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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2ur3jw
|
why has live in australia evolved to hop (like kangaroos and wallaby's) while every where else on earth evolution came to the outcome of running and walking was better?
|
Apart from a few flightless birds everything else walks, fly's, swims or slithers but on Australia stuff hops, why? edit: life* i meant life not live
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ur3jw/eli5_why_has_live_in_australia_evolved_to_hop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coav6km",
"coavea4",
"coavq9n",
"cob4xnc"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Evolution is essentially directed randomness. Somewhere way back in kangaroo and wallaby lineages, something did well enough hopping to keep breeding and the whole family went down that route. \r\rAlso, Rabbits.",
"With all the snakes, spiders and bugs, why walk? Hopping would be preferential.",
"Its an efficient and fast way of travel. its thought to have evolved as a way for macropods to quickly escape predators as they can accelerate quickly by hopping. ",
"There are many counterexamples to the idea that Australia has a monopoly on jumping animals, but another interesting question is why are so many mammals in Australia marsupial in nature rather than placental? I am not aware of many species of mammals that originated outside of Australia that are marsupial, or at least there seem to be many more placental mammals than marsupials outside of Australia. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4btyts
|
why do special police force wear ski masks?
|
[Example](_URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4btyts/eli5why_do_special_police_force_wear_ski_masks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1cdp8b",
"d1cdpf9",
"d1cdqu2",
"d1chzmh"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
15,
5
],
"text": [
"The main reason is to hide their identities from people. If they didn't criminals could retaliated against them or their families.",
"I would guess to not be recognized/targeted by terrorist organizations and/or any criminal groups.",
"1. It's dehumanizing and intimidating\n2. It protects the officers from recognition and retribution.",
"Picture it... your door is kicked down in the middle of the night. Suddenly the room is full of bulky figures with guns screaming at you. To make matters worse, you can't see their faces or even exposed skin... they don't even look *human*.\n\nThey wear them to add to the intimidation factor"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/5iGRRhw.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1w1d9k
|
regarding protests around the world, why do the police or military take orders from a dictatorial regime that's bent on curbing freedoms, including their own?
|
Ever since the Middle East revolutions began a couple of years ago, this has been on my mind. We see headlines time and time again that the police or military is cracking down on protesters, many times using force. My question is why? Why are the police forces in Ukraine taking orders? They are the people too and and any crackdown by the government, affects them too, doesn't it? Furthermore, these police also have families, friends, etc among the protesters, do they not? So why would they take such brutal orders?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w1d9k/eli5_regarding_protests_around_the_world_why_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cexrs2t",
"cexsxcs",
"cexttnd",
"cexusk2",
"cexv25i"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because they are part of the government, they receive preferential treatment and protections because of their status. Also most of these police forces are paramilitary, they are not trained in a lot of community policing (which most aren't anymore) they are trained for breaching buildings, shootouts, and what they are currently doing which is riot control. So these officers have already been desensitized to this very situation. On top of that they are instilled with an us vs. them mentality right from the get go, being a police officer is part of a brotherhood or a greater good. Who wants to let down their brother and become a pariah?\n\nNow there is the monetary aspect. They are being paid. Their wife and their kids depend on them bringing home that paycheck. They need to pay the mortgage, the car payments, the gas bill, etc. Then it cycles back into us vs. them where these stupid rioters who are just a bunch of uninformed, lazy, cowardly, scumbags are trying to give them a hard time and not let them?\n\nAlso there is likely a massive amount of propaganda being spilled into these officers ears. We have already heard of this shady right wing fringe that is looking to overthrow the government and wants raping babies to be the national pastime. So these guys are being encouraged that they are fighting for something.\n\nNow think about the type of person that gets into policing, usually A-type personalities who aren't super bright, who like guns and violence, and may have a hero complex. Now these aren't just traffic enforcers they are a special forces like team. So times what I just said by 10. I guarantee a good percentage of those cops see this as adrenaline driven boner fuel.\n\nNote: Not all statements are my opinion some were just made to give an idea of the thought process or the mentality that may be motivating some of these people.",
