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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1zc4f0
|
why do condoms have expiration dates?
|
They're just plastic, right? Do they deteriorate, or something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zc4f0/eli5_why_do_condoms_have_expiration_dates/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfscngb",
"cfscnxr",
"cfsd9xu"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Both lubricated and unlubricated condoms begin to lose strength and deteriorate. \n",
"They're latex, which does indeed deteriorate. They go old and crumbly and break really easily past their expiration date.",
"Mostly legal reasons: just like foods, for all we know they are fine past the expiration date, but eventually they will fail. Given that a failed condom is worth eighteen to life, it is best to mark the expiration far earlier than it might actually be -- even if a condom had a near indefinite lifespan, the stakes are far too high to take that risk and so expiration dates, regardless of whether they are practically needed, are important.\n\nBut yeah, like everything else in reality, it breaks down in the presence of heat, light and atmosphere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
14zmmw
|
the situation in congo
|
While I get the gist of the idea, I'm shamefully ignorant of what's happening. I would like to be educated to the point where I could explain what's happening if someone asked. How did it start, what's going on now, why isn't it more publicized?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14zmmw/eli5_the_situation_in_congo/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7hza3j"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"So today, in Africa, there are two countries that are important to our story. One is Congo, which is a very large country, but filled with jungles. It is connected not by big highways, but by its river. The other is a much smaller country called Rwanda. It's poor, like Congo, but its people are crowded together more.\n\nA long time ago (but not as long ago as you might think), both Congo and Rwanda had been ruled by a very bad king, named Leopold, of Belgium. That's mostly a story for another day, but one of the things that happens when you have a terrifically bad king is that he puts his friends in power, and everyone is afraid. That's what happened in Congo: bad people were in power (they're the people who make friends with bad kings), and the people were afraid.\n\nIn Rwanda, because it was smaller, Leopold did something he didn't do in Congo. He divided the people into two groups, based on their height and the shape of the skulls, and their skin color. That was news to the people: they didn't think such things were so important. At least, not until Leopold told them it was. \n\nThen, in Rwanda, Leopold gave the taller, rounder-skulled people jobs, and called them Tutsis. He called the shorter, pointy-skulled people Hutus, and taxed them more. Needless to say, the Tutsis started thinking they were special, and the Hutus were angry about it.\n\nThen Leopold left. (Remember, he was a bad king. You should ask about why we don't have many kings any more.)\n\nAnd he left Congo to his friends, and he left Rwanda to the taller people, the Tutsis. \n\nAnd after the kings left, the Russians and the Americans (you remember the story about the cold war--the butter battle book?) spent the next forty years fighting over who would be friends with them. So the bad people in Congo, and the powerful people in Rwanda, had new support.\n\nAnd then the Russians and the Americans stopped caring. (Because the story about them ended.)\n\nAnd the Hutus were still angry at the Tutsis, and they--they used the radio, and they got out their knives, and they did... very bad things. They killed many of the Tutsis. So the Tutsis ran away, across the border, into Congo.\n\nBut the Tutsis didn't stay there. They organized an army, and they signed up with [Laurent Kabila](_URL_2_), and they conquered Rwanda, and then they conquered all of Congo, and they made Kabila the king of Congo. (They called him a president, but he wasn't elected). And they thew many of the Hutus out of Rwanda--into Congo.\n\nAnd they were fighting. That was the first Congo war.\n\nBut Kabila got angry with the (Tutsi) Rwandans, and kicked them out. And they got angry with him, and started supporting his enemies in eastern Congo. All the neighboring countries got worried about how bad it was in Congo, and they sent their armies. (Did I mention they figured out they could steal diamonds from the land? That was also a motive.) \n\nAnd five million people died, mostly because the armies stole their food,.\n\nAnd that was the second Congo war.\n\nThere was a peace treaty, the [\"Sun City Agreement\"](_URL_0_), but it didn't resolve much. The other countries still wanted Congo's diamonds. The Hutus and Tutsis are making progress working stuff out at home. But there are still big Rwandan-backed armies (the M23) in eastern Congo, near the border.\n\nAnd that's [what you're seeing right now](_URL_1_). The Tutsi M23 rebels, backed by Rwanda, are seizing towns. I'm not sure what htey want: they want power. They want the diamonds. They dislike the Hutus nearby in eastern Congo. And they are better organized than the Congo government army. \n\n**Tl;dr:** Because Rwanda is richer and more dense than Congo, its politics have spilled over the border, and a 20 year civil war in Rwanda is playing out in eastern Congo. Ethnic tension & blood diamonds. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City_Agreement",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_East_D.R._Congo_conflict",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent-D%C3%A9sir%C3%A9_Kabila"
]
] |
|
4xpq0k
|
how do security software companies keep their computer systems safe when researching new computer viruses?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xpq0k/eli5_how_do_security_software_companies_keep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6hf819",
"d6hfc1e"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"A really good way to test thing that may be dangerous to a computer system is to run a virtual computer on your PC, basically a computer simulator, it can be continuously reset no problem without affecting other things on your computer.",
"There are two main ways that antivirus companies can protect their systems while researching malware:\n\nThey can ***sandbox,*** which is the practice of using virtual operating systems running on a computer. This sandbox emulates an entire operating environment: the OS itself, memory, hard drive space, even down to graphics adapters. Anything running in a sandbox should, ideally, have no idea that it's doing so; a virtual operating system should be as close to the real thing as possible. Nothing done on a sandbox can affect the host without the operator being complicit.\n\nThe other way is to simply run an actual piece of hardware completely cut off from the network. This achieves much the same goal as sandboxing, but removes any possibility that the virtual system can affect the host."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9lp3pz
|
why do some notes sound well together and some don't
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9lp3pz/eli5_why_do_some_notes_sound_well_together_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e78e7h8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When you play two different notes, their frequencies make a ratio. If the ratio is something very simple like 1:1 (a unison) or 2:1 (an octave) we hear it as *consonant*. If the ratio is a more complicated fraction like 10:9 (a minor second) we hear it as *dissonant*. There are others considered in-between like 3:2 (a perfect fifth) or 5:4 (a major third).\n\nMusicians will use different combinations of consonant and dissonant intervals to make specific chords. It can get pretty complicated when you have different scales and temperaments but the short version is that what sounds good or bad also has math behind it that you can use to justify it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bvwto6
|
why aren't iphone viruses more common? what does apple do that makes iphones so secure virus-wise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bvwto6/eli5_why_arent_iphone_viruses_more_common_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ept1teu",
"ept35tb"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't allow iPhone owners to modify and screw around with their products as much as Google does with Android. The devices are locked down more. \n\nAlso, they have much stricter quality control requirements for their App Store. The Google Play store deletes harmful apps if they are detected but that doesn't mean someone can't upload something that does something bad in the first place. And you can download programs from multiple places, so you're not even restricted to the Google app store.",
"The main one is installing anything on an iPhone requires that the person pay $99 to Apple and Apple checks it for viruses. iPhones refuse to run anything that hasn't gone through this process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5dwca8
|
how does costco sell gas so much cheaper? don't all gas companies buy gas in bulk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dwca8/eli5_how_does_costco_sell_gas_so_much_cheaper/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da7xmhd",
"da7zety",
"da84o9a",
"da8727y"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know where you're from, but from where I'm at Costco is rarely more than 5-10 cents a gallon cheaper than other gas stations in the area. They can get away with it because by people pay $50-$100 a year for the privilege of shopping there and pumping gas there. The $1-$2 savings per fill up isn't that big of a deal.",
"Costco usually takes 15% gross margin on products, so I'm guessing it's the same for the gas. ",
"Costco basically sells everything at cost (including their cost of operating the store) and their profit is typically quite close to their membership fees. \n\nAlso, when gas is falling in price Costco has a huge advantage because of their enormous sales volume, they're buying newer, lower price gas much more often than smaller stations. So when the price has dropped by a dime over the course of a week, costco bought gasoline at the lower price and is selling at their markup on the new lower price, while other stations may only get a delivery once a week which means they would have to sell at a much lower margin or have prices 25 cents per gallon higher vs the typical 15 cents (and that gets bigger when the drop is more bigger. ",
"Costco also only accepts VISA as a result of a credit partnership, which further increases their margin. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3kayid
|
. pyramid scheme
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kayid/eli5_pyramid_scheme/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuw3vhx",
"cuw3xt3",
"cuwc3f1",
"cuwf689"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There are many products similar to this that are classic pyramid schemes. The business model goes like this:\n\n- Huge hiring event with dozens of young people.\n\n- Hiring event is actually just a demo/marketing event for the product itself.\n\n- Tell the new kids they've been \"hired\" to go sell the product door to door.\n\n- Tell them they will make tons because they get a big percentage.\n\n- In reality, what they are selling is sugar water for $30 a bottle, which no one in their right mind will buy except family members who don't want to piss off your parents.\n\n- Charge the \"hires\" per bottle that they take to sell, even if they sell zero of them.\n\n\nIf this sounds like Kyani, then yes that's a pyramid scam.",
"You buy a 600 dollar start package. Kyani sends you the stuff and you promote and sell the product to people. Kyani is this apparent miracle juice that cures everything under the sun. So, a lot of my friends (mostly in their 30s) have started a team and they try to recruit new members, or just simply look for customers.. it's making me hate them because it's all they talk about. ",
"Kyani is likely a multi-level marketing scheme, which is slightly different from a pyramid scheme. I'll explain what I learned when I got the moves put onto me from a Eusana salesman (they do \"high-end\" vitamin supplements).\n\nWith a MLM, new employees are told they are selling a product and recruiting new salespeople. There's this vast untapped market, see, and you and your friends will become rich. Check to see where the incentives are; it's a tell-tale sign if they're around signing new people up. At Eusana you got your rank for signing people up (e.g. Silver, Gold). They put you on stage at the events and sang your praises. Now it's funny, it didn't actually matter how much you sold...\n\nTo sign up you have to pay. You pay for a starter kit ($600), you pay for products every month. Get how you're a feeder into the system at step 1? But no worries, they say, you can sell what we force you to buy and you'll be making so much more than you spend from signing people up. And there's this huge market...\n\nMLMs have convoluted incentive structures. With Eusana you could pay for a $400 starter kit which would get you 2 \"channels\" or $600 for 3. A channel meant a person directly under you in the sales structure whom you would rake a profit off of their sales. You got a cut only so many levels down the pyramid. Blah blah. If it takes more than a sentence to explain, it's likely a MLM scheme. IMHO, it's designed to be complex enough to hook people.\n\nMLMs claim they're not a pyramid scheme because somebody below can make more than somebody above. Which while true is a super rare instance. The main thing is that the people who joined at the very beginning can rake in $1 million, whereas if you join as \"employee\" 140,000 that's not gonna happen. \n\nSo Eusana has 140,000 associates. How could a company need that many sales people? I did some searches for largest companies in the word. Wells Fargo came in at 160,000 and there were maybe 8 others that were that size. Wells Fargo is a fucking multi-national bank with branches around the globe!!\n\nThe site I list below points out that a sales organization rarely needs more than 3 levels: a national, a regional, and local city/state. These MLM schemes have dozens. \n\nEusana had an earnings sheet they passed around, which made it look like everyone made money. I read all of the fine print, which read like one of those logic puzzles from high school (Mary lives in the blue house, Mike is allergic to Cats, John doesn't live next to Mary). Eventually I determined that they don't count approximately 80% of their associates (the cutoff is that you've had to had received a paycheck every two weeks for 2 months, some other facts told that about 20% of their associates do that). \n\nSo in a nutshell, what you have is an super long chain of salespeople out recruiting others for the scam, taking a cut off of everyone below them. At the bottom you have 80% of the people who signed up losing money, feeding up the chain.\n\nThese things tend to grow until they saturate a market then collapse. The two methods for staving off collapse are opening branches in new countries and spawning off other product lines. \n\n\nTL;DR\nGo here: _URL_0_\n\n\n",
"I just recently got involved in a MLM unintentionally. I got a cold call from some woman who was referred to me by a guy I went to high school with. Went to her office, talked to her for a little bit, and she told me about the company, but interestingly, there was no mention about what particular job she had outlined for me. My only clue was to \"go to next week's meeting.\" I did, got a nice hour-long speech about the job (which apparently involves selling insurance policies), and that to start, I had to pay $80 and get licensed by the state as an agent. That's when I realized what was going on... Not only would I not be paid until after I paid for all my training, but the real purpose of the job was to endlessly recruit more people.\n\nI got out without actually spending any money or time. But I'm upset I got suckered in the first place, I thought I was good at realizing MLM schemes when they were occurring."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mlm-thetruth.com/"
],
[]
] |
||
8xnu3q
|
why does our skin get sunburn, and why does the skin turn red when it does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xnu3q/eli5_why_does_our_skin_get_sunburn_and_why_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e24brs0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The sun sends light in various forms to earth. One of it is Ultraviolet or UV light. Our human eyes can't see UV radiation (but some animals can), and this form of light is very energy intensive (it's very short waved) and literally burns your skin with radiation. The radiation does damage to the DNA in your skin cells on the surface, killing these cells in the process, and your immune system reacts with an inflammation to the dead cells, thus the red skin, swelling, etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
w7yjy
|
why isn't everyone ambidextrous?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/w7yjy/eli5_why_isnt_everyone_ambidextrous/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5b22n2",
"c5b4yfo",
"c5b7ols"
],
"score": [
254,
26,
4
],
"text": [
"Choice of a dominant hand is important for high dexterity tasks. The left and right hemispheres are separate and control different hands. \n\nDexterous hand movements are stored in parts of the motor cortex, each hand has its own memory of dexterous hand movements (because of the separation of hemispheres). These can be used and adapted for different tasks. If you are required to perform a new task that has no analogue stored in your memory then the movement will be controlled predominantly by the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex has some, but not many, connections to the motor cortex.\n\nBy choosing one hand over the other then all of your life's dexterous tasks will be stored in one hemisphere for one hand to use. If you split it in half then you are essentially training each hand to half the quality. You will find that ambidextrous people are in general less dexterous.\n\nPeople with a dominant hand can teach the other to be dexterous at certain tasks, but without a lifetime of training it will not take to general tasks as quickly. For example, I play guitar which requires a specifically dexterous use of my left hand (I am right handed), but that and typing are about all I can do efficiently with my left hand.\n\nIts an evolutionary thing, one dexterous hand and one not very good hand is better than two half dexterous hands. By half dexterous I don't mean exactly half, just not as good.\n\nIf you have any further questions ask away. \n\nEDIT: Sorry for not being so ELI5. Hopefully you can follow along and maybe someone can figure out how to condense it to an ELI5.",
"I would personally give my left arm to be ambidextrous.",
"B/c in my parents generation you were barely allowed to be left handed. I know someone who had a teacher tie their left hands behind their back so they could only write with their right hand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3tcun8
|
what would i see if i somehow removed one eye from it's socket and positioned it to make direct eye contact with the other eye?
|
Would my brain simply overlap two images? Would there be two separate images?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tcun8/eli5_what_would_i_see_if_i_somehow_removed_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx538jg",
"cx544ps",
"cx58dwy"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
8
],
"text": [
"If you somehow maintained its connection, you'd see something similar to what you see if you put your hand a couple of inches in front of one eye and, say, a coffee cup in front of the other. You'd see two images imposed over each other. So if you pulled out your left eye, on the left side of your vision you'd be seeing your right eye, and on the right side you'd be seeing your left eye, and in the middle of your field of vision you'd see both sort of semi-transparently over each other.\n\nTL;DR: Your brain would overlap the two images like anything else you stick in front of one eye.",
"Couldn't you basically achieve the same effect with two hand mirrors placed in front of your eyes at 45 degree angles, periscope style?",
"On a side note, chameleons eyes have amazing field of vision and the eyes function independently of each other. .producing 2 separate images\r . ..so the chameleon could be looking behind it for predators whilst also looking forward browsing reddit. .or whatever they like to do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8hm8od
|
why is it essential that the us is included in the iran deal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8hm8od/eli5_why_is_it_essential_that_the_us_is_included/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyktl2b"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Because the US is the world's largest economy and it penalizes all companies that deal with Iran in any way, directly or indirectly, so no one wants that hanging over their head. It's an economic war with Israel and KSA/Sunni muslims trying to destroy Iran's economy and asking for the US to back their side"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3903r0
|
how is it that even though terms of conditions are normally absurdly long to turn people away from reading them, but companies are still able to use them in legally binding contracts?
|
Sorry, i found it difficult in wording this question.
Basically, they're too long, so even though most people never read them, how can they be upheld in court?
Shouldnt they be voided due to their unfair nature?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3903r0/eli5_how_is_it_that_even_though_terms_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crz8ta3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Legally speaking, there is nothing unfair about them. There is a ton of stuff that the terms of service needs to cover and it's as long as deemed necessary to express that.\n\n\nJust because you don't read it doesn't mean it doesn't apply. If you're going 80mph down a 50mph road, you're breaking the speed limit, regardless of whether or not you read the speed limit signs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
e76j1p
|
what did medieval kingdoms have to do to be recognized by others as legitimate nations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e76j1p/eli5_what_did_medieval_kingdoms_have_to_do_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9vr429",
"f9vrgjk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Typically it had to do with power; if you had the proper power projection--as in, you were able to defend the land and the people you claimed as yours--it gave your claims of lordship legitimacy.\n\nSo, let's say you're a former vassal who turns from your former king and claim independence the one or two duchies under your personal domain. The king might wage war against you to reclaim what he sees as his, but you win the war, and in a peace agreement the king recognizes your independence and sovereignty.\n\nOf course, \"medieval\" Europe was hardly homogeneous, and different regions in different time periods had vastly different practices. Europe was covered in a vast network of independent kingdoms, duchies, free cities, papal states and even republics. But in general the same rule applies: if you claim to own a land or a people, and you have the military force to defend that claim from others, that claim has legitimacy even if the claim might otherwise be considered \"illegal\".",
"This question is much much better asked in r/AskHistory or r/AskHistorians, but I can briefly summarize it here. The concept of nations, states, and sovereignty really didn't exist in the medieval era, or at least not in any way that we would recognize it today. The concept of a unitary nation is actually a pretty modern invention. Medieval political entities like kingdoms or duchies were complex systems in which the reigning king or duke or count shared power with and were constrained by both their vassals and their lords, if they had any, as well as custom and tradition.\n\nThis meant there was really no one size fits all system. It was totally dependent on the relationships between individuals and titles at any given time, as well as custom (such as laws regarding claims and succession rights), practical concerns like who was actually in control of a given piece of land, and whatever was politically expedient at any given moment. And of course, this all varies with time and location. How it worked in the England could be totally different than Castile or Bohemia, for example.\n\n*Generally*, actually being in control of a given piece of land was a pretty strong sign of legitimacy as holder of that title, as was having a claim on that title, usually through blood, but there as many exceptions to this as there are examples. Some of biggest wars in medieval European history were disputes over the legitimacy and claims of rulers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6nvvpc
|
why does our mind forget ideas that we come up with at night?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nvvpc/eli5_why_does_our_mind_forget_ideas_that_we_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkcnqx2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you don't record the ideas.\n\nI try writing songs sometimes, so when I'm out and about I hum melodies to myself when nobody is around. Eventually, I'll start humming something else and I'll forget that melody. So I record a melody if I come up with something nice.\n\nSometimes it happens that I don't have time to record it, I'm working or whatever. I will forget it and it's lost forever.\n\nIt's not about the sleep thing, it's about you not recording that idea."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
41mjm6
|
why is it more efficient to search on google and include "reddit" in the inquiry than to search on reddit's own engine?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41mjm6/eli5_why_is_it_more_efficient_to_search_on_google/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz3i68v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Are you asking why one of the best and most refined search engines in the world is better than a non-cared about side feature? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1zrsyu
|
i have a chipped tooth. why does my tongue want to play with it so much to the point where i have to make a conscious effort not to fiddle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zrsyu/eli5_i_have_a_chipped_tooth_why_does_my_tongue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfwcpe8",
"cfwcr11",
"cfwh13l",
"cfwhsgd",
"cfwkgv0"
],
"score": [
18,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Reading this made me tongue my chipped tooth",
"I think it has something to do with that \"new\" feeling you get. It's the same idea with filled cavities and braces or anything else that touches our bodies on a regular basis; you need to touch it/play with it/get used to it. Our bodies reach a certain point where we expect certain sensations (like our clothes touching our skin, we get used to it and we no longer 'feel it') so when something happens to our teeth, something that we use very regularly, we have to become accustomed to the 'newness' of it.",
"I do the same where a cavity was filled. Eventually I had the dentist grind the cavity filling a bit further down. It helped a lot but I still feel that area on occasion. \n\nTldr; no answer but getting it filled might help",
"I have noticed that my tongue is extremely tactile-sensitive. When I feel things in my mouth, they feel so much bigger that my other senses confirm they are. When I lost teeth as a child they always felt enormous in my mouth and looked and felt tiny after they had fallen out. When I am idle or distracted, I often find that fidgeting within my mouth tends to happen more readily that with my hands. \n\nI realize this isn't really an answer. Rather, I'd like to know if anyone else has this experience and if it helps frame OPs question.",
"Dental Hygienist here. I don't know for sure why your tongue acts the way it does, but I have a theory. Your tongue is a very sensitive muscle with so many sensory nerves. The thing is, when something small happens in your mouth (like chipping a tooth), if feels like like a big change to your tongue. Lets say you've goth this 2 mm chip in your tooth, your tongue will perceive it as a BIG change. When I look in your mouth and see this small chip, I wouldn't think it would bother you, but for you, it would make a big difference because that's how you tongue perceives it. So, have you ever had a filling in your tooth, and then the dentist would have you bite down and check the bite. If the filling is just 0.5 mm too high, if will fell like it VERY high in your mouth. That's why dentist have you chomp down on inked articulating paper. This helps them detect even the slightest height in the filling. Especially when your mouth is numb, its really hard for you to tell whether a filling is too high, so the dentist has to use that paper too adjust it as best as he could. Hope this can explain it a little. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9v00bc
|
in terms of technology and programming, what is an api? hearing that the homebrew scene is working on porting opengl to the nintendo switch, so makes "opengl" different than others?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v00bc/eli5_in_terms_of_technology_and_programming_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e988koz",
"e988t1g",
"e989ejm",
"e98ew9c"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"API stands for [Application Programming Interface]( _URL_1_). When someone writes a big computer program, like Windows or Linux or the DirectX graphics library or the OpenGL graphics library, that program includes an API that lets other programmers tell the big computer program what to do.\n\nFor example, when you launch the game Overwatch on your Windows PC, the Overwatch program uses the Windows API to tell Windows to draw a window and load a bunch of graphics into memory. Then the Overwatch program uses the DirectX API to tell the DirectX graphics library to draw a bunch of 3D graphics within that window. The Overwatch program doesn’t have to care about what things exactly get drawn when the window is shown, or how exactly graphics get drawn using different kinds of graphics chips – it lets Windows and DirectX take care of the details.\n\nOpenGL is a huge program that can draw 3D graphics on the screen. There are already many games that use OpenGL to draw their 3D graphics. By porting OpenGL to the Switch, these homebrew people are saying that game developers can port their OpenGL-using games to the Switch, and the graphics will just work, or work with very small changes. The game developers don’t have to learn all about how the Switch’s graphics chips work, because the games already use the OpenGL API.\n\nFor a dirty example of how the API is used, below is a line of code, in the C++ programming language, that uses the Windows API to create a window on the screen. This of course is gibberish, but the programmer uses the [API documentation](_URL_0_) to find out what \"API call\" to use to create the window, and what all the below items mean.\n\n myWindowHandle = CreateWindowExA(dwExStyle, lpClassName, lpWindowName, dwStyle, X, Y, nWidth, nHeight, hWndParent, hMenu, hInstance, lpParam);",
"API stands for \"Application Programmer's Interface\", which pretty much sums up what it is. It's an interface which programmers use to write applications for some platform, or to use some piece of hardware, or to use some external code written by someone else.\n\nIn this case OpenGL is a graphics API. So it's basically a set of functions which allow programmers to use the GPU.\n\nNormally no one has access to any APIs for the Nintendo Switch unless they are a licensed developer. But now the Switch has been cracked people have managed to create their own software for it without being licensed. If someone manages to unofficially port OpenGL it will make it a lot easier for homebrew developers to make their own Switch software because they'll be able to use a graphics API that they already know.",
"An API is a set of requests or commands which can be sent to a piece of software or hardware; in the case of requests, this also includes data sent back in response.\n\nOpenGL is an API for your GPU/graphics card. It provides a set of commands which are the same on any platform, no matter what operating system, processor, or GPU is in use. It is OpenGL's job to translate those commands into something the operating system and GPU can understand.\n\nThis is very useful. Without an API, programmers would have to customize their code to each GPU or gaming platform separately; this would be incredibly time-consuming. With an API like OpenGL, the same graphics code can work no matter what system you're on, be it a Mac, Raspberry Pi, Playstation, or eventually Switch; so long as it has an OpenGL-compatible graphics card it will work.\n\nPorting OpenGL is a matter of figuring out what signals need to be sent to the Switch's GPU, then writing code that translates a programmer's request to GPU commands.",
"TL;DR : it's all the functions that a library provides to a programmer\n\nThe OpenGL API should be the same regardless of the device, but the implementation will be different, e.g. to take hardware specifics into account \n\nThe other posts have go more into details 😉"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/winuser/nf-winuser-createwindowexa",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6g1m3k
|
why does the moment before you start crying hurt?
