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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cqbdgu
|
what is gdp and why is it a measure of a country's wealth? and if a country continuously has an export deficit, wouldn't it run out of money?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cqbdgu/eli5_what_is_gdp_and_why_is_it_a_measure_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewvahxt",
"ewvbhop"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"GDP (gross domestic product) is how much the whole country makes in a year. It's kinda like how much a person earns in a year, but spread across the whole country.\n\nWealth is the value of the things you own (including savings). GDP measures income not wealth. But just like how people who make a lot of money, own a lot of expensive things, countries with high GDP tend to also own a lot.\n\nNot sure that was really ELI5, but I know for sure I can't ELI5 trade deficits.",
"First, GDP is not a measure of a country's wealth. It's a measure of how much a country produces. The rough equivalent for an individual would be the difference between a bank balance (wealth) and income (GDP). \n\nGDP is specifically the market price of all of the goods and services produced by people living in a country in a given time period (usually a year or a quarter of a year). That's very difficult to calculate in practice because it would involve collecting an enormous amount of information about economic activity. Government statisticians typically estimate it with surveys sent to businesses that ask about the value of what they've produced. \n\nCountries generally don't run out of money because they print their own money, but that doesn't mean that there are no consequences to an export deficit. A country that makes a habit of importing more than they export is effectively putting a lot of their money into the hands of foreigners. This entitles the foreigners to buy some of that country's production at a point in the future. In practice, this all plays out through exchange rates. Running an export deficit weakens your currency vis-a-vis your trading partners. This makes your goods cheaper to those trading partners, so they start to buy more until the deficit is closed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
36jtl3
|
why does the switch on a power strip say reset/off instead of on/off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36jtl3/eli5_why_does_the_switch_on_a_power_strip_say/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crekf41"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Circuit breaker built into it. If it trips it will turn off, so you press \"reset\" to reset the breaker."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7k4ctd
|
why should a car engine be left to idle for a few moments after starting?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7k4ctd/eli5_why_should_a_car_engine_be_left_to_idle_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drbhc25",
"drboiy1",
"drbvn3x",
"drc0we5"
],
"score": [
80,
31,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"For the most part you don't need to, in reality on a modern engine the oil pump is pumping the oil where it needs to be within a couple of seconds, and the oils required by the engine are selected such that they work properly in your engine when cold (that's why there are two numbers in your engine oil spec, 5W-30 means it's a 5 when cold and 30 when warm, so the engine designer would design it to run ok at 5.\n\nYou shouldn't run your engine hard when cold because things are not the optimal size and it doesn't lubricate optimally. But idling your car for a minute isn't going to get the oil meaningfully warm, you really need like 5-10minutes of actual driving to get there. But if you're planning on racing, yes, you could drive a few miles before you actually start racing.",
"All the comments are one sided here, and only focused on oil. Your engine has multiple moving parts that are made from different materials, each of these materials expand and contract at different rates as the temperature changes. The tolerances( gaps between these moving parts) are precision machined to be the correct size at the engines operating temp. \nOil plays a roll, but as a mechanic (in Minnesota)I've have rarely been concerned about oil as the reason to warm it up. I'm concerned about aluminum pistons slapping an iron block at 10° or below. ",
"TL:DR It's good for your engine to idle at least 10 seconds before driving off after a cold start. More than a minute or two is unnecessary.\n\nOther comments seem to be based on letting it idle *minutes* instead of *moments*. I define a few moments as anywhere from 10 seconds to 1 minute. Most everybody has been correct about one thing or another. \n\nModern oils are very good. A 0w20 used in most cars nowadays has a \"winter\" or cold viscosity (how quicky or slowly it flows) rating of 0, and a hot viscosity rating of 20. Oils did not use to be so good, which is where the 3k miles or 3 months change schedule came from. You changed oil viscosity with the seasonal change in temperature. Manufacturers use and recommend oils with a range of viscosity because the vehicles will be used in a very large variety of temperatures, and have learned how to build engines that can better tolerate them. Race cars usually use a single viscosity oil that performs really well at high temperatures, and let their engines warm up fully before use.\n\nMore manufacturers are going to Direct Injection fuel systems, where the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber, when older cars injected fuel into the intake manifold where it was then drawn into the combustion chamber. These new engines tend to not run as well when cold, as the fuel soaks up heat when it is injected. My Focus stumbles a little if it's freezing outside and I drive off right away. If I idle for about a minute it's fine.\n\nWhen the parts in the engine heat up they expand and fit together tighter. If you drive aggressively before they do, they can wear out faster from the excessive movement. This is not something that will happen right away, but over years. With modern vehicles the electronics will likely crap out before the engine, unless you are *ruthless* to your car. Example, there was a guy I worked with who had a Camaro. He would be in gear and moving before the starter was disengaged, even if it was 5 degrees F. That is *horrible* for the moving parts.\n\nLetting your engine idle longer than 2 or 3 minutes is just a waste of fuel; engines actually warm up better when driven gently for a few minutes. It creates more heat than idling but doesn't create excessive wear. The higher the RPM the more wear.",
"Modern cars don't need as long of a wait as you'd think. 90 seconds is almost always more than enough except for really extreme environments. If you start your engine then check your mirrors and fasten your seat belt, adjust the radio, and put it into gear, it's ready when you are.\n\n[This guy](_URL_0_) goes into a very high level of detail about oil. There's a bunch of car related stuff there that can get you lost for hours.\n\nMost of waiting after starting is so things get flowing, but there's more than just wear on parts that aren't slicked up yet. Until the cylinders are lubricated fully, some of the exhaust gas can slip past the piston rings into the crankcase. This is called blow-by. This exhaust is colder than it should be, so the burn isn't as clean as it could be, and full of water vapor. The vapor mixes with the nitrogen compounds in a dirty burn to form nitric acid, which gets into the oil.\n\nNormally, this happens to a small degree anyway, and there's additives in the oil to help neutralize the acids so they do no harm. But romping on the throttle right when the car stats dumps a LOT more acid-forming gasses into the crankcase, shortening the oil life greatly. There's also the soot that forms and gets into the oil, and other crud that forms, all of this leads to why oil that's used looks and feels the way it does: it's runny and gritty. Runny means it can't stick where it should, so it doesn't lubricate as well, then the grit and crud in it makes for even worse lubrication, it's like liquid sandpaper! Running on oil that's like this just chews up your engine.\n\nAnother benefit to the short idle is you can hear your engine at rest, and make sure it's not making strange noises before you put it to task. Stopping the engine just as it makes a strange sound can save you a lot of money in repair bills."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html"
]
] |
||
1t2hu4
|
why did i get four different bills for the same medical procedure?
|
I had an endoscopy done by my GI doctor at a local major hospital. I got a bill from the hospital, the doctor, the anesthesiologist and the anesthesiology group. Three of these bills were over a thousand dollars! I have insurance so I'm not paying the full amount but I am still curious how they can charge so much in such a strange way for the same procedure. Is an hour of a doctor's time really worth a thousand dollars?
Edit: I'm more curious about why there were so many groups involved in this that all billed separately instead of me getting a bill for one lump sump that included everything, For the cost I'm going to go with "American heathcare is a clusterfuck"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t2hu4/eli5_why_did_i_get_four_different_bills_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce3nwa2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Why did I get four different bills for the same medical procedure?\n\nUmm...\n\n > I got a bill from the hospital, the doctor, the anesthesiologist and the anesthesiology group.\n\nThe hospital because you're in their building, the doctor because... you're taking his time, the anesthesiologist because they gave you some drugs? and the anesthesiology because I dont know what that is. It looks like you paid for 3 peoples time and the use of the facilities. \n\nWhether or not its worth it seems irrelevant because you and insurance paid for it. \n\nDid they do a 4k+ job?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2xjvak
|
how someone can lose money overall from winning a court case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xjvak/eli5_how_someone_can_lose_money_overall_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp0qezv",
"cp0qq96",
"cp0slh6",
"cp0spdc",
"cp0t846",
"cp0tzbs",
"cp0xvhm"
],
"score": [
27,
10,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a concern that if the loser always had to pay 100% of the legal costs (for both sides) that it would discourage people from taking legitimate legal action to protect themselves. In other words, the (potential) plaintiff may be too afraid of losing and ending up with a huge amount of debt so he/she may not take the risk and go to court despite the legitimacy of his/her claims and despite how solid his/her case is.",
"You can see from the way that you have worded your comment above about \"the offending party\" that you seem to be assuming that one side in the litigation is always acting maliciously and that they \"deserve\" to be forced to pay all the costs. This is usually not the case.",
"A lot of things people don't consider into the cost of a court case are things line expert witness fees. Many state statutes permit payment of expert witness fees but they are typically something like $20/day when a specified doctor could cost up to $1700/hour to testify on behalf of a party. Many tort and PI claims require expert testimony so without paying the fee to have them there, you couldn't win. ",
"In at least one way this is a good thing because it encourages parties to settle a case. \n\nIt forces someone suing to weigh their potential winnings against their potential costs. And as much as clients would love to imagine every case is a slam dunk, a judge could see things differently. \n\nSo when you look at your potential winnings, costs, and judge the risk that you might not win settlement starts to look like a more attractive option. ",
"In the UK we start with the same principle as the USA: the loser pays.\n\nBut that's tempered by a huge number of rules designed to ensure that costs don't spiral out of control (as otherwise the system risks justice becoming a 'who can hire more/ better lawyers' (even more than it does anyway). Then we've got rules like Part 36 designed to encourage sensible settlement. Part 36 is basically a way of making an offer to settle that, if rejected, ends the transfer of costs at that point in time if the recipient doesn't beat the offer (so if you offer me £5k to settle, and I win £4k then I won't get my legal fees after the point you make the offer - and trial is often the most expensive part). Costs is hideously complex as there are going to be differing rules by jurisdiction and area of law.\n\nBut one of the practical issues hasn't yet been touched on - you might be entitled to judgement including costs, but that doesn't mean you'll get it. Actually getting money out of a broke defendant/ plaintiff can be incredibly difficult. If a 'almost broke' plaintiff sues me then the chances of me recovering costs are basically zero even if I have the legal right to do so. This goes for judgments as well - winning in court isn't always the end of an issue.",
"This actually depends on where you are. \n\nIn Britain, the side that loses has to pay both sides' legal fees since they are deemed to have caused the court case. This makes a lot of sense, but can lead to unwanted results, such as the side with more money showing up with a team of 200 lawyers on the first day to say: \"if you lose, you will have to pay millions in legal fees. Are you sure you want to risk it? \n\nIn some other places (like Quebec), the losing side has to pay only if the court case was malicious. That is to say, if you deliberately used the legal system to cause me harm, you have to pay my legal fees. For example, if you know that I am selling my house and, since you hate me, you claim to have done carpentry work and put a huge lien on my house to make it impossible for me to sell, then you have to pay for my lawyer. Of course, this rarely happens since most people going into court cases do so in good faith. That is to say, both sides believe they are acting rightfully and legally and are going to court simply because they cannot come to an agreement without a neutral, third party. ",
"* the person who loses still might have legitimate reasons to take the matter to court\n* cases aren't always black and white, especially when facts are in dispute...a judge has to go with whom they find most credible, even when the know they might be wrong\n* the prospect of paying court costs might deter people with legitimate cases but limited resources\n* you have no control over how much your legal opponent spends on their case...bearing the cost if you lose would encourage disproportionate spending out of spite"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4pr9at
|
why does everyone want to move to canada when their country falls on hard times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pr9at/eli5_why_does_everyone_want_to_move_to_canada/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4n94g0",
"d4naydt",
"d4ncnr9",
"d4ndwkg",
"d4neybw",
"d4niomg",
"d4njk7z",
"d4njuze",
"d4njy4m",
"d4nkctu",
"d4nqihb",
"d4nru4t",
"d4nzntp"
],
"score": [
8,
100,
39,
5,
6,
9,
19,
13,
9,
4,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You rarely hear anything bad about Canada(At least I do not) so when things become rough it seems like a perfect place to live with no troubles.",
"Basically, it's the middle ground country between the European and American way of life and politic, and thus disaffected peoples from both continents can find this-or-that thing in Canada that seems better than their own land. ",
"A good mix of European and American ideals.\n\nThere's enough freedom available to ensure a decent capitalist market and individual freedom.\n\nBut enough government regulation to help people not be screwed over by any particular industry.\n\nBecause our Banks are well regulated our recession wasn't as bad, though it did take slightly more effort to recover from. We have universal policies on most issues and certain hate groups legally can't act within Canadian Borders.",
"The United States shares land borders with two countries: Canada and Mexico. Because these are not American territories, they are not subject to unfair laws, misguided policy decisions, and consequences thereof which a new, undesirable president might bring about. Their proximity to the USA and membership in NAFTA also make travel to and from these places far easier for Americans than traveling further abroad.\n\nHowever, unlike Mexico, Canada is not in the midst of a civil drug war, and also has a standard of living comparable to that in the United States, with a generally more robust welfare state to boot (you will typically hear liberals, not conservative making \"move to Canada\" comments).\n\nTruth be told, this comment is often made in jest. It is intended to express the user's disdain for the entrants in the coming election, not the sincere lends to which they might go to avoid those undesirable results.",
"by \"everyone\" you mean the americans? Never heard a german or vietnamese ever make that argument.",
"By everyone you mean only 'muricans and the Brits.\n\nI suspect the Brits are saying that cause the whole \"i movin' to Canada\" is trending right now. Highly doubt Canada would be the first country in their mind had the referendum took place before the US 2016 general election.",
"I moved to Canada from a shit hole country. \n\nThe reason why we chose Canada was basically, as far as we knew, *people didn't hate us for moving there.* \n\nI mean yes, a country with public health care, tax breaks and subsidies for home buyers and parents, and a general improvement of QOL that basically means anyone could live a comfortable life were all definitely big bonuses to look for, but all of that would mean jack shit if the people of Canada were racist or xenophobic.\n\nIs there racism in Canada? Yes. But people here are generally socially liberal. It's made us feel welcome here. Anyone who runs on a Trump-like platform is treated as a joke by the general population, UKIP won't fly here.\n\nOther points - Canada speaks English AND French. Lots of former French-speakers move to Quebec, and German-speakers can find friends in BC or in the larger cities. Also, Asians. You can find Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese people in most cities.\n\n",
"This is only a real trend in the Anglosphere. I don't think many Germans or Japanese are threatening to go there, but I could be wrong. Norwegians might talk about Denmark or Sweden, for instance.\n\nThey threaten to move there because Canada is essentially America with the added bonus of basic quality of life programs. Healthcare, for instance.",
"Because Canada gets it right, for the most part. Their troubles are so laughably trivial compared to how fucked up the rest of the world gets.",
"It's close, they speak English, similar quality of life, better social services (like national healthcare).",
"CANADA\n\n- Mainly an English speaking country\n\n- Close to America, and has no other neighboring countries that might be a threat\n\n- Relatively speaking it's a rich country\n\n- Has universal health care\n\n- Major cities have robust public transportation systems\n\n- Higher education costs are reasonable, being that it is somewhat subsidized\n\n- Lots of land available for everyone, despite real estate prices\n\n- Many celebrities are from Canada\n\n- No guns\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"I reckon Canada seems like a dream land, I will say though that when my brother lived there he claimed the first area he lived in was a tad racist/redneck.",
"Canada is like 60% America, 40% Europe with the added bonus of a very nice living, often not many problems that hit international tv (making it look like a very serene place), and tons of social services.\n\nIt's at its core very free and liberal and people will accept you for wherever you come from. There's also a running joke that Canadians are \"nice\".\n\nAmericans say they're going to move to Canada because it's as free/liberal as America but without Trump there to screw things up. Europeans say they're going to move to Canada because it has a healthy amount of European tradition and way of living seemingly without many of the well-known problems.\n\nHowever, usually when people say this they don't actually mean they want to move there, they just use it to express their hate for a catastrophic event coming up or one that has occurred (such as trump or brexxit) that could threaten their way of life."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
61leps
|
why does a gun emit a loud noise every time you fire it?
|
And what makes that sound? Is it gunpowder?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61leps/eli5_why_does_a_gun_emit_a_loud_noise_every_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dffdsph"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Gases and sonic boom.\n\nEscaping gasses from a gunshot are the first bang you hear.\n\nThis is why suppressors are effective for safe hearing. They have chambers which capture the gasses and release them more slowly. \n\nBut supressors don't work like Hollywood has you believe. You will still hear a supressed gunshot from far away. They just lower the dB to be safe for human ears.\n\nThe second bang is the bullet breaking the sound barrier.\n\nThey make subsonic bullet rounds which move slower. And a .45 ACP round is naturally subsonic. But most rounds will break the sound barrier. \n\nThese two events happen so fast that your ears register them both as 1 \"bang\".\n\n **edit**\n\nGunpowder does **not** make any boom.\n\nThe firing pin striking a primer is barely a click. The primer sparks, which is silent. The spark ignites gunpowder which **burns**, not explodes.\n\nThis builds pressure in the brass chamber which pushes the bullet out.\n\nGunpowder in a round does **not** explode, nor make any noticeable sound.\n\nAll the noise is escaping gases and sonic boom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9c07y2
|
why do paper straws make fizzy drinks "freak out"
|
I went to a restaurant today and when I ordered my ginger ale they brought me a paper straw. When I put the straw in my drink and stirred it a little bit the drink started fizzing uncontrollably and started shooting ginger ale out of the straw.
Is this some special phenomenon because of the paper straw or what?
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9c07y2/eli5_why_do_paper_straws_make_fizzy_drinks_freak/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5738x5"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"the paper straws are a lot more rough than plastic, this provides a higher proportion of nucleation sites for bubbles to form. Its why the whole mentos/coke thing happens."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a5so36
|
what is confirmation bias?
|
I read on Google but still can't comprehend that.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a5so36/eli5_what_is_confirmation_bias/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebox6o8",
"ebox7ni",
"ebox891",
"eboxacp",
"eboxd0l",
"eboxd15"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"When people embrace evidence that support their beliefs and ignore evidence that contradict it.\n\nFor example, a person who is against vaccines might read news about a person who suffered from a nasty side effect of a certain vaccine, while ignoring news about people who got sick because they didn't vaccinate.",
"Confirmation bias is looking at evidence and drawing support for your viewpoint, rather than forming a viewpoint after reviewing the evidence.\n\nIt also can manifest in forms such as unfairly discounting strong evidence that contradicts your opinion, and accepting weaker evidence simply because it agrees with what you already think",
"A confirmation bias is when you look for explanations to a problem but you already have an idea on the solution. You will then prefer ideas which are similar to yours and disregard those which are opposite to your views.\nIt often happens in projects when you tend to consider more the signals and indicators comforting your decisions rather than alerts which could threaten them. ",
"Essentially it is believing something because it supports how you feel, instead of conflicts with your belief.",
"OK, gonna talk from experience here because I think I was once cute.\n\nWhen I was a kid (about 5) I honestly believed that only boys had blue eyes and girls had brown eyes. This was because it was true in my immediate family. The next few people I checked \"confirmed\" that belief for me, while it wasn't until the sample-size grew that I found out the truth.\n\nNow, I could have kept believing in this thing that isn't true quite easily. I would just record every time it WAS true and remove any examples of it not being true. Then, whenever I brought up my belief, I would bring up myself and my father but not my uncle (who has green eyes).\n\nConfirmation bias is when you only use the data that suits you. You think Trump isn't liked in America? Use the plethora of newspaper articles criticising him but ignore his current polling (insanely high, imo, at somewhere between 42 and 48%). If you want to believe that Vaccines cause Autism? Do what Wakefield did and [only use what is important for your narrative](_URL_0_).",
"You know when you think of something like \"number 8 on lotto again? That number always seems to come up more than other numbers\"? Yeah well it doesn't, you just noticed it once or twice and now every time it comes up you 'confirm' your theory in your head (that it comes up more often), but you just ignore or give less weight to the times that you have seen lotto results and the number 8 wasn't in it.\n\nWhen you look back, you notice the 8s when they are there, but don't notice the times it isn't there as much. So you are blinded by confirmation bias when it comes to the number 8 in lotto."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-hero-andrew-wakefield-scientific-fraud/"
],
[]
] |
|
ddav4t
|
how are teeth whitened?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ddav4t/eli5_how_are_teeth_whitened/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2fc60n"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Two ways:\n\nFirst, polishing off stuff. You may have a layer of stuff that isn't tooth (plaques, calcium, etc) that is yellow or whatever color that can be mechanically removed from teeth. This is what your dentist is doing when they use that thing that is like a small, super fast hydraulic toothbrush.\n\nSecond, bleaching. This can be done chemically, like what you would get from a store. Or, chemically with UV stimulation. This basically works by using some sort of peroxide, which has the effect of breaking apart dyes. The dyes then show up a lot less so the tooth looks whiter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
aug57m
|
how do screens work? more specifically, how does every single pixel get power in such a tiny thing like a phone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aug57m/eli5_how_do_screens_work_more_specifically_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh81kbi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In short: **nanotechnology**. Transistors manufactured today are as small as -- and even smaller than -- 14 nanometers (nm) _(that's 0.000000014 m).\n\n\nFor reference, the iPhoneX has a pixel density of 458 PPI (pixels per inch). Mathing that out gives us a pixel width of 62992 nm. By comparison, the transistors turning the components on and off actually have a miniscule footprint within the pixel.\n\n\nThis article from Samsung on [\"Understanding Today's LCD Screen Technology\"](_URL_0_) goes into detail about each component."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/blog/lcd-structure"
]
] |
||
6d1e2i
|
why are we running out of baking soda?
|
I saw a video (_URL_0_) it said hospitals are running out of baking soda but it doesn't seem like it because you can buy it at the shops
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6d1e2i/eli5_why_are_we_running_out_of_baking_soda/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhyzb09",
"dhyzkoy",
"dhyzm3k"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n > A spokesman for Pfizer said the shortage of sodium bicarbonate was not related to the change in distribution, but was due to a manufacturing delay caused by an outside supplier. The spokesman, Thomas Biegi, said the delay had not been caused by a problem with the supplier of the raw ingredient, sodium bicarbonate, but he added that he could not divulge further details, citing confidentiality agreements.\n\nSo basically it's just a problem with logistics. We're not \"running out\" as in \"there won't be any more baking soda\", we're just temporarily running out until we can manufacture some more.",
"First of all. It's the media and they are manipulating the news \"a bit\".\n\nAnyway. \"Baking soda\" is the popular name of Sodium bicarbonate. That's a simple substance not very hard to produce in laboratory or industrial scale.\n\nThere are some different levels of purity. The baking soda you get at shops are not 100% sodium bicarbonate. It contains impurities like Calcium carbonate, Carbonic acid, etc. They exist there in small quantities and it ok if we put them in cakes or food. \n\nHowever the purity level they are asking in Hospitals might be around 99.5% purity or higher. Impurities might be harmless in food but when injected into the bloodstream or mixed in some antibiotics it may have undesired reactions, that may lead to sickness or death.\n\nKeep in mind that I'm chem engineer and I don't know a lot of medical stuff. But I think it's all about grades and purities.\n\nWhy don't we just make 100% pure Soda? It's expensive and requires more than the traditional methods of separations to get pure Baking Soda. That's why there are few suppliers.",
"This \"medical grade\" sodium bicarbonate is 99.99% pure. The stuff at the grocery store is about 82-85% pure. The additional processing is relatively intensive and is accomplished by only two companies for the US market.\n\nThe very pure baking soda is used as a primary preservative for elixirs of all types and is well tolerated in microscopic doses by people and animals.\n\nWe do not yet know why one of these companies stopped producing in February. The other is providing all they can make, but this is insufficient to meet demand."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/yOQ1cXZooLE"
] |
[
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/21/health/sodium-bicarbonate-solution-critical-shortage-hospitals.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
aa4foh
|
how come it's not illegal to force children to strip for corporal punishment/spanking?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aa4foh/eli5_how_come_its_not_illegal_to_force_children/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecowg2g",
"ecoxlmy"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It is in many countries.\n\nApparently it isn't in yours, and that's because people don't find it important enough to change the law.",
"Laws only make something illegal, the absence of a law doesn't necessarily mean that specific act is legal.\n\nSo far, only 31 US states have made corporal punishment illegal in public schools. That's pretty much the extent of the laws on the topic of corporal punishment. No states have made corporal punishment in the home illegal.\n\nHow the punishment is administered can quickly venture into child abuse or sexual assault/harassment which are covered under different laws. If a child resisted and the parents chose to bring the incident to the police, its possible that being forced to drop their pants would fall under one of these other restrictions\n\nJust because we haven't explicitly made your corner cases illegal, doesn't mean that they're necessarily legal. If you don't like it, then push your state representatives to pass a law against it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
dil68x
|
why are pistons in car engines circular?
