down lines\" they add on TV broadcasts when I was a kid. Would have made it a lot easier to understand.",
"For those interested, this has a great LI5 definition of the Superbowl, and American Football in general: _URL_0_",
"You might find more information in this askreddit post from 2 days ago\n\n_URL_0_",
"Rugby plus chess. Every time the ball hits the ground, you stop, lineup again, and execute specific strategies instead of just hocking a ball back and forth.\n\n4 chances score, called \"downs\". If you get more than 10 yards from where you started, you start back at the first \"down.\" Ususally, on the 4th down, you kick it to the other team and try to prevent them from getting too far with it, so they have to start their 4 downs from as far back as possible. If they're close enough to the 1st down line though (like 1 - 3 yards) they ususally just go for it and try to get a first down without kicking to the other team.\n\nAt the start of each play, the \"center\" tosses the ball backward, between his legs, to the \"Quarterback\" (\"hiking\" the ball). Everyone starts moving. The line of guys in front of the Quarterback tries to block a line of the other team's guys from getting to the Quarterback to keep him from throwing or passing. The Quarterback can either let a \"Reciever\" run way down the field and make a really long pass to him, or just hand it to the guy next to him and let him try to run as far as he can, avoiding the lines of players trying to block him. That is, \"passing\" plays or \"running\" plays. If nobody catches a pass and it hits the ground, they start the next down from the same spot again.\n\nThe field has a 50 yard line in the middle, and zeroes at either end. When they get to the zero yardline, they've reached the \"end zone\". This is a \"touchdown\". 6 points, and a free chance to kick through the high-up goal posts for an extra 1 point. The kicks can be either \"good\" or \"no good\".\n\nOnly one forward pass is allowed per play, then the guy with the ball is usually expected to run as far as he can before he gets tackled. If someone has the ball and he falls with it, the action stops for another lineup... starting right where the guy with the ball fell. If you have the ball and you're about to get tackled you can, if you want, pitch it backwards to someone else who keeps running, but this almost never happens. I dunno why. I think it would be a cool element to the game.\n\nAnyway, that's a dirty, haphazard explanation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football#Rules"
],
[],
[
"http://wesclark.com/rrr/pads_and_helmets.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_football_and_rugby_league"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZeKhPMlXc"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2007/02/020107.html"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kcki7/how_does_the_nfl_work/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football#Rules"
],
[],
[
"http://wesclark.com/rrr/pads_and_helmets.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_football_and_rugby_league"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZeKhPMlXc"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2007/02/020107.html"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kcki7/how_does_the_nfl_work/"
],
[]
] |
|
1q8swl
|
why can't scientists program viruses that kill cells with deformed dna to cure cancer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q8swl/eli5_why_cant_scientists_program_viruses_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdacfow"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Short answer: They're trying, but it's hard. This will probably be how we eventually manage to \"cure\" cancer.\n\nLong Answer: \"Cancer\" is a general term which generally refers to any unwanted/out of control growth of the body's own cells. As you correctly said, it's due to deformed/mis copied DNA, which shuts off the protein pathways which prevent abnormal growth (both by stopping cell division, and trigger apoptosis (cell death) in cells which shouldn't be somewhere). There are a couple of things which make this hard to treat by sticking a virus into the body.\n\nFirstly, cancers are not composed of foreign cells and generally have the same markers on their surface as rest of the body's cells, so the immune system doesn't attack them. This isn't always the case, it is possible for the immune system to be \"taught\" to attack cancerous cells *in vitro* (outside the body). In fact this was recently done by a team using a modified version of the HIV virus and they had some success treating an individual's leukaemia. Viruses are a good approach because they hijack host cell's DNA to produce their own proteins/reproduce, so you can use them to add specific genes to cells. (this is how some GM crops are made). The problem with this is that we are still a huge way from being able to custom design a gene which will produce a protein with function X, so our ability to kill cancer cells using this approach is limited. The team using the HIV cells made some of the body's own immune cells recognise naturally occurring \"signals\" on the cancerous cells; but this was pretty specific to the type of cancer they were treating.\n\nSecondly, each cancer is different. While a lot of cancers have mutations to certain genes which regulate cell growth, this doesn't necessarily mean that they \"look\" the same on the outside to immune cells, (especially as each individual has different immune antigens anyway) so a treatment would almost certainly have to be tailored to each individual which is prohibitively expensive (and basically impossible with current knowledge / computers). \n\nHopefully once we get better at understanding how proteins fold, and hence what function they have, we'll be able to custom design virii which will attack cells with malformed DNA."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
lyj27
|
the past, present and future of aborigines in australia
|
I've always been interested but I don't anything at all, even if you can't do past, present and future just giving me a general understanding will help as a starting point? Thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lyj27/eli5_the_past_present_and_future_of_aborigines_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2wmuqu",
"c2wnc9b",
"c2wmuqu",
"c2wnc9b"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
9,
5
],
"text": [
"**ELI5:** Aborigines are the original inhabitants of Australia, and when white people arrived it made life very hard for them, and so they fought. A lot. The people from England won.\n\nThis made the Aborigines' life pretty bad for a long time, and some people who thought they were doing good things actually made things even worse.\n\nEven though there have been lots of improvements in the last forty or fifty years, things are still pretty bad and making them better might take a very long time. \n\n**EL12:** Please note that I'm not a scholar, this is still a very brief summary and is mostly what I've learned growing up in the Australian education system. However, it should be good enough as a general introduction:\n\nAustralian Aborigines are the original inhabitants of the country. Summing them up is difficult, because they weren't a 'culture' as such, but many different tribes, each with their own ways of living and beliefs. There were some similarities, but each tribe was its own group, in a similar way to, say, the Native Americans. Most tribes were semi-nomadic - they would travel in a big loop over a year or more, in order to take advantage of what resources were on offer in different seasons. That being said, most had places of significance at which they would carry out various rituals and were often decorated with rock-paintings or carvings, many of which can still be seen today. The most famous example that anyone outside of Australia might know is Uluru (or Ayer's Rock, as it was known).\n\nWhen Europeans settled in the late eighteenth century (the 'First Fleet') it was made up of mostly prisoners (usually sent for life, who were intended to do most of the labour). The first problems were that they brought with them diseases to which the Aborigines had no immunity, and the fact that they began to take up lots of the already sparse resources available. Long story short, there was lots of violence. There are a many, many contributing factors but the important thing is that it resulted in fights that the Europeans usually won. This led to Aborigines being pushed further and further to the edges of society as the century went on.\n\nRecent history (20th century) is where it gets even more complicated. I'm not going to go into everything here (because I'll almost certainly get some of it wrong), but suffice it to say that it caused further divide and alienation, even though there were some gains as well, such as the right to vote, and a government decision that allowed Aborigines to make legal claims to their 'traditional' land. So in summary: bad stuff happened, good stuff happened. If you want to learn more, look up 'the stolen generation', 'the Mabo decision', 'Aboriginal tent embassy' and 'the Aboriginal Intervention Policy' for examples.\n\nToday, it's a hard situation to fix. Aboriginal people are way down on health-standards such as average life-expectancy, low average employment and, of course, still suffer from racism. One of the many difficulties is that you can't generalise 'Aboriginal people' when it comes to statistics and so on - they are very, very diverse. Some want to live 'traditionally' - some want to integrate fully and there are the whole range in-between. There really is no easy fix that people have been able to find so far.\n\nThere have been many, many attempts to 'fix' the problem, but (from my uninformed point of view), it seems that in the desire to make sweeping public policy changes they have failed to realise that a much more customised approach is needed - but of course, that is very hard to make laws about.\n\nI hope this helps - I'll try to answer any more questions you have to the best of my knowledge, but I'll happily defer to anyone with better credentials for discussion.\n",
"This is a very broad topic that differs depending what area in Australia you talk about. They did not and do not thrive in the modern society that was introduced. Their concept of ownership of things like land, houses and money is very different to non-indigenous Australians. Because of this they generally do not care to accumulate assets or wealth. They were introduced to alcohol and their bodies are not, as able to handle it, as well other cultures that have had alcohol in their ancestry for hundreds or thousands of years. I work within the welfare system in Australia with indigenous people (co-workers and welfare recipients) and some say that their inability to adjust to the expectations of society, is because our society is sick not because they are, but what can ya do ey?! *Obviously I am generalising here and it is just my opinion and observation. ",
"**ELI5:** Aborigines are the original inhabitants of Australia, and when white people arrived it made life very hard for them, and so they fought. A lot. The people from England won.\n\nThis made the Aborigines' life pretty bad for a long time, and some people who thought they were doing good things actually made things even worse.\n\nEven though there have been lots of improvements in the last forty or fifty years, things are still pretty bad and making them better might take a very long time. \n\n**EL12:** Please note that I'm not a scholar, this is still a very brief summary and is mostly what I've learned growing up in the Australian education system. However, it should be good enough as a general introduction:\n\nAustralian Aborigines are the original inhabitants of the country. Summing them up is difficult, because they weren't a 'culture' as such, but many different tribes, each with their own ways of living and beliefs. There were some similarities, but each tribe was its own group, in a similar way to, say, the Native Americans. Most tribes were semi-nomadic - they would travel in a big loop over a year or more, in order to take advantage of what resources were on offer in different seasons. That being said, most had places of significance at which they would carry out various rituals and were often decorated with rock-paintings or carvings, many of which can still be seen today. The most famous example that anyone outside of Australia might know is Uluru (or Ayer's Rock, as it was known).\n\nWhen Europeans settled in the late eighteenth century (the 'First Fleet') it was made up of mostly prisoners (usually sent for life, who were intended to do most of the labour). The first problems were that they brought with them diseases to which the Aborigines had no immunity, and the fact that they began to take up lots of the already sparse resources available. Long story short, there was lots of violence. There are a many, many contributing factors but the important thing is that it resulted in fights that the Europeans usually won. This led to Aborigines being pushed further and further to the edges of society as the century went on.\n\nRecent history (20th century) is where it gets even more complicated. I'm not going to go into everything here (because I'll almost certainly get some of it wrong), but suffice it to say that it caused further divide and alienation, even though there were some gains as well, such as the right to vote, and a government decision that allowed Aborigines to make legal claims to their 'traditional' land. So in summary: bad stuff happened, good stuff happened. If you want to learn more, look up 'the stolen generation', 'the Mabo decision', 'Aboriginal tent embassy' and 'the Aboriginal Intervention Policy' for examples.\n\nToday, it's a hard situation to fix. Aboriginal people are way down on health-standards such as average life-expectancy, low average employment and, of course, still suffer from racism. One of the many difficulties is that you can't generalise 'Aboriginal people' when it comes to statistics and so on - they are very, very diverse. Some want to live 'traditionally' - some want to integrate fully and there are the whole range in-between. There really is no easy fix that people have been able to find so far.\n\nThere have been many, many attempts to 'fix' the problem, but (from my uninformed point of view), it seems that in the desire to make sweeping public policy changes they have failed to realise that a much more customised approach is needed - but of course, that is very hard to make laws about.\n\nI hope this helps - I'll try to answer any more questions you have to the best of my knowledge, but I'll happily defer to anyone with better credentials for discussion.\n",
"This is a very broad topic that differs depending what area in Australia you talk about. They did not and do not thrive in the modern society that was introduced. Their concept of ownership of things like land, houses and money is very different to non-indigenous Australians. Because of this they generally do not care to accumulate assets or wealth. They were introduced to alcohol and their bodies are not, as able to handle it, as well other cultures that have had alcohol in their ancestry for hundreds or thousands of years. I work within the welfare system in Australia with indigenous people (co-workers and welfare recipients) and some say that their inability to adjust to the expectations of society, is because our society is sick not because they are, but what can ya do ey?! *Obviously I am generalising here and it is just my opinion and observation. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
698nmv
|
how can either end of an earthworm be it's head and it's anus at the same time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/698nmv/eli5_how_can_either_end_of_an_earthworm_be_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh4lo3w"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're just completely wrong about that. An earthworm has a very definite \"head\" and \"anus\". The parts of the worm near the head have most of the important organs (hearts, stomachs, 'brain'), while the tail is mostly intestines. \nThe easiest way to determine which end is the head is to look for the smooth raised band called the \"clitellum\" that earthworms have. This band will be closer to the head. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ugmne
|
how do they know how many people watched the super bowl?
|
So how can they tell how many people tuned in to watch the super bowl?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ugmne/eli5_how_do_they_know_how_many_people_watched_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co88ft0",
"co88w7f",
"co8eui8"
],
"score": [
3,
31,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't. It's all based on estimates. However, these are backed by reason and are not guesses. ",
"Largely estimates, polls, and Nielsen ratings.",
"It is estimated. Nielsen families have boxes, like a cable box, that record what they're watching and who is watching (you're prompted to select who is watching when you turn on the tv). These results are then used to project the number of viewers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d6cl2d
|
how does next day and same day shipping work? how can something so far be shipped that fast?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d6cl2d/eli5_how_does_next_day_and_same_day_shipping_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0rvb59"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"What you think is far away is probably not. Amazon, as an example of same day shipping, has warehouses located at strategic points within a country. In the UK, for example, my nearest is Swansea - so it's about two hours to drive from there to my city. Easy enough.\n\nThe other thing is volume. When next day delivery is carried out, there will be a container at a warehouse loaded with deliveries for a large region of a country placed onto a truck, and that truck will drive to a central depot. That depot will then offload the deliveries to smaller trucks, which will drive it to a local depot in your local region. That depot then makes the deliveries from smaller trucks/vans to your address, along with a bunch of others in your neighbourhood."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
o8qe0
|
- 64 bit vs 32 bit benefits
|
I have a 64 bit processor, and World of Warcraft is coming out with a 64 bit client.. Am I going to see any noticeable improvements?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o8qe0/eli5_64_bit_vs_32_bit_benefits/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3fa82w",
"c3fablg",
"c3fgjh7"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you use super high resolutions, lots of addons, and play for long stretches of time yes. It isn't really a huge concern otherwise.\n\nThe hope is so they can get the bugs out of it for future releases of the game which will be more resource intensive and be expected to use more than 3GB of memory.",
"Nothing about it's 64-bitness will likely make a difference in the WoW client. However, 64-bit x86 processors have *other* advantages over the 32-bit versions. If the software is compiled to take advantage of them, you might see an improvement.",
"32-bit: your computer can only use up to 4 GB of memory (RAM).\n\n64-bit: your computer can use up to 192 GB of memory (RAM) or more, depending on 64-bit OS.\n\nOne side note which is a little more in depth, but will be useful is that the memory (RAM) in a PC's video card is counted toward it's total allowed RAM. Example: a PC with a 512MB video card and 4 GB or RAM on the mother board will only use 3.5 GB of RAM on the motherboard (the other .5 GB is tied up by the video card). \nIt is very much worth it to upgrade to 64-bit OS for more RAM. I have 6 GB of RAM in my PC and never have any problems gaming and more RAM always means more speed.\n\nAnother side note: most \"high end\" PCs these days come with 16 GB of RAM because RAM is so cheap now. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
292gcl
|
the difference between seltzer, club soda, and sparkling water?
|
They all pretty much taste the same to me.
EDIT: And tonic water
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/292gcl/eli5_the_difference_between_seltzer_club_soda_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cigrm9u",
"cigru42",
"cigtvhs",
"cigupbz",
"cigzzkt"
],
"score": [
8,
130,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"And tonic water?",
"Seltzer is normally plain carbonated water. \n\nSparking water frequently implies being mineral or spring water. If it's sparking tap water then it's the same as seltzer or carbonated water (water+co2 bubbles).\n\nClub soda has alkaline substances (a common one was baking soda) added to neutralize the PH (carbon dioxide is an acid). \n\nFor /u/sanna_ tonic water has quinine (originally a way to prevent malaria) and sweeteners (to cover the bitter flavor of quinine) added. Tonic water is basically a soft drink/soda/pop. ",
"As an aside. I try to make my own soda by mixing various juices with sierra mist. Yes it's a lemon/lime soda, but you wouldn't know it when you put it with something 100% juice.\n\n* Grape Juice + S.Mist = Grape Soda\n* Apple Juice + S.Mist = Manzanita Sol (sort of)\n* Limeaid + S.Mist = Jarritos Lime (sort of)\n\nI am not a professional. I've tried Seltzer/Club/Sparkling though and it doesn't taste good in combination.",
"Sort of related. In some european countries (Germany at least) It seems that if you order a glass of water at a resteraunt, they give you mineral water. I was on a euro trip and my friend ordered water for some strange reason (It was like a 2-week booze fest) and damn near spit it out after taking his first sip. ",
"There's also naturally carbonated water too. Perrier or San Pellegrino. I have no idea how natural carbonation is formed but the bubbes are different and smaller."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1mtydc
|
how, in movies, they fake an actor losing a limb. eg - lieutenant dan losing his legs in "forrest gump."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mtydc/eli5_how_in_movies_they_fake_an_actor_losing_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cccl5yk",
"cccqbe7",
"cccs57s"
],
"score": [
23,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In the case of Gary Sinise in Forrest Gump, he wore blue neoprene 'socks' over his legs and they chroma keyed them out. \n\nIn the old days they used to just strap the leg up (foot to ass). ",
"Yeah, I remember in that Breaking Bad episode where that dude loses his legs and then crawls across the floor they said he wore green socks up to his knees then edited it out.",
"At least in the case of Dawn of the Dead, some are real amputations. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
t23ij
|
my five year old has a question, how come when it rains, our driveway (paved) gets inundated with earthworms? (northeastern usa)
|
I have a five year old, and some recently acquired chickens. We like to feed the chickens earthworms as a treat. Whenever it rains, the driveway is easy pickings, so explain it like I'm 5 so I can tell an actual 5 year old.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/t23ij/eli5_my_five_year_old_has_a_question_how_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ivwuk",
"c4ivxay",
"c4iwa50"
],
"score": [
11,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"It's certainly not because they will drown in the earth. Worms can live for weeks under water as long as there is oxygen in it.\n\nIt's simply easier to move above ground. The recent rain or humidity helps keep their skin wet, which is critical to them surviving, since they breathe through it and can't allow it to dry out.\n\nOne belief is that they are seeking out new homeland and the wet conditions above ground let them move a greater distance to find it.\n\nOh, why are they on your driveway? Check the surrounding grassland - you'll likely see the same numbers. Your perception of there being more on the driveway is because they're easier to see there.",
"A quick google search says that they use the rain to travel above grounds, since they don't get dehydrated due to the rain. If I had a guess as to why they end up on the driveway, it would probably be that the driveway is a relatively easy surface to traverse. \n\n(Sorry if any of that is incorrect.)",
"Your 5 year old knows the word \"inundated\"?? \n\nJESUS."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1dn28e
|
i am blind in one eye. can you explain what 3d movies look like?
|
Also, if you wear the 3D glasses outside the movie is everything in purple?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dn28e/i_am_blind_in_one_eye_can_you_explain_what_3d/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9rw01a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In a person with normal sight, your brain can work out how far away something is because your two eyes see a different picture due to being a few inches apart.\n\nIf you are blind in one eye, I'd imagine (not being blind in one eye myself, I'm guessing a bit here) that if you move your head from side to side, you'd get a similar idea of how far away something is, because your brain works it out from how the picture changes as your head moves.\n\nWhen you watch a normal movie, you don't get this sense of distance, because both eyes see the same. Even if you move your head, both eyes see the same as each other.\n\nIn a 3D movie, each eye sees a different picture, so your brain can see distance - but only if you have sight in both eyes. But if you move your head, the picture doesn't change - your left eye sees the same picture, and your right eye sees the same picture.\n\nSo, if you're blind in one eye, you *won't* get a sense of distance by moving your head. But what a person with normal sight will see is similar to what you see when you move your head around outside the movie theatre.\n\nAs for wearing 3D glasses outside the movie theatre, they're like not-very-dark sunglasses. They work by filtering light depending on its polarisation, which is perhaps a subject for another thread - but the short version is that light waves normally \"wave\" in all directions. The glasses filter out all the waves except those in a certain direction - but what you end up seeing is exactly the same as normal only a bit dimmer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3d3i76
|
steve jobs once said there was a maximum screen resolution that we can see and we had reached it. why are phones getting 4k and even higher resolution if we can't see the difference?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d3i76/eli5_steve_jobs_once_said_there_was_a_maximum/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct1gddc",
"ct1geou",
"ct1go1o",
"ct1hei3",
"ct1hu1u",
"ct1mkub"
],
"score": [
33,
14,
6,
4,
47,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a few angles to address this:\n\nOne is that marketing sells and the big thing in TVs is 4k, so people want to watch 4k video on their phones, so a phone which has a 4k display must be better, right?\n\nAnother is that when you format-shift an image to a smaller display, even if it is all below the threshold that a person can see, there are going to be artifacts which are going to annoy some users. Having the native screen resolution or better is often just easier to do it right.\n\nYet another is that pixel density goes down when the device gets bigger, so you simply need more pixels to get the same density on a larger display.",
"He wasn't talking about max resolution, he was talking about at what PPI do pixels become indistinguishable at normal viewing distances, for the iPhone 4, it was ~300PPI needed, which it went slightly over for a cushion for up close viewing. \n \nFor phones screens, around ~350 PPI really is the max needed to not be able to see the pixels (the iPhone 6 is 326 PPI, and I can make out pixels when I put it point blank to my nose). However, more pixels means sharper text and more accuracy when displaying images, (more pixels means more variations, meaning more detail is added). I have a iPhone 6, and while the 6 Plus is a tad too big for me, I would like mine to be 1080p for when I mirror my display using Apple TV. \n \nHow good the display is a factor too, I value accuracy over \"pop\", so an accurate white-point (around D65), good color reproduction, a good contrast ratio (which the iPhone could improve on, mine is 1,400:1, whereas it should be like 2,500:1, gotta have those blacks), visible in direct harsh sunlight (which the iPhone could improve on as well), and some other things too.",
"His statement may be true for a small cell phone, but the difference from 1080p to 4k on a monitor or TV is night and day, and we can still see plenty higher.",
"At the WWDC 2010 event, Steve Jobs showcased to a room full of mega apple fans and hand-picked journalists the iPhone 4. In his presentation, he said that 300 pixels per inch was the resolution limit of the human retina. Then he proudly announced that the iPhone 4's pixel density was 326 pixels per inch, _exceeding_ that 300 ppi mark.\n\nThis bold claim is hard defend, and can only be true under specific conditions. While generally probably true, it's really better used as a means of marketing than taken as fact.\n\nPhones are getting higher resolutions because we actually can see the difference. Even if we can't actually see the pixel granularity (though some of us can), we can see the overall improved image quality. \n\nWhen comparing the power consumption of a device per pixel, the higher resolution systems are more efficient. They do use more power, but per pixel they use less.\n\nCosts of high-resolution phones seem to be relatively comparable to the costs of non-high resolution phones. The 1st gen 8gb iPhone cost $599 in 2007 which is $687.01 in 2015 after inflation adjustments. A 16gb iPhone 6 today costs $649. So really no cost difference.",
"- He was wrong; it was part of his job to make the iPhone look as good as possible, so naturally he said its display was basically perfect. \n- Resolution relates to pixel density. 720p looks good on a 3\" phone, but is blurry garbage in the cinema. Phones are bigger now than they were a few years ago so you need higher resolutions to keep them looking good.\n- Screen tech is a limiting factor. Basic LCD screens have so much 'bleed' between each pixel that it all muddies together and you can't see differences between neighbouring pixels as easily, meaning that on a crappy LCD it's hard to see any difference between 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K, 8K, etc. Better screens with newer technology can more cleanly display pixels and keep them sharp and separated, meaning better resolutions become more useful. ",
"Another usage is virtual reality, with the LG looking to ship VR with flagship phones, Samsung VR, Google Cardboard ect. The lens significantly reduces the resolution of the phone requiring alot higher base resolution to get a Clear picture. (Source: I own google cardboard makes my note 4 display look like crap.) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5rsa4t
|
if you were a billion years away from earth, but could somehow watch earth through a very powerful telescope, and you raced twords earth would you watch history unfold before your eyes ?
|
Could you watch from a billion years ago, the current distance you were, to the current date and time of earth, as you closed the gap between you and earth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rsa4t/eli5_if_you_were_a_billion_years_away_from_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd9uwgp"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Yep, that is spot on as to how relativity and light work in general. Granted, you would also need a special telescope to account for the blueshift of zooming towards the light, but ye."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1i2jwv
|
plasma vs led/lcd widescreen tv's
|
Basically i am looking at a new TV approximately 45-55 inches.