|
Or am I just unique (weird)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g1m3k/eli5_why_does_the_moment_before_you_start_crying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"din3l4b",
"din7bl4"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"My suggestion would be to ask a doctor, because I cry all the time and never experience physical pain before hand. ",
"afaik it's some kind of pressure build up right? I am as curious as you, I thought it was a universal experience."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2zbxck
|
what would happen if an undocumented person turned up somewhere and there was absolutely no way to identify them or their original country? would they just stay imprisoned forever?
|
submitted
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zbxck/eli5_what_would_happen_if_an_undocumented_person/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cphkmvv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Kind of what you're looking for, google \"Benjamin Kyle\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f9pygz
|
how people take those insane night time photos with extremely detailed starry skies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f9pygz/eli5_how_people_take_those_insane_night_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fit4n3y",
"fit4ov4",
"fit6677",
"fit8hft"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Answer: Long exposure.\n\nLike 5: The eye of the camera is left open for a long time to capture the most light possible",
"You use a long exposure which lets more light into the camera over time than you are seeing at any single moment.",
"What everyone else is saying. You can also get a movement tracker head that aligns your camera with the movement of the planet, that ensures that you don't just end up with lines on your shot.",
"Three things, a smartphone with manual mode for the camera, a means of transport, a tripod. \n\nGoogle light pollution map. Ambient light pollution from densely populated areas negates the majority of the light you can see from faraway stars. Find the nearest dark zone. These are typically 80-100 km away from major cities. In a dark zone you should be able to see a larger number of stars with your eye itself. Please ensure that you have clear skies and preferably a moonless night. \n\nSet up the tripod and mount your phone on it. Set your exposure time to 20-30 seconds. Set your focus length to infinity. Set your ISO to 800 or 1600 (Higher ISO values will increase noise)\n\n Ensure that the flash is off and that there are no bright lights nearby. Click and wait.\n\nYou should have a decent picture of stars. The colours and highlights can be brought out by editing in Snapseed. Tutorials are on YouTube. \n\nAstrophotography on the OnePlus 7t _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://imgur.com/gallery/k2awDKk"
]
] |
||
3e5j7q
|
the 2009 bailout of gm
|
Was the company essentially given a 33 billion dollar check or was it provided through a broad form of financing? Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e5j7q/eli5_the_2009_bailout_of_gm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctbph6f",
"ctbpjux"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"the government bought a shit ton of their stocks, and gave loans. this kept the company from going bankrupt, and saved tons of jobs. the government then sold the stocks for millions in profits a few years later,and was considered a great success for everybody ",
"It was a 33 billion dollar loan. It wasn't the sort of loan a bank would have made, with high interest rates to match the high risk. Instead, it was a loan with very low interest rates, because the government just wanted GM to survive. GM did survive, and paid back the loan, so we didn't lose all that money. \n\nIn theory, we could have made more money if we had just let GM die and instead invested that money in whatever seemed most profitable. Because of this, some people can argue that we \"lost\" money. We certainly would have lost all that money if GM had still gone under despite the bailout, which was a very real possibility. But instead it survived, paid us back, and now we generally consider that all to have been a good decision."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4c22ey
|
what are atoms made of? down to the deepest levels and newest theories.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c22ey/eli5_what_are_atoms_made_of_down_to_the_deepest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1ed8kh",
"d1eiq91",
"d1eohpy",
"d1euw5v"
],
"score": [
313,
13,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Protons and neutrons are made up of fundamental particles called Quarks. Quarks come in 6 types called \"flavors\". Up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom. Only up and down are found in atoms.\n\nA proton is made up of two up Quarks and one down Quark.\n\nA neutron is made up of two down Quarks and one up Quark.\n\nElectrons are fundamental particles and have no (known) smaller parts.\n\nBeyond Quarks, the other fundamental particles are Gauge Bosons, Leptons, and the Higgs Boson.",
"What is matter in its most basic form? Well, we don't really know.\n\nAn atom's nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, which are in turn made of quarks. Quarks are a fundamental particle and cannot be chopped any finer. So what's inside a quark?\n\nWell, quantum mechanics posits that particles don't really *exist* in the way we usually mean. A quark does not exist in a single place and time, it is composed of a moving nest of waves, just like light is. A photon of light, a quark, these are not completely solid, they'r sort of *smushes* of energy.\n\nString theory, which is a promising new field, has developed some mathematics which suggest that these waves are produced by small vibrating filaments called \"superstrings;\" little indestructible, indivisible loops whose vibration frequencies define their \"mass field,\" \"electrical field,\" \"spin,\" etc.",
"They're made of energy from fields that exist in space. Disturbances in these fields create particles that are discreet bundles of energy, and they interact with their respective fields through virtual particles. Virtual particles are almost like regular particles, but they only exist for a short time and exist pretty much just to transfer energy or information. \n\nHere's a youtube video where the inside of a proton is explained with candy. _URL_0_\n\nIf you want an excellent simplified explanation of everything, including how we found out a lot of stuff, and what the higgs boson is, here's a series of videos explaining it _URL_1_",
"It's all energy. That energy has momentum with different types of 3D spin. That's it. We are just bundled energy in different configurations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNu_78sCw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKbZeUvPnWI&list=PLpH1IDQEoE8Q8842yVe-V8m7PN-R9rlwi"
],
[]
] |
||
3182df
|
why do we (mostly) call our parents mum and dad but we dont call our siblings brother and sister
|
So why do we call our siblings by their names when we dont with our parents?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3182df/eli5_why_do_we_mostly_call_our_parents_mum_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpz6kl6",
"cpz7gve",
"cpz7lxz"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Some people call their siblings brother or sister. I think it's mostly a respect thing. It's generally considered (socially) rude to call adults (especially your parents) by their first names. Your siblings are usually around your age, and therefore your peers, so it's perfectly acceptable to address them in that way.",
"People generally call people the names they are introduced to them as. Your parents call themselves \"Mom\" and \"Dad\" in front of you, so you call them Mom and Dad. They refer to your siblings by name, so it doesn't seem unnatural to also call your siblings by name.\n\nAlso, you're more likely to have multiple siblings. What if you have three brothers? How do they know who you're talking to if you call them all \"Brother\"? I guess you could call them \"Brother Joe\" and \"Brother Bob\" or whatever, but at that point you start sounding like cultists...",
"In English, we don't use titles as formally/often as in other languages. For example, in Vietnamese, you use [different terms](_URL_1_) for older brother/sister, aunt/uncle (depending on whose sibling it is and whether they are older/younger), etc.\n\nAs /u/Frankenberry1 said, it is likely partially due to respect too.\n\nAdditionally, many shortened versions of mother/father are easy for children to say. When children are babbling, sounds like \"mama\" or \"dada\" are first made accidentally and later reinforced by parents. More elaboration on this idea here: [mama and papa](_URL_2_) and [Why Do We Call Parents \"Mom\" and \"Dad\"?](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/11/curious-origins-words-mom-dad",
"http://saigoninacup.com/2010/05/07/anh-em/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa"
]
] |
|
fslysq
|
what do governors do? how are they different from other state representatives?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fslysq/eli5_what_do_governors_do_how_are_they_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fm26vb6",
"fm2as3t"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most states have a government that looks basically identical to the federal government. They all have three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. So just like we have the US Congress and the US President, every state has a state congress and a governor, who is like the president of that state, and has most of the same types of powers.\n\nThe legislative branch (the state congress) writes and passes laws, and the governor signs them and implements them, although often having the option to veto laws, and his veto being optional to override with a 2/3 majority in the state congress. This can vary a little bit from state to state, but in general, it's easiest to think of a state governor as like the president of their state. They appoint state cabinet positions, they run various state agencies, they sign or veto legislation.",
"Representative are part of the Federal Legislative branch, meaning they create or modify law for the whole country.\n\nGovernors are the executive branch for the State, meaning they lead the government of the state. A bit like the President, but for the state instead of for the whole country."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
eypdrm
|
how does a holographic optical element work?
|
I have tried to find information about it online however, everything I find is extremely technical and confusing. Also have tried to find a graphic explaining how it works but all the ones I've found are different from each other. Any information would be helpful!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eypdrm/eli5_how_does_a_holographic_optical_element_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgja9yz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For holographics such as a Driver's license, the image that is holographic is essentially printed on a material that looks similar to window shutters(many angled ridges). These ridges cause the light that hits them to defract in visible wavelengths AKA change colors. The effect you see is caused by the exact wavelengths being different based on the angle you are looking at them(as the angles between eyes, holographic, and light source change so do the colors). The holographics where images change are similar just a step up in complexity where the exact colors show up in specific areas, at specific angles. This is also why multi image holographics usually feel really bumpy, those bumps are bouncing light in rather specific ways.\n\nTldr: very small ridges on the printing cause light to act differently when hit causing the holographic effect"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5rgpqx
|
why do contest rules state "no purchase necessary" and require a skill-testing question to claim prizes?
|
With roll-up the rim back in Canada, I figured it was an appropriate time to get this question, that's haunted me for years, answered.
I'm hoping to get an explanation as to why the rules state that there's "no purchase necessary", yet you certain contests require you to purchase something to play (like a hot drink with roll-up the rim).
I'm also wondering why a skill-testing question needs to be answered to claim a prize.
Edit: Thank you all for the great replies and awesome stories :)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rgpqx/eli5_why_do_contest_rules_state_no_purchase/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd72e72",
"dd72n7c",
"dd73e9p",
"dd7d2s7"
],
"score": [
5,
63,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Basically, if a purchase is necessary and all it takes is just buying a ticket, then it's a lottery. Many states legally consider lotteries to be something that can only be done by the government. So to avoid that, you can get an entry for free, and you have to jump through some test of skill, then it's not a lottery and just a contest. ",
"The \"no purchase necessary\" line means that you're NOT required to buy anything to play. If you look at the contest rules, you can find instructions on how to play without buying anything, which usually involves sending a self-addressed envelope to an address, where they will mail you back a game piece or whatever is involved in the contest.\n\nThe reason for this is to [circumvent gambling laws](_URL_0_). If the amount of money you pay towards a contest directly affects the likelihood of winning (buying more lottery tickets increases your odds of winning) or the prize you receive (betting more money means a bigger payout), then it's considered gambling and is subject to the same regulations as a casino or the lottery. By adding the stipulation that customers don't have to pay anything in order to participate in the contest and can simply mail away for free game pieces, the contest is no longer considered gambling and companies can run their promotion in areas where gambling is otherwise illegal or without obtaining a gambling license.",
"Most jurisdictions have laws against private lotteries, and that's where the \"no purchase necessary\" comes from. You really don't have to purchase anything from them -- read the rules and they will tell you how to play without a purchase.\n\nThe skill-test question is part of Canadian law. Games of chance are prohibited, so winners will be required to go a skill test (a simple math question) so that it can be said it wasn't purely a game of chance (which we all know it is).",
"The skill-testing question is part of Canadian gambling laws. By earning the prize by answering the question, it is no longer considered a lottery, but a game of skill. \n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweepstakes"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_testing_question"
]
] |
|
11hhh8
|
how come some ice cubes are soft and chewy, while most ice is hard and brittle?
|
I've always been confused why some restaurants have an ice that is almost chewy and easy to bite into. How is this possible? How is it made differently?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11hhh8/eli5_how_come_some_ice_cubes_are_soft_and_chewy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6mii63",
"c6mizfb"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Different ice machines either do or do not compress their ice nuggets to remove excess moisture from them after the ice is formed and before it is pushed out of the machine.\n\nI'm not sure about different ice shapes: cubes, shaved, crescent, or sphere.",
"It's air. Little tiny bubbles get trapped in the water as it's freezing. This makes the ice much softer and easier to break. Some ice machines are designed to remove all the air, this makes ice hard, clear, and brittle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2odfx8
|
why do planes at major airports sometimes take off in the opposite direction than they usually do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odfx8/eli5_why_do_planes_at_major_airports_sometimes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmm2b98",
"cmm6d33"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They take off into the wind. If the wind shifts, they take off the other direction.",
"Its easier to takeoff into the wind, less fuel needed as the plane can take off at lower speeds. For 1 takeoff its an extremely small gain but all over the world combined this saves billions of $ in fuel and a substansial amount of CO2 "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3ili1j
|
why is yesterday's shooting of two reporters not being covered as a hate crime the way the charleston shooting was?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ili1j/eli5_why_is_yesterdays_shooting_of_two_reporters/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuhfbbf",
"cuhfcgb",
"cuhhx6m"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the hate was targeted at individuals for who they where as individuals. His target wasn't largely selected because of the victim's race or an association with a type of lifestyle. He attacked people he knew for personal reasons. The Charleston guy wanted to attack black people, so he went to a place where he knew there were a lot of unarmed black people. The story won't get extended media coverage for a few other reasons. Everyone (that wasn't a bystander) is dead, so there's nothing to follow as a story. Also, the motive was clear. We won't spend months asking *why* the way we did with Sandy Hook.",
"The shooter did not shoot them because they were white, he shot them because he had a personal grudge against them. The grudge happened to be about race, but he wasn't killing them because of their skin color, rather because of choices they made. This is then just a murder spawned by racial tension, rather than aimlessly picking white people to kill because they are white. In Charleston that \"person\" killed the members of the church because they were black, no other reason, thus making that a hate crime.",
"Because only white people can be racist. There. Is that the answer you were looking for? You have it. Be on your way now. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ypah5
|
why does the end of the financial year not coincide with the end of the calendar year?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ypah5/eli5why_does_the_end_of_the_financial_year_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmp37ri",
"dmp5ncq",
"dmp65hv"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A business can choose when it starts it's fiscal year. It doesn't have to follow the calendar year. Ending a fiscal year in Feb or March allows you to not have to cram alot of year end work into the holiday season when alot of employees are on vacation.",
"Retail businesses often do the bulk of their business between Nov-Jan and it would be really inconvenient for them to have to close their books on 12/31.\n\nGovernment agencies have budget years that are dictated by statute, so their fiscal year typically coincides with their budget.\n\nOther cyclical businesses will want a fiscal year that closes during one of their down periods.\n\nFinally, for everyone else, having a fiscal year close on 12/31 usually means your accounting staff has to work move during the holidays, which is rarely popular.",
"Organizations end their fiscal year based on when it's most convenient for their business purposes. If your organization is a theater company that performs from September to June and takes the summer off, it makes sense for your fiscal year to end in July or August. If your fiscal year ended in December, right in the middle of your season, it would be really hard to make budgets, report on your finances, etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
l3qr8
|
how exactly is evolution overwhelmingly evident?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l3qr8/eli5_how_exactly_is_evolution_overwhelmingly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2piwgv",
"c2pj3gn",
"c2pj8sm",
"c2pjc0r",
"c2pjeq4",
"c2pjrig",
"c2pkfmc",
"c2piwgv",
"c2pj3gn",
"c2pj8sm",
"c2pjc0r",
"c2pjeq4",
"c2pjrig",
"c2pkfmc"
],
"score": [
24,
14,
3,
10,
7,
2,
2,
24,
14,
3,
10,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is staggering evidence in it's favor. Not only do we observe interesting similarities between animals today, but the fossil record shows evolution happening and DNA evidence confirms that creatures share there DNA. As new evidence is found, it always swings in favor of evolution. \n\nHonestly, there is so much evidence that it would not be possible to fit it in a text box. There are some very well written websites on this. \n\nCheck Wikipedia of course.\n\nThis seems good as well:\n\n_URL_0_",
"The short answer is this:\n\nEverything scientists have learned about living things, past and present - through their DNA, anatomy, and physiology, agrees with the theory of evolution. There is no data suggesting otherwise. ",
"fossils. genetics. artificial selection examples.",
"There was a man named Charles Darwin who went to the Galapagos Islands. He studied birds while he was there. He found 13 kinds of the same bird (a finch), each on 13 different parts of the island. All 13 kinds of bird had the same colors, the same patterns on their feathers, the same feet, and the same eyes. They were the same size, they had the same wingspan, etc. The only thing that was different in these birds was the beak. Depending on the plants that were on different parts of the island, the birds had a different beak to be able to eat those plants. Some birds had a beak that was really sharp so it could \"drill\" into some fruits. Some birds had a beak with odd looking curves on it so it could pry into things like pine cones. \n\nIf we could go back in time and fast forward (fossils and DNA tests have shown us) we would see one kind of bird start out on the island. Then, if we watched the 13 different parts of the island at the same time we would see that the bird's beaks would change. They would adapt to the types of food they had to eat. This is what Darwin called \"Survival of the fittest.\" The birds that survived in each part of the island were the birds who could use their beaks in a way that was useful for them.\n\nAside from Darwin's finches, we have seen the same kind of evidence all around the world with different animals.",
"Like you're five?\n\nBecause we can actually watch it occur before our eyes. Influenza and cold viruses are constantly evolving -- that's why we need so many different vaccines. It evolves and splitsinto many different strains, endlessly, and is difficult to keep on top of for that reason. Doctors study its evolution and formulate totally new vaccines each flu season to deal with it. This is also the cause of a problem you may have heard of, [antibiotic-resistant bacteria or 'superbugs'](_URL_0_), where our frequent use of antibiotics has given bacteria a great opportunity to evolve defences for it, causing massive problems and concern.\n\nThere are also many experiments like the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment, where scientists have taken a handful of E. Coli populations, put them each in different environments, and watched them slowly evolve to adapt to it. Some of these populations have evolved massive features and changed drastically. One famous one saw a bacteria evolve to grow on citric acid (which no other organism of its type can do, or could do before it evolved the ability) after 20 years. \n\nIf we were really explaining this to a five-year-old, we'd talk about dog breeding. Most breeds of dog you see around you today didn't exist very long ago. Poodles, bichons and pugs didn't exist in nature; we bred them into existence by controlling breeding and gene pools. That's what we call evolution by artificial selection.",
"It is overwhelming because everywhere we look and anyway we look at it, what we see agrees with or is predicted by evolution.\n\nOne famous example was thinking about fish evolving into land animals. There should have been some sort of missing link. No legs were seen older than 370 million years and everything after 360 million either had legs or did not, there was never a missing link.\n\nSo it was figured that if you want to find a missing link you should look at 365 million years ago. Scientists went to place that had exposed rock at 365 million years old and looked for fossils. They found fossils and the fossils they found were a missing link between fish and animals with legs.\n\nThe point is, everywhere we look, no matter how we look, what we find agrees with or is predicted by evolution.",
"_URL_0_\n\n*Closes door on way out*",
"There is staggering evidence in it's favor. Not only do we observe interesting similarities between animals today, but the fossil record shows evolution happening and DNA evidence confirms that creatures share there DNA. As new evidence is found, it always swings in favor of evolution. \n\nHonestly, there is so much evidence that it would not be possible to fit it in a text box. There are some very well written websites on this. \n\nCheck Wikipedia of course.\n\nThis seems good as well:\n\n_URL_0_",
"The short answer is this:\n\nEverything scientists have learned about living things, past and present - through their DNA, anatomy, and physiology, agrees with the theory of evolution. There is no data suggesting otherwise. ",
"fossils. genetics. artificial selection examples.",
"There was a man named Charles Darwin who went to the Galapagos Islands. He studied birds while he was there. He found 13 kinds of the same bird (a finch), each on 13 different parts of the island. All 13 kinds of bird had the same colors, the same patterns on their feathers, the same feet, and the same eyes. They were the same size, they had the same wingspan, etc. The only thing that was different in these birds was the beak. Depending on the plants that were on different parts of the island, the birds had a different beak to be able to eat those plants. Some birds had a beak that was really sharp so it could \"drill\" into some fruits. Some birds had a beak with odd looking curves on it so it could pry into things like pine cones. \n\nIf we could go back in time and fast forward (fossils and DNA tests have shown us) we would see one kind of bird start out on the island. Then, if we watched the 13 different parts of the island at the same time we would see that the bird's beaks would change. They would adapt to the types of food they had to eat. This is what Darwin called \"Survival of the fittest.\" The birds that survived in each part of the island were the birds who could use their beaks in a way that was useful for them.\n\nAside from Darwin's finches, we have seen the same kind of evidence all around the world with different animals.",
"Like you're five?\n\nBecause we can actually watch it occur before our eyes. Influenza and cold viruses are constantly evolving -- that's why we need so many different vaccines. It evolves and splitsinto many different strains, endlessly, and is difficult to keep on top of for that reason. Doctors study its evolution and formulate totally new vaccines each flu season to deal with it. This is also the cause of a problem you may have heard of, [antibiotic-resistant bacteria or 'superbugs'](_URL_0_), where our frequent use of antibiotics has given bacteria a great opportunity to evolve defences for it, causing massive problems and concern.\n\nThere are also many experiments like the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment, where scientists have taken a handful of E. Coli populations, put them each in different environments, and watched them slowly evolve to adapt to it. Some of these populations have evolved massive features and changed drastically. One famous one saw a bacteria evolve to grow on citric acid (which no other organism of its type can do, or could do before it evolved the ability) after 20 years. \n\nIf we were really explaining this to a five-year-old, we'd talk about dog breeding. Most breeds of dog you see around you today didn't exist very long ago. Poodles, bichons and pugs didn't exist in nature; we bred them into existence by controlling breeding and gene pools. That's what we call evolution by artificial selection.",
"It is overwhelming because everywhere we look and anyway we look at it, what we see agrees with or is predicted by evolution.\n\nOne famous example was thinking about fish evolving into land animals. There should have been some sort of missing link. No legs were seen older than 370 million years and everything after 360 million either had legs or did not, there was never a missing link.\n\nSo it was figured that if you want to find a missing link you should look at 365 million years ago. Scientists went to place that had exposed rock at 365 million years old and looked for fossils. They found fossils and the fossils they found were a missing link between fish and animals with legs.\n\nThe point is, everywhere we look, no matter how we look, what we find agrees with or is predicted by evolution.",
"_URL_0_\n\n*Closes door on way out*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance"
],
[],
[
"http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrwlvjDPjF1qzmowao1_500.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance"
],
[],
[
"http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrwlvjDPjF1qzmowao1_500.jpg"
]
] |
||
3dtbds
|
why is short shaming a thing, if skinny or fat shaming is so outright bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dtbds/eli5_why_is_short_shaming_a_thing_if_skinny_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct8fnil"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Removed because this is not a request for a simplified explanation of a complex concept.\n\nThis post may do better in a different subreddit.\n\nBy the way, a lot of people think it's very rude to insult people for being short."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8qkbqe
|
why does talking about problems make you feel better?
|
This feels like a dumb question, but I'm curious.
