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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4ldxf7
|
if a chameleon changed to a color outside the visible light spectrum, what would we see?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ldxf7/eli5_if_a_chameleon_changed_to_a_color_outside/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3mjv0j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It would become transparent like a jellyfish or similar creature it wouldn't vanish completely as the uneven surface would give away its location. Glass windows are not transparent to all light, they reflect ultra violet light so if you could see ultraviolet glass windows would look ultra violet in colour (however you might perceive that extreme blue) For more on this - _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/sBUmjEAhN3o"
]
] |
||
biyimq
|
what’s the difference between binomial, poisson, and gaussian distributions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/biyimq/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_binomial/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em45667"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A binomial distribution tells the probability of getting a certain amount of ‘successes’ in a set number of independent events. Say you flip a coin 10 times and you define getting a head as a success, giving a coin is a 50/50, you would expect 5 successes, so 5 would be the mean of you distribution with either side trailing of in your typical bell curve.\n\nA Poisson distribution tells the probability of a certain number of events happening within a time period (day, year, second). For example, the expected number of shark attacks per year. The average is 16 attacks per year. As we move right along the graph, it gets, the larger number of attacks gets less and less likely to occur (goes to infinity) This curve is right skewed (longer right tail).\n\nThe Gaussian distribution (or normal distribution) is used for statistical testing (z test) is which allows you to calculate the likelihood that two means are different by chance. We can’t prove a positive, so instead of proving they are different, we prove they are not the same (with some chance for error). Statistical testing is a whole, deeper topic that I’m going to get into."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3r60i1
|
what happens in a brain of a hypnotized person?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3r60i1/eli5_what_happens_in_a_brain_of_a_hypnotized/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwl9mal",
"cwlues8",
"cwmdx63"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Is hypnotizing people truly a thing? ",
"There is circus hypnosis (mass hypnosis on TV etc..), which I don't know about and there's therapeutic hypnosis. I successfully quit smoking because of it and I'll tell you my experience.\n\nIt starts with a lot of breathing and exercises of relaxation. The therapist guides you through \"levels\" of relaxation. It's..hard work. You are focusing all of your mind and attention to forget about your body. Little by little, the awareness of your body fades therefore \"giving more room for your mind\". Contrary to the common perception people have of hypnosis, you're not \"under\", or \"down\", you're \"up\". Your mind/brain is in a state of 'advanced perception\". In that state you can really focus, 'set your mind\" on something. My session was about \"not feeling my horrible withdrawal symptoms anymore\". It worked. I still can't believe it.\n\nYour brain under hypnosis emits theta waves which occur most often in sleep but also during meditation. In this state it is more open to suggestions, more able to \"reset\", \"rewire\" itself. \n\nI really have the feeling this is what happened: I rewired my brain to cut down the withdrawal effects of nicotine addiction.\n\nI highly recommend hypnosis. Just for the absolutely god-like feeling of relaxation one can reach through it.",
"Studies have shown EEGs of hypnotized people drop into an [alpha wave](_URL_0_) pattern, the same pattern seen by meditating zen buddhists or by the first, \"laying in bed with my eyes closed relaxing,\" stage of sleep. More importantly, this is the wave form of people doing well-rehearsed tasks on \"autopilot.\" "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_wave"
]
] |
||
55ebjv
|
what is happening to our bodies when we watch something cringe worthy and we physically have to turn away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55ebjv/eli5_what_is_happening_to_our_bodies_when_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d89ynvm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It has to do with mirror neurons that fire when we observe others doing something cringeworthy. It sends out a nervous impulse in a similar way as though we were experiencing it. This activity has been linked with the premotor cortex, inferior parietal cortex and other areas of the brain. Mirror neurons play a role in empathy, understanding the actions of others, learning etc. Other primates have this capacity as well and it helps them with \"theory of mind\" or the ability to understand what someone else is thinking or how they are feeling. They also help humans pick up gestural and vocal language faster. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
jlvdf
|
cultural hegemony
|
In reference to this quote from *Antonio Gramsci - Cultural Hegemony*. "Cultural hegemony in the Gramscian sense is slowly being achieved, and if we don't stem the tide very soon, it will be too late". Apparently this is what is happening in America today and this Author believes it's bad.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jlvdf/elif_cultural_hegemony/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2d6d1i",
"c2d6d1i"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Hegemony means everything controlled by the same group. Cultural Hegemony means a culture that doesn't have room for different ideas or opinions or aesthetics outside of what the dominant group dictates. Gramsci and other people of his era like Adorno, thought that because of capitalist mass-marketing of \"popular culture\" in America, other forms of art and culture would be crowded out, and only the marketers would get to decide what people should watch, listen to, etc.",
"Hegemony means everything controlled by the same group. Cultural Hegemony means a culture that doesn't have room for different ideas or opinions or aesthetics outside of what the dominant group dictates. Gramsci and other people of his era like Adorno, thought that because of capitalist mass-marketing of \"popular culture\" in America, other forms of art and culture would be crowded out, and only the marketers would get to decide what people should watch, listen to, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
144o3f
|
why is israel so closely tied with america when great england was the guy who gave them the land?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/144o3f/eli5_why_is_israel_so_closely_tied_with_america/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c79twqx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"England is a country on an island called Great Britain that is part of a Union government under the sovereignty of the House of Windsor. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country that occupies the northern part of the island of Ireland, and the entirety of Great Britain (along with some other dependencies). \n\nThe reason that Israel is more closely tied with America is because Israel and Israeli interest groups in the US have invested more of their resources in turning public opinion in the US. The US is the most powerful nation in the world; and while the UK is probably the second most powerful militarily (or tied for second with China), it is a distant second. It makes sense to become strongly aligned with the 'biggest dog' on the block, and in terms of 'fight' the US outsizes the UK by several times. This relative difference in size extends to economic and cultural areas as well. \n\nIn addition, the US has a romanticized view of its own role in the Second World War that includes playing the role of saviour to Jews left alive at the end of the Holocaust. \n\nFinally, America has a large Jewish population that has largely integrated and become a central part of its culture. Jews have become prominent in entertainment, business, culture, etc. This internal familiarity with Jews breeds a strong affinity for Israel, which Israel has been able to leverage to create a strong political connection between the countries. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9njsf1
|
why is there still a mirror in a dslr (digital single lens reflex) camera?
|
I fully understand, why you'd need a mirror in the analog world. But why are there DSLR cameras having a mirror, too? Is there some advantage to it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9njsf1/eli5_why_is_there_still_a_mirror_in_a_dslr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7mrmz6",
"e7mtqj2",
"e7mvvig",
"e7mw1ij",
"e7n1ia8",
"e7nbywu",
"e7ns175"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
10,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cheaper, reduces drain on battery, the screen resolution on the back side isn’t as good as the eyecup and is susceptible to glare. \n\nOverall the traditional way works, is cheap and why mess with something that works. The only real benefit of getting rid of the mirror is removing the small vibration from the mirror flipping out of the way of the sensor. High end cameras actually do have mirrorless options but it just isn’t worth it for normal to mid-range cameras. ",
"When digital cameras first started they basically took their 35mm film camera designs and replaced the film part with the digital sensor in the design. This made it easier for photographers to switch because the new camera tech wasnt as intimidating, and easier for manufacturers to transition since they already had a lot of the design figured out.\n\nNowadays people are used to digital so companies can move away from the SLR model. One of the benefits of removing the mirror is removing a moving part that can fail. New mirrorless cameras have no real moving parts, which helps them last longer. The mirror shutter is one of the most fragile parts of a DSLR.",
"It's so the viewfinder can optically provide the user with a true view of the image being taken, as opposed to electronically.",
"To expand on what other have said. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n**Part 1** \n\n & nbsp;\n\nPrior to the current generation of mirrorless interchangable lens cameras (MILC), DLSRs still had superior autofocus. The reason for this is that the mirror allowed DSLRs to use a second sensor ([PDAF sensor](_URL_1_)) that was build specifically for autofocus. This mimics the process that film SLRs used, because obviously film can't focus. Autofocus sensors are much smaller and purpose built this allows them to transfer data much faster and more specific to the job of focusing a lens. A Mirrorless is forced to use the main imaging sensor for autofocus. This is problematic because it is MUCH bigger and only allows [CDAF](_URL_0_). This means more data has to be transferred and most of that data isn't useful for the purposes of autofocus.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThat was the past. More recently camera sensor makers (i.e. Sony, Canon, and Samsung) have started embedding PDAF pixels on the main imaging sensor, this allows for PDAF on the main sensor. The gap between DSLR and MILC has closed.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**Part 2**\n\nAgain prior to the current generation, One of the main complaints about MILC is that the electronic view finder (EVF) was laggy because of a slow refresh rate and imprecise. An optical view finder (OVF) \"refreshes\" at the speed of light. This has changed dramatically. EVFs have come a long way. However there are still many people who prefer an OVF as a matter of person preference to an EVF.",
"Both SLR and DSL use optical viewfinders. The mirror is used to reflect the light from the lens through the pentaprism into the viewfinder, so you an see an accurate representation of the image to be captured. \n\nIf you remove the mirror and use an electronic viewfinder then you have a mirrorless camera, which is a concept introduced about 10 years ago and growing in popularity.",
"It’s a “digital single lens reflex.” They’re designed around the same principles of a film SLR. In fact, the earlier DSLR’s like the D100 and D70 shared a lot of similarities with the N80 film camera. The Kodak DCS series were actually just film cameras with digital backs retrofitted onto them.\n\nSo when you look through a lens, you’re actually looking through a prism that’s reflected the image from the lens off a mirror. This allows you to see (and focus) using your lens. Earlier camera designs would have you focusing directly through the lens onto ground glass via bellows, use rangefinders (both coupled and uncoupled) and twin-lens arrangements, with the top lens being used for focusing and the bottom lens used for actually taking the image.\n\nSLR and DSLR cameras are advantageous over mirrorless in a bunch of ways. They tend to be sturdier, there’s no (or little) delay between when you press the trigger and when the shutter fires, and you only really are using the battery when you’re taking the image. Mirrorless have plenty of benefits, but the tend to be more fragile, use more battery life, and have to be continuously on in order to focus properly. Modern mirrorless bodies are beginning to overcome those weaknesses, but I think there will always be a good reason to use one design over the other, depending on the assignment. \n\nThere are also some cameras out there that use a semi-mirrored design, allowing you to fire the camera without having the mirror flopping up and down with each shot. While that can be useful in some scenarios, they are some drawbacks as well and the design never really caught on.\n\nELI5: DSLR’s without mirrors are really just “mirrorless” cameras. There are advantages and disadvantages to both designs, so right now they exist concurrently. Some photographers (myself included) will use both, depending on the needs of the job.",
"If you want to be pedantic, it's because, by definition, a DSLR means a camera with a mirror. \n\nIf you want historical reasons why the mirror is there, it's that, when camera manufacturers first created top of the line digital cameras, they just took the design of 35 mm film cameras (SLRs) and replaced the film with a digital sensor (creating DSLRs). This allowed them to more quickly get the cameras to market and had the additional benefit for consumers that the lenses they had for film cameras could be used for their digital cameras. \n\nDSLRs are dying a slow death and will be supplanted by mirrorless digital cameras within 10 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Contrast_detection",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3nq7od
|
does lotion actually hydrate your cells? does it allow water in your body to hydrate elsewhere?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nq7od/eli5_does_lotion_actually_hydrate_your_cells_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvqfpc1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Lotion actually creates a layer on your skin which stops water from leaving the body, so instead of a continual \"leak\" of water it accumulates and makes your skin appear fuller.\nTry YouTube I've seen some good videos on this for school projects."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3x2dmq
|
why do storm troopers have masks and armour when they're obviously useless?
|
I can't recall a Storm Trooper ever taking a hit/shot without dying. It seems like the armour would just be a hindrance and block your vision instead of aiding them in a fight.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x2dmq/eli5_why_do_storm_troopers_have_masks_and_armour/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy0w0nj",
"cy0w547",
"cy0w9kb",
"cy0wvud",
"cy11pqj",
"cy12oyn"
],
"score": [
8,
22,
3,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They are not actually useless, the armour does not defend against a direct hit from a blaster but it is impervious to projectile weapons and blast damage. It also provides a high level of protection against extreme conditions and also allows for a brief period of time in the vacuum of space.",
"Their armor is to dehumanize them, so that the audience can be worried about the life of a few protagonists without caring about the [hundreds of storm troopers](_URL_0_) who die.",
"It does have purpose but even without purpose intrinsically it serves the goal of uniformity. As with any soldiers uniformity is key to troop morale, battle standards, and the hierarchy within units. It also provides camp in some cases and badass scariness in others. Imagine you'd never seen star wars and a handful of storm troopers come at you... That's some scary shit. The color choices are too bright and shiny imo but dull down the colors make em look more bad ass and you've got yourself some scary dudes",
"From a story perspective to dehumanize them. You don't want kids feeling bad that all the people dying. Also the military psychology about not being an individual, being part of a team.\n\nFrom a production perspective it makes it easy to swap in and out different extras. Continuity just requires people of the same height. Also there are film tricks that let you turn 10 extras in the costume into what seems like hundreds so long as you can't see their face.\n\nFrom a skill standpoint the tv trope is that hundreds of them can't shoot well enough to hit a broad side of a barn. This is because the heroes can't die (this is why game of thrones is so good, they can there, so you feel bad when your favourite person goes away) in a kids universe. This is so overdone in the SW universe that you never feel worried for the character. The droids are no threat and the troopers can't shoot accurately. It's just silly. I want to make a tshirt that says \"I have a Ph.D. From the storm trooper school of marksmanship\"\n\nDon't get me wrong, love the Star Wars universe since I was little, it's just not meant for me anymore.",
"If I recall correctly from the expanded universe, the armor is made of a material called plasti-steel. You can liken it to real world armor. Most vests these days can stop low velocity handgun rounds, but do little to protect the wearer from high velocity rifle rounds. The storm trooper armor may be useless against blasters, but it probably does provide protection against shrapnel and some projectiles, which justifies it's use. There's also the intimidation factor. Han and Luke may not be scared of them, but the average galactic citizen would be.\n\nAs other comments point out, the technical reason is to de-humanize the characters.",
"Maybe the armor isn't useless; maybe all the stormtroopers that got shot while wearing that armor aren't dead but really badly injured; they WOULD'VE been dead had they not been wearing it; we just don't know this because the original trilogy never had any scenes showing Darth Vader visiting the troops in hospital and handing out commendations and words of encouragement to them to get better and back out into the field once they've all mended."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FacelessGoons"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fm6wq9
|
how does cannabis stops uncontrollable shaking/convulsion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fm6wq9/eli5_how_does_cannabis_stops_uncontrollable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fl2mll2",
"fl2w1z5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn’t. Or at least, there is no conclusive evidence. Available information on the effect of cannabinoids to treat epilepsy is anecdotal, or based on small animal studies. The theory is that CBD has a preference to depress the Nervous system, therefore stoping convulsion. But again, this hasn’t been conclusively proven.",
"The ELI5 of this is \"it doesn't\".\n\nAny evidence that it does is anecdotal and not a controlled medical experiment.\n\nAlso, just to clear it up, uncontrollable shaking and convulsions are *not* the same thing. Convulsions are a word for epileptic seizures, almost always referring to the \"tonic clonic/grand mal\" variety in which the person completely and involuntary loses consciousness. Convulsions cause uncontrollable shaking but it's a very different mechanism than what most people think of as \"uncontrollable shaking\" like seen in Parkinson's or tremors or even restless leg syndrome.\n\nThere is some evidence that restless leg, tremors, and shaking can be controlled using dopamine-related treatment. Convulsions on the other hand are caused by a glutamate-GABA imbalance (not enough GABA to counter the Glutamate). This causes violent and uncontrolled neuron firing the brain which, since the brain controls the body, leads to violent muscle contractions. That's why convulsions are treated with GABAergic drugs like benzodiazepines (klonopin, ativan valium, xanax, etc.) or other anti-epileptics. They work by increasing the effect of GABA in the brain which decreases the likelihood of seizures and when they do happen they are less severe. In many cases you can actually stop a seizure by injecting a benzo directly into the bloodstream. Otherwise you just kinda have to wait it out - I don't know exactly what stops them naturally but I'd guess that the glutamate gets depleted in some way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9ydyep
|
how does warmth or exercise loosen muscle, tendons, etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ydyep/eli5_how_does_warmth_or_exercise_loosen_muscle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea0qdw4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Exercise generates heat, which makes the liquid between muscles more flowy, so they move more smoothly and more easily against each other. You're basically lubing up your muscle fibers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
b4vgp9
|
why we cry when feeling intense emotions
|
Why is it that the body's response to strong feelings like sadness, pain, or even Joy is to produce and release salt water from our eyes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4vgp9/eli5_why_we_cry_when_feeling_intense_emotions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej9djob",
"ej9ibb8",
"ej9kxnl",
"ej9mdoi",
"ej9owtc",
"ej9qqur",
"ej9qzcj",
"ej9rv0s",
"ej9ucfe",
"ej9vtu7",
"ej9wzow",
"eja02vd",
"eja05we",
"eja250k",
"eja6jbr",
"ejabglq",
"ejae1hd",
"ejahtc8",
"ejai4me",
"ejajene",
"ejazdx0",
"ejb3e7q",
"ejb7521",
"ejb9rec",
"ejbb17n",
"ejbbgg2",
"ejbcvgx"
],
"score": [
5629,
499,
214,
11,
17,
38,
13,
3,
31,
3,
74,
9,
2,
6,
11,
104,
67,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is 3 types of tears in your eyes. \n\n* Basal - The fluids of the eye\n* Reflex - These are responses to say irritants\n* Emotional \n\nIt's believed that sadness, pain, joy, anger and other intense sensations produce a chemical soup in the brain that might be toxic and that crying is a way to get rid of these chemicals. \n\nScientist did tests and confirmed that reflex tears from smoke or onions are different in composition from say tears from watching a sad movie or pain.\n\nBut this is so far only speculation.",
"Piggyback question: whenever I’m about to cry/trying not to cry, I get a slight pain in my left pinky. Along the top, inside of the finger, it gets very tight. It’s been a lifelong thing...not terrible pain and nothing I’m worried about. Just...Wtf? ",
"Crying is a way to tell others we are in pain. It's something that we do the moment we are born. When humans evolved they became socially and more aware of their emotions and those of the individuals surrounding them. So crying became a signal to others that something is not right, either pain, or emotions. That in turn triggers a reaction from others to help, enforcing social behavior and strengthening ties. \n\nIt also a way to release pent up tension, that's why you always feel relieved afterwards. ",
"You're basically secreting hormones when you cry, and so you're getting a reduction in the hormone that is causing that pent up emotion. At least that's what I've read... ",
"I'm just speculating here in general, but there are studies that show that physical and emotional pain are processed very similar in the brain, so I would suspect crying is more a reaction to pain in general, and I can confirm that from personal experience, having taken pain medication at difficult times. There are other reactions to pain like taking the fetal curl position, protecting parts of your body like head and so on, which can also be seen in emotional reactions. \n\nAnd of course eyes react to pain with producing fluid to flush foreign objects out. It might actually just be this reaction that gets triggered by emotional pain.\n\nWe also have some control over this, actors for example can cry on demand, and other people can suppress it, so it might be learned behavior in part.",
"It might not explain it, but it's certainly worth noting, that subjectively, crying is followed by a feeling of acceptance.",
"Crying shows others that you’re in need of emotional support. It’s a way to communicate your emotional state. It’s a social behavior. ",
"Perhaps it's to intentionally yet safely irritate the eyes to cause harmless inflammation and redness. Crying is important in a pack because it alerts other members of the pack that you need help, it's a psychological instinct to comfort those who are visibly upset. If there was no hoodie indication, nobody would know you were operating at suboptimal efficiency, which from an evolutionary standpoint would mean you're going to starve unless you get help.",
"\"Excess of sorrow laughs. Excess of joy weeps.\"\n\n-- William Blake, 1793\n\nWe are imperfect creatures with imperfect coping systems. Another imperfect coping system is pleasure and fear/pain. Like riding a roller coaster - being scared or endangered is a form of pleasure for many. I've read it's because the pleasure and fear centers of the brain are so closely positioned to one another, but I'm not sure I believe that. Perhaps it's the same as for sorrow and joy.\n",
"Surely it's a an evolutionary trait, which allows an individual to communicate distress to the group, despite being too overwhelmed by emotion to verbalise it. ",
"Hasson (2009) argued that tears refract light making it more difficult to see and, this, attack and defend oneself from attacks. For this reason, emotional tears can function as an honest signal of the absence of threat. This can benefit both the signaler and receiver in specific situations.",
"I'm not a scientist and I'm hella late but I remember reading that humans learned to cry so they could express emotional distress before they had the ability to speak so they could get help and comfort if they needed it.",
"Psych major here! Yea some of the psychology research is a bit unclear on the emotional part. Some research suggests it is because it we’re calling out for help the way a baby calls out for help to relieve pain. It seems to apply in some cases but others not so much, like when we cry when we are alone. Perhaps we are also calling out for help when we are alone but that is not clear.",
"\nTears may be similar or identical in composition to cerebro-spinal fluid.\n\nTears released due to emotion may be high in chloride for the purpose of depriving the central nervous system - and particularly the cerebellum - of ions.\n\nBy this means the hippocampus and similar emotion-regulators may limit the internal manifestations of emotions, while signalling to others that there may be a cause for tears, and/or that support may be beneficial. \n",
"I'd like to know why I tear up whenver reading something profound or moving, or even watching movies or sometimes on commercials. \n\nusually it involves music, most recently was the lion king trailer. \n\nI'm not even sad, usually I'm thinking this will be epic. I haven't sobbed since I was like 5 y/o, but my eyes get watery far too often for things that aren't even sad. ",
"What I wanna know, why does my effing nose have to get so stuffed up the moment I start crying? ",
"Do any other animals cry emotional tears? Or just humans?",
"Not sure about tears but many facial expressions are important because they convey emotions, and emotions signal to others. Proof: everyone cries regardless of race - thus crying is universal, telling others about sadness experienced. Not sure why that would be beneficial but",
"Crying is for stop. \nViolence (fist pumps, squeezing cute things) is for go. \nEverything else is likely based off that. It seems to be that simple.\n\n Radiolab just did a great piece called \"asking for a friend\" where they answer questions and this one came up.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nForgive me if I'm wrong, it could also have been on \"asking for another friend\", the follow-up episode that followed the same format. Both are worth listening to even if the answer to your question isn't in one of them.",
"I told my 7 year old that crying was like “farting for emotions, sometimes you just can’t help it” so he wouldn’t feel bad about crying. ",
"So what happens when you feel like you need/want to cry but don't? \n\nDrilled into me from a very early age that you don't cry. It's a sign of weakness, for ME, not necessarily other people. \n",
"Stress causes cortisol build up in the body. \n\n\nCrying dumps hormones that raise cortisol levels....although, thought I read cortisol was in tears too.\n",
"And side question: is it bad if you never cry no matter how sad something is? Like my dad passed and I did not feel too sad or cry. In fact I don't even remember the last time I ever cried. I probably haven't cried in over a decade. And my life is pretty shitty but I never cried about it.",
"I read somewhere that it has to do with stress. Intense emotions cause a lot of stress and tears have a certain chemical or something that relieves stress and works towards calming the person down.",
"I read somewhere that it's because your body is trying to expel the chemicals released. Have no idea if it's true, but it seems legit",
"That's one of our body's responses to stress/emotions/panic. Just like the classic ones, fight or flight, this is called flooding, and it means that you \"overflow\" with emotion. ",
"Why is my face leaking? - Sally Third Rock from the Sun\n\n \n\n**Jerry:** *(Crying)* What—what is this salty discharge? \n**Elaine:** Oh my God. You're crying. \n**Jerry:** This is horrible! I care! \n\n\\-Seinfeld"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/asking-friend"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3cdu95
|
what does it mean for a human to be asexual?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cdu95/eli5_what_does_it_mean_for_a_human_to_be_asexual/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csulnv6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Gender Studies tend to teach that it means the individual is not interested in sexual relations with either sex and may even lack sexual desires entirely. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5waan3
|
what is red pill and what does it have to do with sexism on reddit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5waan3/eli5_what_is_red_pill_and_what_does_it_have_to_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de8hyix"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Red Pill refers to the film the Matrix, where taking the red pill allows someone to free their mind from the Matrix, a giant computer which all humanity is hooked up to creating the illusion of a free world when they are in fact enslaved by ~~aliens~~ robots far in the future. Taking the red pill lets freedom fighters bring people out to the real world to help free humanity overall. \n\nIn today's parlance, it refers to the idea that society has brainwashed people into some kind of PC liberal ideology where women are getting a free ride at the expense of the rights of men. This often also applies to minority ethnic groups and white people. Those who have taken this so-called Red Pill have seen the world for what it truly is, recognise that sexism is made up, the Patriarchy doesn't exist, women have it easier and feminism is slavery, and they are trying to free all the rest of us. It is used to justify the attitude these people have towards women and minorities and it commonly goes along with far right political leanings akin to fascism. Please note that I do not agree with this point of view. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6lyhvy
|
how do they decide on a brand name for a generic medication? it doesn't seem like "omeprazole" or "zantac" are any easier or more catchy than their generic names?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lyhvy/eli5_how_do_they_decide_on_a_brand_name_for_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djxkj2a",
"djxkvph",
"djxkzye"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pharmacist - \n\nMost oftne the company that discovers it determines its names.\nGeneric names often have something related to the drug's nature in it, often at the end. For instance, \"zole\" for PPI inhibitors, \"olol\" for beta blockers.\n\nFor the brand name, they want something distinctive they can market. \nA new word that has no current meaning. \n\nFor both, thy try to get something that will not be confused with another drug when mis-said, misheard, of poorly written.\n\nIt's actually been very tough to get good names for some time. And many are known to be dangerously alike.",
"Omeprazole is the generic name. The brand name is Prilosec.\n\nThe purpose is twofold: the main reason is that it establishes brand identity; Pfizer wants people buying Advil™ made by their company and not just any old Ibuprofen. This mostly only becomes relevant when a drug comes off patent and there are actual generic competitors but that has to happen eventually.\n\nAnd second, generic names have very specific conventions; ideally a pharmacologist can know exactly what a drug does just from its name. This doesn't lend itself well to names that are memorable or easy to pronounce, so marketers come up with snappier brand names.",
"Generic names come from the drugs properties such as chemical structure, method of action, make up, etc. \n\nExample: N-acetyl-p-aminophenol is the chemical name of acetaminophen (generic name)/Tylenol (brand name).\n\nThe generic name is made up of parts of its chemical name. Aceta/acetyl, minophen/aminophenol. This name is the simple name that is not trade marked and can be used by anyone so that we understand we're talking about \nN-acetyl-p-aminophenol without listening a long list of chemical components.\n\nThe brand name can come from different things, such as the drugs chemical name and/or simply catchy words. Tylenol uses the drugs components, similar to its generic name, but sone drugs such as eszopiclone (Lunesta) use catchy words related to what its supposed to do. \n\nLunesta, for example, is a drug for sleep, and uses lune, derives from lunar, to invoke images of the moon/night time and resting. This makes it more recognisable than eszopiclone and when you ask for it, you'll prpbably recall lunesta better than its generic name when you ask your doctor about it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9rz7de
|
what do cooking shows do with the food that's been prepped in the steps leading up to the main dish?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rz7de/eli5_what_do_cooking_shows_do_with_the_food_thats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8ks26j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Usually cook it for the audience / staff. \n\nFirst of all they’ve already put the effort into it. \n\nSecond if it’s a taped show they generally will cook a few for different takes. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
37ur94
|
why don't people falsely accused of rape sue the accusers after proven innocent?
|
Following the Emma Sulkowicz case lately. Her alleged rapist is suing Columbia for standing behind Emma's bullying campaign.