Uses for this TV are going to be:
* High fps Gaming "Pc"
* Watching Digital TV
* Watching HD and Bluray Movies
* Porn
I would like your opinion and expertise to help me better understand the major and minor differences between these TV's.
I am leaning towards a Samsung or Panasonic.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i2jwv/eli5_plasma_vs_ledlcd_widescreen_tvs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb0cc2s",
"cb0dorf",
"cb0fjj3",
"cb0o6vv"
],
"score": [
7,
27,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe the gist is that Plasma TV's can have deeper blacks and more vibrant colors, but they are at risk of burn-in and are more expensive so they are basically going away.\n\nSo nearly all TV's now are LCD displays backlit with LED lamps instead of CCFL fluorescents (essentially the same technology as any computer monitor).\n\nThat is good because LED backlights don't degrade over time so badly as fluorescent ones do.",
"Let's go over the pros and cons of the three most popular TV technologies available today.\n\n**PLASMA**\n\n* PROs: Best picture of the classes. Best color reproduction/matching when calibrated. Best black level reproduction. Highest refresh rate. No light bleed.\n\n* CONs: Power consumption is highest per inch. Most heat generation. Weight is highest per inch. Not as good in bright locations.\n\n**CCFL-LCD**\n\n* PROs: Cheapest class. Most variety of sizes.\n\n* CONs: Poor color reproduction. Image ghosting. Wide bezels.\n\n**LED-LCD**\n\n* PROs: Can be extremely bright and useful in bright areas. Can use local dimming to increase contrast ratio. Slightly better color handling due to backlight vs CCFL.\n\n* CONs: Light bleed can be more intense depending on edge lit vs full array. Image ghosting.\n\nThe differences in these three types make each one acceptable if a certain set of environmental criteria are met.\n\n* If you have a room with fewer windows than average or nighttime watching will be the primary use, a plasma is going to be the best option for a set top. Enthusiasts swear by by them as long as the company producing keeps the build quality up to the right standards. Panasonic plasmas are the current go-to brand for HQ plasma sets.\n\n* If your budget is limited and size is the most important factor. A standard CCFL LCD is going to be what gets you the best bang per inch. It falters when absolute quality is a concern but can usually fill a blank wall for less and can perform perfectly fine for the news, video games consoles or kitchen/kids room duties. Toshiba, Samsung and Vizio litter the marketplace for the best of the low tier displays.\n\n* LED TVs and the above LCD TVs are essentially the same display tech with different backlight delivery methods. LEDs allow for lower power consumption, thinner bezels, and brighter room playback. A bright sun drenched room or the NEED for for a thin bezel (array lit) or thin profile (edge lit) are reason 1 to get an LED TV over another type. The only other real advantage is the power consumption is much lower so sustained hour-after-hour use will not hurt your checkbook as much as other formats. Samsung and Vizio have the best quality sets in this category.\n\n**Smart TVs** \n \n\nDo you want your TV to be of the smart variety? I personally don't want the smart features built-in permanently to my $400, $700, $2,000 TV that I don't plan to upgrade at least a few years. It should be the job of the TV to do one thing: produce a beautiful picture. That's it. No web surfing, no media playback and if I had my way and no reproduction of audio at all!\n\nInstead, ignore the smart TV craze and look for a smart BD player or a dedicated media streaming device such as a Roku, Boxee, Apple TV, Western Digital Live, etc.\n\n**How big? (That's what she said.)** \n\n\nDo yourself a favor and grab some cardboard (a big piece). Place it on the wall, table, stand or wherever and measure out 40\", 50\", 55\", 65\" and keep bezel size around that in mind. You may be surprised at just how small that HUGE TV is going to look.\n\n**1080p or 720p?** \n\n\nAs for 1080p vs 720p, refer to [this chart](_URL_0_) and after you determine your ideal size and placement you can see if going 720p can actually be an alternative. Don't go out of your way to get a lower res TV but don't dismiss the possible savings if you won't benefit at your distance/size.",
"The other thing you want to look into, if you are using this for gaming, is input lag. That's the time between when the signal from the console is sent and when the TV finished processing it and shows it on the TV. This affects gameplay because of the time lag between you interacting with your controller, and it showing up on the screen.\n\nLower the better, and most TVs now have 'game mode' that will shut off most of the image processing to reduce the lag as much as possible, but some TVs still are terrible even with that mode on.\n\nWhen you look at specific TVs, make sure you look at reviews for that particular aspect.\n\nDon't get too bogged down in all the details. Use practicality and your specific needs. In general:\n\n**Plasmas:** Better picture quality & contrast, darker, tough in bright conditions.\n\n**LCDs:** Brighter, better for bright rooms, not as good with fast-motion shows.\n\nForget all that other stuff. Light-bleed, power consumption, burn-in, weight, heat, etc.",
"You need to talk to someone that actually does this shit for a living/has for years anyways. \n\nPlasma is your best bet, gives you the best quality picture (both color and motion clarity). You CAN burn it but honestly at this point, if you burn a plasma, its your own damn fault and you deserve it. The screen needs a static image for hours on end. IF you burn it, you can remove it easily. Plasma are heavier (who gives a shit?) and they use more power (a difference of about $10 or so a year over an LED, big fucking deal).\n\nLEDs are more expensive, gives you less quality. They are the BOSE of TVs, more about name that people who don't know any better buy. \n\nNo one even makes CCFL lcds, why anyone is even bringing them up is beyond me. \n\nIf you limit yourself to a non-smart tv, you are a fuckin idiot. Even if you never want to use it, manufacturers will not put the higher quality images on a non-smart, non-3d tv. You will NOT get the level of picture quality on a base model shitty tv. Get the best, even if you aren't thinking of using all the features. Its like trying to buy a Mercedes without leather seats, its too fucking bad if you dont want leather."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/JPyDY.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
ehj777
|
how nut milk is extracted?
|
How is almond milk, soy milk or any sort of nut milk extracted from the source? What are the processes involved? Yes yes the title sounds funny.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehj777/eli5_how_nut_milk_is_extracted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcjlqft",
"fcjobqi"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The nuts are ground in to a fine powder, mixed with water, then filtered a bit to reduce the amount of pulp",
"first you soak the nuts for at least 4 hours, 2 for oats and sesame seeds, if they are non bio, i’d recommend changing the water, then “shredded” (sorry, english is not my first language) in a blender, the quantity of water depends on how thick you like your milk, after that you strain it trough a cloth and conserve in the fridge for a few days. if you like sweet you can add maple syrup, or other.... soy milk gas to be cooked after straining so our bodies can process it..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
31nk95
|
realistically, what's a super simple primer on the us health care system, and where can i go to learn basic terms and understand what's going on?
|
So, let's try to avoid the whole "every procedure makes you bankrupt" and "Europe does it for free" arguments.
I'm really curious as to how it all works together, because while I feel like the prices are high, my family has had multiple doctor visits and procedures and aren't bankrupt. I don't know of anyone personally whom went bankrupt from health-care (and I live in a lower income bracket part of middle of nowhere florida.) The way reddit likes to portray it, I feel like this would have happened to me or someone I know by now.
Likewise, ive heard stories about really high bills, where the patient only was asked to pay a small percentage after lawyers and calling people.
I'm in a situation where I am wrapping up college and I'm about to be removed from my parents insurance and need to start making these decisions and I've never looked into it. Where's a good place to start?
Can we have a non doomsday, non penis measuring contest discussion of the basics of us health-care? I'm sure I'm not alone, this could be beneficial to quite some many people.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31nk95/eli5_realistically_whats_a_super_simple_primer_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq36snz",
"cq37aqp",
"cq393io",
"cq3acps",
"cq3qdkp",
"cq3rbg6"
],
"score": [
9,
7,
5,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"[Great video by Healthcare Triage](_URL_0_) on the topic. \n\nHealthcare related debt is the primary cause of bankruptcy in the US, but that's not that common of a thing to happen, you probably dont know anyone who has filed for bankruptcy either. \n\nAs for where to look, I can't offer much help on that (im from the UK so don't know much about individual insureres in the US).",
"It's almost too complicated for a ELI5. There are high deductible plans that require a lot of out of pocket money before you see the insurance company pay much, or any, of your fees. The advantage is that if you're healthy they tend to be cheaper. And you can contribute to a Health Savings Account, which is basically a tax free way to pay for medical expenses.\n\nIf you have better insurance, you can get co-payments or co-insurance where you either pay a flat fee for various services (a co-payment) or pay a percentage of the fee (co-insurance). They're generally more expensive for the insurance, but potentially cheaper overall if you have known medical expenses (like if you're diabetic or have other chronic issues).\n\nNearly all plans have a max out of pocket expense. Once you hit that amount, insurance should cover everything.\n\nThe fees that hospitals charge are generally pretty high. They have agreements with insurance companies on the amount insured patients (or the insurance companies) will pay. Patients with no insurance get the bill for the full amount, but many hospitals will negotiate lowered fees and plans with patients that may not be able to pay.",
"Trying to boil it down as simple as possible here: You can either run your health-care one way or the other, either \"single-payer\" (that is, the government is the payer and pretty much runs everything, as in European countries) or you can do it like we do, which is \"multiple payer\" (though nobody calls it that). \n\nBasically, you obtain your medical service, and give them your insurance card. They usually charge you a small \"copay\" for the visit, and the hospital/doctor's office staff then bills your insurance company for the rest of the cost. \n\n(And yes, most Americans do have insurance, and always have. There are a number of people who do not, but the number has never been as high as you've likely been led to believe, which is why you don't know any personal examples of it happening. Also, many rich people specifically choose not to have insurance, because they find its less expensive for them to simply pay for visits and procedures as they need to. These are called \"private pay\" patients.)\n\nUsually, you get your insurance through your employer, but people over 65 get Medicare, and poor people under 65 usually qualify for Medicaid, both government-run programs. From the patient's point of view, these operate pretty much as private insurance does. ",
"Here's what I have learned (mostly the hard way):\n\nGet your insurance through work. If you get it on your own, it's really expensive, and only subsidized if you're really really poor. \n\nCatastrophic plans: usually free, but not a good idea, even if you \"don't really get sick.\" Very high deductible. If you make so little that you're considering this to save some money, don't. If you do ever run up a large bill, most hospitals have charity plans set up to forgive some or all of your bill on an income-based scale.\n\nHMO: cheaper monthly payment and deductible, but you're bound by your network. Most plans push you see to in-network docs, and that's fine, but referrals can be a bitch with HMOs. For example, you need to have a procedure done. Your primary doc refers you to a specialist, you wait for approval, and then go see him. He says you need a procedure done tomorrow and he has time in his schedule, but you have to wait 24-72 hours for your medical group to approve the treatment. This sucks if you're in pain or really ill.\n\nPPO: this is what I would consider \"good insurance.\" Unfortunately, these come with the highest monthly premiums and usually a higher deductible as well (still way below catastrophic, though). In this plan, you stay in network for the most coverage, but your doctors are free to treat you without being forced to go through referrals and approvals and what not. I can't wait til I can afford this kind of plan.",
"This is a pretty complex question. I hope I can help answer some of it. I'll break up my answer in sections so that it's not a wall of text and harder to digest. \n\nEvery country answers the question how should we operate the health care system differently but they all fall into five basic types. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type. \n\n[PBS link](_URL_0_)\n\n* **The Beveridge Model: **the health care system is entirely publicly funded through the government. Think public libraries. You may also have heard this called, \"single payer\". It's a type of single payer. \n\nCountries using it: Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand.\n\n* **The Bismarck Model: **people are insured (paid for by both people and employers, like in the US) but coverage is universal and it's non-profit. \n\nCountries using it: Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.\n\n* **The National Health Insurance Model:** this is a hybrid of the first two. It's a publicly funded (example 1) but with private hospitals and doctors (example 2). This is another type of single payer. \n\nCountries using it: Canada, but some newly industrialized countries -- Taiwan and South Korea,\n\n* **The Out-of-pocket Model: **mainly used in countries without a health care structure. This involves paying for service as needed. \n\nCountries using it: In rural regions of Africa, India, China and South America\n\n* **The American Model:** like #4, access to health care isn't guaranteed and coverage is dependent on ability to pay. Ability to pay may be funded like #2 with some programs being funded like #1.\n\n**TL:DR** Most countries have a health care system that fits in one of four models. The US doesn't. \n\nEdit: formatting",
"This is a pretty complex question. I hope I can help answer some of it. I'll break up my answer in sections so that it's not a wall of text and harder to digest. \n\nCountries have been using trial and error to get health care correct. Meanwhile, the US hasn't truly evaluated their health care system since its birth. Even the Affordable Care Act made moderate reforms to an existing system. \n\nAs a result, the US has the most expensive health care system in the world. But we're not getting much \"bang for our buck\" because every other developed health care system outperforms ours. \n\n[The Atlantic](_URL_1_)\n\nThis is an excellent comprehensive comparison from [The Commonwealth Fund](_URL_0_)\n\n > Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. \n\n > Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.\n\n**Quality**: The US does well in patient care but because our system is inefficient (paper files, perceptions, and disconnected health care services that struggle to share information with each other) lower our quality score. This puts patients at risk. \n\n**Access**: Americans attribute delaying health care due to costs (even for insured patients) because there are out of pocket expenses such as co-pays and prescription costs. Meanwhile, countries like Canada have little out-of-pocket costs but non-emergency care wait times can vary depending on where you live. The Netherlands, the UK, and Germany have solved both types of access limitations. \n\n**Efficiency**: the US ranks dead last. We have administrative overhead, our health care records aren't universally electronic (although we're making an effort), and because patients postpone going to general practitioners (like your family doctor), they're more likely to clog up emergency room wait times. The US has the longest ER wait times. \n\n**Equity**: the US ranks dead last, again, because cost is a barrier to health care. \n\n**Healthy Lives**: the US ranks dead last, again. \n\n**TL;DR:** The US health care system isn't competitive in either cost or quality. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN-MkRcOJjY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html"
],
[
"http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror",
"http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-healthcare-most-expensive-and-worst-performing/372828/"
]
] |
|
lc53k
|
photography terms - aperture, exposure, etc
|
I'm a photography beginner and I just can't process (terrible pun) the terminology. Whenever I think I have a grasp of the terms, I go and play with the various settings and end up taking terrible pictures.
So, photography related terms like Aperture, Exposure and so on, explain them like I'm five.
Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lc53k/eli5_photography_terms_aperture_exposure_etc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2rh0nl",
"c2rh0nv",
"c2rimcd",
"c2rkvbw",
"c2rh0nl",
"c2rh0nv",
"c2rimcd",
"c2rkvbw"
],
"score": [
10,
48,
8,
2,
10,
48,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The top-rated comments here ELI5 some of these topics pretty well! [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Photography is essentially pretty simple - you have a black box with some film inside that reacts to light. When you push the button, something called a 'shutter', which is basically a door, opens up and lets light in. There are a few settings you can change, but it's all controlling how much light gets into that box.\n\nShutter speed is how long that door stays open for. The longer the door stays open, the more light gets into the box.\n\nAperture is how big the door is. When you have a bigger door, it will let more light in. \n\nAnd different film reacts differently to light shining on it. Some film is very sensitive to light and some is not. This is called the ISO value. \n\nAll three of these exist in a relationship to make your picture. When you're letting light in, if the door stays the same size then and you open it for only half as long, half the amount of light will get in, right? \n\nBut if you make the door twice as big, but only open it for half as long, it's the same amount of light! \n\nIf you make the film twice as sensitive to light, to make the same picture you'd have to open the door for half as long or make the door half the size.\n\nThere are reasons to make each choice - smaller doors make more of the picture stay in focus, faster opening and closing mean you can take pictures of things that are moving fast, and less sensitive film makes less grainy pictures.\n\n",
"This hits more than just explaining what the terms are and tells you a little about how to use them correctly. Copy pasted from my explanation for a slightly different ELI5. \n\nYour camera is a light gathering device. This light is interpreted as a picture as the end result. All camera settings are adjusting how this light is processed. There are two variables for light gathering: time allowed for the light to gather, and the amount of light gathered for a set amount of time.\nThere are 3 main things with a camera that affect those two light gathering variables: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.\n\nISO used to talk about what film was (you remember that stuff right?) but now it talks basically about how sensitive the sensor will act to light. Higher number ISO means that the \"film\" will gather light faster than lower ISO. Faster gives you more flexibility for taking pictures in dark rooms or for starry nights or for action shots. Wow this is super useful so why not have high ISO all the time? Because the higher it is the more grainy the picture is. You could maybe search for high vs low ISO picture difference but effectively all of that fine landscape photography stuff uses very low ISO because the picture result is not grainy at all.\n\nIn your camera it's probably best to leave the ISO set to auto and let it figure out what it needs UNLESS you know you want it to look fine and not grainy and are willing to deal with possibly needing a tripod or something else. If you want the picture to be not grainy set the ISO to the lowest number for that picture.\n\nShutter speed and aperture are interrelated things but affect how light is captured differently. Shutter speed affects how much time light will be gathered. The bigger the size (smaller the number) the more light will be gathered. 1/30 of a second is more time than 1/250th of a second. That literally is what those numbers mean. The good ballpark number is that you don't want to go slower than 1/30th of a second without either image stabilization or a tripod.\n\nThe faster stuff moves in your picture, the faster you will need your shutter speed, otherwise the thing will look blurry later. But when you get faster shutter speed then there's less light that is captured. Slow shutter speeds can be good for stuff like when you want the water in a waterfall to look smoothed.\n\nAperture controls the size of the opening of the hole in the lens that lets light pass to the film in the back. A bigger hole gives more light. The numbers go from something like 2.8 to 16. The smaller numbers give more light, and the bigger ones less.\n\nWell why not always have the most light possible? Well aperture controls depth of field. It's sort of confusing but bear with me. When you look at something far at a distance you can see it in focus. When you look at something close your eyes have to adjust the focus in close. They can do that really quickly. Cameras can only focus on one point - a measurement from the camera to a certain distance - at which the picture will be clear. There is a range of distance where stuff will still be clear, for example if my focus point is at 15 meters, stuff that is clear is actually from 12 to 18 meters. Aperture changes the range of what will be in focus. It could change from 12-18 to 14-16 or 10-20. So you can make the decision to have this thing in focus but not that thing. The higher numbered (smaller opening) apertures give a larger depth of field than the smaller numbered ones.\n\nWow ok so it's a lot to keep in mind just to take a freaking photograph right? If you just keep this stuff in mind much of it becomes second nature and your process can speed up a lot. Basically think of shutter and aperture and with that think how active is my picture and how much stuff do I want in focus. If I want it more active try to get a higher number for shutter. If I want more stuff in focus try to get a higher aperture number.\n\nNow here's the confusing but actually really simple and useful thing about cameras. All of those numbers for the shutter and aperture are equal. Meaning that if you want the light amount to be EXACTLY the same, you can move the shutter one number in one direction and then move the aperture one number in the other direction and nothing would change. They are linked.\n\nSo we want to take a picture of a waterfall. We get the camera to tell us that the light will be perfect if we use a shutter of 1/100 and aperture of 5.6. Ok well we can use this or tweak it. Both of these settings is sorta middle of the road. Lets say that we want the water to look crisp like it was frozen in time. Well then we'll need to increase the number for the shutter but we don't want to change the light. So we bump up the shutter 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000. Ok this is a really fast shutter now. But now we need to go down 3 for the aperture as well so that the light is equal - 5.6, 4, 2.8 (a note here. depending on the lens these numbers may be different. Don't worry about it. These are just common numbers on lenses). Ok we went up 3 shutters, down 3 apertures. Press the take picture button (shutter release) and boom we have a picture.\n\nNow if we want a water picture with the streaking soft water look then we should go the other direction. Going along as before we can go from 1/100 to 1/60, 1/30, or even more depending on how much streaking you want the water to do. But wait if we start with an aperture of 8 then we can only go to 11 and then 16. That would mean that we'd be stuck with 1/30th of a second and that's not long enough for what I want. Ok no problem. Now change your ISO to a lower number and that will give you additional ability to increase your shutter speed too. \n\nCongratulations - you have now made a conscious decision with your camera. But practice makes perfect.\nBonus: Your camera probably has the option for either shutter priority or aperture priority. This is a shortcut that allows you to pick shutter or aperture and the camera does the rest. This could be a good starting spot for practicing how these affect how a picture looks as an end result.\n\nI'm sorry, this is a beginning camera lesson and not designed for 5 year olds.",
"Manual photography cheat sheet: _URL_0_",
"The top-rated comments here ELI5 some of these topics pretty well! [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Photography is essentially pretty simple - you have a black box with some film inside that reacts to light. When you push the button, something called a 'shutter', which is basically a door, opens up and lets light in. There are a few settings you can change, but it's all controlling how much light gets into that box.\n\nShutter speed is how long that door stays open for. The longer the door stays open, the more light gets into the box.\n\nAperture is how big the door is. When you have a bigger door, it will let more light in. \n\nAnd different film reacts differently to light shining on it. Some film is very sensitive to light and some is not. This is called the ISO value. \n\nAll three of these exist in a relationship to make your picture. When you're letting light in, if the door stays the same size then and you open it for only half as long, half the amount of light will get in, right? \n\nBut if you make the door twice as big, but only open it for half as long, it's the same amount of light! \n\nIf you make the film twice as sensitive to light, to make the same picture you'd have to open the door for half as long or make the door half the size.\n\nThere are reasons to make each choice - smaller doors make more of the picture stay in focus, faster opening and closing mean you can take pictures of things that are moving fast, and less sensitive film makes less grainy pictures.\n\n",
"This hits more than just explaining what the terms are and tells you a little about how to use them correctly. Copy pasted from my explanation for a slightly different ELI5. \n\nYour camera is a light gathering device. This light is interpreted as a picture as the end result. All camera settings are adjusting how this light is processed. There are two variables for light gathering: time allowed for the light to gather, and the amount of light gathered for a set amount of time.\nThere are 3 main things with a camera that affect those two light gathering variables: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.\n\nISO used to talk about what film was (you remember that stuff right?) but now it talks basically about how sensitive the sensor will act to light. Higher number ISO means that the \"film\" will gather light faster than lower ISO. Faster gives you more flexibility for taking pictures in dark rooms or for starry nights or for action shots. Wow this is super useful so why not have high ISO all the time? Because the higher it is the more grainy the picture is. You could maybe search for high vs low ISO picture difference but effectively all of that fine landscape photography stuff uses very low ISO because the picture result is not grainy at all.\n\nIn your camera it's probably best to leave the ISO set to auto and let it figure out what it needs UNLESS you know you want it to look fine and not grainy and are willing to deal with possibly needing a tripod or something else. If you want the picture to be not grainy set the ISO to the lowest number for that picture.\n\nShutter speed and aperture are interrelated things but affect how light is captured differently. Shutter speed affects how much time light will be gathered. The bigger the size (smaller the number) the more light will be gathered. 1/30 of a second is more time than 1/250th of a second. That literally is what those numbers mean. The good ballpark number is that you don't want to go slower than 1/30th of a second without either image stabilization or a tripod.\n\nThe faster stuff moves in your picture, the faster you will need your shutter speed, otherwise the thing will look blurry later. But when you get faster shutter speed then there's less light that is captured. Slow shutter speeds can be good for stuff like when you want the water in a waterfall to look smoothed.\n\nAperture controls the size of the opening of the hole in the lens that lets light pass to the film in the back. A bigger hole gives more light. The numbers go from something like 2.8 to 16. The smaller numbers give more light, and the bigger ones less.\n\nWell why not always have the most light possible? Well aperture controls depth of field. It's sort of confusing but bear with me. When you look at something far at a distance you can see it in focus. When you look at something close your eyes have to adjust the focus in close. They can do that really quickly. Cameras can only focus on one point - a measurement from the camera to a certain distance - at which the picture will be clear. There is a range of distance where stuff will still be clear, for example if my focus point is at 15 meters, stuff that is clear is actually from 12 to 18 meters. Aperture changes the range of what will be in focus. It could change from 12-18 to 14-16 or 10-20. So you can make the decision to have this thing in focus but not that thing. The higher numbered (smaller opening) apertures give a larger depth of field than the smaller numbered ones.\n\nWow ok so it's a lot to keep in mind just to take a freaking photograph right? If you just keep this stuff in mind much of it becomes second nature and your process can speed up a lot. Basically think of shutter and aperture and with that think how active is my picture and how much stuff do I want in focus. If I want it more active try to get a higher number for shutter. If I want more stuff in focus try to get a higher aperture number.\n\nNow here's the confusing but actually really simple and useful thing about cameras. All of those numbers for the shutter and aperture are equal. Meaning that if you want the light amount to be EXACTLY the same, you can move the shutter one number in one direction and then move the aperture one number in the other direction and nothing would change. They are linked.\n\nSo we want to take a picture of a waterfall. We get the camera to tell us that the light will be perfect if we use a shutter of 1/100 and aperture of 5.6. Ok well we can use this or tweak it. Both of these settings is sorta middle of the road. Lets say that we want the water to look crisp like it was frozen in time. Well then we'll need to increase the number for the shutter but we don't want to change the light. So we bump up the shutter 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000. Ok this is a really fast shutter now. But now we need to go down 3 for the aperture as well so that the light is equal - 5.6, 4, 2.8 (a note here. depending on the lens these numbers may be different. Don't worry about it. These are just common numbers on lenses). Ok we went up 3 shutters, down 3 apertures. Press the take picture button (shutter release) and boom we have a picture.\n\nNow if we want a water picture with the streaking soft water look then we should go the other direction. Going along as before we can go from 1/100 to 1/60, 1/30, or even more depending on how much streaking you want the water to do. But wait if we start with an aperture of 8 then we can only go to 11 and then 16. That would mean that we'd be stuck with 1/30th of a second and that's not long enough for what I want. Ok no problem. Now change your ISO to a lower number and that will give you additional ability to increase your shutter speed too. \n\nCongratulations - you have now made a conscious decision with your camera. But practice makes perfect.\nBonus: Your camera probably has the option for either shutter priority or aperture priority. This is a shortcut that allows you to pick shutter or aperture and the camera does the rest. This could be a good starting spot for practicing how these affect how a picture looks as an end result.\n\nI'm sorry, this is a beginning camera lesson and not designed for 5 year olds.",
"Manual photography cheat sheet: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kkcwz/eli5_fstop_and_aperture/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ATGP8.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kkcwz/eli5_fstop_and_aperture/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ATGP8.jpg"
]
] |
|
1ds3cq
|
what happened in the malaysian election?