If something is stressing you out, or you're going through a lot, why does just simply talking about it actually make you feel better?
Like, why does therapy and counseling work? Why does it help?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qkbqe/eli5_why_does_talking_about_problems_make_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0jyj91",
"e0jyz4e",
"e0k9nve",
"e0kcdpj",
"e0kgckr",
"e0khuzt"
],
"score": [
21,
7,
2,
13,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It gives you the ability to process feelings and thoughts and have preconceptions challenged as well as get a more objective opinion about yourself.\n\nThat's pretty much the core concept behind CBT.",
"People can suffer in a lot of different ways. But a lot of suffering says: *I am alone. And I don’t matter.*\n\nSpeaking and being heard—truly being heard, whether by a therapist or otherwise—contradicts those two messages. ",
"People have a need, almost a responsibility, to worry about things. Doing it alone is a heavy burden.\n\nIf you tell someone else, it's almost like you share the watch on the things that are a problem.\n\nIt's part of basic survival instinct and being human, it's deeply routed in social behaviour and it can be seen in our close ape relatives. We are tribal and what hurts one of us can hurt another, so a group responsibility is reassuring to us.\n\nYou get a good feeling from sharing an issue, and you also feel better when you listen. A problem shared is a problem halved.",
"This Stephen King quote wasn't originally written from this perspective but I think it perfectly explains why a problem in your head seems worse than a problem spoken out loud :)\n\n > \"The most important things are the hardest things to say. They are the things you get ashamed of, because words diminish them - words shrink things that seemed limitless when they were in your head to no more than living size when they're brought out. But it's more than that isn't it? The most important things lie too close to wherever your secret heart is buried, like landmarks to a treasure your enemies would love to steal away. And you may make revelations that cost you dearly only to have people look at you in a funny way, not understanding what you've said at all, or why you thought it was so important that you almost cried while you were saying it. That's the worst, I think. When the secret stays locked within not for want of a teller but for want of an understanding ear.\"",
"Talking about something helps to process and clarify it. It can take something from the realm of emotion and help the brain deal with it more logically through language. ",
"Because talking about the problem brings it out into the world, you articulate the problem for yourself as well as for others, now you have a grip on the problem its tangible and real in a sense, it is not this ominus monster without borders anymore. Now when the problem is actualized in your mind as a problem with form and structure you can start finding solutions to it.\n\nIt is also now not just your burden, your dark secret lets say you bring it out into the world for other people to see and they still accept you as a person. That is a big relief, that even if you have a problem people still like you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2d77o8
|
why is racism defined by many as discrimination from the majority onto the minority? why isn't any kind of racial discrimination considered "racism"?
|
I'm not trying to equate the discrimination white people face with the discrimination other minority groups face, but it seems to me that any kind of racial prejudice is "racism."
What the power dynamic involved is definitely seems relevant to me, but I can't help but grind my teeth a little bit when the implication from this definition is that "black people can't be racist." I'm not *trying* to be inflammatory, I seek only to understand. Thanks in advance for any explanations.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d77o8/eli5_why_is_racism_defined_by_many_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjmrhk9",
"cjmrhlr",
"cjmto0j"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There seems to be a profound culture war going on over this very subject: the definition of racism. Some say that racism is simply any discrimination or prejudice against people based on the color of their skin or their race/ethnicity. Others though, when they refer to racism aren't so much talking about the thoughts and feelings of individuals but the institutional forces of racism, the ones that systematically disadvantage people of color. So some people say there is no racism against whites because white people don't suffer from institutional disadvantages because of their color: the cops don't profile them, employers don't avoid them, and they're treated in the media as sort-of the baseline default humans, any race that isn't white is treated as \"the Other\" or a deviation from the norm.\n\nThe problem is, there is no \"definition\" of racism. It's subject to interpretation. Dictionaries change, and dictionaries can be wrong. And people change and people can be wrong. I don't think there will ever be full agreement on this matter or a single definitive answer to your question.",
"Well, obviously any sort of negative prejudice based on race is racism. Full stop. End of story.\n\nHowever, there is a cultural context that we take into account when understanding our differing responses to racism originating from different groups. We are all extremely sensitive to white-on-(other race) racism because historically in the US whites have been the powerful group with the most influence in business and government, and so there was always the potential for racist thoughts and attitudes to turn into real, influential, powerful, actions. So, it's been important to stem attitudes before they ever reach the point of policy and action.\n\nBecause other minority groups have historical not had much power or influence, but were instead the ones being pushed around, we are more willing to tolerate racism originating from those groups, with a sense of \"well, they deserve a bit of slack since we aren't really in a position to act high and mighty on this issue\". Combined with their lack of influence or power in government, there's a lack of danger and not much of a threat of social atrocities stemming from that racism.\n\nIs it right? Is it morally defensible? No, not at all. But that's just how we got to where we are.\n\nRacism should not be tolerated, by anyone, anywhere, any time. But, society and culture rarely works that way. There are all sorts of cultural context's and feelings that push things in certain directions, for better and for worse.",
"I think it's just easier to keep racism as a word that distinguishes between prejudice and prejudice with power. \n\nTo think about it this way: The word was created to embody the systematic problems embodied by non-whites against a system that was (literally) bent on keeping them poor and disempowered through a multitude of ways. \n\nNow, forward a few years and a LOT of those problems are vastly diminished. They still exist, and in some cases are pretty damn severe, but it's overall better. Some folks, let's call them *total assholes* or TAs for short, decide that they have also experienced some prejudice. They want to co-opt a word which was historically used against them, and borrow its power. The problem, is that they haven't faced the trials and tribulations necessary to empower the word.\n\nWords, and concepts, are very powerful in the human mind. Expanding a concept to include far lesser problems diminishes the impact of the word and in doing so may diminish the understanding of the problem.\n\nIn human behavior, it is important that people retain an accurate understanding of the problems of others. Not doing so may lead them down paths of repeating all those things which caused the problem in the first place.\n\nSo, in the case of racism, let's say a white TA decides that a black guy at the barber shop gave him a frown when he came in to get a haircut. White TA decides to go on facebook and scream about how racist that guy was. He gets his friends frothing, because damn it this is 'murica and the land of the free.\n\nBut, the guy in the barbershop may have a history. Are you a black business owner in the south? Maybe the son or daughter of one? There is a high likelihood that the longer you've been in business, the greater amount of racist bullshit you've probably had to deal with. Everything from being granted predatory loans, to being actively threatened, to being charged for criminal wrongdoing. Maybe that guy was imprisoned on a fake charge because he was \"disrespectful\" of a white police officer. Maybe that guys father was literally lynched because they bought a shop and a white person wanted it and couldn't legally get it. Maybe that guy has a long history of having to fight systematic abuse. \n\nSo, we have two dudes with legitimate beefs using the word racism.\n\nOne dude was born into a country which (still, to this day) codifies laws against him. He will make less money. He will be judged more harshly. He will be more likely to be thrown into prison. If he commits a crime, he'll get a harsher sentence. He will be denied home loans, jobs, equality based entirely on the color of his skin.\n\nThe other guy got a funny look.\n\nBoth guys want to use the same word.\n\nIt is clear that the black guy has more of a beef. He needs a better word, a better tool, to describe the things that he has faced. He has faced prejudice. He has faced a special kind of all encompassing prejudice so profound that it has impacted nearly every aspect of his life.\n\nThe other guy *got looked at funny.* He can stick with the word prejudice. He can stop trying to associate his minor struggles with the greater struggles others have faced."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3zvt2z
|
why do police use loud sirens when responding to bank/house robberies as it alerts the thieves they're coming?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zvt2z/eli5_why_do_police_use_loud_sirens_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cypcwlm",
"cypd1v7",
"cypd4i6",
"cypi9eu",
"cypr4rp",
"cypshx5",
"cypzi51"
],
"score": [
3,
70,
20,
3,
15,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Why do you have to pull over on the side of the road when an emergency vehicle is passing? Sirens ",
"Everything in police work is about maximizing the safety of the public. The use of sirens is a safety system to let other drives know \"I'm responding to an emergency, I'm in a hurry, get the fuck out of my way!\". \n\nAnytime that a call is urgent enough to require speed, it requires these safety features. The potential concern of scaring off the robber DOES NOT override the greater concern of public safety. \n\nIf a robbery features robber vs. innocent people, then this is a potential danger, and it's better to respond quick and scare off the robber, than to sneak in and catch them in the act. If the robbery consists of \"robber in a non-occupied warehouse\" then the officer can sneak up and catch them. \n\nUltimate deciding factor \"people > property\". \n\n",
"Only in the movies. They actually often opt to not use their sirens when approaching a home/business that has reported a break-in or disturbance just for the reason you asked. \n\nAlso, cops rarely arrive in time to stop a crime in progress. ",
"Silent response is a routine option for such a scenario. Lights only, no sirens. Lights killed when closer to scene or within line of sight.",
"Cop here. We need to protect the safety of the public first and foremost. Most of the time, we will be traveling a main road of an area, so the traffic density will be high and we need to make sure that other motorists know we are coming, so they can yield. The blue lights don't give us the right of way, they allow us to request it.\n\nNow, this will alert the bad guys if they hear it, so we try to cut them off when we get close to the scene. For me, I tend to cut my siren off as soon as I get into a neighborhood/off the main road. The lights stay on until I am on the street. \n\nInevitably, sound travels and they will be alerted occasionally. That's why we are monitoring every car we see while we are getting to the location. If I am about to get on scene, and I see a car going fast down a secondary road, I am going to call that info out to another unit so that they can pull it over to address it.\n\nIt also depends on the crime. A burglar is operating on the fact that he isn't not going to have his crime immediately called in. They try to break when nobody is home, or watching them, and that they will be hours gone before their crime is noticed. A bank robber is different. They KNOW the cops are being called, and will be expecting it.",
"Different calls have different procedures. You have less urgent calls where you dont need sirens, calls where you need to get there kinda quick so you use your siren to get through lights, or you have calls where its extremely urgent and its all out lights and sirens. Cops will turn off the siren when they get close, but a loud noise is needed to get other drivers attention and tell em to move over. ",
"In the UK at least, standard practice is to use lights and sirens travelling to the scene but you then switch it off once you are near so you don't alert them to your presence. Same applies to a burglary in progress, and raids with warrants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3saezv
|
how do us school voucher programs, which send tax dollars to religious schools, not violate the separation of church and state?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3saezv/eli5_how_do_us_school_voucher_programs_which_send/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwvfnhn",
"cwvfpna",
"cwvft6g",
"cwvftra",
"cwvhhh7",
"cwvqhug",
"cww7rgi"
],
"score": [
5,
50,
7,
17,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because they don't favor any particular religion(s). All religious schools are treated equally, and all those equally-treated schools are *also* treated exactly the same a non-religious schools.",
"Separation of church and state, as embodied in the First Amendment does not mean the government can't touch anything religious. It means that its treatment of religious and non-religious institutions should be evenhanded.\n\nA voucher program that offers funds for schools that meet the state's educational standards, without regard to whether the school is religious or not, would not be a violation of the First Amendment. On the contrary, excluding religious schools for that reason but including other, non-religious private schools would be a violation.",
"They provide money to schools which provide certain educational opportunities to their students. If the schools also provide additional things that the parents want their children to receive, the government doesn't care. The government also funds poverty programs that include religious components, based on the food or shelter they provide. Separation of church and state means that the state doesn't fund the religious parts of the activity, not that religious groups are not eligible to participate in state-funded activities.",
"The US Constitution prohibits the 'establishment' of religion or inhibiting its 'free practice'. Courts have generally ruled that this does not prevent tax funds being used by religious organizations for a variety of reasons.\n\nIn the case of school vouchers, the state isn't requiring that vouchers be used at religious schools nor is it discriminating which schools are eligible to receive vouchers based on their religion. As long as the school meets the secular requirements to participate as a voucher school, an individual may choose a school which includes religious instruction and that individual choice is very important in determining constitutionality.",
"Because it's not because they are a religious private school, it's just because they are a private school. The vouchers allow kids to go to private schools when the public schools in that area aren't great, it just so happens that many private schools are religious. Still, the education is still inspected, I went a religious private schools for years (not on vouchers), and I was taught evolution, the Big Bang, etc.",
"There was actually Supreme Court case addressing this exact issue I read in law school. Like any case, the Supreme Court does a song and dance explaining why what they want is constitutional, but the real answer is politics.",
"I can try to answer this, as I am a adjunct teaching politics at a community college.\n\nThe \"test\" that the federal government uses to determine if aid to religious entities meets constitutional muster is known as the Lemon test (named after the plaintiff in the case that created this precedent). There are three key facts that must be met:\n\n1) The aid by the federal government must not entangle the federal government with the religious institution receiving aid.\n\n2) The statute cannot advance or inhibit religious practices with the aid.\n\n3) The statute must have a secular (non-religious) purpose.\n\nIf the federal government were to give aid (i.e. through a voucher program that moves money from one entity to say, a religious school entity) for the SOLE purpose of education and function, then this may pass the Lemon test. \n\nExample: The federal government allows private institutions to give students Pell grants. Pell grants are also given at state and public institutions, so this would pass the Lemon Test quite easily: The federal government is not entangling itself in religious affairs, they are only allowing a university to participate in the same program as every other institution; it is not promoting or demoting religious practices and the grant has a secular purpose: paying for someone to get a college education that may not have the means by themselves or their family to pay for their tuition and fees.\n\nLong explanation, but I wanted to explain the test and give an arbitrary and a real example."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2fpk8i
|
why is it illegal to host sites such as the pirate bay when they are not directly providing copyrighted content?
|
Torrent sites aren't the ones that are providing the illegal content - the seeders are. So why are the sites being held responsible for it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fpk8i/eli5_why_is_it_illegal_to_host_sites_such_as_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckbhivw"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Mainly because the website owners make no effort to stop copyright material from being uploaded/downloaded."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
571eii
|
ken bone
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/571eii/eli5ken_bone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8o4nt3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n > Kenneth Bone was an audience member during the second of the United States presidential election debates in 2016. He asked \"What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?\" He gained popularity on the internet due to his name, appearance, and his use of a disposable camera at the debate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Bone"
]
] |
||
1t9s5a
|
what are "ports" (ex: tcp port)
|
What are ports (like the TCP port) and how do they compare to physical ports on my computer (like the USB port). Are ports specific to my computer? (Does my computer have a tcp port 5557? I don't even know what that means) How do programs accessing the internet use them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t9s5a/eli5_what_are_ports_ex_tcp_port/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5s3p4",
"ce5sbgx",
"ce5tbfs",
"ce5uwpf",
"ce5xh5d",
"ce5y4x9",
"ce5yffn"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
8,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of ports like doors to your house.\n\nSome doors are for one specific thing, and that thing only - e.g. port 80 is for web traffic. \n\nPorts go from 1 to 65535. 1 through 1024 are well known ports, and are generally not used by the common person.\n\nPorts 1024 through 49151 are registered ports, where an entity can request to use them. You can use them without requesting as well, technically, but if another protocol has registered for those ports you have to keep that conflict in mind.\n\nAbove 49151 are usually for custom or temporary work, and you can't register for them.\n\n[Here's a good list](_URL_0_)\n\nSo your computer does have a TCP port 5557. That means that port 5557 is open to TCP traffic. \n\nAs far as TCP vs UDP, think of those like the package that comes to your house. TCP is one type of package, UDP is another. They both work in different ways. So if port 5557 is open to TCP traffic, but not UDP traffic, a TCP package can get through the door, but UDP packages will not.",
"A TCP/UDP port is basically just a tag, which dictates where data sent to your computer will go to. For instance, when your web browser opens up _URL_0_ it uses its own port identifier to transmit the HTTP request - when your computer receives data with the browser's port identifier, it knows that the process containing the browser should get that data. (In a browser like Chrome, each tab is its own process and can have multiple open ports)\n\nThe port is a 16-bit number, meaning you can have about 65 thousand different ports open. Of course you probably won't ever get close to this number, and many ports are restricted to internal use only.",
"Your computer has hundreds of processes running at once, many of which try to access the internet. So, when your computer receives a message from another computer, it needs to know which process is expecting the message. That's where ports come in. When the process first accesses the internet, it \"binds\" itself to a port number that is also included in the message it sends out so the other computer(s) know which port to send back to. Then, when your computer gets the response, it looks at the port number and passes the message on to the process that's bound to that port.\n\nPort numbers on *your* computer are usually randomized and larger than 1024. However, we have to define some ports beforehand so that you can communicate with other computers without having to guess the port number. An example of this is port #80, as others have pointed out. Port 80 is used by web servers to accept incoming web requests. So, when you tell your web browser to go to _URL_0_, it automatically sends the request to port 80 on the corresponding server. Another example is port #25, used for sending email.",
"Let us wind this back to IP addresses.\n\nIP addresses are kinda like your street address. If you want to send a letter to someone else's address you take that letter, put it in an envelope, write the address and send it off.\n\nWhat's that? The delivery person is stupid and just left the letter on the street? Well, we better be more specific on where we want him to deliver it! So maybe we write the address and include some instructions to \"leave it at the front door\" or \"in the mailbox\" or wherever.\n\nThat's what a port number is like. Some extra lines of an address to send your letter.\n\nYou know what is cool? Tracking info from FedEx when I want my sweet new widget to show up. Amazon and I both want to make sure it gets to my house and that is kinda what TCP does - it makes sure things actually got sent but it takes a bit more effort to make it work.\n\nI hate junk mail for crappy credit cards. I don't care when they show up and chances are the sender isn't going to pay for tracking, so they just kinda send them out there and hope for the best. No tracking. That's kinda what UDP is. It certainly is cheaper.\n\n**tl;dr** - Your home address is your IP address, some instructions for the delivery driver is your port info, TCP is your tracking info, and UDP is shitty credit card offers",
"A network port is nothing beyond the concept in the same sense that 'hello' is nothing beyond the concept.\n\nIn both cases, they are a part of a communication protocol.\n\nComputers are identified by IP addresses (compare to a street address).\n\nThe problem is, if we only write an address on a postal letter, it'll get to the right house, but they won't know which occupant the letter is intended to. Same goes for computers.\n\nSo ports are an identifier to tell the computer which program (occupant) to send the letter to.\n\nBasically, there's a receptionist (program) in your computer that processes letters (packets) called the network stack. The network stack wouldn't know how to interpret the content of a letter, so the occupant's name (network port) tells it who the letter is intended to so they can relay it to them.\n\nAnd that goes both ways, so you need a \"sender port\" (associated to the sender) and a \"receiver port\" (associated to the receiver).\n\nIn short, a network port is just a variable/tag that a program adds to data it sends out the network to identify which program it wants to communicate with and another to tell the latter where to send replies.",
"Think of your computer with an IP address as a company with a telephone number. A port number is like a phone extension to reach a specific person, or piece of software.",
"Ports are not physical ports (like an USB port). They are just a number, nothing more.\n\nThey are used for a lot of things, but let me give you a simplified example.\n\nLet's say in your house you have 2 computer (A and B). A router (probably your internet box) and an IP (for example 82.229.100.102). When you are playing an online game on your computer A, the game server will want to send TCP (or UDP) requests to your computer.\n\nThe TCP request addressed to your IP is going to reach your router, but then what ? how is your router supposed to know that this request is supposed to reach computer A and not computer B ? \n\nBy adding ports (so just an additional number) to the TCP requests, the router can know what he is supposed to do with the requests. \n\nUsually, every time you send a request to a server, your router is going to choose ('randomly') a port so that the server knows how to contact you back, and your router keep track of all of that. (NAT)\n\nOr you could simply tell your router to forward everything that comes to the port 1324 to the computer A. (usually called \"unlocking a port\")."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers"
],
[
"http://google.com"
],
[
"www.google.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
g1iuij
|
how do microphones on some devices not pick up on their own sound?