"Suggesting that every government that isn't American \"democracy\" is a dictatorship hell-bent of curbing freedoms is usually wildly incorrect. Most protests aren't a case of good vs. evil.\n\nA pretty sizable part of the developing world had it's *very* artificial national borders drawn by colonial powers instead of more natural borders that correlate to ethnic / cultural identities. This is especially true in the Middle East and Africa.\n\nSo often times the police are part of the ruling class/ethnicity/whatever and if they don't revive special treatment outright, they tend to be politically aligned with the ruling governments.",
"Would you rather get paid, and be able to afford food and shelter for your children, or lose your job and livelihood over your principles?\n\nYoung people and those without dependents don't understand the hard choices that parents have to make some times.",
"Just read Lord of The Flies, it's human nature. There is a social structure and hierarchy, ethics and values are a sliding scale. People settle in and inherit the circumstances of whatever community/group provides them security and necessity, even luxury. They do what they need to do to protect their well being or get what they want, even if that means initiatives that hurt others.",
"\n* policeman enjoy a lot of perks, especially in repressive countries, and don't wish to lose them\n* in for a penny, in for a pound...policeman who are already guilty of minor violations will face consequences if the regime loses power, and have little to lose by committing major violations\n* even completely virtuous policemen will be considered complicit for what their brethren do, should the regime fall\n* policemen often have more to fear from defying the current regime than from any punishment the next gov't might impose \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2d5lky
|
why do guys send dick pics?
|
I'm totally serious, I'm a dude and I just do not understand. Possibly NSFW?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d5lky/eli5_why_do_guys_send_dick_pics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjmaboh",
"cjmabz6",
"cjmahgs",
"cjmgjmf"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Send dick pic, hope for boob or twat shot in return.",
"The opening scene from this highly underappreciated movie explains it all :)\n\n\n_URL_0_",
"Hope of getting reciprocal lady part pics or getting laid.",
"I work for a porn site. We don't do any production, I'm rarely ever where a camera will shoot me (mostly an odd party). However, guys send me as many dick pics as they do the models themselves.\n\nI guess it's just the thought of a girl opening it gets some of them off. Some probably think they might get some action? I don't know...someday I should start a dick pick site. LOL"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDIY5joLCE"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ktid5
|
wikileaks and the bradley manning case
|
Im reading a whole bunch online about this and did a quick search here, but Im still unclear. There's just a whole lot of information and Im having a hard time piecing it together.
so,
What is Wikileaks?
Who is Bradley Manning?
~~If Wikileaks is so protective of their sources, how did Manning get caught?~~ The Adrian Lamo guy turned him in, right?
How come Wikileaks and this Assange guy can published the submitted classified materials and not get in trouble? // How come Wikileaks is still a website?
Where did Manning get all this shit he leaked? My understanding was that he was a low rank in the Army so it doesn't seem like he should have access.
Any other details that you may think are pertinent are welcome, too! I find this all fascinating.
EDIT: Thank you to mod /u/SecureThruObscure for approving my post! I know it's a popular subject but Im still looking for these specific responses. Also, wikipedia makes my brain hurt after a while so having this explained like Im 5 would be awesomeee! Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ktid5/eli5_wikileaks_and_the_bradley_manning_case/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbsh35a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Wikileaks is an organization that seeks to provide a safe platform for whistleblowers across the world to leak documents to the press. The face of this organization is Julian Assange.\n\nBradley Manning was a US Army intelligence Analyst who leaked thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks. Manning was caught after he discussed his actions with Adrian Lamo, who turned him into the authorities. \n\nWikileaks can still publish these documents because they are part of the press. They did not actually steal these documents. Many countries give the press significant leeway in reporting things that have public value. For this reason, despite considerable pressure, there isn't exactly a legal way to shit the site down. \n\nManning was able to have access to these documents for a variety of reasons. His position as an analyst gave him access to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information and the Army's policies of sharing other digital information with itself. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
oh4ek
|
us is: month/day/year eu/world is: day/month/year why the difference?