|
I have some friends from Malaysia and lately a lot of them posted things on facebook or twitter like "democracy is dead" or "let's pray for Malaysia." I did some research on my own but I'm still confused. Explain like I'm five, thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ds3cq/eli5_what_happened_in_the_malaysian_election/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9tcvv4",
"c9tdxui"
],
"score": [
14,
10
],
"text": [
"Malaysia just had an election where the current party (Barison National), who have been in government since Malaysia's independence in 1957, risk not being re-elected. \n\nDuring the vote count, multiple blackouts happened at several polling booths which resulted in ballot boxes that hadn't been there before to suddenly appear. Inside the boxes were all votes for Barison National (BN), and they proceeded to maintain majority votes to stay in government.\n\nBN are well known to be corrupt and they've been accused of rigging elections in the past. So there are a lot of disappointed Malaysians. I'm glad I moved out of that country years ago :\\\n\n",
"i try my best to explain in an most objective way possible, please bear with my english. The election we had on 5/5 was full of fraud and dirty tricks. The current party in power Barisan National, BN, against opposition party Pakatan Rakyat (PR) having extremely close match in this election. do you know that Malaysia is the number 1 country for corruption ranking in the world? we are even worse than China, Mexico or indonesia. #1 ranking in cost of running business. #1 rank in money laundering....so people is fed up with the situation and hope for a change.\n\n Before election BN employs state owned media, newspapers, TV channels, radio station, to spread untrue claims against PR. The only channel that is fair on election news is a few online news website , such as _URL_0_. \nFor area that are closely matched, buying votes had been observed, up to Rm6000 per vote had been offered in areas in Penang.\n\nForeigners workers, ie bangladesh myanmars, with government issued fake ID, had been deployed in some areas in busload to vote. Even though we know they are not malaysians, however, they are being registered in the voters database, thus we called them \"phantom voters\".\n\nso the poll results indicates 50.3% of voters vote for PR the opposition while BN only retains 46.3% (while the rest goes to smaller parties), however, the Parliment seats majority had been won by BN due to gerrymandering.\n\nit is suspected that chairman of election commission is also BN member might contribute to the frauds of the election.\n\n\nthus the term democracy is dead.\ni hope i can explain it better.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"Malaysiakini.com"
]
] |
|
2bnzi8
|
how does morgan freeman's voice remain so bassy when he's inhaled helium? (video link in comments)
|
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bnzi8/eli5_how_does_morgan_freemans_voice_remain_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj77fok",
"cj77w4m"
],
"score": [
5,
13
],
"text": [
"It seems like the first couple of comments he didn't inhale very much or didn't empty his lungs first so there was probably fairly little helium mixed in his lungs. The last couple of comments brought it up pretty well.\n\nJust imagine what he'd sound like on sulfur hexafluoride.",
"Morgan Freeman's voice is actually the reverberation of his will inside your own head. He just moves his mouth as a courtesy.\r\n\r\nCitation:\r\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRKVQcbIByo&list=UU8-Th83bH_thdKZDJCrn88g"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5MEJk5ZCQ&index=21&list=PLOHbM4GGWADc5bZgvbivvttAuWGow6h05"
]
] |
|
18au8u
|
why do satellites in space travel in a horizontal shape around it's chosen body?
|
Sorry if the title isn't very clear (or even correct).
Basically, I'm wondering why planets travel around their chosen sun (or moons travel around their chosen planet) in a horizontal pattern close to it's chosen body's equator?
I know some don't travel in an exact round pattern, and some do indeed go slightly diagonal, but generally anything I've seen indicates that they all travel in a mostly horizontal pattern - why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18au8u/eli5_why_do_satellites_in_space_travel_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8d6tcx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"So if I understand what you mean, you're asking what leads to how one thing orbits another. Lets turn this into questions:\n\n* Why do things orbit at a certain distance but not get closer/further?\n\n* Why do things tend to orbit in that horizontal line which is close to the equator line\n\n* Why Saturns [rings](_URL_1_) are all on one horizontal plane \n\n* Why the planets tend to orbit the sun in a [horizontal line](_URL_0_)\n\n\n > Why do things orbit at a certain distance but not get closer/further?\n\nThe first thing we need to understand is angular momentum. In space there's *pretty much* no friction or opposing forces when you 'push' something. So flinging a small metal ball into space it will continue for ages. If that goes past a sun, it will be taken up by the suns orbit. The suns orbit is the effect of its gravitational pull. All matter and bits of things have gravitation pull, things tend to orbit around the sun because it has so much of it densely packed. \n\nAs our ball is effected by the suns orbit there's two forces taking place. The pushing force that we flung our planet forward with, and the suns gravitational pull. Now the initial force of the ball wants to continue onwards in a straight line through space, but the suns orbit is pulling it, with space towards itself. So what may happen is an equilibrium is reached where the amount the object is pushing forwards is enough to withstand being pulled into the sun, but not enough to escape the orbit. Likewise the sun can't pull any more on the object. So they just kind of stay there. \n\nOn earth we have friction which would slow down the object in it's pushing force, which would mean the fragile relationship between the suns orbit and the objects propulsion would give way and the object would fall into the sun. But in space there's no friction (more or less) so it continues for a long time. \n\n > How do solar systems form like this then?\n\nWell what we usually have is a cluster of bits of gasses and chemicals - just general space stuff. All of this stuff has mass so will have bits of gravity. As you can imagine over a long time the gravity of each part pulls on the others. What we usually always end up with is a **flat** pane of stuff. Like a ring of Saturn for example. The reason it's always flat is because of angular momentum. Which basically means all the little bits of pushing and pulling from gravity makes them all kind of end up in this straight pane. You could leave a clump of stuff in space and expect it to be in a disc shape when you come back. The best way to visualise this, is all the bits have their position and gravitational pull initially. But they'll all be pulling on each-other and as a majority end up in one place, they will pull in the others like a snowball effect. \n\nThe reason they don't clump initially into a ball is because no one piece has a dominant pull on the others so they stay spread out in this flat line.\n\nNow, space is full of stuff and a bit of energy may wade into this clump of matter which bring momentum (energy). This is basically like the pushing force from our initial example of the ball we flung towards the sun. This added energy results in more movement between the bits which can create swirls of spinning clumps of matter. These in themselves will pull more matter. Over time the middle will be more dense and can have created the sun and the outer parts creating planets. Now we don't always need a burst of energy to start this off. But because it all started from the same pane (flat line) the clumps will be more or less in line with each other. \n\n > Why does this create planets and suns and not just one big sun?\n\nWell it depends on a load of different things. But generally little bits of matter clumping tend to either wipe the others our by sucking the in. Depending on how that process goes we may be left with a certain amount of planets or no planets. Also certain clumps or even planets may clash together and spurt out again into more matter which goes through the same process again. Like how our moon formed from earth hitting another planet. An important note is that while all the planets orbit the sun, they are also effected by each-others gravity/orbit. This stays true even when they're still juvenile clumps of matter. So in the initial phase the middle clump which will become the sun can't pull the closest clump (which may end up as the closest planet) into it because that clump has it's own force pushing it round in an orbit sidewards away from the sun and other clumps behind it may also be pulling on it.\n\n > Why is the spin (equator) usually in line with the orbiting objects?\n\nIn the stage above where the forces act on the flat plane bits of stuff. It's all aligned at the start so the spin is a result of that. It wouldn't make sense for the energy to make the clump start spinning one way and orbit the other. Whatever causes the orbit direction, also causes the spin. This stays true for the natural way it is created or if an outer burst of energy hit it. You can imagine that if we have some clump of matter in the early stages of a solar system it will be spinning as more bits clump on with momentum. Some bits will bet torn off or left behind but still pulled in that angle - they may later form together to make a planet or moon - which itself would orbit at the same angle as the spin.\n\n\nSorry if I wrote too much, or if the layout or spelling, description was bad. \n\nTLDR: The main thing to realise is that there's nothing really slowing stuff down in space. Once it's pushed or spun it stays like that until it hits something. Understanding that, and that matter has gravity and pulls other matter is key. Get that down and you can almost visualise how different clumps would behave in your head - as easily as you may be able to image the flight of a golf ball after it's hit. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnCz-f49Ef3oA5IMulLgxAfj7EP1ac1qDHmbIfCjgt5z6mHJ2Q2Q",
"https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdpFcL4ChX8qFxvnFzWwdjNJJzhdONo6lCMC0tzBQr9XZmOlPG"
]
] |
|
334o1t
|
why in music videos when everything is in slo-mo do the singers sing in sync with the music?
|
Is is as simple as then playing the music at a faster speed during recording? What's up with that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/334o1t/eli5_why_in_music_videos_when_everything_is_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqhh5xp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yep that's pretty much how its done. Check out the video for [The Scientist](_URL_0_) by Coldplay where the video plays in reverse but the singing is in sync. Chris Martin actually learned to sing the song backwards."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB-RcX5DS5A"
]
] |
|
2g31l9
|
how do birds and small rodents not fry on telephone wires?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g31l9/eli5_how_do_birds_and_small_rodents_not_fry_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckf5swh",
"ckf5t9w",
"ckf7sdx"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They aren't grounded. If they were to touch the wire beside it, or a guide wire while walking/perching, ZAP!",
"Electricity has a tendency to pass through things with lower electrical resistance rather than things with higher resistance. The resistance in a copper wire is much less than the resistance in a bird's or squirrel's leg, so given a path that takes a current through a creature or a wire, electricity will do the latter, and so the bird or squirrel remains safe if it's touching or running along only one wire.\n\nBut the exception is when electricity is completing a circuit. When you have enough of a charge to actually overcome the resistance that air has (which is easier when that distance is very short), the electric charge will jump from source to destination to complete the circuit, and you get a spark. Static electricity zaps when you get your finger close to a doorknob, or lightning that completes a circuit between cloud and ground through the air are both examples of this. \n\nSay you have two telephone-pole wires that deliver current to your household circuits, and they are a foot or so apart. Normally there's not enough of a charge for the current to leap the gap. But put a fat squirrel in there or have a raven touch both wires and suddenly there's a less resistant overall path between the two wires. The current passes through the creature's body, frying it, and often knocking out power delivery to our homes in the process.\n\n",
"Well, telephone lines do not carry enough current to fry anything. \n\nAs to why they are not killed by electrical lines, it is because they do not complete a current. If they touch two wires at once or ground themselves they do get fried. In fact birds or squirrels getting electrocuted is a fairly common cause for electrical outages. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2bpmkq
|
why is it that most new cars always have their headlights on even during the middle of the day?
|
It's not even necessary and seems like it would waste energy
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bpmkq/eli5why_is_it_that_most_new_cars_always_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj7n2ve",
"cj7ne3h",
"cj7ov2l",
"cj7ow7t"
],
"score": [
11,
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It helps oncoming cars see you from much farther away.",
"These are called \"Running Lights.\" They are designed to give your vehicle more visibility. All motorcycles had these before cars did for the very same reason. \n \nThey are also there in case you're driving and it gets dark and you forget to turn on your lights. However, they are not a substitute for not turning on your headlights because your parking lights are not controlled by your running lights (Unless you have an Auto setting that does it for you). \n \nThey are near impossible permanently disable. However there are ways to turn them off. My car requires you to have the parking brake on before I start the car. My ex's car simply required you to initiate the parking brake to turn them off. Both vehicles required you to be in Park for this to happen.",
"They are Daytime Running Lights. It was found that there was a reduction of daytime accidents if people drove with their lights on. Cars are less likely to pull out in front of an oncoming car with lights on. Also, in conditions of bright sun and shade along a tree-line oncoming cars can be hard to see. In the USA only the front lights are on, sometimes dimmed from night brightness level. In Scandinavia both headlights and taillights are used during day and night.\n\nSome people don't like them due the reduction in bulb life and theoretical energy usage. ",
"It's also obligatory in some EU countries and probably other countries around the world to have your light on even during day. The reasons why this makes sense are already covered in other comments."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7ftllp
|
what would happen if 2 supercomputers played chess at against each other? would the game end in seconds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ftllp/eli5_what_would_happen_if_2_supercomputers_played/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqeb21g",
"dqeb93c",
"dqebzzl",
"dqedb1a",
"dqegtqs",
"dqeomhe",
"dqeq3qv"
],
"score": [
38,
7,
5,
11,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, that'll depend on how \"supercomputer\" they are. Are they so super that these hypothetical computers can solve the game? Then yes, it could be over in seconds. \n\nWith conventional computers and the best chess engines right now, we are far from solving the game and it would take as much time as the engine believes necessary to think.\n\nThe vast majority of games will be draws. What aren't draws will be White wins. There will be very few, if any, black wins.",
"This has been tried.\n\nChess computers may move quickly if the right move is obvious, or may take many seconds to evaluate millions or even billions of scenarios if the right move is not obvious.",
"You can specify how much time the AIs get/how many moves they should look ahead. Some AIs use the number of moves to look ahead as one factor, or the factor in how difficult they are. I have seen a Flash game where they stated something like Easy difficulty looks 2 moves ahead, Medium looks 4 moves ahead, Hard looks 6 moves ahead, etc.\n\nYou very well could have a game that ends in seconds, or a fraction of a second if you wanted, they just probably wouldn't play as well as they could potentially given more time. Some AIs train themselves by basically playing many games against themselves very rapidly. The [genetic algorithm](_URL_0_) is one way to train an AI.",
"There is lots of terrible speculation about how computers play chess here. Chess isn't solved, so we do not know what perfect play is and which side should win, if either. You can go on YouTube and watch computer tournaments. They play with similar time controls to humans, though often what a human would call rapid or quick play (10-30 minutes a side). Each engine is different and will play different moves in the same position, due to the different algorithms the programmers used. Think about it, a computer calculating for 1 minute will get further than a computer calculating for 1 second, so why waste the time given by only using a second or 2.\n\nThe biggest difference is that computers will play moves that look \"ugly\" or break guidelines because they have been able to calculate an exact sequence a human would likely not even consider.\n\nIn addition, computer tournaments often have preset openings to create some varity. No human could play ever obscure variation of every opening, but a computer can and that adds some interest rather than seeing the same exact \"best\" opening everytime.\n\nTl;dr: 2 computers playing chess will use the time they have given as they see fit. If the game gives an hour to play, it will likely be an hour game. If it is a 10 minute game it will take 10 minutes, the same as a human player.",
"Depends what program these computers run, and on what settings. Your cell phone would beat Deep Blue if it ran one of the modern chess AIs, despite Deep Blue being a supercomputer and your cell phone being a cell phone. Your cell phone not only has less processing power than Deep Blue, but Deep Blue also had the system designed to evaluate chess positions more efficiently so actually the difference would be way bigger than just the numbers would indicate. But because the program your cell phone runs is way better, all that doesn't matter.\n\nAlso, each program has to set its own rules for time management. If you set it to play one move per 0.01s, game would be over in less than 1s. Even your cell phone could do this, but it would play very poorly as a result. The same holds for all computers, the more time it has, the better it plays. So the question becomes, how well you want it to play?",
"Simplifying some other posts a bit:\n\n- Computers so far haven't calculated every possible sequence of moves, and aren't able to do that in an instant.\n\n- Since they haven't, they will spend time thinking ahead. First they take each possible move of each piece right now, then try to look ahead each possible countermove, and each possible move in response to that, etc. \n\n- The exact priority and what they \"think most about\" will depend on the algorithm\n\n- The move most likely to produce a favorable outcome as far down the line as it has been thinking, is chosen\n\n- Hence, computer chess wouldn't really be fast, it would really be as slow as possible, i.e. they would use as much thinking time as they are given.",
"Chess computers think about their moves for as long as they are programmed to. \n\nTwo of them could finish a game in seconds, but there is no particular reason why they would have to. [One of the groups](_URL_0_) that tracks the strength of the top computers has them play each other at a rate of about one move a minute."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/"
]
] |
||
9uhfvq
|
constant-velocity transmissions (cvt's)
|
I'm having trouble trying to grasp the idea from the wikipedia page, if it really just an elastic band and 2 pulleys, that would overdrive and higher speeds impossible, is there something i'm missing out on here? can the output pulley change size based on acceleration or something? i just can't imagine a car with a CVT screaming its way down a highway while wearing its own engine out and guzzling lots of fuel as a result.
PS: I made a mistake, i should of said "Constantly-Variable" instead of "Constant-Velocity"
Also, why do the Japanese favor them over standard transmissions
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9uhfvq/eli5_constantvelocity_transmissions_cvts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e949k4a"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Think of the chainrings on a bicycle. The front rings get larger as you move out from the frame, while the rear gets smaller.\n\nAs you move the chain from the inner rings to the outer rings, the gearing changes, increasing the ratio.\n\nThis is essentially what a CVT does, but rather than discrete \"Steps\", the chain slides back and forth on a pair of cones that are opposite each other... Where one is small, the other is large.\n\nWhen the powered cone has the chain on the small part, and the output cone has the chain over the large part, it is in a low gear. As the chain hits the middle, you are in 1:1, and as the chain slides to the other side, you are in overdrive. (Overdrive just means that the ratio is greater than 1:1, that is 1 revolution of the engine = more than 1 revolution of the wheels)\n\nThis isn't \"exactly\" how CVT's work, but it's close enough to give you a working concept.\n\nEdit to add: Here is a good animation of the idea:\n\n_URL_0_ Note how the speed of the output changes as the chain moves back and forth.\n\nEdited a second time:\n\nIt's not just Japanese manufacturers.\n\nInternal Combustion Engines have a specific rotational speed (RPM) at which they are most efficient. With a traditional transmission, the engine will only be running at this RPM for one speed in each gear in the transmission, which is unlikely to be the speed you are actually travelling. With a CVT, there is a wide range of speed to RPM match. This improves fuel efficiency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wpK-LDvtuc"
]
] |
|
ch2sit
|
why do companies buy our information and how is it valuable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ch2sit/eli5_why_do_companies_buy_our_information_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"euoaaw3"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Same answer to both questions - because they want to sell you stuff.\n\nComputer software has advanced to the point that crunching enormous piles of data and getting real actionable insights is pretty easy. As an example - Target's analytics were so good that they started sending maternity oriented coupons to a 16 year old girl. Her father sued the company... only to find out that the girl was in fact pregnant. *They figured it out just by looking at what she was buying.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
lgn4j
|
can someone explain me what the executive order 13303 is all about?
|
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13303: IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
CHOOSING CORPORATIONS OVER HUMAN RIGHTS?
[Edit1]
Welll.... I dont know how to refrase te question, My dad was talking about
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13303 & how this was an order is designed to immunize U.S. corporations for any activity, including environmental damage and even human rights, undertaken while operating in Iraq.
But thats about all I understood. has somebody brought this up? In the senate? in the media? How is this possible?