|
If they were a rounded square shape they could be packed more efficiently for the total engine block size. So why aren't they made this way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dil68x/eli5_why_are_pistons_in_car_engines_circular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3wksws",
"f3wl8gp",
"f3wllvg"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
17
],
"text": [
"I am not a mechanic but I would say that it is an endurance issue. Circular objects are less likely to break or change shape?",
"[1992 Honda NR750 Video](_URL_0_) has this characteristic (rounded square shape). To answer your question I don't think making the pistons oval was too difficult. It was making the piston rings seal well that was tough to do.",
"Distribution of stresses are more even in circular pistons. \n\nBut you must also consider the early history of manufacturing process. To make a round hole in a cylinder block, what you need is a \"drill like\" rotary mechanism either to polish it or to make it very even. To make a cylindrical piston, what is needed is a spinning lathe. These are the basic workshop tools and are easy to train and develop mfg processes to make them efficient.\n\nNon circular shapes that are of high precision either become hand crafted and/or require CNC machines for repeatability. Until relatively modern times, it would have been impractical to make these parts using this type of equipment. \n\nAlso while you can pack things in \"tighter\" conceptually, that isn't really the issue for most engines - you need sufficient strength, cooling etc etc all of which requires space/volume anyway. To reduce the size/weight of the engine - mostly it comes through better materials (like not using cast iron for example) and it isn't the shape of the piston or cylinder that makes the most impact."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/mG79c7VAw7w"
],
[]
] |
|
1ukoxi
|
what are the legitimate reasons as to why we don't have school through the internet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ukoxi/eli5_what_are_the_legitimate_reasons_as_to_why_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cej1ril",
"cej1tji",
"cej1ymg"
],
"score": [
6,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Because school doubles as babysitting for most parents. My state does have a full online school for quasi-homeschooling, though.",
"I'm sure people will disagree with me but I think \"going to school\" when you're younger provides forced socialization, where you interact with people of your own age in a constructive environment, and impartial judgement of ability, where teachers tell you that you suck because you suck, rather than you're \"trying hard\" or something someone more emotionally connected to you might say.\n\nThere's a lot to be said for leaving your comfort zone and going out into an environment where you're objectively evaluated.",
"For me, the classroom experience itself is valuable. I learn as much from other students' questions as I do from the professor's lecture."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
49cejh
|
what is the h and n stand for in h10n1 influenza?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49cejh/eli5_what_is_the_h_and_n_stand_for_in_h10n1/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0qo6nz",
"d0qpdva"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They are proteins in it. Hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). \n\nThere are 18 different (h) and 11 (n) subtypes. ",
"Proteins on the surface of a flu virus. H stands for hemagglutinin and N stands for neuraminidase. The numbers refer to the slightly different types. H10N1 denotes a flu virus that has the 10th kind of H and the first kind of N.\n\nH is what allows the virus to grab onto the surface of cells and enter them. When a new virus is fully constructed and tries to leave the cell, H can bond to that same cell's surface, getting the virus stuck. It's the job of N to cut that unintended bond to free the virus.\n\nThe different kinds of H and N are significant because that's how our immune systems recognise viruses. If your body knows how to target and kill H1N1, H2N2 could be completely alien to it and it won't even bother attacking them. Not until later, when it's learned H2N2 is also evil.\n\nAlso, some strains can't infect some species of animals. H doesn't just stick to the surface of the cell, but rather sticks to certain proteins on the surface. These proteins serve a purpose in the animal, but the virus can use them as handles. But not all kinds of H can bond to all kinds of these handles. They just don't fit. And some kinds of N can't cut the bonds formed, so any new viruses just stick harmlessly to the cell they were made in. Just like a guy who can't leave his parents' basement is never going to make kids of his own"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8znbds
|
why cant we breed peaches / nectarenes without seeds ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8znbds/eli5_why_cant_we_breed_peaches_nectarenes_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2jyldd",
"e2jyxu4",
"e2k0b2v"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"We might be able to do that but it isn't as helpful as with other fruits because the pits are already fairly easy to remove. For things like watermelon where the seeds are more intrusive it is more helpful so people may be willing to sacrifice taste or make growing them more difficult in order to reduce the size of the seeds.",
"There are a few types of seedless fruit:\n\n*Hybrids* like seedless watermelons that fail to develop seeds only when two strains are cross-bred. They must be re-bred for every generation.\n\n*Mutants* like bananas, that have a genetic malformation that prevents seed formation. These cannot reproduce at all and must be cloned. All bananas are genetic clones of a single plant, reproduced by planting cuttings.\n\n*Unfertilized* like oranges, that develop fruit even if the flower wasn't fertilized.\n\nIf the plant doesn't have a viable relative for infertile hybridization, hasn't produced a random infertile mutant with viable fruit, and won't produce fruit without fertilization, there's not really a good route to generating a seedless variety.\n\nSince peach pits are pretty easily avoided, I'm not sure there's much pressure to develop a \"seedless\" variety. It's more of a problem in fruit that is filled with many small seeds.\n\nThere has been a lot of breeding effort over the years to make the pits easier to remove though.",
"It is being worked on, but unlike fruit with seeds, the pit include both a seed and a seed covering or stone. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/ar/archive/2009/apr/pits0409.pdf"
]
] |
||
70dry1
|
why didi so many black activists in civil rights movement the us convert to islam?
|
I see the extra i in did now and I am sorry
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70dry1/eli5why_didi_so_many_black_activists_in_civil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn2g0v8",
"dn2igek",
"dn2ijak"
],
"score": [
25,
13,
12
],
"text": [
"In their quest for civil rights and equality, many blacks in American rejected white culture, along with a largely white religion that was content to see them in slavery. Many turned to Islam, a more African religion, in a quest to reconnect with African culture.",
"I have no stats but there's this thought amongst a numbet of black Americans that Christianity is a white man's religion. \n\nWhite Southerners live in an area known as the Bible Belt, where there is a high rate of Christians. They claimed to be both Christian and supported the subjugation of blacks. So in short converting was an extra act of rebellion.\n\nIn reality, Arab Muslims practiced slavery too. They ignored that. ",
"'Islam' and the 'Nation of Islam' aren't the same religion.\n\n'Islam' is a de-centralized theology based on Judeo-Christian teachings with the addition of the Koran.\n\nThe 'Nation of Islam' is an authoritarian black supremacist religion that borrows from the three Abrahamic religions while introducing a completely new (and fundamentally incompatible) mythology of its own.\n\nNor did you really find mainstream black activists joining it. It appealed primarily to criminals and crazies rather than mainstream activists and played no significant role in the Civil Rights movement - except perhaps as a hindrance to the adoption of Civil Rights due to its extremist nature.\n\nYou did see some relatively mainstream sports stars such as Kareem abdul Jabbar and Muhammed Ali joining it, but that's really no different from the fact that Tom Cruise joined Scientology.\n\nNote: Some of the other answers seem to based on the selling points of the Nation of Islam. However, this is a highly inaccurate understanding of Africa. The reason there are so many Christians in Africa is because they voluntarily accepted Christianity. The reason there are so many Muslims is because black Africans were conquered and enslaved by Muslims. On the flip side, the black churches were the focal point of the Civil Rights movement from the dawn of the Civil Rights movement. This might explained why black Christians outnumber black Muslims in the U.S. by around 100-to-1 and virtually anyone that you'd reasonably consider a 'black leader' is Christian.\n\nAnother way to grasp this is to recognize that while Malcolm X could fill a hall with supporters, MLK could fill the Washington Mall with supporters. The Nation of Islam has about the same authority amongst black Americans as the KKK has amongst white ones."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7p47uc
|
how do surfers speed up to escape a crested wave?
|
I was watching [this video](_URL_0_) from /r/UNBGBBIIVCHIDCTIICBG/ and several times it looks like the surfer is going to be caught by the wave, however she seems to speed up and escape without doing anything significant other than a slight 'wobble' after she's escaped the crested part of the wave.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7p47uc/eli5_how_do_surfers_speed_up_to_escape_a_crested/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsegiwn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's mostly unweighting off the bottom of the wave, the \"flats\", and hopping the board up onto the face of the wave, even ever so slightly like you see when she is near the white water. By unweighting and getting the board up, she can then redirect the board down and use both gravity and the push of the wave from behind to generate speed. There may be other subtle factors, like if she's riding a three fin board they create a bit of drag when going straight and release when turned using two of the three fins, but it's mostly the unweighting, hopping up, and coming down to make speed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.instagram.com/p/Bds5MnYjHP2/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
4548pg
|
why are microsd cards similarly priced to sd cards?
|
I can buy microSD cards and SD cards at a similar price per GB, why is this if one is miniscule in size and the other is gigantic in comparison? Shouldn't the prices be significantly different per GB?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4548pg/eli5_why_are_microsd_cards_similarly_priced_to_sd/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czv1yz5",
"czvc8v6",
"czvhupp"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the cost of a tiny bit of plastic differs almost not at all from a slightly less tiny bit of plastic.\n\nThe costly bit is the chip inside, and of course, they're the same regardless of format.",
"The chip inside has been naturally tiny for several years now.\n\nThe notion that miniaturization is costly has a lot of truth to it but it is not universal. With silicon chips, as we have developed ways of \"writing\" circuits smaller and smaller onto the silicon (that *development* is costly of course), there are benefits to power consumption and fewer heat issues etc. And of course, you are simply fitting more memory in smaller space.\n\nThere is nothing to be gained in writing \"bigger circuits\"... once you have built the factories that can write small, that becomes the new cheapest method.\n\nSo as I said, the actual size of the memory is small and that is the cheapest way to make it. So the only reason they even make the traditional SD size is because that's the standard socket our devices need. The difference between the two is just the shape of the plastic shell.",
"\n**TL;DR** *Same internals (the expensive bit), different shells (the cheap bit), therefore same price.*\n\nNowadays, an xGB microSD card has EXACTLY the same electronics as an equivalent xGB SD card. \n\nThe only difference is the piece of plastic (cheap) the circuitry (relatively expensive) is shoved into. The only reason this size difference is there is to do with what you intend to use the SD card in. A microSD is a great size for a one-hand size phone, whereas in a bulky two-handed camera, say, it just makes more sense to use a larger card.\n\n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8fmh9b
|
why do muslims take issue with depictions of prophet muhammad, but seem okay with movies such as the passion of the christ which depict other major prophets of islam?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fmh9b/eli5_why_do_muslims_take_issue_with_depictions_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy4ot2o",
"dy4ov9i",
"dy4pbn0",
"dy4pcbs"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Images of Jesus and Moses are also prohibited. The people who \"seem okay with\" it are just relatively tolerant Muslims.\n\n_URL_0_",
"We are not okay with movies such as the passion of Christ. As Muslims, we shouldn't depict any prophets, but we shouldn't get violent over it. ",
"I think the point is that Muhammad did not want people to worship him. He wanted people to worship God. Similar to the false idol Commandment.\n\nAmerica in particular worships Jesus more than God. (Of course they wrap it up by arguing Jesus and his Dad are the same). From the outside it appears the message got lost on the way though.",
"Pictures of Mohammad have caused serious public outcry, but I didn't even know that pictures of any prophets are offensive to Muslims.\n\nMaybe the original question should be \"Why has displaying pictures of Mohammad caused riots in America, when pictures of Jesus have not?\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/living/islam-prophet-images/index.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
e70bcs
|
how can a single coaxial cable provide hdmi and an internet connection with minimal data loss?
|
Ok, set the WABAC machine for, say 20 years ago. I'm working at Best Buy selling electronics and, being the diligent and curious person that I was, I was reading about the various ways of connecting your game consoles, DVD players, etc. to your TV. Back then, in the pre-HDMI days, there were basically 4 options available:
* RF Coax (worst)
* Composite / RCA (standard)
* S-Video
* Component (best)
And the explanations for what made each method good or bad was pretty simple:
**RF Coax** bundled all the information (video and audio) into one signal that had to be translated by your TV. This translation had to happen very quickly could sometimes create "errors" so you ended up with a pretty noisy / low quality picture.
**Composite** separated out the audio from the video, so that was one (well 2 for stereo) less thing for your TV to translate. However it still had to break out all the video information from one line, so there was still a pretty low-quality image.
**S-Video** took things a step further by separating out brightness and color information, so there was even less translation required, giving a much better image than composite.
**Component** was the best of the bunch because the individual red, green, and blue color data was each sent on its own line.
Eventually in like 2003 or so, HDMI came out and that became the "gold standard" for video.
But here's my question: How is it that cable companies can use a coax cable to transmit high-definition video *and* a high-speed internet connection using basically the same cable that provided the absolute *worst* possible image for, say, video game console? What's the difference?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e70bcs/eli5_how_can_a_single_coaxial_cable_provide_hdmi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9un9cx",
"f9uq6xe"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it wasn't the coax itself that was causing the low video quality. Coax by itself is extremely wide bandwidth (only fiber optics have higher bandwidth). The relatively low video quality for RF was because the signals being sent down the coax were the exact same type of signals (6 Mhz wide analogue) that would have been transmitted over the air by a TV station with it's limited broadcast spectrum.\n\nIf you look at the inner workings of a TV station these days, almost everything is uncompressed digital audio/video over coax. Even 4K/8K video.",
"RF Coax is the same as broadcast...but instead of transmitting through the air, think of it as one super long antenna that just connects directly from the tower to your house.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnd instead of only having one TV channel to broadcast on, you can broadcast on *all* of them...at the same time. You can send huge amounts of data back and forth at the same time because of the huge range of frequencies you can use."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1ylevj
|
why does thinking make me physically tired but doesn't burn any calories?
|
I'm really tired after thinking hard or just doing a mentally demanding act. I.e. driving
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ylevj/why_does_thinking_make_me_physically_tired_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cflk0i6",
"cflk6ve",
"cflmnun"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Thinking burns an enormous amount of calories. Read a book. ",
"Actually, thinking does burn calories. Im a little too lazy now to look up sources online, but if I remember correctly your brain uses up about 20% of your body's energy (or, calories). That's a pretty big amount. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nNote that reading burns about 1.5x the number of calories that watching TV does. They're both small amounts compared to physical activity, but the content of your thoughts will actually change your calorie consumption."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm"
]
] |
|
3mszyl
|
how did they discover that adding all those random ingredients together would make a cake?
|
Whose bright idea was it to mix flour, eggs, chocolate, and baking soda?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mszyl/eli5_how_did_they_discover_that_adding_all_those/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvhuz45",
"cvhv6t9"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"While I don't know exact historic answers the logic is reasonably sound.\n\nWe have known for an eternity how to make bread. Cake is just another form of bread, mixed a little differently. I am sure early cakes were not spongy like what we make outta mixes today. \n\nFlour eggs and a older version of baking soda makes bread, add some sweetness and you have early cakes.\n\nHumans like sweet things, it was only natural to make bread into a sweet bread, into a dessert bread. ",
"It is sort of evolution.\n\nYou start out with our ancestors cracking open eggs and slurping the liquids inside.\n\nSome other ancestor found wild grass seeds and chewed on them.\n\nA third one saw a calf drinking from an utter.\n\nA fourth one found salt either in a cave or on a rocky shore.\n\nA fifth one ate some sugar beets or sugar cane.\n\nFrom there those things evolved cooking-vise to bread and then to cake. Took thousands of iterations and many generations of \"trying a new combination\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7cyk0o
|
why when some people are about to engage in a physical altercation do they start to shake, heart pump and lose peripheral vision?
|
This includes myself and a few friends/family members I know. The loss of vision I’ve always thought of it as tunnel vision but never understood what causes it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cyk0o/eli5_why_when_some_people_are_about_to_engage_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dptmz1o",
"dptn50r",
"dptnc5u"
],
"score": [
4,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"These are side effects of adrenalin, a hormone your body secretes to prepare you for a fight or to run away.",
"Your body has some really complex biology, and it is very, very good at helping you survive. The reactions you are talking about, like increased heart rate and dilated pupils, as well as tightening of the bladder and the release of hormones like epinephrine, are caused by this really cool thing called the sympathetic nervous system. This system is responsible for things like your \"fight or flight\" response, and it triggers based on stress and perceived danger. It's purpose is to give the body a better chance at survival, which it does by doing what amounts to overclocking your body. This is bad for you long term, but it may just help you survive the short term. When you are no longer in danger, your parasympathetic nervous system kicks in, undoing pretty much everything the sympathetic had just done. \nEdit- Typo. Sorry",
"The magic of adrenaline (and a few other chemicals) and a deeply ingrained fight/flight system that's built into the lower levels of your multi-layered brain. \n\nWhen your brain realizes you're in a dangerous situation, it triggers the release of adrenaline into your bloodstream, which energizes you and focuses your mind on staying alive. Your vision focuses on what you need to do to survive, and your reflexes are charged up compared to normal. Your heart pumps more blood to get ready for a massive burst of exercise. \n\nIt's basically like when you're playing Mega Man and the boss's hit point meter charges up to maximum, because that game is hard but it turns out deep down those minibosses are scared of you. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7693qj
|
what are the “dots” you see on windshields of a car through polarized glasses?
|
Further questions:
Some cars have more dots, some have so many dots you can see a rainbow pattern. Why?
Two identical models of a car don’t have the same pattern (although it’s never the case where one car has none. Usually one has a thick rainbow pattern, and the other has a discernible but thinner pattern). Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7693qj/eli5_what_are_the_dots_you_see_on_windshields_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"docbd1j"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It’s an effect called birefringence. When the glass goes through the tempering process, different stress patterns form in the glass that cause partial polarization. These patterns become much more apparent when viewed through polarized lenses. \n\n[More info](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.revantoptics.com/blog/why-youre-seeing-rainbows-in-car-windows/"
]
] |
|
5k0s1l
|
why do languages need to conjugate verbs? how did this develop?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5k0s1l/eli5_why_do_languages_need_to_conjugate_verbs_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbkfoq6",
"dbkg08d"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When you modify a word based on certain details we say you *inflect* it. Verbs are often inflected because it's a compressed way to deliver more information.\n\nHe did walk - > He walked\n\nYo + creer - > Creo\n\nThink of it as a form of data compression for frequently used cases.",
"He walk yesterday. He walk right now. These are wordy and inefficient. Conjugation is just shorthand.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
axqy1n
|
when a direct deposit is made from a business to a bank or money transfer between two different banks, where are those funds during the 24 to 48 hours of processing?
|
Sometimes I'll get paid and it takes one or two days for the funds to appear in my account. During this time, those funds are not in anyone's bank account, so, who's got them and are they earning anything off them during that time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axqy1n/eli5_when_a_direct_deposit_is_made_from_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehvgexx",
"ehvgkn0",
"ehviebs"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They sit in what is call the Automated Clearing House or ACH. It's kind of the backbone of the financial system and it's kinda crazy how it works. The Planet Money podcast did a 20 minute episode that does a good job explaining it - Episode 489: The Invisible Plumbing Of Our Economy. ",
"The funds have not been deducted from one account until they are posted to the other. The payment will show up as pending but the money has not actually \"left\" the bank account until it has arrived in the other. When you make a payment, it pretty much immediately shows up in your account history, but it's pending because it hasn't been \"processed\" yet. It's just a promise that you will pay the money, because when it gets deducted later both parties are assuming you have the money to spend.",
"A relative of mine was working in a bank when Exxon bought Mobil for $70 b plus. She said the money was in her bank for less than an hour for processing and they made millions in interest. Third hand story, can’t verify. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2lc7sy
|
what should i expect to change now that the republicans are in control?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lc7sy/eli5_what_should_i_expect_to_change_now_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clteslb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure what exactly he's going to do but he still has the power to make executive orders and veto bills. The shift in majority is going to make his life hard but he can still try to accomplish some things. I'll tell you one thing is for sure though, I don't envy him."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
jbolv
|
how the u.s. goverment funds itself. & if it's relevant how bonds, treasuries, etc. work into it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jbolv/eli5_how_the_us_goverment_funds_itself_if_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2asmt9",
"c2asmt9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The government funds itself by two ways. Revenue, the money generates by taxes and fees, and debt. Currently, I've heard debt, borrowing money from investors, makes up 40% of this. I've explained how bonds (money loaned to the government) works [here](_URL_0_) (copied below). If you have any questions, I'd be glad to get to them if this doesn't help.\n\nThe government wants some money, so they issue bonds. This is more or less just you loaning them money in exchange for two things, principal and interest.\n\nThe principal is just the amount you loaned them, so if you bought a bond of $100, they would have to pay you back $100 after a certain amount of time, called maturity. Treasury debt ranges in maturity from only a month to 30 years. If it was a 30-year maturity treasury bond, they would pay you back the full amount 30 years from when you bought it.\nInterest is a certain amount of the money you gave them, which they pay you on top of the money they owe you. So if it was a ten-year \"T-note\" (just a name for a type of government-issued bond) for $100, and they agree to pay you interest at 3% per year (it's actually much lower than this because of the small risk in government debt), you will get a coupon payment of $1.50 (the government's interest payment to you, paid once every six months).",
"The government funds itself by two ways. Revenue, the money generates by taxes and fees, and debt. Currently, I've heard debt, borrowing money from investors, makes up 40% of this. I've explained how bonds (money loaned to the government) works [here](_URL_0_) (copied below). If you have any questions, I'd be glad to get to them if this doesn't help.\n\nThe government wants some money, so they issue bonds. This is more or less just you loaning them money in exchange for two things, principal and interest.\n\nThe principal is just the amount you loaned them, so if you bought a bond of $100, they would have to pay you back $100 after a certain amount of time, called maturity. Treasury debt ranges in maturity from only a month to 30 years. If it was a 30-year maturity treasury bond, they would pay you back the full amount 30 years from when you bought it.\nInterest is a certain amount of the money you gave them, which they pay you on top of the money they owe you. So if it was a ten-year \"T-note\" (just a name for a type of government-issued bond) for $100, and they agree to pay you interest at 3% per year (it's actually much lower than this because of the small risk in government debt), you will get a coupon payment of $1.50 (the government's interest payment to you, paid once every six months)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j9ygg/eli5_what_is_a_treasury_bond/c2ae5j4?context=3"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j9ygg/eli5_what_is_a_treasury_bond/c2ae5j4?context=3"
]
] |
||
4a19qp
|
why do barnes and noble have a security alarm set up near the door? how does the barcode in the book trigger that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a19qp/eli5why_do_barnes_and_noble_have_a_security_alarm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0wk86s",
"d0wk90y",
"d0wqbkm"
],
"score": [
5,
14,
4
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThe barcodes will not set off the alarm. ",
"There is a small magnetic strip within the book that triggers the alarm. The barcode itself doesn't do anything. When the item is scanned at checkout, the strip is demagnetized, thus, no alarm.",
"(Current B & N employee here)\nThe why the alarm exists is for loss prevention (i.e. theft) purposes. All of the expensive books/items, and a lot of the less-expensive ones, will be tagged with a sticker (or will have a built-in trigger) that will trip the alarm if you go through without it being deactivated. The point is to mobilize nearby employees when it beeps, to determine why the alarm was tripped and hopefully catch or deter shoplifters.\n\nWhen you buy stuff, we pass it over a pad that deactivates the sticker, so you don't beep when you leave. No purchase = no deactivation = beeping = super-duper helpful employees who just want to help you not beep descending upon you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_article_surveillance"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
4yj9v7
|
why our bones stop growing after closing of "growth plates", but recovers and can be even lengthen when they are broken?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yj9v7/eli5_why_our_bones_stop_growing_after_closing_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6o6o2y",
"d6oe19n"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cuz there's no place to grow to when you're done growing and your growth plates are fused. When you break your leg it needs to grow back together and there's space for that unlike consistent growth when the growth plates aren't fused.",
"Bones don't stop growing.\n\nThere's a constant cycle of reabsorption of bone tissue and growth of new bone. This is what allows bones to repair damage done and stay strong.\n\nDifferent bones have these cycles happening at different speeds. Femurs, for example, have slow rates of reabsorption and growth while mandibles have fast rates.\n\nThe process is largely controlled by two specialized cells, osteoclasts which \"eat\" bone, and osteoblasts which grow new bone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2s1jc9
|
how are obamas exeuctive actions on immigration illegal?
|
Or why do people say its illegal? Doesn't the president have the authority to do so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s1jc9/eli5_how_are_obamas_exeuctive_actions_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnlar2u"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Executive order still have to abide by the law. If the supreme court declares the order unconstitutional, then yea, it was illegal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a965v8
|
opening a bank account
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a965v8/eli5_opening_a_bank_account/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecgoovk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You might want to post this in r/answers, especially since you're not really asking a question *per se*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5xgkes
|
how can we possibly even consider space travel when small rocks travelling through space will surely smash into the transport vehicle?