|
No, it is not just cause how you say it, that differs too.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/oh4ek/us_is_monthdayyear_euworld_is_daymonthyear_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3h7sme",
"c3h7tls",
"c3h81wi",
"c3h8vob"
],
"score": [
16,
4,
9,
7
],
"text": [
"Both are stupid and prone to misinterpretation. It aggravates me to no end to see a date written as 01/02/03. Is that January 2nd 2003 or February 1st 2003 or even March 2nd 2001, who the hell knows. When I am named Emperor of the World, one of my first commandments will be the immediate universal adoption of [yyyy-mm-dd](_URL_0_) as a date standard, and all the morons who want to cling to their own pet format for sentimental reasons will be forced to adapt to the superior one, at gunpoint if necessary.",
"I didn't know the reason for this, so I did some searching on Wikipedia, and this is what I could find as far as I can understand it:\n\n Dates could be written in *Gregorian Little Endian* sequence, which:\n\n > This date format originates from the custom of writing the date as 'the 8th day of November in the year of our Lord 2003' in western religious and legal documents, which at one time were the majority of documents created.\n\nSo over time you would see DAY-MONTH-YEAR format, in various means (DD-MM-YYYY, or D-MM-YY etc) \n\nThey could also be written in *Gregorian Big Endian* sequence, which starts with the year.\n\n > In this format the most significant data item is written before lesser data items i.e. year before month before day.\n\nYou would see YYYY-MM-DD and its variations. Since the year is often deemed to be less important, this was dropped more often than not, thus creating the *Middle Endian* sequence, which starts with the month.\n\nYou would therefore see MM-DD-YYYY.\n\nHere is the relevant [Wikipedia article on Date format](_URL_3_).\n\nHere you have the [Date format by country](_URL_2_) with a great [diagram/map](_URL_1_) showing clearly where the divisions lie.\n\nHere's the Wikipedia article for [Date and time notation in the United States](_URL_0_).",
"The US abbreviates dates on how they would be spoken in the longer form. For example, Americans say \"It's January 14th\" which gets abbreviated to 1/14. We don't say, \"It's the 14th of January.\"\n\nEurope just goes by the increasing length of time. ",
"Why not year/month/day? Then the numbers increase numerically, and everyday is higher than the one before it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_notation_in_the_United_States",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Date_format_by_country.svg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format#Date_format"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
577t7b
|
why can't old but good instruments (like stradivariuses or selmer mk vis) be recreated using modern tech?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/577t7b/eli5why_cant_old_but_good_instruments_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8pphjk",
"d8ppkng",
"d8pshe1",
"d8pwjx7"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"In the case of the Stradivarius violins, the wood that was used was a product of certain environmental contains brought on by the little ice age that couldn't be reproduced now, or at least not for a few hundred years as the super-dense wood needed to grow....grew. Not only that, but the exact construction technique that was used to build the instruments is not known, so certain steps that would shape the sound of the instrument have certainly been lost.",
"The Stradivarius thing is a myth. People who claim to be able to identify one by sound, can't. And when blinded, have been known to pick modern instruments over them for sound quality. I don't know much about the MK VI, but I would expect it's the same.",
"Modern day scientist also don't know the techniques that we used to build the instruments. Just like today, instrument makers (and makers of anything really) kept their processes a secret. Today we call them trade secrets. Long ago they just knew they were onto something good and didn't want anyone else to copy them and profit on it like they were. \n\nSo we have no idea what Stradivari did to make his instruments. Did he use a particular cut of wood from a certain size tree, or age it a certain period at a certain temperature, or soak it in cow piss? We just don't know. So recreating it is difficult.\n\nAnd most didn't write it down for fear of their method being discovered. When they died, they often took their secret process with them. So now, the exact processes are all just guesses and exact copies are impossible.",