Please some one with deep insight that can explain me this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lgn4j/eli5_can_someone_explain_me_what_the_executive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2siy9y",
"c2siy9y"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Thirteen-three-oh-three is like seven years old, and was mooted like five years ago. Can you explain the question, please?",
"Thirteen-three-oh-three is like seven years old, and was mooted like five years ago. Can you explain the question, please?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7c30qh
|
where and why do you use the i, the imaginary number ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c30qh/eli5where_and_why_do_you_use_the_i_the_imaginary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpmrmoe",
"dpmsr02",
"dpmuh2x"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Dynamics and circuits, as well as process dynamics are major points.\n\nBasically anywhere that feedback exists and you need to calculate it you will incorporate i into your calculations. ",
"One common one is AC circuits with capacitors and inductors.\n\nIf you've got a circuit with a bunch of resistors, 4 caps, and 3 inductors you can solve it with a 7th order differential equations, that'll probably take a few days, or you can use \"phasors\" which uses i to represent phase shifts due to the caps and inductors. This let's you just add, subtract, multiply, and divide complex numbers(a+bi) to solve it. You can do this in minutes and not hate your life\n\nComplex numbers are used for cyclical events like AC circuits or Dynamics in mechanical systems",
"Copying an earlier reply of mine:\n\nFirst of all, I hate the name \"imaginary\" numbers, because it leads to all kinds of confusion where the concept is actually quite simple.\n\nStarting with counting numbers: 1,2,3...\n\nBut what if you want to have numbers in between? Does that make sense? Well, we could do 1/2, or 13/29 or 2353/3535 or whatever *rational number* you want, because we are extending the system in useful ways.\n\nFor centuries there was extensive debate over whether zero or negative numbers really \"existed\". It seemed meaningless to talk about having \"less than none\" of something.\n\nBut regardless of philosophy, negative numbers are *useful*. If zero is sea level, land is positive, underwater is negative. How could bank balances work without negative numbers? Nobody could keep track of credits and debts.\n\nA greek mathematician was (according to legend) drowned for showing that *irrational* numbers existed, that there were numbers (like the square root of 2) that could not be expressed as a ratio of two integers (counting numbers). His \"friends\" could not bring themselves to believe that such numbers existed, even when faced with incontrovertible proof that they did. But such irrational numbers are extraordinarily useful, the square roots of non-square numbers, pi, e, all of these are irrational, and I bet you know that a circle's area is pi*r^2. Bam, irrational number being useful\n\nWhich brings us to Imaginary numbers. Simply put, imaginary numbers are another useful way to extend our number system. Negative numbers let you solve x+2=0. Imaginary numbers let you solve x^2 + 2=0.\n\nImaginary numbers, and real numbers are the two starting sets that when combined make up *complex numbers* which are simply real and imaginary numbers added together. \n\nGenerally, complex numbers of the form a+bi are visualized as coordinates on the [complex plane](_URL_3_) more like (a,bi). This plane has real and imaginary axis, and all complex numbers can be expressed as a location along those two axis. \n\nThis is mathematically interesting in and of itself, for instance squaring a complex number tends to rotate it in the complex plane, and playing around with where numbers rotate to, and how far away from the origin (the zero point where the axis cross) you can get some [interesting pictures](_URL_1_) with some very [interesting properties](_URL_4_)\n\nBut enough high concept and abstract math, how about some real-world applications?\n\nImaginary numbers are used very often in various applications in physics. Much of the usefulness comes from Euler's Forumla:\n\ne^ix = Cos(x)+i*Sin(x)\n\nThis means that you can express something that moves in a wave or cycle like a sinusoidal function as an exponential function. Often one or the other of those is easier to work with mathematically, so you can freely transform back and fourth.\n\nFor example, the [Schrodinger Equation](_URL_0_) which describes how quantum ~~particles~~ waves move, is formulated with imaginary numbers in it \n\nDepending on the specific situation, solutions to this equation may either travel indefinitely--in which case the sin/cos terms describing a traveling wave are used--or die out, where exponential decay is used instead. \n\nAnother interesting example is refractive index, which describes how light interacts with matter. Most normal materials have a positive refractive index, meaning that light bends [like this](_URL_2_) when traveling through the material. \n\nSome exotic materials have negative indices of refraction, meaning that the angles in that picture would be on the other side of the center line.\n\nFurthermore, you can have a positive imaginary reactive index, which when you work it out (I did this problem in a physics class last year :P) means that the material is absorbing light, and not all of the light that goes in comes back out.\n\nFinally, you can have a negative imaginary index, meaning that the light that goes in becomes brighter when it comes out, which sounds strange, but that is exactly what happens in a laser.\n\nThere are many more examples of real-life applications of imaginary numbers, you just have to know where to look. \n\nOnce again, imaginary numbers were invented because they are *useful*. You'd be surprised how many real-world advancements were made because some crazy math guy came up with a bizarre new idea."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://blog.michaelgaio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Schrodinger_equation.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg",
"http://www.pharology.eu/resources/AngleRefraction2.jpg",
"http://pirate.shu.edu/~wachsmut/complex/numbers/graphics/plane.gif",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set"
]
] |
||
5v1lbo
|
why do people tend to get more cynical as they get older?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v1lbo/eli5_why_do_people_tend_to_get_more_cynical_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddyj90r",
"ddyjdwr",
"ddykuz8",
"ddym14r",
"ddypagt"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Old people have experience to draw on and tend to be more cautious as they have more to protect. As a result they know many ways things can go wrong as they have seen it happen before. I would counter that people don't get more cynical as they get old, they get less naive.",
"The hopes and dreams of youth get shot down over and over again. People disappoint you over and over again. Bureaucracy steps in one time to many to ruin your plans. You start to see how long it takes the wheels of progress to turn. Your plans to save the world fail and you learn that you can't save some people. World peace becomes a more and more distant dream. ",
"Old people build up a vast knowledge base of experience. They are no longer as open minded, because they have a large amount of evidence and personal experience about what is true and what is not.",
"History repeats itself. Older people are witness to small-scale-history, so they recognise repetition and know that the new gee-wiz thing isn't. ",
"Smarter people get more cynical. People who aren't smart don't get more cynical no matter how old they are"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2zwpnj
|
if heat doesn't conduct in outer space, how do objects like the iss stay cool enough to sustain life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zwpnj/eli5_if_heat_doesnt_conduct_in_outer_space_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpmysf7",
"cpn35fo"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"heat can radiate, even in a vacuum (if it didn't, the Earth would be a frozen rock).",
"NASA has a document written by Boeing & mdash; [Active Thermal Control\nSystem (ATCS) Overview](_URL_1_) & mdash; that describes the heat rejection elements as \"radiators\" and says:\n\n > Each panel has a white (Z-93) coating which provides optimum thermo-optical properties to maximize heat rejection.\n\nThe description of the \"Heat Rejection System\" starts on page 14 and shows one of the radiator assemblies, which seem to match the accordion-folded white panels in [this picture of the ISS](_URL_0_) (stolen from /u/murdoc517's response).\n\nSo, as others have said, while there's nothing to conduct heat away from the ISS, it can still radiate heat, which is exactly what it does, by conducting heat inside the ISS infrastructure, taken to radiators, where the energy transfer due to radiation is optimized."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/99SKJLH.jpg",
"http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/473486main_iss_atcs_overview.pdf"
]
] |
||
99udnn
|
why did the venezuelan bolívar crash?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99udnn/eli5_why_did_the_venezuelan_bolívar_crash/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4qjhmp",
"e4qju9v"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Venezuela is an oil state and tied their economy and currency to their oil production, which became unprofitable when oil prices dipped. \n\nThey also have a highly managed economy and seized private businesses that exasperated the problem. ",
"Repost from yesterday:\n\nBasically what happened was an over reliance on oil exports to fund the government revenue stream. Once they lost that due to US Shale Drilling, the government had to borrow massive amounts of money to fund their policies, including a massive subsidy on oil. In fact you can still get $0.01 / gallon of oil in Venezuela now.\n\nThe government started creating more money to pay off its debts, leading to massive inflation since the number of currency went up exponentially.\n\nIn a very foolish and misguided attempt to rectify this, the government implemented price controls. They stated that all prices must not rise beyond a set level, set way below what was actually feasible.\n\nInstead of selling things at a massive loss, stores made the logical decision to stop buying goods and the economy began to collapse even further. Right now you are physically unable to buy/steal anything in Venezuela, who cares about inflation at this point.\n\nThe economy is completely trashed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4gqlv2
|
how does a small child know intuitively that, for instance, a chihuahua and an irish wolfhound are both dogs when they look so different?
|
A chihuahua probably looks more like a cat than it does like an Irish wolfhound, but it seems like our brains have a pretty good grasp on this kind of pattern recognition (and I know that this is something computers are completely terrible at).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gqlv2/eli5_how_does_a_small_child_know_intuitively_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2jutq3",
"d2jv8xm",
"d2jvjfh"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"By the time a child could be asked to reliably identify a dog, society has presented them with thousands of images of various dogs, with something to relating to being a dog (bark sound, someone saying dog, a cartoon bone, etc.)",
"Humans, from the moment we're born, are natural pattern detectors. We naturally group similar things together.\n\nIn your example the kid likely was first exposed to dogs, so for a while they may have perceived both cats and dogs as dogs. Experience will help refine those categories as the child grows. ",
"A small child would absolutely *not* instinctively know that. \n\nA small child that knows what a dog is in general (say, they grew up with a golden retriever) will recognise similar dogs as a dog but might not recognise a chihuahua, or a yorkie, or anything radically different as a dog. \n\nA small child might also recognise anything even *remotely* dog-like as a dog. Like a cat or a horse. \n\nOnce a child grows up enough to learn that there are different kinds of dogs, and different kinds of animals, they can learn to distinguish better and recognise similarities more. \n\nBut this is 100% *learned* and not *at all* instinctive. \n\nHell, actual *scientists* have problems with this stuff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3zsi1q
|
what is the difference between an a bomb and an h bomb?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zsi1q/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_an_a_bomb_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyooixe",
"cyooxa2"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"An atomic bomb usually refers to a nuclear weapon composed of fissile material such as uranium or plutonium. This is a fission weapon. It is detonated by a collection of conventional high-explosives surrounding the radioactive core.\n\nA hydrogen bomb is still a nuclear weapon, but fusion based. Hydrogen is not radioactive, but with a tremendous amount of energy, it can start a fusion reaction, similar to what is happening at the core of the Sun, resulting in an explosion even greater than atomic bombs. The tremendous amount of energy can only be achieved by atomic bombs. So, while an atomic bomb is trigger by high-explosives like TNT, a hydrogen bomb is trigged by small atomic bombs surrounding the hydrogen core.",
"An atomic bomb is based on splitting Uranium or Plutonium. The heavy nuclei in these atoms can be split to release energy: splitting = fission. Having a big enough mass is required and the trick is to use conventional explosives to bring this mass together very quickly.\n\nA hydrogen bomb is based on joining hydrogen (isotope) nuclei together to create helium which releases energy: joining = fusion. The trick here is that fusion requires such extreme temperatures and pressure that you need an atomic bomb to make a hydrogen bomb work.\n\nEarly on I understand there was hope for a conventionally triggered hydrogen bomb (i.e., no need for an atomic bomb trigger) and these may have been relatively clean with respect to fallout. Apparently it turned out to be harder than expected, just like fission-based power plants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1tb7dr
|
where does creativity come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tb7dr/eli5_where_does_creativity_come_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce6729v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In an evolutionary sense, creativity was developed to improve hunting and survival techniques. I would imagine. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1gbow3
|
nikola tesla's plan on making electricity free, and if that happened how that would be possible in today's society of electrical consumption.
|
Please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gbow3/eli5_nikola_teslas_plan_on_making_electricity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caio7vo",
"caipx1t",
"caiu4p3"
],
"score": [
24,
9,
19
],
"text": [
"Tesla was working on wireless energy transmission but even he realised that such a large scale deployment was impossibly inefficient.",
"Tesla likely never realized the scale of modern electrical machines and the infrastructure required to run such machines. Tesla knew that rotational motion could make AC current. The world ran on rotational motion, saw mills, grain mills and the like, but the tech doesn't transfer like that. Sure a water wheel can run a bit of current, but electricity is so prevalent now, the scale just could not be imagined, it was a bit of a pipe dream really.",
"Tesla idea of \"free\" was a wireless delivery system that would have provided electricity without having to run wires to every single house and business. He never meant it would have been free to produce."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
23xc4x
|
tv judge shows. (i.e. judge judy / judge mathis)
|
How does it all work? They claim that they are legit and that the verdicts are legally binding. I have a few specific questions:
1. How can cases from different states be tried in their court?
2. How are the Judges compensated? Do they work for a specific county/city/state? Or are they just paid by the network / advertising?
3. Are the cases filmed on a set or an actual courtroom in a courthouse?
4. Are the bailiffs real officers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23xc4x/eli5_tv_judge_shows_ie_judge_judy_judge_mathis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch1hd2x",
"ch1i7pt"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text": [
"For one, these are civil cases only. They are binding because both parties agree to settle out of (actual) court, and a condition of that settlement is abiding by the ruling of the TV judge. So the actual civil case is already done by the time they go to TV court.\n\nEveryone is paid by the network. This includes defendants and plaintiffs. Whichever way the decision goes, neither the defendant nor plaintiff actually *pays* any money, the \"penalty\" is paid for by the network. This is why even absurdly one-sided cases go to TV courts. For the cost of being bitched at by Judge Judy, you get your penalty paid for.\n\nBailiffs, like pretty much everyone else on screen, are paid actors.",
"The Judges on TV are simply arbitrators. Both parties sign an arbitration agreement and the decisions are final."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1ycsoc
|
what makes gifs with bars on them look 3d? (example inside)
|
Sorry if the title doesn't do a good job of asking what I am talking about.
Here are examples of what I am talking about: _URL_0_
I mean the gifs that have 3 white (or sometimes black) bars on them that give a 3D look to them
Thank you for your help! Have a nice day :)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ycsoc/eli5_what_makes_gifs_with_bars_on_them_look_3d/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfjbesj",
"cfjbf3h",
"cfjbszd"
],
"score": [
3,
15,
7
],
"text": [
"Really wide angle lenses (very close to the final position of the nearest object) means the object is going to appear very large when it finishes moving. The bars mark a virtual surface that your brain adds more significance to the depth. ",
"The bars serve as a point of reference. When the object that looks like its coming out of the screen covers up a bar or part of a bar your brain automatically infers it as being closer than the bar. This point of reference provided by the bars give the picture depth.",
"Your brain uses a lot of cues to figure out how far away something is. The biggest one that gets quoted a lot is \"parallax,\" which is the apparent motion you get when you move a little way from side to side (or from one eye to the other). To see parallax hold your thumb out at arms length and look at something in the distance; close one eye then the other and notice how your thumb covers a different thing. Your brain can see that and interpret it to find distance pretty nicely. That is something that is hard to reproduce on a screen (it's the thing that most 3D movies add--they use some device to let each eye see a different picture in the same area of the screen. That's not the effect that's at play here, though.\n\nOther cues include things like apparent size--close things look bigger than far-away things (and you have a pretty good idea of how big many things are). You also can use focus--hold out your thumb again and focus on it; notice how the background gets blurry (and goes into double vision if both of your eyes are open). Focus on the far-away things and see how your thumb goes blurry. Your brain can also use this to judge distance. These effects are in play in all at play in these gifs, but they're also at play in gifs without the bars.\n\nThe big cue that's being used for this illusion is called occlusion--put simply, if something is in front of something else then it covers it up. This is an important cue for things that you cannot judge the distance to by other means--if it's too far away to use focus or parallax and you don't know its real size to judge based on its apparent size then you can see that it's farther away than some things (because those things cover up part of your ability to see the object in question) but closer than others (because it covers those things up). This at least allows you to place things in order of distance; if you knew the actual size of some of those objects then you can nail down the distance to an unknown object pretty easily.\n\nThis gets abused in the gifs, though. Your brain assumes that the black bars are at the same distance as the screen, then suddenly part of the gif gets in front of it! For that instant your brain has to resolve the conflicting distance measurements--parallax and focus say the object is at the same distance as the screen, but occlusion, size, and (if the director guessed where you were going to be looking correctly) focus say that it is jumping out of the screen. If you go with the second set of indicators then you wind up with a 3D effect. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/gallery/fNuq5"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2v4zsw
|
even in dreams where i know i'm dreaming, why do i still have trouble making myself fly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v4zsw/eli5_even_in_dreams_where_i_know_im_dreaming_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coehgs0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What you are talking about is called \"Lucid dreaming\".\n\nOnly a small percentage of people can naturally have lucid dreams. It is possible, however, to train your self to do this.\n\nThis article may be of some assistance to you.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wikihow.com/Lucid-Dream"
]
] |
||
33hp3h
|
maturity
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33hp3h/eli5_maturity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqkyja3",
"cql2jjd"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"no one knows till it happens.. either it has or it hasnt..",
"Clarification needed -- are you asking about physical maturity, or the state of mind that high schoolers are so obsessed with?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
59c958
|
why do we wear rings on the "ring finger"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59c958/eli5_why_do_we_wear_rings_on_the_ring_finger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d97c979"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"From Wikipedia:\n\n > Before medical science discovered how the circulatory system functioned, people believed that a vein ran directly from the fourth finger on the left hand to the heart. Because of the hand–heart connection, they chose the descriptive name vena amoris, Latin for the vein of love, for this particular vein.\n\n > Based upon this name, their contemporaries, purported experts in the field of matrimonial etiquette, wrote that it would only be fitting that the wedding ring be worn on this finger. By wearing the ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, a married couple symbolically declares their eternal love for each other."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6afe5f
|
why is it quicker for me to copy and paste a link from ms word to my browser than for me to click on it in word and have it open in the browser?
|
What are the technical steps that cause Word to slow down exporting the link?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6afe5f/eli5why_is_it_quicker_for_me_to_copy_and_paste_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhe6cu1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you clivk a link in any program other than a browser, you are asking it to take extra steps. It has to process the command, open the browser and search. Copying a string of text is simple, so if your browser is already open, pasting it in and hitting enter is like skipping to the last step. \n\nIt's kind of like asking someone to run across the road to get a cup and can poor coffee into it so you can drink, when you already have a cup next to you so you can just poor it yourself and drink before they get back."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1cjgm9
|
why does my 21 inch led monitor support 1080p but my 32 inch led tv only does 720p?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cjgm9/eli5_why_does_my_21_inch_led_monitor_support/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9h2hno",
"c9h2kbe",
"c9h3ahy"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the size of the \"dots\" used to make the image. Ideally, the dots are so small you can't see each individual one... the bigger a TV gets though, the more spread out the dots get, so the more likely you are to see them, which is why it matters what resolution your TV supports.\n\n1080p means that there are 1080 rows of dots. 720p means there are 720 rows.",
"The pixels in your monitor are much smaller then those found in a TV. Try turning on your TV and sitting as close to it as you do a computer monitor and you will see the difference. \n\nThus your computer screen be a higher resolution despite being smaller dimensions wise. ",
"You are meant to sit closer to your monitor than you are to your TV, therefore resolution matters more on a monitor than it does on a TV.\n\nThat being said, there are several models of 32\" TVs that support 1080p perfectly fine. One that only goes up to 720p is a cheaper model, or several years old."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7dlfjh
|
when and why did saluting start in the military?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dlfjh/eli5_when_and_why_did_saluting_start_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpyku9m",
"dpykx1p",
"dpym2wo",
"dpymjqe",
"dpymt7i"
],
"score": [
14,
74,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A long long time ago, middle ages. The \"salute\" originated out of people lifting the facial armor in order to reveal ones identity to another.",
"I've never looked into the validity of it, but what I was told while I was in the service is that it dates back to the time of medieval jousters raising the faceplates on their helmets as a sign of respect to each other. When they flip it up, it put their hand up into the position that we recognize as a salute today",
"An unsatisfying answer sadly, but nobody knows.\n\nSee [this post](_URL_0_) on /r/AskHistorians by /u/TheJucheisLoose\n\n > There are a variety of competing theories for the origin of the modern salute, but the truth is that [nobody really knows](_URL_1_).\n\n > **Potential Origin Stories**\n\n > There are a variety of potentially apocryphal origins of salutes. \n\n > * The most common is that it derived from the tradition of armored knights lifting the visors of their helmets so that they could properly identify themselves to their peers or give respect to their enemies. There is no historical evidence that this is the case however, and the practice of heraldry would seem to suggest that identification was an issue that had been chosen to be handled through symbology.\n\n > * Another potential origin was that it came from the practice of \"doffing the hat\" to officers by seamen in the navies of Western Europe. Called \"making obeisance,\" this practice dates back to at least the early 18th Century, where we know that sailors and soldiers were remanded not to remove their head covers entirely in the presence of officers, but merely to \"clap up their hands to their hats and bow as they pass.\" It may have been that because sailors hands were often dirty, they tried to avoid displaying these to officers (or to avoid dirtying their hats), and so they merely placed their hands up to their heads, palms down. Alternatively, the British-style salute would suggest that sailors had some reason for showing their palms to others, but we don't know. At any rate, by the late 18th Century, average seamen (and to a lesser extent, soldiers) did not wear brimmed hats (or any hats at all), so they needed something to approximate the gesture, sans cover.\n\n > * Still another potential origin story is that the modern salute originated from the Roman salute. Traditionally, we think of the Romans as having made a classic motion where they placed their fist to their hearts and then extended their arms straight out, palm down (which the Nazis famously ripped off), but, like many Roman gestures (including the famous *pollice verso*), we don't know exactly how the Roman salute looked. It may have had an element of touching the head, or the stiff-armed salute may have simply been transferred upwards. \n\n > * Finally, the salute may have originated in the raising of the sword hilt up to the forehead before a sword duel/fight, or the raising of the lance hilt the same way before a joust. If this is the case, saluting as we know it would be very old, indeed.",
"If anyone wants to, there’s a clip in *The Last Castle* where Robert Redford explains the origins of saluting to Mark Ruffalo. It quickly and accurately summarizes saluting and its origins. I’m on mobile or else I’d find it. \n\nBut it comes from medieval times. They’d raise their visors and reveal who they were before battle. ",
"I was always told that there are a lot of theories but it dates back so far that no one really knows for sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1oplzu/-/ccurfs7",
"http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/history/vignettes/respect1.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
4648ii
|
the significance of a supreme court appointment
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4648ii/eli5_the_significance_of_a_supreme_court/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d029n5p",
"d029roo",
"d02a70i"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That justice serves until death and can swing how the court interprets constitutionality, potentially impacting just about any statute the government passes.",
"Justices are appointed for life and make decisions on the constitutionality of laws in the US. For a recent example, it was the justices of the supreme court that ruled that bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. Thus allowing it nation-wide.",
"Supreme Court justices serve until death, retirement, or (much more rarely) impeachment. That means that appointing a justice will have a large effect on the country's direction for up to several decades, as their philosophy has a guaranteed spot on the bench regardless of how popular or unpopular their personal opinions are.\n\nThis particular appointment is especially significant due to the current state of the Court - 4 justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) are more liberal, while 4 (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy) are more conservative. Scalia was considered the most conservative member of the Court, which gave us a makeup of 5-4 leaning conservative.\n\nIf Obama has an appointment confirmed before he leaves office, or if the next President is a Democrat, we're likely to see a shift to 5-4 towards the liberal side, which hasn't been the case on the Court in decades. So naturally, the Republican party has vowed to make that difficult or impossible, hoping that they can win the White House and make an appointment early next year, keeping the Court 5-4 leaning conservative.\n\nThis is possibly shaping up to be the most important political event of the year, possibly even dwarfing the election, given the long time that this appointment could continue to affect US law. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1m6f7t
|
how do governments transfer money to each other?
|
Is it actual cash, a giant novelty cheque, wire transfer? Who authorizes it and where does it go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m6f7t/eli5_how_do_governments_transfer_money_to_each/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc67o4m",
"cc6h4om"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What context are you talking about? Are you referring to donations like aid, or more like purchasing foreign bonds?",
"Possible with direct money transfer , from one national finance institution to another (say from the [Deutsche Bundesbank](_URL_1_) to the [Bank of Greece](_URL_0_),who both also used to print money before the Euro)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Greece",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bundesbank"
]
] |
|
3emhwe
|
how is it that my cellphone gps can still show my live position on a map if i lose cell reception?
|
how can it possibly know where I am if I'm not connected to their network?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3emhwe/eli5how_is_it_that_my_cellphone_gps_can_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctgbycf",
"ctgbze4"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"GPS does not have anything to do with your cell reception its a seperate radio that communicates with GPS satellites. Your phone talks to at least 3 of them to pinpoint itself and tell you where you are. This is how you can have signal and no GPS and vice versa. \n\nYour phone can also use tower triangulation to figure out your location if need be.\n",
"Your GPS knows it's location based on delays in communication with satellites, not cell towers. The map that your position is marked on uses your cellular data to load that GPS information in a way that is meaningful to you. The map itself can be cached which means it's accessible without needing a live connection. This isn't as useful as caching something like music which is static because when you're moving the map must continually be updated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fkrxhw
|
why does being horny make you act impulsively?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fkrxhw/eli5_why_does_being_horny_make_you_act_impulsively/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fkue5km",
"fkuey60",
"fkugvcu"
],
"score": [
30,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Hormones released during sexual arousal over ride the logic part of your brain and instead you are focused on satisfying that sexual need regardless of how irrational your actions are.",
"If you behaved perfectly rationally, you'd never get anything done. If you want to eat and procreate, you'll need to take some risks.\n\nThat's why your brain is very good at tricking and manipulating you. You risk physical danger because bad things won't happen to you, you're too good/careful/capable etc.\n\nAnd just like that, arousal makes sure you're willing to take a risk and put yourself out there for another person doing silly things to impress them. It'll make sure you're willing to get all smelly, sweaty, wet, and silly slapping your flesh against someone else while making silly faces without disgusting yourself.",
"Well not being horny, per se, but the promise of gratification from the state of horniness.\nDopamine, \"pleasure hormone\", is released during the state of being horny and after its gratification. It is a hormone that is part of the reward system in the brain.\nMeaning, while horny induced dopamine is swimming in your brain, you'll be more reward oriented. Doing risky things for the reward: gratification. \nHope this helps.\nAlso, blood flow to the brain becomes limited esp in males since you need that blood to maintain erection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5gvk8x
|
how do babies (humans or animals) know to start breathing and open their eyes after birth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gvk8x/eli5_how_do_babies_humans_or_animals_know_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"davekzt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When a baby is inside the womb of the mother, he gets oxygen from the placenta attached on the womb (uterus) connected by the umbilical cord. Once the baby is delivered and the umbilical cord is cut from the baby, he needs to get oxygen by himself. Breathing is involuntary, well partially. You can control your breathing but only on some extent. Breathing is a normal mechanism done by the body if it senses that it needs oxygen. When a baby is born, it cant control his breathing yet (as to what adults can do). That is how he starts breathing, it is like, you cant kill yourself if you stopped breathing, because your body will grasp for air, unless you are strangled. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
27vl44
|
why are there yearly limits in place for 401k and ira contributions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27vl44/eli5_why_are_there_yearly_limits_in_place_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci4sbf1",
"ci4sz6j"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because contributions are tax deductible and returns are generally pretty decent. If there were no limit the wealthy would stuff them with millions of dollars and the government wouldn't see a dime.",
"People use those investments types to put off paying taxes. By placing a limit, we insure that tax revenues don't shrink. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1zjcfx
|
what is it when someone is stuck in a dream/nightmare, and is aware of it, and is experiencing both sleep and awake states?
|
If someone with a history of insomnia and nightmares is having a dream/nightmare, but they are aware of it, i.e. they know they are dreaming and cannot wake up, and can in fact speak and communicate that fact...what's this called?
(It's not sleep paralysis, as the person could move, and it's not merely sleeptalking as this went on for nigh on 5 hours)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zjcfx/eli5what_is_it_when_someone_is_stuck_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfu5dhd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I had this when i was younger. I would wake up crying and keep going in and out of the dream even when i was sitting up and my mum was holding me. I think its called psychosis? Sorry this doesn't really tell you much. Just a first hand experience."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7i1zuc
|
how does scaling to 1440p work?(upscaling/downscaling from 1080p/4k)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i1zuc/eli5_how_does_scaling_to_1440p/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqvhwsw",
"dqvi5pu"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"If downscaling, you take every 4th pixel to get from 4k to 1080p. If upscaling you make up pixels to go between the existing pixels. This is done typically by averaging the nearby pixels.\n\nObviously 1440 isn't a perfect fraction of 4k, so the math is a little more complicated, but the process is the same.",
"Interpolation via algorithm. The image is inlarged and the data from the images is use to calculate (guess) what color to make the filler pixels, since the device has to make up something to fill in the gaps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
p6xgq
|
what would happen if america had not gotten involved in wwii
|
I'm trying to understand how much of the whole concept of "Americans won the war" is fervent patriotism and how much of it is accurate. Unfortunately, I haven't had a 20th Century History class in over half a decade.