|
Go easy, I'm stupid. Surely a spacecraft would be ripped to shreds by a few golf ball sized pieces of rock/debris travelling fast enough?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xgkes/eli5_how_can_we_possibly_even_consider_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dehwx5h",
"dei0nlf",
"dei6wuz"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The density of debris in space is *incredibly* low. Most things sent through space don't collide with anything, and won't collide with anything for thousands of years.\n\nNevertheless, engineers have been designing shields that would be effective against the most likely kinds of (rare) debris: bits the size of sand grains.",
"Space is *big* and there's hardly *anything* in it. And that includes planets and stars - even with all that space is still very much empty. \n\nScenes you see in movies where spaceships go through asteroid fields? Those are 100% imaginary. If you flew a ship through the asteroid belt you're extremely unlikely to even see an asteroid, let alone hit one. \n\nThat said, we currently don't really have the technology to travel fast enough where a \"small rock\" would rip anything to shreds. If we ever get there, we'll develop tech that shields from that, whether that means thicker/stronger paneling or some technology that does not yet exist. \n\nThe bottom line here is we don't stop *considering* something just because we don't know how to do it yet. ",
"You're right, in theory a spaceship would be ripped to shreds by even small debris if it's flying fast enough, just as naval ships would be completely obliterated if they run head-on at full speed into even a small-ish iceberg, or an airplane if it flies into a flock of birds.\n\nSo the challenge with spaceships will be to avoid the high-density spots like asteroid belts, planetary rings, etc., have a powerful enough forward looking radar to detect random debris in the way (at a long-enough distance to give them time to steer around the debris), and have a shield or thick enough armor to be able to impact anything smaller that is not detected.\n\nThese are challenges, but not insurmountable. So far, NASA's various space probes have not impacted anything, despite actually traveling THROUGH the asteroid belt and various planetary rings. Space is that empty."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qn1u2
|
the brown areas in apples, not the browning of them.
|
I know what makes peeled apples brown. I want to know if it's bad to eat the apples that chunks of brown underneath the peel. Mods: I used the search function and found nothing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qn1u2/eli5_the_brown_areas_in_apples_not_the_browning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwgm2m4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's usually not bad unless those browned areas are showing signs of rot, although those areas can taste a little off and may be soft. But I sure wouldn't eat an apple that had mostly turned brown unless it had been deliberately baked.\n\nWhat's happened is the apple has become \"bruised\". It might be because a section of it has been bumped or bounced hard enough to cause the cells in that area to rupture and expose the same chemicals to the air that turn brown after a knife cut, except they're still under the skin. Or because it was partially frozen, leading to the same result. \n\nIf the rest of the apple is still white and crisp, cut the brown part off and munch away. But if the brown is all over the place, you're eating an old or badly damaged apple (or both), and it's probably worth the money to buy a different one unless you're really desperate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a04szw
|
is there anywhere in the world where people can legally claim land and just go and build a house on it without permission?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a04szw/eli5_is_there_anywhere_in_the_world_where_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eaekywc",
"eaf0sqa",
"eafiz72"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, there is. But you probably can't have either. One is in Antarctica, which by international convention is for research only, and you'd probably freeze to death. The other is unclaimed by administrative issues, and is near Egypt. It's just a small patch of sand, with no resources. \n\nEven hard once claiming it, is defending it, negotiating with neighbors, and getting international recognition for your claim. \n\nSome small nations still don't have international diplomatic ties, and they have self-sustaining economies and everything. ",
"There are states in the US that encourage new residents with free land. The typical deal is that the applicant for the land promises to build a house on it. Marne, Iowa is an example, see _URL_0_ for the application. Of course, you would have to expect a generally economically depressed area for your free lot.",
"Yes actually, [Slab City, California](_URL_0_) is an uncontrolled desert area on a decommissioned military base. There have been squatters out there for decades. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"marneiowa.com"
],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City,_California"
]
] |
||
63a08j
|
the brouhaha around gibraltar and brexit
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63a08j/eli5_the_brouhaha_around_gibraltar_and_brexit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfsfaz4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"1. Gibraltar is a territory of the UK and under its rule, and therefore with Brexit, it is leaving the EU as well.\n2. Spain has always felt as if they should get Gibraltar so just keep that in the back of your mind\n3. a significant amount of the people who work on Gibraltar are Spanish citizens so the move out of the EU leaves them in a relative limbo state regarding the laws governing their work and taxes etc.\n4. Gibraltar residents voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
48wadg
|
why is red meat bad for your heart if you're predisposed to heart problems?
|
I'm 23, I have heart problems running on both sides of the family (thanks mom and dad) and am getting to the point where I'm sure I'm going to have to make serious changes.toy.eating habits... especially red meat. But why?
Edit: Thanks Obama
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48wadg/eli5_why_is_red_meat_bad_for_your_heart_if_youre/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0n6gs1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The reason red meat is supposedly bad is down to the high amount of cholesterol and saturated fat found in animal fat. Red meat had more fat in it white meat. This leads to more vldl and ldl being produced. This leads to more cholesterol and fat being deposited on the walls of arteries. This leads to a double whammy of making arteries narrower and more liable to break down. Both of which increase the risk of your blood vessels in the heart being blocked off.\n\nIt should be noted that the evidence for red meat causing heart disease isn't strong. A big analysis of the data hasn't turned up a major risk factor. \n_URL_0_\n\nAlso, the iron content (as suggested by another commenter) has nothing to do with it. You will not have enough iron to significantly impact your cardiovascular health without having a few specific fairly rare medical conditions. The body is very good at trapping iron and making sure it does only what it is meant to. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed"
]
] |
|
1p2c46
|
does "1.2 ghz quad core" mean that each core has 1.2 ghz?
|
I just don't get it, doesn't mean that each core has 1.2 GHz or doesn't mean that 1.2 GHz is split up between the four cores? Do I get ripped off every time I buy a new device? Is it beneficial to have a higher frequency processor with less cores than lower frequency and more cores?
Edit: bonus for anyone who explains difference and benefits of 32 and 64 bit architecture
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p2c46/eli5_does_12_ghz_quad_core_mean_that_each_core/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccy03l9",
"ccy04or",
"ccy5ueb"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"1.2GHz is a speed. If you have a quad core, it means each core runs at 1.2 GHz. It's like having 4 cars that can each go 60mph, it's not the same as one car that can go 240mph.",
"It means each core has a clock speed of 1.2 GHz. Whether more cores at a slower clock is better than fewer cores at higher clock speed depends on the program you're running, what kind of work it's doing, and how well it's designed to take advantage of multiple cores.",
"Also, processor clock speed (the hertz metric) is not the only thing that dictates how fast a processor actually is. Processor architecture and cache size for example also play a role. It's the reason people may upgrade from one chip to another when there is no difference in hertz. It's also the reason seemingly identical chips from AMD and Intel may vary in speed dramatically."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2kl0j1
|
how is it that isis can "get away" with killing journalists?
|
To the best of my knowledge, doesn't murdering a journalist go completely against Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, thus making it a war crime that is punishable by war from the rest of the world basically? How are they getting away with these journalist executions? By get away, I mean not having war declared, or any other sanctions put against them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kl0j1/eli5_how_is_it_that_isis_can_get_away_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clm9tms",
"clm9uea",
"clm9vkf",
"clmaybw",
"clmbqzi",
"clmccy0"
],
"score": [
42,
2,
6,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"IIRC, only signatory nations can be held to the Geneva conventions. Additionally, no government recognizes ISIS as a legitimate nation, to do so would legitimize their illegal operation. If we don't recognize them as a nation, we can't truly declare war on them.\n\nAlso, no one wants another ground war against an insurgent group in the Middle East. They tend not to go well for the attackers.",
"Isis isn't very organized, they don't have much in the way of central leadership. They're more like a group of people that shares a view. You can't declare a war on that. There are no lists anywhere of members of the group, and if we wanted to pursue just the individuals who killed the reporters, even if we did know their identity, we'd have no way of finding them. That's why we haven't done any real fighting on the ground, when they're not fighting or killing, they're just like any other person in their cities or towns.",
"Who enforces the Geneva Conventions? ISIS commits many crimes against humanity, for which they could be duly tried and found guilty by the World Court in the Hague, provided that we are able to arrest them first. Since they are a large, heavily armed and fanatically aggressive group, they are not so easy to arrest. However, it is the stated intention of the US and its allies (including Canada, where I am typing) to assist in the military defeat of ISIS by the Kurds and the by the elected government of Iraq. We may or may not be successful, but we are trying.",
"* ISIS is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and therefore is neither bound by nor protected by its rules\n* a journalist to one faction is a spy to another, so it is hard to clearly state that a journalist is being executed\n* also, journalists sometimes really are spies",
"I wouldn't say they're getting away with it. NATO has been ramping up a pretty intense bombing campaign against them, which has destroyed millions of dollars worth of ISIS assets and killed hundreds of them. Also we're giving Kurdistan weapons and air support, which has caused them all sorts of problems and may ultimately be their undoing. \n\nYou're not alone in thinking that not enough is being done. But *something* is being done, nonetheless. ",
"They aren't really getting away with it, not anymore. The USA and UK are leading a coalition of nations that are bombing the shit out of them. Most of the territory they gained has been retaken by the Iraqi and Kurd militaries. I'd argue that if they hadn't committed atrocities against aid workers and journalists we would have kept out of it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
22m8l8
|
do animals other than humans get unnecessary and unwanted erections? why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22m8l8/eli5_do_animals_other_than_humans_get_unnecessary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgo5s2h",
"cgo6nqf",
"cgoa54b"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure about the why, but my dog has a full-on chub every time I come home. ",
"Its simply \"maintenance\", just like a car engine it has to be stared up once a while to make sure its still working and will keep working.",
"How can you determine if an animal's erection is unwanted?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a3ikvf
|
what’s the difference between hemp and marihuana?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3ikvf/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_hemp_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb6icyg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All marijuana is hemp. Not all hemp is marijuana.\n\nWhen people talk about marijuana they are referring usually to the specific types of hemp that contain thc. And even more specifically to the female bud producing plants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ar0lua
|
is our stomach acid the same acid we’ve had since we were born?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ar0lua/eli5_is_our_stomach_acid_the_same_acid_weve_had/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egjwelq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is constantly being secreted by parietal cells in the stomach wall. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
808b12
|
why is the "censor bleep" tone so consistent across most media?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/808b12/eli5_why_is_the_censor_bleep_tone_so_consistent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dutqs6a",
"dutquno",
"dutr9vz"
],
"score": [
31,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Traditionally audio equipment is tested by using a reference tone. This is just a generated sound wave, usually with a frequency of 1000 Hz, because that seems like a good enough number as any. Sometimes they'll also play a 100Hz and a 10,000Hz tone to test subwoofers and tweeters, but it's basically an easy way to make sure the volume is adjusted appropriately and all the crossovers are setup right.\n\nSince engineers were already testing with a 1kHz tone, they just kept using it when they had to play something over profanity since it was easy to use it again.\n\nThere's no big technical or legal reason to use THAT sound, it was just easy to do and got the job done.",
"Speculating, but I imagine it's because the beep we know as the censorship beep is actually just a basic equipment test tone. The tone itself is as simple as they come - it's typically a c6 sine wave played at the equipment's maximum volume, and that makes it the perfect the perfect tool for a quick interjection of censorship, since it's something that can be invoked just by pushing a button, which immediately drowns out other audio, and which isn't too annoying to the listener.\n\nSilence could be used instead, but not without people thinking their equipment was dropping out. ",
"1kHz tone is ubiquitous in broadcast environments. It's used to test audio connections and check levels. When an editor needed to censor something way back when, 1kHz tone was probably right there permanently on a patch panel and only had to be switched with the source audio to mask the naughty word. I guess the convention stuck.\n\nThe real question now is, why 1kHz tone?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4udhun
|
psoriasis
|
I have looked at articles and charts online to try and figure it out. What is it and how does it do the things it does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4udhun/eli5_psoriasis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5ouosv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's an autoimmune disorder in which your immune system attacks your skin cells, which in turn overcompensate by creating more skin cells. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1l3bgr
|
why do introverts need more alone time than extroverts?
|
I'm an "extroverted introvert" in that I love being with people but I only really "recharge" when I'm alone. Scientifically, why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l3bgr/eli5_why_do_introverts_need_more_alone_time_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbvcyxk",
"cbvd36z",
"cbvd43l",
"cbvdvu4",
"cbvf858",
"cbvfr8s",
"cbvfvfe",
"cbvfy1m",
"cbvg3lz",
"cbvg5un",
"cbvg6sw",
"cbvgktu",
"cbvgp0l",
"cbvgr09",
"cbvguoz",
"cbvgv8v",
"cbvhdmf",
"cbvheb3",
"cbvhkkq",
"cbvi6zx",
"cbvinnt",
"cbvipnv",
"cbviqwc",
"cbvj1qn",
"cbvjhnh",
"cbvjlgc",
"cbvjtbs",
"cbvjv0z",
"cbvjw7l",
"cbvjxth",
"cbvjz4c",
"cbvk2y9",
"cbvk5h7",
"cbvkawb",
"cbvkoco",
"cbvkp8x",
"cbvkpaz",
"cbvkss6",
"cbvktg5",
"cbvkton",
"cbvkxes",
"cbvl069",
"cbvli1g",
"cbvm3k7",
"cbvmrtw",
"cbvok12"
],
"score": [
14,
148,
35,
12,
963,
37,
4,
34,
9,
3,
4,
11,
3,
5,
3,
5,
62,
2,
9,
2,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Here's a quick explanation: \n_URL_0_",
"I've never heard of \"extroverted introvert\" but that explains me perfectly. I can hold my own in any conversation and I'm not afraid to be the life of the party...but deep down I feel more \"right\" when I'm alone.",
"Extroverts typically get energized by social interaction with others. Introverts typically find social interactions draining. You could be an introvert with better than average social skills. \n\nKeep in mind there's no judgement here I wish I could have been more like you describe. The good news here is this probably means you have some confidence in yourself which could cause you to become less introverted over time. \n\n",
"Categorical thinking will either get you places or it won't. ",
"As an introvert, I think of being in public almost as a performance. Performing can be fun, but it is also very stressful and you cannot keep it up for long! Sometimes you just need to go backstage and relax. Of course, you can't spend your whole life backstage because you get lonely. We just don't want to spend it all in the spotlight. \n\nExtroverts do not get drained by social situations, they actually get charged by them.",
"As an introvert in a social situation I try to maintain a mental model of my own appearance to others. This is strenuous.",
"At a nervous level introverts seem to have a much lower threshold for stimulation, meaning they do not take much stimulation to become aroused. On the other hand extroverts require more stimulation to become aroused, which leads them to a variety of behaviors like thrill seeking and social interaction. This has been found to lead to even more subtle effects, like extroverts preferring spicier foods, and louder music compared to introverts.",
"Schizoid (think \"pathological introversion\") here.\n\nI *need* alone time, for a couple of reasons. I genuinely don't like most people. I find most people to be overbearing, obnoxious in a thousand little ways, annoying. If I have to interact with people for prolonged periods of time, I resent it. It builds up. I get irritated, stress hormones build up. Going away to be alone allows that irritation and that stress to dissipate. This is one of the ways I *need* alone time (and one of the reasons I'm liable to bite your head off if you interrupt me while I'm reading in public. There's a *reason* I'm not talking to you, asshole sitting next to me). Edit: If there's a child or a baby involved, this becomes *much more pronounced*, and *much faster*. I have absolutely no patience with anyone under the age of about 15.\n\nAnother reason has to do more intimately with my personality disorder. I do not have much in the way of emotions, or affect (body language like smiling, touching others during conversation, the sorts of ways most people express themselves nonverbally). If I'm being myself, most people find this profoundly unsettling. Imagine talking to someone who will not look at you, who doesn't smile or laugh or look nervous, whose tone of voice does not change whether you're talking about kittens or Hitler or Hitler killing kittens. Who often will refuse to respond verbally at all. \n\nSince I must interact with the rest of humanity to survive, I have to manufacture all of these things. I have to watch the people around me, anticipate what sorts of things they're about to say by reading their body language/affect, and produce an appropriate response in a time frame that seems natural. Every smile, every time I sound annoyed, every nod, all the little things most people don't have to think about because they just happen, those things take just a little effort, for me. Because I have to anticipate, choose, and consciously react. Which is fucking *exhausting*. Being alone not only allows me to stop doing this, but allows for genuine rest to recover the energy I've expended wearing the mask.\n",
"As on introvert this image has explained it better than I ever will:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nedit: I saved this image from the internets because it fully embodied how I felt as an introvert. I put it back up on imgur just because reddit. It is not my image nor do I take credit for it nor do I know where it came from.\n\n",
"Introverts typically exert more energy when in crowds, and when they're alone, they're pretty much in \"rest\" mode.\nExtroverts, in converse, tend to be more relaxed and comfortable around crowds.\nPretty much, introverts are drained by prolonged social interaction, where-as extroverts are charged by it.\n\nIn regards to your \"extroverted introvert,\" I think I can understand that. I love talking to people - people that I'm very good friends with. But interacting with large crowds, or strangers for prolonged periods, is draining for me. Is that kind of like you?",
"I feel like a Venn diagram. When I'm with other people I'm excitable and interact with them fine. But when I'm alone I feel a lot more like me, and when I think about how I am when around others it's almost like I'm thinking of a different person. One who is less \"me\" than me. They'e definitely related but as I grow older I'm starting to avoid being with other people because of the way I look back on it when I'm alone.\n",
"I'm reading through this and not a damn body is getting even remotely close to the definition of introvert/extrovert. And y'all probably using Google Chrome too with google search right at the top of the damn page!\n\nIntroverts need more alone time than extroverts because their main source of pleasure comes from REFLECTION. Extroverts receive pleasure from social interaction. So the reflection part deals with better understanding yourself (your mental state and whatnot), just trying to better yourself in general (learning new skills, getting in better shape), or indulging in activities that really only require one person and are fulfilling (like painting and reading).\n\nThose things listed above pretty much explain why introverts need more alone time. Because it just so happens that what gives them pleasure doesn't need many other people. I can't read a book and hold a conversation. Unless I'm really talented, it'd be kinda hard to paint and do all other activities at the same time. Now, once I'm good enough I could still do that but it would still be better for me if done alone since it would allow my mind to drift in and out on the subject. \n\nSo it seems like the introverts like the freedom behind everything they do. The creativity and critical thinking and the reward after completing something. And I guess you can look at it like that. Look at it from a perspective that there's a reward system. The extrovert would feel better being outgoing and meeting a lot of new people and whatnot. That doesn't necessarily determine whether or not they're extroverted or introverted though. It just means that the reward they receive from doing those kinds of things is enough to make them want to seek out to do more of them. With introverts, they can go out adn do the same thing and feel great, but they feel BETTER when they do things that allow them to be in a constant state of reflection.\n\nSo it's not that being around other people is draining. It's that it's boring. When you \"recharge\" you're really having fun your own way. I personally don't like watching movies so whenever I watch one that does ONE thing i dont like, I immediately start thinking about what I'm going to do once it's over. It's the same thing. Company doesn't and probably can't hold you over. You need your alone time because of your reward system.\n\nSo you're not an extrovert introvert. You're just an introvert. You being an introvert doesn't mean you must run away from people and it doesnt mean that hanging out is torture. It just means that people are great but your PRIMARY SOURCE of fun requires alone time.\n\nWhen I hear \"extroverted introvert\" I just think of someone who loves to observe people. If you observe people and have conversations with them just to make mental notes on them and create hypothetical situations in your head on the fly and employ them right then and there...then I'd say you're an \"extroverted introvert\" because you'd be living in your head to create these scenarios just so you can be super outgoing and fun to see if it works which then fuels more plotting and planning and blah...(I hope that made sense).\n\nMost of these ppl here just sound like they're shy and have to work the courage up to be explosive in groups which drains them. That's not a bad thing at all. If you keep it up though and push yourself then you'll see that you can keep it up longer and longer. Then you'll eventually make a post to people about how you used to be an introvert or something.",
"introverts have a more accurate sense that so many people are toxic, and they need time to detox. ",
"I've spent the better part of 3 years inside my home not wanting to talk to people. Of course I must go out for necessities, but that doesn't last too long. I still go to college, but i hate going there for some reason. I am forcing myself to apply for jobs, but Jesus Christ I hate it so much. haven't even found anything with decent pay, and fits me. Had a job for two years and it was hell for me to be honest... i was a secretary basically lol..... anyway my 2 cats give me more than enough company. I just wish I could hole up in some cave with an internet connection, utilities, food for me and my 2 cats. I don't know how I got to this point to be honest. I cant stand being around too many people for some reason I get irritable(i dont express it tho). I think I only spoke to like 13 people the past 7 months. ",
"Nootropics (namely Piracetam and Oxiracetam) transformed me into an extrovert when I used to be an extreme introvert. It truly changed my life.\n\nIt's all to do with brain circuitry, synapse firing, etc etc.\n\nWell, maybe the nootropics were bringing out my inner hypomania - I'm not sure, but I had *lots* of fun while I was taking them.",
"There is no such thing. It's all about where you get your energy from.\n\nIf you recharge alne, then you are an introvert.\n\nIf you get energy from others and feel drained when alone, you're an extrovert.\n\nIt has nothing to do with how you perform in public. Being an introvert doesn't mean you can't be lively and very social.",
"I'll give it a shot at a scientific explanation.\n\nStudies have shown that the brains of extroverts and introverts are different. Introverts are found to be more sensitive to dopamine release than extroverts. They tend to pay attention to small things and so details will usually stimulate introverts just as much as a new changing things. Because of the sensitivity to dopamine, prolonged exposure to it is mentally draining and highly stimulating places will overload introverts. You can liken it to standing next to the heater on a cold day. a small heater is nice. It feels really good at first. with more stimuli more heaters are added and it gets comfortable. With even more stimuli it's like you're surrounded by heaters and it becomes unbearable and you just need to get away because you can't stand the heat any more. It's mentally exhausting to be in a place where there is too much stimuli for a prolonged period of time. The need to get away (recharge) that introverts feel is the need for their brain to rest from all the dopamine released. They can enjoy social situations just as much as anybody can but it's the duration that makes the difference.\n\nFor a comparison, people with attention disorders take amphetamines which are stimulants (think meth or adderall) that causes the brain to release dopamine or makes it so that dopamine doesn't get reabsorbed and/or allows the dopamine to be used again and again in succession. The reason they seem to move nonstop and can't pay attention is because they are seeking new information, external stimuli, to get a release of dopamine. Introverts are the opposite. They need to stop receiving dopamine and to do so they need to focus on as little as possible to reduce the amount of active dopamine.\n\nI'm not a professional and I try to be as correct as I can but I might be wrong. If anybody has corrections or more information to add on to this then please do so.\n\n*edit: There probably a lot more going on but from what I've found we know it certainly has to do with dopamine. The difference is still not completely understood and people are still trying to figure it out.",
"To piggy-back the question, why do some people need to recharge alternately between social and solo settings, and how would you classify these kinds of people?",
"I think the best way of explaining it is like this. \n\nThe difference between an introvert and extrovert is how their brains work when there's nothing telling you to act one way or another. \n\nAn extrovert's brain naturally favors handling all the stuff coming in from your external senses. The things you see, hear, touch, taste, and smell are what extroverts excel at handling and processing. Because of this, situations where a lot of stuff is coming in from those 5 senses match up nicely with the way the brain is connected and these things are easier. On top of that, handling all this information makes an extrovert feel good. The brain is doing the thing it is really good at and that makes your brain feel comfortable and happy. This looks normal to most people because, by definition, an extrovert is most comfortable when they're around other people. They can all see each other. \n\nAn introvert is the opposite. An introvert's brain works most naturally when working with stored information, like solving puzzles, doing math, writing stories, composing music or just planning out your day or your vacation trip or the things you need to put in your overnight bag. Now, when you put in an introvert into a situation where it has to handle a lot of information coming from the five senses, it has to do something that ISN'T what it naturally wants to do and stop doing the things it wants to do. As a result, your brain doesn't feel good doing it and it would probably prefer not to do it at all. This often is seen as not normal because an introvert's normal, happiest brain state doesn't involve being around other people. No one sees you. \n\nThis doesn't mean you can't be outgoing and personable as an introvert or that you can't be fantastic at puzzles as an extrovert. It just means you need to take measures to make sure your brain spends some time in its natural restful happy state from time to time. \n\nIn all likelihood, you're either just a plain, vanilla introvert or an extrovert with possibly some other factor like sleep deprivation in play. \"extroverted introvert\" is a contradiction. ",
"So I have a question. I have always basically considered myself an introvert, based on the idea that I really prefer to \"recharge\" when I am by myself, and I tend to really become more happy during times of reflection, than times of interaction. \n\nhowever, I love groups as well. I love going out and partying, and sometimes I even like to be the center of attention. Don't get me wrong I think most of humanity is really stupid, but I don't usually show it. I also manage a very popular cafe/ coffee shop in Union Square in San Francisco, and most of the time I love it. And I have to be around ALOT of people. \n\nSo am I an introvert, extrovert, or something I have never heard of?\nany one have an idea?",
"Sorry for not giving a detailed explanation, but check out Susan Cain; she's lectured about this and written an informative book about this.\n\nVideo with lecture here:\n_URL_0_\n\nAll the best!",
"Has no one posted the link to Susan Cain's TED talk where she explains this brilliantly? _URL_0_\n\n",