"There are [modern violins](_URL_1_) that are [just as good](_URL_0_). However there is status associated with playing a Stradivarius, and many owners of Stradivarius violins (who loan them to violinists) consider them to be an investment. As a result many good violinists won't criticize a Stradivarius because then the owner might take it away."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/",
"http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/02/violinists-cant-tell-the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones/"
]
] |
||
cwtl85
|
what's the point of cc'ing someone in an email?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cwtl85/eli5_whats_the_point_of_ccing_someone_in_an_email/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyevpqk",
"eyew4ca"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I usually CC a person in an email if the email isn’t direct to them, but I want them to be aware of the communication.",
"So that the CCed person just has understanding of what's going on without thinking it's for them.\n\nExample: Your boss puts you in charge of a project for which you have to provide instructions to people in your office. You send an email telling people to take care of something by such and such date. Boss is CCed. He doesn't mistake it for you telling him what to do. At the same time your co-workers see that he is tracking any instructions you're giving, and would reign you in if you stepped outside the authority he gave you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
exy9u8
|
why can’t you gain weight in places like your ears, lips and nose?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/exy9u8/eli5_why_cant_you_gain_weight_in_places_like_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fge2iz8",
"fge2o5o"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Most weight gain and loss is through fat and muscle increase and decrease. Hardly any fat or muscle in those places.",
"You have special cells that store fat. You also have a finite supply of them in fixed locations. As you gain weight, these cells get larger; they don't multiply or spread. Thus, you can only gain weight in the places that were already set up by your body to gain weight, and how fast a body part gains weight depends on the quantity of fat cells already there. A body part with a higher percentage of your fat cells will grow more than a body part with a lower percentage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3o3nsh
|
why have there only been vertical take off/rockets used to reach space. why can't we build jets that can fly high enough to get out of our atmosphere?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o3nsh/eli5_why_have_there_only_been_vertical_take/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvtogd1",
"cvtogml",
"cvtoxfh"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
9
],
"text": [
"Rockets don't take off vertically. And we do build \"jets\" that just fly up out of the atmosphere (White Knight and Spaceship one did exactly this) \n\nBut mostly, rockets don't take off vertically. They start by going \"up\" but then turn and enter orbit (meaning they are closer to parallel with the ground) because going to space is not going up, it's going so fast that you miss the ground when you try to land. ",
"Wings provide lift, which depends on there being sufficient atmosphere around the vehicle. As you fly higher the atmosphere becomes thinner and you can't generate as much lift. In which case you need to depend on propellant to deliver the force to go higher, in which case, you've got a rocket anyway. ",
"Jets push air through them and out the back to go forward, kind of like how your car wheels push against the ground or an inflated balloon will fly around as the air is forced out. Also, the wings on an airplane use the air to translate forward motion into upward motion.\n\nWhen you go high enough, the air is too thin to push against. And when you get to space, there isn't any. So you need to bring stuff with you to push out behind you. When you're using tanks of stuff being pushed out behind you as a primary means of moving forward, lift generated by wings becomes less important."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3x0ntq
|
unemployment down, job creation up, but there are more people on welfare then ever?