If it makes the question easier, we can allow America to engage Japan in the Pacific, as a direct result of Pearl Harbor, but not get any more involved in Europe than we were before the attack. I understand this may not be too relevant of a simplification (due to the alliances the Axis powers had), but it's on the table.
Feel free to elaborate on other related scenarios (e.g., entering WWII in a normal fashion but delayed, not having a Pearl Harbor-esque attack at all, etc.).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p6xgq/eli5_what_would_happen_if_america_had_not_gotten/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3mzzh6",
"c3n03n3",
"c3n0trh",
"c3n0vrw",
"c3n1l13",
"c3n1p80",
"c3n3dcw",
"c3n3q6t",
"c3n4gny",
"c3n4y60",
"c3n6xk7"
],
"score": [
2,
41,
3,
2,
8,
3,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Soviet Union would have won the war in Europe on its own. The 'iron curtain' then would have included Western European countries (though probably not Spain or Britain). So Italy, France, West Germany, etc. would all have been communist. ",
"It depends on so many things, none of which are remotely ELI5, but that said let's go anyway:\n\nFor example, if the Americans had never put a single boot on the ground in Europe, but continued supplying the British with food, tanks, planes etc (and let's say for the sake of argument that the Americans did use their Navy to make sure the supply convoys actually got through), that would be very different than if they had stayed completely out of it.\n\nIf the US just stayed home completely, Hitler would unquestionably have had an easier time of things on the Western Front, which *may* have left Germany better able to focus on fighting the Russians. Many people believe that neither the US nor the Russians could have beaten Germany alone, and Germany only lost because she had to fight in both directions at once. Others believe that's total nonsense, and that's where things get pretty much entirely hypothetical.\n\nLet's say for example that with the US out of the war, but continuing to send supply convoys, Britain is able to defend herself against invasion but that's it; stalemate across the English Channel. Eventually, Hitler decides to simply hold onto Europe, knowing that Britain can never muster a proper invasion force, so Germany focuses all its efforts on the Eastern Front.\n\nStalin's no wimp, and the Soviets have millions of farm boys to dump into the meat grinder, so the whole Eastern Front is basically Stalingrad writ large; months and months of endless back-and-forth with no gains and massive losses on both sides. The war takes a bunch longer than five years, so now it's 1948 and both Germany and Russia are bloody and exhausted.\n\nBy 1949, the Soviets have developed nuclear weapons, and their air force is still in reasonable enough shape that they could probably get a hail-mary mission into a coastal city like Rostock or Kiel with a nuke on board. Now it's a whole different ball game.\n\nBy the same token, by 1949 a relatively unmolested Germany would have cooked up some pretty wacky shit too, and it's not unreasonable to think that a V-4 rocket could have been putting the hurt on Moscow from a time zone away.\n\n...you see what I mean about the hypothetical part?",
"I think the allies still would have won, it just would have lasted a lot longer. By the time America joined the war the axis had no navy and was being driven out of Northern Africa by the UK. Germany probably would have created a fortress Europe. And the Allies would embargo this fortress. There would be lots of death, but Germany would have eventually just run out of oil and other resources. They would lose grip on their supply lines leading to Russia, leading to a collapse on that front. Britain would have to recruit more heavily from it's colonies, but probably could have put together an invasion force eventually. One thing we Americans need to remember is that 3 of the 5 D-day beaches were taken by Britain and Canada. \n\nTL;DR\nResources. Germany would have eventually ran out of them. ",
"Great Britain would have eventually invaded France (probably from the south) The Soviet Union would probably obtained more territory (all of Germany and possibly part of Austria) The Axis still would have lost. Germany doomed itself the moment it got into a two front war that included the Soviets.",
"I think Russia would still have won. Even with a horrible man to man loss ratio for Russia, Stalin knew he would eventually win, and would have just kept throwing bodies at the Germans till he did.",
"Wasn't Germany pretty close to an atomic weapon? (he asks, like he's 5)",
"The Man In The High Castle by Philip K. Dick.",
"Either Germany or Russia would have won eventually through standard warfare. Which one wins is fairly inconsequential - either way, there's a dictatorship with access to all the resources and industrial might from Paris to Moscow. The winner would enjoy super-power status in much the same way that America enjoyed in the post-war period.",
"Side note:\n\nI'm still yet to see examples of *the whole concept of \"Americans won the war\"*\n\nI mean, who says that?\n\nPerhaps Im just blessed with intelligent friends, but I don't know anyone who believes that. ",
"Interesting side note, but not entirely relevant I suppose:\n\nMy professor of the interwar period/WWII speculated (not sure what evidence he used and so forth) that a major reason for the US joining the war was the defeat of the Nazi's at Moscow. A Soviet defeat at Moscow would have severely crippled the Soviets and Hitler would have been able to focus more of his energy on the West. He argues that this, rather than the Battle of Stalingrad, is the real turning point of the Nazi campaign in the East because Roosevelt would not of entered the war if the Soviets were not also involved. Luckily this even happened 2 days before Pearl Harbor, both events which gave incentive to the US to enter the war on the side of the Allies",
"One major thing I think people are forgetting is Japan. The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor because we stopped supplying them with Oil. They either had to attack us and take our Oil, or their industries would literally grind to a halt. No military, no navy. So the attack happened. The US stopped the Oil trade with Japan because of their involvement in the wars, and if the US remained neutral in Europe, I think the assumption can be clear that the US would have remained neutral in Asia as well. So without the US to attack Japan, and their continued military and naval endeavors, I think they may have supported Hitler in the attack against the Soviet Union. They had already proved in the Russo-Japanese War that they could best the Soviet Union, when they handily beat them in 1904-1905."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
35uy31
|
why do police officers ask you the reasons for breaking the law (ie. "why were you speeding?") is there a response you can give that can further incriminate or convince the officer to not charge you?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35uy31/eli5_why_do_police_officers_ask_you_the_reasons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr815ir",
"cr81687",
"cr81myh",
"cr81o6t",
"cr81qch",
"cr81tvg",
"cr85g1c",
"cr86c74",
"cr8745h",
"cr87kxn",
"cr8940a",
"cr8gkfw",
"cr8kiwr",
"cr8n6q1"
],
"score": [
50,
10,
23,
7,
7,
5,
9,
3,
5,
6,
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"By giving an answer, you *are* incriminating yourself.\n\nIf he asks \"why were you speeding?\" and you give any kind of excuse other than \"I wasn't,\" you're admitting you were.",
"It's a confession. When you give a reason for why you were speeding, you are admitting that you were speeding. ",
"It also gives the officer a good quick idea of what kind of a person he is dealing with. Does the person try to lie? Give an excuse? Stumble around and fidget? Get defensive? Get angry? Or is he calm and relaxed? Does he tell the truth? Is he hiding anything? Etc...\n\nIt's just a nice opening statement that gives the officer a lot of information about you, aside from the confession.",
"I think the [good admiral](_URL_0_) put it best.\n\nEither you admit your guilt, lie and hurt your credibility, or be evasive and piss off the guy writing the ticket. ",
"Lawyer here. It is a confession so better answer is a question e.g. why do you say I was speeding? Don't say \"I don't know\" b/c then they write it up as \"driver admits he doesn't know how fast he was going\". The only answer you can give that will not incriminate is if you a speeding based on a bona fide emergency e.g., my passenger is bleeding/in labor, etc. ",
"The possibility exists that there is an emergency you were speeding for. For instance, it used to be acceptable for a husband to be in a panic to drive his pregnant wife to the hospital because the baby was about to be born. Often not only was a ticket not given, the officer would escort the car the rest of the way. I don't know if this is still true, but a good excuse -- a *really* good, provable excuse -- ought to be the exception. ",
"Really, it's not about incriminating yourself. When you get a traffic ticket, that is your verdict and your sentence. You have been found guilty. You will *not* go to court and be able to defend yourself with claims that you were not, in fact, speeding. It just doesn't happen. The officer doesn't need to prove anything, but may have a speedometer/radar gun result he can show if needed.\n\nI've been pulled over for speeding more often than I should proudly admit (all in my younger days), and I went to court over every single one, except two that were several states away from where I lived. In *every single case* there was no time in which I was asked to provide evidence that I wasn't speeding. If the cop showed up I was given an opportunity to provide an explanation why (protip: \"I like going fast!\" doesn't work); if he didn't, the case was either dismissed or held over for another date because the officer presented a valid reason for not appearing.\n\nThe officer is talking to you to see if you are under the influence of drugs/alcohol, if you are in need of further screening (\"please step out of the car\") or seem as if you might be nervous about/hiding something, like the giant pinata full of drugs in your back seat and the AK-47s and dead hooker in your trunk.",
"There's a psychological aspect to this. Asking a question puts the other person on the back foot. They feel obliged to answer. It gives the police officer control of the situation. \n\nTeachers learn the same trick. ",
"Don't answer his question, just ask: \"how fast do you think I was going?\" That puts the burden of truth on him",
"You are unlikely to beat the charge, but you can mitigate the consequences. I was stopped on a bright, sunny spring morning going 125 km/h in a 50 km/h zone on a rural road. (It wasn’t as reckless as it sounds; the 50 km/h zone was just a short distance on either side of a small cross road. The rest of the road was marked at 90 km/h. Still bad though.)\n\nThe first thing the officer said to me was, “Are you in a hurry, sir?” He was giving me an excuse and hoping that I would admit that I was. Then could give me a long lecture about the ways speeding can make me much later than I already was and write me a nasty ticket.\n\nSo I said something like, “No officer, I’m really not in a hurry. I was enjoying the beautiful day and I guess the the speed just crept up on me.” I think cops encounter so many people who will argue or make stupid excuses that when they get someone who admits to what they did and is willing to take their lumps, they find it refreshing. He wrote me up at 75 km/h, which meant a reasonable fine and no points.\n\nI don’t understand why anyone would argue a ticket (unless they were really innocent). What kind of outcome do they expect? Do they really think they will win the argument?\n\n(Individual results may vary.)",
"People already answered this better than I could, just in general be wary of cops, they are hired to fine/ arrest people. They are trained to get you to accidentally waive your rights.",
"Incriminate is not equal to not charging.\n\nFor avoiding severe penalty, be truthful, admit you didn't know or give the number if you happen to know and think it's okay/have a legitimate excuse. For example, in my state, everyone drives 5-10 miles over the speed limit and in certain areas driving at the speed limit is ensuring collision from behind. Be sincere, apologize, cooperate, don't be defensive or mean. Officer's had a hard day too.\n\nTo incriminate yourself, there's always the good old ways of getting yourself in deeper trouble:\n\n* \"Not fast enough. This is a school zone, right?\"\n* \"Gotta get away with this money. Gotta go fast.\"\n* \"I don't know officer, the numbers were swimming too much.\"\n* \"Why not? Carpe dieeeem!\"\n* Rolling a blunt to relax your nerves.\n* \"To hit the ramp and do some GTA type jumps I found on Reddit\"\n* Rolling down the window to full frontal nudity, or really any Cards Against Humanity type scene.\n* Assault.\n* Battery.\n* Assault with a battery.\n* Use your imagination.",
"One time I saw a cop on the side of the road, and I had a gut feeling he was gonna pull me over. So I purposely made sure I wasn't speeding. Low and behold he pulls me over and asks, \"do you know why I pulled you over?\" And I replied I had no Idea, then he said, \"really?\" like he knew for a fact I was hiding something for some reason. He claims I didnt fully stop at a stop sign and that I was speeding. I asked if he had my speed on a radar gun and he claimed he did. He asked for license and went to his vehicle. At that point if he writes me a ticket I would have said I saw him and made sure I was going the limit.\n\nSo he comes back, gives me a warning and we go our separate ways. I have a hard time believing if I didnt stop completly and was going 15mph over the limit he claimed I was, that I would just get away with a warning. I wasnt sure if i ran the stop sign but to me it sounds like he was trying his best to get me to incriminate myself and give me a ticket. Oh and he asked my passenger for their license too. Idk why but whatev",
"Lawyer here (just not your lawyer). \n\nThey're trying to get you to confess to the crime. \n\nCop: \"do you know why I pulled you over?\" \n\nYou: \"why did you pull me over?\"\n\nOr, just don't say anything at all. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141202083121/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/e/e9/Its-a-trap-what-happens-when-advertisers-dont-meet-twitters-spending-quotas.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
66859f
|
the claim that diamonds are inherently valueless, and how this relates to other gemstones.
|
I am lead to believe that diamonds are not actually worth anything, and that it's only through marketing and perceived scarcity that they have value. Is this true? If so, how is this claim different regarding any other type of gemstone? As far as I can tell, gemstones are not valued based on their practical application, so why are diamonds always singled out as the only gemstone that doesn't have inherent worth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66859f/eli5_the_claim_that_diamonds_are_inherently/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dggfcz5",
"dggh2gf"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Its true. Without getting too far into the weeds: the actual value of diamonds is heavily controlled by jewelry companies. They are in no way rare and these companies have large supplies of them. However, in order to artificially inflate the value of the gem the companies only realize small amounts of product into the market at a time. Also understand that the actual chemical makeup of the diamond isn't that insanely rare in nature. Diamond mines are a real thing, and have been a plague on developing countries like Africa for decades (E.g., Blood Diamonds). HOWEVER what you're talking about \"worth\" is hard to explain. They aren't \"worth\" anything because they don't actually accomplish any productive end (They don't feed you, clothe you, or provide shelter), and the pleasure they provide is... debatable (are you happy you received a diamond, or are you happy about the expression of love? Most would answer the love because a shinny rock means nothing if there isn't love behind it). It can be said then that diamonds are pretty much worthless because they aren't actually useful, and don't inherently contain value, only assigned value. And thats just it - they are worth something because we think they are. Much like gold.",
"I wouldn't say 'no value'. Diamonds have certain industrial uses.\n\nBut yes, the whole \"diamond is forever\" and diamond supply is controlled to ensure scarcity.\n\nIt's good to see that it's more and more common that people don't have a diamond in their wedding bands."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5j174j
|
- the architecture of fortresses
|
I've noticed that many castles, forts and fortresses are built in a star shape. What are the advantages of that architecture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j174j/eli5_the_architecture_of_fortresses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbcikmn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A star fort has the advantage of having no space along the outside of the walls where an attacker is safe from enemy fire. There is no point where some part of the walls won't be after to fire on attackers. This design was developed in the age of cannon and musket, and was useful through the nineteenth century, when advancements in warfare made static defenses like forts and city walls obsolete."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1963f2
|
why are people fined so much for illegally downloading media? why not be charged the fair market value of what you downloaded?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1963f2/eli5_why_are_people_fined_so_much_for_illegally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8l4d6s",
"c8l4hkp",
"c8l4iw1"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
7
],
"text": [
"Short answer: Judges and legislators are idiots. \n\nLonger answer: The Copyright Act sets the penalties. They are penalties for 'willfully infringing' the copyright held by someone else, rather than penalties for something akin to \"stealing'. As a result, the penalties end up being worse than if they just shoplifted the physical media (sometimes at least). This is, obviously, ridiculous.\n\n_URL_0_",
"If you were just fined the market value of what you downloaded, what would be the incentive *not* to illegally download media?",
"People often get hefty fines not for just downloading media, but sharing it.\n\nI want the book called \"Steal this Book\", but I don't want to pay for it. I talked to all my friends and ten of them said \"I have that book and will be happy to give it to you!\"\nTo be fair to all my friends, I photocopy a tenth of the book from each of them (so they've all helped me equal amounts) and now I have the book!\nAt the local Malt Shoppe that week, I'm telling this lovely girl about \"Steal this Book\" and she would like a copy too (did someone say charming?). I'm not going to take all the credit for the book, so my ten friends and I all give the girl an eleventh of the book each. \n\nThe lovely girl is the twelfth member of the book sharing group, so any person she wants to share the book with, receives a piece from her, a piece from my ten friends and a piece from me. The book sharing group each gave a twelfth of the book, and our group is then thirteen members strong.\n\nThe torrent network relies on thousands of people sharing little bits of information to each other in order minimise the bandwidth load on any one person. If you have successfully downloaded media and are seeding it (part of the sharing group), you can expect to share small portions with thousands of people per day. \nPeople share the illegally downloaded media with so many people and incur hefty fines.\n\nHowever, the torrent network relies on seeders to function, so keep seeding, but seed legal media!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/19/downloading-mom-fined-80000-per-song/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3dm9e2
|
why is "military grade" referred as being the highest quality, when it's really the cheapest possible manufacturing by the lowest bidder that does what the military needs?
|
I just watched a movie that boasted a house having "military grade" fiber. I don't want military grade fiber, I would want Google Fiber equivalent.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dm9e2/eli5_why_is_military_grade_referred_as_being_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct6h2ji",
"ct6h4hs",
"ct6hi34",
"ct6kv8p",
"ct6lj8v",
"ct6snmw",
"ct6tslt",
"ct6xhar",
"ct6z704",
"ct70nmu",
"ct760zo"
],
"score": [
121,
22,
4,
3,
28,
4,
10,
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because even those cheapest bidders still have to meet certain standards of quality and manufacturing. And those standards are high. The army doesn't just say 'we want this made, who can make it cheapest'. The army says 'we want this made at this high level of quality, who offers the cheapest bid'.",
" > that does what the military needs\n\nBecause the standards that the military requires from its suppliers tends to be higher than civilian companies demand. This doesn't necessarily apply to all things but the idea is in the general public's mind that \"military grade\" is of the highest quality.",
"An example would be a laptop made to military specifications. It needs to still function after being dropped ten feet, be water resistant and shock resistant. Have a reinforced casing and a shatter resistant screen. So higher quality construction. It doesn't have to look pretty, either.",
"Well it depends on what you're talking about. The M4 sucks big hairy donkey dong when compared to other alternatives. My equipment could be built with a few Raspberry Pis, an amplifier, and a can-tenna. But it weighs 100 pounds, and does what it does poorly, mainly because the military wanted it to do its thing while also getting kicked around in the bottom of an airplane.\n\nPriorities, man.",
"\"Military grade\" means nothing. It's a buzzword that advertisers will stick on a product to make it seem tougher.\n\n\"Milspec\" is what the military actually uses. \n\nBut while people complain about military equipment being made by the lowest bidder, you also have to consider that it still has to pass stringent requirements.",
"Milspec equipment is engineered to be much safer than the civilian equivalent. So, for example, something might typically have a factor of safety (how many times stronger it is than the expected load) of 3 in civilian life, but 10 in milspec.",
"Many years ago the military had a spec for the ketchup they bought. I’m sure it was the toughest, longest lasting, best performing ketchup available.\n\nYummmm, mil-spec ketchup.",
"Having learned about military specifications in electronics I can tell you that Military Specs are higher than usual specs in terms of at the very least electronics. Where you might have a 10-15% leeway in terms of measurements for a resistor the military only allows 5% maximum. If you were to buy a military grade video card (I have one) you'll know that there are fewer variables in terms of the card's voltage, resistance, etc that allow it to perform more reliably.",
"Because even though those guys put in the lowest bid on the requirements, the Army writes the requirements they bid on with much higher standards than the ones used in civilian products. They demand all kinds of things, like long shelf lives, tolerance for higher and lower temperatures, and the ability to withstand about six million kinds of physical trauma. This makes sense for gear that needs to be reliable after you take it into a combat zone. They get the lowest bidder out of the guys who can meet those requirements.",
"I was involved, many years ago, in developing custom computers for the military. So much documentation....\n\nWe had to run a lot of tests. One in particular was to put the computer board on a shaker table and hook it up. This thing was really impressive. It would shake the board so fast that the whole computer board turned into a blur.\n\nI just want to add the test procedure for testing airplane black boxes (my memory may be fuzzy). Fire it out of a cannon at a brick wall. Point 4 flame throwers at it for 1h. Put it in an oven for 24 hours. Put it at simulated ocean depth in salt water for an extended period.\n\nWell, something like that.",
"It is the cheapest manufacturing possible that meets a specific very high standard. \"Military Grade\" is talking about that standard that must be met. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
afblh1
|
how does the body get ‘used to’ running long distances?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/afblh1/eli5_how_does_the_body_get_used_to_running_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edxrkyd",
"edxsew4",
"edy7f6q",
"edy8zhs"
],
"score": [
25,
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body gets stronger and through that it also gets more efficient at using the oxygen you inhale. As a result your heart doesn’t need to pump as much blood throughout your body and you don’t need to breath as hard/heavy.\n\nBasically you aren’t as strained physically due to lack of oxygen, because your body needs less oxygen to do what it needs to.",
"Your muscles develop certain types of muscle fibres, fast and slow twitch. \n\nFast twitch: sprinters, big bursts of movements strong muscle contractions\n\nSlow twitch: slower contractions, marathon runners etc",
"There is multiple systems at play here. The muscles improve, the heart improves, the brain improves, general physique improves.\n\nMuscles: There is two main forms of muscle, slow and fast. Muscles break down energie sources, for the last and biggest step, you need oxygen. This last step takes some time, but releases way more energy in the end.\n\nFast muscles are not good at utilizing oxygen, they will only make use of the first steps in breaking down energy sources. This is an explosive burst, but afterwards they have nothing to run on.\n\nSlow muscles are able to use oxygen effectively, and although being slower in generating this energy, they can use the last step to provide themselves with more energy for longer periods of time.\n\nThe more you run, the more mainly slow muscle you get and also the more efficient the muscles get at generating energy and getting rid of waste.\n\nThe importance of oxygen comes into play again with the heart. You will train the heart to pump more blood per beat. So it will provide more oxygen to the body. Next to that, the vascularization of the body changes, in this case mainly legs, so blood can go there more easily. \n\nSo, not only is there more blood flowing per beat, the blood will go to the places its needed more easily too, provide more oxygen there and take away waste.\n\nLast big thing, neurologic control is an important factor. The brain causes the muscle to move. However, in an untrained person, the amount of connection between the brain and the individual muscle cells is not very impressive or optimised. Using muscles will strengthen the link, and by repeating movements (running) the brain wires itself become better at this specific movement. \n\nThis is why a runner will not automatically be a great cyclist too, although it uses primarily the same muscles.\n\nObviously, coordination between the lower and upper body improves, and the whole motion gets streamlined adding to performance.\n\nThe last thing is general physique and \"the mental game\". Just in general your body will shape towards the activities you do. Fat becomes more primed to be used for exercise. The body needs to adapt to the new behaviour and will activate genes to use fat for running, as well as some other changes. And if applicable, you will lose fat too, less weight is less effort to move.\n\nMental game is basically willpower and the fact that we as humans like routine. Running will eventually release endorphins to make you feel good, and just being used to a strict pattern without surprise will make things look easier and shorter (like when you go home from work and then you're home all of a sudden).\n\n",
"When you stress your muscle cells they grow more Mitochondria per cell which allows each cell to produce more power. (More power means more glucose and more oxygen getting turned into more ATP and more waste products more quickly.)\n\nWhen your cells can burn more Oxygen and Glucose than your blood can deliver, they perform in an anaerobic state which turns glucose into lactate(the shit that makes your muscles burn.) When this happens your capillaries grow and with them your larger blood vessels to make sure your muscles clear the lactate and provide the oxygen needed to not run in an anaerobic state.\n\nWhen your body gets used to a specific repeated motion it spends less energy on fine muscle balance and brain/muscle communication to perform the same task. (Practice and muscle memory)\n\nWhen you repeatedly run for distance, your body finds a homeostasis where it can deliver all of the needed oxygen and glucose to the muscles and no more for an ongoing period. Training is telling your body it needs to get better at either delivering nutrients, performing the action of running, or clearing waste products of the muscle contraction.\n\nIf you don’t get out of breath or feel your muscles burn, you are already working within what your muscles know how to do. Push them a bit and they will adjust to a more demanding routine. You will feel tired when your body runs out of available sources for sugar. Usually this is what you ate that day, what is stored in your muscles as glycogen, and what is stored in your liver I think....most long distance runs include fueling with some supplement. (Candy, Goo, Gatorade etc)\n\nThat said, everyone’s maximum rate of oxygen absorption is partially set by genetics, and everyone’s efficiency running is effected by their weight and bone structure. That is why most marathon runners are so skinny. The best way to run distance is to not have much to move, and to only have the muscles needed to move that weight efficiently. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
anbhcn
|
if we ever habitate other planets and had to export oxygen from earth to prople living there, will there be a time when earth runs out of oxygen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/anbhcn/eli5_if_we_ever_habitate_other_planets_and_had_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efs523n",
"efs52jd",
"efs56k8"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"We won't export oxygen from Earth. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. It is also very reactive, so it's bonded to lots of other elements, making it fairly permanent on a terrestrial planet. \n\nWe'll crack oxygen out of water, CO^2 , rust, or even rock if we really have to. \n\nOnly reason to take a large amount of O^2 with is if you're not settling and building the infrastructure. \n\n(please pretend superscripts are subscripts)",
"I don't think you thought this through.\nIf we've gotten to the point of living on other planets, we HAD to solve the oxygen problem first. It's (relatively) simple to make oxygen compared to the expense of shipping it.\n\nThat said, we could run out but it really depends on what we're trying to do. If we're trying to create an atmosphere, then yes, but just pressurize some domes or something?\n\nNope, not even close.",
"Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Oxygen isn't just sitting around for us to breathe, at least not in its free form (that we breathe). It gets used, combined with other stuff, broken apart, recycled, all that jazz. It's somewhat similar to the water cycle that you might be familiar with. I suppose if we started concentrating oxygen from the atmosphere, and exporting it in absolutely massive quantities, oxygen levels in the atmosphere would eventually start to drop. However, if we ever reach the level of technological advancement where this is necessary, I would assume that energy will also be plentiful. We can use energy to get oxygen from water (quite a lot of it, actually). \n\nTo be clear, this should never be necessary. Like I said, oxygen works in a cycle. If we have habitats on other planets, they'll be able to capture and recycle virtually all of the oxygen that they need. They won't need regular oxygen shipments from Earth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6gyfri
|
why is mental illness such as anxiety and depression so common among millennials compared to older generations.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gyfri/eli5_why_is_mental_illness_such_as_anxiety_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"diu2yfz",
"diu3mih",
"diu564h",
"diu8c4l",
"diu9m7d",
"diucw5e",
"diur0iu",
"diuxolj",
"div079r",
"divb1ci"
],
"score": [
32,
67,
81,
15,
3,
6,
5,
12,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"I believe this has a lot more to do with in understanding and diagnosis than frequency. Mental health knowledge and awareness has increased a lot in the last 50 years. So people are more likely to get diagnosed and helped now than before. ",
"Have you ever seen the \"older generations\"?\n\nThe old lady screaming at waitresses. The guy road raging on the streets. Mothers afraid their children will blow up when they sneeze and fathers posting pictures with their guns saying \"I protect my little girl.\" Like big balls of stress ready to fuck up everyone's day because *something is awfully wrong.*\n\nCheck out the bars that play older music. How many drunks there who sit there on a regular basis. Basically found their escape in the drink and almost all of them sooner or later become the angry or the sad drunk.\n\nTry to argue with some of them and on any a topic it can start to seem that they rather die instead of change their mind. To the point that it actually seems that they probably would actually die if this mental crutch they are having (be it hate or faith) would be taken away. \n\nAnd this generation we have here is one of the first that has started talking about it. Being a loser is more socially accepted now. You don't have to pretend to be on coke all the time now. \n\nBut it doesn't mean the general insanity will go away. See, *insert group you hate* nowdays are just like *insert group your father hates* were in the old days. KKK, White Pride, Crips and Bloods, dog eaters, child molesters and serial killers - all are the \"stable old generation\" you are talking about. Ain't such thing at all.",