|
Ex: When I put someone on speaker they can’t hear themselves on the other end.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1iuij/eli5_how_do_microphones_on_some_devices_not_pick/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fngkv2y"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"the speaker and mic cut each other off when one is active. \nsome cheaper ones dont do this and you can get feedback"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ijqka
|
a few questions on house-buying stuff
|
What is equity? I am planning on saving enough money in the next 5 years to buy a house in cash. I keep seeing stuff like this: "Moreover, if you have paid with all cash, you will have excellent equity in the house. In case of financial emergency, you can draw on that equity for quick cash." It sounds positive, but I don't understand this. I have searched several sites to define Equity and it's a bunch of real estate jargon that I don't understand. Also, if I buy a house in cash, how will that affect my taxes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ijqka/eli5_a_few_questions_on_housebuying_stuff/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb549hn",
"cb54c46",
"cb54ch8",
"cb54eal"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Equity in something means how much of a stake you have in its ownership. If you pay for the house in cash, then you own it, and you can borrow against it. If you take out a loan to buy it, then you only own it conditionally (so long as you keep making your payments to the bank). If you already have a mortgage on the house, then it will be harder to use it as collateral for a loan because you're already in debt on it.",
"Equity is stuff you own.\n\nIf you own a house worth £200,000 and you owe the bank £150,000 then you have £50,000 of equity.\n\nIf you have equity, and you need more money for some reason - house improvements for example - then the bank will allow you to borrow more based on your equity, so borrowing another £10,000 and you have £160,000 debt and £40,000 equity.\n\nBanks will only lend to you if you have a certain amount of equity such as 5%. The reason for this, is house-prices may go down.\n\nImagine the house next door get knocked down and a restaurant opens there, your house will lose value, now it is worth only £170,000 and you owe £160,000 giving you only £10,000 equity.\n\nNow, if the house the other side got knocked down and a laundrette opens there, your house might then only go down to £150,000, but you owe £160,000 on it. This is called \"negative equity\" - basically, if the bank took your house and sold it, they wouldn't get all their money back.\n\nIf you buy the whole house in cash, then you don't owe anyone any money, so your equity is the same as the value of your house, and if you need extra money in the future you can go to a bank and use your home's equity as security on a loan. Security means that the bank has a claim on your home, if you don't pay back the loan, they can take your home and sell it to get the money back. Because they know they can always get their money back, they give better interest rates than if you got an unsecured loan, where they take a calculated risk that you will pay them back.\n\nThe more equity you can put up as security, the better the rate will be as the lower the chance to the bank of not being able to get their money back is.",
"Ok Home Equity as simply as I can. I'll just copy the first paragraph from the wikipedia entry on [Home Equity](_URL_0_) and try to break it down section by section:\n\n > Home equity is the market value of a homeowner's unencumbered interest in their real property—that is, the difference between the home's fair market value and the outstanding balance of all liens on the property. \n\nSo you buy a house, lets say for £100. If you finance your original purchase with a mortgage (I'll asume you stumped up £20 as a deposit, making for an £80 mortgage), then your home equity is the market value (£100) minus the outstanding balance left to pay on your morgage (£80); thus your equity is the original £20 deposit. Your house is only worth £20 to you, since if you sold up and moved on, most of the price of sale would go towards paying off the mortgage. \n\n > The property's equity increases as the debtor makes payments against the mortgage balance, and/or as the property value appreciates\n\nImagine the housing market picks up, and your £100 home is now worth £120. Your £80 mortgage hasn't changed at all, so your equity has increased to £40! \n\nLets say after a few years you've managed to pay off £10 of your mortgage, that reduces it to £70 outstanding. This releases another £10 of equity!\n\nIf you're a cash buyer, you have no mortgage; so your equity starts pretty much as the value of the house. Your £100 house is now worth £100 to you. If the housing prices increase, your equity increases. If the housing market crashes, your equity crashes. \n\nHaving lot's of equity can be useful, for example if you needed quick cash you could re-mortgage your home. Take your £100 house that you own in full, and re-mortgage it for £50. now you only have £50 equity in the property (and a mortgage to pay off over time), but you also have £50 cash in your pocket for whatever you needed it for. \n\nNo idea how it'll affect your tax returns though!",
"Simple. Let's say you have a house that's worth $100,000. Let's say you took out a loan of $90,000 to help pay for the house. Here is a list of all your possessions and debts:\n\n* 1 house, worth 100,000\n* 1 loan, worth -90,000\n* ------\n* total value: 10,000. That's your 'equity'.\n\nYour \"equity\" is the amount of money you would have left over if you sold the house, and used the money to pay off your loan.\n\nMaking payments on your loan increases your equity. Let's say you pay the loan for a year - you pay it down by $10,000. Now your list of possessions and debts look like this:\n\n* 1 house, worth 100,000\n* 1 loan, worth -80,000\n* ------\n* total value: 20,000. That's your 'equity'.\n\nImproving your house also increases your equity. Let's say that you build a new addition on your house. This makes your house more valuable. Now your list of possessions and debts looks like this:\n\n* 1 house, worth 120,000\n* 1 loan, worth -80,000\n* ------\n* total value: 40,000. That's your 'equity'.\n\nOnce again: your equity is the amount of money you'd have left over if you sold the house and used the proceeds to pay off the loan. Since you probably *will* sell the house someday, and you probably *will* use the proceeds to pay off the loan, you probably *will* be receiving that money someday. A lot of people think of that equity as savings - it's money you don't have yet, but you'll have it eventually.\n\nAs for \"drawing down the equity for quick cash\" - let's say you go to the bank and say \"I want to borrow some money.\" They say \"how do we know you can pay?\" You say \"look, I have a house that's worth $120,000 and I only owe $80,000. So I've got $40,000 left over if I sell the house. If you loan me some money, I can put up that $40,000 as collateral.\" So the bank loans you $10,000. Now your balance sheet looks like this:\n\n* 1 house, worth 120,000\n* 1 loan, worth -80,000\n* 1 more loan, worth -10,000\n* ------\n* total value: 30,000. That's your 'equity'.\n\nSo \"drawing down your equity\" is just another way of saying borrowing money, using the equity as collateral. This reduces your equity.\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity"
],
[]
] |
|
8xwsss
|
why does almost every cop tv show portray internal affairs as a bad thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xwsss/eli5_why_does_almost_every_cop_tv_show_portray/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e26c5zo",
"e26hok7",
"e26i2eo"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Because when you're a cop, internal affairs doesn't really benefit you. Either they accuse you of misconduct, or they leave you alone. Their purpose is to protect the non-cop public.",
"Because in almost every cop TV show, the cops are the good guys, and by TV logic, anything that causes problems to the good guys is a bad thing.",
"They are essentially the HR of the police force. If you are being questioned by internal affairs you are probably in trouble in some way or another. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
672ttz
|
the dark net
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/672ttz/eli5_the_dark_net/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgn8naq",
"dgn8unx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The \"Dark Net\" is everything you do not find via normal means as google, this means it is \"dark\". \n\nMost of the internet is in the \"Dark Net\", but how does it go there?\n\nHere are examples:\n\n* You have a personal website and put a robot.txt in there that prevents seach engines to index your folder \"Private_pictures\". \n* Maybe you also have some sort of password protection\n* Forum communities that are behind a password (or subforums)\n* Anything behind a paywall. Scientific journals, news or game site articles, a collection of dog photos, ... \n* Anything else with \"access control\", as research groups of universities, data of universities, cloud storage of companies.\n* And so on and on and on and on, each of the million reasons why you might not find the content with a big search engine contributes to the \"Dark Net\". \n\nI guess you get the idea. The part that is illegal is pretty, pretty small.\n\nBut there is something else. For example the \n\n\n* Usenet. It is the text based predecessor of the current internet. It is decentralised and the newsgroups are stored and shared between servers taking part in the usenet. You access it with a newsreader and it basically... imagine the internet that consists of a bunch of email-conversation in a group that get stored and shared amongst servers for those who want to access it. You usually do not find those groups (if the usenet belongs to the Darknet could get argued).\n\n* Onion routing: There is an own network similar than the usenet within the tor-network. This is a network similar to the usnet, but more similar to the internet. Here you get \"websites\" with a special .onion-ending. But the TOR network is an own ELI5. In general: it is an anonymous, distributed network with its own technical framework and as such not accessible from the \"normal\" internet. Most illegal stuff you hear about in the news happens here, but the tor network is also important for international spies and journalists and civil rights people in countries that dislike human rights and free journalism.",
"There is no single \"dark net\", that's the first thing.\n\nA \"darknet\" is a technical term for a computer network (examples: Tor, I2P, Freenet, GNUnet) built on top of another network (usually the Internet) in such a way that without special software, or at least special configuration, it can't be accessed from the *underlying* network.\n\nDarknets are frequently confused with \"the deep web\", which is an incredibly broad term that's changed somewhat since its first use. Originally, the \"deep web\" referred to data that is on the internet but difficult for search engines to find, perhaps because the pages that might display it require some special authentication to view them. Nowadays, it often includes the various darknets as well, which is fair enough since they, too, are difficult for \"clearnet\" (that is to say, regular-internet) search engines to find.\n\nThat's what darknets *are*; now for the other questions, albeit not in order:\n\n**Why was it created?**\n\nIt depends on the darknet in question, but in general darknet software and protocols are created with certain major goals. Privacy is a big one: Tor was created in part to allow people to use the Internet without anyone being able to reliably establish a connection (in an identity sense, not a network one!) between them and the sites they visit. So is bypassing and defeating censorship: all four I've mentioned are much harder to censor than the Internet if they're accessible at all. A government might be able to enforce nationwide Web filtering, and block connections to static proxy servers outside the country, but they can't defeat a network like Tor where they have no way to *know* all the entry points nearly so easily.\n\n**Why do people use it?**\n\nPeople have something to hide, or censorship they want to bypass. They might not be hiding anything illegal or immoral, mind: they might simply want to be untrackable on general principles. They also might be wanting to hide because they're a whistleblower in an area hostile to such. Note, though, that the same properties that enable these uses happen to make darknets really convenient for illegal activity, too, if that's your thing.\n\n**How safe is it?**\n\nTheoretically, roughly as safe as the Internet. In practice, most darknets are safer in some ways and more dangerous in others. Certainly one is less likely to be caught if one does something illegal on a darknet, compared to openly on the Internet. On the other hand, they're much harder to police, and using one *at all* may make you a target for law enforcement in some places, even if you stay entirely within the law.\n\n**What do you do on it?**\n\nPersonally, very little. I keep certain sites I operate available on the Tor network as well as the Internet, on general principles, but I have no need to actually use any darknet myself, so I don't bother."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
62m2z9
|
why won't instant pudding (us style) set with soy milk?
|
If you read the directions on a box of instant pudding, it generally involves adding milk to the mix, whisking, and chilling. However, there is a warning that the pudding won't set with soy milk. I've used almond milk and it semi-sets. So what's going on here? What does animal milk have that is lacking in the other types that causes this chemical reaction?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62m2z9/eli5_why_wont_instant_pudding_us_style_set_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfnl8vo",
"dfnm82y"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If I'm not mistaken, the reason is because soy milk doesn't contain casein. Casein is a protein found in milk from mammals, and has certain properties that make it a good at being a \"glue\" when this type of milk is added to recipes to make other things. ",
"Soy-milk does not have the proteins needed for the gelatin properties of the instant pudding to react and set. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3o8xhl
|
if the value of our currency is dictated by the amount in circulation, what would happen if 1 trillion dollars were to be destroyed, would it raise the value of the dollar and/or be beneficial to the economy? why or why not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o8xhl/eli5_if_the_value_of_our_currency_is_dictated_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvv0qdz",
"cvv1pxa",
"cvv2175",
"cvv7ikn"
],
"score": [
16,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If one trillion dollars was destroyed (and not replaced), it would result in deflation. Whether or not it was beneficial would depend on whose $1 trillion was destroyed.",
"The Fed(eral reserve bank, the guys who do all our money) commonly increases and decreases the amount of money in circulation to manage the value of our currency. They can also increase the money supply as an economic stimulus (and constrict it to slow down an economy that is growing too fast).\n\nThere are three ways the Fed manages the money supply:\n\n1) They can set banks' reserve rate, which controls how much money a bank can lend. Lowering the reserve rate grows the money supply, and raising it shrinks the money supply.\n\n2) They can change the \"discount rate\", which is the interest rate the Fed charges other banks to borrow from the Fed. When you hear about the Fed changing interest rates, this is what they're talking about. If they raise it rate, it costs banks more to loan money, and reduces the money supply, and if they lower it, it costs banks less to loan money and *increases* the money supply.\n\n3) Finally they can buy and sell issued securities (Treasury bills, for example). Buying them increases the money supply, and selling them *decreases* the money supply.",
"It depends.\n\nGenerally, when more money is put into circulation, inflation rises, and when less money is put into circulation, inflation falls. But this relies on a number of factors, chiefly *velocity of money* – how quickly a dollar is spent and circulated around the economy.\n\nIf, say, the Federal Reserve makes a concerted effort to remove one trillion dollars from the economy, then the result would probably be to significantly lower inflation, even perhaps causing deflation. However, if the economy is in a state where everyone who has a lot of money is just sitting on it and waiting, then the effect might actually be very small.\n\nIf, on the other hand, an eccentric trillionaire who just sits on his fortune while eating ramen burns a trillion dollars in cash that he was never going to spend or invest anyway, then there would be no effect on the economy at all.\n\nWould adding or removing money from the money supply be good or bad? Again, it depends. Right now, inflation is quite low, and so are private and public investment. Increasing the money supply could raise inflation and make it easier to borrow money, which could spur investment. That is why the Federal Reserve has been increasing the money supply during the recession.",
"the reason burning money would increase the totals value is inflation. paper money was originally a receipt for gold or silver in a bank. so if you took a one dollar bill to a bank you could get one dollar of silver in an ingot. (a dollar originally referred to a weight of a valuable metal incase you were wondering). so all the money in existence is a representation of gold and silver in banks and federal vaults. \n\ni do not know how much would change as there are many factors but the value of each dollar would go up. on the flip side if we print more the value goes down. in some countries like Vietnam the currency had inflated so much it is practically worthless. you need about 33,000 dong to equal just £1. (British quote)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ldh26
|
why does shaking your body reduce a sense of pain?
|
e.g. hitting your hand and shaking it to make it feel better.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ldh26/eli5why_does_shaking_your_body_reduce_a_sense_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv5d604"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"First lets establish why your body tells you to shake your hand. Your body doesn't know what is causing the pain. Shaking your hand won't help if you hit it with a hammer, but it would help if it was trapped under a rock, or you had a barbed plant stuck in it. So under these circumstances shaking your hand would help. \n\nSo why does it help relieve the pain? The human body does a pretty good job of rewarding you for following instinct (that's why sex and food are pleasurable). The only way that your body thinks you might reduce the damage is by moving your hand, so it reduces the pain when you start to do that. It's your body's way of saying \"Yeah, keep doing that\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
buvugz
|
why things that move fast in the dark have more "blur" behind them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/buvugz/eli5_why_things_that_move_fast_in_the_dark_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epiclrd"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"In general things don't have 'blur'.\n\nThat's your brain filling in missing information with what it thinks should be there so visual information doesn't seem inconsistent.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nLike how if you wiggle a pencil just right it looks like it's bending, it's just your brain going 'oh that's obviously some sort of rubbery object, I'll just fill in the blanks'.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn the dark the brain does this in overdrive because our (human) night vision is terrible, we also can't really see color very well when it's dark or around the periphery of our vision, mostly black/white/blueish. So in order for things to make sense, your brain just goes 'that's probably red, yeah let's go with red', it's tricking you, like how you can technically always see your nose, but you forget it's there because your brain deletes it as 'non-necessary information'."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2mplwg
|
why do so many games that are made in japan have so few japanese characters?
|
I've been replaying the Phoenix Wright games, which were created in Japan and translated to English later, and the majority of the characters have primarily Caucasian traits like blue eyes or blond hair. Then I realized that this is true of many games that are originally from Japan; Misty from Pokemon has red hair, Megaman has blue eyes, and so forth.
I understand that not everyone in Japan is Japanese, but shouldn't a more significant number of the characters have Japanese features?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mplwg/eli5_why_do_so_many_games_that_are_made_in_japan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm6fggp",
"cm6fkom"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
" > shouldn't a more significant number of the characters have Japanese features?\n\nThis is the key issue right here. To you, a character looks Caucasian unless it has \"Japanese features\". However, to someone Japanese, a character looks Japanese unless it has \"Caucasian features\". Typically, that includes a combination of square-ish blue eyes, blonde hair, and a large nose. If a character lacks those traits, it \"looks Japanese\" to a Japanese person.\n\nJust like Marge Simpson looks Caucasian to you, even though she has yellow skin and blue hair, because she lacks one of the markers that our culture uses to designate a character as Japanese (slanted eyes).\n\nSo a character that lacks any major distinguishing racial features will be perceived by everyone as being their own race.",
"For the most part, they themselves see these characters as Japanese. Megaman has blue eyes because it matches his design. Misty has red hair to make her stand out. In both of these cases, it's not meant to be a literal representation of a phenotype, but a design choice that makes the characters distinct- you'll also find that these games often have characters with blue hair, purple eyes, and a number of other unbelievable features.\n\nPhoenix Wright is also Japanese, at least in part, according to canon. One of his ancestors was a detective in feudal Japan."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2w9gtu
|
what is phone cache and why does it bog down your phone? why don't phones automatically clear it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w9gtu/eli5_what_is_phone_cache_and_why_does_it_bog_down/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cooru7k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Iphone clears it automatically, it has an intelligent tracking-system. Not 100% sure at Android, but very likely.\n\nIt’s data which an app stores locally, like fb-images, so they won’t get downloaded again and again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2w5dmj
|
why people say that lsd/shrooms "changed the way they see their life"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w5dmj/eli5_why_people_say_that_lsdshrooms_changed_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"conqg0d",
"cont5e9",
"cony83v"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Those drugs cause the part of the brain responsible for the ego to show decreased activity. This isn't the ego in the sense of someone being full of themselves, but rather the part of the brain responsible for telling you that you exist as a separate entity from your surroundings. They also increase activity in parts of the brain responsible for emotion and creativity. \n\nThat's the breakdown of the mechanics behind it, which is what I'm assuming you were trying to ask. To answer your question completely literally, \"Because they do\". ",
"I've always called psychedelics the most honest mirror you will ever look into.\n\nWe deal with so much in our daily lives and we build up these complex filters through which information, emotion, etc. pass so that we can cope with, manage and interpret the world around us. Psychedelics dilute or remove those filters and this can lead to very profound experiences. \n\nAs your ego becomes suppressed you are likely to begin scrutinizing aspects of yourself and find that you can observe them in a much less biased way. With those filters erased you get a very honest glimpse of yourself (for better or worse) and that leaves people feeling like the experience changed their life. \n\nThe drugs also tend to wipe away preconceived notions about the world you inhabit and your relationship to it. This can lead people to see the interrelation between aspects of the world more clearly.\n\n",
"From my own experience of the phenomena:\n\n- It removed existing preconceptions about things and allowed me to look at them with a new perspective. As a simple example, when I say \"American Football\" you instantly have all these pre-existing concepts like \"players\" and \"touchdown\" etc, along with any specific personal associations you have with the sport. Well, imagine watching a football game where all these things are removed and it's like you're watching football for the first time. It's like that but extends to other parts of your life, so for example if you're in a relationship you might see it from a completely different perspective as your existing bias and feelings are utterly removed.\n\n- This ties in with the above but there can be a very strong 3rd person effect. I vividly remember being in a room by myself but feeling like I was there as a separate entity. It was like I was in a room WITH myself rather than as myself. It's hard to explain but basically imagine meeting yourself, which leads me to the next point...\n\n- It removes your usual filters. Take porn for example. I remember watching some whilst tripping and it felt exactly the same as watching animals on the discovery channel. All the usual connotations like romance, sexiness, lust, it was all gone. This also extended to other facets, it just strips away everything until you're left with very raw, seemingly utterly objective perspectives on things.\n\nI think a lot of it is down to the way it interferes with your memory and ability to recall learned experiences. It forces you to look at things in entirely new ways because it removes your ability to recall previous experiences. Imagine getting amnesia and experiencing seeing a car for the first time as an adult, or even yourself.\n\nPersonally for me it made me see that a lot of things I held as objective facts about myself and the world around me were rationalisations on my side, or just far more subjective than I thought. The experience is very personal so it can be hard to describe. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2j2p3m
|
what, exactly, led to the holocaust?