"I'll comment since very few people seem to get it. The difference between introverts and extroverts is simply a difference in the brain's reward mechanism. Extroverts are stimulated more by status and social interaction, especially large groups of people. Introverts are stimulated more by working towards something specific with depth, like solving problems, creating art, writing, etc. Introverts are also stimulated by meaningful conversation rather than small-talk, typically one-on-one or in smaller groups.\n\nShyness is not an inherent trait of introverts, rather, consider it as the y-axis to the x-axis of introversion/extroversion. There are many shy extroverts, just as there are many bold introverts.\n\nNow to answer your question, you are probably a bold introvert. There is no such thing as an extroverted introvert. You aren't shy, but your brain's reward centers tend to be stimulated more on activities I mentioned above, which are often things people do alone and not in groups.\n\nNotice I never mentioned that one is better than the other. We need personality diversity as much as gender diversity, race diversity, etc. I strongly recommend this book by Susan Cain:\n_URL_0_",
"People tend to see this whole thing in black and white. On or off. \n\nThere's shades of grey, as with, well, pretty much everything.\n\nI loathe the extremities that people always get shoved into:\n\nEXTROVERTED: Has 100% social skills! Can instantly communicate, empathise, and befriend any person on the planet! Understands everyone perfectly, and will always please them! Is always the centre of attention! And everyone loves them for it!\n\nINTROVERTED: Despite being human, views other humans as strange, foreign creatures, possibly of alien origin! Has no idea how to interact with others! If you ask even a simple question, they will scream, curl up into a ball, and piss their pants for fifteen straight minutes! Always says stupid things! Has no friends! Dreams of living in a cave on top of a very tall mountain!",
"This may get buried, but here goes. \n\nI am now pretty even. As a teenager, growing up in a single mother household,I was significantly introverted. It left me with some really intense views regarding friendships and dating. When I did find friends that actually got me, I would pour alot into those relationships. Sometimes to the point of killing the friendship. Girlfriends got it worse. I would latch on, and was usually the one broken up with, because I was always too serious about the relationship (alot of High School girls just want to get laid too aparently). \n\nMy senior year in high school, I had to pull a knife (in self defense) on a large portion of my football teammates. Not going into that story right now, but something in me snapped permanently there. I finally found a friend through the local BBS computer networks (carbon dating /sigh), and he and I were very similar. Most of the time we would go hang out at his garage room and just listen to music, play video games, or just talk. Neither of us were big on the social interaction, and we just got comfy hanging out. \n\nFast forward a couple years, and he got a job in the new bar/club in our small town. I followed suit not long after, and for both of us, I think it was a cry for a more social setting. I developed thicker skin, got a grasp on the concept of casual dating, and developed many new friends. I was still a square, as I wasn't looking for drugs, drinking, or just sex...but I was still accepted. Eventually, our social group got so big, that the introversion started kicking in. I told my friend that I needed to get away for a little bit, a few weeks probably, but I would be in touch. I just needed out of the crowd. He felt really betrayed, like I was getting away from him, or that I left him alone with all the other people....i'm not sure. It caused problems several problems that took a long time to resolve fully. For many years, I would just take a 1-2 month break, and disappear. I would tell the close friends, or maybe just the family, and outside of work, I would not answer the phone, or the door. I would go do what I needed to alone. It was like hitting a reset switch, and when I came back to everyone, I usually had new stuff for them, and vice versa. It was always an interesting reunion. \n\nNow, many years later, I am much more even. I stayed in service industry, and dabbled in retail. It IS like a performance at times...but there are some times it feels natural too. I have even taken on managerial and leadership roles. I got married, and moved to a city with 4 million people. I am really good at my job (server), because I know the importance of connection, and genuine hospitality. I still need a significant portion of alone time, but I sleep days, while the wife sleeps nights. I put her to bed, and go into the office, hang out all night by myself, recharge, and wake her up in the morning before I go to bed. Its honestly perfect for us. \n\nEveryone is different, and I was fortunately not an extreme case, but introversion has still affected my life significantly. I occasionally still find a safe corner at a gathering of large people, and just sit down. I'm polite and friendly to anyone that comes by, but I don't feel lost in the group that way. I don't facebook, or do much social media of any kind (my post count here is pretty slim). I take 10 minutes in the walk-in on busy work nights just to get somewhere quiet, where I am not in traffic. My wife is very extroverted, and even though her friends have become our friends, it took explanations as to why I didn't actively say HI when they would come over. \n\nFortunately the wifepiece helps by keeping me on my toes, and dragging me into the occasional unexpected group situation. We have a great respect for each other, so I happily send her off to go see what the world is up to, and she has my back on the occasions I REALLY don't feel like seeing anyone. She keeps up with my family more than I do, and she is bright, shiny, and well loved by all of them. \nHaving that buffer has made life much easier, and when she just wants quiet, I am much better at respecting that, because I understand. \n\nI know this ran long, but I tried to give an insight into what it was like for me. It has its challenges, but I am a better study of people for it, and better at my job and my marriage because of it as well. \n\nLife is good, and I try not to complain. :)",
"I'm an introvert. \n\nMainly because I am bored to death by social gatherings of almost strangers filled with wittering small talk in order to get to know each other better. Getting to know lots of people on a superficial level is pointless. I have no interest in it, extroverts enjoy it.\n\nOn the other hand, I enjoy a deep conversation about, well, almost anything really, with almost anyone. That is not something you will get in a large social gathering.\n\nPut more than 4 people together in a group and they become morons. Gibbering apes trying to impress each other, to see who is top dog. Boring.",
"I just started working as a host at a popular chain restaurant and the constant social interaction is so exhausting I never want to go out with friends anymore. I hate that every job you get in college or before you get a degree involves dealing with the general public.",
"As an \"extroverted introvert\" and teacher I feel like I'm on stage all the time. It is fun and exciting to be in front of people, the reward is the happiness and captivation of the \"audience.\" Yet, alone time is what allows me not to crash, it is when I find - and am- my true self. There is nothing more I look forward to than quiet moments out of the limelight.\n",
"My girlfriend always takes it as an insult when I say I need to be alone. So I just stay up at night. Or isolate myself when it gets too much for me when at a gathering of family. ",
"Because some people around me are so stupid and annoying that they can actually drain all of my energy in a few hours, while I'm trying to contain their damages.",
"Here is a comic that gives one of the best and simple explanations I have seen:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Well, it looks like I'm outnumbered, since I'm pretty much as extroverted as it gets. I love being around people! It energizes me, even if it's strangers. Having fun, socializing, talking, hanging out. It's my ideal night. Nights in doing nothing for me are low-energy, boring, and depressing. It's interesting to see so many stories from introverts. Most to all of my friends are introverts. Since there are so many in this thread, I want to take this opportunity to say something I've been wanting to say for a while now, as an extrovert to all introverts:\n\nWe love you. We want to hang out with you, and we think you're fun. We don't think you're a loser, or awkward, and if you're nervous in social situations, we get it. We understand that you don't like being around people all the time. And yeah, maybe in the past we've made the mistake of trying to force you to \"just come have some fun!\" And yeah, we understand that some of you just think small-talk is inane and stupid. But understand this: Even if you do want time to recharge, even if you do like being alone a lot more, don't ignore our calls or blow us off all the time. Even if you feel like there's nothing wrong in our friendship, don't cancel plans on us and leave us waiting for weeks to see if you're going to call or text. It hurts. Even if this isn't your intention, it's going to leave us feeling lonely, or even worse, like you don't want to be our friend anymore. Like we screwed up. I've read and heard things from introverts who say that sometimes they worry their extroverted friends will eventually feel rejected to the point that they won't want to be friends anymore. It can happen.\n\nI've only really started noticing this, and something I've found makes me sad. Introverts hate extroverts a LOT more than the other way around. Googling \"I hate extroverts\" is going to get you millions of hits. Google \"I hate introverts\" and you're probably just going to get the same results as before because of the similarities in the query. I'm just now learning that extroverts are even stereotyped as being stupid a lot of the time. That sucks. If you're an introvert and you hate extroverts, just understand that your preference to be alone makes as little sense to us as our preference to be with people does to you. Don't judge. Appreciate us :)\n\nEdit: Grammar.",
"Hans Eysneck had the theory that introverts become stimulated much more easily than extroverts. I like this explanation, it makes the most sense to me.",
"Scientifically speaking, the world is divided generally into two types of people, inhibited and uninhibited (all on a sliding scale, of course). This is all due to the activity of your amygdala (brain centre for emotional learning linked with fear/anxiety/negative memories etc.). So to say you're an introvert is to say that your amygdala would be mostly regarded as overactive (you prefer stable environments and aren't too impulsive) and you would be a mostly inhibited person. If you enjoy being around people but you're inhibited (introverted), it just means that your amygdala is probably going into overdrive that entire time, producing subconscious anxiety that may well be experienced as adrenaline in foreign situations and you can only achieve relaxing your mind again by returning to your comfortable environment where your amygdala responses aren't provoked. I would totally consider myself in the same category and understand where you're coming from! ",
"I'm like that, I prefer to not do everything live. I like think about things for while before confronting them or answering back.\nSometimes I just don\"t reply to people, I forget that my acknowledging it and thinking about it isn\"t actually the same as responding to someone. \nAllot of the time, I think things in my head and only realise later, yea I didn't say anything > _ > . I think some people stereotype me a snobby blonde, but I'm just a thinker. I also just really hate confrontation. I know people stereotype women as being naggy, but usually it's the guys nagging me to talking about problems and stuff. Frankly, I just prefer thinking and dealing with stuff myself.\n\n",
"For me, I loooove it when I can play a quite game of chess where no one speaks. Dim the lights, put on relaxing music, candle light. \nI always play boardgames really seriously and in style.\n",
"_URL_0_\n\"I like people, but I like them in short bursts\" George Carlin.",
"Alright, first, keep in mind that intro/extrovert has nothing to do with how comfortable a person is being social. An extrovert can be very socially awkward, and an introvert can still be the life of the party. It's all about what \"energizes\" the person.\n\nTake any party with a large group of people. Generally, an introvert will be more comfortable at the beginning of it than they are at the start because they find the experience draining. They just need to go relax. Then they can go back and party again. Extroverts, meanwhile, actually find the experience energizing. As the party goes on, they come out of their shell, so to speak. At the beginning, they may be quiet or withheld, but by the end, an extrovert will most likely be quite raucous.",
"Actually, from a typical psychology textbook, introverts are characterized to be more sensitive to external stimulus than extroverts. Thereby, oftentimes social gatherings, social pressure, or sometime even going to class, they require more downtime to digest internally what is presented in front of them. In contrast, an extrovert is less sensitive and does not get as overwhelmed as an individual who is an introvert. \n\nThe \"recharging\" when alone is simply that you were exhausted from the external happening and simply want some time to yourself. In short, just imagine your mental capacity as any other limb of the body when its tired from doing one activity for too long. \n",
"Forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has said, not read all the comments yet. But this is the best explanation I have heard:\n\nIntroverts are like Rechargeable Batteries. They go out, have a good time etc but slowly, their battery is losing charge. Therefore, they need to go home to recharge their batteries before they have enough energy to go out again.\n\nOn the other hand, Extroverts are like Solar Panals. When they are out and about they get stronger, more lively, energetic etc from sunlight/being out 'charging their solar panals'. When they get home, inside on their own, they are not getting any source of energy on their solar panels and start to feel low. That is why they feel the need to spend as much time out and about with people.",
"I recommend reading [The Introvert Advantage](_URL_0_) which does a great job of breaking this down. \n\nHowever, the TL;DR version is that introverts' neuropathways are differently laid out, making us more susceptible to over-stimulation, whereas extroverts get \"hap-hits\" (dopamine injection) from social situations. Our pleasure centers get off on quieter activities, or more intimate socializing, with the price of over-stimulation and exhaustion in more frenetic situations.\n\nTherefore, after an over-stimulating exercise, we need time to recover, just like after studying for finals for a week, you need time to chill, party, play video games, whatever. Your brain just gets exhausted.",
"Sounds like your a regular introvert. They love people too. It's just how external stimuli affects (and drains) them. ",
"This is a decent video on explaining just that. I honestly cant expect an extrovert to get it. \n_URL_0_",
"I like what people are saying about introverts actually feeling drained when some social interactions go on for too long. I've felt like this for a long time. I remember being in my early teens and I would actually up and go home, sometimes without even telling my friends. I'd leave parties without telling anyone. I'd be clubbing with friends and just up and leave because I wanted to be alone. Whenever I'd stay at a friends house I'd make sure I was the first one awake so I could just walk home without telling anyone. And those walks home would be pure bliss after a night of socialising; almost like I was being recharged. ",
"I think I'm an introvert but I don't really know. I don't like going out but once I'm out I tend to have a good time but usually need booze to get going and get past my shyness. I don't know if I'm actually shy or if I just like the idea of being introverted. ",
"To give you an idea of how draining social interaction can be for an introvert, I've worked a lot of retail/customer service jobs and have found that by the time I get off work I am exhausted. The work isn't laborious in the least but I would imagine that doing the same amount of manual labor alone wouldn't have the same effect as smiling and making small talk as strangers does. I don't have social anxiety and don't dislike talking to people but a lot of interaction takes so much out of me. Introverts typically need alone time to recharge after parties, work, and other socially/emotionally taxing activities. I don't know why."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/extrovert-brain-introvert-process-reward_n_3438078.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/U2AxzUu.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html"
],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html"
],
[
"http://www.thepowerofintroverts.com/about-the-book/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2013/07/15/a-guide-to-understanding-introverts-comic/#7wQqozvUwDjZMb6V.01"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYOH30WUX7Y"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Introvert-Advantage-Making-Strengths/dp/0761123695"
],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/LxZ1fPr9FJg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2shzrj
|
why don't professional weightlifters have the physique of a professional bodybuilder / why aren't professional bodybuilders good (competitive) weightlifters
|
I recently joined a gym and was wondering why weightlifters at various sports competitions (olympics etc) don't look like bodybuilders. I would imagine since bodybuilders have well defined muscles etc, they should be able to lift a fair amount of weight. Am I missing something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2shzrj/eli5_why_dont_professional_weightlifters_have_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnpmr9o"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Size and strength aren't the same thing. You can have two skinny dudes but one's a marathon runner and the other just doesn't eat much. Similar idea with training muscles. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ockit
|
if smartphones can see infrared light from remote controls, why can't they be used as thermal cameras?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ockit/eli5_if_smartphones_can_see_infrared_light_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvvy7vl",
"cvvzl0i",
"cvw1hzq",
"cvw1iys"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"You can, you just need to build a filter to block the visible light: _URL_0_",
"There are filters for this, however, most modern cameras come with an internal IR blocking filter, so an external filter won't do anything.",
"I've seen some things where people actually remove the physical filter and use it as an IR camera.",
"The other posts talk about using a smartphone camera as an IR camera. They are irrelevant for using it as a thermal camera. \n\nRemote controls and the IR light described here are called near infrared. Each wave is 700nm to 1,400nm long which is only a little longer than visible light, 400nm to 700nm. It acts a lot like visible light.\n\nThermal cameras see the light made by things that are around room temperature. That is called thermal infrared or long wave infrared. It has waves that are around 10,000nm long. Your camera can't detect that at all. Also, since the inside of the camera is around body temperature it would hard to see anything but very hot things because the inside of the camera would glow as much as anything you take a picture of. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.instructables.com/id/Poor-Mans-Cell-Phone-IR-Filter/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ym5h8
|
how does yeast make bread rise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ym5h8/how_does_yeast_make_bread_rise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5wth1f",
"c5wvlnz"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Well the yeast itself doesn't. What happens is the yeast eats the sugars (i.e. carbohydrates) in the bread, and the gas released as waste puffs up the bread.\n\ntl;dr They poop in it.",
"Yeast are unicellular, reproduce asexually and very quickly, and really on carbs to gain energy. When they are put in bread it causes them to release gases as their method of excretion casing the bread to rise. And I am just inferring, but I believe this is why bread has little bubbles in it and is not firm unless squished together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
k5exs
|
why is the sky blue/water green or blue? question for a real 6 year old.
|
Couldn't find the explainlikeimsix category, but my son asked the stereotypical question, why is the sky blue. I know it has something to do with only blue light being able to be reflected through the ozone, or something similar. I remember my dad telling me that water is blue because it's a mirror of the sky...but then why the hell is the ocean super blue, and the lake green? There has got to be another reason. Anybody answer this one so I can tell my son? I'll post his response.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k5exs/why_is_the_sky_bluewater_green_or_blue_question/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2hnds7",
"c2hnza0",
"c2horr8",
"c2hnds7",
"c2hnza0",
"c2horr8"
],
"score": [
3,
29,
2,
3,
29,
2
],
"text": [
"I can handle the sky. Light from the sun appears white, but is actually made of a wide spectrum of light put together. These different colors are each characterized by a different wavelength, or put very simply, how it moves from the source to your eye. These act differently through the materials it passes through to get to your eye, so for example if it passes through water in the sky, you might see a rainbow because they split apart from each other and are no longer the white light put together. Our atmosphere is made of particles that the blue light likes to interact with, and they absorb that light and release it in a random direction, some of which is toward the ground where you are observing it.\n\nBonus: this explains why sunsets are red. As the sun approaches the horizon, there is more and more atmosphere between your eye and the sun, which means there are more opportunities for the blue light to get scattered away. This leaves only the red color, which continues on the path to your eye.",
"After many decades in the sci/tech world I *finally* figured out why the sky is blue. At long last I can stop asking the question. Simple:there is no \"sky.\"\n\nThere is no blue ceiling up there. The sky is an illusion.\n\nWhen you're looking at clear blue sky, really the only thing up there is air. You're looking at a thick cloud of air molecules fifty miles deep, and the sun is shining on it from the side.\n\nSo the real question is this: **why is air colored blue?** I thought air was supposed to be transparent!\n\nSo the real answer is this:\n\n* air is not perfectly transparent. If it was, then skies would always be black.\n* there is no solid ceiling up there. No \"sky\" to be painted blue.\n* if the sky doesn't really exist, what up there is blue?\n* the only thing up there is nitrogen and oxygen molecules\n* when sunlight is shining on a cloud of air, the air reflects blue light.\n* when any substance reflects blue light, we call it by the name \"blue substance\"\n\nAir is a BLUE SUBSTANCE? WHAT?!!\n\nSo now you know why very distant mountain peaks are blue. You're seeing them through a layer of sunlit air. As far as sunlight is concerned, air molecules aren't invisible. Instead, air is like a big foggy cloud of bluish-colored nano-dust.\n\nMore: if sunshine is passing through air and lighting it up, then those sun rays are getting their blue light removed. It all bounces off to the side. The red-orange rays keep going though. Know what this means...\n\nWhen you see bright blue air, it means that someone downstream from you is seeing a red sunset. Your patch of air has stolen their blue light, leaving red behind. And, when you're watching a red sunset, it means that people way in the distance, way off towards the sun ...they are looking upwards and seeing bright blue air. So, air isn't only a blue substance, not like blue paint. Actually it's splitting the sunlight into two colors of light. The red-orange light keeps going straight through the air, and the blue light is scattered out of the beam. So the \"true\" or \"actual color\" of the air depends on your viewing angle.\n\nIf you go to an outdoor movie, and you look at the video projector, you can see the beam of light coming out of the lens. There's dust in the air. That visible beam is almost all caused by air pollution, and if the air wasn't full of suspended crap, the visible beam would almost be gone. Almost. But even in perfectly pure clean air, you'd still see a dim blue beam coming out of the projector lens. The air molecules themselves can act like fog or dust particles. But it's a weird kind of dust. When you shine white light on it, it lights up blue, not white.\n\nAnd finally, if outer space was actually white instead of black, the \"sky\" probably wouldn't look very blue. It only has that peircing blue color because the layer of brightly-lit blue air is up against a pure black background.\n\n",
"The way I learned it was because of Rayleigh scattering, not because air and water are actually blue.\n\nAnother reason I learned was because the blue wavelength is the longest, so it's the only one that can actually be reflected throughout the entire depth of the water/sky. Not sure how true that is, because violet is longer than blue. Damn 11th grade physics teachers.\n\nEDIT: Or is what I learned in that physics class just a dumbed down version of Rayleigh scattering?",
"I can handle the sky. Light from the sun appears white, but is actually made of a wide spectrum of light put together. These different colors are each characterized by a different wavelength, or put very simply, how it moves from the source to your eye. These act differently through the materials it passes through to get to your eye, so for example if it passes through water in the sky, you might see a rainbow because they split apart from each other and are no longer the white light put together. Our atmosphere is made of particles that the blue light likes to interact with, and they absorb that light and release it in a random direction, some of which is toward the ground where you are observing it.\n\nBonus: this explains why sunsets are red. As the sun approaches the horizon, there is more and more atmosphere between your eye and the sun, which means there are more opportunities for the blue light to get scattered away. This leaves only the red color, which continues on the path to your eye.",
"After many decades in the sci/tech world I *finally* figured out why the sky is blue. At long last I can stop asking the question. Simple:there is no \"sky.\"\n\nThere is no blue ceiling up there. The sky is an illusion.\n\nWhen you're looking at clear blue sky, really the only thing up there is air. You're looking at a thick cloud of air molecules fifty miles deep, and the sun is shining on it from the side.\n\nSo the real question is this: **why is air colored blue?** I thought air was supposed to be transparent!\n\nSo the real answer is this:\n\n* air is not perfectly transparent. If it was, then skies would always be black.\n* there is no solid ceiling up there. No \"sky\" to be painted blue.\n* if the sky doesn't really exist, what up there is blue?\n* the only thing up there is nitrogen and oxygen molecules\n* when sunlight is shining on a cloud of air, the air reflects blue light.\n* when any substance reflects blue light, we call it by the name \"blue substance\"\n\nAir is a BLUE SUBSTANCE? WHAT?!!\n\nSo now you know why very distant mountain peaks are blue. You're seeing them through a layer of sunlit air. As far as sunlight is concerned, air molecules aren't invisible. Instead, air is like a big foggy cloud of bluish-colored nano-dust.\n\nMore: if sunshine is passing through air and lighting it up, then those sun rays are getting their blue light removed. It all bounces off to the side. The red-orange rays keep going though. Know what this means...\n\nWhen you see bright blue air, it means that someone downstream from you is seeing a red sunset. Your patch of air has stolen their blue light, leaving red behind. And, when you're watching a red sunset, it means that people way in the distance, way off towards the sun ...they are looking upwards and seeing bright blue air. So, air isn't only a blue substance, not like blue paint. Actually it's splitting the sunlight into two colors of light. The red-orange light keeps going straight through the air, and the blue light is scattered out of the beam. So the \"true\" or \"actual color\" of the air depends on your viewing angle.\n\nIf you go to an outdoor movie, and you look at the video projector, you can see the beam of light coming out of the lens. There's dust in the air. That visible beam is almost all caused by air pollution, and if the air wasn't full of suspended crap, the visible beam would almost be gone. Almost. But even in perfectly pure clean air, you'd still see a dim blue beam coming out of the projector lens. The air molecules themselves can act like fog or dust particles. But it's a weird kind of dust. When you shine white light on it, it lights up blue, not white.\n\nAnd finally, if outer space was actually white instead of black, the \"sky\" probably wouldn't look very blue. It only has that peircing blue color because the layer of brightly-lit blue air is up against a pure black background.\n\n",
"The way I learned it was because of Rayleigh scattering, not because air and water are actually blue.\n\nAnother reason I learned was because the blue wavelength is the longest, so it's the only one that can actually be reflected throughout the entire depth of the water/sky. Not sure how true that is, because violet is longer than blue. Damn 11th grade physics teachers.\n\nEDIT: Or is what I learned in that physics class just a dumbed down version of Rayleigh scattering?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cpypge
|
if the earth is not perfectly spherical, why does it appear to be when photographed from space?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cpypge/eli5_if_the_earth_is_not_perfectly_spherical_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewsh5xu",
"ewsh6n5",
"ewsh8py"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it's so close to be a perfect sphere that it's imperceptible visually. The difference between the radius at the equator and the poles is 21 kilometers, which is a difference of 0.3%.",
"The Earth is about 12700 km wide, and the difference from a proper sphere is about 21 km wider and 21 km shorter.\n\nBasically, would you notice if a basketball was like 1/32nd of an inch wider than it was tall?",
"Earth's radius is 6378 km at the equator and 6356 at the poles. The difference is just 22 km, less than 0.4% of the radius, so earth looks like a sphere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fblhr9
|
how is covid-15 more dangerous than regular influenza?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fblhr9/eli5_how_is_covid15_more_dangerous_than_regular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fj500dd",
"fj51ada"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Several reasons, it can be contagious before symptoms are visible, so people can spread the infection without knowing it. The virus is new so people don't have a resistance to it and the disease also appears to be fairly easily spread to other people so the number of people that infected people can potentially contaminate is higher than for flu.",
"On a average, seasonal flu strains kill about 0.1 percent of people who become infected.\n\nThe corona virus mortality rate varies from 1.4% (the New England Journal of Medicine) to 2% (early estimates from Wuhan China). \n\nFor perspective, the 1918 flu (the most severe pandemic in recent history) was around 2%."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3pcus5
|
why do we use vocalizations like "mmhm" or "mm-mm" to mean yes or no? is there a etymological basis for these?
|
See title. I've done a bit of digging and can't seem to find a good answer. Since mmhm doesn't really sound like any affirmative in English, is there a reason we use it to mean yes? Is this used in other languages as well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pcus5/eli5_why_do_we_use_vocalizations_like_mmhm_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw58msq"
],
"score": [
50
],
"text": [
"See here: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/1m1k16/how_did_uhhuh_and_uhuh_mean_yes_and_no_in_us/"
]
] |
|
qypri
|
isps spying on what you download
|
I read an article today that talked about how on July 12 loads of people who have been downloading illegally will get busted by a big ISP task force etc. All sounds very intimidating of course...