"While there is some element of diagnosis to be considered, even simply surveying symptoms of mental illness has demonstrated a rise across the developed world with no corresponding rise in the developing world. Moreover, even within societies, people raised poor do better with regards to mental illness than people raised comparatively well-to-do.\n\nBecause of this, it's unlikely that we're looking at issues such as toxins or diet and more likely that we're looking at social issues - and that tends to shift the question beyond psychology into sociology.\n\nFrom the realm of sociology, there is a concept called a 'behavioral sink' where societies collapse due to over-socialization. Human beings evolved to function in relatively small tribe with long-lasting social connections. As a result, even the most gregarious of human beings can manage only about a hundred or so social connections. The norm is to individually identify the tribe members and then lump everyone else into a vast, singular concept of 'other'.\n\nBut a difficulty arises with bringing this Stone Age conception of social relationships into the modern world. To function effectively, you can't just assume the 'other' group but somewhat purposefully form them. It's very easy for your emotions to run amuck in one direction or another - either emotionally connecting with almost no one or trying to emotionally connecting with almost everyone. It's a lot easier when you have no choice in the matter and just emotionally connect with the few dozens who form your immediate tribe.\n\nThe problem could also be viewed similarly to allergies. If you grow up with the threat of being eaten by a tiger, every subsequent event in your life can be contextualized in that way. So if your girlfriend dumps you, you think to yourself \"well, at least I wasn't eaten by a tiger\". In contrast, if you grow up in a low stakes world where the worst things that ever happen are minor elements of social exclusion, you have no such context and your mind over-reacts to ordinary social interactions with depression and anxiety.\n\nThis might be considered a paradox of utopia. If you did manage to build a perfect world, human beings couldn't live there because we're not evolved to live in utopias. So every utopia is actually just a dystopia in disguise.",
"Due to education, people are more aware of these concepts than they used to be. Younger generations have more education (and more communication to spread what they know).\n\nDue to a reduction in other even more serious problems (like polio), people pay more attention to these problems.\n\nDue to increased wealth of the society, some of us actually have the budget to seek treatment for these sorts of problems.\n\nAdd up these awareness factors, and frankly it's not clear that these problems have actually increased.",
"It is also more fashionable to wear your anxiety and various other self diagnosed maladies as a fashion accessory. Dare I say my wife goes to her Canadian trained MD and he makes the good stuff rain. ",
"I have to wonder, why does the OP think this? Are there studies that have shown this? What about surveys taken of older generations? \n\nHow reliable are they too? Mental illness is hard to talk about, and for a lot of places it was/still is heavily stigmatized. People could have been just as depressed or even more so but never admitted it until people started talking openly about or the internet offered anonymity. It could be a cultural \"stiff upper lip\" thing too, and the question wasn't specific to any country either. ",
"Possibly because cell phones, television, video games, modern concepts of stranger danger, and other factors have led to an increasingly sedentary, indoor, and isolated lifestyle. Studies have shown that lack of exercise, lack of exposure to open spaces, and lack of contact with other human beings are all risk factors that increase the chance of developing depression.",
"Not like anyone will read the comment at this point but I summarize my thoughts on the topic: \n\n* Modern medicine. We have gone a remarkably long way to get where we are. Most subtle depression states that previously went under radar are registered, investigated and attended (or at least attempted to). So what was considered bad mood before can be considered life-threatening today. \n* Social isolation. With rise of easy and impersonal means of communications it became substantially easier to form connections but substantially more difficult to make them serious and longstanding, to form deep friendship and communal emotional safety nets that alleviated loneliness and perceived isolation before. \n* Lack of physical activity. As several research papers suggest that the lack of activity causes easier onset of depression and affects its long-term components. It was much more rare to be inactive before. \n* Easily accessible addictive activities and substances of many sorts: gambling, games, cheap & tasty food, endless video shows, drugs etc. Those make reward system of the brain go haywire and decrease pleasure from successfully completing normal activities in susceptible individuals, resulting not doing them at all which then results low self-esteem and feelings of social inadequacy. \n* Lack of direction. In a world where people don't need to fight, not necessarily literally, and are free to do whatever they want it's much easier to start negative introspection and feel useless. Previously those were subverted by religions, life-long callings or professions and general lack of time to mull but in modern world those are relics of the past. \n* Echo chambers. In modern culture it's easy to create or join communities that reinforce your negative feelings. I.e. instead of being told \"you're ok; that is a slight mood swing; all will go\" you will be reinforced in negativity \"poor fella, here is my attention to your problem; I feel the same lets talk how we all are miserable\". Those either create self-reinforcing negativity loop or make negativity into self-fulfilling prophecy: I feel depressed and share the feeling = > I am validated for it = > I believe it = > I behave like jerk and downer in any company = > I am isolated = > Real depression onset = > I told ya. \n* Mass media negativity bias. Basically if you bombarded with \"killings, terror, dumbness, lies, danger\" every day it's much more easier to be anxious. And chronic anxiousness is a factor in depression. \n* Lack of experience. It's much easier than before to live a sheltered life when you have only virtual knowledge of the outside world. And dangers of virtual experience are so much easier to magnify out of proportion. Like danger of terrorism. Or thinking that all males/females/gamers/non-whites are douches, unless it's self-fulfilling prophecy where you make them behave that way or in club with the criteria of being a douche. \n* Lack of proper social education or immediate consequences. People often either sporadically stonewalled for their lack of social adequacy or it's totally ignored. Both of which result that person not changing their behaviour at all. Which results in their continuous social downfall and depression unless that person starts notice, learn and change behavioural patterns by him- or her-self. In a older and smaller societies it was all embedded into traditions or rigid cultural norms. \n* Junk food, dirty air and low sunlight exposure. Those are related to spread of depressive moods. \n* Whatever else I forgot.",
"It isn't as far as I am aware. Besides \"millennials\" isn't even a sharply defined group of people, no one can agree on exactly where it starts and begins. Of course if you want to compare now to much older generations and wonder why anxiety and depression wasn't diagnosed as often, that is just because it was underreported and/or not called depression and anxiety, PTSD, etc. You were just called \"hysterical\" or \"incompetent\"",
"There are a few answers to this, but I'll try and answer from a sociological standpoint.\n\nA major theory in sociology is the concept of hyperreality. Hyperreality is a kind of \"reality\" that has been stripped of meaning. In other words, it's reality that isn't actually based on anything real. Instead of our social reality being informed by the old structures of our job, our income etc., our social reality is now, so the theory goes, based on nothing but copies. Representations of reality that have gone through so many iterations and are so infinitely mutable that we can no longer discern what they originally represented at all. Look at reality shows, which now openly state that they've been scripted in places. Where is the delineation between \"real\" and scripted? Can \"real\" even exist alongside this scripted copy? Is the script even faithfully representing something real anymore?\n\nA unionised, blue collar factory worker immediately after WW2 lived in a world of certainty. Social structures were definite, solid, immutable things. He knew his place, he knew his function, he knew his role in society. Fast forward to a young millenial and they face a great deal more uncertainty. They are unsure what their role in society is because the symbol of a \"millenial\" has so many facets, so much mutability that any definitive meaning of what a millenial *means* socially has become impossible. \n\nThey are bombarded with representations and symbols of a perfect, hyper-consumerist life lived out on screens by impossibly attractive people that they are economically unable to achieve. They are saturated with so much information and media that it becomes difficult to ascribe a sense of meaning or reality to them (hence the rise of fake news and conspiracy theories). Old certainties such as nationalistic belonging and religious community have melted away in our post-national, secular societies. The old certainties of plentiful work have vanished, replaced by insecure labour that is marketed to us as something that allows us to live our transient, flexible lifestyles. Politicians have moved away from the fiery rhetoric and grand visions of ideologies and embraced a managerial style of politics where the purpose is to keep the machine ticking over until the next guys come in. A philosopher called Habermas wrote that we are no longer citizens, we are clients of the government. There is a general sense that nothing about our lives as social beings is fixed anymore, especially in comparison to previous generations.\n\nThis sense of a fluid, difficult to pin-down reality leaves millenials feeling socially adrift, dislocated. The social norms that informed prior generations have broken down, something sociologists call \"anomie.\" This anomie leads to isolation, alienation, depression and acute anxiety about your place in the world. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5jat6s
|
with an inherently limited number of sources from past centuries to examine, will there come a time that we "run out of history?"
|
Of course we will continue to make new archeological discoveries for some time, but already there seem to be historic events that we simply have no more information available to investigate [someone care to provide an example?]. So at some point will history just become a tradition of retelling what we already know in new ways with nothing left to explore?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jat6s/eli5_with_an_inherently_limited_number_of_sources/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbepdkq",
"dbettgt",
"dbf1hz9"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's doubtful. The more we find out about history the more wrong we tend to discover we were about things. Even very recent history is full of misconceptions, falsehoods, and propaganda to dig through.",
"It's certainly possible that we will eventually uncover every single piece of historical evidence in existence, although that doesn't mean that we'll ever stop looking. But that doesn't mean we'll ever have \"nothing left to explore\".\n\nDon't forget that the discovery of a new text or artifact is only the first step - the interpretation of past events is every bit as vital to our understanding of the past. New interpretations of events are created regularly, because every artifact could have been interpreted incorrectly, and every author of a historical document has their own personal biases that we need to examine and correct for when trying to determine the truth about an event.\n\nEven then, there's another piece to this - more history is being created every day. There are 7.5 billion people each with their own perspective on local, regional, and global events, and each of their stories is part of history. We'll never \"run out of history\" because it's *always* growing larger.",
"History is written every day. In 20-50 years today will be history. Like the crisis in Syria and whatnot. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bo0c4a
|
how come when you open task manager to close a slow program, the program will sometimes suddenly start working again as if nothing is wrong?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bo0c4a/eli5_how_come_when_you_open_task_manager_to_close/
|
{
"a_id": [
"enayxsv",
"enazoiy"
],
"score": [
36,
16
],
"text": [
"I hope someone who knows some in depth details on this can chime in, but the short version is:\n\nOpening the task manager by your standard ctrl+alt+delete is not like starting any other program. It's treated by Windows differently, and interrupts other functions for a moment - that's why it can work even when the OS is otherwise nonresponsive. Sometimes it's enough to give whatever was causing the hangup a push - it depends on a lot of variables and what was actually causing the application to stop responding.",
"When you trigger your computer’s task manager, it runs many background tasks including ones that tell programs to eliminate any cached/temp intensive data so computer can run more urgent tasks such as monitoring or killing tasks and/or cleaning/sorting ram/cpu threads. It acts as the teacher in a classroom full of students causing everyone to behave and not slack in a sense on running tasks and optimize their functions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
a0blq1
|
what makes sea salt so much better then sodium chloride
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0blq1/eli5_what_makes_sea_salt_so_much_better_then/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eagctpl",
"eagdtrp"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"Because sodium chloride is only one of the many ionic compounds that we call salts. Sea salt contains small amounts of several others, which add to the flavor. (It may also contain a wee bit of other tasty impurities, such as a bit of dissolved algae residue.)",
"Sea Salt is sodium chloride. It is just contaminated sodium chloride that has various other compounds including different kinds of salts that give it a different flavor. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1t81pm
|
college degrees, like ph.d, masters, associates, what order do they go in and what do they mean, what others am i missing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t81pm/eli5college_degrees_like_phd_masters_associates/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5ab4q",
"ce5ad2r"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Associates is a 2 year degree generally only offered by technical schools or community colleges. This is only \"sort of\" a college degree.\n\nBachelor's degree is the degree from your standard 4-year college. This is what people mean why they say the graduated from college, they have a bachelors degree. This is also called undergrad.\n\nMaster's degree is the next degree after bachelors. This is 1-3 years of extra school after your bachelor's degree. This is often also called \"grad school\"\n\nPhD is a doctorate degree, and is 5-10 years more school after the master's degree. PhDs often include a significant amount of research and scholarly work and/or other highly specialized work, besides simply attending classes. This is the highest level awarded.\n\n",
"Generally speaking, the order of rank goes as follows. \n\nAssociates: a two year degree that comes after high school. It's usually training for a specific line of work. \n\nBachelors: a four year degree that comes after high school. A more complete and generalized degree that focuses on subjects, not careers.\n\nMasters: a two year degree that comes after your bachelors. You already have your first degree, and want to improve your knowledge in a specific area.\n\nPhD: a multi-year degree that comes after your bachelors (or masters). You are adding to the academic community and doing a massive amount of research. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2y6954
|
how do motion-sensor toilets work? how can i prevent them from prematurely flushing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y6954/eli5_how_do_motionsensor_toilets_work_how_can_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp6m9t8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Motion sensor toilets basically shine a little infrared light out and see how long it takes to get back. If the time changes quickly the toilet knows that some motion just happened in front of it. You can stop a toilet from flushing prematurely by draping a little toilet paper over the sensor so that it only sees the paper and not your movement. Then move the paper when you're done and the toilet will flush."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
944tep
|
how does lasik eye surgery help you see better if it removes a layer of your eye?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/944tep/eli5_how_does_lasik_eye_surgery_help_you_see/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3ia78k",
"e3ixn8m"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"LASIK doesn’t just remove layers, it reshapes the layers. So it’s kind of like lasering on the shape of a glasses lens onto the eye itself.",
"I'd love to get LASIK - I've had multiple doctors tell me though with my eyes (-9.5) even after the surgery I will most likely need corrective lenses. \n\nAt that point it's just a roundabout way of paying a few thousand dollars for thinner \"normal looking\" lenses. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1if5vr
|
water treatment facilities
|
I think we all take for granted just how amazing these facilities are. How do they remove out the toxic sludge, crap, food byproducts, waste, (God forbid, motor oil) etc and we are left with clean, drinkable water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1if5vr/eli5_water_treatment_facilities/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb3ubtk",
"cb3vbgv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The source of drinking water for most towns and cities is one or more reservoirs. These can be man-made, or they can be natural lakes or rivers. In drier climates, the main source might be an underground aquifer.\n\nThe first step in the treatment process is the removal of large sediment and other contaminants. This is done through filtration as well as the introduction of coagulant chemicals which cause sediment particles to combine and sink.\n\nAnother important step in water treatment is water softening, as many sources of natural water contain high levels of dissolved minerals. Salts or soda ash are typically used to remove the excess minerals.\n\nOzone, chlorine, ultraviolet light or a combination of the three can be used to kill bacteria and pathogens that might be present in the water, rendering it safe to drink.\n\nAfter a final filtration to remove any remaining contaminants, the water is pumped into the municipal water system for use by households and businesses.",
"There are a variety of methods, and some are fairly new.\n\nThe company I used to work for had some fancy new equipment, but the process is typically the same basic steps:\n\n1) Have a large source of water, this could be a natural lake, manmade reservoir lake, or even a manmade underground reservoir.\n\n2) Have a plant that filters, treats and pumps the water.\n\n3) Have a sewage system to collect wastewater (in areas with municipal waste)\n\n4) Have a facility to separate the shit from the water, which is released back into the water table.\n\nOur water plant took in water from a lake surrounded by golf courses, so the water was filthy. Carbon filters clog quickle and require a bit of maintenace to keep up. It takes a ton of power to force water through these, so our plant opted to try a new technology. A large air separation module separates oxygen from the rest of the air and compresses it into a liquid. this liquid oxygen is then mixed into the incoming water. Bubbles form around microscopic particles, and floats them to the surface. This forms a thick scummy foam, which is scraped off periodically, while the clean(er) water flows underneath it. This water is much easier to pass through the filters, and the filters need to be cleaned or replaced less often.\n\nNext, the water is given a combination treatment of softeners and chlorine. The water is then sent through a chamber where it is pumped full of ozone, and later exposed to UV light.\n\nThe plant itself has some ginormous pumps, but the rest of the water system has plenty of small local pressure stations. Due to flaws in the infrastructure, the water can become more contaminated down the line, so the plant has to overcompensate for this, hence all the crazy procedures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ekliit
|
why do scratches and smudges on a video game disc affect the video game itself?
|
And do/can scratches and smudges cause games to freeze?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ekliit/eli5_why_do_scratches_and_smudges_on_a_video_game/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdc9bwn",
"fdc9ex2",
"fdc9k0s"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine you have to run round a full race track within a certain time, but there are obstacles (which you weren’t expecting) in your way to interrupt your flow and momentum.\n\nThe track represents the data on the disc, the obstacles represent the smudges or scratches.",
"Well, if your glasses are scratched, you might not be able to read a book correctly. As for why it causes the game to freeze, computers do exactly what you tell them to do, if they can't read part of their instructions, they'll often just freeze when they get to that point. Even if the programmers tried to account for disc damage, if the unreadable data is required for the program to work, you have to have redundancy in how that data is stored, which reduces the usable space available. \n\nIf the scratch is deep enough, it can destroy the actual data on the disk, like accidentally tearing the page out of a book.",
"It depends on what you're talking about.\nIf you're talking about, for example, a ps1 game, the reason why a scratch made a game not work properly was that games played by simply loading a part of it from the CD into the ps1 memory. A CD is made of microscopic slits into the plastic burned with a laser, each of these pits represent either a 0 or a 1, therefore encoding everything in binary. A scratch or any type of wear made the pits unreadable, just like a corrupted part of an hard disk (which works by magnetisation instead)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4rxnai
|
how does the audio know how to split into 2 different left and right signals in earbuds?
|
There is one jack, and what makes it even more confusing is that it can rotate 360 degrees. How does seemingly one signal split within the cord and make two different sounds in the left and right buds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rxnai/eli5_how_does_the_audio_know_how_to_split_into_2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d54ymbm",
"d5584tg"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"The audio file is stereo (a left signal and a right signal). \n\nLook closely at that one jack and you'll see it is divided by a pair of black lines into sections. These sections are hard-wired so that one will carry a signal to the left bud and one to the right. If you opened up the jack casing you would see two separate wires soldered to the jack. Likewise, if you cut open the headphone cable you would discover two separate wires inside. \n\nNote, the source signal is physically separated into two signals at the point at which the digital audio file has been converted into an analogue signal. So, if you're playing music from your phone then the socket that your earbud's Jack is plugged into is also hard wired to maintain two signals (left and right). The Jack is merely a continuation of a dual-signal that begins at the analogue-to-digital converter in the source device. \n\nHope that makes sense. ",
"Also, in digital files the data for each channel (e.g. left, right, center, etc.) are tagged as such so the software can send it to the appropriate memory location that the hardware then reads from."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2b8aj6
|
why does it skin have trouble differentiating between cold surfaces and wet surfaces when our eyes aren't looking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b8aj6/eli5_why_does_it_skin_have_trouble/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj2vlns",
"cj2weom"
],
"score": [
5,
20
],
"text": [
"i've also wondered that about really hot and really cold surfaces",
"Liquids conduct heat away from your body several times faster than air. Thats why falling into a cold lake, at say 40 F will kill a LOT faster than say being exposed butt naked to 30 F air. \n\nCold surfaces do the same thing, conduct heat away. So if you're closing your eyes, all you feel is a loss of heat, since both cold surfaces and liquids do that, you have no way of telling.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
80ojui
|
what does it mean when people say all carbs turn into sugar once consumed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80ojui/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_people_say_all_carbs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dux1f01",
"duxdh60"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Carbohydrate and saccharide are both names for the same group of molecules including sugars, cellulose, and starch. \n\nThe “larger” more complex saccharide molecules (ex: cellulose, starch, glycogen) usually are used for storing energy and making up cell structures.\n\nThe “smaller”, more simple ones are sugars, which we “burn” for quick energy.\n\nBasically, our body has the ability to break down those “larger” complex carbs into their smaller simpler parts to use as that quick energy.\n\n",
"First thing to understand is that sugar is a pretty general term. When we talk about sugar in terms of our own bodies, we generally mean the molecule glucose.\n\nSecondly, chemical bonds (the links between atoms) can be though of as energy storage and transfer devices. We use and obtain energy by breaking and forming these bonds.\n\nOur body uses glucose by breaking it in half and fiddling with each half. By doing this, we can convert the energy stored into a form useable by the body, because most of our processes don't know what to do with pure glucose.\n\nNow, glucose is a monosaccharide, which means it is the smallest unit of sugar that is still considered sugar. Fructose (fruit sugar) is also a monosaccharide.\n\nWhen we talk about carbs in a food context, we are generally talking about the ways that we can link multiple monosaccharides together into a chain for energy storage. Our body only generates energy from glucose, so when we consume carbs, our body has to first break down these chains into individual units for it to be functional\n\nedit: typo, said fructose is almost a monosaccharide"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5wdemg
|
why are the inner four planets so different in size, composition, density than the 4 outer planets?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wdemg/eli5why_are_the_inner_four_planets_so_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de9cok8",
"de9me2s",
"de9qd67"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically because the four gas giant planets captured all the smaller, rocky objects as moons. Jupiter and Saturn, for example, have a couple moons that are about the same size as the planet Mercury, and made of similar stuff. The four gas giants all have dozens of moons. Those moons could have become planets on their own, but they instead became captured in the gravitational pull of the gas giants, and so became moons. The definition of \"planet\" requires that the object has cleared its orbit of any other objects. ",
"Think of it as a inverted cone. Because the materials are spinning around the center, the denser materials \"sink\" to the bottom. That is why mercury is the densest planet and as you move out into the solar system you see the gas giants.",
"The more massive an atom is, the more it weighs, and the more it weighs the more gravity it exherts on everything around it. Gravity caused the gas and dust that formed our solar system to coalesce into big balls of rock and gas and they started smashing into each other getting larger and larger until they started becoming the sun and the planets. \n\nIn much the same way that oil floats on water because it's not as dense, the gas floated outwards from the center of our early solar system, while the heavy stuff like metal and rock was drawn towards the center around the sun. The heavier the material, the more it got dragged towards the sun, the lighter it was, the less it got dragged in. When these rings of gas and dust started forming planets, the heaviest elements were already in towards the center, and so they formed the dense rock and metal rich inner planets. The lighter gases that were farther away formed the less dense gas giants and icy comets and moons of the outer solar system. \n\nGravity is responsible for rock being in the middle, gas being at the edges, and the big cloud of gas and dust that was floating in space coming together and falling in to itself to form planets, moons, and a star. \n\n\n 1. Details: \nMost solar systems form from the left over remnants of super novas and planetary nebula's, such as when a star throws off it's outer atmosphere or explodes. The gas spreads out over a very large distance, but it is not perfectly evenly distributed. There are areas of higher density, which over time will tend to attract into themselves kind of like lumps forming in the gassy soup that our solar system formed from. \n\nAs the gas began to coalesce into balls of denser gas, gravity began making the surround gas 'fall' into these balls, making them grow in size and mass until gravity became so high it began compacting this gas and dust into planetoids. \n\nNow the important thing her is that this gas and dust was made of all of the elements that make up the periodic table. Some of it was iron, most of it was hydrogen and helium, very little of it was uranium etc. \n\nWe know that iron weighs less than oxygen, therefor the heavier the elements were, the more pull they exerted. This caused the distribution of elements to follow gravity. The heavier elements tended to form in the center of the newly developing solar system. \n\nIron, nickle, silicon, and other heavy metals formed the sun and the inner planets. And the lighter elements like nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, argon, formed the outer planets. \n\nForm a planet out of metal and silica and you get rocky metal rich terrestrial planets like the Earth, Mars, and Venus. Form them of mostly metal, and you get Mercury. As you head out towards the gas giants, you find less metal and rock, and more gas and ice. \n\n\nNow our sun is mostly composed of hydrogen, which is the lightest gas so how did it all get in the center if the lighter stuff stayed towards the outside right? The answer is there is more in our sun than hydrogen. And most of the mass of our solar system formed in the center, pulling everything in to it, which is why the sun is the largest thing in the solar system. It makes up most of the mass of our solar system, with the remaining planets adding up to just a few % of the total. \n\nThe sun grew so large, and so heavy, that it switched on and started fusing hydrogen atoms together into helium, and it became a sun instead of just a really big gas giant. Jupiter didn't have enough mass for this to happen and so it's a gas giant. \n\n\nRegardless of whether it's gas, rock, or metal, most of the mass of the stuff that formed our solar system drew inwards towards the center and became the sun. The remaining materials were unable to fall in towards the sun because of their orbital motion, and so they instead coalesced into the balls of debris that formed the remaining planets. The distribution of elements then extended outwards from the sun starting with heavy metals (Mercury), then metal and rock (Earth and Venus), then mostly rock (Mars), then the gas giants, and finally at the outer edges the ice planets. Remember that most of the water on Earth came here from comets that came from the outer solar system, because the oxygen and hydrogen that make it up were in greater abundance out in the fringes than in the interior. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1yk7xh
|
do animals that are trained to help people with disabilities or medical issues really understand their owners are blind, deaf, etc.?