|
Was the hatred of Jews built up over many years? What led to the buildup of Anti-Semitism? How were the jews persecuted from 1933 to 1941?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j2p3m/eli5_what_exactly_led_to_the_holocaust/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl7ts93",
"cl7u80g",
"cl7ubyn",
"cl7vbgl"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes they started with recording who all the Jews were, then segregating. It was a systematic demonization of the Jewish culture before the holocaust officially began with the arrests and extermination ",
"Germany had a huge depression after WW1 many Jews ran business and banking they became easy targets to blame. giving the German people something to rally behind. ",
"After ww1 Germany as a country became really broke and poor due to the sanctions the treaty of Versailles put on them. The government had to pay back money to all the other countries for all the damage that happened because of the war. \n\nHitler blamed this on the Jewish people saying that while the true blooded Germans were away fighting, the Jews stayed home and kept getting rich off the war. He even went so far as to say the harsh sanctions imposed on Germany by the treaty that ended the war were there because the Jews allowed it to be.\n\nHitler's policies started to positively affect the economy for Germany and people began to notice their lives were getting better. They started having good to eat and money to spend and it was all thanks to Hitler and his political views. Germans remembered the famine they survived and were in no hurry to live that life again so they obeyed the voice that put food on their tables and restored Germany to the super power it could be. ",
"Anti-Semitism has been present in Europe for centuries, in various forms and with various justifications.\n\nIn the 19th century, now-discredited theories on race held that the various \"races\" had identifiable, inherent traits, and that \"races\" could be organized into a hierarchy (typically with white, Germanic Europeans - or \"Aryans\" - at the top).\n\nThe Volkisch movement saw the world as a battle for world domination between the Aryan and Jewish races. Volkisch leaders (very much pre-Nazism) believed that Jews should be stripped of their rights, property and citizenship, and either expelled from Germany or outright killed. Anti-Semitism was very much a common feature of life in Germany in this period, in all sectors of society.\n\nJews were therefore among the groups that the majority of the population were disposed towards scapegoating. One of the most obvious examples of this came after the German surrender in WW1. Germany had been fed constant propaganda during the war about how Germany was on the cusp of victory, right up until its defeat. There was a refusal to accept that the German army had been militarily defeated, and the German high command strongly promoted the idea that the army had been betrayed by politicians at home.\n\nThis was a particularly popular view among German soldiers returning from the front, which included Adolf Hitler. Liberals and Communists were blamed for Germany's defeat, both of whom were accused in Anti-Semitic writings of being Jewish-controlled movements to weaken Germany.\n\nIt's important to understand the way in which the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, perceived a relationship between Jews and Communism. In their mind, Communism was a Jewish plot to control the world (the number of prominent Jewish Communists certainly helped sell the idea), and Jews were therefore trying to spread Communism into Germany from the East. An attempted Communist revolution immediately after the end of the war - leading to battles on the streets of Berlin and Munich - certainly helped cement that idea. Hitler himself described his actions as being a fight against \"Jewish Marxism\".\n\nOf course, the Nazi Party was very skilled at combining left and right-wing rhetoric into one. In addition to perceiving Communism as a Jewish plot, it also identified capitalism as being a system controlled by the Jews as well. The Wall St Crash of 1932, which propelled the Nazis into power, provided the perfect ammunition for them: the capitalists (Jews) had destroyed the economy in order to weaken Aryan people and encourage Communist revolution (also Jews).\n\nIn power, the Nazis proceeded to strip Jews of their rights. The 1935 Nuremberg Laws stripped them of their citizenship, forbade sex between Jews and non-Jews, banned Jews from voting and holding public office. In subsequent years, employment and property rights were greatly restricted in an attempt to impoverish Jews. Practicing Judaism was, of course, outlawed. Pogroms made a comeback, most notably the \"Kristalnacht\" of 1938.\n\nQuick note: the Nazis defined a Jew as someone with three or four Jewish grandparents, regardless of that individual's religious practices. Many Germans who did not previously consider themselves to be Jews suddenly found themselves being persecuted along with those practicing the Jewish faith. This was a race-based thing to them, not a religious one (although they did make use of religious rhetoric when it suited).\n\nThe initial Nazi plan for the Jews was to resettle them outside of Europe. Diplomatic efforts were made to arrange the transport of Jews to French Madagascar, alongside British Rhodesia, Australia, Italian Abyssinia, Siberia and British Palestine (the Nazis in fact had an agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany to transport Jews to Palestine right up until the outbreak of the war).\n\nInitially, concentration camps were designed as holding centers until such a transfer too place and not places of extermination (although death was still common).\n\nAfter 1939, things got increasingly worse. Camps became a source of slave labour for the war effort, and working people to death became the new norm. Those not fit to work were killed immediately.\n\nThe number of deaths was increased in other occupied countries by the creation of death squads, often consisting of local pro-Nazi groups such as the Croatian Ustasi, who hunted down and killed partisans and undesirables such as Jews.\n\nIn occupied Poland, ghettos were established to house Jews and other sources of slave labour (the largest being in Warsaw). These quickly became unruly sources of resistance, and by 1942 the Nazis (now no longer advancing in Russia) began reducing the population of these ghettos. The Wannsee Conference in January 1942 brought us into the \"Final Solution\" period, which involved transporting all Jews (and others) in occupied territories to Poland with the express purpose of extermination. This is the period of putting people into cattle trains, and the time of the highest number of killings. The worse the war was going for Germany in Russia, the more brutal the killings became.\n\nThe Holocaust of course also affected many other targeted groups, but each of them is a slightly different issue that needs to be explored on its own."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5b8uz8
|
why is it basically impossible for an enlisted soldier to be promoted to an officer rank?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b8uz8/eli5_why_is_it_basically_impossible_for_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9mne6i",
"d9mnxt7",
"d9mq3g6"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There is such a thing as a \"battlefield commission\" but it's incredibly rare and only used under extreme circumstances. \n\nThe reason for the separation is to maintain the idea that not everyone is cut out for command, and to make officers more legitimate in their command. ",
"One, an enlisted man would likely lack the education that is needed to be a good commissioned officer, so it would set him back a great deal.\n\nTwo, a hypothetical enlisted officer would be quite old (within military standards) by the time he naturally progressed to the ranks to reach an officer's position. Considering that most militaries have plenty of young 20 somethings being commissioned as officers, why would they want to replace them with a 40 something who's likely to retire within less than a decade.",
"Actually, enlisted to officer is quite common in the USAF. While serving your enlistment, you get tuition assistance benefits paying 75-90% of college tuition costs. Once your BA/BS is complete, you can apply for Officer Training School. Of course, a spotless military record is usually required along with written recommendations from your current chain of command. I believe the upper age limit for commissioning is 35 so plenty of time for people who are motivated to take that path."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
34t0pj
|
why are we focusing on curing cancer and not replacing the organs affected by it?
|
If an organ is dying due to a tumor, why not just replace it? It would be a short, long term solution to a lifelong problem.
Edit: I meant through synthetic organs and not organ transplants.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34t0pj/eli5_why_are_we_focusing_on_curing_cancer_and_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqxsokm",
"cqxsos8",
"cqxsu82"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Yes, and then we just wait for the cancer to spread *everywhere* and just replace the whole human. Yay. \n\nNo seriously though, as hard as curing cancer might be, it's most likely still easier than replacing the organs (brain, the spine, ...). Especially if you consider that it can spread if not removed, and that it can cause severe pain and other negative effects on a patient, even if it's not killing them. ",
"In some special cases (certain stages of certain liver tumors) this can happen, but organ transplantation is poorer choice than other modalities - it's much more prone to fail and carries more risks to the patient, including life-long immunosuppresing therapy.",
"Because cancer does not affect only one organ. It has microscopic extensions all around it and some types of cancer can even cause cancerous cells to appear in another part of the body. If someone isn't cured of cancer it usually means that the treatment didn't kill all the cancerous cells. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
11ic9i
|
how does the eye focus on objects that are less than an inch away? (google glass and floaties)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11ic9i/how_does_the_eye_focus_on_objects_that_are_less/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6msl5j",
"c6mtqbf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure about glass, but with most head mounted displays it's a trick with mirrors. A mirror at an angle is set into front of the eye and reflects a picture from a tiny LCD at the side of the glasses/your head. Your eye focuses on the image as if it's further away because of the mirror, as your eye actually can't focus on an image that close.",
"Google glasses, like other virtual reality goggles, generate a \"virtual image\" that is much farther than an inch away. They do this by using lenses to change the light before it enters your eye. The lenses make a small screen appear much farther away than it really is.\n\nFloaters are small objects floating inside your eye, and they aren't really focused at all -- what you \"see\" is simply a shadow cast onto your retina. Sometimes grownups call this \"proximity focus\".\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
eelwer
|
is holding your breath after someone sneezes or coughs a very effective way to avoid their germs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eelwer/eli5_is_holding_your_breath_after_someone_sneezes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbuk6fb",
"fbuk9pe"
],
"score": [
4,
12
],
"text": [
"Your eyes your ears your mouth your nose and any cuts you have open to the air are a portal of energy for any viral or bacterial vector to enter your body and make you sick.\n\nBest to keep it covered and keep moving .\n\nSomeone coughing doesn’t even mean the sickness is spreading, generally that’s the recovery stage. Because the body is working harder to fight off the illness and you are seeing the symptoms of the body fighting illness as sickness. ( runny nose, headache, drowsy )\n\nMost of the time the infectious stage is undetectable unless tests are done. \n\nBest to keep warm ( conserve what your body has to do to keep you alive, saves work in producing heat to reallocate resources to other areas I.e fighting illness which it does all the time )\n\nAnd sleep regular hours eat well exercise and supplement your diet !\n\nMagnesium zinc these are great for boasting immunity because these salts are necessary for creating any type of white blood phage/cell.\n\nAnd eating more damn vegetables not canned, fresh vegetables and preferably raw\n ( clean them first and be sure you can eat them raw first some veggies can’t be eaten raw like potatoes real bad idea to do it like really bad ) \nor lightly steamed and cooked . The enzymes that are present in veggies have been a part of our diet since like forever or at least long enough for our body to recognize and use them to help fight off any infections \n\nThe information is out there \n\nAnd sorry for the book of a response \n\nDegree was in chemistry emphasis Biochemistry and my current role is a clinical lab scientist \n\nSo I know a bit \n\nTake care",
"Well... No. Not really. If the germs enter in contact with your body they can enter any time. Someone sneezes on their hand, then touches a door knob, you touch the door knob, then you put your hand in your mouth, you will get in contact with the germs.\n\nThe only way to avoid someone else's germs is for that person to sneeze/cough on a handkerchief or the pocket of their elbows (not the hand as I previously explained).\n\nIf you want to avoid an infection, wash your hands regularly. \n\nNow... It's not the end of the world if you get some germs in you. It can be beneficial, as exposing your body to those microorganisms can create immunity and boost your immune system. \n\nUnless you have a really weak immune system (because of AIDS or a condition you had your entire life), it's not something to really worry about. Just chillax."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
eo514a
|
why do trains only have a single gear?
|
Trains accelerate incredibly slowly and often have a single gear that is optimised for high speed. Similar to trying to pull away in your car in too high of a gear this makes trains really slow and takes along time for them to hit their high speed.
Most cars will often have 4 (for very old cars) - 6 gears to keep acceleration smooth and fast whilst still being efficient at high speed but trains don't.
I get that electric motors have all of the torque available at low RPMs whilst ICE only have full power at a high rpm but wouldn't gears still allow trains to get to higher speeds quicker?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eo514a/eli5_why_do_trains_only_have_a_single_gear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fe8l2tg",
"fe8mbf6",
"fe8ne01",
"fe8olkr",
"fe8ovnm",
"fe8u6w3",
"fe9xurs"
],
"score": [
14,
370,
6,
43,
3,
31,
7
],
"text": [
"Electric cars don't have gears, too. Electric vehicles don't need them.\nTrains accelerate slowly because of steel tires on stelle tracks. There is not much grip.",
"The problem is not the available torque in the engine. But there is a few issues with trains that make their initial departure very slow compared to cars. The first issue is that the train is very long. When the locomotive starts moving the back of the train does not immediatly start moving. As the locomotive moves forward it will start taking up the slack between the cars and also stretch out the frames of the cars a bit. Even a very tight passenger train will have a few seconds from the locomotive starts moving to the back cars starts moving. And first then will the momentum of the back cars make it lighter for the locomotive. This causes a jerking motion going back and forth through the train as it gets up to speed. In order to make this jerking motion much less which increases comfort and reduces wear on the equipment the engineers will start with the minimum of throttle and slowly increase it as they get up to speed. The second issue is that the train tracks and wheels have very low friction. This is very good for high loads and high speeds but terrible for acceleration and braking. If the engineer applies full throttle from a standstill the wheels will just slip on the smooth tracks and he will spin in place damaging both the tracks and wheels. So he have to get up to speed where he have some momentum before he can apply the full power.",
"Trains are awesome in that they **only need one gear**. Train tracks have much stricter limits for grade and turn radius than roads.",
"Trains are amazingly underpowered compared to cars. Freight trains are somewhere around 0.5 to 2 horsepower per ton. You're average car is somewhere around 100 horsepower per ton. That's why trains can't go up hills more than about a 2% grade and accelerate very slowly. \n\nHowever, they are very efficient. Trains can move a ton of freight over 470 miles on a single gallon of fuel.",
"The \"torque from the start\" isn't universally true for all types of electric motors, and it's also not entirely accurate. Many types of electric motors actually have a lot more torque available at a standstill, while others only reach their maximum torque once they spin up. Ceiling fans for example have barely any torque from a standstill, which is why they take so long to spin up and why you can easily stall them.\n\nHowever, you are not wrong: For maximum acceleration, electric motors can benefit from a gearbox in order to keep the motor running in its optimum RPM range. Porsche does that with their new electric sports car. However, this adds weight and complexity, and electric trains usually have plenty of acceleration anyways.",
"This is going to be a very basic explanation, I understand I'm leaving out a lot of important details here.\n\nTrains dont actually have any gears. A modern diesel electric train is essentially a generator. \n\nInside the locomotive, a diesel engine is coupled to a gear box. Let's say 1:25 ratio (just an example). So for every 1 revolution of the crank (output) shaft of the diesel engine, there are 25 revolutions on the output shaft of the gearbox. \n\nThe output of the gearbox is then coupled to a generator. Electric generators and motors are essentially the same thing. Apply mechanical movement to a generator/motor and you will produce electricity. Apply electricity to a motor/generator and you will produce mechanical movement. \n\nThe power that is generated from the locomotive is used to power everything on the train. Lights, controls, heating, air compressors, and the motors that move the train. \n\nThose motors are located under the locomotive, between each set of wheels, much the same way electric cars work. \n\nThe electricity that was generated in the locomotive is fed to the motors through a variable frequency drive (VFD). The VFD controls motor output speed by changing the frequency of the sine wave (Dont worry about this part). It kind of limits the amount of power applied to the motors. \n\nThose motors are then connected to each set of 2 wheels through another gearbox, this time stepping down, so let's say 25:1 ratio (again just an example). So for every 25 revolutions of the motor (input of the gearbox), there is 1 revolution of the wheel (output).\n\nTrains are slow because they produce an insane amount of torque, and the process I outlined is what makes that torque. As others have mentioned, slow speed, high torque is exactly what trains need, as they are very heavy, and have little friction between the wheels and the rails to work with. \n\nAs they start to gain momentum, the frequency can be turned up on the VFDs to slowly add more speed, and less torque to the wheels, this is essentially what the throttle control on a locomotive does. (Again, very simplified here). \n\nAnother benefit of this is the ability for trains to use regenerative braking, the same way electric cars do. (I wont get into this), \n\nStreetcars, subways, LRT vehicles, and some passenger/freight trains use the same process of adjusting frequency to drive motors, but instead of generating the electricity right inside the locomotive, power is fed to the train by an overhead wire, or a third rail.",
"Some trains do actually have gears. Diesel multiple units (DMUs) are often used in the UK and other countries for short passenger runs. They consist of 1-3 train cars, with diesel engines underneath. The engines are coupled to the wheels either via a mechanical gearbox (usually with automatically changing gears), a hydraulic transmission (potentially also with a gearbox), or electrically via a generator and motor. \n\nThe mechanical gearboxes are kinda rare nowadays, but there are still some trains (class 143/144 Pacers) in the UK that use them - albeit that they're on schedule to be replaced pretty soon.\n\nAlso, smaller lighter trains can have better acceleration - underground trains in particular are pretty snappy. They're never going to be going all that fast, so I guess the motors can be optimised for high acceleration."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
69iabd
|
why does the house vote on a bill, then it gets modified for a senate vote? how can they pass a bill if they're all not voting on the same bill?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69iabd/eli5_why_does_the_house_vote_on_a_bill_then_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh6srir",
"dh6tzw2",
"dh70l0a"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not passed at that stage. If the two houses pass different versions then a conference committee with members of both houses will meet to come up with one version of the bill. Then that new joint version goes back to both houses for approval. Only if that new version is passed identically by both houses does it actually pass and move to the President's desk. \n\nAlternatively one house could drop it's version and pass the other's word for word. ",
"They can't, they must eventually vote on the same bill.\n\nIf different versions as pass, it goes to a reconciliation committee, which tries to come up with a compromise, which has to be voted on again.",
"If the Senate passes a version that's different from the House bill, one of two things happens. \n1) the Senate version gets sent back to the House, and the House approves the Senate version, and then it goes to the President's desk. The House can also reject the Senate version, in which case the bill might be dead in the water. \n\n2) The two can form a conference committee, which gets together and finds a compromise between the two versions of the bill. The compromise version is then presented to both Houses, and if they both approve it, it goes to the President. Otherwise, they might repeat the process ad nauseam, but will probably give up after one or two tries. \n\nEither way, a bill doesn't go to the President for signature (or veto) unless it has been passed in the same version by both houses. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7ebf56
|
how can a seismometer be sensitive enough to detect an earthquake on the other side of the earth without being affected by local vibrations (i.e. people walking, cars, construction, etc.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ebf56/eli5_how_can_a_seismometer_be_sensitive_enough_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq3s6f6"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They are affected by local vibrations. The trick is to pick out the patterns. Earthquakes have a distinct pattern that can be seen through the noise. For this reason, seismometers can also be used to detect nuclear blasts because of the unique pattern."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
tvo26
|
what all is happening on a molecular level when water is being heated?
|
I'm still kind of fuzzy with my HS chemistry class, so I'm wondering if anyone could tie everything that's happening to an H2O molecule together into a single, unified explanation.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tvo26/eli5_what_all_is_happening_on_a_molecular_level/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4q44jw",
"c4q5ms1",
"c4q5onu",
"c4q7um7",
"c4q7vff"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"H2O molecules start moving around a lot faster. Energy is being transferred as kinetic energy. The movement of the water molecules is converted to heat.",
"Atoms and molecules all around us are jiggling. When you heat something up the molecules inside start to jiggle more. Ahh... I'll let the [expert](_URL_0_) explain it.",
"When you heat things they start to jiggle. Water is when they jiggle fast enough to move, but not fast enough to fly away from other water molecules. Ice is when molecules lock together, because they are exhausted and can't move much any more. Steam is when molecules are going so fast, that they can't really clump together.\n\nSame goes with oxygen and hydrogen and carbon, iron ect.\n\nA bit different things happens with rubber bands. On a very small scale, rubber bands are very long, spaghetti like, molecules that are tied and clumped together. When you heat them, they start to jiggle and contract - a rubber band is actually getting more \"squeezed\" when heated, than in normal temperature.",
"When an H20 molecule has energy added to it, it moves around rapidly. This is the answer to your question, if you need elaboration or more on this kind of stuff feel free to ask. ",
"When you heat water, you're transferring energy into the substance. When water is heated enough, you break the hydrogen bonds that keep it together as a nice liquid. As they break, these molecules are free to fly off as they choose.\n\nThis works the same way if you were to heat ice: ice loses its crystal lattice when heated enough and contracts because now the molecules can be closer to each other. When you heat it more...the transient H-bonds cannot form, and you get a vapor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c65ttx
|
how does a reddot/holographic sight work?
|
When using iron sights, you need to line up the front and the back, so two points of an axis for a line 3D space.
Makes sense. But these attachments only show one singular point, so whenever it's not lined up, it's not on the target or doesn't show at all. How??