But why not sue her?
I get its hard to "disprove" he raped her. But all the evidence he's presented seems to strongly indicate Emma lied about several things. Isn't that enough to sue her for defamation or something similar?
This is just an example. I'm also curious about all the other cases where the accusers were proved to be lying and yet got off scot free.
EDIT: Many people are pointing out a "not guilty" verdict is different from a "innocent" one. Just wanted to clarify that's exactly what I meant by saying "it's hard to disprove rape."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37ur94/eli5_why_dont_people_falsely_accused_of_rape_sue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crpyj5r",
"crpyl3z",
"crpyqjd"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes they do. There was one case recently where an accused rapist managed to get an audio recording of his accuser admitting that she lied. She had previously gotten a settlement from the school where she claimed it happened, so he sued her, got that money, and some more out of her.\n\nHowever, it's difficult to prove to a court's satisfaction that the accuser was lying. It's a lot easier to prove that the school mishandled the situation, and retaliated against him illegally.",
"Being found \"not guilty\" in court is not at all the same as being proven \"innocent\". \n\nActually proving that you didn't rape someone is almost as difficult as proving that you did. Without actual evidence, the whole thing winds up being a case of \"he said, she said\". \n\nIf an accuser is somehow proven to be lying though, they can be sued or even arrested. Making false criminal accusations is a crime. But again, proving that they are false and malicious is very difficult. ",
"You'd have a very hard time finding a jury or court which will be sympathetic to the accused unless the evidence that the claim of rape was fabricated is *overwhelming*.\n\nRemember that since our justice system presumes innocence until guilt is proven, a \"not guilty\" verdict in a rape case is simply saying that the prosecution was unable to *prove* that a rape occured. It's not saying that it didn't, it's just saying that there isn't substantial proof. It can even mean that the accuser felt that a rape occured but it didn't meet the legal definition of one: they weren't *lying* by pressing charges, they legitimately felt that they were raped.\n\nSwinging the charge back around the accuser also sends a dangerous precedent where victims are put into a position where they could be sued if they don't get a guilty verdict. The goal of the justice system is to protect the rights of all parties, and it's ethically sort of icky to allow the accused too much room to intimidate the accuser - who, remember, still may have been raped even if the verdict was \"not guilty\" - with the threat of a countersuit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
72zk29
|
why do we say we get on a train but get in a cab?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72zk29/eli5_why_do_we_say_we_get_on_a_train_but_get_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnmee84"
],
"score": [
30
],
"text": [
"We use \"on\" for any vehicle where you can walk around after boarding, \"in\" for a smaller vehicle that you enter but are then unable to walk around.\n\nOn a bus, but in a car.\n\nOn an airliner, but in a fighter plane.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1wsi71
|
it seems like the whole world is against george lucas' remade and remastered version of the original star wars trilogy. what exactly did he do to change the story that makes fans hate it so much? why all the vitriol?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wsi71/eli5_it_seems_like_the_whole_world_is_against/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf4z2i1",
"cf4z68j",
"cf4zfnm",
"cf4zo3u",
"cf4zri6",
"cf4ztp9",
"cf51pta",
"cf51twr",
"cf530qj",
"cf53cib",
"cf53j04",
"cf53o1j",
"cf542m0",
"cf546dp",
"cf54lst",
"cf54lxi",
"cf54rg1",
"cf551f0",
"cf553us",
"cf55rlx",
"cf55vhm",
"cf55w58",
"cf580lo",
"cf596ow",
"cf5lshm"
],
"score": [
115,
192,
29,
66,
3,
15,
4,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
30,
12,
6,
2,
7,
3,
14,
4,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In the original Star Wars, Han Solo fired first and toasted Gredo purely on principle. That was a very important element to his character. In the remastered version Gredo fires first (and somehow misses from just across a table).\n\nThat was an utterly PC act on the part of Lucas.",
"As Pandromeda mentioned, Han Solo fired first. Also, he added in a bunch of CG aliens that didn't fit, put back in a deleted scene with Jabba the Hutt that wasn't necessary, added cheesy special effects to the Death Star explosion, added in a fucking song and dance number to Return of the Jedi, replaced the original ending of Jedi and added in Hayden Christiansen. He basically tinkered with it unnecessarily and added in a bunch of crappy looking CG aliens and effects.\n\nedit: cheese=cheesy",
"In the original Star Wars Han Solo shoots Gredo without even letting Gredo make a move. Han knows that if he refuses to go with Gredo that Gredo will shoot him. Rather than be the noble warrior and allow Gredo to go for his gun first before drawing himself and shooting Han instead draws first and guns down Gredo before Gredo even gets a chance to know what's going on. It sets Han's character as one who lives in the gray. He's neither entirely good or entirely evil. He lives in the grey ground between.\n\nIn the remastered version Han shoots in self defence after Gredo shoots first. It's really poorly done (Han's head slides to the side to dodge since Lucas had no actual footage of it and so it was done with a computer) and totally changes Han's character but for no reason because after that he's back being a rogue again. \n\nHe also added in animals for the Storm Troopers to ride in Star Wars: A New Hope. So they can fly around the galaxy but need to ride animals into battle? ",
"All of the other answers are using specific examples that might be confusing to someone who has not seen the movies, when it's really as simple as this: George Lucas decided to use computer special effects to make numerous alterations to the original STAR WARS films, both to improve elements he personally thought were lacking or wrong and to make things more in-line with the prequels that nobody likes. The mere fact that the films were altered from their original presentation irks people, especially because the original versions are not widely available in an acceptable format.",
"Thanks for the answer, guys!\n\nI'm all for people offering more specific examples though--- this is fascinating.",
"It turns out that people don't like their childhood memories messed with. More than that, he refused to sell the original versions to fans in new formats that came along. I found that confusing, since when does George miss a chance to make money?",
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it.",
"Nice try, George. You're not going to release *another* version of the films, even if it is based on public opinion.",
"I didn't know people hated the early nineties revisions too. Makes sense, but all I really remember in those was the hover affect for the speeder in A New Hope and the deathstar explosion being bigger. ",
"_URL_0_ This is mostly about why the prequels were so awful, but it does touch on the remastered versions and will definitely answer your questions.",
"Disney are doing the same shit as well, it recently came out that the Sith (species) homeworld is going to be renamed from the established Korriban to [Moriband](_URL_0_)\n\nJust why?",
"Honestly, even just ignoring the context of the extraneous CGI added to some of the scenes, the CGI itself was done *horribly*. It is ugly as sin.",
"There's another angle that people don't seem to be mentioning - - movies are a collaborative effort. However much we say that Lucas \"created\" Star Wars or \"made\" the original movies, the truth is that he had an enormous amount of help and input from others into making the final product. In fact, if you do some reading on this, you'll see that Lucas had some pretty awful ideas for the movies, which he was talked out of by his collaborators (in addition to the positive ideas that they contributed). Now, years later, he has total creative control (read: ownership) of the movies and the money to do with them whatever he wants, and he's decided to keep tinkering with them. \n\nIt's also worth noting that since he considers himself the real authority on these movies and his new changes to be for the better, he's not letting the original version out there for release. It's not like he's offering an enhanced or extended version of the original - - he's saying \"this is what the movie is, despite the original being out there for decades without problems. ",
"You guys are forgetting some of the good ones. Lucas added the word \"noooooo\" to Vader when he throws the emperor down the death tube. The one I am most pissed about was ROTJ. The end was a travesty. Not only putting mister whinny pants in place of David, but completely changing the song at the end. The ewoks were beating the storm troopers helmets to the beat of the music and the new music doesn't line up. There are soooo many things wrong with the remakes. ",
"They added lots of CGI special effects, they added USELESS scenes. There was one scene where vader screams NOOOO like hayden christensesneseses bitch ass WHY? There was one scene, where in the original Han stumbled into a room with like 6 troopers. They changed it and added 100 more CGI troopers, WHY?? \n\nThey actually added a deleted scene, and pasted a CGI Jabba the hut in. THE FUCK LUCAS? They even changed the scene where when Han is about to be shot by the Alien Greedo so that the Alien shoots first. The WHOLE POINT WAS THAT HAN WAS AN AWESOME BASTARD, NOT THAT HE WAS A LUCKY ONE. \n\nThey changed the emporer to look like the new one, and they changed Anakin to look like the new one. WHY???? WHY??????\n\nThe worst bit though was this piece of utter shit, [Jabbas Palace CGI WHY???](_URL_0_)\n\nAnd that is why George Lucas FUCKED UP!",
"What annoyed me more than anything was that annakin was young at the end of the movie why in the hell would he be young and yet obi wan and yoda were still old ",
"1988, George Lucas Speaks to Congress.\n\n\"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.\n\nI am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.\nThe destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.\n\nA copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.\n\nPeople who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as \"when life begins\" or \"when it should be appropriately terminated,\" but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.\n\nThese current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with \"fresher faces,\" or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new \"original\" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.\n\n**In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be \"replaced\" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society.** Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.\nThere is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.\nI accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.\n\nI accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.\n\nThe public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.\n\nThere are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of \"The Maltese Falcon?\" Why are films cut up and butchered?\nAttention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.\n\nI hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.\"",
"Now that Disney owns Star Wars, shouldn't we be petitioning them to release the original on Bluray/digital?",
"Let's see. Many of these have already been mentioned so I'll start off with a new one.\n\n* Fart jokes - A lot of the new CGI effects have serious gas problems. They add nothing and frequently suck all the dramatic tension out of scenes. I'm thinking of the arrival at Mos Eisley. Luke has just seen his foster parents burnt to the bone and still smoking. And they are entering a town where the imperials are everywhere. Tension should be high. We start off with a nice new overhead shot if them speeding into town. This is a nice addition. But as Luke drives through town, we see farting pack animals, and their handlers fighting with them. Instead of mounting tension we get a moment of slapstick which completely undermines the moment.\n* Greedo shoots first - This undermines the character of Han. He's not established as cold blooded. This helps undermine the tension of him running away at Yavin. He has to be established as a scoundrel or his potentially scoundrel like behavior later loses it's impact.\n* Quality - A lot of the edits just kind of suck. Han dodging Greedo's shot. Han walking behind Jabba. A lot of the character effects like Jabba. They all look fake. That doesn't help.\n* Missed opportunities - There are a lot of scenes that could have been cleaned up. On the Millennium Falcon, Luke trains against a computer remote. When he turns off the light saber there is a visible cut. That could have been cleaned up. Instead we get crap.\n\nThat said, there are some good parts too. The introduced effects allowed some changes that were improvements. In some scenes they are used to establish some scale that is nice. I'm thinking of places on the Death Star where he edited in some larger open spaces. Make it feel more like a hundred mile wide battle station. Same thing in cloud city, he threw in some windows that opened up the place and made it look more beautiful and spacious, rather than just some claustrophobic corridors on a set.",
"It's one thing to fix little SFX mistakes that were made in the original production, improve some of the lighting, or clarity of picture. Things that were unavoidable due to time / technology. Really, that's all he had to do. Just clean up the picture, make it look awesome, fix some of the little errors, and release it.\n\nHowever, they also decided to add a bunch of extra stuff. Some of it I think was okay. They added in some little details in some of the scenes and locations that are unobtrusive and give a little more atmosphere. I liked that he got rid of some of the static walls in Cloud City and added in windows and lighting from them.\n\nIt's another thing to add a cram in mounds of unnecessary crap in scenes that don't need them (adding a bunch of cartoon-y, distracting bullshit in the background, foreground to Mos Eisley), try to stuff in scenes that add nothing (The song & dance scene in Return. Han and Jabba. \"dur... what do we do about him going behind a formerly human Jabba? Let's awkwardly shift his image upward so he's walked on his tall. huehuehue!\"), and, worst, make little changes to the characters everyone loves (Greedo shooting first, Bobba Fet has a New Zealand accent, just little things that add nothing to do the story). \n\nPeople have dissected these characters and every little choice they've made over the last few decades. And when fans realized that George Lucas, the person fans have idolized for decades, doesn't really understand his own characters (proven in these changes and *especially* the prequel trilogy), they realize that they've been ignoring the writers and directors that actually brought their characters to life and made them real people and heroes. And not just ham-fisted cartoons.\n\nThis is also why, we Ep:1 was announced, the fans were hopeful and scared. They'd seen what had happened with these changes and they *wanted* to like them. But no one really expected an entire movie that looked like someone had vomited the spirit of those changes onto a full-length original film. But then we get Jar-Jar, midichlorians (sp), a Jesus origin story, pointless cameos by C3P0 and R2D2 that fly in the face of logic and continuity, and characters whose motivations are based on how cool a particular action would be on film (and not if it makes any sense in a narrative). Fans realized that that's what these re-release versions were: Lucas was trying his hardest to turn their beloved original trilogy into the same vapid, cartoon-y, in-joke, kid-friendly bullshit the new trilogy became.",
"He put digital images of Hayden Christiansen in episode VI and its terrible.",
"Say, when you were about 8 years old, someone told you the best story ever. You loved it. You asked to be told it over and over again. You replayed it with your friends on the playground. You drew pictures of the characters and wanted to be them. You heard two more stories just like them, not long after, and loved them too. These stories, to you, were a huge part of your childhood. A huge part of your formative years, even, silly as that sounds. \nNow leap forward to your mid thirties. A time of self doubt, introspection, apprehension, second guessing. But hey at least there's the reassuring stories you grew up with, right?\nWRONG. At every turn, the very person who told you these strories is now telling you you're remembering them wrong, and that they weren't good enough, and that you can never go back to what you remembered as a kid. YOU CAN'T GO BACK TO WHAT YOU LOVED AS A KID.\nOh! And! He's telling new stories, which is something that 13 year old you would have been over the moon about. Except those stories don't have the same warmth, and heart... and there's a bunch of technical sounding stuff where your faith used to be, and \"eh, trust us\" where there really should be answers, and some grown-up things like politics awkwardly shoved into what used to be a rousing adventure tale.\nSo not only can't you go back to how your beloved stories used to be, you have proof positive you won't get more new ones too.\n\nAt the risk of hyperbole over some silly movies: when the original Star Wars trilogy was altered, with no way to get the true originals ever again, a whole generation of kids were reminded that sometimes being an adult really blows.",
"Imagine you like hot chocolate. Its a cold winter day and you curl up on the couch under a blanket with a mug of your favorite brand. Everything is just the way you like it. Just as you take a sip, ready to relax, you realize they added marshmallows. That's okay, you guess, its basically the same. The next time you notice they took out some sugar. Then they add raspberry. Then they take the raspberry out and add coffee. Then they change the coffee. At that point you don't know what you are going to get the next time you want some. Oh, its still hot chocolate, but it isn't the same, and can't provide the warm comfort you wanted on that cold day - its just a distant memory. ",
"I think it all boils down to his immense arrogance in not letting fans enjoy the original trilogy as they were - even better if there were remastered and improved image/sound quality versions.\n\nInstead, he turned his back to the fan-base (now adults with strong opinions) and ignored several decades of fleshing out every single details of the movies. He set out to replace their core nature with artificial political correctness, sub par CGI and character/scene changes that are widley considered shallow and vapid. \n\nAs creator, of course he had the right to change and experiment if he wanted. His \"refinements\" surely have adepts and probably little children would relate to them very well. But not letting others enjoy the originals as they were is so pretentious and egotistical, that he burned away admiration built over decades to become despised over a wide audience.\n\nSome of these changes:\n\n* Overly \"clean\" CGI. The original weathered, battered, real life sets and props gave the movies a credible atmosphere. These are real places/ships/artifacts with history, and have been used over time. CGI replacements make them look whitewashed, overly clean and artificial, diminishing their value in story telling.\n\n* Excessive CGI content. Battles in the original movies had emotional investment - there was tension between a limited number of combatants and you were acquainted with their reasons. Your focus was centered and high. Some changes were made to introduce a myriad of excessive details and actions in scenes, that prove unnecessary as they simply don't add anything to the story.\n\n* Han Solo as the rogue, likeable villain in the originals. His nebulous character is defined by murdering Greedo in Mos Eisley. This is replaced by PC that doesn't even **look** credible.\n\n* Slapstick comedy and situations. The arrival at Mos Eisley was originally tense, as protagonist had gone through trauma and the Empire was a menacing shadow, and watching eye over everyone. After the changes, it was reduced to a series of bodily function and slapstick humor that makes it difficult to take the story seriously. This is also the case with the poorly rendered scene between Jabba and Han Solo -It's the equivalent of having Michael Corleone give Sollozo a slap in the butt when they meet in *the Godfather* - and the awful extended singing scene in Jabba's palace. \n\n* \"Expliciting\" characters emotions. The screaming of Luke as he falls, the screaming of Vader as he attacks the emperor, etc. When a character is fleshed out well, you can predict their reactions and emotions. To exaggerate these response with unnecessary artifacts diminishes the experience.\n\nI could go on ranting. But I think there's noting I've added that hasn't been discussed and ranted before.",
"Having only seen Star Wars the first time in 2009, it was glaring seeing what didn't obviously fit.\n\nThe Greedo bit really looks like when Poochie goes back to his home planet, Han just jolts out of the laser blast and they both shot at the same time. \n\nThere are like, fourteen CGI aliens when Obi and Luke are cruising on that speeder thing. One even walks in front of the view of the two of them, while they're having dialogue, and slowly lumbers around for five ish seconds, giving a fantastic glimpse of the mid-quarter of an alien we'd never see again.\n\nAnd then there was the jazz monster in the second one. With the lips and the beatbox and the holy fuck, what the shit am i watching"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/"
],
[
"http://www.starwarsunderworld.com/2014/01/report-sith-homeworld-is-now-moriband.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiDRgDmXGi4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2asvbf
|
why do i sometimes hear random sounds like a cupboard closing, small sounds of wood moving etc. when i know nothing/nobody is there?
|
It occurs a lot after I've watched horror movies or stuff like that, or if I'm alone at home.
Why does this happen? It's so damn scary!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2asvbf/eli5_why_do_i_sometimes_hear_random_sounds_like_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciyfesw",
"ciyff8r",
"ciyfn0c",
"ciym1ev"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
32,
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes its the foundation of the building settling, or a pipe knocking, etc. In the house I grew up in we had a boiler/baseboard heating system and sometimes when it did stuff the pipes in the basement would rattle in a fixed pattern that sounded just like something walking up steps or knocking at a door. I was totally used to it but it would occasionally render visitors slightly nonplussed. ",
"Wood is organic, and expands and contracts depending on humidity, temperature and other factors. These small movements in the structure of the wood can sometimes make quite a noise. ",
"You probably hear these sounds all the time (pipes, heating, wood expanding / contracting, animals outside, whatever) but you NOTICE it occurring a lot after watching horror movies because your brain is tuned to that kind of thing. Normally you don't even consciously process the sounds, because you're distracted by hundreds of other stimuli. But when you're alone and thinking about ghosts...\n\nTL; DR - your house is haunted by malevolent spirits and you're going to be horribly murdered. ",
"Your house is haunted, obviously... or it's just the house settling... who can say for sure?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2x12xh
|
how can we fear things by instinct? how can we be "pre programmed" to fear certain things?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x12xh/eli5_how_can_we_fear_things_by_instinct_how_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"covx7hs",
"covzf4x"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Instinct is innate, it is passed down from our ancestors. Just like how domesticated dogs walk in a circle when they go to sleep because their ancestors did so in fields, our ancestors feared things like snakes and heights because they can kill us.",
"essentially your brain cells go certain places during development, they are a preprogrammed to go organize themselves in certain ways (think of the structure of your brain and how much it's like the structure of most brains consider how the body knows how to put the brain together so these neurons become the hypothalamus, these neurons make up the prefrontal cortex, etc the instructions are encoded into the neuron's DNA which it gets from your DNA) \n\nso the structure that, say your visual cortex takes on by default may already be built to include an idea of a snake and your amygdala may already be built in such a way to elicit a fear response to the signals from your visual cortex when it sees that snake. these genetic memories tend to work in the same way as learned memories, based on the configuration of the neurons in the brain, it's just that these are default settings they can be lost too and sometimes they can be passed down though we aren't sure the mechanism by which they do this (whether genetic or epigenetic)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3imwm4
|
how do astronauts deal with sweat odor?
|
I saw a TIL today about a man working for NASA, smelling everything that would be going to the iss. They said odors won't Disappear into the air so every small smell could influence the astronauts productivity amd even health!
Well, if even the smallest smells are bad, how do they deal with big, penetrating odors like sweat and poop and such?