What I'd like to know is how do ISPs know what you have downloaded?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qypri/eli5_isps_spying_on_what_you_download/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c41ipid"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Im not a specialist, but its most likely through the packet sniffing. They monitor flow of packets, little bits of data you send and recieve, and decode them, to see what is it.\n\nAnd \"isp task force\" sounds very silly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2h17fl
|
why do some programs that take up > 10gbs of space are deleted faster than some < 1gb programs?
|
So I was cleaning up my compute and while using the "Programs and Features" I noticed that a couple of programs/games are deleted faster than others, even thought they take up much more space.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h17fl/eli5why_do_some_programs_that_take_up_10gbs_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckodr3g",
"ckoeu3k"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Deleting a program often times involves more than just erasing the files that contains it. Programs can do things like replace libraries, install drivers, and others. When you uninstall, besides actually deleting the files, the uninstaller needs to put everything back the way it was before it was installed, and just sorting through that can take a lot more time than deleting.\n\nAlso, some programs will save parts of their install to some area on the hard drive, so that they can recover some things if you decide to reinstall it later.",
"It is also more about number of files. Deleting one huge file is much faster than deleting hundreds of small ones."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
tqg9s
|
sometimes, after i sneeze, i see these small, colorfull particles moving around all over me. i always thought they were bacteria or something. are they??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tqg9s/eli5_sometimes_after_i_sneeze_i_see_these_small/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4oueoa"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"No, bacteria are much too small for you to see with the naked eye. There are a couple of likely possibilities: \n \n1. You are seeing very fine droplets of spittle/mucus that have been projected out of you when you sneezed. If you look for slow motion films of sneezes with the proper backlighting, it is truly disgusting. A sneeze emits a significant cloud, this is why you should always cover your mouth when you sneeze. Those droplets **do** contain bacteria/viruses. There is probably no on one Earth who wants to share those with you.\n \n2. When you sneeze, your blood pressure spikes suddenly, and that can cause you to \"see stars\". I don't recall the specific mechanism for this, but I'm sure others here will, and this [link](_URL_0_) might provide some insight. \n \nYou could probably tell the difference between the two by quickly looking at an area that couldn't have your sneeze gunk sprayed on/in it. Or just sneeze into your left sleeve and then look at your right sleeve. If you are seeing little particles on your right sleeve, you are just seeing stars."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene"
]
] |
||
3rd9ea
|
how can someone who is cut in half at their waist still be alive and how long could they be expected to live?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rd9ea/eli5_how_can_someone_who_is_cut_in_half_at_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwmzrnu",
"cwmzta0",
"cwmzvoe"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The biggest issue is blood loss (typically). You can live a few hours without most of the organs in your torso, excepting heart (pump blood) and lungs (oxygen). \n\nIf they are bisected and clamped (like in train accidents), they will live a surprisingly long time, the biggest issue is that once the pressure is released, the blood comes pouring out and they die. \n\nAs for that guy, he was probably screwed within a couple of minutes at the most (seconds most likely, I'm actually surprised he was still around). There was nothing holding him together, although there was surprisingly little blood (and I don't know where the rest of him was), so my guess is that the explosion had enough heat to partially cauterize him. Beyond that, its hard to tell from a somewhat grainy video where half the time there are people in front of the camera. \n\n**TL;DR** Blood loss is usually the killer (assuming they don't instantly die), if you can stop the blood loss, you could possibly save them, but this is basically impossible in a traumatic event. The more you can slow the bleeding, the slower the death (seconds to hours at best though). \n",
"Cutting with explosives isn't very precise, and surviving even a few minutes seems unlikely. Most of your internal organs are \"above the waist\" except the colon, rectum, and bladder. Even cut cleanly, waste management will be a problem. What's most likely to kill you is the big veins and arteries that serve the legs. It takes a lot of blood to power your legs, and so they would need to be cut and then sewn closed very quickly before all your blood leaked out.",
"You don't need your legs or abdomen to survive, necessarily.\n\nAll the organs you need in order to are placed inside your chest, head etc. however, if you happen to get torn apart by a bomb like that, chances are, your internal organs are quite damaged and you won't make it, judging from that Video, the poor guy is going to die in 2-3 Minutes from that video, noone can take that amount of blood loss. But his intestines most likely absorbed most of the shockwave from the bomb, so organs that keep you alive like heart, brain, lungs etc might have gone undamaged."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
91sdou
|
why do ants all follow the same trail and how do they know what to follow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91sdou/eli5_why_do_ants_all_follow_the_same_trail_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e30b95p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's by scent. Ants leave little scent trails that other ants from their colony will follow."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2agz1c
|
why were/are certain government officials legally allowed to participate in insider trading?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2agz1c/eli5_why_wereare_certain_government_officials/
|
{
"a_id": [
"civ10my"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Government officials are not legally allow to participate in insider trading. It is against the law and has always been against the law. This is a popular myth that has been going around and it has to do with not understanding what insider trading is.\n\nInsider trading is when a person makes stock purchases/sales of a public company with information that has not been made public yet. As an example, if a company is about to release a quarterly profit report that says the company has lost a lot of money, and someone is friends with the CEO and learns this information prior to it being released to the public, it's against the law for him to sell of his stock before the bad news hits. That is insider trading, and it is illegal for everyone (congress included).\n\nNow, where people get confused is government actions that affect private business. These are *not* insider trading. As an example, if the government is about to pass a new environmental law that will cost manufacturing companies a lot of money, there is no law preventing the congressmen to make stock decisions based on this information, even if they make these purchases/sales prior to the new law being public. \n\nThis is what people have been talking about and misrepresenting as insider trading. Insider trading laws only apply to knowledge of the a company's inner workings, not knowledge of future changes in law. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
30f2n1
|
why does the educational system today focus so much on attaining "grades" or meeting some sort of standard, rather than focusing on actually helping us to gain knowledge in a particular area of study ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30f2n1/eli5_why_does_the_educational_system_today_focus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cprtjk1",
"cprtna6",
"cprtql9",
"cprtvt4"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Attaining grades/meeting the standard is \"actually helping us to gain knowledge in a particular area of study\".\n\nTo attain the grade, you need to have learned some of the knowledge.",
"Grades are an actual, quantifiable way to measure how much knowledge you have gained. For most people, you can't do much better than a pass grade if you aren't at least somewhat familiar with the material. For jobs and higher levels of education, they can look at your grades and verify that you have at least a passing understanding of the material. Also, in higher level education grades aren't the end all and be all. I am in college in a biotechnological field, and as part of my major I am expected to complete an extensive research project as well as attain good grades. This is an example. In other majors, the project might be to write a research paper on 15th century England, or to design a building that could actually be used for its intended function.\n\nThat being said, there will always be the outliers, people who either know the material well but get terrible grades or vice versa. Unfortunately, any system you can devise will not be universally fair. It's just a consequence of a real world system.",
"In a perfect world, the people who gain the most knowledge will attain the best grades, and the grade just becomes a quantifiable indicator of \"how much has been learned.\"\n\nBut we don't live in a perfect world. Everyone tests differently, every test is designed differently, and every educator teaches differently. Still, grades and test scores are some of the best and most reliable indicators we have, which means that parts of school funding are tied up in those scores. So we teach to what we know how to measure.",
"It is used both as a measure of the individual students success and the educational establishments so both are then incentivised to teach to pass the test rather than to give students the tools to discover for themselves or to give a wider understanding of the subject. So we have a generation who can pass a particular test but not know anything that wasn't on the curriculum for that subject."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6sq274
|
what is the value of fake scantily clad facebook bots trying to friend people?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sq274/eli5_what_is_the_value_of_fake_scantily_clad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dleou7k",
"dleozed",
"dlepbdg",
"dleqh8u",
"dlf0jo3",
"dlf4ebr",
"dlf6lj8"
],
"score": [
84,
71,
18,
4,
22,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Once they are a friend they can view more personal information and use that to build demographic information. Beyond just posting advertisements directly, such accounts can be produced in droves and gather hundreds of thousands of people's personal information collectively.",
"Yes. It's 'like farming'. They get people to 'like, follow, share' their page and posts - once they hit the right number of followers, etc. they can then sell the page to the highest bidder. That person then wipes all the previous posts and uses the page to push their own stuff to a built in audience. ",
"My guess would be that they want you to accept their friend request so that they can access your personal info (phone number, email address etc).\n\nThis info can then be sold in bulk, or they may use those contact methods to attempt to scam you since you have already demonstrated that you are a gullible person by accepting the friend request.",
"Yes for ads, to entice people to join porn sites etc. If they mass invite hundreds of thousands of people and only a fraction of a percentage accepts, thats still a few hundred people that they accepted their request",
"Accidently accepted a fake friend request once, it took 2minutes before i was tagged in some bullshit sunglasses advertising picture. \nThe value must be to tag you in a advertising picture to make it show to all your contacts...",
"It's a way to gather information on people rather easily, as a lot people just add random people without really thinking about it. What those bots could be for is something called social engineering. They may be trying to get your personal information for malicious reasons or you could be a stepping stone to their actual target. As getting common friends with people can cause to think they actually might know them. Then once they have their target, they just start mining the data that they want. Whether it's your personal details or your friend list.",
"Having friends means these accounts are more \"real\" so when they are used to boost likes on pages etc they are less likely to be reported as fake traffic. And having friends it'll boost the Posts its initial spread. show up on your friends pages and if the bot then tags you in the post it can show up on their friends of friends pages (aka your friends) etc, further boosting the spread.\n\nPeople will usually make fake accounts and sell them to a service that offers likes/shares, or the services will make them themselves.\n\nI don't think they use them to gather information about people, at least not primarily.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n etc"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.buyrealmarketing.com/buy-facebook-shares",
"https://edgeineersclub.com/buy-100-real-facebook-shares"
]
] |
||
5z63lg
|
why do certain actions/sounds feel "satisfying" (i.e. a good high five)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z63lg/eli5_why_do_certain_actionssounds_feel_satisfying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"devjg8d",
"devmjen",
"devxdny",
"devyq5b"
],
"score": [
27,
10,
12,
4
],
"text": [
"One of the biggest things that most people desire is kinship or community. And, when you get a high five, you are basically affirming your membership in a community. This goes for pats on the back, cheers from across the room or any other action that basically states \"You are one of us\".",
"Some actions release Dopamine, that when gets to the brain gives us a feeling of \"satisfyment\"",
"It's a reward from your brain, you know what an excellent verison of something is when it happens and you know when it's shitty. It's like your brain going \"hey you did that extra right good job\" ",
"For the sounds part you may be referring to ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response). ASMR is the feeling you get when you hear certain satisfying crunches or certain lip smacking. There is a whole community on youtube dedicated to ASMR. I recommend looking them up"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
y7zt2
|
the usps suffered a $5.3 billion loss in the most recent quarter of this year, is there a possibility that the postal service could go out of business? what happens then?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y7zt2/the_usps_suffered_a_53_billion_loss_in_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5t5c3o",
"c5t8stv",
"c5t95jc",
"c5tcom6"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"If the USPS gets in too bad of a financial situation, the US government will have to reabsorb it; there are way too many things the government needs it for to just let it go out of business.",
"A conservative scam to crush the post office since many postal employees vote democratic.",
"Here is a good long analysis of the [issue(s)] (_URL_0_)",
"USPS isn't a business, it's a service. This distinction ***must*** be made.\n\nUSPS gets most of their funds from postal products that they sell, and they get very little (*if any*) tax money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_23/b4231060885070.htm"
],
[]
] |
||
63vbnx
|
why can we not make an electric vehicle that recharges itself indefinitely as it rolls, like with alternators in each wheel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63vbnx/eli5_why_can_we_not_make_an_electric_vehicle_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfx9iv8",
"dfx9lh8",
"dfx9q2q",
"dfx9r98",
"dfx9v72"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
6,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"You need to do some research on Perpetual Motion and why it is not possible. There are youtube videos explaining it and documentaries about it. What you are describing is endless renewable energy and is simply out of our grasp at the moment.",
"Conservation of energy. Even if we have frictionless wheels and alternators that could be 100% efficient, in the end we wouldn't accomplish anything.\n\nBut we do have friction. You will spend *more* energy moving forward than you will recover from the alternators.\n\nRemember, you must do work when you spin an electric generator. It will resist turning, as given by Faraday's law.",
"Because the energy you'd get from the alternators is going to be less then the energy the engine would need to run the car.\n\nOtherwise you'd just invented a way to create energy out of nothing, which as far as we know is impossible.\n\nHybrid and electric vehicles have sometimes such alternators in their weels and they use them as breaks. When normal brakes take transform the movement of the car into heat, these alternators transform (at least partially) the movement of the car into electricity, and then store it in batteries.\n\nAnyway in order to run these cars need to be recharged or refueled, because they don't create their own energy. That's impossible under any normal circumstance.",
"Heat loss mainly. Friction. Gravity.\n\nBS for the bot: the energy produced by the alternator will be less than the energy that caused the wheel to turn in the first place, thus you're in a continual energy deficit. Unless the car only went downhill.\n\nBut the answer is really the one-liner. ",
"Where would you be getting to motive power to make the vehicle roll?\n\nBoth electric motors and electrical generators are less than 100% efficient. To pick some numbers out of the air for the purpose of illustration, if your motor is 80% efficient you lose 20% of the energy you put into it right there, then if the generator is only 80% efficient as well you can now only reclaim 80% of the energy the motor translates into motion, so if you start with 10kw, have 8kw of recoverable energy and can only recover 80% of it, all you have done is turned 10kw into 6.4kw, and that's without even using any of the energy to actually move the vehicle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8hidpt
|
how is starbucks not a franchise?
|
I just read that Starbucks, unlike other major chains like McDonalds, for example, is NOT a franchise. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz claims that this is to exert perfectionistic control.
From a customer perspective, Starbucks does not appear dissimilar in scale or operations to any other chain. Please explain.
Edit: Can someone go one further and explain the advantages to NOT franchising when the model seems to work so well for most chains?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8hidpt/eli5_how_is_starbucks_not_a_franchise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyjytz7",
"dyjyyk3",
"dyjz10p",
"dyjzo8m"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A franchise is specifically a chain where anyone with the money to pay the fee can open a store and use the name. Most McDonald's are owned by different people who paid the company ~~500 thousand dollars~~ $45k for liscnensing, plus $750k in liquid assets and a total investment of over a $1,000,000 to use their name and follow the general standards of the company.",
"Franchise means every McDonald's is actually owned by an individual who wanted to open a McDonald's. \n\nStarbucks are all owned by Starbucks. \n\n",
"A franchise doesn't just denote the size or number of locations. When a place franchises, like McDonalds, someone buys/leases the building, and then comes to McDonalds. The franchisee pays McDonalds in order to use their name, signage, ingredients, menu, etc. at their location, and permission to \"be\" a McDonalds location. The franchisee also has to abide by certain standards to keep their franchise. This prevents McDonalds itself from having to actually worry about acquiring new stores itself or taking on that financial burden themselves.",
"When a company has multiple stores, they can either be owned and operated by the core company or by franchisees.\n\nStarbucks owns all of its stores, so the people that work there are employees of Starbucks. The stores may not be exactly the same, but they operate under the same rules and have the same hiring guidelines, so you can expect to have a very similar experience when you go in any Starbucks. Other companies that own their stores are Home Depot and Costco.\n\nFranchises, though, are owned and operated by a 3rd party. They pay the main company to license the name and logos, to pay for marketing, and to get some assistance in getting set up and in ongoing operations. The franchisee usually has to carry the same products and maintain certain styles, but they have more freedom with who they hire, what they pay, local promotions. The main company usually decides where it wants stores and issues only a certain number of franchises in those regions to prevent overloading popular areas. Franchise examples are McDonald's, Subway, and 7-11."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
39ip5l
|
how does facebook sell personal information, what information is it selling, and to whom?
|
I know this seems like a simple question, and I understand more or less that facebook sells information to companies interested in marketing info, but I that´s about it. I´m working on a project about the downside of social media and am looking for more info/a more detailed explaination of how the process works.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39ip5l/eli5_how_does_facebook_sell_personal_information/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs3oqug",
"cs3oscl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It uses your cache & cookies from previous sites you've visited. Say you were searching for TVs bia _URL_0_, your cookies are specific enough to let Facebook know that.\n\nNow, companies pay FB to show their adds, based on views. So, when you go onto FB after looking at TVs, you will see targets ads related to TVs, amongst whatever other cookies you have. This is targeting advertising in a nutshell.\n\nIf anyone knows more, please educate myself & OP. ",
"You sign their terms of usage when you make an account, in there is a clause that allows them to sell this info.\n\nThey sell it to advertisement companies, that's true, stuff like age and gender, location and pages liked. Stuff like that.\n\nAnd again, to marketing companies etc.\n\nIf you want to know more about ToU of certain companies (including social media) [this is good](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"BestBuy.com"
],
[
"https://tosdr.org/"
]
] |
|
69u6ux
|
for help with weight loss, why could we not just "force" ourselves to consume a lot of really healthy food?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69u6ux/eli5_for_help_with_weight_loss_why_could_we_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh9dx16",
"dh9gf2d",
"dh9giyq",
"dh9rpi0"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You could but most people simply don't have the tenacity to do it. It is simply not that appealing and takes a lot mental strength.",
"Your body is stuck in the past when high calorie foods were hard to come by and your survival depended on quick energy replenishment. That's why you crave fats and sugar. Aside from that, it's a matter of discovery. There are many healthy foods that would taste amazing to you, you just have to try a lot of new things. I personally love arugula, asparagus, shiitake mushrooms, and salmon. Best of luck on your epicurean journey. ",
"It's sort of the idea behind some diet shakes. You drink one, and feel really stuffed. I tried one once after I had already had a full meal. Don't do it.",
"We absolutely can. If you fill your environment with healthy foods that are easier to obtain than fattening ones, and/or if you set a rule that you may not eat any fattening item until you've eaten a certain amount of filling healthy ones, that actually works."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
r6pla
|
the hunter-gatherer/'paleo' diet.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r6pla/eli5_the_huntergathererpaleo_diet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c43bx06",
"c43byjj",
"c43c55x",
"c43drws",
"c43fdwl"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Paleo diet assumes that the human body is optimized for what we used to eat when we were hunter-gatherers, and therefore things like grains ~~and fruit~~ - which were not naturally available to us, but instead a human \"invention\" - are the main cause for obesity and sugar crashes and all sorts of things. You can check out /r/Paleo for more information.\n\n**Edit:** Small correction. Fruit wasn't an \"invention,\" but growing it all year round was. Normally, we would've only had fruit available to us during its respective season(s). Paleo dieters use this to explain that fructose (present in fruit) is actually bad for us in large quantities, and one shouldn't eat fruit every day.",
"The idea behind the Paleo diet is to only eat food that was available to people back in paleolithic times - about 10,000 years ago.\n\nThis means that people didn't have machines, processes, and preservatives to make a lot of the food we have today. All of their food came directly from Earth. All they ate was what they could hunt or gather. This included meat from animals, fruits, vegetables, roots, and nuts. Basically anything that's in its natural form.\n\nPeople follow this diet because they believe that's what our bodies are designed to use as fuel. In evolutionary terms, we haven't changed much in the last 10,000 years, so we haven't evolved a digestive system that can properly use foods like candy, doughnuts, fried foods, cookies, noodles, and other highly processed foods or food that have to be manufactured.",
"[An excellent summary from /r/askscience](_URL_0_) - with plenty of citations, if you're into that sort of thing.",
"During the hundreds of thousands of years that it took the human digestive system to evolve into what it is today, there were certain proteins humans didn't eat. (Like Gluten)\nThe Paleo diet argues that while the body can digest them, we'd be healthier if we didn't eat them. ",
"\"If you can't pick it or kill it...don't eat it\" "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pd4nw/is_eating_grains_bad_for_us_is_a_paleo_diet/c3oid94"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ttbf7
|
why do subway red meats have a rainbow shimmer.
|
Im eatting my sandwich as I type this and noticed it. I have also seen other subway meats shimmer like the scales of a fish. Why do the meats in my deli's cooler not do this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ttbf7/eli5_why_do_subway_red_meats_have_a_rainbow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceb7xd6",
"ceb896g",
"ceb8a7e",
"ceb8o5r",
"ceba2xh",
"cebapwl",
"cebau7w",
"cebcp72",
"cebge1v",
"cebgkuv",
"cebp9w9"
],
"score": [
25,
83,
15,
2,
4,
3,
3,
38,
8,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"According to my old Deli boss, it has something to do with the sharpness of the blade or the person cutting. It can be cut it at an angle/width that puts forth that shine.",
"[Search, and enjoy the answers bestowed upon others who have travelled the same path before you.](_URL_0_)",
"This from _URL_0_\n\nAccording to the USDA, \"When light hits a slice of meat, it splits into colors like a rainbow.\" This is something called a \"diffraction grating,\" essentially what happens when light waves bend or spread around a surface and create a pattern. It's the same thing that happens to make rainbows on the surface of a DVD",
"I see this on roast beef I buy from the grocery store. I don't have a good explanation, but I can say that it's not just Subway. ",
"In the Navy (years ago), meat like that was called \"Dragon's tongue.\"\n\n(I'm not saying it *was* dragons, but...)",
"I used to work at subway and that green shimmer made me feel too sketchy.\n\nStill ate it. ",
"~~Its the fatty oils in the meat. When you cut the meat at the right angle the oils light up like a rainbow.~~ \nedit--I am wrong",
"Truthfully, I find that rainbow shimmer unappetizing. It makes me think its spoiled or adulterated.",
"Wow...diffraction grating from some people? diffraction grating involves destructive and constructive interference with light passing THROUGH a material. That would be like saying a piece of meat can refract light... Physics was not that hard. reflection is more like it. as in...\n\n It's thin-film interference. If the cut is made very well with a sheer, almost perfectly sharp blade (like you would expect from a distribution plant that provides for Subway) the surface of the meat will have a flat smooth surface similar to glass or still water. Normally, this would simply make the material shiny and reflective when light hits it as the Brewster angle (angle in which all light bounces off without getting absorbed rather than some absorbed and some reflected). However with cured meats salt water, sugar, smoke, and nitrates the material ends up with a lot of moisture removed and replaced with antiseptic conditions and no soupy bacteria on the top. Subway likely has a sophisticated system to ensure loooong shelf life for it's meats.\n\nThe nitrates make highly processed meats pinkish and there is no real thin-film possible because the highly processed meats are made virtually fat-free in processing and bacteria is highly controlled. Fat is hydrophobic (doesn't like water) and will form a layer according to the hydrophobic effect. Hence, highly processed meats don't experience this phenomenon. The fat usually leaves the meat in processing, which is why they market it 97%-99% fat free...OF COURSE IT'S FAT FREE, YOU PROCESSED THE SHIT OUT OF IT! THE MYOFIBRILS ARE A TANGLED MESS IN THERE!\nThat's why you don't see it in other subway meats. They don't keep any of the fat. \n\nAll less fully processed subway meats, namely your Roast beef, don't get rid of all the fat. It's still like flesh. instead, the meat retains its fat, slowly the fat pushes up and around the surface of the meat, and a thin hydrophobic film ends up on a very shear surface. This layer also contains some bacteria if they can swim through the water, which is why you don't want to see a whitish-yellowish film on the meat (it's bacteria oxidizing fats). This thin hydrophobic fatty film makes an even thinner film of water sit on top of it. THAT water is causing the thin film interference. Put some more water on the meat and you'll find you don't have that interference anymore...I'm assuming Subway doesn't add chemicals to the surface to make it look like they cut it with a sharp blade.\n\nThe reason the deli cooler doesn't have meats like this is:\n\n1. They cut with less sharp blades. They can't afford either to use a new blade every day or have it consistently razor sharp. When they do have sharpened and clean blades they can. processing plants can sharpen blades continuously though. \n\n2. Delis usually use only a few cutters and thus the same blade for cutting everything, meat, cheese, bread...whatever they feel they can. Some deli's can afford multiple cutters but some work off of just one. They may only clean them every few hours or with a swab after every cut. This stuff create a film on the blade that can make cuts less precise. Processing plants likely ONLY cut one meat on one blade and clean it continuously to prevent this buildup.\n\n3. Deli's know that meat goes bad fast and you can taste it. So they don't let the meat sit so long that the fat is extruded from the meat to form the thin fat layer, since this could get someone sick from potential bacterial infestation (Subway uses it's meat for a long time) or result in a less desirable meal.\n*the deli does this because it has more concern over the quality of the meat. Subway has a ton of things built around the sandwich to enhance flavors so somewhat rancid meat can be disguised. Deli's don't have research and development working on how to trick the customer's tastebuds into eating older meat. It's why Subway is outperforming your local deli.\n\n4. While Subway can maintain extremely sanitary conditions from the distributor to the customer and have strict, perfect curing techniques in manufacturing, the Deli has to process the meat further before it sells it to you. They buy giant blocks of meat. Deli's handle the stuff themselves so the open air and contact with the seller happens before you even ask for the meat. So they have a much shorter shelf life. They are still better if you ask me.\n\nImagine if Subway workers cut the meat themselves and made the sandwich before you got into the store...Yuck. I know I've tried to save a subway sandwich in the fridge and it just doesn't keep.\n\n A Deli sandwich will last a few weeks in the cooler before the taste starts going off, and then another week maybe before bacteria and mold gets a hold of it. They usually put the meat, which actually lasts a pretty long time, in breads that are extremely bacteria resistant that have zero moisture. Again, the meat needs a thin film of water on it to shimmer.\n",
"OP has only seen sliced meat at Subway? ",
"The shimmer is caused by the connective tissue holding together the fibers of the muscle tissue in units called fascicles. The tissue itself is called the fascia. When the meat is cut at the correct angle, the fascia can be seen on the surface of the meat, usually having been pulled out slightly. There is nothing at all wrong with your meat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eze4s/eli5why_does_roast_beef_sometimes_have_shiny/"
],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/what-causes-beef-rainbows/273534/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4n9kr4
|
why do certain water bottles make a sssss noise when they are opened the first time/afterwards??