(I feel like I didn't explain the question like I'm 5 :p)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c65ttx/eli5_how_does_a_reddotholographic_sight_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"es69hmu",
"es6bkwx"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Red dot and holographic sights are about superimposing a reticle over the vision of the user, who is looking past the sight rather than through it. The user has to pre-sight onto the dot before using it, so when the dot is floating in their vision it's in the right location.",
"The sights significantly reduce parallax. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nBy having the dot appear to be over a specific point. The light for the reticle is projected on a reflective surface that keeps the dot over a specific point no matter how it is viewed (with a small margin of error at the extreme edges). \n\nThe dot is emitted from a laser or LED emitter in the base point up into the window that the user looks at. \n\nA red dot is zeroed with height and windage controls like any other kind of sight. It will always stay where you put it, but that spot in the window needs to be calibrated to a desired distance for the make/model/ammunition of gun you are using. \n\nIn practice, most dots are 2-3 MOA wide, meaning that if a target appears to be in the center of the dot, even with shifting to the side and invoking some parallax the shot will still be on target. \n\nWith a functionally parallax free single point, the dot does not need to be aligned with a second aiming point as you would do with old fashioned iron sights. Instead it stays on the target no matter from how it is viewed. \n\nUnlike a traditional gun scope, the window in a red dot doesn’t have a magnification lens, this means that there is no specific distance from behind it that you need to be for it to be clear. Traditional scopes are not parallax reduced either, and for maximum accuracy require the shooter’s eye to also be centered in addition to being at the correct distance.\n\nBecause red dots have no eye relief distance you can also optionally magnified them by putting a magnifier behind the the red dot. Functionally turning it into a magnified scope. Less precise than a proper scope for a variety of reasons, but still an interesting application that can extend the functional range."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax"
]
] |
|
42l1by
|
if nikolas tesla's apparently huge contributions to discovering and studying x-rays and radio waves is (now) known, why are these discoveries still not attributed to him?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42l1by/eli5_if_nikolas_teslas_apparently_huge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czb57js"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because who gets credited for \"discovering\" something most often has more to do with who was commercially successful with the idea first rather than who thought it up. Especially when multiple people are working on the same ideas at the same time.\n\nTesla was a smart guy, but few of his ideas were commercially successful under his name. Largely because he wasted a lot of time and (other people's) money on crazy ideas and stuff that was way beyond the engineering ability of the time to construct."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bezeqz
|
why are people donating so much money to repair norte dame? surely that place is insured?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bezeqz/eli5_why_are_people_donating_so_much_money_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el9ng85"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It appears that Notre Dame actually isn't insured, and that it is owned by France.\n\nRegarding why it's attracting so much money, Notre Dame has some qualities that attracted a pretty wide variety of different people.\n\n1. It's a religious site.\n2. It's an example of highly sophisticated medieval engineering, and medieval architecture.\n3. It's a historical landmark, surviving many fires in Paris, and historical events such as the French Revolution and Reign of Terror.\n4. It's a cultural landmark, featuring a great deal of highly detailed art, and is the namesake for Victor Hugo's novel \"The Hunchback of Notre Dame\" and Disney's adaptation. (Part of Hugo's inspiration for writing the novel was to inspire the restoration of the building, because he felt it had been neglected)\n5. It's a tourist attraction.\n\nFor individuals that donate money, people like donating money. Especially when it feels emotional, like helping a building recover from a fire. For corporations and other large entities, some of them donate for the same reasons people do, some for a sense of philanthropy, and some for public relations, or some combination of those."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
44mw9l
|
why do out of focus lights on film have a hexagonal shape?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44mw9l/eli5_why_do_out_of_focus_lights_on_film_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czr9nku"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Because the aperture of the camera has [six blades](_URL_0_). This will cause lens flares to look hexagonal. If there are more blades, it will have a different geometric pattern."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/promo/2013/06/05/1370445545000-Aperture-1306051120_x-large.jpg"
]
] |
||
124rlx
|
are musical notes objective or subjective? could music have come about with all notes at a slightly lower pitch than they are now?
|
For example, what if the musical note 'C' had been somewhere in between a 'C' and a 'C#'? To us, that note would sound sharp...but is that just conditioned? Or is there something more significant behind the exact frequencies we've decided notes are at?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/124rlx/eli5_are_musical_notes_objective_or_subjective/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6s5hxw",
"c6s5imu",
"c6s6nu6",
"c6s8jsr"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"To answer your question, they are subjective, and they could easily have come out to refer to different pitches. It's kind of like the length of a meter: it could have been any way, but it's useful to have a standard. \n\nMost music today sets the A above middle C to 440 Hz, but it is completely arbitrary, and sometimes other standards are used, from 415 Hz to 466 Hz, according to Wikipedia.\n\n_URL_0_",
"There is no particular reason why we have settled on our current pitch standard. It is subjective. Now, for those of us who have \"perfect pitch\", it would cause a problem if we suddenly changed pitch standards, but \"perfect pitch\" is just a learned skill and they could adjust to the new standard over time.\n\nSome interesting reading:\n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_",
"It it subjective, and an orchestra can be tuned higher or lower to take advantage of acoustic features. In fact, this is often a point of contention between singers and instrumentalists.\n\nWhat is important is the ratio between notes, and even that is somewhat subjective. There are several scales with different numbers and arrangements of tones throughout the octave.",
"(I won't be able to answer any followup questions, sorry. This is the extent of everything I know)\n\nYes, picking where middle c (these days, middle A is the reference, but it doesn't much matter) is a completely arbitrary decision. The rest of the notes relative to that are not.\n\nTo start with, an octave up (or down) from a given note is always going to be twice (or half) the frequency. This is really just physics at work - it's what makes things sound 'right' because the sound waves always line up cleanly.\n\nAfter that, you have to figure out how to space the notes. Originally, people went with [just intonation](_URL_1_) - where there were very clean whole-number ratios between notes - your intervals of fifths, thirds, sevenths, etc were all easily defined and \"pure\" but they only line up properly from one base note. This works really well when an instrument is played in the key it was designed, but sounds pretty bad if you try to shift the pitch up a few notes.\n\nAt some point, somebody decided that it was better for an instrument to sound \"pretty good\" when played in *any* key and thus, [equal temperament](_URL_0_) was born. This makes the ratios between notes less exact, so chords don't sound quite as pure, but you can freely move your music up and down the scale without changing how well the notes mesh together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation"
]
] |
|
1hdhft
|
guantanamo bay
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hdhft/eli5_guantanamo_bay/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cat9bhc",
"catciqv"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Its a US base in Cuba.",
"It's a US Military base slash terrorist prison in Cuba. We jail terrorists there because they are not subject to US laws and do not have the right to a lawyer, phone call, speedy trial, know charges against etc etc. \n\nSomeone once told me another reason we keep terrorists off US soil is because the terrorists would become naturalized US citizens after a certain period of time. Not sure if that is true. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3ia3iu
|
how the hell did any crimes get solved before modern forensics were developed?
|
I know this is a stupid question, but I'm finally getting around to playing LA Noire, and it seems like half these cases are only getting solved because you're getting lucky with some very shaky connections and Cole intimidates people into cracking. I feel like if you could keep your cool and you watched your paper trail you could easily get away with murder back in the 40's. Obviously crimes DID get solved back then, but...how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ia3iu/eli5_how_the_hell_did_any_crimes_get_solved/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cueng7m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Good ol' fashioned sleuthing. There's far more to detective work than forensics, despite what modern day procedurals would have you believe. Questioning and interrogation, for example, both of witnesses and suspects, is still very much a vital part of the process. So much so that police officers are put through specific interrogation training designed to enable them to do it effectively.\n\nFor education's sake, you should read (or watch adaptations of) the original Sherlock Holmes stories. I would recommend the Jeremy Brett adaptations, if you go the watching route."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4hke88
|
why isn't the surgeon general called the "physician general"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hke88/eli5_why_isnt_the_surgeon_general_called_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2qbhsh",
"d2qpgwe",
"d2qq7zs",
"d2qrlkt"
],
"score": [
259,
7,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it grew out of a tradition of military surgeons- though you should think of them as general-purpose medical men assigned to the Army, rather than scalpelers. At the time, \"physicians\" hadn't really established themselves as, uh, professionals who knew what they were doing.",
"Everyone ITT is talking about the difference between a physician and a surgeon, but I think OP is asking about the grammar. Titles like attorney general and surgeon general are a holdover from French grammar. \n\nIt all goes back to when the French took over the English court in 1200 or whatever (no idea the actual date or people). French became the official language of the court and to this day remains the most important language in international diplomacy.\n\nSomeone can give a better answer in /r/askhistory ",
"at the time \n\nPhysician implied a doctor who was in private practice who would only see *his* clients usually in the physician's parlor \nor the clients home and usually only acted as a consultant \n \nA Surgeon was employed by a institution and worked out of a surgery , a room exclusively used for hands on \"poke him and watch him bleed\" medical practice and he took on all patients the institution told him too, IE you would be a Ship's Surgeon , or the expedition's surgeon and the doctor's exam room or medical bay is also known as surgery.\n\nSo calling him Physician General would have been weird, like calling the bus driver a chauffeur ",
"Fun fact: in the UK when you qualify as a surgeon, you actually lose your Dr title and revert back to Mr/Miss. This is because traditionally surgeons were not qualified physicians but were barbers and never had a Dr title. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3hel0t
|
regarding bill cosby's downfall
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hel0t/eli5_regarding_bill_cosbys_downfall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu6piv0",
"cu6ropc",
"cu6sfvu",
"cu6x04g"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Comedian makes jokes about allegations that have been around for a long time. People take notice, more victims come out of woodwork. Now nobody will air re-runs of Cosby Show. ",
"At this point, over forty women have publicly accused Cosby of drugging and raping them. They all have pretty much the same story and Cosby's gone to court numerous times in the past over this but it never got any media coverage until now.\n\nHe's sick, the dude's done, everyone hates him now. ",
"Women have been accusing Cosby of drugging them into unconsciousness, then raping them. The stories are all pretty similar in the way they were carried out. Young, impressionable woman is taken under their wing by Cosby, who dangles prospect of future assistance with career or charity project or something of that kind. One night when she's at his home or at a hotel with him, he gives her a drink, and then she feels strange and passes out, waking up later with him having sex with her. Or waking up many hours later, finding her underwear missing and feeling sore or in pain. Some tried to have charges filed but couldn't get an attorney general to charge Cosby. Others didn't try to get charges filed but left feeling traumatized and upset and knew no one would believe them. Others complained and Cosby paid them off. This was going on for perhaps 40 years, though there was a lot more buzz about it in the past 20 years or so. 10 or so years ago, a number of magazines (like People Magazine and Philadelphia Magazine in 2006, but it never really got picked up in the news in a major way. That is, it wasn't a topic of conversation on the news, on the internet, that kind of thing. There were just these stories that existed in isolation. Then, comedian Hannibal Buress joked about everyone knowing that Cosby was a rapist but weren't doing anything about it. Buress has said that this had been part of his routine for quite a long time, but for some reason, this time, it went viral and people started talking about it on the internet and on news programs on TV and in newspapers and magazines. I don't know why *now* this was picked up, but for many years before this, it was pretty much ignored. But that's what happened. It could be an accumulation of many people not being the one to take Cosby down, because Cosby was too powerful, could affect their careers too negatively, but just posting Hannibal Buress's video was an oblique way of publicizing it without accusing him directly. Once the story was widely broken, others more confidently chimed in.",
"Try the Search function or visit /r/OutOfTheLoop "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ikf1p
|
how is reddit a full-fledged company?
|
I mean, it's a just a simple, straightforward message board. A large-scale one with loads of users, sure, but ultimately still just a website. And all the content is user-generated, right? So I don't understand how it takes more than one person with a shitload of server space (or whatever, I'm not a techie) to run. Surely even that one person shouldn't be necessary beyond initial set-up and maybe some occasional updates, since once the site is established they can then just leave it to the users to... well, use.
Yet somehow it's a whole company, complete with a whole bunch of employees and a CEO and everything. What's the deal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ikf1p/eli5_how_is_reddit_a_fullfledged_company/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl2vhzl",
"cl2vi27",
"cl2wd5i"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
25
],
"text": [
"You have no idea how much personnel it takes to keep a large site running. *Nothing* with 174 million unique visitors per month is a set-it-and-forget-it business.\n\nThen there's the entire hurdle of managing everything vaguely related to the site, PR, merchandise, ads, whatnot.",
"Just from the software side of things you need developers, QA, system administrators, ui/uix experts, product manager and others.\n\nBut reddit has to make money somehow, right? So it has marketing, data analysis, public relations, and of course there's management, HR, payroll and all that.",
" > So I don't understand how it takes more than one person with a shitload of server space (or whatever, I'm not a techie)\n\nI understand that this right here is exactly why you ask the question, but your tone sounds like that all-too-familiar \"just get it done I don't care about details\" mentality that is the bane of all who work in IT. People don't want to know the gritty details, they just expect results, and when something sounds \"simple\" to them due to their lack of domain knowledge, they are surprised/annoyed when it turns out not to be so easy.\n\nWebsites, even sites that *seem* 'simple' like Reddit, take a lot of work to maintain. Any time you're dealing with anything dynamic (new posts, deleting old posts, editing posts, new users, dealing with logging in/out, account settings, etc), you have to monitor things to make sure things are working. Are the servers up? Is log-in working? Is the database ok? Are hackers trying to break in and causing server disruptions? Is there a a breaking news headline that's causing tons of people to flock to our site for more information? \n\nOn top of that, you have to make sure you have developers on hand to add new features, fix bugs that are found, patch security vulnerabilities. \n\nOn top of THAT, you have to look at your massive user volume. With this many users, and all those database hits, something as simple as \"update the database with this new post\" becomes a hard problem to solve. How do you handle doing hundreds of thousands/millions of database updates a day? How do you handle making updates to the database at the same time? How do you handle backing up a database that's so constantly changing? What happens if there are conflicting queries from users on a given database object? \n\nAgain due to volume, do you have enough servers to support the load? What happens when a server goes down? Can the other servers support the extra load for a bit? What happens when the servers need software patches? Or hardware upgrades? Or need to be moved to a new office? \n\n\nThese are just examples of SOME of the questions IT needs to deal with. Not all of them are simple answers, and even the ones that are will require work to make the answers a reality. A lot of them require people with specialized training in that area of IT. \n\n\nNow that we have ONE branch of business work covered...what about marketing? What about HR? What about payroll? What about accounting? What about PR? What about management? \n\n\nThe fact that reddit is run by < 100 people is actually a testament to how good those < 100 people are at their jobs. For example, Facebook, which is \"just\" 'user accounts that post pictures and status updates really', employs [over 7000 people](_URL_0_).\n\n\n\nTL:DR; Don't underestimate how much work a successful, corporate level website is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.quora.com/How-many-employees-does-Facebook-have"
]
] |
|
c16odj
|
are we somehow responsible for the weapons our country is selling to other countries ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c16odj/eli5_are_we_somehow_responsible_for_the_weapons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erb6jav"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Government is run by people you elect (democracy of course) but since there is currently no direct democracy anywhere (you are not personally involved in decision making), you cannot be personally responsible for government actions. If you do not agree you can always let your representative know you do not agree to these actions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ycq5y
|
how does our mind decide what our voice sounds like when we read things in our head?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ycq5y/eli5_how_does_our_mind_decide_what_our_voice/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp8bu9d",
"cp8e8ao",
"cp8ejo2",
"cp8nal3",
"cp8rk5k",
"cp8xgbv"
],
"score": [
73,
38,
5,
2,
42,
4
],
"text": [
"Been asked before but don't have the link for answer. Basically, your voice in your head is the same you hear when you're talking so you're mimicking that.",
"Your internal voice generally tends to mimic whatever voice you're around the most. Being you're around yourself all the time you usually sound like you! Or very similar, but you sometimes will hear other 'vocal sounds' if you listen to someone else long enough. Sort of like when you listen to your mom nagging all day and all you can hear is her voice.\n\nTL;DR Sounds like people around you, including you.",
"Our minds can predict how a voice would sound by relating it to prior experiences. Your own voice, or Morgan Freeman's voice is just your brain deciding it will present you with a stimulus you already know.\n\nIf you haven't ever head your own voice I doubt your brain does create the illusion of \"hearing\" your inner voice.",
"I don't hear, I just imagine a person sitting in front of a printer and a large room full of filing cabinets, where he just takes what I read and files it away in case corporate needs to take a look at the information that was held on the file. ",
"Unfortunately, we were not closely monitoring this thread. As a result, when it eventually gained attention, a large number of the top level comments were anecdotes, personal comments about which voice a specific user has in their head, or jokes - none of which are allowable as top level comments per ELI5 rules. \n\nSince the comments' removal, new posts on this have been limited to rants about moderating decisions, so this thread has been locked to preserve the few objective explanations by other users.\n\nIn the future, if you have questions regarding moderating decisions, please see the distinguished posts explaining the decisions for removed comments, or send a message to the mods - but please do not hijack a thread to soapbox about perceived injustices.\n\nThanks",
"I lost a tooth recently and when i had to talk, i was making a weird hissing noise with \"S\"sounds. Well, a week of talking like that and my own inner voice in my head began to make that sound too. I HATED THAT."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2yhdwy
|
how does a thermostat switch things (ac, header, lights) on/off?
|
Does it have to be connected to some centralized circuit system in an apartment? If so, does that mean your apartment's circuit has to be designed in a certain way for a thermostat to work?
Note: I'm thinking of getting one installed in my apartment but I don't understand what is required for it to work.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yhdwy/eli5_how_does_a_thermostat_switch_things_ac/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp9isf8",
"cp9on3y"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"How it actually switches it is by using a logic based circuit with relays that switch high voltage power sources on and off once a given threshold, ie set temperature, is met. They're not very hard to install if you know which wires go where but since its an apartment I'd let the maintenance guys do it. ",
"If you have your own heating system, you should already have one. IF your heat is by radiator, then you control the heat at the radiator.\n\nIf you have some other whole-building heating system, then it's likely you won't be able to install your own thermostat, unless the system can handle it, but most apartment managers would not agree if the building doesn't already have individual thermostats.\n\nIn a house that has it's own furnace, the thermostat is hooked to a relay, a device that lets a small amount of power close a switch that passes large amounts of power, which then allows the furnace to run. That's a very simplistic explanation, but sufficient I believe.\n\nThermostats typically won't switch lighting, unless they are hooked into an automation system like Insteon or similar.\n\nBut how do things like that switch? Relays."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1mn2zw
|
what does a programmer have to do when he ports his program from one type of process to another one for example the ps3 cell processor to a pc processor?
|
Dont all the processors understand the same computer languages?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mn2zw/what_does_a_programmer_have_to_do_when_he_ports/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccaqkxi",
"ccaqxw3"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The processor does not understand any computer language, but only machine language. ML for every platform is different. That's why a common source code must be compiled (translated) to ML that your processor understands.",
"The processor only understands the instruction set that it was designed for. And these instruction sets can vary between different types of processors. \n\nA type of program called a compiler takes your source code in whatever language you're programming in, and turns it into the machine language for the targeted instruction set. But the compiler has to be written specifically for each instruction set.\n\nThat being said, the compiler lets the computer do most of that work, so that's generally not the hard part of porting software. There's other work that needs to be redone \"by hand\". This often involves changing how your program interfaces with the operating system and user interface which tends to change between platforms. Or for a project like porting from a gaming console to a PC, you're generally moving from a machine with a limited but specific amount of memory/bandwidth/etc (e.g. the PS3) to platform that has a ton of variability in hardware configurations, so you have to do some things differently to support that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2w5lv4
|
how is it that old but massive games like mario 64 take up less space than an hd background photo?
|
_URL_0_
vs. _URL_1_
I know these are ultra-HD pictures, but I have some 1920x1080 ones that go well over a megabyte. I just think it's weird that a solitary picture can be far larger than a game with a bunch of sounds, graphics, data, events, and code.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w5lv4/eli5_how_is_it_that_old_but_massive_games_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"conshxd",
"conw7ue"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not that weird. The largest part of a video game will be the media assets (graphics, sound, video) and in Mario 64 these are very low quality and therefore very low in size. The code, data, events, etc. will be very small. It's not any weirder than the fact an electronic book will be tiny next to a high-definition photo.",
"Additionally, a lot of graphics in N64 games didn't have texture images. They were simply solid colours that were painted on to surfaces. This reduces the asset data of that 3d object to effectively 0, except the shape of the 3d mesh."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.gyazo.com/ca2811d5c476f2d1497c4d21f837537f.png",
"http://i.gyazo.com/5e6df426d40b87e314801705606f811f.png"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1t9zz6
|
why can't you touch a halogen bulb?
|
Why can't you touch a halogen bulb? And why if you do, it won't work anymore?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t9zz6/eli5_why_cant_you_touch_a_halogen_bulb/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5ubr0",
"ce5uhtk"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"The oil on your hands creates a hot spot on the bulb. It won't immediately break, but that spot is getting a lot hotter than any other part of the bulb, so its under a lot more stress. The bulb weakens into a more crystaline form, and can potentially form a bubble, leading to an explosion. You should always try to hold them by the porcelain base, and wipe them off if you do touch them.",
"Touching a halogen light bulb does not instantly destroy it when it's turned on, but it will shorten it's lifetime.\n\nWhen you touch something, some grease from your finger is left as a residue. When a halogen light bulb is turned on, it generates a *lot* of light in a broad spectrum (from far IR to UV). The bulb itself is made from quartz glass, which absorbs very little of that light which means it heats up relatively little. But when there is a fingerprint on the glass, some of that light will be absorbed by the residual grease, heating it up and creating a hot spot on the glass. When glass isn't heated evenly, tensions within the glass is created. Some types of glasses, like borosilicate glass, are very resistant to uneven heating. Quartz glass however, is not. The tensions created by the hotspots will eventually cause the glass to crack, and once that happens the gas in the bulb leaks out, air enters, and the filament burns out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5hobae
|
how do athletes compete in freezing temperatures?
|
After watching the MLS finals in Toronto tonight in sub-freezing temperatures (-6C/21F) I'm fascinated by the fact that the players still wore shorts and although they were wearing double layered shirts, everyone on the sidelines and in the stands were wearing hats and scarves. How do they do it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hobae/eli5_how_do_athletes_compete_in_freezing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db1oewb",
"db1omhe",
"db1qi2e",
"db1qp4e"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Athletes get warm by moving a lot. Legs don't get very cold and they sweat a lot, so no need for thick pants. Torso can easily get cold, good to cover. ",
"Humans, like any mechanical thing, aren't 100% efficient. Some of the energy they expend goes into running or whatever, and some is wasted as heat.\n\nAs such, humans get hot when they do a lot of work, in the exactly the same way that the engine in your car gets hot. The hotter you get, the more cooling you need: eventually you end up in a t-shirt even if it's extremely cold out.\n\nSpeaking from experience, if you work hard enough you can wear a t-shirt in 0F/-21C weather easily. As soon as you stop, however, you fucking freeze.",
"They work hard on the field. The only thing that moves heat really is surface area, a temperature difference, and flow. \n\nI wanted to explain that in so I could add this: 6°C. Freezing. Right. The windchill in Edmonton is -41°C tonight. ",
"Their performance suffers, and they sometimes suffer life long consequences as a result. [Several players fell victim to frostbite during the Ice Bowl, where temperatures were -13 F, with a wind chill of -41.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://pro32.ap.org/article/football-and-frostbite-remembering-ice-bowl"
]
] |
|
l4s7w
|
the feeling i sometimes get after my foot falls asleep, the painfully ticklish feeling not the prickly feeling.
|
It feels like my foot is a big cave of some kind and when it touches anything it vibrates throughout my foot being painfully ticklish. Not the painful prickling feeling.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l4s7w/eli5_the_feeling_i_sometimes_get_after_my_foot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2pryas",
"c2pryas"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's because nerves becomes extremely sensible when they lack of proper blood flow. \n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_ ",
"That's because nerves becomes extremely sensible when they lack of proper blood flow. \n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_ "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://medtempus.com/archives/hormigueos-y-adormecimientos-de-las-extremidades-parestesias/",
"http://www.healthhype.com/causes-of-tingling-and-numbness-paresthesia.html"
],
[
"http://medtempus.com/archives/hormigueos-y-adormecimientos-de-las-extremidades-parestesias/",
"http://www.healthhype.com/causes-of-tingling-and-numbness-paresthesia.html"
]
] |
|
3g8skl
|
why don't politicians have facial hair anymore?
|
Mustaches, beards, not even stubble
Why do we have a shortage of furry leaders?
Wow everyone, thank you so much for the answers!
I live in South Korea, so when most of these comments came on and it hit the front page, I was asleep. I woke up this morning to the surprise of being on the front page. Thank you for that and the various responses!