Tl;dr title ;)
Ps: can't fild TIL, if some awesome person can comment it, I'll add it (:
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3imwm4/eli5_how_do_astronauts_deal_with_sweat_odor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuhtg09",
"cuhu2og"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"This is a great question that I hope gets answered. \n\nI fear the answer might be that it just smells terrible and they get used to it. They don't tells us so we don't picture a big poopship circling in orbit. ",
"The air filtration system takes care of the some of it, but it can only do so much. They are very careful about cleanliness and sanitation, garbage, feces, and used clothing get sealed in plastic bags, that kind of thing.\n\nBut overall, there is just a...funk. A kind of staleness to the air that astronauts lean to live with.\n\nIt should be noted, however, the the almost-pathological aversion some people have to natural body odor was brainwashed into them by the soap companies in the early 20th century. Prior to that, people just accepted the fact that bodies had odor. If you stank *a lot,* you should bathe, but the notion that even the tiniest bit of body odor was a major crime against humanity was unknown.\n\nThen the soap companies decided they could be selling more product, so they launched a marketing campaign to convince people that even the tiniest bit of body odor was an affront to man and made the Baby Jesus cry. And it worked.\n\nBut the bottom line here is that because it was just brainwashed into them to begin with, people can learn to live with it again. And they do.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2k0rt2
|
how is it that sparta was conquered if their military was so powerful?
|
I learned about Ancient Greece in high school; however, I never really learned how a city-state with a supposedly unbeatable military was conquered. Surely if they were as powerful as they are portrayed they would have been able to defend themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k0rt2/eli5_how_is_it_that_sparta_was_conquered_if_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clgtro5",
"clgts29"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n > The Corinthian War was an ancient Greek conflict lasting from 395 BC until 387 BC, pitting Sparta against a coalition of four allied states, Thebes, Athens, Corinth, and Argos, which were initially backed by Persia.\n\n.\n\n > At sea, the Spartan fleet was decisively defeated by a Persian fleet early in the war, an event that effectively ended Sparta's attempts to become a naval power. \n\n.\n\n > The Peace of Antalcidas, commonly known as the King's Peace, was signed in 387 BC, ending the war. This treaty declared that Persia would control all of Ionia, and that all other Greek cities would be independent. Sparta was to be the guardian of the peace, with the power to enforce its clauses. The effects of the war, therefore, were to establish Persia's ability to interfere successfully in Greek politics and to affirm Sparta's hegemonic position in the Greek political system.\n\nThey got beaten by a bigger power and an alliance of others.\n\nPlus with stuff like 300 they have been somewhat oversold.",
"They had a strong army, for sure, that doesn't make them invincible. They stood their own against Athens in the Peloponesian War, and eventually defeated them with help from Persia, but they didn't stand a chance against Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_War"
],
[]
] |
|
6bd0de
|
whats the difference between a 401(k) and putting x% of your salary in a savings account?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bd0de/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_401k_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhlls1p"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The biggest difference is that your 401(k) is what's referred to as a tax deferred account. The money you deposit is not taxed until it is withdrawn. This may seem like a trivial distinction since you're taxed on the money either way but the reasoning is based on the assumption that the 401(k) is a retirement account. Not only are you earning interest on money that you would otherwise have paid in taxes the year you received it but you are also able to choose to withdraw the money when your effective tax rate is much lower. In other words, you get to take some of your income that might be taxed at a very high rate and hold off on paying taxes on it until your tax rate is much lower because you're not earning very much. \n\n*Edit: fixed autocorrect mistake in first sentence. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
168gg5
|
gambling, over / unders, spreads and point shaving
|
Don't really get it. Set me straight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/168gg5/eli5_gambling_over_unders_spreads_and_point/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7totex"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"**Over/Under** - A bet that the total score of the game will be Over or Under the given number. So if the O/U is at 43 and you take the Over, then the game ends 14-21 then you lose your bet. Sometimes they add 1/2 a point to the O/U to avoid the chance of ties.\n\n**Spread** - When one team is obviously better than the other it makes sense for them to try to even things up so money come down evenly on both sides. So what they do is they spot the inferior team a certain amount of points for the purpose of betting. The current spread for the Seattle/Atlanta game this Sunday is Atlanta -1. So if the final score is Atlanta 31 - Seattle 30 then your bet would push. Sometimes the spread is far bigger. If the game is BF Valley State +53 vs. Alabama, then the final score is 52-0 Alabama, then a bet on BFVS wins.\n\n**Point Shaving** - A situation where players intentionally win by less than they could in order to manipulate who would win sports bets.\n\nSo I bet $100,000 on BF Valley State +53 vs. Alabama. Then I tell the Alabama QB that I'll give him $10,000 if Alabama doesn't cover. SURPRISE! The Alabama QB has an off day and only goes 9-24 and they win 43-10!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7k2hsq
|
why exactly is it that latent psychoses can be triggered by thc/marijuana use?
|
I'm just interested in whether there's any kind of medical/scientific explanation for this. Is it common for psychosis to be triggered by any mind-altering substance in general, or is this something specific to THC/marijuana?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7k2hsq/eli5_why_exactly_is_it_that_latent_psychoses_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drb4fe5",
"drb88hl"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"This is something of a myth. THC won't precipitate clinical psychosis in otherwise normal people with no history of such problems.\n\n Excessive doses of TCH can cause anxiety and paranoia as side effects and in people who already have anxiety issues, this can cause panic attacks. Anxiety as a side effect is fairly well documented, as far as I know.\n\nIn people who already have issues with delusional thinking this can't be a good thing. But I wouldn't recommend such people to use any kind of psychoactive substances recreationally, period. \n\n",
"If this occurs I would think it would be caused specifically by down regulation of dopamine receptors. You expose your brain to dopamine regularly and the brain sees that there is a lot of dopamine so it causes receptors to gradually decrease with each exposure. After this happens when you take a drug increasing dopamine (THC, coke amphetamine, etc) it just sits there with no receptors to bind. This causes psychosis. If the density of receptors gets very low, then your normal amount of dopamine could cause the psychosis even when you aren't using. It would happen to some people more than others because of genetics. It would generally resolve if you stopped using any kind of dopamine increasing drug for a while unless you had a genetic predisposition to have poor balancing of your receptors. This predisposition is thought to be a cause of mental illnesses in general, so people with \"latent\" psychosis likely have some predisposition to mental illness as well. It's going to be seen more in cocaine and amphetamine users than thc because they are (very simply put) \"stronger\" in terms of dopamine increase. \n\nFlooding of dopamine in a single instance also causes psychosis, and thats why people in acute intoxication often have to be admitted for a few days to detox. Because they have taken a dose that increased dopamine higher than their receptor density. \n\nAnyone can correct if I'm wrong. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
11qjmq
|
why do women's hormones often make them angry, emotional, depressed during their period or pregnancy?
|
my (basic) understanding of hormones is that specific ones are released for a purpose; when we are in danger or when we are fertile. but what purpose does making a woman upset or angry during pregnancy or menstruation serve? or if it doesn't serve a purpose, why does it happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11qjmq/eli5_why_do_womens_hormones_often_make_them_angry/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ougt4",
"c6owmya"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"BECAUSE THEY DO, OK?\n\n\n[I think it's because body chemistry is changing rapidly and these chemicals have secondary effects other than the primary ones of fertility - like mood.] ",
"It's also not just hormones, but the sense of body changing. Most adults do not fluctuate up and down in weight or overall body mass rapidly or frequently. Even weight gain is usually a slow process that takes years.\n\nSo now you have a person who is putting on an extra 60 pounds in less than nine months. Their abdomen is distending and distorting greatly in a period of less than nine months. Their center of gravity has changed, where most of their weight is has changed, and basically ever bit of their mind that tells them what their body is supposed to look and feel like is being told, every minute of every day, that it's wrong and the body now looks and feels like *this*.\n\nAll in a period of less than nine months.\n\nThat's going to play hell with someone's mental stability, to quite literally be in a body that six months ago felt like good ol' you but today feels completely different and wrong. Because there's some large thing wriggling around inside you, day or night."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7vseby
|
why did the crypto market crash so hard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vseby/eli5_why_did_the_crypto_market_crash_so_hard/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtuqxnj",
"dtur0fl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It was a bubble. That's what happens to bubbles. There was no rational justification for many cryptos' values, and many people buying them knew that. But they bought anyway because they were hoping to ride the wave of irrationality up. It's always hard to say what the actual trigger for a bubble popping is. Sometimes it just happens when you run out of new people to buy in. But once people start to see the price dropping, they start bailing, which drops it even more. Most of them probably still exceed any rational valuation though. ",
"Because governments created laws and regulations that ineffect took away a lot of the reasons people were investing in crypto. \n\nIts also interesting how randomly there was all these articles talking about the energy consumption. Like as if someone was creating articles to influence the public...what's the word...papua new guinea...no that's not it. Its a word those leaders who start a letter T use all the time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3ntj48
|
why do you have to touch a payment device to a "contactless" reader
|
Whenever I use a card or phone to pay it doesn't seem to work unless part of it touches the reader.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ntj48/eli5why_do_you_have_to_touch_a_payment_device_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvr3qon",
"cvr3s43",
"cvr3slc"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The electronics don't touch each other.\n\nIn theory it should work without two devices having to touch each other. But: The range where it works is very short. Once the devices touch each other, the distance between them is minimal. Still, no electronic components touch each other.\n\nBetter antennas would help increase the range and avoid needing the devices to \"touch\" each other.",
"You actually don't - at least not in my experience - but you do have to hold it very close by. That's simply because the thingie inside the reader that activates the chip on your card is very low powered and has a very short range. I don't know precisely how an NFC chip works but I imagine it's the same deal - low power means it has a teeny bubble in which it can operate.\n\nIn theory a larger, more powerful antennae could read a card from much further away. You could plug one into a laptop and grab everyone's card details from across the room. If you wanted to. I don't know how feasible that actually is, but it's caused some paranoid people to invest in or construct a radio-proofed wallet, a Faraday cage for their contactless cards.",
"It doesn't literally need to be touching, but it does need to be damn close.\n\nThis is mostly to prevent people from freaking out / not trusting the technology. For example, if you could pay from further away, people would be more-concerned about thieves stealing their details.\n\nThis also prevents accidental mis-reads of the \"wrong card\".\n\nAntennas also need to be much larger in order to read cards from further away, but I'm ignoring this explanation as an antenna could easily fit into most card readers which is large enough that one wouldn't need to be actually touching anything."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4f65ay
|
in hawkig radiation, wouldn't the chance of particle/antiparticle falling into the event horizon be 50/50, thus posing no effect on the mass of the black hole?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4f65ay/eli5_in_hawkig_radiation_wouldnt_the_chance_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2683ut",
"d268i0c"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"No, antimatter has the same mass as matter. But it shouldn't affect charge and other quantum mechanical properties because of the 50/50 thing",
" If the two particles have a total mass-energy of say 1 Mev, then the particle that escapes will carry half that. However the energy to create that particles had to come from somewhere in the first place, and for hawking radiation, that source is the black hole itself. So when one particle escapes and one falls in, that .5Mev energy is lost by the black hole, and since mass-energy is a thing, that means it loses a tiny tiny tiny amount of mass. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8zj5ed
|
why does america have so many varieties of snack products?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8zj5ed/eli5_why_does_america_have_so_many_varieties_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2j3k6p",
"e2j5atl"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well first off America's cosmopolitan so we get a bit from everywhere, and due to sheer size and diversity of the nation we get more brands than say - a relatively homogeneous nation. ",
"In America there's this idea that the freedom to choose is more important than anything. However, most of the choices people get to make are meaningless. If you're rich you have lots of choices of what school to go to or what area of town to live in, but if you're poor you get to choose between Nacho Cheese Doritos and Zesty Cheese Doritos. \n\nAlso the reason there's so much junk food is because it's cheaper to make than anything, because the production of corn has been heavily subsidized by the US government since Nixon was president. So just about everything is made from corn syrup or another corn product. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
225sf6
|
why is it so important for the gdp of the us to steadily increase?
|
I'm currently in a macroeconomics class and we've been learning about the United States GDP and how it works. What I don't understand is why it is so important for the GDP to continue to grow every year. It seems like all monetary and fiscal policy decisions that are made are used to manipulate the economy in a way that helps the GDP grow. Why is this growth so important and what would happen if our GDP simply maintained itself or shrunk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/225sf6/eli5_why_is_it_so_important_for_the_gdp_of_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgjmarr",
"cgjmq8l",
"cgjrwld"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you like having more money? Are you willing to split your wages with other people?\n\nGrowth is good, because growth means (in theory at least) that there is more money, more value and more goods and services. \n\nOur population increases every year, so we need to keep growing the pie or everyone's slice gets smaller.",
"Some fundamentals:\n\n1. inflation.\n2. population growth\n3. servicing our debt. \n\nIf you want to keep up with these, then you have to grow GDP. Gotta grow it a little just to stand still.\n\nThen...there is a general axiom that says \"grow or die\". We live in a competitive economic environment. If we don't grow, someone will...and then slowly over time we'll end up having relationships with those countries like they have with us. Our economy - and our lives - will be subject to the whims of their economy, their financial leaders and their economic policies in ways we as Americans have never had to deal with (at least since the 19th century, but arguably since the revolution).\n\nedit: can't type",
"Debt! Debt is why we need GDP to grow.\n\nWe go into debt with the assumption that we can grow the economy at the same pace or faster than the debt grows. Roughly speaking, a $15 trillion national debt may seem large if our GDP is $15 trillion. But suppose the GDP grows to $30 trillion. Then that original $15 trillion debt will be half as painful. \n\nIt's the same reason why people take out a loan for college or to start a company. That current debt can be a good thing, it can be used to make the future wealthier. \n\nFurther, the monetary policy of the United States (and the relationship the Treasury and the Fed have in this process), require debt for money and bonds to circulated. If we start balancing budgets, it creates havoc for these groups. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
652tks
|
why had usb type c become more popular than usb type b ever was?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/652tks/eli5_why_had_usb_type_c_become_more_popular_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg70edt",
"dg70ef3"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Type B was extremely popular, it was/is used all the time for non portable peripherals. It was never made to fit a cell phone or anything. It was to plug in your printer before networked printers got big. ",
"I don't believe that your premise is true. USB-B is incredibly ubiquitous, and type C is relatively new and not used on a lot of devices (yet). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
rn3c2
|
how a "stimulus package" helps out the economy.
|
From what i understand, the government prints out more money and distributes it to the banks. How does this actually help the economy from getint back up, since the country's currency loses value from this procedure?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rn3c2/eli5_how_a_stimulus_package_helps_out_the_economy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c474l92",
"c474y7z"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So there's this old British economist names James Maynard Keynes, who was behind what people now call \"Keynesian economics.\" Keynesian economics says that in a depression, the government needs to pump money into the country, and run at a deficit. The reason Obama approved the stimulus package this time was because it worked when we had to use it during the great depression. FDR passed the New Deal, which was a sort of stimulus package, and the influx of money into the economy helped to bring it out of depression. ",
"What you have described is known as \"quantitative easing\". A stimulus is when the government takes out a bunch of loans (financed by selling bonds usually) and uses that money to buy things, often paying for infrastructure improvements (fixing bridges, repaving roads etc.). You may have noticed a lot of road work on the highway recently... This is likely stimulus money at work.\n\n\n**ELI5 Part:**\nThink about it this way: What happens when you buy something from a friend? You give the friend a twenty dollar bill, and you get your item (we'll say you're buying two hotdogs, because I haven't eaten yet). Then, he/she goes out and buys two sodas from another friend, and so on and so forth. Now, imagine that instead of a twenty, you use a fifty. Now, you can buy 2.5x more stuff. To fill that want, your friend makes five hotdogs to sell to you instead of two. But, in order to make five hotdogs, he/she has to hire another person to help him/her make more hotdogs. This is a concept known as circular flow, and it is a central tenet of macroeconomics.\n\n\nIn reality, it is a bit more complicated than this (some people will save part of the $50 instead of spending it all, they will put it in a bank that will give out loans, etc.) but this is supposed to be an ELI5, after all. \n\n\nFor more on the topic take Macroeconomics 101, or watch these videos on Khanacademy: _URL_0_\n_URL_2_\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/macroeconomics/v/circular-flow-of-income-and-expenditures",
"http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/macroeconomics/v/shifts-in-aggregate-demand",
"http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/macroeconomics/v/aggregate-demand"
]
] |
|
ftm5qk
|
how exactly does a computer transcribe interviews - what enables the audio to text conversion?
|
Title is pretty self explanatory.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ftm5qk/elif_how_exactly_does_a_computer_transcribe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fm7yuq6",
"fm8633y",
"fmg59cj"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"We've gotten very good (through AI learning, and having humans manually translate) at teaching computers what sounds translate to what words. It's gotten good enough that computers can now translate on the fly. Try enabling closed captioning in your next google hangout to see it in action. The computer knows what sound mean what words, and then passes through a couple of other filters to provide context and make it even more accurate.",
"The computer has a massive library of spoken words and text so it has a general idea of what a particular word is supposed to sound like. It will take a recorded bit of audio and look at how closely it matches other audio samples in its library. Based on that it will make a best guess at what the word is, but it's not always accurate. \n\nJust to be clear, the computer isn't actually matching your speech with a giant library of sounds. It effectively takes a bunch of speech saying the same word and creates a math formula that will take your speech and give a % chance that it is a match. It will then use that % chance to make a best guess at what you're saying.\n\nI'm glossing over a lot of details here, but this is the essence of machine learning and why companies like Amazon and Google are so interested in recording your conversations and gathering data on you. They use it to train computers to do things like this.",
"The computer will take an audio file and split the waveforms into small pieces and try to figure out what phoneme is being said (A phoneme is a primitive unit to represent words). Then it tries to guess what word is being said out of those phonemes, like \"T O M EY T OW\" (Tomato) out of a giant database."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6erxok
|
how come queso fresco will not melt like other cheeses?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6erxok/eli5_how_come_queso_fresco_will_not_melt_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dicsgli"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nCheeses made with rennet melt, while cheeses made with acids don't. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://brooklynbrainery.com/blog/when-cheese-doesn-t-melt"
]
] |
||
1klry8
|
the difference between uninstalling a program and deleting all the program files?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1klry8/eli5_the_difference_between_uninstalling_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbq7wne"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There are a few extra pieces of information that your computer stores, called registry entries. Uninstallation removes these, while deleting program files does not. The extraneous registry entries don't take up much space, but they make it harder for your computer to find a useful registry entry among all the junk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7c0mb6
|
how does valuation work for tech startups?
|
Like it says in the title, how do people decide how much a tech startup is worth? I've seen countless tech companies that seemingly produce very little but are still valued at astronomical numbers
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c0mb6/eli5_how_does_valuation_work_for_tech_startups/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpmalgv",
"dpmd44t",
"dpmeuzm",
"dpmjno0",
"dpmndtl",
"dpn76zk"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
2,
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"In the tech industry specifically, the valuation relies heavily on competition, total addressable market, volume of active users and magnitude of proprietary assets/intellectual property. For example, Uber received a massive valuation because it was the first mover in a new industry with strong branding position and a massive addressable market. The valuation has been sustained by the sheer number of people who use it. ",
"One of the most reliable ways is when a company sells a part of itself in \"funding rounds\". So let's say you have a startup, and you've got a proof of your concept, but you need some investment to push it to the next stage. \n\nYou will offer a certain stake in your startup to a set of investors (usually Venture Capitalists, so called because they put Capital [money] into fledgling companies [Ventures]). \n\nSo you say \"I'm going to offer 20% of my business to investors in this funding round. Ladies and gentlemen: start your bidding\".\n\nWhen this funding round closes, your startup will have collected an amount of investment. Let's say it's $100m. It's split across a set of investors, who will each take a segment of the 20% you offered, in accordance with how much of the $100m they put in.\n\nBut now your company has a valuation. Investors just paid $100m for one fifth of your company. Congratulations, you're CEO of a half-billion dollar firm.",
"There are infinite ways to value a startup. /u/CMDRTheDarkLord is probably the most literal answer you will get, but there are tons of other methods to come up with value.\n\nCommon ones I've seen include using a multiple of revenue. So, I work in the accounting world and the standard buy/sell agreement with accounting firms is that you pay out 1x annual revenue over a period of years. So, if I want to pay out the former owner over 4 years, I would pay 1/4 of revenue in year 1, 1/4 of revenue in year 2, etc. until he is fully paid out.\n\nWhen I was working at a startup that didn't have any revenue yet but needed seed money, we put together financial projections with sales numbers and put our value at 5x revenue in year 5 or something along those lines as just a starting point. We won a couple of business plan competitions using this as a valuation method although its definitely not the exact valuation in which we had when we attracted our investors. At that point, it becomes about negotiating.",
"I've worked at silicon valley startups for 10+ years and I can tell you, with my hand on my heart that the numbers for early seed rounds are basically made up.\n\nI mean, there's a *logic* at play but it's based on what you're able to raise to deliver a prototype of your vision. If you have an idea for \"umbrella drones\" you spec out your engineering cost to build the devices and a fabrication facility, then you need to hire people so you cost out those salaries, you need office space and marketing etc and you arrive at a number. Call it $2mn.\n\nThen you start meeting investors, you give them your pitch which will go something like \"there's 3bn people affected by rain every year, and 1.8bn buy umbrellas every year, which creates an umbrella market worth $4tn / year. We believe we can produce and sell 120k $1000 drone umbrellas / year at a market cap of $120mn, we're looking to raise $2mn in return for 5% as a series A\" etc etc (i'm being flippant, but you get the idea).\n\nInvestors want to give the least amount of money for the most return at the lowest risk, so they tend to partner up with other Angels or VC companies. So 1 investor might give $100k and someone else might give $500k, but each of those transactions will establish a value based solely on the cost of producing the initial idea (and frequently, just a prototype version of the idea) and the founders ability to sell his pitch. Investors also like to call the shots, so while the founder wants to execute his vision, he still has to go and report back to the VCs on progress (usually via board meetings), if the company is not growing fast enough, or the VCs have started seeing trends in other sectors that will yield a safer return, they can and frequently do, make strategy changes they expect the company to embrace. The founder is free to ignore the request, but he won't get another round of investment from that investor.\n\nProfit is rarely a factor in the equation. Everyone *wants* a profitable company but companies can operate solely by raising cash, and they raise cash by talking about their appeal and using metrics that verify their appeal, ie how many users, 40% year on year growth, subscriber penetration, repeat visits, unique impressions etc. It's why twitter, a company that makes almost no money, is worth $7bn. It's madness when you think about it.\n\nOnce that initial investment is raised, a public valuation now exists and all subsequent valuations are essentially an evolution of it.",
"As others have said, once you have a significant amount of revenue, the valuation is often some multiple of that revenue. But most companies don't get to a point where that is reasonable.\n\nBefore that point, valuation is completely disconnected from how much the company is actually worth. You couldn't raise at a $10M post money valuation, then immediately sell the company for $10M. Whoever writes the term sheet sets it to whatever it needs to be for their target dollar amount and ownership percentage to work out cleanly. Some investors, like Brad Feld, will literally say \"I'll write a million dollar check and I want 10%, you make the rest work out\" and you have to figure out the valuation based on that and how much other money you want to raise. Normally there's a bit more of a dance around it, but that's basically the game that everyone is playing. Investors have a check size they prefer because they want to break their fund down into easily manageable chunks, and a certain return they're aiming to hit for their shareholders. Founders have a certain amount of money they need to raise to hit their milestones, and a certain amount of equity they're willing to give away. Everyone has different numbers they're aiming for and the valuation is basically just a compromise on those numbers.\n\nStrategic factors also come into account. Most companies that raise one round raise several more, and between rounds you generally have to increase the value of the company by 2-3x. If a seed round is generally a $2-4M valuation, a series A round might be $8-12M, a B round $20-30M, and so on. If you try to raise a seed round at a $7M valuation, you could probably find someone willing to invest, but then that would put you in a weird place for your next round. Even if you're significantly further along than other seed companies, it makes sense to lower your valuation and regress to the mean to make future rounds easier on yourself. Or sometimes you'll take worse numbers to bring in a strategic investor with domain experience and connections.\n\nThere's also risk management involved. Founders want to push the valuation as high as they can get it, because that means giving away less equity, and it's been a really good market for that the last few years. But all modern economies run in cycles, so what happens when the startup market takes an inevitable downturn? Many startups have gotten themselves into a situation where, if they did have to fundraise again, they would have to do it at a lower valuation than their last round. Depending on the protections the investors got from the last round, down rounds can range from very not good to killing the company. So sometimes founders want to leave money on the table to prevent that.\n\nLong story short, valuation has nothing to with what the company is worth and everything with trying to set the numbers up properly for future fundraising rounds and eventual exit.",
"Physiologist here who has raised over $10M in early-stage venture and seed-stage capital for startup tech companies. \n\nUltimately valuation is a negotiated value between two (2) parties with opposite interests: 1) the startup's founders who want to argue for the highest valuation possible so that they can raise the money they need to launch the company while retaining as much ownership in the company as possible; and 2) the investors, who want to argue for a lower valuation, so that their money buys the highest amount of ownership in the company as possible (to a certain limit - which is that their ownership isn't so great as to cause the co-founders to become unmotivated to work hard to make the company succeed). \n\nThere isn't any magical formula for this process. There are two main \"big picture\" variables at play here: 1) the risk that the startup will fail; and 2) the likely future cash flows to the company if it succeeds. \n\nRisk is a destroyer of value. The higher the perceived risk to the investor that the company will fail, the lower valuation he/she will place on the company. The lower valuation placed on the company, the more ownership an investor will be able to buy for his investment - and the higher payout he will get if the company succeeds. \n\nSo…a company that wants to develop a novel drug, for example, is going to have a higher risk than a company that wants to develop a medical device (and has a working prototype). More experienced management lowers risk, first timers significantly increase risk. Coming to investors with just an idea is far more risky than coming to investors, say, with a working prototype of a product that has been through a clinical trial proving its usefulness over existing products. \n\nFuture cash flows refers to the amount of profit that the startup can reasonable be expected to achieve in the future. A biotech company pursuing a novel diabetic drug might be able to achieve multi-billion annual profits - while a niche software company might only expect to achieve annual profits in the tens of millions of dollars. \n\nComparable deals (valuations placed on similar companies) help, as do financial analysis to define a large \"ballpark\" range of reasonable valuation. Typically, solid biotech/medical device startups that have good management, protectable intellectual property, and a good market opportunity typically see first-round (A-round) valuations in the $1M to 7M range. A few exceptional startups might be able to negotiate a higher initial valuation. Few would ever get investor attention with a lower first-round valuation. \n\nThe idea, of course, is to \"stage\" the total investment required to achieve profitability. So you might raise a $2M \"A Round\" (first round of investment) on a pre-money valuation of, say, $4M (selling a 50% ownership stake in that company) - then use that money to achieve significant technical and/or business milestones so that you can later go out and raise, say, a $5M \"B Round\" at a new valuation of, say, $12M. \n\nThe idea, of course, is to use \"expensive\" early-rounds to increase the valuation of subsequent rounds (by lowering risk to investors at the time of investment) so that you can raise additional tranches of cash at less expensive rates (i.e. selling less ownership). \n\nAll-in-all, though, valuation is still largely achieved through negotiation and shopping the company to different investors. It's a lot like trying to value an antique car - there may be some sort-of comparable sales (not the exact same car, but sales of antique cars that are sort-of like the car you're trying to sell) to help guide you, but at the end of the day, the company's valuation is whatever someone is willing to pay for a portion of its ownership stake. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
264v20
|
if my university loses its accreditation, is my degree still valid? what happens to those who are in the school when they lose accreditation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/264v20/eli5_if_my_university_loses_its_accreditation_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chnno1t"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It is. At the point of the degree's creation, the institution was accredited. If you were to get one in a period where it WASN'T accredited.. no matter if it got accredited later... nope."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
31fkqs
|
rh negative blood?
|
Is this the same as O negative? Are there health issues associated with this blood type?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31fkqs/eli5rh_negative_blood/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq12fsi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The 'negative' in 'O negative' is the Rh factor.\n\nSo O-, A-, B- and AB- are all Rh negative.\n\nIf you're Rh- then you can't get Rh+ blood in an transfusion.\n\nAnother issue is if you're female, pregnant, and your baby is Rh+. It is then possible for you to have an allergic reaction against the Rh protein that leaks into your system"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
r8wk2
|
why more shows don't utilize ad-supported mediums like hulu.
|
I still don't understand. TV requires that shows be broadcast at specific times during the day. This means that if people are unavailable during that time, the advertisements that support that show do not get viewed. I know enough about advertising to know that the number of impressions or views is the most important thing to advertisers.