|
The other day I opened a brand new water bottle and it made a "sssss" noise, similar to that of a soda bottle. If the water isn't carbonated why did it make that noise similar to when you open a soda bottle.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4n9kr4/eli5_why_do_certain_water_bottles_make_a_sssss/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d41zyfj",
"d4203w5"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Even if the bottle isn't carbonated doesn't mean that it isn't pressurized, so the pressure inside the bottle is higher than atmospheric, causing the air to escape quickly and produce sound waves.\n\nOr some of the water evaporated in the bottle creating more gas that can't escape while the lid is closed.",
"Increasing the temperature of the bottle's contents after it is sealed will raise its internal pressure. For example if you had your water bottle chilling in the fridge overnight, took it out in the morning and immediately had a sip, then put it in your bag for a few hours giving it time to warm up, you might expect the pressure to rise if it was well sealed.\n\nChanging the atmospheric pressure can also have an effect. Pressure changes due to the weather are probably too small to have a noticable effect, but if you took your water bottle up a mountain or opened it while cruising in an aeroplane then it would be at a higher pressure than the rest of the atmosphere.\n\nYou mentioned that the water was brand new. Perhaps there may also be some dissolved gases that gradually escape from the water after packaging, but I'm not very knowledgeable on the bottled water market..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
cl32ch
|
what is ip exactly? and why would it be bad if internet strangers got hold of mine and what could they subsequently do with it?
|
Edit: IP as in internet Protocol, should have clarified.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cl32ch/eli5_what_is_ip_exactly_and_why_would_it_be_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evsiecd"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"An IP address is just what it sounds like-- an address. Every machine that is a component of a larger network gets assigned a unique IP address much like houses get assigned unique street addresses. If someone got ahold of your IP address, they could tell where your computer resides. Consequently, they could try to \"pay you a visit.\" If your network (in the same analogy, your house) doesn't have a strong enough protection, they could succeed and break in. Once inside your network (house), they could cause havoc in a number of ways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1k8c4h
|
how the hyperloop works.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k8c4h/eli5_how_the_hyperloop_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbmdysc",
"cbmfypw",
"cbmg6bv"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"As I understand it, it's a big tube that maintains a low air pressure in order to decrease air resistance/friction (remember, air is a substance so it pushes back on anything moving through it) which is one of the biggest hurdles in making something go fast. The train is made primarily of aluminium which is lightweight and strong. The train would \"levitate\" on an air cushion like the puck in air hockey. Propulsion would be achieved using a system of electromagnets to pull/push the metal train to higher and higher speeds.\n\nIt's basically a giant railgun in a Futurama tube.",
"1: magnets speed you up, slow you down and keep you going in a tube between Los Angeles an San Francisco\n2: the tube has most of the air sucked out of it so that there's not much drag and the magnets can do their job more efficiently\n3: the capsule has something that's kind of like a part of a jet engine on the front to prevent some nasty problems from happening\n4: the capsule rides on a cushion of air like a puck on an air hockey table\n5: the tube is covered with solar panels that provide more than enough power to make the whole thing go\n6: it follows established interstates (mostly), elevated in the median, to avoid any significant infrastructure modifications",
"_URL_0_\n\nFull source for anyone interested. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf"
]
] |
||
90w76i
|
why does a computer keep functioning after deleting system32 until you shut down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/90w76i/eli5_why_does_a_computer_keep_functioning_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2tlrk1",
"e2tm7ni"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Because critical functionality is loaded into memory. Things only go strange when you need something and it’s no longer there.\n",
"A computer pulls all the stuff it needs out of long term storage and puts a copy of it in short term memory while it's turned on. When you delete a critical file, you're deleting the long term original. The short term copy is still in memory and being used like normal. But short term memory needs constant electricity to work and remember anything. Shut the power off and poof, it's all gone. Now when you start it up again it needs to pull those files from long term storage again, and they're not there anymore. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bj4bga
|
why do you never see pens with brown ink? it seems like such a common color in nature
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bj4bga/eli5_why_do_you_never_see_pens_with_brown_ink_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em7f0qh",
"em559ag",
"em55kdi",
"em5asjs",
"em5jxhy",
"em5r9ea",
"em5sn13",
"em5tp6r",
"em5vktb",
"em5wz62",
"em5yfr7",
"em600dd",
"em60a1v",
"em60r5j",
"em62d27",
"em62ftw",
"em62gaw",
"em62iao",
"em64qae",
"em6919o"
],
"score": [
2,
2238,
309,
18,
12,
45,
17,
6,
337,
2,
25,
4,
3,
6,
2,
5,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's common in nature because it's a mix of all of the colors. We don't base pen colors on what's common in nature and I don't know why we would. Black isn't all that common in nature and blue is probably the least common color in nature and those are probably the most common pen colors.",
"Maybe 'cos nobody likes it:\n\n [Wiki](_URL_0_) According to public opinion surveys in Europe and the United States, brown is the least favorite color of the public; the color is most often associated with plainness, the rustic and poverty.",
"Every fountain pen ink company makes a chocolate or coffee named brown ink. It's not as popular as burgundy or teal colors, but it's readily available.\n\nStick pens have narrower choices, black blue and red are the big dogs. Brown is a fancy color, [available in gel pens](_URL_0_ ) like many others.",
"The UniBall Vision Elite used to have a really great brown, it's my favorite ink color. I can't seem to find it by itself though, which is a bummer.",
"I’d guess because older inks would fade to brown and keep fading. We probably perceive brown writing as old, faded/fading, hard to read because of that. Think of old documents and manuscripts in museums.",
"I was thinking this a few weeks ago so I went out of my way to buy brown ink cartridges for the fountain pen that I use at work. \n\nBrown is unfairly maligned and underrated. \n\nWhat did blue do that was so special anyway?",
"I have plenty of brown, sepia, and sanguine pens and prefer them for artistic works over black any day. I know that blue ink is popular for writing because it is easily legible but will show up more easily as an authentic signature on documents (or notes, edits, etc). Black is a more popular neutral than brown, so I guess companies that produce black pens already just stick with that, plus blue and red. I love browns but definitely realize that this seems to be a minority opinion.",
"I've had a few of those but yeah they're difficult to find and usually come in rainbow pen packs, I do like them but I ain't buying a rainbow pack every time one runs out",
"1. Brown is not a \"pretty colour\" in many peoples eyes.\n2. Brown isn't a very visible colour. Regardless of paper colour it's not going to stand out very well. Blue & black have the advantage that they have a very nice contrast to the white- > beige paper. However, this ability of brown to blend into the paper can be an advantage. Famously Leonardo da Vinci did all his sketches in Sepia (a dark brown) ink.",
"Get brown ink smudges on fingers, take a dump, wipe and then see brown stain on finger, freak out for a second until you realize it's just ink. Not sure if this is better or worse than having red ink (or paint) on fingers.",
"It is a common colour thus a smudge/stain of the same colour as the ink may render some markings unreadable/ incomprehensible. There are a lot of brown ink pens out there. Just not as common as there are blue and black.",
"I love my brown ink pen. Bought in an assorted color package, forget the brand. Very soothing to write with. I use a different color every day to write in my journal. Color depends on how I feel and brown is the peace feeling good color.",
"Like other commenters mentioned, probably because black and blue inks are easier to read.\n\nHowever, historically sepia ink was very common, in part because a similar ink can be produced very easily from walnut husks.",
"My father has a classic fountain pen and only uses Brown ink in it. He likes it and thinks it's different and classy",
"Found one at work today. Stole it cuz office supplies at work...and have never writne with brown ink pen before and am using it today.",
"Many years ago, documents were only considered legal if they were in black ink because they could be duplicated. A signature in blue ink was considered authentic because it couldn’t be from a Mimeograph machine as those were only in black. Red pens were used in education. As others have mentioned, brown pens are more artistic.",
"Nowadays most pigments for inks are synthetic making availability and cost of production relatively similar across the color spectrum. \n\nIn my opinion popularity of a color I believe is likely strongly tied to historical availability than anything else. People tend to follow the herd and are attracted to things they tend to have more exposure or contact with. People like blue and black since historically it was pretty cheap and easy to obtain. Other colors were more rare, as they were hard to come by likely more costly. Historically speaking, it seems that colored inks outside of black and blue were reserved historically for [illuminated manuscripts](_URL_0_). \n\nSo my guess is likely brown traditionally is a more difficult to manufacture and a bit more expensive to manufacture than blue and black. \n\nBlack India ink is traditionally derived from charcoal and soot. Pretty common materials available pretty much everywhere. Made it one of the cheapest and readily available inks around. \n\nBlue inks originate from indigo - which being derived from plant sources is relatively easy farm, harvest, and manufacture globally. Making blue also fairly commonplace. \n\nHowever brown inks don’t appear to have the same luxury in abundance and simplicity to manufacture. \n\nSepia ink is traditionally derived from the ink of a cuttlefish. Production would be limited to the ability to raise and harvest ink from a cuttlefish population. This just seems like it would be more costly and expensive to produce. It would also indicate that there would be less brown inks available since it was tied to animals for supplies. \n\nAdditionally sienna is traditionally derived from iron ore. And while it’s likely abundant - the color variations can be drastic - from almost red to deep brown. This would make ink production at scale more complicated in order to maintain consistent color as it would require blending of ores to get consistency. (It’s kinda like orange juice - you ever wonder how OJ brands always taste the same? They blend many different orange juice crops until they get that trademark flavor.) Most people would want consistent colors as they replenished supplies - hence quality sienna colored inks were likely more expensive and less desirable due to quality control of cheaper inks.",
"I use a fountain pen for my journal (been keeping one for years) and have a brown leather cover for it. I go out of my way to find brown ink as it’s easier on the eye and matches the cover (yeah, geeky, I know). I even swapped from a Lamy fountain pen to a Kaweco because brown ink is easier to find in a cartridge. I’ll defend brown ink to the death.",
"(Driver) UPS had brown pens for a while and customers that saw the ink always wanted one, so many pens where given away to customers and UPS stopped ordering brown ink.",
"I’ve bought multiple multi packs of pens with brown ink- it’s just not as popular, and pen ink isn’t based off nature these days"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown"
],
[
"https://smile.amazon.com/Pentel-EnerGel-Deluxe-Liquid-Refills/dp/B0713QTMMP/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
d1soxb
|
why do they change the music in movies? haven't the rights already been secured?
|
I was watching devil wears Prada on network tv. I've seen it before and I know they play "suddenly I see" by KT Turnstall during parts of the movie that they now play jazz on.
I'm also seriously sure they changed the sound track on scrubs when I was watching it on Netflix.
These are two media pieces I've definitely seen when they came out initially and then on other platforms and noticed. I'm sure I've missed a lot more. Why does this happen? I could only assume it's cheaper, but wouldn't they have the rights to play the song in the movie when they make the movie?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1soxb/eli5_why_do_they_change_the_music_in_movies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezpnsz9",
"ezpntsm",
"ezpq2oz"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They usually licence the song for a certain amount of time, and when that's up they have to licence it again. There's actually a good bit of movies available on VHS that were never re-released on DVD because the rights for the music expired and, for one reason or another, they couldn't manage to licence the song again. Of course, most of the time when this happens they just change the song, as you mentioned.",
"Rights are very specific and narrow in scope. They don't buy rights to a song full stop, they buy rights to a song for theater distribution or for X amount of time. Home release May be a separate contract. TV networks wpuld need their own contract to play that music on their airwaves.\n\nSame thing with digital software. You don't buy the software, your purchase a license to use the software in a particular way.",
"rights are usually up after a decade... Even video games have to change their music after 10 years or they get a lawsuit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
83d2eu
|
why do people claim iq isn't a reliable measure of intelligence?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83d2eu/eli5_why_do_people_claim_iq_isnt_a_reliable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvgwygw",
"dvgx1kh",
"dvgybso",
"dvgzshv"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"From personal experience, I’ve seen some people with very high IQs that would still try and take a pizza out of the oven with their bare hands. Intelligence needs to take into account all facets of life.",
"So what do you think intelligence is? Like honestly how would you define it?\n\nIs it pattern recognition?\nSpeed of problem solving?\nLevel of complexity of problems solved?\nMemory?\nIntuition?\nStreet smarts?\nEncyclopedic knowledge trove?\nSocial aptitude?\n\nIQ tests 2 of those (the first two, but mostly just the first one).\n\nKind of like calling someone athletic because they have a good baseball pitch. Some athletic people can pitch well but just because you can pitch a fast pitch doesn’t mean you are good at sports.",
"Because they are probably based on the Multiple Intelligence Theory, that dictates there are 7 abilities that can be considered a kind of intelligence, since they meet certain criteria that I'll link to in the end.\n\nThose abilities or \"intelligences\" can be:\n\n1- musical-rhythmic, e.g. a musician\n\n2- visual-spatial, e.g an architet\n\n3- verbal-linguistic,\n\n4- logical-mathematical, \n\n5- bodily-kinesthetic, e.g. a sportsman\n\n6- interpersonal, e.g. a politician or a leader in general\n\n7- intrapersonal, e.g. a psychologist\n\nIQ measures basically number 4, but disconsiders the others forms. Therefore, it's often considered an incomplete measure of intellect, since a person can be a genius at one of those areas but really bad at another. \n\nI'm pretty sure you can imagine a soccer player that can't do math for shit. Following this theory, he excels at 5 and can be considered intelligent as well, even lacking at 4.\n\nI'm not sure if its clear, so I'll link to wikipedia so you can read more if you're interested in:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEdit: added more informations",
"I believe the primary reasons are social and political. The studies and/or researchers come to conclusions about IQs relative to different races and cultures. Those include the evidence that some races may be \"smarter\" than other races. If you accept the validity of the theory, you have to accept the racial differences, which is unpalatable to many people. That type of conclusion leads to emotional responses, which leads to criticisms of the theory. It also motivates people to find flaws in the science, which may or may not be there. And as much as people tout \"science\" on this board, more often than not the \"science\" is influenced by money and power, and isn't science at all.\n\nIt is difficult to have an honest conversation about IQ due to the emotionally charged nature of the topic, so I'm not engaging at that level. At a social level, accusations of racism abound. At an individual level, pride, arrogance, and shame abound. However, some of the answers on this thread demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the nature of IQ testing, as well as the history of IQ and the controversy surrounding it. I felt a need to relate at least some of these basics.\n\nedit: changed \"most answers\" to \"some answers\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences"
],
[]
] |
||
1w6a3q
|
why do i have to brush my teeth but my cat doesn't?
|
He just looks at me while I brush wondering what I'm doing then I reflect and wonder what I'm doing as well. Why do I have to brush but he doesn't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w6a3q/eli5_why_do_i_have_to_brush_my_teeth_but_my_cat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cez2oce",
"cez2v3q"
],
"score": [
20,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly because your cat will be dead 15 years after it was born -- your teeth have to last 75 years.\n\nBut also because your cat doesn't eat candy, smoke, drink coffee or soda, or do any of the other things that destroy human teeth.",
"Sugar, loads and loads of sugar. Which *cooltip* cats can't taste."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
65mvmr
|
how would atomic explosion appear being observed from a distant planet and what type of device could detect them from far away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65mvmr/eli5how_would_atomic_explosion_appear_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgbkcns",
"dgblnke"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The most obvious detectable feature of a nuclear weapon detonation would be the bright flash of light. Someone on a distant planet could observe that with a telescope, and they could analyze the spectrum of the light produced to (probably) tell that it was a detonation (as opposed to something like an asteroid strike, which would also produce a flash of light).",
"You'd have to actually be looking, quite intently, with very powerful telescopes. Even if you were on Mars, you'd need to know to look. Otherwise, you'd never notice it. **EDIT**: You'd also need to be lucky and happen to have both planets facing each other in just the right way. \n\nIf by \"distant\" you mean \"Outside our solar system\", forget about it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
zi0wo
|
why doesn't the u.s. president use the veto power more often to get what he wants?
|
I've seen Presidents that want something done and then they are completely stalled on it. Why don't they just threaten (and follow through on) vetoing every law that comes to them until the bill they want is brought to the table?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zi0wo/eli5_why_doesnt_the_us_president_use_the_veto/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c64r0w9"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Imagine you are the president and threaten Congress to veto every law until they pass your pet project. The very next day, Congress will pass the \"We Support America Act\", the \"Puppies Are Cute Act\" and the \"Give Every American Whatever They Want Act\". You'll be the jackass who vetoed them all.\n\nOh and for the rest of your presidency Congress will refuse to pass budgets, confirm your appointments, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
qzr9x
|
why spankings/corporal punishment aren't considered child abuse?
|
I dunno, I was reading something over on [/r/f7u12](/r/f7u12) that prompted the question in my mind. I was spanked as a kid and didn't exactly like it (obviously), but it wasn't any worse than just being yelled at for being a little douchebag. However I guess I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn for straight-up child abuse. Could you ever take a parent to court for spanking their kid? I feel like you couldn't. But I don't see how it's really all that different from child abuse, except that it's less extreme...so does child abuse mean that it has to be a certain level of violence/harm? Does it have to leave a bruise to be considered child abuse? That seems like it would be far too limiting...Also does emotional abuse fall into this spectrum anywhere?
**TL;DR** The difference between child abuse and spanking, and basically just how they decide whether or not something is child abuse.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qzr9x/eli5_why_spankingscorporal_punishment_arent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c41qxj9",
"c41rpij",
"c41w768",
"c41zs2i"
],
"score": [
8,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Spanking is accepted, more or less, by our society, whereas outright beating is not. It's definitely a blurry line - too much spanking could indeed be considered child abuse. \n\nRead more about spanking:\n_URL_0_\n\nThe spectrum is definitely blurry. For instance\n",
"One thing is a slap/spank, and another is *hitting/beating* your child. One thing people don't realize is that we are animals, and if words don't work, a **small** physical punishment needs to be applied.\n\nToday's generation needs to be spanked, they would behave better. IMO.",
"An action is considered abuse if the harm it causes outweighs the good.\n\nFor example, if I dislocated my child's shoulder, that would typically be considered abuse. But if I did it pulling them out of the way of a car, it would not.\n\nWhether the harm of physical pain outweighs the benefit of deterring bad behavior, that is an open question. There are a number of child psychologists who believe with very young children who lack to mental capacity to be reasoned with verbally, the only way deter them (\"don't touch the stove\") is with physical reinforcement (slap on the hand).\n\nIn the case of spanking, only if it was severe, frequent, and unwarranted would it likely result in criminal action.\n\nEmotional abuse is hard to categorize in the same way. First, emotional abuse isn't a crime in the same way assault is. Second, it is *highly* subjective...it is hard to live in the same house as someone and *not* do something that could be construed as emotional abuse. Finally, it is very difficult to link harm to a specific instance. Calling your kid stupid for doing something stupid may very well be warranted. Systematically calling your kid stupid no matter what they do would be abusive.",
"Some people *do* consider it abuse. Most people have the sense to be able to tell the difference between a smack that doesn't cause any real pain, and a genuine beating that is abusive. Some people aren't able to make the distinction."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/when-is-spanking-child-abuse/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3vwo3j
|
what would happen to humans on mars, since the gravity is not as strong as earth's?
|
Wouldn't it have some effect on our bodies? If so, what would happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vwo3j/eli5what_would_happen_to_humans_on_mars_since_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxrcf48",
"cxrcgle",
"cxrfrpp"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bone and muscle degradation. This already happens to astronauts on the ISS but the effects would be less severe on Mars since it does have a gravitational field, unlike orbital stations which are a 0g environment. \n\nFor practical and ethical reasons there isn't much experimental data on long-term effects of a non-standard gravitational field on the human body.",
"Well, the most obvious thing: Martians' muscles wouldn't develop to be as naturally strong.(this includes weaker cardiovascular systems)\n\nThey might grow slightly taller. Gravity plays a subtle role in the development of humans during evolution.\n\nThere are probably numerous other effects, but I'm just a programmer.",
"As already said- You would get higher, your bones would get weaker, your muscles would get smaller aswell. The Gravit on Mars isn't that smaller so the effects wouldn't be so devastating. But if humans spens more time on mars, they would eventually look like 2m high anorexic people, also loose pigment. \n\nBut they could always excercise and eat vitamins in pills. Which would make the impact smaller.\n\nThis is also discussed in the book The Expanse, now it's even a tv series."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
31jsyf
|
how are tv shopping companies able to sell you so many extra things, "an $80 value," for only $19.95?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31jsyf/eli5_how_are_tv_shopping_companies_able_to_sell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq27ge2",
"cq27u22",
"cq29ec1",
"cq2caw9"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because 'value' is a completely arbitrary concept. Amazon does this shit all the time...xyz monitor is on a 50% sale and is now only 400 dollars....Original price is 2x general market value thus sale is not really a sale at all.",
"Clothing retailers, too. \n\nI can't link to it but I once read that clothes are frequently marked up 1400%",
"True example.\n\nI worked for a designer sweater company 20 years ago.\n\nNewman Marcus private label sweater = $145\n\nOur name brand (same exact sweater but we sewed in our label= $95\n\nWe sold both to them for $45 (add a dollar for sewing NM label)\n\nThey were made in Taiwan AND shipped to the U.S. for $4.35\n\n\n\n",
"There is a common misconception that price is supposed to be related to input costs. While input costs do come into the equation, prices are set by what people are willing to pay (\"demand\"), and what companies are willing to sell it for (\"supply\"). Thus, the claim they are actually making is \"people would be/are willing to pay $80 for this stuff, but we're only charging $18.\" Which I guess is technically true as long as one person would be willing to pay $80. But either way, this has very little to do with input costs: something can cost much less than $80 to make and still be worth $80. An excellent example of this is service industries: it costs a web designer very little to design a web page in terms of cost: the price of a laptop and some training is small, spread over the life of the laptop/person. However, the cost of hiring the designer is a function of how much that website is worth to the customer and how much the designer could make designing a website for somebody else, and has very little to do with the actual costs. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5a4gzh
|
what's the worst that can happen if ingrown toenail (or other wound) isn't attended to (cleaned etc)?
|
I have a strong suspicion that my 14yo mildly autistic son is hiding ingrown toenail(s) from me.
He had ingrown toenails on both his big toes in the Summer of 2015. Through a long, painful and tedious process, they were tended to - I cleaned them daily, and when it didn't help, they were surgically removed, I continued to clean them daily, and finally he grew new ones. After they were the size of normal toenails, I stopped giving them as much attention as before, being relieved myself to be able to deal with all the other stuff.