|
A popular them among my conservative friends is to dismiss job creation during Obama's reign with the fact that more people are on Welfare than ever. Please let me know how this is possible. ( i searched for this and could not find an answer. If you have a link to this if it is already explained please share... Cheers)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x0ntq/eli5_unemployment_down_job_creation_up_but_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy0gsi8",
"cy0i21y"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Usual unemployment measures count the percentage of people _who are actively seeking or working jobs_ who don't have one. When people stop looking for jobs, they're not counted as part of unemployment figures, and this happened quite a bit during the recession.",
"'On Welfare' includes all people receiving money from the government - that is, retired people who paid into social security.\n\nOver the next 20 years, the number of people receiving these funds will increase, even if unemployment reaches 2% or less. America has an aging population, and the number of retired people will be increasing through until 2035.\n\nPayments to people over the age of 65 account for 1.7 billion dollars annually, and nearly all increases in government spending during the Obama administration have been due to the aging population or debt service/interest. Americans are divided on whether to pay for this through tax increases or by cutting expenditures in other areas, however most underestimate the level of depth that either such cuts or increases would need to reach by 2025 to accommodate this ever-increasing cost."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33nnfe
|
why haven't phone and tablet manufacturers made a product that does not require a screen protector or case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33nnfe/eli5_why_havent_phone_and_tablet_manufacturers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqmmdmt",
"cqmmgt5"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because if you enjoy the product and the screen breaks, you'll buy another, which gives them more money. ",
"Several reasons:\n1. It would be thicker, so it wouldn't look as cool and it would weigh more, so less people would buy it.\n2. The extra material would also make it cost more, so less people would buy it.\n3. And/or the outside would be made out of some super-strong ultra-anti-scratch material that would cost more, so less people would buy it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
49vnya
|
when someone deletes an element of a picture with photoshop, how do they fill in background that they can't see? especially in complex settings, such as a forest?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49vnya/eli5_when_someone_deletes_an_element_of_a_picture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0v8u9q",
"d0v8xfk",
"d0v91j0"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Newer version of photoshop actually have a background fill option that does this reasonably well. Typically though, they do it by either stretching or copying the background from somewhere else in the picture. Or if they are a good enough artist, manually drawing it in.",
"You fill it by cloning things around it that looks like what is behind. So sometimes it's easy if there is a good place to clone from, other times it's almost impossible.\n\nAs a general rule it's easy to remove thin objects, as there is usually easy clone something that is just next to it. The bigger the object you want to remove, and the more complex the bakgrund is, the harder it will be to do.\n\nIn some cases you might have to essentially draw a new background or recreate it from other photos. Which as you might have guessed is a great deal harder to do.\n",
"There's a tool in Photoshop called the clone stamp, which allows you to airbrush over stuff with images of areas that you've previously selected. For instance, if you have a photo of two people standing in a forest, you can highlight areas of nearby trees, then clone stamp over top of the person, thus creating the illusion of only one person."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2jf4kg
|
what is the difference between a brook, creek, and stream?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jf4kg/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_brook_creek/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clb3iga",
"clb868g"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Size. A brook is tiny, a creek is a little bigger and you can probably hop right over it, and a stream is a shallow branch of a river.",
"Local convention. It is *not* based on size. As [this map](_URL_0_) shows, what a person names a small body of flowing water has more to do with where they live than anything else.\n\nFor specific etymologies:\n\nBrook - Comes from the Old English and is related to Bog. It probably originally referred to slow meandering streams running through marshes... but isn't limited to that anymore.\n\nCreek - Comes from Norse and is related to corner. It used to refer to a narrow inlet of the sea/ocean where it would cut a short ways into the land. It eventually became associated with the stream that flowed into the inlet, rather than the inlet itself. And eventually the connection to the sea was lost entirely.\n\nStream - From Old English. This was originally the generic English word for streams. And it retains its original meaning still."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://derekwatkins.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/dwatkins_usstreamnames.png"
]
] |
||
4icmiy
|
how one can come back to life after being pronounced dead.