With the ability to view a show whenever I want, even multiple times on a service like Hulu or Crackle, wouldn't the number of impressions be much larger? How is this not a better deal for advertisers, and a better deal for studios, who consistently complain about losing money to online streaming? Most people I know would be happy to get the latest shows online, even if it meant they had to watch ads.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r8wk2/eli5_why_more_shows_dont_utilize_adsupported/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c43v8ey",
"c43y4l0"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"My theory is that studios are just behind the times. They don't realize the potential and are stuck in the past. Too conservative to try anything new and it prevents them from exploring new territories.",
"Web advertising doesn't pay as much as you'd think. The businesses that actually pay for advertising feel much more comfortable purchasing slots on live TV, having done it for decades. It's common to hear people complain that Hollywood companies are behind the times, but realistically every large company will always be. It costs a lot to innovate. It's a risk. Why purchasing advertising slots on streaming content (which can be extremely unreliable), when you can purchase airtime on TV, which is far more reliable and time-tested?\n\nStudios already have heavy contracts with advertising agencies. If these organizations aren't willing to switch over to the web, it prevents Hollywood from doing the same. Ultimately Hollywood is controlled by advertisers, who are often large, bulky, out of date companies.\n\nIt's also worth looking at the length of time the average advertising contract is for. Marketing firms are usually middlemen operations - creating contracts with studios and contracts with other companies looking to advertise. The studios want lengthy contracts because it means stable funding for their latest TV series. With that in mind, some of these contracts may prevent certain TV shows from being distributed via non-standard TV means - in an effort to keep the content \"exclusive\" to the advertisers the firms act on behalf of.\n\ntl;dr - Hollywood is controlled by advertisers. Marketing firms negotiate lengthy contracts that restrict content distribution. Give it another 2-10 years for those contracts to expire / be re-written."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2qqym4
|
why hasn't the us just invaded cuba the way they did iraq/afghanistan etc?
|
It's not like it's far, and the US waltzed into the middle east, and there was less good reason to do so. So I'm just wondering why is it, they've never gone in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qqym4/eli5_why_hasnt_the_us_just_invaded_cuba_the_way/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn8o364",
"cn8o5y6",
"cn8o6ff",
"cn8obbz",
"cn8ogum",
"cn8on4n"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
12,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Why would we? There's no good reason to, we can't invade every country because we don't like their leader.",
"There's nothing to gain by invading Cuba. There's no terrible regime hurting innocent people, nor any large terrorists groups, nor anything worth invading them over, nor is it a legitimate threat to the US. Invading Cuba only make the US look worse to the rest of the world than it already does.",
"Until the early nineties, we wouldn't have because of the risk of nuclear war. After the nineties, we wouldn't have because they didn't pose a direct threat to the US. We justified Afghanistan with the presence of Taliban and Iraq with Saddam's chem weapons.",
"Really?\n\nBay of Pigs **Invasion**.",
"Because the U.S can't make up a legitimate threat to make it sound like a good enough place to invade. Iraq had \"WMD's\", Afghanistan harbored terrorists and Bin Laden, Cuba doesn't have any of that, even though they have a shitty leader, it's not enough for us to invade them and wouldn't be popular with the general public either.",
"We did, it failed miserably and they never tried again because the cold war ended."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
23q8od
|
when water breathing animals take in the oxygen from water molecules, what happens to the hydrogen?
|
I know the law of conservation of mass says it doesn't just disappear.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23q8od/eli5_when_water_breathing_animals_take_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgzi39y",
"cgzi7yd"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"They do not take it from the water molecules, they take it from oxygen that is dissolved in water, which is why stagnant deoxygenated water will kill fish.\n\n_URL_0_",
"They don't split the water molecules, that would take a lot of energy. Gasses dissolve into water, so there is literally oxygen gas (02) mixed in with the water. (There is also CO2, and any other gas that is in the atmosphere mixed in too). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_saturation"
],
[]
] |
|
7oruwp
|
meausring distances between stars
|
I read that we can measure the distance between us and the stars using 2 methods which are standard candles and trigonometrical parallax. Isn't it possible to use Wien's Law with the received light to get the Temp of the star then use the H-R diagram to get the luminosity of the star then use it with the radiant energy flux directly to figure out the distance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7oruwp/eli5meausring_distances_between_stars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsbqxv9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You betcha. Parallax and standard candles are *just* two of the methods. Check out the [cosmic distance ladder](_URL_0_). Each method is good in certain situations and on certain scales, and poor in others. By piecing them all together, especially where methods overlap and can verify each other, you get the ladder."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder"
]
] |
|
1kv7zc
|
why can i wake up 45 minutes before my alarm and be wide awake, but if i roll over and go back to sleep i'm exhausted when my alarm goes off.
|
I'm guessing it has to do with being woken from a deep sleep stage.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kv7zc/why_can_i_wake_up_45_minutes_before_my_alarm_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbsxgj9",
"cbsyq76"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"When we are sleeping, we go through cycles of deep and light sleep, when you wake up before your alarm, you have come out of a very light sleep, so your mind is in a much more comfortable state for being awake.\n\nWhen you go back to sleep and wake up to your alarm, you are halfway through a sleep cycle in one of the deep sleep stages and as such, while this period may be comfortable for sleeping in, it is much less comfortable to be dragged out of this stage and your body and mind are unprepared to be woken.",
"REM Sleep cycles"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4s9f62
|
why do things like skype and facetime have a latency while talking, but phone calls don't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4s9f62/eli5_why_do_things_like_skype_and_facetime_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d57lm82",
"d57qs2z",
"d57rzvz"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Have you never called someone in the same room on your phone? Try it!",
"CS/Communication Systems student here. I am dealing with theses systems and the theories behind them as part of my studies. Skype and FaceTime use a different technology than phones. Skype and FaceTime analyze and record your voice as you speak. In order to send it from one computer to the the other, the recording is chopped up into little pieces. \n\nThese pieces are each put into packages and send over the internet until they reach the computer of the person your are talking to. When they arrive at the other computer, the program first sorts the packages and brings them in the right order, because sometimes a package may take longer than others to reach the computer. After bringing them in the right order again, the computer starts to unwrap all the packages with the little pieces of your recording in them and puts them back together. Because wrapping, unwrapping and reordering of the packets with your voice recording in them takes the computer some time, you can notice a delay when you are talking over Skype or FaceTime.\n\nWhen you are making a phone call on the other hand, your voice is not chopped up and put into packets.* As you are dialing a number, your phone tells the phone company to build an imaginary pipe from your home to the home of the person you want to talk to. Once the other person takes the call your voice is constantly poured into the pipe and flows out at the other end of the pipe. Because no one needs to unwrap or wrap packets, your voice can reach the other person faster.\n\n\n\nFor all the smartypants out there:\n* This is of course only valid for POTS PSTN networks. Newer phone systems are mostly packet switched by now.",
"This might get long.\n\nTo begin to understand this, you first have to understand the underlying concepts of how data travels across the internet.\n\nWhen you start Skype, data is recorded by your computer or phone's camera and microphone, and some of the code in the program syncs those inputs up and wraps it up into what is called a *packet.* These packets have all kinds of data in them to help other computers, routers, and various other network devices get them a.) where they are supposed to end up and b.) *when* they are supposed to end up (in the correct order). \n\nNow, these packets by themselves are useless. They get put onto a wire, either from the wireless router in your home or favorite Starbucks, or from the Ethernet port on your computer (if you're using a wired connection). However, the data contained in them (called *packet headers*) is *incredibly useful* for the next \"step\": usually a switch or router (the difference here is not important for ELI5; basically these devices receive the packet, and decide where to send it next). \n\nThere can be literally hundreds of routers and switches in between your computer and your friend's computer or phone (the one you're calling). The packet(s) that started at your computer has to make its way all the way to the other one.\n\nSo a Skype call (or Facetime) is going to be hundreds of thousands of packets, one after the other, that have to get shot of of your computer, through all these routers and switches, and reassembled *perfectly* on the other end in order for the call to look and sound \"normal.\" It's understandable that in between all of these thousands of packets, some will arrive out of order and some might not arrive at all*.\n\nIt's when either of those two things happen that we experience delays, latency, speed-talking, or choppy video/audio.\n\n*If you want to read more about this, look up the UDP and TCP protocols, and read about the difference between the two. Most streaming video applications use UDP - see if you can arrive at an AHA moment as to why this might be. If anyone is interested I can explain more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6y39h8
|
how and when did capital letters become associated with screaming and loudness?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y39h8/eli5_how_and_when_did_capital_letters_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmkdkkl"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Pretty sure that's inherited from comic books. \nThe bigger the text, the louder the character is speaking.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://i.pinimg.com/736x/35/16/e1/3516e11a1d9015707989ea3b4ea135b4--spiderman-comic-books-comic-book-pages.jpg"
]
] |
||
2cojgo
|
is it better to charge a cell phone every night or only when it's low, and why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cojgo/eli5is_it_better_to_charge_a_cell_phone_every/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjhgwvf",
"cjhh0ir",
"cjhh3bl",
"cjhhha5",
"cjhio0m",
"cjhjkti",
"cjhkt41"
],
"score": [
19,
148,
11,
9,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[This might help](_URL_0_)",
"Every night; or before it reaches 20%, whichever is earlier.\n\nRecharging every night is most convenient, and lithium-polymer cells are not affected by the 'memory effect' that happened to early designs of nickle-cadmium cells.\n\nThe only things that do stress the chemistry of cells is deep discharges, or storing them fully charged. Keeping them above 20% is a good idea.",
"Mine *is* low every night.",
"Modern cell phones have charge regulators built in. You can plug your phone in every night with no additional battery degeneration. \n\nYou should avoid letting the phone regularly run all the way down, however. Li-Ion batteries can be damaged if you let them run dry. ",
"A very important concept for Li-ion battery is DOD (depth of discharge). Essentially, each charging/uncharging cycle steals some of the remaining life of the battery. The larger the DOD, the bigger the chunk of life lost. Typically, cell phones batteries will be able to do 1000+ 70% DOD cycles. So, to maximizes battery life, charge as often as possible and keep DOD as small as possible.\n\nEdit: Here is the data from [Battery University](_URL_0_)\n\nTable 2: Cycle life as a function of\ndepth of discharge\n\n %DoD | Cycles \n---|---\n100 | 300-500\n50 | 1,200 – 1,500\n25 | 2000-2500\n10 | 3750-4700\n",
"This may have already been answered here, but is it possible to overcharge a battery? Will leaving the phone plugged in overnight, and thus charging for hours after it's been fully charged cause any damage to the battery?",
"Overnight. You're gonna need it tomorrow.."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtube.com/watch?v=LBKuOomv9Ko"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1jd1lv
|
the positive effects of performance enhancing drugs and how they help athletes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jd1lv/eli5_the_positive_effects_of_performance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbdg2l4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Different drugs do different things but most of the hormone ones, like Human Growth Hormone (HGH), act by stimulating growth in the body. HGH is a naturally occuring hormone that helps you grow during adolescence and maintains itself at lower levels throughout your life in a delicate balance of bodily growth/repair. Introducing more HGH into your body will encourage your muscles (including your heart) to grow, providing more muscle mass and allowing individuals to become stronger.\n\nTrack athletes, cyclists, and some professional athletes can also \"Dope\" by introducing erythropoeitin (the protein that controls red blood cell growth, commonly known as EPO) into their system or by removing some of their own red blood cells, allowing their body to manufacture more, and then reintroducing the red blood cells back into their system. The advantage of having more blood cells is that your body can process more oxygen, allowing your muscles to work harder/more efficiently. The increased density/volume puts a lot of strain on the heart though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
35xxc2
|
lack of guilt
|
Why is that some people do not feel guilty about things like lying and other dishonest actions? I don't mean criminals. I'm talking more about everyday people that help others and are in all other respects "good" people.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35xxc2/eli5_lack_of_guilt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr8uyf2",
"cr8v9zi",
"cr99tul"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't see them as being wrong so it's easy to not feel guilty about certain things. For example, if I were to bully you, it's because you're a loser and not because I'm an asshole so in my mind, I'm not guilty of wronging you. You see this alot in street fights where the aggressor/their group are all laughing and having a good time picking on someone. Yet when they get their ass handed to them, they whail as if they're the victims of some horrendous crime.",
"Could be any number of things, such as:\n\n1. The way they were raised. If \"white lies\" were seen as okay when they were growing up, they are unlikely to feel guilty about them later in life.\n2. Habit. If they do something \"wrong\" a lot, the mind adjusts to it and no longer causes feelings of guilt. That is why some people can do a bad thing once and feel guilty, but do the same thing later and feel fine.\n3. Self-justification. This is probably the biggest one. Humans do not like to feel guilty, it's uncomfortable. So, instead of realizing we did something wrong, we explain our way out of feeling bad. (e.g. Telling someone you'll meet them for lunch and then not showing up. \"I really would have gone if x, y, or z hadn't come up. I was just too busy. I don't like them that much anyway.\")\n\n\nAlso, don't forget that people often \"lie\" unintentionally. People *mean* to do a lot of things that they don't accomplish. I can promise and swear to do something for you at a certain time, but if something more important comes up or there's an emergency, that promise is likely to be broken. I had every intention of doing the thing I said, it just didn't happen for whatever reason.",
"Do you think in this vast universe of both infinite time and space that lying to someone effects the cosmos from this teeny tiny little planet?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
aqjrso
|
what happens in your body when you have to go to the bathroom, but hold it for so long that you no longer need to go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqjrso/eli5_what_happens_in_your_body_when_you_have_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eggg0vp",
"eggv5dp"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Both the urethra and rectum has sphincters made of muscle cells that you can control voluntarily. But these cells also have an involuntary component controlled by a reflex. So when you need to go the reflex allows the muscles to relax and empty bladder and rectum. The voluntary control steps in when you are not near a toilet and basically you suppress the urge to go and the reflex will try again later to make you go.",
"For Urine - \nWell you would be forced at some point to go thanks to your nervous system. But hypothetically if you held it closed with some mechanical help, your bladder would continue to enlarge as it fills with urine. This can 1. either clog up your ureters and kidneys which would cause your kidneys to fail, or 2. the bladder could burst causing urine to leak into your abdominal cavity which could cause widespread infection. This would all be accompanied by A LOT of pain. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ofaj5
|
how the neutral wire in house wiring works.
|
I have a basic grasp of how ac electricity works but after reading about house wiring I can't seem to get the concept of what the neutral wire does. It seems like it only carries left overs from when it is stepped down from 240 to 120 but where it says it goes back to ground? If someone could please shed some light on this or even provide a diagram that shows the "route" the electricity takes that would be great.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ofaj5/eli5_how_the_neutral_wire_in_house_wiring_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3grh5n",
"c3gsd4o"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It simply connects to the ground and dissipates any excess charge. This can happen for one of two reasons.\n\nFirst, if there's a short, it sends the charge into the ground instead of into something else in the room. You, for example.\n\nSecond, some things generate static charge while the operate (like ceiling fans), and that charge needs to be removed or it can cause either a short or it can just shock anyone that gets near it. It can also cause a lot of excess heat.\n\nthis also works for charge that YOU bring into the equation. if you take off your sweater and you're all staticky, a grounded appliance will send that static shock into the ground instead of somewhere that can damage it.",
"Electricity is based in a difference of potential (voltage) between two connectors, which makes current \"flow\" from the higher potential to the lower potential. In AC current, the potentials are inverted several times per second. The ground, whose potential doesn't vary, is taken as the reference \"zero\" potential.\n\nA *phase* is a wire that carries a current that alternates between different potential values. The *neutral* is a wire that is connected to the ground, so its potential is zero. You can have current between two phases that are not synchronized, or between a phase and the neutral.\n\nIf we take the water analogy for electricity, potential is the height of water. Current is the flow of water from a higher level to a lower level. Neutral would be like sea level and a phase would be like a dam whose water level alternates between 110ft above sea level and 110ft below sea level. You can get a flow of water by connecting two dams together (as long as the dams are not synchronized) or between a dam and the sea.\n\nThough they are both grounded, neutral is different from protective earth because neutral is made to carry the main current, while protective earth is only there to neutralize undesired charges.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3fg7ni
|
why aren't the information in our immune systems passed to our kids.
|
Like parent fights off aids, kid dies from aids. What the hell evolution!?!
EDIT: I don't think people know what I'm asking (somehow). I know about the nip feeding babies thing. I mean genetically passing on how to fight off aids to your child. Like say the dad or mom had aids or ebola or something else and they managed to fight it off why can't the child? And why isn't this passed on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fg7ni/eli5_why_arent_the_information_in_our_immune/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctoc7oc",
"ctodmp6",
"ctofpvn",
"cton28i"
],
"score": [
7,
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The information our immune system uses to remember diseases and fight them off is stored in antibodies, chemicals that attach to foreign bodies and signal the immune system to attack. This information isn't stored in our genetic code, which is the only biological information we pass on to our children.",
"The comments here are saying that we don't pass on immunity because antibodies aren't genetic, but mothers DO pass on antibodies to their babies. It's called passive immunity, certain antibodies transfer through the placenta, others through breast milk. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Breastfeeding provides babies with mother's antibodies.\n\nPrior to birth, antibodies are passed through the placenta.",
"It's because of a separation in how immunological memory is encoded and how genes are passed on to offspring. Every cell in your body has 46 chromosomes, including your testes/ovaries, 23 of which will be passed on during reproduction. The sequence of DNA is the same in every cell, from heart to liver to skin, EXCEPT for the cells that make up the adaptive immune system.\n\nYour immune system is composed of two arms: innate and adaptive. Your innate cells basically function by recognizing \"hey, here's something foreign and/or tagged by antibodies, let's kill it,\" but your adaptive cells work by recognizing \"this is molecular structure #8675309, intruder HIV-Jenny present,\" and are only activated by that specific molecular signature. The latter are the ones responsible for memory.\n\nTo achieve such specificity, your body takes a shotgun approach and generates a repertoire of cells that recognize different structures. It does this by rearranging a portion of the genome that encodes a surface receptor in a partially random fashion. Most of these cells will die from lack of seeing their target structure, but if a pathogen comes along and is recognized by a cell, that cell will divide and start doing its job of pumping out antibodies. Once the infection is cleared, some copies of that cell stick around as memory cells, ready to proliferate and mount a response if the same pathogen infects you again. They can still produce antibodies, which are passed to the baby through breast milk, but the \"code\" for those antibodies is stored in the genome of mom's B cells, which are hers and hers alone. The whole idea of vaccines is to make a child's immune system mount a response to inactivated pathogen (or just a few of its proteins) so that they'll generate their own memory cells without actually having to deal with the initial infection. \n\nFWIW, the innate immune system, which doesn't have memory and functions from birth, recognizes things as foreign through what are called \"pathogen-associated molecular patterns,\" which are found on a broad array of pathogens. In essence, the ability to fight off \"bacteria\" or \"viruses\" has been passed on through evolution, just in the general sense."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3nsx9i
|
binaural audio
|
How do binaural recordings produce sounds which appear to be in front/behind us when using regular headphones?
If you are unsure what binaural is, you can YouTube asmr
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nsx9i/eli5_binaural_audio/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvqz80f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Binaural recordings are done using two microphones placed at a distance apart from each other the same as the average human's ears. The idea is the microphones will each pick up audio the same way our ears do, so when played back, we hear the audio as we would if we heard it live. Humans have evolved the ability to pinpoint the source of a sound in a 3D environment using only our 2 years, so a binaural recording simulates this. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
41cvdg
|
why do anime/asian culture fans/enthusiasts constantly use this '~' symbol in every sentence?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41cvdg/eli5_why_do_animeasian_culture_fansenthusiasts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz1eolb",
"cz1eonx"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm only going off my weeb of a friend, but he told me that the use of \"~\" is to drag out the word in question by stretching out its main syllable. For example \"nyan~\" translates to \"nyaaaaan.\"",
"It draws out the last sound of the sentence and is intended to portray \"cuteness\".\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.quora.com/Punctuation/What-is-the-cultural-impetus-for-ending-text-messages-with-a-tilde"
]
] |
|
g1ygic
|
why/how does activated charcoal only absorb "toxins" and not other beneficial substances in your body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1ygic/eli5_whyhow_does_activated_charcoal_only_absorb/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fnieknt",
"fniekx6",
"fniemcc",
"fnieuv7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Activated charcoal is special in that carbon is a very reactive element, this form of charcoal has an absolutely humongous surface area, and it's extremely porous. Activated charcoal will either molecularly or mechanically trap really just about any molecule that passes through it, until saturated.\n\nWTF is a \"toxin\"? That's some Facebook Karen essential oil MLM bullshit right there. \"Toxin\" is not a medical or protected term. Activated charcoal doesn't discriminate. And dear god, how are you using charcoal in relation to your body? Don't eat it! Charcoal is used suspended in saline solution to induce vomiting, which is something you typically never want to do to yourself. They put it in Grade X meat, meant for dogs and other carnivores so that you can't feed it to humans. In soap, the charcoal is already saturated with soap, dyes, perfumes, and oils mixed in, and it's only acting as an exfoliant.",
"As far as I can tell, the point of activated carbon (charcoal) is to chemically bind with \"toxins\" located in the stomach. The stomach cannot digest the activated carbon, so it passes right thru into your feces.\n\nThat being said, I couldn't find reasonable or reliable answers to what the \"toxins\" were that binded to activated carbon (or any of the important questions tied to that like why is it in the body).\n\nFar as I can tell, the activated charcoal thing is not wholly true.",
"It does. That's why it is only used for emergencys. And stuff like toothpaste or drinking it as a detox is quite dangerous actually.",
"That's a false premise. Activated charcoal can absorb many different chemicals and has been known to reduce the effectiveness of medication by preventing the medication from being absorbed by your body. \n\nMost things that should be in your body are distributed throughout your body and activated charcoal only moves through your digestive system, so it will leave your liver's supply of B vitamins untouched, and it won't do anything to your white blood cell count, but if there's something in your small intestine that you want to keep, don't use activated charcoal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1vxguf
|
how do cave dwelling animals evolve to not have eyes?
|
So I was visiting a cave in North Carolina, and they had a species of native fish that were eyeless. How does the theory of evolution explain this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vxguf/eli5_how_do_cave_dwelling_animals_evolve_to_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewpr81",
"cewq1x7"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"not quite eli5 standard answer but : \n\nthe eyesight proved no advantage in those conditions. which meant that fish with worse eyesight were just as likely to survive and reproduce as fish with good eyesight. which meant that this trait was passed on to even more fish.\n\nhow exactly the eyes got completely evolved out - not sure. it is possible that having lack of eyes reduced the burden on the brain, and that mutation was much more efficient in that environment.",
"The short answer is that in certain situations having eyes is worse/more \"expensive\" than not having them.\n\nIn ELI5 terms and this context, \"expensive\" is measured in terms of how much energy an organism has to use on different things. Each creature/plant only gets so much energy from its diet, and can't \"spend\" more than that amount on keeping alive / moving / reproducing.\n\nEyes are very complex organs, and reasonably large. This has corresponding energy requirements. If you have worse eyes, and hence \"spend\" less energy on them, you have more energy to go towards other things, ie, more powerful muscles or better hearing. \n\nIn well-lit environments there tends to be a greater benefit to having at least some vision than there is to the other possible uses of that energy. In a cave however, there is no benefit to eyes; they're just energy-expensive lumps. As such, the creatures who \"spend\" less on them (and use it on other things) tended to have more offspring. Over time this has led to eyeless fish.\n\nAnother, non-energy cost of eyes is that they're soft and squishy. Unlike the rest of a fish, covered in hard scales, eyes are weak and easily damaged. This could mean that having them makes the individual more vulnerable to predators."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
p68gj
|
how hex code works and how you can tell what color it is by looking at the numbers/letters
|
I am in Intro to Programming and our professor assumed everyone already knew this. I am also a graphic design major and don't know how I don't know this already, but I have googled a little bit and it all goes over my head.