Now, I have been noticing that since this Summer, he is hiding his toes from me. He is constantly wearing socks (even to bed) and refuses to let me see them. It took me a long time even to get him to at least change his socks! I also smell something very similar to blood and pus around him. And he is limping all the time - slightly in the morning and worse as the day progresses. He is partially homeschooled so he doesn't have phys ed at school, so it doesn't affect that part of his life. When I have tried to confront him about it or tried to get him to show his feet to me, he grows silent, refuses to do anything and even denies outright about there being any problem at all. I think he might remember how painful and tedious it was before to get them fixed that he has gotten it into his mind to either ignore the problem or postpone dealing with it until indeterminate later time. It would be very much like him (considering other challenges I've had with him).
He is big enough that I cannot do anything by force with him, but he is intelligent. I want to confront him with full knowledge what could happen if they are left unattended, hopefully getting him to actually letting me clean those toes and to evaluate if I need to book another appointment for having his toenails removed; to let people work on them again.
Please educate me about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5a4gzh/eli5_whats_the_worst_that_can_happen_if_ingrown/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9dlzto",
"d9dm3un",
"d9dm4gs",
"d9dmvk1",
"d9dn5fo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Ask the pros at /r/AskDocs .",
"Any wound carries the risk of infection. That's why we clean them ASAP and on a regular basis - to minimise this risk. It is also why we check on them regularly - to see if there are any signs of infection. \n\nHowever, you're getting very specific here, so I would suggest asking an actual doctor. Barring that, there are subs that are frequented by doctors (such as /r/AskDocs) - you could try that. ",
"My mom was diabetic and she hid an infected toe from me because she didn't want to be a bother. \n\nShe lost the toe. The doctor said we were lucky he caught it in time. He said she could have lost her foot, her leg or even lost her life if it was left untreated. ",
"You would want to rule out trauma first. Make sure that your son didn't drop anything on his foot that's caused a fracture.\n\nIngrown toenails usually appear because of improper cutting, or tight fitting shoes. What's really happening is the edge of the nail pierces into the cuticle, the skin around the toenail. This piercing triggers an inflammatory response, because the body thinks that there's a foreign body stuck inside the skin.\n\nThe nail by itself will cause pain, which can be worsen with tight shoes, walking and being touched. If you're smelling blood and pus around your son it's recommended you ask him to take his socks off and show you what's going on.\n\nBy itself, ingrown toe nails are an annoyance, but the skin injury increases the chance of a bacterial infection, since they now have an open conduit directly into the body. Also, because the nail remains stuck in the blood and tissue, they can grow comfortably in that Micro-environment.\n\nThe worst possible scenario is osteomyelitis of the bone. If the infection manages to track deeper into the toe, it can cause an infection of the bone and disrupt the blood supply in that area. If the blood supply is interrupted for too long, it can cause ischemia, which will lead to tissue loss, and make the infection worse.\n\nWorst case scenario in osteomyelitis is a deep infection that doesn't go away and can possibly spread to damage the rest of the toe and foot. That is something you really don't want, so get your son's feet looked at asap. If he's limping that isn't good.\n\nThe main thing you want to look at is the colour of the toe. If it's just a little redness around the ingrowing toenail it's mild. But if you see any bluish discolouration around the area, or a lot of yellow pus, get help urgently to remove the nail and evacuate all the pus. \n\nAlso, consider looser shoewear in the meantime. Open toed sandals or anything that lets the toes be free. ",
"If he loses the ingrown toes, he will have to learn to walk again because his balance will be seriously compromised. If he is hiding his feet, something serious must be happening."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1neoo8
|
how important getting good grades actually is
|
Do the grades in grade school affect your college and job opportunities?
What GPA in high school is usually required to get into good colleges?
Do colleges look at just your overall GPA, or do they look at individual class grades?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1neoo8/eli5_how_important_getting_good_grades_actually_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cchvtgy",
"cchvu4n",
"cchwbt5"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I'll take these in order: \n > Do the grades in grade school affect your college and job opportunities? \n\nYes. Colleges look at GPA when determining who would make a good candidate for admission. More selective colleges (harvard, stanford) tend to look at students with higher GPAs.\n\nGPAs can affect job opportunities, as well, for the same reason - employers want students who are either naturally smarter or willing to apply themselves to learning. \n\n\n > What GPA in high school is usually required to get into good colleges? \n\nYou'll probably need at least a 3.5 on a 4-point scale to get into nearly anywhere that's selective. \n\n > Do colleges look at just your overall GPA, or do they look at individual class grades? \n\nBoth. They ALSO look at your class schedule - students who struggled as freshmen but had figured it out by senior year get looked at more favorably than students who just cruised their senior year.",
"Yes, unfortunately grades do matter at the college level. GPA is the primary way in which colleges tell how seriously you take learning (as opposed to how they measure your intelligence, the SAT). They will really only look at your overall GPA aside from cases where you might have to tell them if you failed a class. For top 30 schools in the country, I recommend > 4.2 from public school and > 3.7 from private school.\n\nSide note: If you care, what your career will really be influenced by is your ability to learn, your work ethic, and your ability to simplify problems. If you want to open the most doors, you have to pay attention to both sides.\n\nSource: Went to one of these schools.",
" > Do the grades in grade school affect your college and job opportunities?\n\nYes, to varying degrees. Usually if you go to college, no company is going to care what your high school grades are, but they will ask for your college GPA, at least until you have a few years in the workforce.\n\n > What GPA in high school is usually required to get into good colleges?\n\nThat depends on what you mean by good. If you have over a 3.0 you can probably get into a perfectly respectable state school. If by good college, you mean \"top 20\", then you are going to want the highest GPA you can possibly get. Remember, you will be competing against millions of kids who all aced their way through high school and took all the most advanced classes. The top tier of schools in the US are ridiculously competitive, to the point that it's impossible to tell exactly what will get you into one school vs another. I knew kids who got into MIT but were rejected by several \"lower\" top tier schools. Or two kids who each got into a college that the other was rejected by. There's no telling. But if you have under a 3.8 (not weighted for AP classes or anything), you better have a damn good essay and a bunch of extracurricular activities, but even then it will be hard.\n\n > Do colleges look at just your overall GPA, or do they look at individual class grades?\n\nBoth. Your overall GPA counts a little less if you were taking super hard classes, and showing improvement over the course of high school can make up a bit for a lackluster GPA, but you really need both to get into a great school."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ya3rq
|
how is seaworld able to keep their business going after all the controversity and docs like "blackfish"?
|
It's a big mystery for me.
I'm not an American so I don't know how your laws and such works, but where I live the place would get closed down, immediately.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ya3rq/eli5_how_is_seaworld_able_to_keep_their_business/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfins1j",
"cfinwz3",
"cfiwa8t"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most Americans do not pay much attention to documentaries and there is not a whole of of controversy from it here. ",
"Many things don't get the media coverage they deserve and many Americans choose to be ignorant to controversial things. It's less stress, why worry about a whale somewhere far away? (Not my view, but you get the point)",
"We get jaded constantly hearing about this or that place needing to be shut down, because most of the time it's some radical political group trying to make waves for their cause. After awhile you just assume it's all BS. There might be some grain of truth to it, but everybody's working their agenda and it reaches a point that it's not worth listening to anyone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
yoz86
|
job creation and the myths behind it?
|
I hear job creation bandied about constantly in political news. They seem to imagine the President has a magic wand he can wave and jobs just magically will return back to the unemployed. I'm sure many of the policies enforced, bills passed, and general actions of the President and his cabinet can influence how jobs are actually created.
As far as I understand it, jobs come down to a combination of who is qualified to work and who is willing to employ. I hear stories about how many millions of jobs are vacant because we just don't have enough educated or trained candidates. I hear stories about how companies are more concerned about their bottom line and are refusing to hire (the recent Onlive scandal shows a testament to corporate shenanigans).
So for the conversations I will have with friends and family and those half crazy people on public transportation, can you explain job creation. Cut through the partisan rhetoric and lies created by political spin. I'm sure one of us here is an analyst or something.
Dear ExplainLikeI'mFive: How are jobs *really* created?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yoz86/eli5_job_creation_and_the_myths_behind_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5xjead",
"c5xkpzr",
"c5xkzl0"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"I need something done, I don't have the time or skill, I hire someone. \n\nIf there are a lot of people for this task and I don't need it that much, I am not willing to pay much. If there are not many people who can do it, or I seriously need it, I am willing to pay more, standard supply-demand. Ofc, by paying I don't mean just money.\n\nFor many reasons, employment rate became a mantra for governments worldwide (because employed people more-less forcibly fund the state and the unemployed mostly take *public* funding through various supports).\n\nMost people claim nice government men have the power to make people employed by some magic wands. For example:\n\n- lowering the cost of an employee (this is usually around 50% of his salary in Europe), thus enabling entreprisers to hire more people. This might be labeled a right-wing approach (definitions vary, don't get excited)\n\n- penalizing employers for sacking employees by forcing them to pay severance or imposing administrative or legal obstacles. Or by helping to pay for a position otherwise non profitable. This might be labeled left-wing approach.\n\n- government spending everywhere. Creating contracts, waging wars, providing dotations and subsidies to various groups, or even blatantly giving money away. This allows the recipients to spend those money on more stuff someone makes so theoretically - more jobs. This might be called Keynesian economics.\n\nOf course, all these tools are highly debatable and can cause a lot of damage if carried out wrong (and objectively, they usually are).\n\nDisclaimer: There are more, and different opinions, this is not an all-covering essay, just a discussion entry.",
"In order to create jobs, a business needs:\n\n1. A Surplus of Customers. Without excess customers, businesses have no reason to hire.\n2. Potential employees. Without potential employees, there's nobody good to hire.\n3. Investment money. If you can't build facilities for employees, you can't hire.\n\nSo first observation: those are three *different* reasons that unemployment can happen. When people talk about how to fix unemployment, the first thing they really ought to do is sort out is which one's the problem.\n\nHow do you diagnose? Well, take for instance the collapse of 2007/2008 and the long economic malaise that has followed. Which is more likely, #1, #2, or #3?\n\nWell, we can obviously rule out #2, a shortage of skilled employees: did a whole bunch of people who had jobs and were doing great suddenly lose all their skills at the exact same moment the banking system collapsed? Of course not, that's silly.\n\nWhat about #3, a shortage of investment money? You can measure the availability of investment money using interest rates: high interest rates means there's no investment money, low interest rates means there's tons. During the collapse, interest rates were high. But now they're historically low. I actually think a shortage of investment money helped *trigger* this mess, but it's not the problem any more.\n\nThat leaves #1, a shortage of customers. It's a little harder to measure, but there have been surveys of businesses, and yes, they're all complaining about a shortage of customers. That's the problem right now. It's a big problem.\n\nSo once you've figured out which one of #1, #2, and #3 is the problem, the next step is to figure out how to create jobs - and if you're smart, \"creating jobs\" means *fixing the problem that's preventing jobs from getting created.*\n\nA lot of the time, when politicians talk about creating jobs, they *are* thinking about it as if it were a magic wand. They're not very sophisticated. But it doesn't have to be that way - if a politician understands which one of #1, #2, or #3 is the problem, then they can take specific steps to address that problem.\n\nSo how do you fix a shortage of customers? Well, the next step is to figure out *why* people aren't buying stuff. It's pretty simple, in this case: it's because they have no spending money.\n\nWhy do they have no spending money? Well, main reason: too many of them are unemployed!\n\nSo that sounds interesting, doesn't it. Unemployment because of lack of customers. Lack of customers because of unemployment. That's a classic vicious cycle. The solution for a problem like that is to come up with any means, by hook or by crook, of breaking the cycle. How to do that is left as an exercise for the reader. :)\n\n\n\n",
"It's essentially basic supply and demand. You need to have somebody who wants something done, and somebody else who is willing to do it. They also need to value that service at around the same level so that they can come to an agreement. By and large, this process can continue relatively unimpeded as long as there is a large enough demand for labour (people wanting things done) and large enough supply of labour (people who are willing to work). \n \nBut in practice, we live in a world where most people who want things done or made, and most people who are willing to do or make those things, have already come to that agreement. In the UK, for example, the percentage of people aged 16-64 who have a job remained steady at [around 70%](_URL_0_), during the recession. I can't find a relevant statistic, but I believe that the 'normal' employment rate is around 75% here. Note that the *un*employment rate is not simply 100% minus the employment rate - when you factor in people who are chronically ill, disabled, stay-at-home parents, full time students, and all other legitimate reasons for not being in employment, it becomes clear why you'll never reach 100% employment, even without considering complex economic arguments. \n \nThere are always people who want to work, but who aren't being hired, and businesses that have vacancies but who can't find anybody appropriate to fill them. These people are said to operate at the margin. They're the groups for whom changes in government policy can make a real difference. This is why policy comes under such scrutiny (well, that and the fact that tiny variations in every statistic are blown way out of proportion by the media and by political parties who want to gain/maintain power). While it can be taken as true that job creation laregely comes from the private sector, governments can employ people directly and grant government contracts (around 20% of people are employed by the government in the UK), and policy decisions can alter the incentives for potential private employers and employees, and can affect skills training. Thus, policy can also affect the employment rate. \n \nSo ultimately, the debate is really about which combination of government policies encourage the best overall employment outcomes. Does being skimpy on benefits encourage people to take jobs out of fear of starvation? Does tax-funded adult education help to fill a skills gap? Does 'quantitative easing' help ordinary families? Should the government raise taxes to ensure that domestic firms get big contracts? And even if these things work to a certain extent, what are the drawbacks?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/february-2012/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Employment"
]
] |
|
2vur1y
|
why is it not considered animal cruelty to kill insects?
|
I understand that insects arent looked as 'higher' creatures but we seem to be able to end their life without feeling any remorse wheras with other animals we do.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vur1y/eli5_why_is_it_not_considered_animal_cruelty_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"col3jm5",
"col3kgt",
"col3sl9"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Well actually it's not animal cruelty to kill any animal. Animal cruelty comes in with torture and such. The remorse comes with animals that are close to being extinct. Example; kill a cow and make steaks that's ok, cut off the cow's leg and leave it alive is cruel.",
"In some cultures and religions, such as Buddhism, you are not allowed to kill insects, along with anything else. However, I'd say the reason why western cultures feel *less* remorse killing insects is because they do not generally show compassion. An ant will never wave its tail when you get home as animals would. Although, there is some evidence that [they are much smarter than we think they are.](_URL_0_)",
"Because there's no way to raise money from people killing insects, because they aren't cute and most people don't have them as pets. No money = no problem."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1228661/Insects-consciousness-able-count-claim-experts.html"
],
[]
] |
|
553ti0
|
are all infinities created equal (real numbers in a range)?
|
For example:
If I were to try and count of all of the real numbers between 0 and 1, there would be an infinite amount.
Also, if I were to try and count of all of the real numbers between 1 and 5, there would also be an infinite amount.
Are these infinities equal? Surely there are more numbers in the latter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/553ti0/eli5_are_all_infinities_created_equal_real/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d89oqie",
"d87b82v",
"d87glaj"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Measure Theory is a field pioneered by a French mathematician named Lebesgue who felt dissatisfied with the answer he received to essentially the question you're asking. Without measure theory the discussion ends with a cardinality argument. Both sets have uncountably many elements with the same cardinality, so the infinities are the \"same\". Lebesgue sought to do better. He defined a thing called a measure. A measure is a way of assigning a notion of \"volume\" to things like functions and sets. With this new tool there is now a distinction between the sets [0,1] and [1,5] in that their Lebesgue measure is different. (measure 1 vs measure 4) This new tool stores information that addresses your statement: \"Surely there are more numbers in the latter?\". ",
"Yes, those infinities are equal. You can create a one-to-one correspondence (i.e you can pair each element of the two sets) between the two infinite sets. \n\nAs someone else mentioned, when discussing the cardinality of sets you really gotta look at Cantor's work. _URL_0_ is relevant here.",
"The concept of multiple Infinities of multiple sizes is only possible when consider Infinity in a specific way. if you are talking about the conceptual infinity then no there is nothing bigger because conceptually it is literally **endless**. However if you decide to count infinity as the very last number or a number so huge so incredibly big that we could not and never reach it then there is some things we can do. There is also the concept of Aleph (א) which is like counting with constraints. the main constraint is that we will count not by size but by progression and # of numbers. \nfirst#=1 second#=2 third#=3\nIt may seem very abstract but with this we can do your all real numbers between 0 and 1 and even if we cant see the end of that infinity we assume it has to end and the next number after infinities end we call Aleph Null (simply the number that continues the pattern) Symbol א(0). and then the next would be א(1) and so on. Now when we count the size of this infinity literally has increased by א(0) and א(1). this obviously mean we can do this to infinity so א(∞) and so on and so on getting \"infinitely\" larger number until you get something like א(א(א(א..))). The channel Vsauce on YouTube has some basic videos that explains the theories well enough in case this was confusing. \n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88"
]
] |
|
1tm8iq
|
if the odds of winning a $600 million mega jackpot are say 200 million to 1, why wouldn't a billionaire buy 200 million tickets, win the jackpot and profit $400 million?
|
EDIT: I know about taxes, I know it's not practical, I know the odds, I know billionaires can spend their money better elsewhere, I know others can win, I just wanted to hear a clear cut answer!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tm8iq/eli5_if_the_odds_of_winning_a_600_million_mega/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce9bmep",
"ce9bnit",
"ce9bo4a",
"ce9bttx",
"ce9jc9j",
"ce9kabz",
"ce9lszl",
"ce9lwvb",
"ce9nlm8",
"ce9nln0",
"ce9pmsc",
"ce9pxht"
],
"score": [
8,
288,
4,
42,
2,
2,
12,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They would have to fill out 200,000,000 cards with every possible combination, can't do quick picks for those. ",
"200 million to one is the odds of getting the right ticket. However the right ticket can be purchased several times. As such you could wind up spending 200 million and only getting 50 million (taxes suck). Further, they take more taxes if you choose the lump sum payment vs. the 20 year payouts.\n\nTo put it in perspective, the recent 658 million jackpot was won by two people both of whom took the lump sum payout. After taxes they each get 158 million. Still a lot of money, but not if you paid 200 million for the ticket.\n\nThere are better things to invest your money in if you are a billionaire.",
"This only works if they are guaranteed the full prize. If the jackpot happens to be won by 3 or more people, then the prize money would be less than what was spent by the billionaire on tickets. Also, you have to consider the time that must be spent getting the tickets, as well as the logistics of transferring $200 million dollars to your local lottery retailer for the initial cost.",
"[Groups](_URL_0_) have attempted this on a few instances in the past. The problem is more a matter of logistics-- the corner grocer does not have 200 million forms. The ticket printer doesn't have 200 million prints worth of paper. It requires quite a serious collective group effort just fill out all the combinations even if you did have easy access to the supplies without traveling all over the state. \n\nEven if it took you no more than one second each to process and print a lottery ticket you'd need 200MM seconds or 2314 *days* for a single printer just to complete all the entries. ",
"One: buying that many unique numbers if logistically prohibitive.\n\nTwo: The odds are not as clean when you consider you will win but may split the jackpot with another winner.",
"Because of taxes, and even after that he still has a chance to lose..\n",
"IIRC some millionaires actually did this once in the 90's. They each put in a certain amount when the jackpot was really high and bought EVERY POSSIBLE COMBINATION and then split the winnings for a profit.\n\n[There was a TIL about it, apparently](_URL_0_)",
"Let me explain probability so you get a better idea of how it works.\nSo let's say that every month I have a 1/2 chance of getting a puppy. Simple. So what is the chance that I get a puppy after two months? Well, the only way for you to not get a puppy in 2 months is obviously to not get a puppy in both months. The chance of that happening is a 1/4 chance. So we can conclude that the probability that in those two months you got at least one puppy is 3/4. You can do the same for 1/2*10^8, or 200 million. In this case, the probability of winning the lottery would be 1-((2*10^8)-1))^2*10^8/(2*10^8)^8. Which, according to google calculator, is -1.5625e-42, which doesn't help much. the point is, it would not be certain. It is similar to how looking at how something happened and determining the probabilities is the past is not the same as looking in the future and seeing the probability that something will happen given a method. Bayes theorem tells us this. ",
"Do you know how long it would take to purchase 200 million tickets?",
"Was done in Virginia once, iirc. Corporation pre-printed an entire set of tickets and paid a chain to process them non-stop the last night before the lottery.\n\nfound a link\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"There was a group in Australia (if I remember correctly) that did just that. Hundreds of people involved, each with a specific range of numbers they were responsible for. I think it was eventually outlawed. Saw a short documentary on it years ago. ",
"I actually saw this on reddit a few days ago, so I can't take credit, but a group of people actually did this:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThey ended up not having time to purchase all of the combinations, but they did manage to win."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/25/us/group-invests-5-million-to-hedge-bets-in-lottery.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/17d7rv/til_in_1992_polishirish_businessman_stefan/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/25/us/group-invests-5-million-to-hedge-bets-in-lottery.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm"
],
[],
[
"http://articles.wdbj7.com/2012-03-30/virginia-lottery_31263333"
]
] |
|
1qycq5
|
does anything actually stop a foreign army from invading a 'neutral' country?
|
I'm not sure if ELI5 is the correct subreddit for this, but I figured I'd give it a shot.
I don't even really know how to ask this without answering my own question. What actually stops a foreign country from invading and taking over a Neutral country? I've been doing a little research on what makes a country, such as Sweden, neutral during a conflict and came across this:
> As long as the country is officially recognized as neutral, no country can legally form plans to invade it or use it as a base of operations.
Here's what I would be thinking if I was the General of whatever army and wanted to go in and take the Swedes' stuff: Who cares? "Legally" we can't invade, but what's going to happen? The U.N. is going to sanction me?
For example, in WWII Germany invaded Denmark and Norway (both Neutral), so the Allies decided to invade and occupy Iceland (also Neutral) to better defend the Atlantic against the Nazis. From what I've come across, there were no repercussions for either side. The Allies did pay for anything they "broke" in Iceland, but that's far from any real consequence. If Germany had been successful on the Eastern Front and beaten Russia and Finland, they likely would have gone after Sweden (another Neutral country). Switzerland most likely only avoided invasion by the Nazis in WWII because the Swiss bankers would willingly help Nazi officers hide and store money in their country.