Good luck Thomas Mulcair!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g8skl/eli5_why_dont_politicians_have_facial_hair_anymore/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctvwlu6",
"ctvx4sm",
"ctvxeo6",
"ctvzbtc",
"ctw0cq5",
"ctw0jyg",
"ctw0vtn",
"ctw1pn5",
"ctw3imi",
"ctw502p",
"ctw57v2",
"ctw5r0i",
"ctw5rdd",
"ctw5uem",
"ctw5y0q",
"ctw6ja1",
"ctw6tuh",
"ctw8b6e",
"ctw8s0c",
"ctw8vxy",
"ctw9onz",
"ctw9r2q",
"ctwcq9x",
"ctwd46b",
"ctwfomh",
"ctwft0j",
"ctwgopt",
"ctwidcn",
"ctwj6hb",
"ctwjfia",
"ctwkj5r",
"ctwqact",
"ctwqeb6",
"ctwrjf6",
"cw8dfhj"
],
"score": [
31,
337,
328,
23,
52,
30,
58,
126,
7,
13,
11,
132,
2,
2,
3,
6,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
1874,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Western politicians are the ınes without facial hair. Facial hair is still common in middle east. Ex. Tayyip Erdoğan-Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu-Ahmet davutoğlu... Saddam Hoseyin used to have a full beard. Many arabic politicians as well as Turkish ones have facial hair. It's however, declining in time. There were even more in the past.",
"I read somewhere that people are less likely to trust someone with facial hair actually. How true it is I have no idea. I personally don't feel like I trust someone more because of a lack of facial hair. I'll see if I can find the article. \nEdit: _URL_0_ \nIt's opinion based there but I could've sworn I saw an article that was about a study, still looking for it ",
"I looked up the last US president with facial hair, it was Taft in 1913, over 100 years ago: _URL_0_\n\nThat article also says:\n\n > Social scientists have researched the effect of facial hair on the electability of Presidential candidates, and currently consider facial hair to have a negative effect on candidates.[10][21][22] Today, the existence of facial hair on potential presidential candidates is regularly noted (albeit somewhat jokingly) as a harmful factor.[23][24]\n\n",
"In my country, bearded politicians are associated with a far-left mind. There was a revolution in 1974 where a dictatorship was overthrown and, in the months immediately after that, there was a power struggle where extreme leftist politicians (usually wearing full beards) tried to seize power. Eventually, moderate left and right parties got to share power until now. But, as there is a risk to be associated with extreme leftist thinking, center right or center left politicians use a clean shaven face.",
"Practical reason : more facial expression can be picked up on\n\nSuperficial reason : look younger, cleaner\n\nSociety reason : facial hair thought of as 'dirty', 'wild', 'criminal' or 'sexual' even if it is clean & groomed\n",
"The majority of men are clean-shaven, so shaving signals conformity. \n\n\"...a man who signals disposition to confirm to rules may be preferred by personnel managers...\"\n\n[Study on employment and facial hair](_URL_0_)",
"When american men came back from World War 1, they were clean shaven, because they had to have a tight seal with their gas masks. The style stuck around, especially with the older generations, and now being clean shaven is synonymous with being neat and trustworthy.\n\nEdit - I stand corrected.",
"Which of these men are evil?\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's a good question that I've wondered too. I think facial hair is pretty awesome and I don't see how having it would hurt your public image.\n\nIn Canada, the federal elections are this year and Thomas Mulcair is one of the big 3 candidates for next PM. [He](_URL_0_) actually has facial hair and has a decent chance of winning the election.",
"Well, in 200 years of US history, very few presidents had facial hair.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The guy who is probably going to become the next prime minister of canada has a beard. Tom mulcair if you want to look him up",
"[The man who is very likely to be the next Prime Minister of Canada has a beard.](_URL_0_)",
"You can see the same thing happening with beards in ancient Roman times. Men wore beards during the Early and Middle Republic but started shaving in the Late Republic, and that practice continued with the emperors. There were some emperors that grew out their beards. Hadrian did it because he was a philhellene; later emperors did it because it became the custom by that time.\n\n\n\n",
"There is a video or something, but it has to do with looking \"baby faced\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"I heard it was to do with the perception of trust. The overwhelming volume of old people that vote in record numbers are the same people who hold onto what their mums' mums told them when they were just children. 'Don't trust a man with a beard, he usually has something to hide.'",
"Politicians from WHERE?\n\nI could give you numerous examples of current politicians with facial hair.",
"Probably has something to do with personal expression. Politicians don't want to leave anyone out of their voting block so they try to remain as business looking as possible without a bunch of flair.\n\nSame reason priests don't have facial hair, you just seem more inclusive and approachable by everyone when you don't try to express one way or another with your physical appearance.",
"Because photography in newspapers.\n\nPoliticians used to be judged more for the words they had in print. Once newspapers began publishing photographs of politicians more regularly, they became more judged for their appearance, not their rhetoric. (my opinion)",
"In the early 20th century two things happened:\n\n * Gillette intorduced safety razor and made it super easy to shave\n\n * US Military required clean shaven faces, gas masks were a big driver here\n\n\nGillette both sent safety razors to troops and heavily advertised with a focus on clean shaven = patriotic. It is by many measures one of the most instructive ad campaigns on modern society. Don't forget, kids - #brands rule the world.",
"Facial hair has long been denigrated as bad. Once it became easier to shave yourself after the invention of the safety razor around 1900, you see no more presidents or military leaders with facial hair. Taft was the last president with facial hair, even though most presidents prior to him had facial hair, and there was a whole large vocabulary to describe the many different facial hair patterns people could adopt. It's a pretty sharp distinction post-safety razor. In 1975, the book *Dress for Success*, a guide to how professional men should dress, came out and was enormously influential. It recommended no facial hair for men, and that contributed even further to the rejection of facial hair.\n\nIt's also worth noting that you see various counter-culture movements embracing facial hair. First there are beatniks, then hippies, who took the hair growing to extremes not seen since, medieval hermits, then there was grunge, and now we've got hipsters, with their \"ironic\" beards and anachronistic mustaches, combining the lack of hair cutting of earlier generations with the extreme emphasis on grooming and style of the current age. Having no facial hair shows people the tribe you want to belong to.",
"Because people have an unconscious bias against people with facial hair as being less trustworthy.",
"In the United States, the lack of facial hair goes back to World War I, when individuals on the front lines needed to shave so their gas masks could seal properly. In World War II, and thereafter aviators needed close fitting masks so they could breathe at high altitude. This need is still prevalent in all facets of military service, as well as the police which need to have gas masks for tear gas deployment. Today, members in the US military must have their face shaved (save a moustache) for defence against chemical and biological weapons. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Just out of interest...\n\nCurrent house of representatives members with facial hair: Don Young (R. AK), Raul Grijavla (D. AZ), Ruben Gallego (D. AZ), Doug LaMalfa (R. CA), Rich Nugent (R. FL), Alcee Hastings (D, FL), Sanford Bishop (D. GA), David Scott (D. GA), Bobby Rush (D. IL), Danny K. Davis (D. IL), Andre Carson (D. IN), Dave Loebsack (D. IA), Elijah Cummings (D. MD), John Conyers (D. MI), Keith Ellison (D. MN), Bennie Thompson (D. MS), William Clay (D. MO), Emanuel Cleaver (D. MO), Tom MacArthur (R. NJ), Donald Payne Jr. (D, NJ), Gregory Meeks (D. NY), Charles Rangel (D. NY), Jose Serrano (D. NY), Eliot Engel (D. NY), G.K. Butterfield (D. NC), Chaka Fattah (D. PA), Jim Clyburn (D. SC), Al Green (D. TX), Robert Scott (D. VA), Morgan Griffith (R. VA), Gerry Connolly (D. VA), Dan Newhouse (R. WA), David McKinley (R. WV), Mark Pocan (D. WI).\n\nEDIT: PART 2 - Current U.S. Senators with facial hair: Angus King (I. ME), John Hoeven (R. ND)... (well that was easy...)\n\nSome factoids: In the house, 7 republicans and 27 democrats have facial hair. There are 26 African American males in the house: 19 of them have facial hair.",
"I had a roommate once who shaved every time he did something he assumed was immoral or illegal. Meaning no facial hair for politicians? ;)",
"Before television and widespread color photography, politicians had to stand out in a crowds and easily be recogniseable from afar by people who never saw a HD picture of them when giving public speeches. Signature beards and fancy hats were thus their marketing tools.\n\nYou could put Lincoln's signature hat and beard on anyone, even an animal, and people would still recognise that it is supposed to be Lincoln. The politician is then a character with an associated costume.\n\nIt is the same exact reason military uniforms of commanders have been so flamboyant since antiquity (think Roman Broom Helmets) until recently. So you recognise from afar who your leader is even though you never saw a good likeness of his face.\n\n\nNowadays, we all regularly see a close-up of the face of the major politicians and we can recognise them without the need for an obvious mark like a beard. Some politicians still use this trick but with a lesser extend (like always wearing bow ties)",
"I think about this alot. Stalin may have been a cunt but damn that moustache is a piece of art.\n\nPoliticians look all the same now",
"They do. Taliban politicians and members of religious parties in muslim countries as well as orthodox jewish parties in Israel all have facial hair.",
"I can actually answer this! \n\nBeards used to be pretty common in the US throughout the 19th century. (1801-1900) What happened though, was World War One. More specifically, in the first World War soldiers were issued gas masks to counteract the newly developed gas based weapons. (Think chlorine gas in a canister, getting lobbed into trenches) The problem was, gas masks cannot make a very effective seal on your face if you have a big, bushy beard. So all the soldiers were also issued razors so they could shave, so they wouldn't die in gas attacks. By the time the war ended, all the soldiers were used to being clean shaven, and the trend spread. When the soldiers returned, the habit of shaving regularly spread though out the population. Politicians picked up on it to stay trendy with young people in much the same way politicians today have taken to twitter in force. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nIrish politician.. Complete stoner and a good guy.",
"Four words: the greatest fucking generation. And their boomer spawn. These are the fuckers that decided that looking like a shaved pussy was right and proper.",
"i remember something from a previous thread that said when people started messing with gasses during ww1 soldiers had to shave in order for the gas masks they had to work well. Same thing with ww2. So it was a habbit that turned into a trend. Baby boomers idolized soldiers more than any generation Im guessing?",
"I think it's simply because grooming standards for men has changed a lot in the years. Men are finally starting to own beards again, but it's only starting to really become a thing yet. For awhile it has been a standard for them to be clean shaven, so it might take awhile for it to affect politicians as the majority opinion on beauty wavers. It's been nothing but bare, perfectly waxed models in Aeropostale ads.. etc. I think facial hair trends come and go, don't know exactly what causes that- but I'm sure you could research it more. Personally, I would like bushy faced politicians, makes me think of the busts of ancient leaders. ",
"\"Dont have facial hair\"? Well im guessing saudia arabia only has facial haired politicians",
"Fashion - as evidenced that the fact that many non-american politicians have facial hair. \n\nFashion is almost completely irrational, so looking for any explanation beyond that is a fool's errand.",
"Ok, I made a [video](_URL_0_) about this in which I answer all of your questions. I wish I would have seen this sooner!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/want-a-great-job-then-shave/"
],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_with_facial_hair"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.academia.edu/180527/Perception_of_mens_personal_qualities_and_prospect_of_employment_as_a_function_of_facial_hair"
],
[],
[
"http://robonwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/EvilSpock.jpg"
],
[
"http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1406641/images/o-CANADA-ELECTION-2015-facebook.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.urrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/presidents.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/568865873973092352/qI6z9467.jpeg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093755/Baby-faced-politicians-likely-win-publics-trust-say-researchers--regardless-tell-truth.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair_in_the_military#United_States"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://c3.thejournal.ie/media/2012/12/19122012-the-girl-against-flouride-independent-2-752x501.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdw957pnrKw"
]
] |
|
5v7ayp
|
do water treatment plants have special methods to remove pharmaceutical drugs (and metabolites) from the waste water? are they effective at preventing trace amounts of drugs from going back into the drinking water?
|
Just wondering how water treatment plants remove drugs (and their metabolites) from water that is peed out after human consumption. I've heard that there are traces of drugs in drinking water and I wonder sometimes about how those traces can affect humans. Do the plants have to do different things to take out different drug metabolites (Like Prozac vs Cocaine vs Metformin etc) or do they just have a one size fits all (or not) method? Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v7ayp/eli5_do_water_treatment_plants_have_special/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddztifd",
"ddzu9pb",
"ddzuhuf"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"There is no method. If the drug or metabolites has a nitrogen or phosphorus in usable form, it gets ate. Otherwise no. The bacteria and other higher order life enjoy phosphate and nitrate primarily, (NO2, NO3, PO4....), ammonia (NH4) and other stuff like that. Some of the drugs may be eaten by higher order life forms, but that's not their job. \n\nSo maybe some of the drugs get mitigated through the sludge wasting process. They might be in those organisms and get culled. The bleach at the end may break it apart. But overall, the plant separates untreatable solids, let's \"bugs\" eat the rest, let it settle, bleach the clear water, and return it. The primary focus is returning water similar to the receiving stream,or better. That is measured by nitrogen and phosphorus amounts in final product as well as a total allowable coliform count. \n\nMaybe that has changed in the last ten years? ",
"The trace elements in drinking water would be from a different source because waste water is not recycled into drinking water. In some cases it can used for irrigation though.",
"I'm not an expert, but have a little exposure to this subject.\n\nOn large scale, treated water isn't intended for reuse as drinking water. It is instead used for irrigation, thermal, or other non-potable uses, thus helping preserve potable water for drinking and showering uses ( _URL_1_ ).\n\nIf the black or gray water is purified to drinking water standards, it goes through significantly more processing, which is usually non-economic in most locations ( _URL_0_ ). At a minimum this probably involves carbon or sediment filters and reverse osmosis membranes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/environmental-engineering/blackwater-becomes-a-sparkling-resource",
"https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wwreclaimed.html"
]
] |
|
6g8c19
|
how the british parliamentary elections work
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g8c19/eli5_how_the_british_parliamentary_elections_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dioasyr",
"diof2ii"
],
"score": [
24,
37
],
"text": [
"The British Parliament is similar to the US Congress. In the House of Commons (the lower house, and the counterpart to the US House of Representatives), there are 650 constituencies, also called seats. These are geographic areas which together cover the whole country, and people in these constituencies elect one person, their Member of Parliament (or MP) to represent them, just like people elect Congressmen to represent them. \n\nThe difference now is how the government comes into play. Unlike the US, where the government is separate from Congress (headed by the President, who is separately elected), the British government comes from Parliament. The Prime Minister is an MP, representing a constituency, and so are all of her cabinet ministers. People do not vote directly for the Prime Minister - they vote for their MP. This method of drawing the government from the legislature is called Fusion if Powers and it is designed so that the government is directly accountable to Parliament, which is the ultimate law-making authority of the land. \n\nSo who gets to form a government? Well, the convention is that the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons gets to be Prime Minister and run a government. What this means in practice is that someone needs to be able to have enough MPs on their side to have over half of all votes on their side, meaning they can pass the laws they want. This can either be if one party has a majority of all seats, or (as in the election yesterday and in 2010) if one party falls short but can form a deal with another party to get the necessary votes. Currently, this is Theresa May, the leader of the Conservative Party. They can then go to the Queen and be asked by her to form a government to face a vote of confidence in the House. Going to the Queen is little more than a formality, because the Queen is Head of State and governments serve in her name; in reality, she has very little sway in picking who to be PM, and takes advice. ",
"The country is divided into 650 constituencies or \"seats\". \n\n* At a General Election, one person is elected to represent each seat and become the \"member of parliament\" for that seat.\n\n* The person elected could be from any political party (we have more than two!) and may have had to compete against several other candidates to get elected.\n\n* After the election the party that has the most MPs elected will form the government and the leader of that party will become the Prime Minister. People do not vote directly for the Prime Minister. The PM is the highest political office - there is no President. \n\n* The PM will then create a cabinet of MPs from their own party to fill the major government roles (e.g. chancellor, minister for education, etc).\n\n* You will hear about the PM \"going to the Queen\". This is just a traditional formality where the PM goes to the Queen, declares that he/she has the majority of seats and is ready to govern with her permission. She inevitably gives it.\n\nWhat could go wrong?\n\n* If the party with the most MPs does not have more MPs than all the other parties MPs added together this is called a \"hung parliament\".\n\n* This is a problem because in a debate the opposing MPs could gang up and vote against the government. This would mean nothing got done and the government was useless.\n\n* To get over this, alliances are sometimes made between different parties to form a single \"coalition\" that will have a majority. This is usually the party with the most seats and a smaller opposition party with similar views.\n\nSo what just happened in the UK?\n\n* We got a hung parliament so the only way the current PM (Theresa May) could form a government was to invite an alliance between her conservative party and one other.\n\n* All the other parties refused to ally with her except one - the DUP (Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland). So our new government will include MPs from the DUP as well as the Conservatives.\n\nThe above is - I believe - an unbiased explanation. What follows is purely my opinion. \n\n* The DUP was one of the two political wings of the terrorists who fought during the Irish \"Troubles\". They are known sponsors of terrorism and criminal activity. They are an extreme right wing organisation containing religious extremists, anti LGBT campaigners and race haters. No respectable political party has ever agreed to work with them since they are poison. \n\n* They are now part of our government\n\n* We are f*cked."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8l5y7l
|
what is the difference between declaring war, and a conflict, peacekeeping mission, policing action, etc.? what do you gain/lose by not declaring it an official war?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l5y7l/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_declaring_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzd43v0",
"dzd4qo3",
"dzdnbfq"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"\"Declaring war\" is no longer a thing in modern diplomacy. It has been replaced by other, more modern concepts and procedures.",
"A declaration of war (in the US) is a legal procedure undertaken by Congress. In 2018 it is basically meaningless, as Congress has spent the last 70 years ceding its powers to the Executive. Functionally there is no difference between declaring a war and just deciding to go blow a bunch of shit up and calling it a Conflict/Police Action/Peacekeeping Mission/No Fly Zone/etc.",
"So \"declaring war\" refers to the legal process where one and another country are now in armed hostilities. The laws of war apply now and the war can only be ended with an official peace treaty. This means that if a soldier from country A goes to country B and kills a soldier, legally that's not murder, that's an act of war. And the soldier, if captured, is not a criminal, but a POW, and cannot be prosecuted (unless he violated the laws of war).\n\nA \"conflict\" just means any situation where armed groups are fighting each other. That could be anything, from riots, to secessionist revolts, civil wars, guerrilla terrorist campaigns, or an interstate war.\n\n\"Police action\" is one of those tricky words politicians use when they don't want to outright declare war. For example, in Korea, there had been an agreement after WW2 that North Korea (occupied by the Soviets) and South Korea (occupied by the Americans) would eventually have elections and peacefully reunite. North Korea violated this agreement in 1950 by invading the South. The US intervened with their army, calling it a \"police action.\" Their claim was merely that they're upholding the terms of the agreement, not fighting an aggressive war. The US did not officially declare war on North Korea (or China, who they were also fighting in the war), but a legal state of war did exist. That legal state of war technically still exists to this day, as no peace treaty was signed, only an armistice (another word for ceasefire).\n\nA \"peacekeeping mission\" can also be slippery. Sometimes it's used more cynically than others. A true peacekeeping mission involves UN forces (the UN has a small army composed of volunteer soldiers provided to it by member countries) going to a country and basically acting as police. They're not supposed to be taking a side in any war, they're merely there to basically be shields for civilians. They'll stand around in cities and only fire in self-defense, if fired upon by enemy forces. However, sometimes countries *unilaterally* declare that they're undertaking a peacekeeping mission. The US and France for example have done this in recent decades. This is legally more dubious, and often done for more selfish reasons than just protecting civilians.\n\n > What do you gain/lose by not declaring it an official war?\n\nThat's complex. For example, the US War on Terror does not follow certain rules of war when it comes to POWs. They claim that the enemies they've fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are not true enemy combatants, but *unlawful enemy combatants*. This is a legally invalid concept. The laws of war recognize only enemy combatants and civilian criminals. There's no other category. But the US claims their POWs in the War on Terror are neither enemy combatants nor civilian criminals, and are thus outside *both* the Geneva Conventions as well as the US Constitution, and thus have no rights and can be both tortured and imprisoned indefinitely.\n\nAnother reason you might not want to declare an official war is domestic politics. Look how unpopular the Iraq War was in the United States. Enormous protests ensued and the Republican Party lost a lot of popularity for a few years. Now, the Iraq War also wasn't technically a declaration of war either, but Congress did authorize the use of military force. Regardless, for a politician, it might be better for your career to not use the word war and avoid the media heat. Obama and Trump have lost no popularity for widespread use of force in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Niger, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan, in part because they didn't call it war. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
40bt41
|
what is the biological advantage to urination occurring in or near the sex organs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40bt41/eli5_what_is_the_biological_advantage_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cysy99o",
"cyt1geb",
"cytdv13",
"cytpmxf"
],
"score": [
3,
22,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Urine is decently sterile, it washes bacteria away from the urethra and for guys, when they ejaculate into a woman it changes the pH of her vagina to not be so acidic and thus hostile to semen",
"You don't poop from there. \nGo further back in the evolutionary timeline, and you see where we branched off from fish. Some of the early cartilaginous fishes have a cloaca, a single hole they use to pee, poop, and make babby. \nSo, it's a step up. Waste gets sorted based on sterility, so you don't risk your gonads to infection by coliform bacteria. Anything more clean would require a much more intensive shuffle of holes and tubes, and that's not how evolution works.",
"I read a joke about who designed the human body. Skip to punch line: The body must have been designed by a civil engineer, because nobody else would run a toxic waste pipeline right through the middle of a recreational area.",
"I'm no biologist, but every orifice you have is a vulnerable route into the body. If you had a different orifice than the one used for urination, it'd be another thing for your body to maintain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4763sg
|
how has china been allowed to build an artificial island in disputed waters; and then militarise said island?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4763sg/eli5_how_has_china_been_allowed_to_build_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0agi2w",
"d0agi41",
"d0agi4b",
"d0agpy9",
"d0agsvq",
"d0agt1i"
],
"score": [
9,
12,
3,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"China has big guns.\n\nBig guns allow you to do anything you want without anyone doing anything about it.\n",
"The Islands are not in disputed waters, but at the edge of their coastal waters. But their existence causes said coastal waters to expand into international waters, which is what is causing the dispute. ",
"Because no one is willing to physically stop them. That's it really. While major military powers like the US might have the ability to stop them, they really don't want to start a war with China.\n\nSo for now all China gets is condemnation without physical action.",
"1. They arrive with boats laden with construction material\n2. They use this material to make a giant Airstrip\n3. Land planes laden with military\n4. Enjoy looking all cool and tough to everyone",
"There is no international law against dredging. They sent dredges which took shallow ocean floor, piled it up and had an island. Then they built an airstrip and landed troops. Now they have a fortified island without being confronted by any large military force.\n\nTheoretically a strong international body of governments could tell then to leave. But the body better have a big navy and army and air force. This body does not exist.",
"1. Military power\n\n2. China could in a heartbeat seriously damage your economy through economic manoeuvring. \n\nE.g \n\nWe need China to make cheap shit for us and they need us to buy the cheap shit.\n\nChina now plays a huge part in global box office and that's not going to be reversed\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
58q2fg
|
why do our taste buds prefer ingredients compiled into a recipe instead of just the base ingredients by themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58q2fg/eli5_why_do_our_taste_buds_prefer_ingredients/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d92hayu",
"d92iyqu",
"d92k3mi",
"d92vo6j",
"d92vvto"
],
"score": [
247,
27,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A meal isn't simply the sum of it's ingredients on a plate. When you mix ingredients, cook food, etc. they undergo chemical reactions that make them entirely different. Of course, there are plenty of things you can throw together that taste bad, so it's not really that the taste buds prefer recipes in general but more like the bad tasting ones don't survive to reach the dinner table. This is more of a chemistry question than biology.",
"Why do you prefer a melody over one clear note being played all by itself?",
"I don't think it's just our taste buds... the way a food is presented makes it more or less appealing. For example a decent hamburger looks much more appetizing than two buns, some lettuce, a blot of ketchup, and a hunk of meat splayed on a plate. That's why there are Instagrams dedicated to food, even [r/FoodPorn](_URL_0_) ",
"Because individual ingredients, when combined, compliment each other to create a more complete taste.",
"Our taste buds don't prefer anything it is our brains that prefer the combinations of flavors and are taste buds that identify the flavors"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://m.reddit.com/r/FoodPorn/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2mppr8
|
will we ever be able to make "better" hd? would our eyes be able to differentiate it?