EDIT*: Ahhhh! Now I see! Thanks guys! First thing I've posted to ELI5 and a great response!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p68gj/eli5_how_hex_code_works_and_how_you_can_tell_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3mu3j9",
"c3mu7io",
"c3muu4d",
"c3myjnb"
],
"score": [
61,
11,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Hex colors are broken up into six hexadecimal digits. There are three sections - Red, Green, and Blue (in that order). Each section is a number from 00 to FF. The higher the number/letter, the more of that color you have.\n\nExamples:\n\n* Pure red is FF0000\n* Pure green is 00FF00\n* Pure blue is 0000FF\n* Black is 000000\n* White is FFFFFF",
"Are you referring to the codes used to define colors, such as those used on website code? \n\nIf so, those look something like this: **color: #3399ff**. \n\nSome background, in case you don't know. Each hexadecimal digit can have a value of 0-15. We only have numbers from 0-9, so we start using letters at 10. 10 = A, 11 = B, etc. Thus, each hex digit can be represented as either a letter or number, with a value of 0-F. \n\nFurther, since the value is 0 - 15, each Hex digit can be used to easily represent four binary bits. 8-bit data values are composed of (wait for it...) 8 binary bits, and can have a value of 0-255. 8 binary bits can be represented by 2 hex digits (4 bits per digit). So any number spanning two hex digits can have a value of up to 255.\n\nOkay, now on to the code itself.\n\nFirst, know that this is an RGB code. The first part is the value for Red, the second for Blue, and the last for Green. Take this number and break it up into its three components: Red = 0x33, Blue = 0x99, Green = 0xFF.\n\nWith a color, 0xFF (decimal 255) is used to represent max intensity and zero is basically \"off\". So a full bright red would be 0xFF0000. A pure blue would be 0x00FF00, and green would be 0x0000FF. White would then be 0xFFFFFF. \n\nNow, as for how you can just tell a color by looking at the number, that just comes with experience. For example, the example I used (0x3399FF) has a full-value for blue, less green and even less red. Turns out this is a light blue, which makes sense. Like most things, it will come with practice.\n\nI hope this helps!\n\n\nEDIT: just found [this](_URL_0_), it might help a bit.",
"There's a difference between \"graphics hex code\" and \"other hex code\". What you see is a readable conversion of the bits that the computer sees - literally, bit-by-bit what it sees. For instance, this reply starts with the word \"There\". For the computer, this reads as 01010100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 . There's nothing telling it that this is text, it just tries to interpret these as text. For us humans the ones and zeroes are pretty hard to read, so we group them per 4 to make it easier to read - 54 68 65 72 65 . Now, you notice that the third and fifth group are the same hex number - those are the same character too, the lowercase 'e'. Then, the computer uses a font to draw whatever character \"65\" is to your screen. It doesn't at any point know that it is a vowel.\n\nYou can play around with this to see what it makes of it. Text has a pretty narrow defined group of valid bytes so most data doesn't readily read as text. Try opening an executable in Notepad (which is basically telling your computer: read this file as if it were text and show me what that results in). \n\nAs a next exercise, I'm going to do something weird. Take a hex editor, which is a program that allows you to edit those files directly. Take a text file with lots of text (_URL_0_ is a good example). Take an image of say 640 times 480 pixels in BMP format. Now using the hex editor replace the contents of the BMP file after the fifth row with the contents of this text file. Save that and open in an image editor. That's what this book looks like when viewed as an image. The computer can't know that it's not an image - it doesn't have the intelligence to think \"maybe this is text instead\". It just reads it as colors because you told it to.\n\nThose colors are the same that you used to enter in graphics design for websites. If you're really bored you can draw an image by typing the right hexadecimal numbers into a hex editor.",
"I love a girl with sexy 0000FF eyes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.the-eggman.com/seminars/about_hex.html"
],
[
"http://www.clearwhitelight.org/hitch/hhgttg.txt"
],
[]
] |
|
73m9i6
|
when i take a picture of something at regular 1x zoom, why does the picture always look really zoomed-out in relation to what i see with my eyes.
|
For instance, if I were to take a picture of what is right in front of me, it would look smaller and further away than when I look directly at it from the same spot. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73m9i6/eli5_when_i_take_a_picture_of_something_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnreueh"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The 1x/2x/10x/etc measurement is in reference to the camera's lens, not the human eye. So when a lens is at 1x zoom, that simply means that that particular lens is fully zoomed out.\n\nThe lenses in cell phone cameras (as well as consumer grade \"point and shoot\" cameras) have a fairly wide \"field of view\" (how far it can see side-to-side and up-and-down), which gives the appearance of things being really small at 1x zoom, since it's capable of seeing a wider image than the naked eye can. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9lsc5c
|
is it possible to obtain "raw atp"? what would happen if one consumes it or has it injected into the bloodstream? could it substitute other forms of food or be more efficient?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9lsc5c/eli5_is_it_possible_to_obtain_raw_atp_what_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e792s7o",
"e792tj5",
"e795thx"
],
"score": [
14,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"ATP is unstable and will spontaneously break down. This is why you never see food supplements \"full of ATP for instant energy.\"",
"As far as I know it's possible to synthesise it, yes. However, it's unlikely to be of any use as a nutrient. It's used by the body because it releases energy so readily, so I would assume it to be very unstable. It would be very unlikely to survive the digestive system, and I doubt it would even stay stable in the bloodstream. I am also unsure if there are any transporters that can move it into cells. It is produced inside mitochondria which are inside cells, so I don't know if we have even evolved ways of moving it in and out of cells themselves. That's just what my guess would be, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.",
"ATP is, traditionally, inside your cell. When one of your cells die, they pop and dump their contents. This includes potassium and ATP. Obviously, your body wants to know if cells are dying, and it's adapted to learn that a sudden rise (where baseline is 0.3mcM and badness is identified by 1mcM) in extracellular ATP is a sign that badness is happening here. \n\nThere are situations where adenosine (without any phosphates) is given parenterally. The two times that come to mind are for rapidly pausing conduction in a few parts of your heart to nix reentry rhythms (6-18mg IV) or dilate cardiac artery smooth muscle to show normal vessels vs those packed with plaque (10-20mcg IC)\n\nBasically, our body sees extracellular ATP as badness. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2o3xl7
|
how does college work?
|
From getting accepted to getting a job, what is a simple but thorough way of describing higher education (and all of the processes that come along with it) in the United States?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o3xl7/eli5_how_does_college_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmjhudw",
"cmjhz0l",
"cmjjwnr"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Er...\n\nYou look at colleges and talk with their admissions representatives to determine if you'd be a good fit, if they're the school you're looking for. \n\nAssuming they are, you'll complete the application consisting of general information about yourself and usually some essay or writing piece showing off who you are and why you want to be accepted.\n\nAssuming you get accepted, congrats! (If not, go back to step 1 and repeat until you get here.) You'll be excited and wait until the first day of class, gathering all of your books and stuff.\n\nOn the first day, you'll go to all of your assigned classes and get a course syllabus or outline, showing you what you'll be learning.\n\nGo to class, learn and study. \n\nHave a bit of fun, go to some parties, look at fraternities. \n\nHalfway through the year come midterms, a series of tests for each class that gauge where you are at halfway through your first year. \n\nStudy study, take adderall, drink Red Bull. \n\nHate life.\n\nTake midterms.\n\nAce midterms.\n\nSigh with relief and party, coasting through until the end of the year where you have, you guessed it, final exams!\n\nStudy study, take adderall, drink Red Bull. \n\nReally hate life.\n\nTake finals.\n\nBarely pass.\n\nCongrats, you survived freshman year of college! You earned your parents car!\n\nEnjoy summer break. Party lots. Love lots. Cry over girls or boys lots. Party more. Develop long lasting friendships.\n\nFall comes.\n\nSophomore year is about to start.\n\nMake fun of freshman.\n\nAnd it kind of repeats until you graduate and apply for jobs that you can show off your shiny new degree to.",
"Essentially, you have two things to complete during your college run. Major requirements and institutional requirements.\n\nInstitutional requirements are the \"general education\" credits or \"gen eds\" - it's a basic smattering of subjects in various disciplines (you have a *lot* of flexibility with these) - for example, a social science, an art class, a humanities class, or a natural science. The institution requires that everyone getting a degree takes a minimum amount of these classes. They also require you have a minimum amount of credits completed. Each course is worth a certain amount of credits, and institutions handle them differently. My school requires you to have at least 120 credits for a degree (I think?), and at about 3 credits per course, this means I need to take about 40 courses before I can get a degree.\n\nThen you have your \"major\" requirements. This is the focus of your education, and consists of a sequence of courses and options within the discipline that you take during your time working towards a degree. Say you want to study astronomy - you'll need to understand astrophysics for that. To understand astrophysics, you need to take physics. To understand physics, you need to understand calculus. So they have suggested sequences, which put these courses in an order that helps ensure you'll be able to understand more advanced material.\n\nYou also have \"electives,\" which are credits that don't exactly fit into the major track or the general education credits. That is, if all of the courses in your major add up to 55 credits, and all of the gen eds ad up to 35 credits, you'll still have 30 credits of courses to take before you meet the institution's minimum requirements. You can do whatever you want with these courses. You can take bullshit courses or concentrate them into a *minor*, which is like a major, but with fewer requirements and less defined.",
"Well you've asked a question that has many, many answers.\n\nYou've been accepted! Have you already chosen your future career? If so, the process changes greatly based on what you want to be. You may end up as a full time student for just 2 years, or 4, or 6, or 8, or 12. And that is if you do not change your mind, or fail, or drop any classes. You may go to school for 4 years, then get a job and go to school part time another 2-3. You may have to take a series of standardized tests to move on, or you may have \"on-the-job\" education requirements.\n\nEach profession in the US has a different path. I'd say most common is the 4 year Bachelors degree. You can simply earn a general education bachelors degree and forge your own path. Or you may want to become an engineer - that is a challenging 4 year degree many people extend to 5 years. Or maybe you were thinking the medical profession - you have tiers of nursing: LPA (1 yr), RN (2-4yr), Nurse Practicioner(4-6yr), Doctorate of Nursing (6-12yr), or you may want to be a doctor (10-14 yr depending on specialty). \n\nAll of these different professions have slightly different paths to employment too: engineering and business degrees typically include internships; low paying jobs you take during your final year or after graduation. The point of these is to impress the employer so they hire you full time. Other degree fields may rely more on entrepreneurship or simply finding a job right out of the gate.\n\nAll in all, if you have a degree in mind most major Universities will provide a detailed path for you, and there will be a subreddit here under the degree name."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3vmceq
|
if gun restriction laws dont keep criminals from getting guns, how come there's so few mass shootings in european countries? (that typically have strict gun laws)
|
This has been bugging me, i just want to know. Why don't criminals take advantage of an unarmed populace and police force?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vmceq/eli5_if_gun_restriction_laws_dont_keep_criminals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxorfl4",
"cxorlmr",
"cxorufc",
"cxorx0x",
"cxoske7",
"cxowzgz",
"cxoyta8",
"cxp0vxv"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
6,
19,
3,
5,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Actually there are quite a lot of mass shootings in Europe. While the US has more, that's largely because the US is so much bigger in total population. [Stats](_URL_0_) \n\nAn unarmed police force/populace doesn't make much of a difference. Mass shooters tend to target people they know aren't armed and the police only arrive after the fact. ",
"Because European countries, for the most part, have much better access to mental health care, which is the *actual cause* of nearly every mass shooting in the US. To put it bluntly, these shootings have largely been carried out by people that were literally fucking crazy, and who should've been somewhere receiving treatment, and not out on the streets.\n",
"There were also places that enforced strict gun control before guns became as prolific as they are in the U.S. now. In essence, it's the difference between closing the barn door before the horses get out instead of after.\n",
"Hey OP I really think is more of a social thing, for reals hear me out.\n\nHere in Brazil there are somewhat strict gun laws and most people don't have a gun and it is quite hard to get one legally.\n\n\nAnd if you really want a gun and don't want to have it the legal way you can easily buy one from a criminal, so 'getting a gun' isn't the hardest thing if you don't mind committing a crime.\n\n\nCriminals on the other hand have guns, lots and lots of guns. They have [taken down] (_URL_0_) a police helicopter in the past.\n\nThe police has been in many occasions outgunned by criminals, so they do take advantage on that.\n\nThe amount of crimes that happen is astonishing and there are dozens murdered every day.\n\nYet mass shootings are really rare around here.\n\n\nBut what if people here had guns like in the US? Maybe 'normal' crimes would decay because criminals are afraid of people shooting back? I don't think anyone knows the answer.\n\nSorry that this got long but the point i'm trying to make is:\n\nAt least in the case of Brazil, criminals **do** take advantage of an unarmed poppulation but there are no mass shootings.\n\n\n**TL;DR:** The amount of guns available alone doesn't really make a difference but a combination of innumerable factors lead to the differences between the countries.\n\n**TL;DR like you're 5:** People are crazy and bad everywhere, crazy bad people who go pew pew pew people usually live in the US.",
"Those laws make it difficult for *anyone* to get a gun. That would violate the second amendment to the US constitution, so it would be impossible to implement here without a constitutional amendment (and those are not easy to get). What the US is trying to do is keep criminals from getting guns while still allowing regular people to get them. But that's really difficult. When there's more guns than people, it's hard to keep them out of the hands of criminals.",
"There's a few factors. \n\n1. Most guns on the street were obtained by legal means. Something like 85% of them were stolen from legal owners. People buy a handgun for \"home protection\" expecting someone to come through their window in the middle of the night, but it doesn't happen that way. Most often break and enters are during the day, when people are at work. That loaded handgun in the bedside table is the easiest thing to move on the black market for drug money. This creates a ready supply of black market weapons. The other 15% or so of guns on the street are bought by licensed buyers, who then hand them off to gangs or those who can't obtain them legally, then report them stolen. There was an ATF task force tracking this for a while and found some buyers were buying 15 or 20 assault rifles a week and selling them off to gangs, but that investigation was shut down with the \"Fast and Furious\" gun-walking scandal. \n\n2. The idea that \"if you take guns from law-abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns\" is a logical fallacy. It is based on the incorrect assumption that there are two kinds of people in this world; criminals and law abiding citizens. The huge majority of the tens of thousands of shootings that happen in America every year don't follow that pattern. Many are accidents, (statistically a person's child is 100x more likely to die by shooting death if you have a gun for home-protection in the house.) More still are self-inflicted i.e. suicide, (it's been proven that if a person doesn't have an easy, instant way to kill themselves, they are far more likely to re-think their decision.) Many more are caused by a \"law abiding citizen\" who find themselves in a situation such as a road-rage incident, a cheating wife, a bar fight or a robbery. In essence the law-abiding citizen becomes the criminal you read about as soon as they pull the trigger. Until then they were just another responsible gun owner.\n\nSo to answer your question, in other countries those situations would be dealt with differently, and very rarely would someone get shot. I've lived in Canada, Britain and Germany before moving to the States, and the way people carry themselves and handle situations is strikingly different. In Britain for example, someone will either use words to explain exactly why you're a cunt, or knock you out. No guns needed. Not only do people not feel the need for a gun in those countries, but even if they did, the black market isn't as convenient as people seem to think. Without that constant supply from break and enters which I mentioned, the black market largely dries up. The more organized gangs might have access to firearms still, but it's way easier for police to deal with in that case, and stay on top of it. ",
"UK perspective:\n\n1) Criminals don't carry guns generally because it doesn't make sense. No one is going to shoot them for robbery, so why carry a gun which will cause armed police to respond, a man hunt, and extended stay in prison if caught?\n\n2) Many (most?) mass shootings aren't by criminals. Having a gun readily available means there is a smaller barrier for someone to go on a killing spree. Killing sprees are not generally a way to make money, so ordinary criminals don't tend to be the ones doing it.\n\n3) Better mental healthcare services and social support mechanisms. Helps cut down on the crazies, who are (aside from mafia hits or something) are really the only ones with a reason to go on a mass shooting.",
"Mass shootings in Europe vs the US is about the same if you account for population and the fact that they are rare events. Many developed countries DO have a much lower homicide rate, firearm or otherwise, compared to the US. However, there has never been any correlation between gun ownership rates and homicides. The homicide rates in Britain and Australia have always been relatively low, even before they banned most guns. In some cases, like in Australia, homicide rates actually increase a tiny bit after they banned guns.\n\nConversely, the US has **always** had a much higher homicide rate compared to European countries. But that rate has been steadily declining for nearly 3 decades despite the fact that the number of guns has increased at an equally steady rate.\n\nIf you ever get a chance to watch Bowling for Columbine (an excellent film, before Michael Moore became a shill for the democratic-socialist party), you'll see that there aren't any cut and dry explanations why America started out such a violent place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://archive.is/f4gbv"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/17/rio-favela-violence-helicopter"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6nnexw
|
why are loot crates in video games not declared as gambling?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nnexw/eli5_why_are_loot_crates_in_video_games_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkaqqbv",
"dkaqs9t",
"dkaupxw"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The definition of a gamble is to play a game of chance for money. Generally the only thing you get in loot crates are in game items. Yes, you can sell them to the steam market, but steam wallet doesn't count as actual money because you can't actually withdraw it from your account. Yes, there are websites in which you can sell items for actual money, but the websites aren't run by the companies who sell the loot crates.",
"It is in some countries. In countries like South Korea, a game like Overwatch or Hearthstone has to be more up-front with their outcomes.\n\nThat said, purchasing something with a guaranteed value (but potential higher value) isn't necessarily gambling. A company like Loot Crate sends you a mystery box each month for your money. Its value is unknown, for the most part. You're not losing your money, you're getting something for it. ",
"Depending on country it may be considered gambling, or gambling may be legal, or it may not be considered gambling. Some asian countries force these games to sell items directly rather than loot crates.\n\nIf you're asking why they can do it in *AMERICA* it's because the legal value of the contents of the loot crate is zero. You can't sell it in-game then withdraw in-game money to your real account, so as far as the government is concerned you are paying money for a service rather than a product. You *can* cash out via 3rd party services, but that's both against the TOS of the game and in a legally gray area."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
34dh0y
|
how hard is it for a homeless person to get a job after they become homeless?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34dh0y/eli5_how_hard_is_it_for_a_homeless_person_to_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqtma71",
"cqtmg1m",
"cqtnsmz"
],
"score": [
9,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's essentially impossible.\n\nStudies have shown, however, that if you buy a homeless person a suit and tie and lend them a place to stay for a month or two that they almost always find work.\n\nSalt Lake City and New York City are pioneering the research into this 'Housing First' initiative, along with a number of small communities. What they have learned is baffling: apparently, the saved costs from unpayable hospital bills and police calls exceeds the cost of the program. It's literally cheaper to house and feed the homeless than to leave them on the streets.",
"It depends on the job they're trying to get. Getting an office job or working in close proximity to other people is next to impossible when you've no place to shower or clean your clothes. Getting a job at a gas station or some other low paying place that won't care is easier. \n\nSource: was homeless for 5 years",
"Coming from someone who was homeless (for a short while ) its crazy hard ... if you don't have the money to look clean and dress nice it will just look shitty, if you don't have money for a cell phone how are they suppose to contact you telling you that you have the job. when they ask where you live most would just say something like \"hmm sorry to here that \" and just move on but it was awkward as fuck. As what /u/glyttch said yea you can go for some low end place can happen and although it makes things little easier its still really hard to get on your feet even with that(did housekeeping at a hotel for a few months). But eventually i was picked up by the cops for sleeping in a park and taken to a crazy religious driven homeless shelter(it was the only one in the area) After a month of being in there and feeling like god was going to smitten me down to hell. i found myself going to an army requirement office and seeing what they could do for me ... The whole office basically helped me and even bent some of the rules to help me as much they did. they helped me get the final credit for high school so i could graduate, helped me get my drivers licence (even used one of their personal vehicle), helped me find a better (temp) place to live, and plus they got with me weekly to get me in better shape. If it wasn't for the army i probably would probably still be homeless, in jail , or died(its 7 years later).. sorry rambling on .. anyways this is all aside from the mental part of things. The hopelessness that went on is indescribable. At my lowest point I didn't care if i was in jail, killed, drunk, or high. i just didn't care.... this is most likely an un-needed comment but oh well "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3tannf
|
what is this whole "waifu" thing about? i don't get it at all.
|
I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tannf/eli5_what_is_this_whole_waifu_thing_about_i_dont/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx4i8i6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Waifu is how a japanese person would pronounce Wife.\n\nWesterners who enjoy japanese games/anime/manga culture would often find a female character who they really enjoy, it might be their personality or portrayal or how cool they act etc. This would be their \"fictional crush\" or \"waifu\"\n\nI'm sure people had crushes on Jessica Rabbit etc when they were younger, or crushes on Black Widow right now, these \"fictional crushes\" are the same as \"waifus\"\n\nFor example, I might say my waifu was tomoyo from Clannad/Tomoyo After, I've got a friend who would say his waifu is Satsuki from KLK.\n\nNote that people can have \"fictional guy crushes\" as well, these are called \"Husbandos\", some people might call Saitama from OPM their husbando, or cloud, or whatever. Homosexuality isn't implied here."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1lv5ti
|
why the fcc censors radio and tv, but not things like pandora?
|
While listening to Pandora radio today, I noticed the songs were uncensored. I'm totally fine with that. glad actually. But it got me thinking, why are radio and tv broadcasts subject to rules about swearing, but Pandora isn't?
At first I was thinking it was because you have to actively sign up for Pandora, and agree to their terms. But you have to sign up and agree to get cable tv too. And even cable tv stations (typically) face fines for swearing.
So why is Pandora (or _URL_0_, or Spotify, etc.) any different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lv5ti/eli5_why_the_fcc_censors_radio_and_tv_but_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc35z5n"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"As with all government practices, the FCC functions with layers of rules added to and changed over decades. When radio began, the frequencies over which radio signals are transmitted were considered public property and the government operated as the de facto 'owner'. Radio stations and later broadcast television stations, were subject to substantial oversight because they existed only through a continued lease of the airwaves, provided and renewed at the will of the government. \n\nMuch like you can't use the US mail system to send certain things, the government took the position that they had a responsibility to regulate what passed through the American radio frequencies.\n\nPandora is separate from that because it doesn't consume the broadcast frequencies that are the source of the government's authority to regulate content.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"Last.fm"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2w9gt9
|
how does tiltshift work?
|
How can a camera distort scenes to look like miniature models?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w9gt9/eli5_how_does_tiltshift_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coou7zr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The short version is that, instead of the camera lens poking straight out of the camera, and perfectly lined up with the film/sensor, it's tilted and shifted to give a different area that's in focus. Someone who knows what they're doing can adjust those to mimic the effect you get when the subject is really tiny. Now there are Photoshop tools that mimic that effect without having a lens that can be tilted/shifted.\n\nA nice, longer explanation with graphic examples here: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://cow.mooh.org/projects/tiltshift/howdoesitwork.html"
]
] |
|
9nwrwy
|
how is skin cancer caused (or assisted) by sun burns if skin cells die and replace themselves relatively quickly? wouldn’t the damaged skin cells die before they can become cancerous?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9nwrwy/eli5_how_is_skin_cancer_caused_or_assisted_by_sun/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7pjydr",
"e7pjzel",
"e7pkcho"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
15
],
"text": [
"As I understand it, the UV penetrates more than one layer of skin. So let's say it outright kills the first 2 layers, they peel off. The layer beneath survives, but has been exposed to UV, and is now exposed to more as the upper layers are gone. As this new skin is still growing, the cells are dividing rapidly, and during cell division the chromosomes are protected by only a thin layer of cytoplasm, and so are more susceptible to radiation damage (which triggers mutations like cancer). ",
"If they completely die, then that's fine. The probably is that UV radiation can cause damage to cell DNA, and the cell can keep living. You have lots genes in your DNA that code for various things. Some of these tell your cells to \"grow faster\" and some of them tell your cells to \"slow down\". If UV radiation knocks out some of these \"slow down\" genes, then the cell can start growing and replicating faster than it should. It's like disabling the brakes in a car that is rolling down a hill.",
"The [skin has several layers](_URL_0_), and only the epidermis layers \"die and replace themselves\" rapidly. And the way that happens is the cells in the layer divide and push \"older\" cells up and out, where they eventually harden and flake off.\n\nBut, cells \"replace themselves\" and \"multiply\" by division; one cell copies all of its DNA and splits into two copies.\n\nUltraviolets, x-rays, and gamma radiation are \"ionizing\" radiation, the photons have enough energy to knock electrons off atoms, and those atoms will immediately go and chemically react with the nearest thing, disrupting the delicate chemistry in a cell.\n\nMost of the time cells die from this disruption. However, sometimes what's disrupted is the DNA strands, and the cell doesn't die from that. It just copies the damaged DNA strands when it \"divides\" and \"multiplies\".\n\nCancer is actually cells from your own body that have DNA that's damaged in such a way that it doesn't kill off the cell because it can't function, but the DNA doesn't let the cell perform its intended purpose (to function as a skin cell or a liver cell or a heart muscle cell, for example). So cancer is live cells that multiply out of control and don't have a function, they just live, consume, and multiply.\n\nSo, anyway, sun burn is damaged cells. Most of them are dead / dying. But some of them are OK, but with damaged DNA that can cause them to *become* cancer, and then multiply as such."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integumentary_system"
]
] |
||
5jgjkd
|
why does pasta need so much water to cook? instructions for about 400 grams of pasta (ravioli) required about 6 quarts ( 24 cups~) of water, boiled for 4 min. i'd think half of that would be sufficient?
|
Edit: Link for the pasta and the prep
[Rana Butternut Squash Ravioli](_URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jgjkd/eli5_why_does_pasta_need_so_much_water_to_cook/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbfz7sx"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Pasta contains a lot of starch, and when starch is wet it gets gummy and sticky. If you don't use enough water when boiling pasta all the starch will cause the pasta to stick together. You could use half the amount in your example, but if the pasta sticks together then some of it will be undercooked if, for instance, it globs together in a giant ball of noodles."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.giovanniranausa.com/products/butternut-squash-ravioli.html"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
51lufz
|
how do magnetic bands on cards work? and how do other types of cards work without them?
|
I was wondering, I never quite knew how the magnetic stripe works, as in how does it store data. Also, i noticed that there are some cards (the public transport card where I live, it works by touching the reader instead of swiping) that don't seem to have any form of magnetic stripe. How do they know how much money you have left? Where is that data stored?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51lufz/eli5_how_do_magnetic_bands_on_cards_work_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7cwpcv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The black stripe consists of a ferrous metal. Different areas of the stripe is magnetized in different directions. As the card moves close to a wire it will induce a bit of current that can be detected. The different directions of the magnetic field will induce the current in different directions. If you apply a strong magnetic field to the card you can change the direction of the magnetic fields on the stripe and write to the card.\n\nAn RFID card works differently. The card consists of a big coil of wire connected to a microchip. The reader will make an alternating magnetic field which will induce power to the chip in the card. The chip will then be able to communicate with the reader though either radio signals or induction though the same coil. An RFID system might be more expensive with cards starting at $.10 but is more secure as the chip in the card can have active cryptography while a magnetic stripe does not have any built in logic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5d5sog
|
how do news outlets like vice and bbc get access to illegal organizations like drug cartels, and why do these organizations allow it?
|
_URL_0_
Just watched this from the BBC and, while fascinating, it provoked the above question.