|
I just wanted to know if medical assist dogs or dogs that help people with disabilities know if a person is blind or they just respond to certain behaviors of the owner? How are they trained, for example, to know to stop a blind person from crossing the street? Do they understand the person can't see?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yk7xh/eli5_do_animals_that_are_trained_to_help_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cflad2m",
"cflbuod",
"cfldhov",
"cflgfg3",
"cfljalp",
"cflkmc8",
"cflm1xm"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's all training. They're trained by sighted people, and they'll do what they're trained to do whether or not the person they're guiding is blind. They know to stop before crossing the street because they've gone through a long training process that taught them that's what they're supposed to do when they come to a street.",
"No training needed sometimes...it depends on the animal. I am a trained vet technician and the stories I hear are unbelievable. However my own Father's dog...Harry Potter the Jack Russell terrier, could tell moments before a diabetic shock was coming on. Amazing they are!",
"Without being able to actually get into the animals head, I would imagine they don't understand that their owner can't see anymore than they understand that they can see. They're just behaving according to how they're trained.",
"I would say it depends on the individual animal. There are adorable stories out there of animals helping other animals with disabilities purely on their own accord. Similarly they may come to realize they are helping a person for a specific reason. Science has no conclusive evidence on how animals understand other beings as a separate entity. Each species could understand differently. It's hard to say they definitively can't understand something. That being said, they are not trained to recognize disability they are only trained to do tasks. ",
"There's an important divide between two kinds of service dogs: guide dogs work quite differently from seizure/diabetes alert dogs, and this probably affects their understanding.\n\nSeizure response dogs predict seizures and are trained to alert their owners and respond to the situation. Diabetes alert dogs can sense high or low blood sugar and alert their owners; since their responsibilities are so similar I'll talk about SRD with the assumption that DAD are pretty much the same. \n\nTo train a seizure response dog, you must first start with a dog who can predict seizures. You can't pick any random dog, no matter how intelligent, sociable, or well-behaved it is, because seizure detection can't be taught by humans. Often, these dogs pick up the ability after spending time with an epileptic owner: my owner smells a certain way, and then she shakes and is very scared. Like many pets, the dog might react by comforting his owner as much as he can in these situations, and so she'll notice his ability. That's when training starts: SRD are often trained to fetch phones or activate special alarms, to remove dangerous objects from the environment, or to comfort their owners. \n\nSo, while they might not understand the biology of epilepsy, SRDs definitely know that something's up, it's bad, they should help their pack-mate. (I'll also note that the scope of the abilities of SRDs and DADs is controversial.)\n\nGuide dogs are very different. Guide dog puppies have no special abilities at birth or at any point in their lives, although they're often bred for resilience, intelligence, and friendliness. Their worth comes entirely from training. They know when they're on duty because they wear special harnesses,^1 and so long as the harnesses are on they will guide whoever is holding on to the other end. (\"Guide\" is a bit of a stretch. The dogs work mostly on veto power: go wherever you want, but not into that busy street. They do learn some routes well enough to lead their owners along, but typically the owners are also familiar with them and don't need to be led.) They don't detect blind people, and if they're being walked on leash alone they will stop guiding almost entirely. They might occasionally slow before a staircase, for example, but because of the inconsistency you can guess that it's just force of habit.\n\nSince guide dogs guide anyone, but only when they're specifically told to (by way of the harness) you can guess that they don't know that their owners are disabled. \n\nThat being said, in my experience the dogs are especially protective of their owners. When I went to bid my puppy a final goodbye, I noticed that she was more protective of her new owner than she had ever been of me, even though she had only known him for a month at the time. So perhaps she did have some understanding that it was her job to protect Roy. However, I have a massive bias here, so take it with a salt shaker.\n\n^1 Guide dogs have a few off-harness duties. If a fire alarm goes off, some (depending on training) will forcibly drag their owners outside and not let them back in. Again, this happens to any owner, even the bewildered and annoyed people who adopted retired guide dogs and just burned a pan of brownies. They aren't doing it because they think anyone is blind.",
"I raised a puppy for Leader Dogs for the Blind and NO the animal has no idea that the person they are leading is blind. The dog is raised from 6 weeks until they are ~1 year old when you return the dog to the homebase for their formal training. The puppy raiser (as I was) had a very strict list of what I had to teach the dog such as how to deal with very distracting outside stimuli (sirens, traffic, people at the store, etc). As a puppy raiser I was allowed to take my puppy pretty much anywhere. She would go to Wal-Mart with me and the grocery store with me, even sometimes college lectures to prove she could sit still for over 90 minutes and not be distracted. She would sit at my feet and only move once I got up and then she would wait for me to start to lead here where she would then lead me up the stairs and out of the lecture hall. After a couple weeks she knew the route to my bus and would lead me to where I needed to go. She had to learn very basic things from me. Such as how to sit, stay, go from one side around my back to the other, stop at traffic signals, ignore other animals as long as she had her \"vest\" on. Overall it was a great experience but the dog has NO IDEA the person they are leading is handicapped in any way. They are just trained in such a manor that they know when to stop and when to go at traffic signals based on other people moving when allowed to cross. Once the dog passes their tests that I was supposed to prepare it for it moves on to professional training. This is where they learn to wear a different harness and perform much more complex tasks. There are levels that the dog completes and then becomes certified after roughly 8 weeks. They are then matched to person needing a seeing eye dog and then when they come to pick up the dog you are invited to meet the person taking your puppy. Even though I hadn't seen my puppy in over 2 months she still instantly recognized me and we played a bit before her \"work vest\" went back on where their demeanor changes and they realize they are working. I actually broke down in tears as I saw how far my puppy had come and became certified as a seeing eye dog for the blind. It was a very emotional day realizing I would never see the dog again (until she is retired and I get first dibs to take her back free of charge in about 10 years) but also very emotional to see all the hours I put in from 6 weeks old to year 1 to prepare her for this journey. I met the blind person that was getting \"my\" puppy and we hugged and both broke down in tears with the person receiving her wanting to pay me for my help even though it is strictly volunteer. I think about my puppy every day and how I raised an animal to allow a human to live a much more normal life thanks to my help with the raising of a puppy that I knew eventually I may never see again. If you are into puppies I recommend you sign up to train a leader dog for the blind (out of Rochester, Michigan) and feel what I have felt as now something I have raised leaves a huge impact on a stranger's life. It was a sad day but a very happy day as the same time. I will never forget you, Ilka, I hope you're leading your blind companion as you have been trained. \n\nSo no, dogs DO NOT know they are leading an impaired person, they are simply following their training to a T which is designed to be used with a blind person. ",
"Even seizure dogs receive training. I get seizures and my dog, while totally my baby and totally attached, really couldn't care less. \n\nWhile I was at the doc, my dad was sitting in the waiting room talking to an 85 year old man about his 60 year old son who has had severe seizures his whole life. \n\nThey got him a seizure dog, but had to give him back because as a boy he was having so many seizures each day it was driving the dog insane!\n\nMy mom is blind and we've looked into dogs, but she likes her Maltese best. The dogs sense something is up because she trips on them, and just...does things differently. But even in the animal world sighted animals (especially domesticated) have been known to care for blind animals...they know something's amiss, and how to help, but maybe can't think \"oh this dog can't use his eyes\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9rt467
|
from my understanding, being a democrat or republican is based on how much power you want given to the government. why, then, are there so many differing characteristics in people between the two in things like being religious, their race, etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rt467/eli5_from_my_understanding_being_a_democrat_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8ji8i8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > From my understanding, being a democrat or republican is based on how much power you want given to the government.\n\nWell, there's the problem: your understanding is wrong. \n\nCertainly, the breadth of the role of government is _one_ distinction between parties (and an important one), but it is not the _only_ distinction. \n\n*However* ...\n\nThe ironic thing about US politics is that Democrats and Republicans have *soooooo* much in common. Both parties take a bunch of basic rights for granted and *then* spend most of their energy quibbling over *how* we're going to implement those basic rights. They make it seem like these arguments over whether a baker has to make a cake for a gay couple or whether the tax rate should be 32% or 36% are gut-wrenching decisions of epic impact. But those arguments can only take place because America has already attained a certain level of basic rights that enable those next-order arguments to even be feasible.\n\nCertainly, those decisions impact people's lives, and, yes, there are life-and-death decisions made by the US government all the time. But Americans would do well to stop and think how good we have it, *and how much we have in common across parties,* even when our political divides are at their worst. \n\nMany places in the rest of the world would rejoice to be able to *just* argue how deep the tax cut will be and who will pay for it. Instead, they are dealing with whether you have the right to, you know, not be *summarily executed* for loving someone of the same gender ... or have the the right not to be raped as part of an initiation ritual for the child soldier conscripted against his will to murder you and your family ... or maybe just decide whether you yourself eat today or give that handful of rice to your starving child.\n\nin the US, here's more that unites us than divides. American politics needs to take the rhetoric down a fucking dozen or two notches and instead do some actual work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4q9i0t
|
why is it that the effects of drugs like weed, pain pills, and benzos, can only be felt for hours while they can be detected in urine and blood screen for up to a month after ingestion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4q9i0t/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_effects_of_drugs_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4r6eho",
"d4r8ke0",
"d4rdbsk",
"d4rfrja",
"d4rh7em",
"d4rvpah"
],
"score": [
51,
22,
15,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The residual non psychoactive chemicals from the marijuana metabolites are kept in your fat storage.",
"Interestingly enough, (as an example), in urine tests, weed can only be detected for up to a month if you are a chronic user of weed, generally speaking, if you smoked weed only once before, the detection period of weed can be around 2-7 days. \n\nThis is because of the buildup of weed inside the body if you smoke more, requiring more time for the body to get rid of the weed inside your body, affecting the concentration of weed inside your urine and hence the effect on the detection period. \n\nGenerally, the effects of drugs can only be felt for hours as the body begins to break them down when they act on the brain, eventually decreasing to a level where it isn't going to have a significant effect on your brain while still being enough to be detected by the body.\n\n(also as a FYI, blood tests are not commonly used as the drug concentration drops much much quicker (~6 hours) and also requires specific equipment and personnel to carry out)\n\nEDIT: _URL_0_ Explains the chemistry concepts behind the variations in concentration of drugs within the body if you want to dig deeper",
"Simply put, most tests will test for drug metabolites (things your body produces to get rid of the substance), which last much longer in relation to the actual drugs themselves. Some drugs are more soluble than others, and have a shorter detection period, whereas frequency of use and physical activity can also have an effect on testing.",
"When you put things in your body, be it food, medicine, or any other chemical, they get broken down to metabolites (offspring molecules) and shuffled around to various different places before leaving the body. Sometimes they all pass through the digestive tract and are gone in a day or two. Other times, a certain metabolite remains in the body tissues for much longer before it is cleared from the body via the liver, kidneys etc. This can be due to the size, shape or reactivity of a substance and how the body recognizes it and chooses to deal with it. Blood/Urine tests can look for these leftover molecules and know they came from a certain substance, even when that substance is long gone.",
"It's like those poppers you throw on the ground. It pops and what's left is the paper and sand. Same thing. When you use a drug, it activates in for a time and its remaining, broken down bits are left in your body.",
"Drug tests generally are not checking for the presence of an illicit substance but instead they are looking for the metabolic left overs from your body using and breaking down the drug. \n\nThink of it like eating a big fatty meal. You get pleasure instantly but it fades in a few hours. It's still in your body for a day or so. And even after it's out of your body, it's left cholesterol, and other traces behind. Tests don't test for the drug, but for the things left behind once the drug wears off. \n\n\nThe actual term is metabolites. When you have a drug in your system the body begins breaking it down because it wants to maintain an equilibrium. Like if you get drunk, your body doesn't want alcohol in your blood so it breaks it down. If you eat too much salt, the body gets rid of the excess, etc. But when you have a drug, it gets broken down into simpler substances like taking lego blocks and breaking them into smaller and smaller blocks. It takes the body time to do this and so depending on the drug, and your metabolism, individual tolerance for the drug, and genetic factors, it can take days or weeks for the drug to leave your body. \n\nHair can be used to test for drugs months after the fact because living hair follicles store these drug metabolites as your hair grows, and hair sticks around for a long time, trapping these tell tales with them. \n\n\nA person with a higher tolerance to the drug, will often be clear of it faster as their body is prepped for the task. Overweight people may take longer to get rid of THC metabolites than thinner people. Some ethnicities may capture drug metabolites in their hair at higher levels than others making hair tests more sensitive than they would normally be. \n\n\nModern testing is very sensitive by using techniques which will re-combine and increase the detectable limit for these metabolytes. For instance if any amount, no matter how small, is in a sample, these techniques increase the concentration allowing for detection even in parts per million levels. \n\nThey can be false positives due to this sensitivity though. Even the lab workers clothing may contaminate samples just from being in the same room as other samples. So what they are supposed to do is run a 2nd test to confirm, and if absolute testing is required they will use something like a GCMS which can vaporize a sample and read the light and absorption patterns in the substance and then give a high accuracy read out of every chemical in the sample. These are expensive though and are not done for the most part. If you fail the 2nd test you are usually flagged as a user. It's unfortunate that most businesses won't pay for the GCMS test when in doubt as it's easier just to hire someone else. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nmp/sonet/rlos/bioproc/halflife/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
myilc
|
embezzlement
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/myilc/eli5_embezzlement/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c34v5an",
"c34w7ve",
"c34wdcr",
"c34v5an",
"c34w7ve",
"c34wdcr"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
4,
6,
10,
4
],
"text": [
"Embezzlement is the willful theft of funds from a company the thief works at.\n",
"Embezzlement covers a rather diverse group of crimes, but let me give you a straightforward, concrete example.\n\nSuppose Bob works at a roofing company, and part of his job is to buy roofing tiles. Bob talks to his friend Charles, who sells roofing tiles, and agrees to let Charles overcharge Bob's company for those tiles. Instead of paying $30,000 dollars for the tiles Bob needs, the company pays $50,000. The extra $20,000 is embezzled from the company.",
"Sometimes someone or a group of people have so much money that they need someone else to look after it. Those people see how much money it is and think, no one will notice if I take just a little. So they do.",
"Embezzlement is the willful theft of funds from a company the thief works at.\n",
"Embezzlement covers a rather diverse group of crimes, but let me give you a straightforward, concrete example.\n\nSuppose Bob works at a roofing company, and part of his job is to buy roofing tiles. Bob talks to his friend Charles, who sells roofing tiles, and agrees to let Charles overcharge Bob's company for those tiles. Instead of paying $30,000 dollars for the tiles Bob needs, the company pays $50,000. The extra $20,000 is embezzled from the company.",
"Sometimes someone or a group of people have so much money that they need someone else to look after it. Those people see how much money it is and think, no one will notice if I take just a little. So they do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4390pq
|
why are programs allowed to use 100% cpu ?
|
Why doesn't the OS prevent any application from hogging the CPU ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4390pq/eli5why_are_programs_allowed_to_use_100_cpu/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czge6ca",
"czgf0t0",
"czggcbn",
"czgmnnm",
"czgnf4p",
"czgnwiv",
"czgt2m0",
"czgvi0c",
"czh3rf1"
],
"score": [
6,
45,
2,
6,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It does, don't think it doesn't. You are probably looking at statistics detailing overall CPU usage, which adds what other programs and the OS use. Though the OS doesn't need much CPU use generally.",
"We bought the CPU to be used, not to sit idle. If one program wants all of the CPU and no other programs want any, why would the program that wants it not be given it?\n\nThe CPU doesn't have inertia. If someone else comes along and asks for CPU, it can be taken away from the first process in a tiny fraction of a second.",
"There is no alternate way software can use CPU. You set it to run as the only process, with complete access to all cpu memory(preloaded with the memory segments it needs, and its own program code). Then after a while, this program decides to make a system call to relinquish its control back to OS, which then uses CPU time it gets to figure out which program should run next.\n\nOperating system however usually sets timer which, after it expires, forces program to swap out of CPU. It's complicated job your operating system has, trying to figure out which processes should be given priority to run, but it usually does decent job, all the while guaranteeing that operating system itself remains responsive enough. But sometimes things might go wrong.",
"I'm currently loading an SSIS warehouse with 2.3 billion rows of data. If I wasn't allowed to max all 12 CPU's to 100% I'd kill myself.",
"On desktop, this is allowed because often hogging CPU is precisely what program is supposed to do, for example games, or video editing. You want these programs to use as much processor power as possible to get the best experience from them. \n\nOn servers, where multiple important programs share the same hardware, you can set up CPU, memory and i/o quotas, which are enforced these days through virtualization (there are other, older ways, for example user quotas etc). This, however, is no easy task to do correctly, and requires a rather specific expertise. Also server-grade hardware and software, which is expensive compared to regular desktop stuff. ",
"Each CPU core can only perform one task at a time. Normally within a given period a bunch of tasks take turns using the CPU core. If only one task is being performed in that given period, than it is using 100% of the CPU. This may not be a bad thing, but other tasks have to wait their turn.\n\nThe more cores / CPUs that your computer has, the more tasks your computer can do at one time.",
"In some systems (e.g. Linux) you can do this if you want.\n\nYou can use control groups to say that a particular application is only allowed a particular share of the CPU resources.\n\nOr you can use taskset to say that a particular process is only allowed to run on particular CPU cores. So if you have a 4-core machine, you can say the hungry process is only allowed to run on two of those cores. This leaves the other two cores totally free for other things.\n\nHowever, these are primarily useful in shared, large-scale computing systems (i.e. cluster or cloud computing) rather than desktop environments.",
"Well, it's not actually \"hogging\" anything. Each process gets it's time slice based on the Operating systems scheduler. Sometimes some processes have little to do, so when a program has a lot to do then it will continue getting more and more time slices which can add up to 100% of the cpu time.",
"The OS can prevent any application from hogging the CPU, easily. The OS completely controls what software gets to use the CPU and how much they get to use. The problem is that the OS doesn't know what you want and what you consider \"bad\" behavior."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
enksrj
|
if companies can make zero sugar cola why can't they make zero sugar candy bars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enksrj/eli5_if_companies_can_make_zero_sugar_cola_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fe0tbgh",
"fe10zz1",
"fe181gu",
"fe22uv6",
"fe2j1gl",
"fe2jllx",
"fe2kc21",
"fe2ny37",
"fe2qwpf",
"fe2u8ql",
"fe2wz33"
],
"score": [
265,
14,
26,
8,
129,
5,
36,
5,
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"There are sugar free chocolates, you can buy them at any walmart and I'm sure most grocery stores. They actually taste quite similar. However because they use sugar alcohols for sweetness instead of real sugar, the inability of humans to absorb/digest the sugar alcohols means they can cause some pretty severe intestinal distress if a lot is eaten. Which means you will have lots of farts and diarrhea to deal with. If you can be disciplined and have just one or two pieces then you may enjoy the experience.",
" [_URL_0_](_URL_1_) \n\n\nseriously .. try some.. sugar free chocolate and it's amazing",
"They can and do. I know its not a large selection but my fiance loves the Russel Stover's ones. Peanut butter chocolate and coconut chocolate. It comes in green packaging.\n\nIm just worried about ass blast from having too much.",
"It’s easy to substitute the added sugar in a chocolate bar or can of soda with a different sweetener. You can’t make sugar free stuff like nougat, caramel, or toffee since these things are mostly pure cooked sugar.",
"Sugar free candy is a thing. They use sugar alcohols as a sweetener that will cause you to shit your guts out of you're not careful with how much you injest. Want a good laugh? Read these Amazon reviews for sugar free gummy bears:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Pretty sure there's a zero sugar candy bar called the Zero bar. True chocolate as the consistency of paint chips.",
"Omg y’all need to try Lily’s. They have about 5-6 different chocolate bars. Stevia sweetened. Caramel is my favorite, but it’s hard to find. No explosive ass problems.\n\nEdit: not affiliated, just hungry",
"Lilly’s makes a pretty large selection of sugar-free chocolates and they have never caused me intestinal distress",
"Lily’s makes great sugar free chocolate. They use ingredients that don’t mess with your gut. Most of the big brands that do sugar free opt for the cheap ingredients which make you shit out your brains. Avoid malitol - it’s what’s in haribo and Russell stover and most other sugar free candy - it pulls the cork out of your butt immediately.",
"Low/zero sugar bars are pretty common now and they taste suprisingly good. Most of them are usually in the protein bar sector but they've come in leaps and bounds in the last few years.\n\nThe downside of these bars is that they contain a lot of sugar alcohols. If you eat more than one of these bars you'll always certainly shit yourself.",
"Amazon search for CHOC ZERO. They're delicious. Stevia sweetened dark chocolate w/sea salt. I get the almond variety. Delish!! Serious. Expensive but very well worth it when I need chocolate. Keto dieting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/ChocZero-Premium-Chocolate-Alcohol-Natural/dp/B01LQYFLY8?ref\\_=ast\\_sto\\_dp&th=1&psc=1",
"https://www.amazon.com/ChocZero-Premium-Chocolate-Alcohol-Natural/dp/B01LQYFLY8?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1&psc=1"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Gummy-Bears-Albanese-Confectionery/dp/B00CMS97YS"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
muan6
|
what is the chamber of commerce and why should google quit it?