|
720p and 1080p are both HD, but you (or at least I) can vaguely tell a difference between the two - 1080p obviously being a little better. That being said, are we still coming out with better quality stuff today? I know about 2KHD and 4KHD, but can it actually get any better than *that*?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mppr8/eli5_will_we_ever_be_able_to_make_better_hd_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm6fvbj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It can always get better in terms of pixels/quality, all you need is a better sensor and processing capabilities for the camera, whether we can really tell though is another matter. Im sure there are custom cameras that shoot video 10 times better quality than 4K, but how you view it is arguably more important.\n\nThe screen you look at is also very important, if you play 1080p on a screen with 200 pixels per inch, and 720p on a screen with 300 pixels per inch, then the 300ppi screen would look better, even if it was playing a lower quality video (very simplified, obvious screen size etc can matter as well), but you would eventually get to a point where you can't distinguish between the pixels any more.\n\nThat's the idea behind Apple's Retina displays. The pixel density is so high you're not meant to be able to see the individual pixels, theoretically as good as you're going to get in terms of pixels, but that doesn't mean they are the best quality screens possible, there's also depth of colour, sharpness etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a4n5n0
|
black holes colliding cause mass to be shot out as energy?
|
I was taught that mass cannot be converted to energy or the other way around. Energy can radiate in the form of heat and so on, I know that. Now I just read an article about gravitational waves that said that 2 black holes coliding gave out vibrational energy (sorry if it's the wrong term, google translate). "In fünf Milliarden Lichtjahren Entfernung sollen zwei Schwarze Löcher mit der 50- beziehungsweise 34-fachen Masse unserer Sonne kollidiert sein, wobei fast das Fünffache der Sonnenmasse in Schwingungsenergie umgewandelt wurde " roughly: 5 billion light years away two black holes colided and gave out energy which caused an energy wave with 5 times the mass of our sun.
I looked through this sub and found a similar question regarding our sun (radiating energy and growing smaller while doing that), but I think it's be something different when it comes to black holes since they suck everything in. It's really confusing me, maybe I'm missing the obvious. Help please?
(source _URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a4n5n0/eli5_black_holes_colliding_cause_mass_to_be_shot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebfzure"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
" > I was taught that mass cannot be converted to energy or the other way around.\n\nThis is incorrect. It only really seems like you can't convert mass and energy because for the vast majority of experiences on the human scale, you can't. Or more accurately, it happens at such minute levels that it's unnoticeable. They teach this because it's convenient when you're teaching chemistry and most physics, because it's normally such a small thing that you can ignore it unless you're dealing with things like black holes and nuclear reactors.\n\nIn fact, not only can you convert matter into energy and vice versa, but Einstein's *E=mc^2* teaches us that matter and energy are just two different manifestations of the same thing. Matter *is* energy, concentrated to high amounts in one place so that it behaves in certain ways. That's what E=mc^2 means: The energy of a thing is equal to that thing's mass, times the speed of light squared.\n\nThis is how energy is derived from nuclear reactions: when you split an atom that is larger than iron, all of the pieces of matter that come out of it weigh *very* slightly less than the single whole atom, and that little bit of mass becomes energy. Or if you fuse two atoms lighter than iron, the single atom you make weighs very slightly less than the two you started with.\n\nBlack holes also convert mass into energy. You may have heard of *Hawking radiation*. This is radiation that leaves a black hole through process that are very complicated and are their own ELI5. While it's true that energy and mass are interchangeable, it's still also true that you can't make mass or energy from nothing - it still has to come from somewhere. So if energy is leaving a black hole in the form of different kinds of radiation, that energy has to come from somewhere. That energy comes from the black hole's mass. It shrinks a tiny tiny bit.\n\nLikewise, when two black holes collide, they warp spacetime and create gravitational waves. Doing so requires energy, and it has to come from somewhere! So, again, it comes from the mass of the two black holes. If you had some super futuristic almost magical device to measure infinitesimally small changes in almost incomprehensibly large masses like black holes, you would find that the weight of the single merged black hole is slightly less than that of the two black holes you started with.\n\nFun fact, you can create black holes by concentrating enough energy in one place. It just takes a *lot* of energy. But with enough lasers pointed at the same spot, you would create a black hole. Or, if you accelerate particles fast enough and smash them together like they do in the Large Hadron Collider, you get tiny black holes."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.spektrum.de/news/der-maechtigste-crash-von-allen/1611666"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zqgk1
|
how come when i play a youtube video on my modern laptop, my laptop gets super hot and the fans spin up. but when i play the same video on my modern smart-phone, i don't notice any increased heat at all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zqgk1/eli5_how_come_when_i_play_a_youtube_video_on_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfvzarp"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"I'll try to create a comparison.\n\nImagine I have 2 pop-tarts and I want to heat them up before I eat them.\n\nI put 1 in the toaster, and 1 in the oven. Both will heat them to the point I want, but one of them is going to generate more heat than the other.\n\nLaptops have video processors that are much more powerful than what is in your phone, but watching youtube on a computer is like using an oven to heat your pop-tart."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7mgyvh
|
why do return envelopes not require a stamp?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mgyvh/eli5_why_do_return_envelopes_not_require_a_stamp/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drtu3go"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Postal Service offers a service called Business Reply Mail (BRM). By opening an account with the local Post Office, a business may supply their customers with return envelopes or labels. This allows customers to send a reply via First-Class Mail or Priority Mail. The business pays the postage and a per piece fee only for the pieces returned. To ensure the postage is collected, clerks at the delivery Post Office calculate the amount due and withdraw the money from a customer account. In some cases, carriers collect the postage when they deliver the pieces to the business. Generally, BRM pieces are identified through automation process; however, the Postal Service relies on clerks and carriers to identify and hold out any BRM pieces that have not been isolated through automation.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/business-reply-mail"
]
] |
||
8g9e6s
|
please can somebody explain how to use pgp (version: gnupg v2) encryption to decipher messages?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8g9e6s/eli5_please_can_somebody_explain_how_to_use_pgp/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy9uppk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This subreddit is not for \"how to guides\". If you provide me with some details as to what you have tried, and where you are stuck, I can definitely assist though.\n\nI would recommend attempting this yourself from both sides. Pretend you are the seller and buyer - go through the entire communication process\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#/media/File:PGP_diagram.svg"
]
] |
||
6hesyb
|
why if food takes 24-48hours to digest properly do we get almost all of the nutrition in the first 4 hours? what's happening in those other 20-44 hours?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hesyb/eli5_why_if_food_takes_2448hours_to_digest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dixqxr1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Different things happen at different points in the process. Carbs, for instance start being digested even by your saliva as soon as they enter your mouth. But most water is extracted from your food by your large intestine, right at the end of the process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9xl6qv
|
if a girl has the name kimberly, her nickname is kim or kimmy. if a boy is named michael, his nickname is mike or mikey. but if a guy is named robert, why can his nickname be bobby? if his name is james, how can his nickname be jimmy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9xl6qv/eli5_if_a_girl_has_the_name_kimberly_her_nickname/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9t4nmt",
"e9t54hp",
"e9t5bmq"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Really it's just what we're culturally used to. There are reasons for each example. Here is another: A girl called Elizabeth might be Liz, Lizzy, Beth or Betty (or others)",
"Names like Robert and James were really common and so people had to come up with nicknames that could be used to differentiate one Robert from the 6 others they knew. Some Roberts became Robs and then some became Bob because it rhymed. Same with Richard - > Rick - > Dick and William - > Will - > Bill.\n\n This Mental Floss article has some good explanations of nicknames.\n_URL_0_",
"That’s like the whole John/Jack “thing”, whatever...\nJust tell me what ya wanna be called 🤷🏽♀️👍🏽 "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://mentalfloss.com/article/24761/origins-10-nicknames"
],
[]
] |
||
62h178
|
why does diamond plating have the ridges all over it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62h178/eli5_why_does_diamond_plating_have_the_ridges_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfmh5yv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The ridges help give traction, which is why you often see it on stairs, walkways, and in the backs of work vehicles. With diamond plate you get the the durability of steel plate without the slipperiness of a piece of smooth steel."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1lwaac
|
how oxford university is set up.
|
I always thought Oxford was a university then I was reading a Stephen Fry biography he made it seem like there is no actual Oxford Uni but rather lots of university's or colleges in the town of Oxford. Is there an actual Oxford university?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lwaac/eli5how_oxford_university_is_set_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc3fdqy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There *is* an Oxford University, but it's an administrative rather than teaching institution.\n\nOxford, and some other British universities which use the collegiate system, is actually a grouping of many separate small colleges. Each of these institutions is separate in terms of its admissions policy, teaching regime, and so on. However by being part of a larger body called \"Oxford University\" it means they can benefit in a number of ways.\n\nThe colleges can share expensive physical locations, such as libraries or science labs. Given that most Oxford colleges only have a few hundred undergraduate students, being able to save money in this way is important. The small number of students at each college also means that students can get very intensive personal tutoring and the opportunity to work one-to-one with some of the leading academics in their field.\n\nAlso, Oxford University ensures that all of its constituent colleges meet certain academic standards, therefore keeping the reputation of the university as a whole at the level expected.\n\nA good analogy if you're American -- although it's not exactly the same -- is the University of California. This is obviously split across many campuses, each with their own distinct reputations and specialities, e.g. Berkeley, UCLA, Santa Cruz. If you attend any of these institutions you're at the University of California, but just as with Oxford University, students actually attend one of its constituent colleges, as the university itself is just an admin department."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
58a577
|
why do cars run on gasoline instead of readily-available renewable resources like ethanol?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58a577/eli5_why_do_cars_run_on_gasoline_instead_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8ynxc2",
"d8ynz6q",
"d8yo4rf"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Gasoline is/was easier to obtain, store, transport, etc when the modern vehicle engine was developed as well as having built in lubrication and less corrosive features than alcohol based fuels.. \n\nAnd, the industry has followed \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\" as well as established infrastructure and profit arena strategy ever since.\n",
"People are starving in this world and you can eat corn. \n\nYou don't find large lakes of ethanol that you can just pump into your car either. Oil has already been made, and it's just lying there waiting to be found. \n\nAnyway those are the main reasons (poorly explained).",
"Gasoline has a slightly higher accessible energy density than ethanol... roughly a third (So you'd need to burn about 1.4L of ethanol to get the same energy as 1L of gasoline).\n\nRenewability wasn't really a concern during the rise of the ICE and the car, so the fuel that appeared to be the most efficient won out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4825sq
|
why do some electronics have a maximum point to where you can expand the memory?
|
The latest Samsung phone can have it's memory expanded up to 200 GB. Why couldn't someone get a larger memory card that expands it beyond that number?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4825sq/eli5_why_do_some_electronics_have_a_maximum_point/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0gusxg",
"d0gwdej",
"d0gwdx3",
"d0gxxdd",
"d0gyh0m",
"d0hwuze"
],
"score": [
15,
12,
9,
2,
24,
2
],
"text": [
"The phone itself would have to have the capability to handle more than 200GB. This would be within the controller part of the phone, which tells it how to access the memory, as opposed to the memory itself.",
"It's a combination of controller, CPU and OS limitations. Memory has addresses, and that's stored in bits. 32-bits can address 4GB of RAM natively. Even 64 bit systems still have controller and OS limits that vary. There's just no need to build a commodity controller to handle 4TB of RAM right now.",
"Sometimes it's just due to validation. The larger manufacturers generally test and verify the majority of available sizes/formats/brands, so they can say \"our device supports X\". A larger size may be released, and work perfectly fine, but most of the time they're not going to go back and recalibrate an older device.\n\nThe technical side is a bit too long to type out on a phone, so I'll leave that to someone else to hopefully describe better.",
"In storage devices it has to do with sector addressing. A sector is a block of data (like 512 bytes or 4096 bytes). In older SD specs the addressing scheme only had so many bits, in later specs they added more bits.\n\nWhy they don't say just throw 1000 bits and future proof forever? Because addressing lines cost space/energy/money. \n\nIn terms of RAM it has to do with addressing inside the CPU. 32-bit x86 traditionally has 32-bit registers and can address 32-bits of memory. An extension called PAE was added later which allows 32-bit wide blocks of memory to be anywhere inside a 36-bit range of memory (64GB of memory). x86-64 machines typically have 39+ bits of addressing lines. \n\nThe limits also have to do with the controller which has to send refresh signals, manage bank caches, etc... A smaller address space needs fewer resources (energy, space, money) to manage. Which is why some x86 devices might support only upto 16GB ram while others more than 128GB etc...\n\nAlso business. You don't want your cheap CPU being able to handle a TB of memory just like your super expensive server processor ...",
"Ok, now that I'm at my desktop, I'll try and address the technical reasons for storage size limitations. I eschew mobile systems/development in general, so this is from a general computer operating system point of view, but the concepts translate well.\n\n*Note: There's really no hard and fast reason flash storage has any limit at all, just what the OS officially supports. Odds are you'll be able to put a larger capacity memory card into your device, and it will work just fine. I've included a primer on file systems and storage simply because I'm riding that first cup of coffee, and it's a point of interest that I don't get to talk about much in my day job.*\n\nPersistent storage relies on something called a **file system**. In a lot of ways, storage and RAM are very similar concepts, but on different media and with different goals. Storage needs to be reliable, persistent, and have other features like security and indexing. RAM needs to be fast, first and foremost, with other features being dependent on keeping access fast.\n\nSimilar to how a 32-bit CPU can address 2^32 bytes of RAM and a 64-bit CPU can address 2^64 bytes, file systems have a limit of the number of sectors* they can address. Windows used to have a 2TB limit on storage size partitions because the file system could only address 2^32 * 512 bytes (2TB). Later file systems like NTFS and exFAT (FAT64) allow larger sector sizes, with NTFS having a theoretical limit of 2^32 * 64KB (256TB).\n\n**Sectors are larger chunks of memory, and can be 512 bytes, on up to 64KB in NTFS. A sector is the smaller block of storage that can be addressed, so if you save a file that only has 2KB of data, but your sectors are 512KB, that file will take up a 512KB block in storage.*\n",
"The SD Card format \"SDXC\" can support up to a theoretical limit of 2TBs. But since an SD card of that size has not been created yet, manufacturers advertise for the current largest size, which is 200GB. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qa6zw
|
why are there so many saudi arabian princes?
|
In these threads some people talk about 13,000 or 20,000 people in the royal family. How many princes? Who does this include?
[Saudi Family Tree shows descendants](_URL_0_) of Abdulaziz ibn Saud. Is this the only royal family line?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qa6zw/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_saudi_arabian_princes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwddcir",
"cwdg757",
"cwdjari",
"cwdjv1v",
"cwdkagk",
"cwdl7jg",
"cwdr9q4"
],
"score": [
116,
11,
50,
4,
10,
17,
11
],
"text": [
" > Is this the only royal family line?\n\nIn Saudi Arabia, yes. Ibn Saud had dozens of children. Not sure how many daughters he had, but we know he had 45 sons. This makes for a very large royal family.",
"Many wives, many princes. Being able to financially support a large family with many wives and many children is a big status symbol in the cultures that practice [polygyny](_URL_0_).",
"The founder of Saudi Arabia pretty much married a wife from every tribal faction then had a lot of sons, those sons had a lot of sons. By marrying into so many tribes it helped give legitimacy to the rule of a now united Arab peninsula. Here is the kicker most the high ranking government positions are given to members of the royal family. So there is a lot of jocking for power and how these positions are given out. In a certain sense if you can flood an area of government with lower ranking family members it can help give your section of family some dominance and political power for getting the big spots. Saudi Arabia royal politics are like Game of Thrones with all the rape but less killing.Currently a lot of the second gen princes are dying/stepping down and there are a lot of well educated 3rd gen princes that are going to fight over power.",
"The house of Saud is a very large family and the founder had many wives and many children to expand his power",
"Ibn Saud had a ton of children yes, but Saudi Arabia is also very inclusive with it's count of princes. Anyone who can trace their lineage to Ibn Saud in basically any way is a Saudi Prince. In, say, Britain, half of those people would be dukes and other lower titles.",
"Not the answer but there are around 3000 Saudi princes with minimum stipend of 8000 dollars a month.\n\nsource: _URL_0_",
"Saudi prince is used very loosely. All that is mentioned about having dozens of kids is true but there is another factor. This saudi kingdom is the third saudi state. Every descendent of the first royal family (from 250 years ago) is a prince or princess. There is a more specific title that is reserved for the descendants of the founder of the third state (current saudi arabia) which is \"his royal highness prince...\". All these just princes have no claim for the throne. Their royal highness princes on the other hand are part of the ruling class."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://graphics.wsj.com/saudi-arabia-family-tree/"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://reuters.com/article/idUSTRE71R2SA20110228"
],
[]
] |
|
5uwe1t
|
difference between photographic and eidetic memory or is it the same thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uwe1t/eli5difference_between_photographic_and_eidetic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddxdbg0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Same thing, and *extremely* rare. 'Eidetic Memory' is the formal term for 'photographic memory'."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
e2cexo
|
what does 5g give other than faster internet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e2cexo/eli5_what_does_5g_give_other_than_faster_internet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8uqv11"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Stable connections and better availability are nice to have things. The real perk is lower latency which will be really useful for self driving cars which are in constant need for (quick) information. Only the future will show the whole potential of this new standard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eqdq15
|
why do people not want their kitchen knives to go into the washing machine?
|
I mean a dish washer (unable to edit the title). I understand that it makes a kitchen knife blunt to go in there, but it takes literally 30 seconds to sharpen it once in a while. So why do so many people chose this time costly trade off to manually rinse their knives? What am I missing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eqdq15/eli5_why_do_people_not_want_their_kitchen_knives/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fepyp4q",
"fepz9kk",
"fepzb3v",
"feq2tc3",
"fet568w"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It might be a lame explanation but I don’t put mine in the wash because the machine or the detergent scratches the handles of my knives and I don’t want to ruin them. Not very scientific but that’s why I don’t.",
"Every time you sharpen a knife you rub off some of the surface and it gets thinner. As such you cannot sharpen a knife indefinitely.",
"It also takes 30 seconds to clean the knife by hand. Even if your knife is not very expensive, a whetstone costs around 30 euro and it wears down on every use. I have the sort of whetstone that has to be soaked in water before use, so that takes 10 minutes to begin with. \n\nAdditionally, the washer can cause permanent damage to the knife: something can dent the blade when things get knocked around inside, and some detergents can cause pitting in the steel.",
"Depending on what the handle is made of, it can wear away the material, leaving the knife loose (jiggly) in its handle. If the entire unit isn’t one solid piece, it could be dangerous if you are cutting, say a hard winter squash, and the tang suddenly snaps free of the handle or even if the tang shifts a little and the food item slips away from you. Also many detergents can pit high-carbon steel.",
"I don't care about my cheap steak knives, or my cheap paring knives, or other kitchen knives like that, they go in the dishwasher, the plastic handles are fine, and they get thrown out and replaced every few years when my chef's choice sharpener has worn them down to much to be presentable (I despise dull knives, so these cheap steel or stainless steel knives get sharpened often. It only takes me about ten seconds per knife). \n\nHowever, I have two chef's knives that are made of Japanese steel, arguably the absolute best knife steel in the world), have wooden handles, and are absolutely razor sharp. One was made in the 1930s, one was made in the 1960s. Neither are stainless, and they will rust from the citric acid in most dishwasher pods or detergents. I sharpen them when needed, with dedicated whetstones, and they never go in the dishwasher. My kids washed one in the dishwasher once, and it both rusted a tiny bit from being left in there to dry and it dulled the blade to the point that I needed to sharpen it earlier than normal.\n\nI'm not a chef, but I enjoy sharp knives and using them in my cooking and food preparation, so I take care of my good knives and accept that the others get destroyed and let the kids do their thing. They now never touch my two good knives, and we all get along."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1sgtt7
|
what does the term 'adjusted for inflation' mean when talking about money over a time period?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sgtt7/eli5_what_does_the_term_adjusted_for_inflation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdxfmsj",
"cdxfn4f"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Inflation is a way to measure how much prices increase by over time. Therefore, if annual inflation is 2%, something that cost you £1 a year ago will cost you £1.02 today. \n\nThat means that your money won't go as far in the future. 'Adjusted for inflation' figures take it into account, so that you can compare money from two different periods of time. ",
"Back in the day, you could buy a hamburger for say, 1.00. Today a hamburger costs 3.00. Say you bought 5 hamburgers back then. Adjust g for the inflation of the dollar, you would have spent the equivalent of 15.00 today. \n\nThe adjustment for inflation makes it simple for us to understand the difference what're dollar was worth in different time periods. \n\n(I was using examples, not the actual cost of hamburgers) \n\nGosh I hope this is at least close to being correct. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.