For the how: Is there... Er, PR for the cartel? Or is it as simple as going to Mexico with a camera and asking questions?
As for the why: I don't understand what the cartel gains from "showing their process" to outsiders. Couldn't this potentially garner copycats that would cut into their business? Wouldn't it be a security risk to show where they cook?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d5sog/eli5_how_do_news_outlets_like_vice_and_bbc_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da1zgp4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Cartels are not generally staffed by rational people. They are generally staffed by megalomaniacs, psychos, and hyper-violent idiots. All types of people who love showing off how rich and powerful they are. They do a *ton* of PR. Mostly through mass-murder and torture, but they also have quasi-legitimate business connections and media contacts. I'm sure the BBC didn't have to work too hard to get access. Just put the word out through known cartel associates like lawyers and entertainers and then wait for a response. The hard part is both sides making sure the other side is genuine.\n\nAnd in Mexico what's the threat? It isn't like the police don't know who and where most of these guys are. They own the police."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37952827"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
798x5q
|
why does one train need to stop when meeting another?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/798x5q/eli5_why_does_one_train_need_to_stop_when_meeting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp03n06"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"It's not clear what you mean by \"meeting another\". Obviously not on the same track, because crunch. So I'm guessing that your train stops, the other train goes whooshing by, then your train proceed? It is likely that your train has moved to a siding (a short section of additional track) to let the oncoming train pass. A little further up the tracks merge to a single track, and if your train kept moving, there'd be that crunch."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dc85o5
|
how does the moon affect the earth's tidal waves, and as a result, earth's rotation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dc85o5/eli5_how_does_the_moon_affect_the_earths_tidal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f26hr6b",
"f26hr6q"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Moon's gravity fucks up with earth's gravity and they play tug of war.\nOnlookers like us find it cute that tidal waves are being attracted towards sky.",
"Everything has gravity. The moon is a really large object. The moon has gravity but less than earth. The moons gravity pulls water and interacts with earth's gravitational field and as such the processes within earth which cause it to spin"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
31kw89
|
how come minors have to pay taxes in the us? since they can't vote, shouldn't they be tax exempt regardless of their income?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31kw89/eli5_how_come_minors_have_to_pay_taxes_in_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq2iiaq",
"cq2jl53",
"cq2jobk",
"cq2kjwz",
"cq2l4hj",
"cq2nxzy",
"cq2nype",
"cq2o4x1",
"cq2oufg",
"cq2p07v",
"cq2per6",
"cq2pnz9",
"cq2q44s",
"cq2q8xz",
"cq2qn26",
"cq2qsp0",
"cq2qufy",
"cq2r34r",
"cq2rbuc",
"cq2rh2v",
"cq2rpee",
"cq2rxnk",
"cq2rymg",
"cq2sjc8",
"cq2srg2",
"cq2t4mg",
"cq2tzai",
"cq2u1tx",
"cq2u2fd",
"cq2ub5u",
"cq2ucfu",
"cq2v1e4",
"cq2v52x",
"cq2vlpb",
"cq2w1pp",
"cq2weyc",
"cq2wfme",
"cq2wg9p",
"cq2wgop",
"cq2wq2i",
"cq2x377",
"cq2xb98",
"cq2xd0r",
"cq2xhhc",
"cq2xppp",
"cq2xtjc",
"cq2xz1m",
"cq2y4tj",
"cq2y8st",
"cq2yct5",
"cq2z6i3",
"cq2zgi7",
"cq300cr",
"cq305et",
"cq312rv",
"cq316ma",
"cq31935",
"cq31dr0",
"cq32445",
"cq3279e",
"cq32zfn",
"cq3303q",
"cq34rg3",
"cq34xhw",
"cq350uv",
"cq389uw",
"cq38cif",
"cq3e11h",
"cq3f0d5",
"cq3jutf"
],
"score": [
2950,
327,
75,
2,
215,
3,
40,
6,
13,
5,
25,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
38,
6,
2,
3,
11,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If minors were exempted from paying taxes, this would create a huge loophole in the tax code. Parents would put all of their securities in their children's names, so that they never had to pay taxes on the interest and dividends. Note that to a small extent, people actually do do this, but the tax code addresses it and has removed some of the tax advantages. Regardless of this loophole, people who are prohibited from voting still have to pay taxes--\"no taxation without representation\" is more of an ideological or cultural belief and is irrelevant for legal purposes.",
"That's not quite how \"taxation without representation\" works.\n\nAs a general rule, minors are under the care of someone else, most often parents, and as such their \"representation\" is through said guardians. This occurs not just with voting but with contracts and other responsibilities. \n\nEdit: to add. Just like many other things concerning minors, it is assumed that they do not have the agency to make certain decisions or engage in certain activities, such as driving, drinking, or contracts, and yet they still can derive the benefits of it (well, maybe not drinking). Same with voting: when a minor pays taxes, they are still getting the benefits of defense, roads, etc. They don't get to influence how this gets spent because it is assumed they don't have the agency to make those sorts of decisions and so it is made for them--much like, say, contracts. This doesn't necessarily conflict with the concept of \"taxation without representation.\"",
"Short answer has 3 big considerations. \n\nFirst, minors can still benefit from government services and therefore should be expected to pay into those services. \n\nSecond, there are tax advantages for being claimed as a dependent. Since the income of the minor is included in \"household income\", it's easier to tax the earner rather than tax the parents on behalf of the earner in the household. This also simplifies the issue of a minor who becomes an adult during the tax year that would arise if they were only taxed for a partial year. \n\nThird, it would be a nightmare for employers to report. Payroll is a tax write off against profits for a business. That money is then taxed as \"profit\" by the employee (as income tax). If an employee was, effectively, tax exempt, it would greatly complicate how businesses were taxed on their payroll. It would also result in businesses selectively hiring (or not) minors based on how they were taxed. \n\nTl;Dr - it would complicate the system more than it already is and the inability to vote has no bearing on their ability to utilize government services (like schools) that are paid for with taxes. ",
"Taxation without representation? That's way more prevalent than is recognized.",
"Lots of people pay taxes but can't vote.\n\nNon-citizens of many types pay tax and can't vote.",
"Well, taxes suck, but (in theory) everyone pays them because everyone benefits from them. In theory.",
"I'm Non-Resident Alien, that is, foreign national residing and working in USA. I can't vote. But for tax purposes, I am treated as resident alien and I have to pay full taxes; including Social security payments etc. But can't vote.",
"If voting rights were the reason people pay taxes (they're not), then convicted felons would be tax-exempt.",
"Do minors benefit from the usage of said taxes? Obviously so. \n\nJust because you don't have a say, or your say isn't what you want, doesn't mean you aren't benefiting from being (and thus are justifiably) taxed. ",
"Just a reminder, Washington DC has a population of 650,000 people, but has a non-voting member of Congress.",
"Sure they can't vote (yet), but they can still use all of the services they are paying for through taxes. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc)... Education, police services, fire dept, etc... Just because you didn't have a say in how they got funded, or how they came to be doesn't mean your not responsible for paying for them.",
"Briefly confused MINERS with MINORS and thought I learned something completely new about mining rights ",
"I would happily give up my vote to get my tax dollars back",
"Just because you can't vote doesn't mean you can avoid taxes. Non-citizens can't vote, but still pay taxes for as long as they live in the country.",
"Voting is only one benefit. What about the road they drive on and the schools they attend",
"Minors, for whatever reason, are not entitled to equal protection of the law. For some reason invented by people in the age of majority, age is not a class typically suspect to discrimination, and thus is not entitled to the strictest constitutional protections. That is, laws may categorize individuals by age, and may do so while only meeting a lesser standard of constitutionality.\n\nThe effect of this is that policymakers can pick and choose how they want to treat minors. They can make you attend schools, they can subject you to unique disciplinary measures, they can refuse to allow you to vote, they can refuse to allow you to purchase certain objects or services, etc. etc. All under the highly moralistic guise that humans are born with a tarnished capability for reason, based in Christian concepts of original sin. (reminds me to make some progress in Divinity: Original Sin..)\n\nSo, you can be forced to pay taxes, and you can be refused the right to vote. Since age isn't a method by which people are discriminated. Yes it's farcical. It's how the law works though, since it has the retarded precedent that discrimination by age does not occur often enough to consider age a suspect class, which would entitle it to greater protection.\n\n\nDear Mr Demagogue: No that is not a load of crap. It's the idea that a young person's faculties are incapable of producing reason. They have the idea that children literally need to be told how to use their reason, for nearly two decades, before they can rely on it themselves. It's not about learning society's rules and morals, it's the false idea that youth cannot use their rational functions, even though they have them.",
"Permanent residents and other non-voting residents would also have to be exempt also which just doesn't make sense. You pay tax into the system because you are still part of the system. You still live in a system where you can drive on the roads, take the public transit, attend public schools, healthcare (lol, oh wait, US.), etc.\n\nHowever, it is worth noting that of all the non-voting residents, minors are one of the few groups that don't have a choice to leave the system, so...",
"why on earth do you think voting is tied to taxes? foreign immigrants cant vote, they still pay taxes, so do felons. \n\nYou pay taxes to have access to the protection of the US military, fire, police and coast guard, a government provided attorney ect.\n\nNot so that you can vote. ",
"The largest tax that I imagine kids are paying is sales tax. They don't really earn much money and can't own property so those taxes don't affect them as proportionately as they do adults. But they buy a lot of things, even if it's while using their parents money, and those purchases are taxed, often at very high (10%) rates. \n\nSo are we going to stop applying sales tax to minors? Will all kids then suddenly become the family grocery shopper?",
"In the US specifically, taxation has become autonomous with life itself. If you're born within the united states at any professional healthcare facility you are guaranteed to have been issued a tax identity from which the states claims bond. There are ways to refute blanket coverage taxation but those methods elude me yet. Something to do with non-disclosure of contractual agreements... IF you want to get away from arbitrary law enforcement that you were too infantile to understand to begin with. \n\nAlass, assumed society policy is seen as superseding common law in any court of the states anyway. Your best defense is learning much more law than I've been able to study yet.",
"Pays Taxes but can't vote:\n\nMinors\n\nConvicts and Ex-Convicts\n\nU.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.\n\nTourists, Resident aliens with Visas.\n\nIllegal immigrants. (Pay sales tax, often pay withheld income tax if using fake/borrowed ssn for job)\n\nResidents of Washington DC have no votes in congress.\n\nYoutube celebrity cats.",
"Ignoring the question entirely, I can't even begin to understand why you would think that being unable to vote should/would make you exempt from paying taxes... non-citizens can't vote, but they still pay taxes. Taxes are paid for upkeep of the country.",
"The law doesn't state that if you pay taxes, you're allowed to vote or vice versa (that if you're forced to pay taxes, you're allowed to vote). Felons cannot vote (they can run for President, though, for some reason), but they still have to pay taxes.",
"the baby boomers need someone to secure their social security ",
"There's only 2 guarantees in life. Death and taxes",
"Wait wait wait. I definitely remember reading that dependents only have to pay taxes if they make over 6000 in a year, is that not actually the case?",
"It seems like when I was a mior I received 100% of my income tax back in form of refund. Everything besides my Social security tax and Medicare tax. ",
"What about legal resident aliens? They live in the US, pay taxes, but can't vote. They should be allowed to vote in local elections where their vote directly determines their quality of life.",
"Working as a minor I got nearly all of my taxes back during refund season. ",
"as a former accountant, we often divert small amounts of money to everyone in the family, to abuse the lower tax rates (there's a tax-free threshold)\n\nif minors paid no tax, we'd give them 100% of the parents' company's profits... even though the money ultimately goes to the parents",
"How about the corollary: if you don't pay taxes you can't vote? Does that make sense to a society that wants everyone to pay a fair share?",
"Parents would use their children has tax shields. That's why there is income rules on if they have to pay tax. ",
"For the same reason minors must follow every other law that all American citizens are required to follow.",
"Ex con's also can't vote, with that logic they shouldn't pay taxes either.",
"Most minors also end up getting the taxes they pay returned anyways.",
"Voting rights are never a requirement for being taxed. Foreign nationals who work in the US, corporations, minors, felons with voting rights revoked all have to pay tax yet can't directly vote.",
"Going to try to answer the question here. \nEven though minors cannot vote, they are still taxed because they have access and use the country's infrastructure. \n\nRegardless to whether or not they vote, they are still protected by the United States Military, they still have clean air by the EPA, regulations on food/drugs with the USDA and FDA, [etc....](_URL_0_) basically, with all of the services that this country provides to the people that reside within its boarders everyone that works within its borders have to pay for these services. \n\nHonestly to think about it, how many of these positions are things that you actually get to vote for? How many of these positions are appointed by officials that were appointed by another official's vote?\n\nBasically, voting is separate from the administration of some of these kinds of services, especially the military. I guess one could make the argument that ultimately all of these individuals report to some elected official... but look at the 2000 election, even the popular vote doesn't determine who the elected president is.",
"Then all business's etc would be in minor's names",
"Shit, I have to pay taxes!?",
"Why would anyone not have to pay taxes if they couldn't vote? ",
"Because rich people would put any and all income under their kids' names to avoid paying taxes.",
"I have a green card. I can't vote, and my rights are not equivalent to a citizen's rights in the US. This puts me in the same situation as a minor, barring the automatic conferral of full citizenship with age. If paying taxes were dependant on rights and voting, it would make no sense for me to pay tax. While it would be nice to not pay taxes, it would absolutely disincentivize anyone getting full citizenship. ",
"Why do you believe there is a correlation between voting and taxes?\n\nTaxes pay for tons of public services.\n\nBy your logic, do you think someone could decide not to vote and claim they shouldn't pay taxes? City, state, and federal infrastructure and community structures/programs are just a tiny part of what's funded by taxes...",
"You go to school. You use the streets. You drink the water. You pay the tax.",
"Minors still benefit from the infrastructure and services that are provided through taxes",
"They all receive the benefits of the taxes (streets, police, fireman, ect) so they need to pay taxes on earnings however at a lower rate.",
"Felons aren't allowed to vote either and they still have to pay taxes. \n\nPaying taxes is not contingent on voting. ",
"Why do you tie voting to paying taxes. Non US citizens and felons can't vot but pay taxes. The two are not connected in any way.",
"Legal permanent residents (non US citizens residing legally in the US) have to pay taxes too and can't vote. Paying taxes is not a qualifier.",
"This creates a giant tax loop hole.\n\n1. Adult guardian of a 5 year old minor has a business.\n2. Adult guardian hire minor to be employee and pays $250K a year. Minor does not pay taxes on the $250k.\n3. Profit. Adult Guardian takes money and spends it for the minor because he is the guardian and makes the decisions for the minor. He spends all of the minors money. \n\n",
"Because \"no taxation without representation\" isn't part of the law. You benefit from tax-funded services, so if you have an income, you're expected to pay taxes as a way of contributing to those services.",
"No, no, you don't understand. See, in America, we don't discuss things like taxing Social Security benefits or taxing the 0.75% interest on passbook savings. There's no way to turn that argument into \"the Republicans are stupidface.\" \n\nPick a better topic like \"Republicans want to starve pre-schoolers.\" That will help America achieve great things.\n",
"Many minors don't pay taxes due to the general deduction of $6200 per year. If they do pay taxes it's minimal and their effective rate is very low",
"It looks like op had a strange question.\n\nI'd like to focus on the first question: as others have said, minors benefit from the services this country provide. Therefore, they pay taxes.\n\nHowever, I don't think anyone has adequately answered the second question (well, if I were to reword it): Since they pay tax, why can't they vote?\n\nIf we were to suddenly not allowed to vote (because we already have officials. Who needs new ones, right?), I'm sure everyone would be upset. My point is, that saying that they are represented by someone else essentially voids them of their say. If we were to argue that they are not smart/wise enough, we could probably argue that some people who do vote aren't exactly informed.\n\nSince they hold a job, contribute to our economy, and pay taxes (that last one isn't necessarily tied to this argument), I think they should have a vote.",
"Because taxes have zero to do with voting? Apples and oranges.",
"Additionally, because if they didn't, every business owner in the country would hire their minor children for some bullshit job, and gain access to a giant tax loophole.",
"Just because they are too young to modify the rules doesn't mean they don't have to play along the rules...",
"gonna quote Jim Rohn here, if kids want to use their bicycle on the pavement and not have holes in them then yes. They should pay taxes. ",
"Yeah, whatever happened to no taxation without representation ",
"First of all taxation and voting aren't linked at all.\n\nIf you're eligible to vote then you can vote. Part of that eligibility is the age of 18.\n\nAs for not taxing minors, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but most people under 18 pay social security and a few other taxes, but they generally get all their income taxes back because od the earned income tax credit. Or. Their parents claim them as dependents, so their parents get a tax credit and they pay the minimum tax rate, and as long as they claimed 0 on their w4, then they will probably get money back...\nTL:DR, minors basically don't earn enough to pay taxes already.",
"If you make over $5000 a year, you get taxed for the income. Otherwise, people would use minors as tax dodges, placing the majority of their wealth in securities in their children's name. \n",
"Because minors cannot own property and money is property. Everything you earn is owned by your parents.",
"This question is based on the fallacious assumption that tax law is based on what is fair or rational and not on what politicians find most convenient.",
"In Canada, we don't pay taxes on income up to a limit of around $11,000. Anything more and we pay just like the adults.",
"Minors still benefit from the fruits of society like roads and hospitals and schools.",
"Most responses in this thread have missed the larger point.\n\nAs a minor everything you own belongs to your parents (barring very specific legal circumstances for certain types of assets). It doesn't matter if you bought it with money you earned yourself. It doesn't matter if the item in question IS the money you earned yourself. It doesn't actually belong to you.\n\nCertain professions (acting comes to mine) may require the child's wages be placed in trust for the child, which is an example of \"specific legal circumstances\". Another example are inheritances. Trusts held in a child's name are governed by specific rules that supplant a parents' typical ownership of a child's assets. Also, YMMV in terms of individual state statutes.\n\nBut most kids old enough to work? Yeah, your parents can take your money and your stuff whenever they like.\n\nNow, in most families, this is kind of an academic point. Parents generally allow minors to control their own property (income and material goods), at least in part. In other families, it's a serious issue that can really damage the minors involved. This arrangement (parental ownership of minor property) is predicated on the parental obligation of support. If parents fail to provide that support, the relationship can be severed (the state removing the minors from the home, or the minors becoming emancipated).\n\nMinor workers pay taxes on their wages because those wages are owned by parents, who for the many reasons listed in this thread, are obliged to pay tax on all streams of income.",
"Look, whatever you do as a minor to earn money, you still live inside a country. \nThis means you GET certain things: you can use the roads, the police will protect you, water comes out a faucet in the wall, if you want there are courts where you can sue your employer, etc. \nBasically everything that has to do with having civilisation, any sort of society. \nNow, when you earn no money, you pay no taxes. You get all of this. But when you do earn money then society basically says \"Hey, you can't use all of this for free. You need roads, and telephone, and courts to earn money. Why? Because it's all there to help you. That help costs. So, for having all of this around you at all times, we deserve that you give us a little bit of everything you earn.\".",
"From my understanding, parents CAN take loans and borrow money (in other means) in their children's names. Outside of the US we would just call this fraud but it is legal in many states. So they have to be eligible for tax reasons. \n\n",
"Tacit consent. Same reason you still have to pay taxes if you don't vote.",
"No taxation without representation isn't a law. Its just something someone said. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2hxzgz
|
how does downshifting slow down a car?
|
What exactly happens with the engine, transmission, and wheels when you downshift your car to a lower gear to slow your car down.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hxzgz/eli5_how_does_downshifting_slow_down_a_car/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckx0zrm",
"ckx15lx",
"ckx26hw"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It's best to think of your engine as _enforcing_ a certain spin rate of your wheels, based on the relationship of the engine to the wheels via the gears. If you change the gears, you're applying the power of your engine to a different rate of spin. In the case of downshifting you are saying \"apply a bunch of power to a lower spin rate\". This power is then utilized to enforce the slower spin rate which means you're now moving slower. \n",
"This is a complicated question, all of the following numbers are purely speculative for getting my point across. \n\nFor each gear, there is a range of speeds that the engine can produce. First gear is something like 0 to 20, second gear is roughly 5 to 40, third is 20 to 60. These numbers are very subjective, I'm just showing that the speeds overlap. \n\nIn first gear, you can do, let's say 15 mph while the engine is turning at 4000rpm. When you shift to 2nd you can do the same 15mph while the engine only turns at 1500rpm. When you downshift back to first, the engine has no choice but to speed back up, but, if you aren't giving it gas, it doesn't want to, and the car's wheels have no choice but to slow down. The engine will speed up a little, but the wheels also slow down. If you jump down 2 gears you potentially have enough momentum to force the engine to turn faster then it was designed and you can blow the engine or strip the gearbox.\n\nI hope this answers your question. If not just let me know.",
"For an engine to work you need 3 things. Spark, fuel and compression. Take away spark and fuel you are left with just compression which is resistance. When you down shift that makes the engine revolve faster, faster revolutions with out spark and fuel you create even more resistance which causes the car to slow down. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9xba3b
|
why did laserdisc fail to take off when it was a superior format to dvd?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9xba3b/eli5_why_did_laserdisc_fail_to_take_off_when_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9qvji1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"lets go over one per one\n\n1) Laserdisc was VERY fragile with very expensive equipment and was analog video, DVD had higher quality at the time. The only real competition it had at the time was VCD but it was mostly considered a inferior format with high piracy rate. \n\n2) Size matters goes both ways, Laser disc was as big as a vinyl disc when people already got use to having their music on CD´s, the size and format was familiar to them while Minidisc suffered from 2 major issues, the first being that a entry level Mediocre minidisc player costed the same a mid high end CD player, also there was almost no prerecorded Minidiscs, the 2nd issue is that sony had insane Licencing costs which made them unattractive when it came for 3rd party infrastructure investment, they even had a proprietary Audio format codec called ATRAC compared to the PCM being used in most Audio recording of the time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4qjs2x
|
how do cavities form?
|
I brush my teeth 2 times a day (sometimes 3) and floss every morning and night. I drink water 99% of the time and if I get soda I only get Sprite. I don't smoke or drink alcohol. I do eat candy but I also eat healthy with fruits/vegetables/protein. How is it possible that I still get cavities while taking good care of my teeth? I take time to floss for gods sake? How do these little fuckers even form???