|
Source is from this thread:
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/muan6/eli5_what_is_the_chamber_of_commerce_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3421fk",
"c3421fk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If I remember correctly, the US Chamber of Commerce is a lobby group in favor of businesses. (Sneaky name isn't it?) \nGoogle's motto is \"Don't be evil.\" \nThe Chamber lobbies in favor of businesses and not consumers. In a sense, they are \"evil\" from the point of view of consumers. \nPeople feel that it is hypocritical for Google to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce. ",
"If I remember correctly, the US Chamber of Commerce is a lobby group in favor of businesses. (Sneaky name isn't it?) \nGoogle's motto is \"Don't be evil.\" \nThe Chamber lobbies in favor of businesses and not consumers. In a sense, they are \"evil\" from the point of view of consumers. \nPeople feel that it is hypocritical for Google to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mtlnw/google_is_thinking_of_quitting_the_us_chamber_of/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fd0m9t
|
does taking a fever reducer like aspirin, acetaminophen (tylenol) or ibuprofen (advil) impair recovery from an illness? is it better to live with a mild/moderate fever or take one of these drugs if you're hoping to reduce illness duration?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fd0m9t/eli5_does_taking_a_fever_reducer_like_aspirin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fje7y4u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that you should take the fever reducer if the fever gets high enough to be dangerous, or you have to work. If the fever is 102 or under and you can stay home, then it's better to let it work for you and fight the germs. \n\nIf it goes above 104 and the fever reducer won't bring it down, go to your GP or urgent care center, or if you have absoloutly 0 other options the ER, but in the last case expect to wait a looooooong time to be seen. (Also these numbers are for adults and teens, small kids and babies it's different. Consult your pediatrician for what temperature to give tylenol to your kid or take them to the doctor. Fevers are dangerous at lower temperatures for the little ones.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2toij6
|
- if i see the moon during the day, does that mean that people on the other side of the world can't see it at their night?
|
Does the moon have a set 'thing' like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or does it do whatever it wants? Just appearing and disappearing all willy nilly like.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2toij6/eli5_if_i_see_the_moon_during_the_day_does_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co0v62b",
"co0v9bo",
"co0w023",
"co0wh3r",
"co10sx9",
"co14qae"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It still rises in the east and sets in the west, but since it orbits us, the window in which it's visible changes throughout the course of a month. And yes, when we see it, those on the other side of the world cannot (much like the sun).",
"That's correct.\n\nThe Moon orbits the Earth roughly every 28 days, in the same direction that the Earth rotates. So it appears to move west across the sky, but if you look at it at a certain time one day, and then look again at the same time the next day, it will be farther toward the eastern horizon on the second day.\n\nOf course, 'night' isn't just a single moment. If we assume that night lasts 8 hours, the Earth's rotation during that time means that essentially only a 4-hour segment of the sky remains unseen, so if you stood out all night you'd have an 83% chance of seeing the Moon at some point that night. If we assume that night lasts 12 hours, you are almost guaranteed to be able to see the Moon during that time (the only other case being when the Moon is just below the western horizon at dusk, and ends up just below the eastern horizon at dawn).",
"The moon rises and sets just like the sun, but it takes about 25 hours, not 24, to do so. So it slowly gets out of sync with the sun.\n\nIf you can see the moon during the day, people on the other size of the world can't see it *at that instant*, but likely will be able to see it sometime during their night.",
"Yep, and it's pretty easy to tell, because you can watch the moon set just like you can watch the sun set. After you have seen the moon set in the sky, then you have a moonless night, and *you are* one of the \"people on the other side of the world\". If you live in America, you can go outside and see the moon right now (it should be a waxing crescent), but in two to three hours, depending on where you live, it'll be below the horizon to the west. Tomorrow morning, it will rise again a few hours after sunrise (but you probably won't be able to see it because of, you know, sunrise).",
"Everything outside the earth - the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars - rises in the east and sets in the west on a 24-hour cycle. Basically the whole sky moves, and that's because it's the earth that is actually moving. If you see the moon during the day, then twelve hours later the people on the other side of the world will see it during their day too, as they are now located right where you were previously.\n\nNow, the moon actually moves a little more than just moving along with the sky, enough to loop around every 28 days. And the earth moves a bit around the sun every day.\n\nIt would be truly awesome if the moon appeared and disappeared all willy nilly like, but alas, we are all bound by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.",
"i remember asking this in school and my teacher tried to pull 'thats what the new moon is' bullshit on me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2dp71p
|
what is rick perry being indicted for?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dp71p/eli5_what_is_rick_perry_being_indicted_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjrp74n",
"cjrr1ud"
],
"score": [
17,
12
],
"text": [
"You know how a school bully might threaten to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money? Governor Perry is accused of doing sort of the same thing by threatening to not give a woman's department money if she didn't resign from office.\n\nSince it was the governor doing it, he should know better. This would be the same as your school principal demanding that you give him your lunch money or he'll make sure you fail all your classes. School districts don't like it when principals do that, and grand juries don't like it when governors do that.",
"He wanted the Travis County District Attorney to resign because she got a DUI and served time.\n\nWhen she didn't, Gov. Perry yanked her funding.\n\nA Travis County prosecutor then secured today's indictment.\n\n_URL_0_\n\ntl;dr unusually bad behavior from Texas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/messing-with-texas-perry-vetoes-money-for-dui-da-gets-indicted-23925/"
]
] |
||
1lf5bs
|
why dont we build roads out of stone rather than asphalt?
|
Other than the initial cost, stone roads seem to be easier to maintain and last longer than asphalt.
Edit: I realise my assumptions were way off.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lf5bs/eli5_why_dont_we_build_roads_out_of_stone_rather/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbylqr2",
"cbym3ji"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you're underestimating the cost here. \n\nAsphalt is a byproduct of oil refining, which means it is dirt cheap, while stone has to be hauled out of the ground and moved. It also has to be the right shape, which you'll have to cut and/or level to get a solid foundation for the road, and there will still be seams between the stones. Over time, the road will sink, which means you'll have to realign the stones, while the asphalt should deform comparatively uniformly until it has to be replaced.\n\nSo, lots of costs associated with stone. Much higher than you'd predict.",
"Asphalt is more prevalent for a number of reasons. First, it is much easier to maintain - easy to patch, easy to fill cracks with tar, easy to plow, fewer spots for ice to form, etc. Not to mention that a paved asphalt road is much smoother for cars, which is the biggest factor. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
32brom
|
why have so many revolutionaries tried to set up socialist dictatorships, but nobody has tried to set up a democratic socialist country?
|
Scandinavian countries do *not* count as socialist, they are social democracies. I'm asking why no actual, means-of-production-controlled-by-the-workers socialism has ever been enacted in a democratic environment with a proper system of checks and balances.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32brom/eli5_why_have_so_many_revolutionaries_tried_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq9q7xp",
"cq9txti"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Full overthrow of society revolutions are often so chaotic that authoritarian governments are the only thing that can keep the peace. It's never a simple us V them there are dozens of factions vying for power. \n\n",
"There are three examples in history of attempts to create a non-totalitarian socialist state - the Paris Commune during the Franco-Prussian War, the Free Territory in the Russian Civil War, and Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War.\n\nThe Paris Commune was an uprising by workers in Paris that temporarily took over the city, and the society they set up did have mostly democratic features. It lasted a few weeks and was then crushed by French troops.\n\nDemocratic socialists did play an important role in the first stage of the Russian Revolution. After the czar was forced to abdicate, there was a parliament and many of the parties elected were democratic socialists. About six months later, when the Bolsheviks (Communists) seized power, they shut down the parliament and wiped out most of the non-Bolshevik socialist parties. One socialist/anarchist leader, Makhno, controlled an area called the Free Territory where he tried to create a non-totalitarian socialist state, and formed a significant military force called the Black Army. His Black Army fought against both the Red Army (Bolsheviks) and the White Army (czarists), but was ultimately defeated, and the Free Territory was absorbed into the USSR.\n\nMost post-1917 violent revolutionary movements were either backed by the Soviet Union or inspired by it, and so they rejected democracy and democratic socialism and called for a totalitarian communist state. Democratic socialists almost always used electoral means (in democratic societies) or non-violent means (when confronting dictatorships) to advance their causes, not violence. In cases where there was a violent movement for national liberation against a colonial power, democratic socialist forces often joined with right-wing nationalists and Communists in fighting the colonial power, and the #1 priority was to gain independence. After independence, the most militarily powerful faction usually won out, and that was often either the Communists or right-wing, not the democratic socialists.\n\nDuring the Spanish Civil War, in Catalonia there were workers and peasants who took over some communities and ran them both socialistically and roughly democratically. Both the right-wing military and the Spanish Communists fought those communities and ultimately they were defeated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4c4zrx
|
why do we get 'zapped' when touching another object (metal)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c4zrx/eli5_why_do_we_get_zapped_when_touching_another/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1f3j7w",
"d1f46yx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Static electricity. Basically, either you or a piece of metal can develop an imbalance of charge, i.e. by rubbing your feet on carpet, and when you touch a conductive surface the charge imbalance will jump across until both you and the object are balanced, and you will feel this jump as it is an electric current ",
"Let's take the example of the car: \n\nWhile driving your car generates a small charge and potential difference through friction. Since you car is on rubber tires, it remains charged. When you touch it you discharge the car by being a connection to the ground. \n\nSince charges position themselves on sharp edges (why you don't put forks in a microwave) the edge of the door is a \"risky\" place to touch. Even when you touch the rubber the spark may simply jump over to you anyway. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5ezuv5
|
how does technology improve?
|
I think I'm used to advancements in the world taking place through "breakthroughs" people are using trial and error and all of a sudden all the pieces come together. But that should only produce advancement every once in awhile, kind of like mining gold. Sometimes you find a lot of gold, sometimes very little.
But technology seems to be moving steadily. I'm thinking resolutions, form factor, CPU speed, GPU speed, etc. They constantly keep improving at an almost predictable pace. It seems like it's less mining gold and more farming crops.
How does that happen? What are they actually *doing* to keep this pace?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ezuv5/eli5_how_does_technology_improve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dagcfxa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Look up Moores law\n\nHe stated in 1965 that the number of transistors would double every year. With that doubling, they got smaller, and more efficient, and there were more of them on a chip.\n\nThis increases processing power that engineers can use to better research new technologies.\n\nMoores law is also a self fulfilling prophecy in a sense. More predicted that semi conductors would double every year (later revised to 18 months), and companies like Intel set the goal to achevie this. They could have put more R & D into it, and doubled at a faster rate, or cut R & D and took a bit longer, but they set out the roadmap, and put enough into R & D to keep up that pace.\n\nAlso, moores law may be coming to an end soon. Experiential growth cannot continue forever, and its predicted that moores law will no longer hold true. Perhaps in 2017, or the very near future."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4u1eeo
|
how do computer filesystems work?
|
How is the filesystem logic written into a hard drive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u1eeo/eli5_how_do_computer_filesystems_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5m1jfj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Filesystem \"logic\" - as in, the instructions for dealing with filesystems - is not written to the hard drive in any special way, it's just another part of the operating system. Can you clarify your question?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1rwwaq
|
why books (except for porn magazines) don't have maturity rating like musics movies, and games?
|
I just finished reading ASOIAF series (up to ADWD) and found it surprising that there was no maturity warning on the cover. The violent and coitus descriptions in the serie are rather very vivid.
Also lots of words such as Fuck and Cunt are used as well. Oh yeah, also there is incest.
If it were movie or music, it would certainly be the age 18 or up.
But no, books don't have age limit (other than one's capacity to read and comprehend the words)
Why is that?
PS does audio book have maturity rating like music?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rwwaq/why_books_except_for_porn_magazines_dont_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdrq0j4",
"cdrq0ka",
"cdrr2oe",
"cdrrmlv",
"cdrrrfa",
"cdrszki",
"cdrtigd",
"cdrxfxa"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
11,
6,
4,
11,
20,
2
],
"text": [
"ELI5 What is ASOIAF and ADWD?",
"In all honesty I would of never thought about that. And you bring up a very valid question. In my opinion there should be some kind of rating system. ",
"Libraries (via the Dewey Decimal System) and Book stores already have dedicated sections for children's material. If you are buying books for minors, you are probably going to be looking for the \"Young Adult\" section... and that's not where they put George R.R. Martin's books. \n\nPS: No, Audio books are treated like regular books in this sense. Spoken words, however, do have parental advisory labels where deemed necessary. ",
"Children's books normally have some sort of label to show the intended reading age, since the line between \"for children\" and \"for young adults\" can be pretty blurry at times. Past that, however, it's just assumed that if your reading abilities are good enough to understand a book intended for adults, then you're probably mature enough to deal with it's subject matter. ",
"I'd say that books don't get rated because historically, graphic sex in novels was generally limited to romance novels. Everybody knew those Harlequin paperbacks were filthy, but most other adult books and certainly YA novels were relatively clean. It's only recently, say, the last 10-15 years that there has been an explosion of graphic sex in both adult and YA writing.\n\nPerhaps there *should* be more visible ratings of books, but a lot of people would object to it because they'd consider it censorship. Even though we've come to accept that other forms of entertainment have age limits, people get very defensive about limiting young people's access to books, even if we're not talking about books that have any literary value.",
"I think the main reason behind that is that reading needs another kind of perception than e.g. movies or video games. Basically when you read something you have to imagine it, when you watch a movie you have to see it as somebody else imagined it.\n \n Much simplified: if a child reads about sex and does not know about it, they will just ignore those parts and continue with the parts that they do understand. The author Terry Pratchett once said something along these lines about himself. When he was young he loved reading the James Bond books: he did not perceive the sex parts as such but skimed through those parts as they were boring to him and continued to read when the characters were shooting each other.\n\nEDIT: Another example which also shows this effect is this picture: _URL_0_",
"The writing \"level\" of a book acts as its own maturity rating, don't you think? Any asshole can sit down and *watch* an episode of Game of Thrones and be exposed to the beheadings, wenches, incest and more. That's why the maturity ratings are there, to say \"hey, this TV show has some gnarly content, it definitely shouldn't be viewed by kids.\" But the book doesn't need that rating, because if a child opened up *Game of Thrones* (the book) and started reading, they probably wouldn't be able to comprehend it, because of word use, sentence structure, even font size. A child could understand that the book is not \"for\" them. \n\nIn other words, if someone is old enough to be able to read a G.R.R. Martin book, they're old enough to handle the mature themes present. ",
"It's because you cant accidentally or passively consume a book by just being around it. If you ingest the content you had to try to do it. Movies and music can enter your psyche by osmosis. Books can't."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.moillusions.com/what-do-you-see-illusion/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
8mvm0x
|
why does driving in the rain make the rain look like it’s coming from a single point in the sky
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mvm0x/eli5_why_does_driving_in_the_rain_make_the_rain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzqsj5g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Standing in the rain has the same effect, driving just makes the raindrops approach you faster. Without too much wind all the raindrops are falling parallel. If you draw lines along their motion you get lots of parallel lines, and these always seem to meet in one place. You have the same with railway lines, long hallways, tunnels, and so on. This is called perspective. [Wikipedia has some examples](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical\\)#One-point_perspective"
]
] |
||
9z2kno
|
what’s actually happening to your throat when you lose your voice? how does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9z2kno/eli5_whats_actually_happening_to_your_throat_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea5tomz",
"ea5tw0h",
"ea5v8mw",
"ea5xvzx",
"ea5y7mk",
"ea5yt65",
"ea6037s",
"ea630um",
"ea64nck",
"ea64uhs",
"ea66fyz",
"ea671rc",
"ea6a3i5",
"ea6c4ye",
"ea6jhli",
"ea77g4f"
],
"score": [
5155,
147,
37,
11,
2,
10,
68,
2,
348,
3,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To produce sound, your vocal cords need to be able to swing freely. \nWhen you lose your voice, they're not moving freely, either due to the swelling of the infection, or other obstructions.\n\nReal ELI5 : your voice works like a guitar. If you press a pillow down on the guitar cords, their aren't going to make noises. \n\nEdit1: Gramar\n\nEdit2: To all of you who want to know more about how the voice is produced, here is more of a ELI15 explanation. \nFor the sake of this explanation, I'm going to use the latin names of the anatomical structures, as english isn't my native language. \n\nThe Larynx has 3 stages, and sits on top of the trachea : \n\n- The Vestibulum Larygis, with the Plicae vestibulares\n\n- The Ventriculus larygis, with the Plicae vocales\n\n- The Cavitas infraglottica\n\n\nThe Plicae vestibularis humidifie and clean the plicae vocales during swallowing. It's possible to use them as \"backup voice generators\" with a lot of training if for any reasons the plicae vocales are paralysed.\n\nLets have a closer look at the plicae vocales, our actual voice generator. Beneith the tunica mucose, medial you'll find the ligamentum vocale, and lateral the M. vocalis. The M. Vocalis can, if the contracts, bring both sides closer together and even close the rima glottidis. \n\nBetween the Tunica mucosa and the lig. vocale you'll find a thin layer (The Reinke's space) of loose connective tissue, enabling them to shift. [A chronic edema](_URL_0_) in the reinke space causes the smokers voice. \n\nOf course, this is only the basics of where the voice is generated. \n\nTo produce sounds, the air rushing through the larynx coming from the lungs pass by the small gap made by the Plicae vocalis, making them vibrate, similar to the single reed of a woodwind instrument. \nThe more relaxed the Plicae vocalis are, the slower they vibrate and therfore the deeper the sound produces. \n\nThe sound is then modulated in the rest of the Larynx, Pharynx, and Sinuses, lips and tongue, to exit as voice. \n\n\nSource: Am a 3rd year med student and looked it up in my anatomy atlas because it's been ages since I passed macroscopical anatomy. ",
"You produce sound when air passes and vibrates the tissue of your larynx (vocal chords). When you get laryngitis this tissue becomes inflamed and swollen causing distortion of that vibration. If you overuse your voice box you can develop nodules in your vocal chords resulting in similar symptoms. Often this presents as voice cracks, horseness and breathy speech. Think of the sound plucking a tight guitar string makes. Now imagine that guitar string is covered in thick mucus, misshapen and loose on the fret board. Our vocal chords are quite delicate and minor damage changes how they vibrate quite a lot",
"Remember when you would use a blade of grass to make a buzzing sound during recess? The sound only worked if you brought your fingers together with the blade of grass in between. Your fingers are like the vocal cords. They need to be able to come together in order for us to make sound. Imagine if they weren't able to come together or barely come together, our voice would sound breathy and weak. This is what more or less happens when lose your voice. ",
"When you overuse your voice, or when you get an infection, it causes your vocal cords to swell. The swelling changes the shape and flexibility of the cords, in turn changing the sound. ",
"your vocal cords are a bunch of strings that vibrate as you blow air over them to make sound. When they swell up, they bump into each other and dont make vibrations, so no sound, you can usually kind of hear a sound if someones close, because there will be a very small amount of strings vibrating, plus some parts of shaping the sound depends on the way you move your mouth, so that part still works.",
"To add to what other posts have said - there are many reasons for reduced movement in the vocal folds, from stress to infection to temporary muscle paralysis. Best thing to do is drink warm water, relax, and if it persists see your doctor/ENT (as it could be infection or something more serious/chronic like nodules, nerve damage, or cancer)",
"Off topic, but did you know that birds can sing their complex songs because they have two voice boxes?",
"What about when you shouted too much during the previous evening? ",
"Ok, a lot of bad terminology and misconceptions in this post so far. \n\nYou make sound by sending air through your vocal FOLDS, not chords. Common wrong terminology. \n\nYou have two flaps of very thin membrane that sit in the middle of your larynx. They vibrate extremely quickly when you bring them together and send air through them to produce sound. Very much like a trumpet player’s lips into a trumpet. \n\nHowever your folds don’t just vibrate like a cell phone, they wave along each other. It’s super interesting in slow motion.\n\nAnyways, swelling on your folds prevents the perfect closure of these very thin pieces of tissue. The larger the swelling, the harder it is to force the two sides together. Most people lose only parts of their voices because they can still make their folds vibrate together at lower frequencies that require less vibration and the folds are still able to come together despite the irregularity. But if the swelling (or in severe cases, the growth) on your vocal folds is large enough it can prevent you from talking at all. \n\nSwelling is caused the same way as any other swelling. From impact. Every time you speak your folds come together. But if you yell they can come together more violently. When you cough or clear your throat, your folds come together VERY violently. So losing your voice is a product of swelling created by friction, not by any kind of phlegm or other obstruction. \nEdit: you can also have swelling on your folds from the infection itself as someone pointed out, but you can prevent this from worsening, and also allow it to heal faster by not coughing.\n\nIm an opera singer, and when I get sick my main goal is to prevent myself from coughing. The less I cough during an illness, the faster my vocal folds will recover afterwards. \n\nWhen smokers lose the ability to speak, it’s usually because one or both of their folds becomes paralyzed, or has to be removed. And since you can’t force one of your vocal folds all the way to the other side of your throat, it’s impossible to make vibration and therefore no sound. \n\nReason I know: I’m an opera singer who has taken multiple vocal science classes. I also once suffered an impact to the throat that made it impossible for me to speak for 6 weeks due to a massive bruise on my vocal fold.",
"Any time you see the word “itis”, it means “inflammation of”. Laryngitis is inflammation of the larynx. Your larynx is swollen. ",
"Another similar question I've had is, why is our voice (at least with men) deeper when wake up? And why doesn't that always happen?",
"I can answer this first hand - semi nsfw link of a camera going through my nose and throat. _URL_0_\n\nBasically one vocal cord is not working, it's paralyzed. While I have not lost my voice completely, imagine someone else who has two paralyzed vocal cords and this is what would be going on. Notice that the left side of the video, the fold does not close like the right side. They need to make contact together to produce the best speech/sound possible.",
"I am a teacher, so I have to \"strain\" my voice on a daily. It was fucked for a good 6 months so I went to a specialist. They did the down the throat camera and all that, and it turns out I was fine so the doc suggested it was acid reflux. Took omeprazole for a week and my voice was back like zeus. Moving mountains ",
"Imagine whistling with kylie jenners lips.. They are so swollen they can't actually produce sound from the wind going through them...those are ur vocal cords when they are swollen",
"Essentially your vocal chords come together to make sounds. However, when you scream, make loud or sharp noises, or talk a lot; your vocal chords are slamming together. This constant slamming results in them swelling up so there's no way for them to come together and back apart as easily. It's why if you feel yourself losing your voice, you can rest it and it won't be totally lost. When you're sick, you lose your voice because puss is in there clogging up the process. In theatre, losing your voice is common, so actors need to be trained to relax as possible. Many perfessionals won't speak Unless its during the show, so that they don't lose their voice. ",
"I'm a bit late to the game here, but it's worth noting that it's not just the irritation and swelling of the vocal folds that causes laryngitis. When the throat is in pain (as in a really bad cold), the intrinsic muscles that adduct/abduct the vocal folds contract and lose their range of motion. It's a natural reaction, the same way your back muscles tighten up when you hurt your back even though you know you shouldn't."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinke%27s_edema"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/mRX8nD-NpDw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9sqbaw
|
why are some gestures so universal (nodding, shaking your head, kissing) despite cultures being so different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9sqbaw/eli5_why_are_some_gestures_so_universal_nodding/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8qqbnq",
"e8qry7u",
"e8r5esy",
"e8r6i66"
],
"score": [
46,
9,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"It's funny you list nodding as universal. \n\nBecause it's not. In bulgaria, greece, Iran, parts of India, and several other countries that means no. \n\nFor shaking your head I once had a professor that said he worked with these Indian genetlemen that kept doing it. He thought they had a condition. Apparently it meant they had a question. \n\nSo the answer to your question is \"it's not.\" \n\nEdit: also kissing. In a lot of places, eastern europe specifically, its totslly acceptable for two grown men to key each other on the cheek. Whereas in the US that would likely make someone super uncomfortable. ",
"All of those gestures are not universal at all. There are many cultures around the world that treat them very differently and/or the meaning of these gestures is very different to western culture. ",
"There are very few universal gestures, and none of the ones you have listed are universal.\n\nSaying 'huh' or 'eh' or 'ugh' when you don't understand something is a universal. And pupils dilating when aroused is a universal. But that's about the only universals I can think of.",
"Your listed examples aren't really universal, in the way you're describing. \n\nBetter examples of universal behavior would be laughter, and facial expressions like smiling and frowning, brow furrowing, etc.\n\nThese are universal because the behaviors are deeply rooted in Human evolution; as part of our pro-sociality, we've evolved complex and nuanced mechanisms (facial expressions) for non-verbal communication. Laughter is also deeply rooted, but its evolutionary and neurological mechanisms are not as well understood. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.