Hopefully someone can enlighten me because I don't see any real reason to leave a Neutral country alone during the next world war.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qycq5/eli5_does_anything_actually_stop_a_foreign_army/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdhqxtr",
"cdhqxym",
"cdhs6sa",
"cdhtgct",
"cdhvc85",
"cdhxarg",
"cdhyzv0"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
12,
2,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The same reason you already said: money.\n\nIf any developed country gets invaded, other countries have everything to lose. Also, politics don't work that way in developed countries. Allies, treaties, UN. The UN might not do much, but the countries in the UN will have something to say about it. \n\nSo, you can invade, but when you try and get carpet bombed repeatedly, over and over by every other country, your country will be in a lot worse position than originally. Not quite worth it.",
"Many neutral countries will resist militarily any incursion into their territory. Additionally invading a neutral nation may incur broad international repercussions such as damaged relations with third party states, increased or new sanctions, and a widening of the conflict against ones own interests. ",
"Yeah, the neutral country's military. Neutral doesn't mean they lack a military. Many a neutral country has enforced their neutrality by showing that they would be difficult to attack, such as Switzerland. However, a lot of neutral countries aren't geared up for war as much as those already at war and so can be a bit of a pushover. ",
"I don't even really know how to ask this without answering my own question. What actually stops a foreign country from invading and taking over a Neutral country?\n\nIn today's world invading a country (Assuming your aren't the US) would do more harm then good. There's very little to gain from invading nowadays. Being neutral doesn't mean that you don't have a military. Neutrality means you don't take sides in a conflict\n\nThe U.N. is going to sanction me? \n\nSanctions hurt countries more then you think. Unless you want to be like North Korea you need to play ball with the international community to some extent. \n\nHopefully someone can enlighten me because I don't see any real reason to leave a Neutral country alone during the next world war.\n\n\nEven the most powerful military has some limitations. You can't be everywhere at once. You have to put your forces in the best positions as possible. \n\nRemember the Gulf war and how that turned out for Iraq? The international community responded with force. ",
"Apart from the diplomatic repercussions as already mentioned by megaman, a government also has to answer to its own electorate. A government that callously initiates war with other neutral countries without substantial justifications can undermine its own position in the next elections.",
"In the case of the Swiss, there is a reason no one messes with them...\n\n_URL_0_",
"Ireland is a neutral country for example, but it maintains a navy/army/airforce. And just because it's neutral doesn't mean they sit around eating chips all day. The Irish Army Rangers are among the best equipped and trained in the world and Irish troops have seen action while peacekeeping for the UN in a dozen countries. \n\nThis isn't to say that it could stand up to an invading superpower, however the Irish citizen population did manage to repel the occupying force of one of the greatest empire's in history, presumably the same would happen again. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://unnamedharald.hubpages.com/hub/Fortress-Switzerland"
],
[]
] |
|
3qu2t1
|
why do mobile networks in us restrict data usage so much?
|
In the UK, you can get unlimited data on 4g, minutes and texts from around £20/month. I have never been throttled or charged extra with my usage around 7-10gb per month.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qu2t1/eli5_why_do_mobile_networks_in_us_restrict_data/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwib2r2",
"cwicbku",
"cwigg3g",
"cwihzyy",
"cwiive2",
"cwijii1",
"cwiolpn",
"cwiru46"
],
"score": [
69,
9,
5,
3,
3,
8,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"They're a business that wants to make as much money as possible, and they are allowed to operate with a business model that makes more money when you exceed your bandwidth. The UK market either won't tolerate this because unlimited data is the standard, or the government is somehow regulating the industry to avoid caps.\n\nIt'll continue until someone comes out with uncapped regional offerings that are so much more price competitive that they really start eroding the current companies' market share , or when the US communications groups start regulating the industry to stop it.",
"One factor you have to remember is the US 40x the size of the UK, with only 5x the population. Meaning (if population was evenly distributed), our costs would be 8x as much. But since population isn't distributed evenly, you get a few towers in a rural area and hundreds in a metro. London is the most populated city in the UK, with a population of 8,600,000 and a density of 14,070/mi^2 (5,432/km^2 ), the other UK cities pail in comparison. NYC has a density 27,857.9/mi^2 (10,756.0/km^2 ) and L.A. is 8,282/mi^2 (3,198/km^2 ). Those aren't even the most dense cities in the US, but I used them due to their population, Guttenberg, NJ (NYC metro)only has a population of ~11,500 but a density of 59,000/mi^2 (22,780/km^ 2), Union City, NJ (NYC metro) has a population of 66,500 and a density of 53,000/mi ^2 (20,500/km^2 ). \n \nBut, the major answer is money, I'd say the current plans could be cut by 25% to reflect better pricing, T-mobile offers truly unlimited 4G LTE data, talk, and text for $80/mo. If you have a family plan, it's $60/mo for the second line and $40/mo for any extra line.",
"On Verizon's new plans, you can get 20GB for $120/month, 30GB for $225/month, or 40GB for $300/month.\n\nThis strikes me as odd, because the per GB price of data gets more expensive if you choose a larger data plan. Usually I'd expect the opposite - buy in bulk, get a better price.",
"They bleed you for what's popular at the moment, since the 90s.\n\nFirst it was where you used your phone--if you weren't connected to their network you get charged a roaming charge (or something similar to that) within the United States. \n\nThey moved on and then it was the amount of minutes you used, you had to pay for tiers (100 minutes for $30, 200 for $35, 300 for $40..). And incoming calls used your minutes--unlike in europe.\n\nCell phones moved into the direction of texting so they did away with unlimited text messaging and gave tiers, 5,000 texts for $10, 10,000 for $15..With unlimited data\n\nThe iPhone came out and AT & T lost its shit, people were using unlimited data for $30. They no longer offer unlimited data however if you had it since 2007 or so and never canceled your service or took a subsidized cost phone from them you got to keep it. They however throttle your network speed if you go above 5gb or so..",
"Because they found they can make much more money if they limit that you can go over on. Someone like me who at times can use 75-100 gigs a month (Unlimited Data with Verizon that they keep trying to take away) would turn in to a huge money maker. ",
"I'll speak to a different point. Spectrum availability and technology in the wireless world has its limits. As said in a different comment, the terrain of North America requires a large amount of cell towers and points of presence to cover the largely spaced out population. This mandates a significant investment in capital, and as the user population becomes more and more data hungry, densification of cell sites becomes the most viable solution (as spectrum is being used up rapidly). As customers use more and more data, the more \"clogged up\" the pipe will get, limiting the quality of service a user will get. By introducing a pricing model that is usage based with caps, it allows operators to control the rapid growth of the data usage boom, and manage capacity more effectively than throttling speeds. \n\nIn Canada, the operators are providing a user experience that far surpasses a lot of other countries in terms of speed, reliability, and accessibility/coverage. As such, it costs a little more to access these networks, and restrictions are put in place to manage network capacity.\n\nBut yea, in the end, it's all about money.",
"Sure there's a profit motive behind pretty much all pricing models for cellular networks, but I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention Spectrum Crunch. Basically, there's a finite amount of air space for wireless cellular and data waves to travel through. Wireless data usage of all types (not just cellular) has risen extremely sharply in the US over the past decade. As the signal bandwidth (air space) continues to fill up over the next decade or so, we will eventually run out and wireless costs will sky rocket even more. \n\nI'm not sure how it is in the UK, but the US has a large portion of the spectrum bandwidth tied up for use by the FCC and public broadcasting. This is space that could be used for cellular networks, but is kept regulated under federal law. \n\nIt's an interesting technical area. Take a look at Extra Credits [Spectrum Crunch](_URL_0_) episode for a decent and easy to understand explanation. ",
"It costs a lot of money to deploy a nationwide data network. Sometimes upgrading existing infrastructure is actually more expensive than starting fresh. \n\nExisting telephone networks were designed to support voice calls. Back in the early days of digital switching you would have something like a T1, which is about a megabyte and a half a second in speed, and has 24 timeslots of 64k each. You would usually have 23 timeslots which could handle calls, each call using 64k of bandwidth, and 1 timeslot reserved for signalling (out of band signaling using SS7 protocol). Another common connection was V.35 which is what a lot of POTS (plain old telephone system) used for SS7 switching. SS7 is like IP but for telephones and instead of ip addresses it used point codes. \n\nSo a single T1 could handle 23 calls at once without compression. Now lets say that you start offering data services. You now have data users competing with telephony users and while 1 T1 can handle 23 calls with only 1.4mbps of bandwidth, a single phone watching netflix might use more than that. \n\n\nSo they had to start massively increasing their network backbone bandwidth and also investing in new switching and wireless equipment like UMTS, 3g, 4g, wimax, etc. That meant new radios, new switches, new base stations, new base station controllers, new network infrastructure, all of which are very costly. \n\nSo again, compare watching 1 netflix movie on your phone, to getting 20 or 30 voice calls and you begin to see why it's so much more expensive but it's not 20-30 times more expensive. \n\nThey aren't doing it just to milk their customers, they need to be competitive so they are offering the lowest price they can while covering their costs and keeping the investors happy. \n\nAnd that is just looking at the backbone side of it. Then you have the actual wireless network. Instead of T1's and OC3's you have wireless timeslots. Lets say you have a pico node that has just 3 radios covering 3 sectors. That's 3 different frequencies they need to own by purchasing rights from the FCC. If they want to add 9 more radios, 2 per sector for 12 total, that's 9 more frequencies they need to use. Now there is only so much wireless bandwidth available, and the companies that own the licenses for those frequencies paid millions of dollars for those rights and if they want to grow and use more frequencies they either have to buy more from others who already own them and don't want to give them up, or they can add more cell towers and radios but make each cell smaller so it covers a smaller area, allowing the cells nearby to re-use some of those frequencies and make the most efficient use of that bandwidth. Adding more cells means more equipment, building more towers, and all the dealing with cities and infrastructure that involves. \n\nIt's actually really complicated how they figure out what frequencies to use on which radios, in which sectors, on which towers and the people who work out the most optimum way to make use of the frequencies available to get the most out of it get paid big bucks. They have to look at every cell tower from every carrier, and every frequency in use, across entire territories, and make sure their frequencies don't interfere and arrange them in such a way that no two towers too close to each other re-use the same frequencies. \n\nSource: I was a GSM engineer for 10 years working for a major telecom manufacturer. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqmKg6QQTw"
],
[]
] |
|
1y6n5w
|
why are spiders so terrifying compared to similarly sized and similarly dangerous animals?
|
i mean is it the 8 legs or what?
EDIT: sorry did not do my research when posting and forgot the ELI5: part before the title. thanks for understanding
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y6n5w/why_are_spiders_so_terrifying_compared_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhtx66",
"cfhtzib",
"cfhuawy",
"cfhxh00",
"cfhxrw0",
"cfhyob9"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
62,
2,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Evolution. \nJust like heights, snakes, water, etc. Phobias are genetic. Your ancestors had the quirk that made you scared of them. Therefore when they saw a spider they stayed away and were less likely to get bit. Less likely to be bit means less likely to be poisoned which means more likely to reproduce. ",
"Because you've been conditioned to believe they are. I don't find spiders all that frightening because the only two in my part of the world that are dangerous are somewhat rare and easily recognizable. If I saw one of those I'd freak out. But the spiders I see on a daily basis cause me no more alarm than ants or flies. ",
"It's xenophobia, basically.\n\nMany animals are relatable. Look at a dog; it looks like a dog, but there are human qualities. They have two eyes with pupils, a nose, a stupid grin. They have fairly relatable displays of emotion like wagging in excitement, tucking their butt in when shamed, loud scary noises and growls for anger.\n\nWhen you get even less humanoid, like rats, you see more people get scared of them. However, some people think they're cute when they can see its stupid buckteeth and almost dorky curiousness. It's relatable.\n\nSpiders are weird. They're alien, almost mechanical. No mouths. Just sharp things and pointy things and teeth. Nothing about this creature is *supposed* to make me feel good. No way to tell what it's thinking. Sharp things are bad. It's just not relatable.",
"It's just propaganda, mixed with some level of instinctive aversion to all small crawly things. But I doubt that instinct distinguishes between spiders and similar insects. The creepiness of spiders in particular is a result of lots of people telling you they are scary your whole life.",
"I have a theory that this fear goes back to childhood when adults would wiggle their fingers approaching you while saying \"I'm gonna get you!\", etc. and proceed to tickle.",
"Spiders arent scary. Like a billion people arent scared of spiders. It's mostly redditors being totally out of touch with the natural world. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
57bntt
|
why was the king of thailand so revered by his people?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57bntt/eli5_why_was_the_king_of_thailand_so_revered_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8qm8nt"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The recently-deceased king of Thailand is generally well-loved by the population. There are many reasons for that, but generally speaking, it is a combination of his long and quite successful reign (the longest certified reign barring that of Louis XIV of France), as well as a very good public image due to his general lack of conspicuous consumption and extravaganza (at least as perceived by the public), as well as being rather diligent in his work. It is quite famous of him that he would be visiting other (usually the rural and poor) part of his country to see how his people lives, and there are records and news report of him personally helping the people. While one might claim it is all publicity stunt to keep his throne, all these actions nevertheless cultivated a genuine love and respect from the people.\n\nAnother factor is that Thai politics is far from being stable, as indicated by the semi-regular interval of military coups. In many cases, especially the more recent ones, the king is tend to empower the military to overthrown unpopular governments and have them reform the government in a more acceptable way. Despite having influence more than constitutional monarchy would usually have, the king generally only use said power when it is needed, further reinforcing his image of being a compassionate and just ruler that safeguard the people from the occasional corrupt officials."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dx5zcy
|
what does sieving flour do? why do some recipes require it to be done but others don't?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dx5zcy/eli5_what_does_sieving_flour_do_why_do_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7nilvf",
"f7niooy"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Sieving flour does two things.\n\nFirstly it removes any lumps any lumps that may have formed in the flour. This makes it easier to mix properly.\n\nMore importantly though it introduces air. Flour can become compacted when stored. Sieving aerates the mixture making it lighter. This can help particularly where you want the mix to rise when cooking, such as with a cake.",
"There are a couple of reasons for sifting flour.\n\nOne is that it gives you a more accurate measure if you are measuring by volume. Flour tends to compact and sifting it before measuring gives more accurate volumetric measurements.\n\nThe other is that it makes it easier to mix other ingredients into the flour so you have a more uniform distribution of ingredients."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
514ub6
|
in motorcycle races, riders often lean at an extreme angle into turns. what prevents everybody from crashing in such situations?
|
You would think that the bike would slide out or something like that.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/514ub6/eli5_in_motorcycle_races_riders_often_lean_at_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d799uxk",
"d799vui",
"d79ep65"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Something called \"angular momentum.\" Spinning objects want to continue spinning on the same axis they currently are. The faster the spin, the harder they push to stay stationary.\n\nThe wheels on a racing bike are spinning VERY quickly and very much want to stay upright. The biker has to lean to the side very, VERY hard to get the bike to lean at all. Look for videos of motorcycle race crashes, and in a few of them, you'll see the rider fall off the bike and the bike stabilize itself and continues rolling down the track.",
"The physics of riding motorcycles can get extremely extensive and very math-heavy. Too keep things LI5, what it boils down to is that the materials used in the tires, combined with the downward force of the motorcycle's acceleration (this is one reason why motorcycles will generally speed up through a curve), the change in the \"contact patch\" of the tire as it leans into the curve, the gyroscopic action of the wheels spinning trying to force the bike back upright (not exactly, but good enough for LI5), the composition of the road surface, and many other factors, act to prevent the tires from slipping in a properly executed cornering maneuver.\n\nIf a motorcycle *decelerates* through a corner, it actually will have a greater risk of skidding, as it can cause the tires to lose their grip.\n\nIt requires a lot of skill and practice to be able to ride motorcycles at those speeds you see in races- also, most motorcycle enthusiasts would strongly recommend those types of maneuvers never be attempted outside a track environment, because the additional factors that being on a regular road adds makes it extremely hazardous.\n",
" > In motorcycle races, riders often lean at an extreme angle .... \n\nActually, the angle is not that bad at all (personal experience, 20 years). \n\nThey hang from the bike and do everything they can to keep the bike as upright as possible to maintain best control possible. Yes, the bike is leaned but you also slide off the seat and place yourself between road and your bike. This helps you to shift the centre toward inside of the curb while using the fastest way through the curb (look up \"racing line\"). \n\nOn top of that, the area the tires in contact with the road is larger when leaning.\n\nEDIT: Try running in a circle when keeping yourself at 90 deg upright. You will lean or you either slow down or fall over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7yvuq2
|
why are award shows and big sports games such as the super bowl on sunday nights?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7yvuq2/eli5_why_are_award_shows_and_big_sports_games/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dujhfm0",
"dujm4lk"
],
"score": [
28,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the tv viewing audience is bigger on a Sunday night, because more people are at home in preparation for going to work the next day, whereas people go out and do stuff on Saturdays.",
"Not sure why Sunday specifically, but in the US, Sun-Thurs nights have bigger TV audiences than Fri-Sat nights, because people (especially young adults, which are a key demographic) are out doing stuff on Fri-Sat night. Networks know this and definitely aren't saving their A material for Friday and Saturday night. Usually you will see lower-caliber shows, or repeats on those nights.\n\nThere is a concept called the [Friday Night Death Slot](_URL_0_). If a show gets moved to Friday (or Saturday) night, that usually means it's in danger of getting cancelled.\n\nedit: As /u/amfa noted, this is potentially only an American phenomenon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_night_death_slot"
]
] |
||
1kdkal
|
why is ww2 the obvious choice against ww1 when making video games, movies and tv-series?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kdkal/eli5_why_is_ww2_the_obvious_choice_against_ww1/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbntzeo",
"cbnu2o2",
"cbnvlag"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"WW2 has a clearer Good vs Evil narrative to it. WW1 was a mess and was really a war about nothing and other than a lot of people dying not a lot came about - except setting up WW2.\n\nThe Nazis and Japan were clearly the aggressors in addition to all the other stuff they did as the war went on (Rape of Nanking, concentration camps) that secured the Good vs Evil narrative.",
"The fundamental reason is that Nazis, much more than the Kaiser, is in the cultural vocabulary of most people. The reason it is 'obvious' to pick Nazis is because as a creator of a work of art, you want the audience to immediately identify the bad guy as evil, so that they understand the context. If I show you a picture of Ottoman soldiers riding camels, you're not going to immediately associate that with good or bad. \n\nIf I show you a picture of Hitler standing on the skulls of innocent Jews, you get my message instantly. ",
"In terms of gameplay: \n\n* WW1 style of combat: Trench warfare. Pretty much you would play as a soldier who sat around in shit all day. If you weren't gassed to death or killed by massive enemy bombardments, you would be forced **to walk a few miles towards enemy machine guns**. It was brutal. More Americans died in ww2 than the British lost in **one single battle in WW1**. Imagine a game where all the battlefields looked the exact same and everyone had the basic 5 shot bolt-action rifle. All the machine guns were crew-served so multiple people would have to operate it which is impossible in video games. \n\n* WW2 style of warfare: Paratroopers, special operations, portable machine guns, advanced tactics, *tanks that actually worked* aka a lot more mobility in terms of gameplay. You can play as a Paratrooper, ranger landing on D-Day, tank, RMC in Norway, etc. All the maps can be different places with different terrains. You can **have different guns**! You have one-person machine guns, sub machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, pistols, etc. Game play is a lot better. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3gcd2n
|
what are the pros and cons of mp4, webm and html5 video formats? when to use one over the other?
|
As title. Does one format has a higher quality or compression that the other? What's speed/load difference? Which one would be easier to work with (editing)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gcd2n/eli5_what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_mp4_webm_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctwt2ss",
"ctwt3y8",
"ctwyj32",
"ctx4eot",
"ctx4xhs",
"ctxx026"
],
"score": [
7,
393,
12,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"HTML5 isn't a video format, it's the recent revision of the HTML standard which allows embedding videos into a webpage (without installing any plugins). It supports video formats such as mp4 and webm.\n\nmp4 and webm are otherwise pretty comparable. Webm uses open source licensing while mp4 uses proprietary software, however mp4 is more widely supported. Webm was created for internet streaming (for example, less buffering it required) while mp4 has better video compression.",
"None of them are video formats.\n\nMP4 and WebM aren't video formats, they're \"container\" formats. A container is just like a box you toss multiple kinds of data into to keep them all in one place -- kind of like a zip or rar file. When you have a video file, you usually have the video stream, audio stream, chapter index, subtitles, maybe menus, maybe *multiple* video/audio/subtitles. They're all in different formats -- the subtitles can be plaintext or transparencies, the video might be MPEG-2 or AVC, the audio might be MP3 or AC3. To wrap them up together in one file, synchronise timing between them, properly interleave the audio and video so the file is accessed linearly, etc you put them inside a container -- and that container is MP4, or MKV, or AVI, or MOV. But the container tells you nothing about what type, format, or quality of video data is inside. You can take the streams out of an AVI container and put them in a WebM one in under a second without touching the actual video data.\n\nHTML5 isn't a video format either. HTML is a markup language used to write webpages; in HTML version 5, they added support for ` < video > ` tags. HTML5 video is just video linked in these tags and rendered directly by the browser, as opposed to the older system of using Flash applets to display video. HTML5 says absolutely nothing about the video or container formats used.\n\nExamples of video formats: MPEG-2 Part 2 (used on DVD and TV), MPEG-4 Part 10 (used on Blu-ray, YouTube, and some TV channels), MPEG-H Part 2 (the new format starting to appear everywhere, used for 4K and 8K TV), Theora, VP8, and VP9 (used by Imgur, Gfycat, etc), DNXHD (used for editing).\n\nExamples of container formats: AVI, MKV, MP4, MOV, WebM.\n\nThere are a few reasons for varying video formats: some get higher quality at given bitrates (a 10Mb/s HEVC video is a lot better than a 10 Mb/s MPEG-2 Part 2 video), some are better-suited for editing (ProRes and DNxHD store complete frames, most other formats do not), some have widely-available hardware decoders (your phone probably has an H264 decoder in it but not an H265 decoder, so the former will be a lot smoother and lighter on your battery even though the latter is a better format), etc. But the container is mostly irrelevant, you can't make any decision based on container.",
"A little add-on in addition to what everyone else has posted, Apple's QuickTime player codec doesn't support webm. So Apple/iphone users can't view webm videos natively on their device. They need mp4 to fall back to when available.\n\nThat's why most sites offer their media in both webm and mp4.",
"**tl;dr** unless you have a particular use case that requires WebM video, you should use MP4 containers with h.264 video and AAC audio, because that's supported by pretty much everything.\n\nBoth MP4 and WebM are video _container_ formats; both these formats can be used with the HTML5 \"video\" tag to display video without requiring a plugin like Flash. (So HTML5 Video is not a video format, it's an umbrella term that covers web pages serving video without using proprietary plugins).\n\nThe container formats support different _codecs_, or ways of encoding video and audio. These codecs are patented, so people that make software that use them have to comply with a license. The WebM container's supported codecs are cost-free to use, while the various codecs supported by MP4 are not always cost-free. But that doesn't matter unless you're making _software_ or _hardware_ that uses them.\n\nThe main thing to drive your decision should be support: the MP4 container and its common codecs (h.264 for video and AAC or MP3 for audio) are supported by many things, and will play on iOS and most Android devices as well as [recent versions of all major browsers](_URL_0_). The WebM container and its common codecs (VP8/9 for video and Opus for audio) are less broadly-supported. ",
"**tl;dr**: Apple is doing their \"special snowflake\" dance in HTML5 video and refuses to implement WebM, that's why MP4 gets included.\n\nOk, MP4 and WebM are the two (sort of competing) formats for HTML5 video. That means that you can just put a video on your website in one of those formats, and it will play for users without having to use flash or silverlight. In addition, web developers get a bunch of tools to pause, encrypt, transform, etc. these videos on their websites because they are HTML5 video formats.\n\nIn general, they work about the same. About the same speed to load, about the same size, quality, etc. But one costs money to implement: MP4. Or to be more specific: the MPEG4 container with h264 format video with MP3 or AAC format audio. Tools are a bit better for editing MP4, but really you're just exporting to the web format. WebM was made intentionally to be as free from cost to implement as possible, so it could be implemented by all the browser vendors.\n\nWell, you forgot about the current brat in the browser developer club: Apple. While IE6 was bad, Microsoft has gotten their A-team back together and are putting out good browsers again, Chrome's doing their thing, Firefox is generally working well. But, while that's been happening, another company has taken their place at the bottom of the not-having-their-things-together club: Apple. Apple refuses to implement WebM, and is slow or just straight out not implementing other web standards as well. Note that Microsoft is getting away with not supporting WebM by using the excuse that Apple doesn't support it.\n\nSo you can't just use WebM to deliver HTML5 video because Apple won't do it. So for a video to play across all browsers, you want two videos, one in WebM and one in MP4. ",
"When dealing with compressions, some codecs like h264 performs much better in higher resolutions. I've seen some codecs that seems to very very compact, but lacked fast playback. MPEG4 has better compression for lower resolutions (I think).\n\nThe easiest to edit? Depends on your software, and depends what you mean by editing, but editing is better done with uncompressed video files.\n\nSome software like avidemux can edit compressed video files, since they can select keyframes and remove specific segments without screwing up the compression.\n\nAs to codecs support, it's a tricky issue because since html5 is a standard, hardware support of those codecs (through dedicated chips and graphics implementations) is not, since smartphones have much more constrained chips and it also pass through different web browsers. So you have different types of codecs, for very different purposes, would it be for video streaming and playback abilities. I've not researched all of this, but it's much better than 5 or 10 years ago, when flash was still the norm. So very rarely one video won't play because a website only provides a codec which is not supported on your smartphone on one browser, but I guess it almost never happens."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://caniuse.com/#feat=mpeg4"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
42dxrc
|
how did egypt and mexico both develop pyramids while being across the world and having no communication with each other?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42dxrc/eli5_how_did_egypt_and_mexico_both_develop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz9keft",
"cz9kfiw",
"cz9lels",
"cz9ln7d",
"cza46yu",
"czaat5g"
],
"score": [
41,
15,
4,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A pyramid is a pretty simple structure that allows 'bigness' with stability. You're basically making a big pile of stuff. \n\nIt's more or less the most basic 'big thing' you can make. ",
"A pyramid is a relatively strong and stable shape. As a culture becomes more developed and starts building bigger and bigger buildings, the pyramid is a somewhat obvious shape to work with. \n\nLook at the Burj Khalifa. Currently the world's tallest building. It is arguably the modern evolution of a pyramid. \n\n",
"Build three squarish platforms of rock, about 30 meters to a side, 4 meters tall.\n\n* On top of the first platform, build a smaller platform of rock.\n* On top of the second platform, build a platform of rock that's exactly the same size.\n* On top of the third platform, build a platform that is larger than the bottom platform, so that it overhangs.\n\nNow step back, and wait 10-100 years. Which platform holds up the best?\n",
"The mayan built their pyramids from 1000 BCE until the Spainish came. The Egyptians built their pyramids from 2700 to 1700 BCE. So it's not like they built the pyramids at the same time. Also the Inca and other South America people built pyramids as well. ",
"Never ceases to amaze how many people believe that disparate cultures can develop stairs/steps independently - yet somehow there needs to be an explanation for building 4 sets of stairs pointing at each other.\n\nOooooh, mysterious.",
"Why did every culture on earth develop bow and arrow independently of each other. It's a shape that makes sense for the purpose desired. In the case of pyramids, its the most structurally sound shape they could have chosen with the materials of the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.