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qjs2x/eli5_how_do_cavities_form/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4tp4ud"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Food sticks to your teeth, some foods are more sticky than others. When you brush you sometimes might not reach the really hard to reach parts. If this sticky goo builds up and bacteria underneath have a bad party you get cavities! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
d3ibkg
|
how do large museums acquire their collections and how does the curation process work?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d3ibkg/eli5_how_do_large_museums_acquire_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0325x7",
"f039lc8",
"f03c55j",
"f03wdpt"
],
"score": [
22,
15,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"Lots of things are donated by people or organizations, but some things can actually be purchased from regular people by the museum using grants/funds. Someone on r/flipping actually had a museum reach out and purchase a historic piece they had for sale on eBay. It took a while for the museum to make the purchase, but they did!",
"Not a direct answer to how large museums do it, but I get there:\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe experience I've had is that a lot of the process of accession (getting things) is passive. In one case, a medium-sized science museum, we obviously had a lot of science things on exhibit, but we also had a huge Native American artifact collection, a NASA space suit from the Gemini program, and a few other non-natural-science-related things because someone was pretty insistent about donating them to us. We had enough room that we just kept them all in the Collections area, and not even staff looked at them except on rare occasions for novelty purposes. I think the hope was to trade/sell/give them to an actual history museum that could display them, though I don't know if that ever panned out.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThere was also a lot of inter-museum loans, though almost (at least for us) it took the form of renting an entire exhibit instead of just adding one or two items to an already permanent exhibit for a specific amount of time for no cost. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nTangentially, I worked in a small zoo that was attached to the science museum. (It was small staff-wise, but we still had tigers and primates and wolves and stuff. It wasn't just a barnyard.) Accessioning animals was much more proactive and deliberate in this case. We did get some animals that were temporarily kept - rabbits abandoned in our parking lot a few months after Easter or stray cats that showed up that were exceptionally friendly. We didn't get many wild-caught animals, because that's not the best ethics-wise, though it does help with genetic diversity for captive populations. Zoos also trade a lot with each other to help manage populations, even internationally (the planning that goes into this is like an hour talk in and of itself). Rarely, we'd take an animal from a breeder or private owner that didn't know what to do with it. (For example, we took a parrot from someone that had inherited it. Did you know parrots can live for 40+ years?) \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe other museum I have experience with is a small local history museum. This may be atypical, but I doubt it. The local history scene is pretty small, and typically everyone knows each other even if their interests range from architecture to local indigenous culture. In such a case, anyone that has a collection worth having is someone you already know, and when they die, they're going to want that collection (which they often view as a legacy) preserved. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAlright, so how would this translate into larger museums? You may not know everyone in your 'scene,' but everyone knows you. And it's pretty cool/prestigious to donate to larger museums like the Smithsonian. They can take the passive route because it's super cool to have something you owned housed/displayed at a museum of that caliber. Also, they have the funds (through grants, endowments, and donations) to purchase rare and expensive items.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBasically, it's mostly like if a private buyer were to try to acquire something, except you're rich, everyone knows you and likes you, and giving things to you can help establish a legacy.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFinally, if you want to get a peak inside some of the insanely huge collection at the Fields Museum in Chicago, I encourage you to check out Emily at [TheBrainScoop](_URL_0_). The playlist I linked is specifically about the BTS collections stuff, but the entire channel is worth checking out for science-y things.",
"IIRC the Field Museum in Chicago was pretty much founded because after the 1893 World's Fair most of the exhibitors didn't want to take their artifacts back to their home countries. Stanley Field was able to buy them all at a decent price and ended up founding a museum from it. To this day a pretty significant percentage of what's on display at that museum is from the 1893 World's Fair.",
"Some of the big museums in the UK and France (such as the British Museum and the Louvre) straight up nicked stuff from countries that got invaded at some point. \n\nThey refuse to give the artworks or artefacts back even when the nations in question are allies now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhTvBv0ky2w&list=PLL8_5VpX9Txod-mtbVTdWVlzze3FgfIPn"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
erzt37
|
why do you throw up with food poisoning with longer incubation periods?
|
With foodborne illnesses with incubation periods that exceed 12 hours, the "poisonous" substance (the contaminated food) is already through your stomach. Why do you still throw up? I understand diarrhea, but the continued vomiting doesn't make sense to me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/erzt37/eli5_why_do_you_throw_up_with_food_poisoning_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ff7oc3t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Bacteria make toxins to help defend themselves. They also make waste by eating and basicly pooping out harmful substances, kind of like we do. \n\nWhen a food sits for a little while, more bacteria populate it, but it hasn't had long enough for waste products or toxins to build up. \n\nSo we can eat it and feel fine for a little while. But, it had a lot more bacteria on it than non-contaminated food. So those bacteria grow jn your belly instead of out on the countertop. Thr grow and grow, pooping and releasing toxins. And after a while, theres so much waste and toxin that you feel sick and your body tries to get rid id it by throwing up. \n\nOn the other hand, if a food sits out for a longer time, the bacteria grow on the food on the counter. Theres a lot of bacteria and a lot of waste and a lot of toxins. So you get sick much more quickly, because all the work they would do in your stomach in the above process, is already done.\n\nThink of it like eating pistachios with the shells. You can eat them individually, taking the shell off and eating them one by one. Or you can take the shell off of a lot of them at once and pop a whole bunch in your mouth. If you do them individually, it takes longer for you to feel full. If you do them all at once, your stomach is more full quickly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6a8gm0
|
why isn't the earth's spin visible from a plane?
|
Why isn't the earth's spin visible from a plane? My roommate thinks the earth is flat. I do not. I do not know how to explain this to him like he is 5, anyone know why this is?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6a8gm0/eli5_why_isnt_the_earths_spin_visible_from_a_plane/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhcif6m",
"dhciqby",
"dhcjxns",
"dhcl9b1",
"dhcrx1j"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"two different questions. you can see the earth spin from a plane. travel eastwards and the sun will rise earlier due to the earth spinning. travel westwards and sunset is delayed because the earth is spinning in the same direction you are going. \nif you want to convince your roommate the earth is not flat however, a better argument is this:- \nif the earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.",
"The plane is spinning along with the Earth at the same speed. When the plane takes off, it adds velocity on top of that by firing its engines. If you look out the window at that point, you'd see the earth moving beneath you. Otherwise, you'd never get out of the airport. \n\nThis also works when you are walking. If you look down, you'll notice that rather than being in the same place, the location that you started at is beginning to move towards the horizon. \n\nIf you were at the equator and wanted the plane to simply leap into the air and then see the earth rotating at full speed beneath you, relative to your rest frame, you'd have to load one side of the plane with enough explosives to slam it 1000mph in the direction opposite the earth's rotation, since otherwise the plane will move with the Earth. This is typically not practical due to financial reasons. ",
"Are you asking about it being round, or about it spinning?\n\nYou can actually see the curve from a plane if you are high enough. But you can't see that it's spinning, because the atmosphere (holding your plane) is spinning right along with it.\n\nSee [these many previous posts](_URL_0_) about the foolish belief that Earth is flat.",
"I always relate it to the hour hand on a clock. For a true analog clock, if you watch the hour hand of a clock - no matter how intently you stare or for how long, or even how big the clock is - you cannot discern its angular movement. It simply goes too slow. The earth is turning an half that angular speed so even looking straight down at the north pole from space, you would not discern the movement.\n\n\nSecond thing: you really need to reconsider your choice of university of there are actually students there that believe the earth is flat.",
"For the same reason that it is difficult, but not impossible, to notice when a cruise ship is making a slow turn.\n\nThe plane has to make a slow (once per day) rotation around the axis parallel to geographic north-south, just like everything else that doesn't want to wind up upside down over the course of 12 hours.\n\nIt's possible to see the Earths rotation on a dark clear night with some patience and a fixed reference object. Just lie down and watch a flagpole or tree or corner of a building rotate under the stars. It only takes a few minutes.\n\nUnfortunately, this doesn't prove whether the Earth is rotating or the stars. \n\nA better device for observing the rotation of your dorm room around its north-south axis is a Foucault pendulum. (Unless you're near the equator.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=eli5+earth+flat"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ux18u
|
what is the difference between a m.d and d.o medical school
|
In light of the guy who just got accepted into med school despite the odds (_URL_0_), what exactly is the difference between the two med schools?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ux18u/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_md_and_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cemi7b3",
"cemi97b",
"cemj8mk"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
50
],
"text": [
"Slightly different philosophies. DO teaches musculoskeletal manipulation, although more and more are shying away from it. Legally: identical scope of practice. More DO go into primary care, although there are DO's in every subspecialty. There are much fewer osteopathic schools then allopathic, thus there are fewer DO's. In a few years the two degrees will be indistinguishable, similar to dentistry (DDS, vs DMD.... No difference). ",
"Today there isn't much of a difference; both M.D.'s and D.O.'s have to go through the same standard medical education program. But in addition to the basics, D.O.'s take courses in osteopathic manipulation. Osteopaths use their hands to move/manipulate your muscles and joints, which they believe can help improve a variety of health conditions. (More on that [here](_URL_0_). The article is ten years old, but a couple friends who just finished their D.O.'s have confirmed the basic tendencies are still around.)\n\nEdit: added final sentence.",
"First off, let me make the disclaimer that I am talking *only* about the United States. Osteopathy outside the US has a very different scope of practice.\n\nThe story begins with A.T. Still, a Civil War era surgeon. After losing three children to spinal meningitis, he became disillusioned with the medical establishment. Keep in mind that this was 19th century America so thinks like opium and arsenic were commonly given to patients. To make matters worse, Still was a surgeon and at that time, surgery was so crude and unsanitary that it probably caused more deaths than cures. So Still investigates different types of treatments. Everything, really. Magnetic healing, hydropathy, if it was an alternative treatment, he tried it. Long story short, he somehow came to the conclusion that all diseases could be traced back to the musculoskeletal system. He devised a system where supposedly a practitioner could treat diseases by manipulating the bones and muscles of a patient.\n\nNeedless to say (but I’m going to say this anyway since you have some overzealous osteopathic advocates who argue otherwise), this is completely bunk. There’s not a shred of scientific data to support the idea that all diseases can be traced back to the musculoskeletal system or that certain manipulations of the body can cure diseases. Medical knowledge has come a long, long way since Still’s disillusionment with established medical knowledge and we have a much better understanding of the human body and disease. Nonetheless, I do think Still should be commended for exploring alternative therapies and trying to arrive at a scientifically based understanding of disease. Yes, he was wrong, but he arrived at that wrong conclusion through what he thought was evidence. Looking at the crude medicine practiced during his time, perhaps it wasn’t so strange that he felt the need to look at alternative approaches.\n\nNow as medical knowledge progressed, in the US, osteopathic schools generally updated themselves along with medical progression. I don’t believe this is true in most other countries. However, osteopathic schools were always considered second tier to MD schools. Anyways, over time, in the US at least, osteopathic training gradually converged with allopathic (MD) training. In my copy of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine it says “the training, practice, credentialing, licensure, and reimbursement of osteopathic physicians is virtually indistinguishable from those of allopathic (MD) physicians, with 4 years of osteopathic medical school followed by specialty and subspecialty training and board certification”. As of 2013, DO schools follow a curriculum identical to MD schools with one exception. They still have a required OMM (osteopathic manipulation) course which they take. The irony of learning a 19th century pseudoscientific technique in addition to modern medicine is not lost on many Do students but they do what they have to in order to graduate.\n\nNow sure, DO’s and MD’s have the same curriculum, but what’s the *real* difference? Here it is: DO schools are still less prestigious than MD schools. They have lower GPA and MCAT requirements. Hardly anyone chooses to go to a DO school over an MD school. After graduating from med school, MD students are generally given preference over DO students for any residency they apply to. This results in MD’s going into more prestigious specialties (neurosurgery, dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, etc) and DO’s going into less prestigious specialties (family practice, psychiatry, pediatrics). \n\nBut what does that mean in practice? Absolutely nothing. If your neurosurgeon is a DO (and they do exist), she is just as qualified as an MD neurosurgeon. If anything, a case can be made that she is better since with the DO handicap, she outcompeted MD applicants to that neurosurgery residency.\n\nYou might be asking, \"Why does this distinction still exist if OMM is complete bunk? Why don't they do away with it completely?\" And the answer to that is simply tradition and politics. There's a growing number of DO's who are advocating dropping it completely. Most DO friends I have would love nothing more than to excise it completely form their curriculum. Perhaps when a new generation of DO physicians are in charge of the organization, we'll see it happen. Here's a great quote from Bryan Bledsoe, a DO physician writing in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association: \"OMT will and should follow homeopathy, magnetic healing, chiropractic, and other outdated practices into the pages of medical history\" and \"How can the osteopathic medical profession deliberately seek the brightest college graduates to become osteopathic physicians and at the same time, ask those students to believe in and practice modes of therapy that have little or no proved effect?\"\n\nGreat article for further reading: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1uwecu/i_lost_count_of_how_many_people_told_me_there_was/"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html"
],
[
"http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411910"
]
] |
|
6imoe0
|
how does the "secret" senate healthcare bill work, procedurally.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6imoe0/eli5_how_does_the_secret_senate_healthcare_bill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj7o26s",
"dj7r2ld"
],
"score": [
37,
70
],
"text": [
"Nobody has been allowed to see the bill. They will wait until the last moment to reveal, and move to vote on it quickly, before it can be thoroughly analyzed and form an opposition.",
"It's not so much procedure, as lack of procedure. The Constitution gives Congress the power to write laws, but it doesn't give many guidelines on how to do that. However, a lot of rules have been made over the years, but they aren't required, they're just what the Senate found useful/good practice.\n\nIn particular, however, there is a thing called reconciliation. It's meant to be an expedited way to pass bills, but they have to be related directly to the budget (so you can't just pass whatever you want). It also only requires 50 votes(plus a tiebreaker via the VP), instead of the normal 60 to be fillibuster proof.\n\nThe trade off is that the ability to fillibuster/slow down the bill is much lower, but again, everything has to be directly related to the budget (as ruled by the parliamentarian, a rules official). Right now, the prediction is that the minimum amount of floor time is about 10 hours for amendments etc.\n\nAfter that, there aren't any rules. There's no rule stopping things from being done in secret- the only prevention is potential voter backlash, and convincing your fellow Senators to vote for something they haven't read (but which they'll be responsible for, regardless). You're also not allowing experts to comment (which is dangerous- it's *really* hard to get these right on the first go)\n\nAnd in general, it's not that unusual for a bit of backroom negotiating to be done. It's much easier to compromise and haggle out of the spotlight. But it's never been done on this scale, for something like healthcare."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2jn4g6
|
why are conspiracy theorists "nuts" when many conspiracies have been proven?
|
Many conspiracies have been proven true. The bankers and NSA are probably the most recent ones to come out as true. So why is it that, all conspiracy theorists are labeled as nuts?
*disclaimer* I am in no way endorsing conspiracies. Just curious as to why they are automatically crazy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jn4g6/eli5_why_are_conspiracy_theorists_nuts_when_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cld7x25",
"cld7xt2",
"cld89wn",
"cld8dxh",
"cld8gej",
"cldkzt4"
],
"score": [
9,
26,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because most of them are crazy. For instance, the moon landing one falls on very basic, logical grounds. When Americans landed on the Moon, America was in the midst of a very heated space race against the Soviets. They would have been very quick to point out that the whole thing was fake, as would have pretty much everyone in the world who worked at an observatory. \n\n9/11, 7/7, Newtown... most of them fail the smell test as soon as you hear them.",
"Confirmation bias. Most conspiracies rely on belief (not evidence) based on a previous opinion. Also, you don't remember the ones that are just amazingly wacky and untrue (and there are FAR more of those). \n\nDo you think we have tracking devices implanted in us? Are the black helicopters out to get us? Those are the popular wacky ones.\n\nThe conspiracy people also have this tenuous grasp on their perceived enemy. When it applies to the government, they're both amazingly pinpoint accurate and diabolical, and unbelievably inept at the same time (which can't be the case).",
"Probably a combination of things:\n\nGuilt by association. Many of the people who focus on conspiracies *are* nuts. Some of these guys are extremely poor communicators, prone to raving. Obsessiveness is almost a requirement to have intimate knowledge of these things, which is in itself regarded as a form of craziness.\n\nAlso, most people, I think, need to not think about bad things they have no personal control over in order to be happy. Conspiracies are, almost by definition, something we have little control over. In the absence of obvious and incontrovertible evidence (such as immediate visual) easier to dismiss someone pointing at the big dangerous thing as a nut than to actually contemplate the big dangerous thing.\n\nFinally, I should point out that conspiracy theory study isn't actually that useful, in my opinion. By the time the players have been identified, its generally too late to do anything about it. And the worst of conspiracies generally involve the exploitation of powers that the players should never have been allowed in the first place. tl;dr: If you give someone the power to oppress you, don't be surprised when he does.\n\nFor example, banker conspiracies are nothing new. The problem with bankers isn't, however, the conspiracies, but rather a power they have long aggregated to themselves (individually, let alone collectively): the power to *create money*. This is a power that ought to rest with the people, either under the stewardship of the government, or via the mechanism of the market. Instead, we have a system in which private actors are given the power to redirect peoples incomes and savings using a monetary power they should not have been allowed in the first place. It was fraudulent when they were loaning out more gold than they actually had, and it is fraudulent today when gold has nothing to do with it, but rather they usurp a power that rightfully belongs to the people.\n\nWith regard to the NSA, that's simply a matter of giving far too many resources to far too few people with far too little accountability. In my opinion, government simply should be transparent in its operations. An exception can be made for times of war, but under no circumstances should war be allowed to become the default footing for the state.\n\nIn other words, you don't actually need to know the names of your oppressors. If you give someone the power to oppress you, don't be surprised when he does.",
"I think part of it is humans are extremely social, sometimes a little herd-like. Going against the grain is viewed as risky.\n\nMany conspiracy theories aren't any crazier than some well-accepted theories. But the conspiracy theorists are few compared to the rest of us so we see them as nutty.",
"\"Many conspiracies proven to be true\" is just a weird statement. Conspiracies which gets proven become mainstream and popularized, but there are hundreds/thousands of conspiracies in different circles which never had been proven and most people have no idea about them existing for that reason. So small percentage is hard to call many.",
"Its tautological. We only use the phrase \"conspiracy theorist\" to describe the folks who have a tenuous grasp of how organizations work and never stop to think about how likely one of the members is to betray the conspiracy.\n\nBut that FBI detective that suspects that a sergeant in the Pittsburg police department is collaborating with a gang informant to sell seized guns/drugs from the evidence locker? Nobody calls him a conspiracy theorist, even though he is literally building a theory of a [criminal conspiracy](_URL_0_."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)"
]
] |
|
p39ar
|
final fantasy x
|
Was Tidus real or was the place he came from a dream? What happened at the end? Did he die? Or did the "dream" break when Sin died and thus he broke?
I'm so confused.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p39ar/eli5_final_fantasy_x/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3m4sit",
"c3m4yb7"
],
"score": [
11,
25
],
"text": [
"Tidus was a dream of the faith like the aeons (Ifrit shiva etc) when sin was killed all the faith woke up and stopped dreaming about him,so he disappeared.Kind of like how the aeons disappear at the end of a fight. Theoretically if they started dreaming again he would reappear. ",
"Tidus is a dream of the faythe. During the war between Bevelle and Zanarkand, it became apparent that Bevelle was going to obliterate Zanarkand due to their superior machina. Yu Yevon got all the survivors up to Mt Gagazet and bound them there so that they would dream and their dreams summoned up their memories of Zanarkand (why there are so many pyreflies there). The dream world of Zanarkand is out on the ocean so Yu Yevon created Sin as armor and protected the dream world of Zanarkand. But after many years, he kinda lost his humanity. Once you stop the dreamers from summoning, everything that was summoned disappears (the dream world of Zanarkand, the aeons, and Tidus). It's how Jecht and Tidus got swept away to Spira. They were already on Spira -- just in this little protected plot of ocean where Yu Yevon was directing the summoning by the people of Zanarkand.\n\nIf you play FFX-2, you get a little more backstory on who Tidus was based off as Tidus was just an aggregation of the memories of the people who actually lived in Zanarkand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1keehu
|
how come cuban baseball players are allowed in mlb?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1keehu/eli5_how_come_cuban_baseball_players_are_allowed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbo3qjj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They move to the U.S. and get a citizenship. You'll notice there are many asian palyers as well- being born in a country doesn't dictate you can only play in that country, foreign players will either:\n\nA: Move to the US and then sign onto a team \n\nB: Play for their countries team, get recognized by the US (who is bigger and better in baseball) and move to that team, getting a citizenship in the process. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
fmadao
|
why can't a hacker create a 'fake bank' or a fake checking account and wire money to themselves, thus 'spawning' money in their account?
|
Like, money transfers digitally and requires approval. But since it's digital, how do you know that money that came from the other source is real? Why can't a hacker just 'spawn in' money in their account or transfer some from a fake bank to themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fmadao/eli5_why_cant_a_hacker_create_a_fake_bank_or_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fl36p3b",
"fl36tx8",
"fl3gonn",
"fl3ilhp",
"fl3w5ek",
"fl42wv1"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because most hacking is done to people, not computers. And banks know this, so keep people as far from the money as possible, and maintain redundancies whenever people are involved in the money.\n\n\nComputers are remarkably resilient, and it is possible to build very solid systems. Banks hire people to break their systems and tell them how it was accomplished so they can patch up that weakness. A bank won’t upgrade their systems to the latest and greatest software/hardware either. They will keep what is proven and reliable to get the job done.\n\n\nSo... if a person did get entry into the systems and was able to set themselves up as a virtual bank, they could generate money and wire it to themselves, then respond to the inquiry to the bank with verification funds exist and should be transferred. But now they have to deal with all of the safeguards that prevent actual banks from deciding to generate excess digital currency for themselves.",
"They can. The thing is the bank monitor theses kind of change and will revert the bank account. Plus the hacker wont be able to get the money because the police may locate him after a few transaction. They may try to create money on one bank account from bank A and Wire it to a money laudering schema but usually the bank block any suspicious transaction. Lets say he manage to bypass that he would have created money out of thin air with the consequence of reducing the value of all the currency actually in transit (inflation. Thats why country usually dont lrint money to pay its people.) (Germany did that. Their money dropped so low that it was unusable)",
"becouse this is not a movie where you type stuff on keyboard.\n\nthos systems are super secure, 95% and more of hacking is done throught social engineering.",
"This may be inaccurate, but it's how it was described to me:\n\nLets say a customer of bank A wants to transfer money to a customer of bank B. Bank A already has money deposited in an account with bank B(or they both have accounts with a bigger bank C). When you make the transfer, your bank subtracts money from your account, and asks the other bank to transfer money from bank A's account to bank B's account, then bank B adds the money to their own customer's account. \n\nBasically, your fake bank would have to send real money in before it would be allowed to use wire transfers. It would be easier to just hack your bank and directly increase the numbers in your own account, but this is designed to be difficult, for obvious reasons. \n\nThe sketchier the bank you use, the less likely other banks are willing to work with it.",
"Creating a fake bank would be about as effective as creating a fake currency. Suppose you created Vamositybank and gave yourself a $1,000,000 account there. Now you try to transfer some of that money to your actual account at Citibank, say with a check from Vamositybank. Citibank would take that check and immediately say \"What is Vamositybank? We've never heard of them and have no relationship with them. Transfer denied pending investigation.\" Then they investigate, discover you made up the bank, and you get prosecuted for check fraud. You would have been better off forging a check from an actual bank, because the downside is the same, but there's at least some chance the scheme succeeds.",
"Banks are regulated, you have to meet certain requirements in order to create a bank which a fake bank would unlikely meet.\n\nAlso, wire transfers don't just happen, they are a service provided by a money transferring agency. They don't just do business with anyone, they need assurances that you are real and can cover the money they are essentially fronting for you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4yxsg2
|
why do primitive animals/species know how to animal/specie by themselves, while us humans have to be taught since birth almost everything?
|
For example, some animals are hatched/born alone (without their father/mother anymore), and venture out alone until adulthood, without any help from others of their species. Whereas us humans have to almost be spoon-fed stuff in out early stages of life. Just a thought, no shaming/nonsense answers please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yxsg2/eli5_why_do_primitive_animalsspecies_know_how_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6r7frl",
"d6r7gy5",
"d6r7s1z",
"d6r86zk",
"d6r8dn4",
"d6rekpf",
"d6rel5w",
"d6rggou",
"d6rgkiz",
"d6rh1kk",
"d6rh8j7",
"d6ri6cq",
"d6rjnsh",
"d6rjowt",
"d6rjuu5",
"d6rk8p0",
"d6rlgcp",
"d6rourz",
"d6rqyl1",
"d6rshz7",
"d6rur3s",
"d6ruvju",
"d6rvbzo",
"d6rvf0k",
"d6rzaoo",
"d6s0wl2",
"d6s1g6d",
"d6s5mur"
],
"score": [
159,
17,
3714,
8,
101,
14,
81,
216,
2,
702,
12,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
80,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Due to humans having a relatively large head compared to overall size (to accommodate our powerful brains), they have to be born earlier in their development cycle to avoid injuring the mother, thus requiring more care at birth and for the years after.",
"Reptiles are generally the only ones who are alone at birth.\n\nMaybe besides Gators, who are raised.\n\nBut for the most part reptiles only do two things . Eat and fuck. Probably doesn't take much programming for that, genetically.",
"Actually, humans are born with the innate knowledge and ability to survive as is necessary for a baby. We're born with a suckling instinct, for example, to latch onto nipples and draw food. We also have all the autonomic reflexes already, such as ticklishness, breathing, heart rate regulation, etc. These are common to all mammals, of which we are a member.\n\nThis is because primates are social animals; we are born into a group collective (a family unit) and predictably have a social group to learn from. You have to remember that when it comes to survival, humans know everything they need to know right when they're born, because all that is required of them is autonomic in nature (breathing, heart rate, feeding, urinating, defecating, sleeping, waking), and we only require more complicated systems when we've grown.\nHumans as a whole are very weak when they're first born, and require a great deal of security for quite a long time, compared to other animals. This is likely because we devote such a great percentage of the nutrients we ingest in order to develop our brains, as opposed to most other animals needing only to develop their bodies. This is likely why parents have an overwhelming emotional bond with their children.\n\nSome animals are not social, and are therefore unable to learn from others of their species, and so they're born with (or learn shortly after birth) more complex instincts. ",
"It comes down to instinct I think...\n\nFish, reptiles and amphibia often lay hundreds of eggs so it isn't as important that all of the offspring survive while mammals tend to have less offspring but care a lot for it. The more complex organisms are the more they seem to need to learn from their parents. \n\nComplexity in 'lifestyle' isn't so easy to achieve as 'instinct' is rather reactionary to current surrounding. ",
"As human brains were getting bigger, they were limited by needing to fit through the birth canal/pelvis. To compensate, humans started having babies at an earlier stage of development and raising them outside the womb for a longer period.\n\nWe're not the only animals that do this, mind you. While there are plenty of animals who are walking and basically ready to go minutes after birth, there are plenty others who spend a period nurturing their young until they're ready to live on their own. Chicks in a nest, marsupials in pouches, etc. We just do it longer because that's what we're designed for.\n\nMan is unique because of how we actually use knowledge as an evolutionary advantage. Most animals, they only need to be coordinated enough to do basic physical activity, what is and isn't food, and what they should be scared of. Humans are explicitly designed around gaining, using, and passing on more complex knowledge like building and using tools/shelter/etc. That means more time is needed to pass that knowledge on.",
"The organisms you're referencing do far more developing in the embryo than humans. Humans are still developing until around the age of 25. The organisms you're referencing survive by their number, so they develop quickly to reach sexual maturity fast. They're almost like miniature adults when they are born. Humans postpone sexual maturity for greater growth.",
"Basically we as a species evolved to have larger brains which enables us to better adapt to the world around us. We can think more abstractly and problem-solve in ways no other animal can. But that brainpower requires a tremendous amount of energy and time to develop. In fact it is generally the case that children cannot begin to think very abstractly until roughly puberty. So it takes a long time to build the neural connections in the brain that enable our brains to conduct the abstract thinking necessary for rapid adaptation to new situations/environments/etc.\n\nIt is also generally accepted by researchers that, because our brains are so flexible and powerful, instinct gradually became less and less important, until we reached a point where we only have a few basic survival instincts and nothing more. Our instincts were replaced by an increasingly complex process called *socialization* whereby we as a group create a culture, language, values, and rules of behavior that encourage social cohesion and survival of the group as a whole. This ensures more people can procreate more often.\n\nWe all undergo a lifelong process of socialization, mostly without realizing it. Our culture tells us what is important, how to dress, how to behave, what to expect of ourselves and others, etc. All of that is transmitted to us daily throughout our lives by our families, friends, schools, churches, governments, media outlets, companies -- basically every institution you can think of transmits these *dominant ideologies*, things like \"you must consume and buy more to be considered worthy of respect\" which feeds \"you get ahead by working hard and not complaining\" etc.\n\nThis process has essentially replaced instinct, and allows us to adapt to new challenges as needed. We communicate with each other, exert peer pressure on each other, and conform and change as needed. All of this provides vastly more flexibility than hard-wired instinct. But it takes a lot of time and energy to develop.\n\nTL;DR buy a couple of $5 used psych 101 and sociology 101 textbooks and read the first 100 pages or so of each.",
"This is easily disputed with the example of the common household cat.\n\nBaby kittens are born blind, without the ability to keep their body temperature and without the ability to poo/pee by themselves. Baby kittens need to be pulled by the mother/slowly flail to the other kittens relaying on each other and mom for body heat. They are blind so mama cat purrs at them to call them to come suckle. Finally, after they finish eating mama cat licks their bottoms to force them to poo and pee, which she cleans off. This is so that there would be no smells to attract predators to the helpless kittens. In fact for weeks all these kittens do is eat, sleep and when mama cat makes them poo and pee. \n\nYou may find it educational to volunteer at your local animal rescue shelter. You will then find out that they keep heating pads/disks for baby kittens to keep them warm. If you ever get to feed a baby kitten you will learn that even if you get a nipple in their mouth form a baby bottle they may not eat thus having to sometimes syringe feed them, i.e., forcing special kitten milk on their tongues to trigger swallowing reflexes. Then you have to take a baby wipe to their bottom to force them to poo and pee. Even when abandoned they don't know how to do that and can die if not properly expressed.\n\nIn fact all primates have to take care of their young... lower, on the evolutionary tree, organisms such as fishes and some reptiles do not. \n",
"I'm super curious about how inbreeding works. How do animals in the wild know not to have sex with their brothers, sisters, mothers, or fathers? And why is there not more genetic inbreeding within the animal kingdom than there is within animal husbandry? Like bulldogs, for example, they are inbred by humans, how come they didn't become inbred by themselves? Wild horses, etc. How do they know?",
"Basically no one gave you the real answer... The answer is some animals are precocial - meaning they are born relatively mature and self sufficient. \n \n_URL_0_ \n \nSome animals are born altricial - meaning they are born nearly helpless. \n \nThey are different means of survival that different species have adopted. Precocial species generally have large litters (that's the wrong general word but whatever) where they depend on the young to fend for themselves. Lots may die but many live. \n \nAltricial species generally have less young per gestation period but invest a lot of time in them to ensure they live and propagate the species. \n \nEssentially it is just a different way to further a species. Some evolutionary paths favored allocating large resources to small births to ensure a successful breed and some paths favored having a shit ton of offspring that you didn't have to look after at the expense of lots of them dying. ",
"ELI5: Animals with strong innate-from-birth instincts are like machines, preprogrammed to do specific tasks well, and nothing else. They are almost impossible to reprogram, and so they don't adapt to new or changing situations well.\n\nHumans (and other mammals, but humans especially) evolved brains that are more flexible and adaptible, but lost the programming. The two cannot coexist. Either you have strict innate programming from the beginning with little flexibility to derivate from that programming, or you have adaptibility *and the ability to program and ***re***program yourself* but you have to learn how to respond to every situation.\n\nTL;DR Instincts are not learned. The power to learn brings with it the tradeoff that we *must* learn.",
"There are plenty of animals who needs to be raised as well - take you usual house cat for example. Newborn kittens are totally helpless. On the other hand, if you only feed a kitten and don't teach it anything it could theoretically teach itself to hunt and survive on its owne because the reflexes and instincts are already there. Humans cannot.\n\nWhy is it so? Your question contains the answer: humans have to be taught almost everything, and as a payout, **humans can be taught almost everything**! If your brain was genetically wired to contain knowledge on how to find a cave to live in, to hunt with a spear and use flint to start a fire, you wouldn't be able to use this neuron capacity for other tasks, so part of your brain would be dead weight once you start growing crops/fishing and move to a hay hut. It's **fitness vs adaptability**, and humans are kings of adaptability.",
"Your premise is false. Many animals need lots of learning to survive. If you take a lion from a zoo and drop them in the savannah they will die. Animals learn animaling from their parents by watching. You also have to account for what it takes to survive. Humans have migrated from land where survival is easy. A cow in a temperate climate just lowers it's head and food is readily available. Humans in many environments do not have readily available resources or a climate that won't kill us from exposure.",
"r-K selection.\n\nBasically there is a trade-off between quality and quantity of offspring. You will find many of those species that can fend for themselves earlier will often be a part of large litters, also be limited in their survival strategies somewhat. Think of rats, very large litters, most will die young but the ones that do survive wont have long before they are fully capable adults. On the other hand, species that have small litters have parents that invest far more time and energy into each individual offspring, they will be far slower in reaching maturity but have more adaptable survival strategies. These will typically be larger animals too, which in itself is a survival strategy. Being bigger means you can travel further, greater access to food and extend their niches, also will have more complicated and effective defensive and aggressive behaviours for protection, think of a rhino. \n\nr-K selection is a spectrum, humans happen to benefit so greatly from being adaptable that we have evolved to be so far to the extreme on the side of K-selection.",
"much of primate behavior is learned. they are not born knowing how to use a twig to get termites out of a log. they learn that shit by observation. \n\n",
"Some of us develop common sense on our own which is what really keeps us alive. We're taught how to be productive members of a complicated world wide society. ",
"This may have been answered somewhere else in the thread, but the reason humans (read: mammals) are born not knowing how to \"human\" is due to our brain size compared to our body sizes. \n\nWe are born \"not knowing how to human\" because if we stayed in the womb long enough for our brains to finish growing enough for us to human right away, our bodies would also continue growing and would eventually far exceed our host vessel's (aka yo mama) ability to safely carry us. That means that we need to be born before our brain us fully developed (relative to other non-mammal) so our brain can continue to develop outside of the womb. From there we begin our life long struggle for survival by learning from others, which requires our brain to keep growing, while other species begin their long struggle for survival by using natural instincts which can be accomplished with a smaller brain (no disrespect to mah snakey friends).\n\nSource: Biology major turned Psychology major at one of them fancy US college places. ",
"Just an fyi newborns are very good swimmers and can latch onto tree branches if need be. Once the child starts to develop it's brain the parents teach it more efficient survival methods not to say that those from birth aren't sutable. ",
"The only answer is that humans have to be born early because otherwise, the hips of women wouldn't be wide enough to accommodate a bigger brain. The brain of a baby is already big (9 months of gestation!) and is made to be highly adaptive, at the cost of being dependent on learning. \n\nBasically, humans are born with a lot of potential, whereas the brains of most animals are more mature with less room for development.",
"No child learns how to eat or shit. Human have the same primitive innate knowledge as animals.They take longer to reach adulthood b/c they developed more than animals. A fraction of what children are thought will never be learned by any primitive animal. \nThe birth process has nothing to do with knowledge.And to venture alone,you need to be able to move.The human body isn't that developed yet b/c it is more complex.",
"Because our brains are tools of acquiring knowledge that can't be predicted in advance, and thus can't be instinctive. Consider, for example,...\n\nTools. Humans are intrinsically tool-making and using. But the particular tools we make and use change quickly (compared to evolutionary time). They are also varied across place and culture. Your genes couldn't know in advance exactly which tools you'll need to know how to make and use.\n\nPredators, prey, and subsistence. Humans occupy many different ecologies, and make a \"living\" many ways- more ways than almost any other life form. Again, your genes do not know where you will be born. A pastoral savanna society that tends cattle? A shoreline, where fishing and shellfish foraging are critical? A rainforest, a high mountain steppe. There might be lions around, or wolves, or deadly insects. Humans have to learn these details, every single generation. Other species do not- but then, when displaced from their ecosystem, they often perish where humans do not.\n\nSocial organization and landscape. Humans depend critically on others to survive. Cooperation, along with competition, are important to survival and success. But there are many, many kinds of social situations you can be born into. Some small scale societies are egalitarian collectives, some are rigid chiefdoms. You might be relatively high-born or not. Your mother might live with her family or her husband's family, and that makes a big difference. Blood lines may be matrilineal or patralineal. It may be more or less war-like. More or less cooperative. \n\nThese things can't be known in advance, and must be learned. But making hardware capable of learning so many complex things takes time. Then the learning itself takes time.",
"You have to look at the class of animal you are talking about. Almost all mammals exhibit some form of parenting with their offspring. Bears teach their young how to hunt and catch food. Deer teach their young how to hide and avoid danger. Primates and monkeys live together and raise the young in a community, wolves also have communal child care and will even sometimes take in other young cubs that have lost their mother. It is no surprise at all that we as mammals also take care and raise our young and teach them to fend for themselves after we've moved on. ",
"I'd like to point out that most mammals actually do learn a great deal from their parents and other siblings\n\nParent do teach them to what animals to hunt, where to search for food and what to fear. There is some initial capability for all of these things, but animals also learn from their parents.",
"The human super power is the ability to learn. Think like this, if we had the instinct to farm, we could have never progressed to further division of labor and specialization in jobs.",
"Evolutionarily speaking, humans have a larger brain that takes longer for us to develop. Animal on the other hand, have a much less simplistic brain. As a result, a lot of the traits of primitive animals are passed down as 'traits' (so to speak), kind of like a preloaded operating system when they are born, for example, sex, it has been happening for billions of years that every animal knows by instinct. This actually serves an advantage for most animals because they don't have a form of written language or communication that allows them to pass information down from one generation to another. If you look at a more intelligent animal like the elephant (they live to about 70 years old), they treat their offspring a lot like humans do in taking care of them, as well as teaching them the skills they need to survive. ",
"Long story short. Humans are born underdeveloped because thats the only way to get our large brain out of the pelvis. If we were born fully developed like many animals we would kill the mother and probably ourselves during birth. Most brain development happens after birth.",
"Most animals are born with a fully developed brain, which is why they are capable of complex motor skills, etc.\n\nA fully developed human brain would be too large for birthing, so babies are born with relatively undeveloped brains.",
"Not here to answer the op question since many people have already, but I just want to point out it is wrong to call other species primitive unless you are talking about an extinct ancestor. You're implying other species are lesser, or a pre-evolutionary state to the modern, or less adapted to their environment. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocial"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1d8arh
|
the structure of songs - verse, chorus, bridge, breakdown etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d8arh/eli5the_structure_of_songs_verse_chorus_bridge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9nwhe9"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"This is an interesting question, let me give it a shot.\n\n**Verse:** This a part of the song where the lyrics are unique generally take the place of the melody, but not necessarily. The other instruments usually play the theme or something generally simpler so that the lyrics can more easily be heard.\n\n**Chorus:** This is part of the song that is repeated at least once. It can be lyrical or in an instrumental, it could be the theme or the main riff of the song that appears a lot, this definition is used primarily in Blues and Jazz.\n\n**Bridge:** This is a lead into another part, and can either be instrumental, lyrical, or both. Often goes in between the verse and the chorus, or a solo and the chorus/verse.\n\n**Breakdown:** This is a part of the song where everything is a lot simpler. The guitars/bass usually play a driving riff on one or two notes, and the drums play a simple driving rhythm.\n\nMost songs have a verse-chorus structure, which is more or less intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus-outro. Bridges can be introduced before the chorus, and are often called pre-choruses if they have lyrics, or after the solo or the intro. Many bands also add solos in between choruses and verses or may do verse-verse-chorus or something. But that's the general structure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
67ronv
|
why do humans develop the "capability" of having crushes before having any sexual feelings?
|
Children as young as 8 can have crushes but don't start having sexual feelings until around 12. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67ronv/eli5_why_do_humans_develop_the_capability_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgt75vn",
"dgtr2yu"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Puberty. Once puberty hits, hormones are released that basically cause to have sexual urges. Mainly testosterone.\n\nIf you need a more in depth explanation I can provide. ",
"I think your timelines are a bit off. \n\nChildren may develop opposite-sex attachment earlier in life, as observed through parental preferencing - as early as three or four. Additionally, in the US at least, senses of modesty and curiosity develop before age seven. Conscious sensory actions usually develop around age seven (something very similar to masturbation) and may be explicitly defined as consciously/deliberately auto-erotic by eight or nine. It's worth noting, while I am on the topic, that this is in a child developed enough to consciously deliberate social cues. Babies masturbate: ask the parents of any toddler (particularly female toddlers where the actions are a bit more noticeable); though this seems to be without much thought to what is going on beyond \"it feels good. So, I think your premise may be a bit flawed. \n\nAs to the \"crushing\" itself, it is advantageous for social creatures to form strong social bonds as early as possible to ensure group survival. Crushing *may* be an example of this.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6qlfrd
|
why is it so entertaining when someone can nail an impression of someone else?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qlfrd/eli5_why_is_it_so_entertaining_when_someone_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dky6hcz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's fun to have the particular idiosyncrasies of someone pointed out (often we can exactly say what they are). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f1ptya
|
2d shapes have an area and 3d shapes have a volume. is it still called volume on 4d shapes? it shouldn't be right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f1ptya/eli5_2d_shapes_have_an_area_and_3d_shapes_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fh7pdmu",
"fh7pvut",
"fh7up6b"
],
"score": [
8,
8,
10
],
"text": [
"Technically this is just linguistics. Volume is to area as 4D volume is to 3D volume. You could call 2d area volume if you wanted too, it would just make talking about these things confusing.",
"When things are common, it's okay to have specific words for specific situations. 2d and 3d shapes are fairly common, so we have different names for 2d and 3d situations.\n\nArea vs. Volume\n\nCircle vs. Sphere\n\nBut, mathematically, there are an infinite number of dimensions. So you can have 4d, 5d, 6d, with no end. But we can't keep creating a new term for each level of dimension, so we just take one we're already using and apply it.\n\nSo volume is still volume and sphere becomes n-sphere (where n is the level of dimensions it is).",
"In maths, it is sometimes called the \"hypervolume\". This terminology is meant to be applied to things in dimensions greater than 3. This is related to other terms like \"hypercube\", \"hypersphere\" and so on.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypervolume"
]
] |
||
3udtqh
|
where did volcanoes as science projects in movies/tv shows originate from?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3udtqh/eli5_where_did_volcanoes_as_science_projects_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxdzwcn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are visually impressive and easy to make. You make a science project that has an action part to it, something that will be interesting on camera. Mixing baking soda and vinegar to make an \"eruption\" makes for a much more interesting science project than showing how food dye gets carried into carnations or other such common science projects for children. You want something that looks cool, since TV and Movies are a visual media, and without spending too much money, you can't get cooler than a volcano. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
boa962
|
which evidence made us believe that dinosaurs were extinguished by a meteor?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/boa962/eli5_which_evidence_made_us_believe_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"endschx",
"endsr6n",
"ene9gfr"
],
"score": [
9,
38,
6
],
"text": [
"The various fossils are put down in layers of sedimentary rock with the lower levels going back further in time. The rocks can be dated to different periods of time and about 75 million years ago many of the large dinosaur fossils abruptly stopped being found. At this boundary layer there is also a great deal of dust and debris which could be the result of an impact. In amongst this debris is a significant amount of iridium which is an extremely rare element on Earth, but is very common in meteors. So it is likely that the meteor event and the extinction event as closely linked - _URL_0_",
"Couple of things...\n\n1) There's a significant layer of iridium in the rock layers between the two time periods between dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs. Iridium is not common on earth but is common in meteors.\n\n2) There's a huge meteor crater off the Yucatan Penninsula that dates to the same time as the layer of iridium.",
"The iridium layers are found in different types of deposits, all over the world. Along with the iridium and other rate earths are microscopic glass balls unique to meteor impacts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/kVg-QZCzqg0"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
a6nke6
|
why do integers have different sizes depending on the architecture of the computer? (64bit, 32bit)
|
Example: 64bit has integers the size of 8bytes and 32bit has the size of 4bytes
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6nke6/eli5_why_do_integers_have_different_sizes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebwhg90",
"ebwih97"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"The highest 32bit number, decimal 2,147,483,647, is in 32bit:\n\n1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111\n\nAnd in 64bit, that same number is:\n\n0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111\n\nYour question is basically the same as: how do the everyday, decimal numbers 982374 and 000000000000000982374 have different sizes. Which they do, because the latter provided more blank space for potentially larger numbers. We might in every day usage have supposed that that six-digit former number if increased to a million would simply warrant a seventh digit place - yet a computer, if expected to handle a seven-digit number, must be *guaranteed* a seven-digit slot.",
"That is by definition of an integer. From the Kerningham and Ritchie The C Programming Language, 2nd edition:\n\nThe range of both int and float depends on the machine you are using; 16-bit ints, which lie between -32768 and +32767, are common, as are 32-bit ints.\n\nIf you wanted explicit specific types, you should include stdint.h and use uint16_t, uint32_t etc.\n\nEverything else is just inherited from this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1uei13
|
what causes satellites and objects like the iss to simply orbit around earth without being sucked in, while asteroids come in and loop around the earth and impact it? gif included.
|
I saw [this post](_URL_1_) about a large "asteroid" nearly hitting the earth in /r/dataisbeautiful and it made me curious as to why certain objects can orbit around the earth without being sucked in. This asteroid was of course in its own separate orbit around the sun and moving too quickly to join Earth's orbit. But if something down join our orbit, what keeps it from being pulled straight into our atmosphere and impacting? [Here is the GIF itself](_URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uei13/eli5_what_causes_satellites_and_objects_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceh8h7u",
"ceh8h9s"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Plenty of asteroids orbits the earth as well, the interesting ones are the ones that strike us though.\n\nThe ISS and satellites are getting sucked in, but they're moving forward fast enough to constantly miss the earth.\n\nImagine a cannon fired from the top of a mountain sideways. It would fall down as expected, no big deal. But imagine you fired it MUCH faster, you'd see it would actually fall further, because the ground would drop out underneath it because the earth curves.\n\nKeep firing faster and faster and eventually the earth would get out of the way fast enough that it would always stay at the same actual height from the earth.\n\nThis is essentially what we do with satellites, except we do it high enough that it doesn't slow down because of the atmosphere.\n\nIf an asteroid gets close enough to hit our atmosphere that slows it down a lot, possibly enough that it will drop down to the surface. But often it just touches it slightly, slows down, and continues back on it's orbit. This is often what we see as \"shooting stars\".",
"It's all about speed and altitude.\n\nIf you go too fast you escape from the Earth and fly off into space.\n\nIf you go too slow you fall down and hit it.\n\nIf you stay at just the right speed, you can fall in a circle forever.\n\nThe speed required for a stable orbit depends on how close you are to the Earth. Closer objects must move faster.\n\nWe control the speed of satellites to keep them in stable orbits."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/j002e3/j002e3d.gif",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ue015/a_visualisation_of_an_asteroids_path_of_orbit/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2cxyrq
|
if an electric car can gain range via regenerative braking and the like, why can't i power my car forever through the spinning wheels?
|
Sure it would take energy to get it moving, but once the wheels started generating electricity wouldn't I be fine, or at least not expend any fuel beyond what is needed to get it rolling?
**I apologize if this has been asked before, but when I search it was all about solar/wind power and that kind of stuff**
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cxyrq/eli5_if_an_electric_car_can_gain_range_via/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjk56b1",
"cjk56h5",
"cjk57ix",
"cjk57y1",
"cjk59yo",
"cjk5a7i"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Spinning wheels forward doesn't generate any energy, and requires a constant input of energy to maintain.",
"Simplest answer, you lose energy to heat(friction). You'll always get less energy out than you put in(2nd Law of Thermodynamics).",
"Because some of the energy is lost as heat through friction between the tires and the road. More is lost converting the kinetic energy from the tires to electrical energy for the battery, and more energy yet is lost converting the electrical energy in the battery back to kinetic energy next time you're accelerating.",
"Perpetual motion machines are impossible. Even if you could make motors and regenerative braking systems that were 100% efficient (you can't), there's loss in friction, rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, etc., etc.\n\nTANSTAAFL",
"The way regenerative braking works is by putting a reverse load on the electric motor to produce electricity. This reverse load is what helps to slow the car down faster than just coasting. If you tried something similar going forward it would use more energy than its worth, possibly more than not doing it at all.",
"The amount of energy gained isn't all of the energy that the car had while moving. Like everything, it isn't 100 efficient. Every cycle you lose a big amount"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c753ec
|
how does a loudspeaker reproduce the sound of a whole orchestra, which is itself comprised of a hundred or so different sound sources, with just one single swinging membrane inside of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c753ec/eli5_how_does_a_loudspeaker_reproduce_the_sound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"esd3c62"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It happens the same way we can hear that orchestra with only one single tiny membrane vibrating inside each of our ears (ear drums) in response to the sound of the orchestra. The various sound waves from all points within the orchestra add and subtract (depending on phase). This “composite” wave form made up of the mathematical sum of all the waveforms is reproduced by the loudspeaker and caused our eardrums to vibrate in a similar way as if we were near the real orchestra."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3cs60r
|
how do they 'trace' the origins of a word?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cs60r/eli5_how_do_they_trace_the_origins_of_a_word/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csyfhjf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Are you thinking of the field of etymology? They generally will search languages for earlier versions of the words, or trace the earliest known appearance of the word backwards and look through various primary sources to locate instances of said word, or one that appears very much like it in appearance and/or meaning. Go far enough back and the story behind the word or meaning, even can get pretty far away at times from the modern usage. The field is fascinating! When I was in highschool, each day in our english class we would have to study the etymology of 10 different words in our book, and then present 3 or 4 interesting ones to the class, this would include talking about the root language (many times Latin, go figure), and generally the story behind the word, most have fascinating tales or anecdotes tied up in their history. I hope this helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2oznpp
|
how does data on a hard drive become "fragmented"?
|
If this data was used in a program/computation why was it left behind/not returned to where it is supposed to be
(Clearly I'm a rookie)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oznpp/eli5_how_does_data_on_a_hard_drive_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmrynsr",
"cmrypss",
"cmrzitk",
"cms0ro8",
"cms56bd",
"cmsasch"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The computer has files of varying sizes. These take up varying amounts of spaces on the hard drive. \n\nSay you write to the hard drive 3 different files. One takes up 5 \"spaces\" the next 2 spaces, and the last 5 spaces.\n\nLater, you delete the 2 space file.\n\nNow you've got 5 occupied spaces, 2 free spaces, 5 occupied spaces, and the rest of the drive is free after that.\n\nYou want to write a file to your hard drive, it takes up 3 spaces.\n\nThe hard drive sees the 2 free spaces, and begins writing there.. But then it runs out of room, the 3rd space is occupied by another file. So it has to go past that file and write there.\n\nYou end up with\n\n{5 spaces (file 1)} {2 spaces (file 4)}{ 5 spaces (file 3)}{ 1 space (file 4).}\n\nNow, when you tell your computer to retrieve file 4, it has to look in two different places to get all the pieces, or 'fragments.'\n\nWhen you 'defragment' your hard drive, you're telling it, organize these better so files are arranged more contiguously.",
"That isn't what fragmentation is; it isn't a question of putting things back when used because they never left. The problem is that files aren't going to stay forever.\n\nWhen data is written to the drive it goes into available space. But when it is removed it leaves a void. Later files aren't going to fit perfectly so they are broken up into pieces which are put into the smaller available holes. If this happens too much it starts becoming time consuming to track down all the pieces to get a full file.",
"I'll represent different files with different symbols, each 5 parts big\n\n\n$$$$$*****+++++\n\n\nNow when I delete file * that place will be overwritten by the next thing I want to save, but say that file is 6 parts big, the extra part gets written somewhere at the next available spot.\n\n\n$$$$$@@@@@+++++@\n\n\nAs this happens more it'll start splitting up files so much that the drive constantly is looking for parts that don't line up, it takes time and causes wear. To minimize this happening your operating system will do this automatically when it isn't busy, which is part of the reason why you can hear your drive making noise even when you're not doing anything with it.",
"A couple of things it looks like other people haven't touched on since their varying descriptions are correct.\n\nWhen the data is physically stored, there is a type of index (like an index in the beginning of a book) that tells the computer where exactly all the stuff is stored so it knows how to retrieve it and put it all back together. This is how it is able to throw bits and pieces of data all over the place but still retrieve it. When you defragment your HDD, you are combining the bits and pieces into nice continuous chunks and adjusting the index so the retrieval process will be quicker.\n\nWhen you delete an item, it isn't actually removed, just the entry from the index is removed, and the space is marked as usable. \n\nAnd don't defragment an SSD. They don't need it and it will shorten the lifespan of it.",
"I'll ELU5\n\nTake 3 ,red, blue, green pens and arrange them so red is by red and so on. You want a red pen? Where is it? You guessed it, by the other reds. Now you use the red pen, and your friend uses the blue pen, but he puts the blue pen in the red pens spot and so on. Now imagine this happening except for having 9 pens, you have 1 trillion pens (bytes)",
"And another way to explain it:\n\nWhen you save file 1, 2 and 3 it will be saved on your HD like this\n\n123\n\nNow you save 1 again, then 2, and then 1.\n\nNow you have\n\n123121\n\nNow it's becoming fragmented. Defragmentation rearranges the data to\n\n111223"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
457c7c
|
could two countries, or continents cut internet traffic between the two
|
and what would happen if it where the case, for example would south africa not see any Facebook post coming from example europe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/457c7c/eli5could_two_countries_or_continents_cut/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czvqmmy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a two year old article but 99% of Australia's internet traffic is run through just 5 submarine cables. Cut them off and you could cut Australia off from the whole world:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThat other 1%, might require a few well placed anti-satellites missiles, if you've got any hanging around..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-vulnerable-submarine-cables/"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.