|
I hear things like "you were legally dead for 10 minutes" and such on TV, and I'm aware it is used in real life as well, but what really happens?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4icmiy/eli5_how_one_can_come_back_to_life_after_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2wydzo",
"d2wyqp9",
"d2x2qcg"
],
"score": [
4,
18,
3
],
"text": [
"\"Legal death\" is when the government officially recognizes that you are, in fact, dead.\n\nThis means they'll issue a death certificate.\n\nDeath certificates are usually only issued when doctors make the call after attempted resuscitation (if you don't have a DNR), or if someone finds your corpse and a positive ID is made at the coroner's office.\n\nObviously you don't come back to life in the latter situation, but in the former case, it depends on how long it takes for them to defibrillate you (shock your heart).\n\nRoughly speaking, every minute they DON'T defibrillate you, your chances of survival go down 10%. (so 1 minute not defibrillated, 90% chance of survival; 2 minutes, 80% chance, and so on). So after 9 minutes of no defibrillation, it's very unlikely for you to come back.",
"Death is not a fixed event that happens. Something like removing a head is, right now, pretty irreversible. But so was a heart attack a couple of centuries ago. Being dead is a very grey area, and sometimes you are declared dead, when in fact your body is still capable of resuming normal operations. It has not yet sustained enough damage or decay. As medical technology advances, this grey area will become larger and larger, and the philosophical questions is poses will become more relevant.",
"Imagine a mechanical machine. like a bunch of interconnected gears and cogs that all work together to do something. If you lock up one of the important gears, the entire thing stops working. This is pretty easy to fix. Just unlock the gear and boom the machine works again. \n\nNow imagine that one of the machine's functions is to maintain the existence of itself. Say that some other bits wear out really easily, and the machine works to fix it. Now, if you lock up one of the gears, the entire thing stops working like before, but now there is a time limit. If the machine doesn't keep on going, it will not be able to fix the worn down parts. If it does not fix them, it will not be able to work right. A layman might say \"the machine is broken. It can't repair itself\" but an engineer would know that the machine can be \"revived\" if you just unlock the gear. If you do it in enough time, the machine will be able to fix the worn parts before they are permanently damaged. \n\nThis is essentially how the body works. If your heart stops working, your cells will not get the oxygen they need to survive. That doesn't mean they are dead, just that they will die if they do not get the oxygen that they need eventually. So, if we can mechanically make the heart start working again (via CPR), then the blood will start moving again, and the person will still be alive. \n\n\n\nIt was a bit of a crude analogy, but I did my best."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ybtc9
|
why does female ejaculation sometimes look clear and sometimes look white?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ybtc9/eli5why_does_female_ejaculation_sometimes_look/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmm6ew3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The clear ejaculate is urine. The white creamy ejaculate is urine with a little bit prostate specific antigen, which is excreted from the Skene glands, and other substances from the female prostate. Prostate specific antigen helps sperm swim better to increase the chances of a woman getting pregnant.\n\nWe aren't sure if they are exclusive, but it's likely that every woman can produce both kinds.\n\nArguably, only the white creamy ejaculate is true female ejaculation. The rest is urine aka squirting. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26772-female-ejaculation-comes-in-two-forms-scientists-find/"
]
] |
|
bd92lf
|
why is it that when a rocket launches into space it looks like starts to curve to the side?
|
I live in Central Florida and have always watched the launches from KSC from my back yard. I've always wondered why instead of going straight up, it starts to veer off to the side. Is it because of the Earth's spin? A flat earther told me that it does that because they are going to land on the other side of the disk lol. Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bd92lf/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_a_rocket_launches_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekwk5ur",
"ekwkb9j",
"ekwkdn2",
"ekwmgxd",
"ekwodjn",
"ekxf76t",
"ekxk8vc"
],
"score": [
6,
17,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not an illusion. To orbit the planet, a spacecraft needs a *horizontal* velocity of 17000 mph. So the rocket needs to get the satellite up to space, but it also needs to accelerate it to a gigantic sideways speed.",
"The goal of space flight is not just to reach space, but to stay there for a while. The most efficient way of doing that is to turn onto a tangent of the orbital sphere (sideways, as seen from the surface).\n\nThis increases the forward momentum of the craft, allowing it to begin to \"fall around the Earth\".\n\nIn practice, having enough forward speed allows the craft to miss the planet as it falls due to gravity, creating an equilibrium in the height gained by moving forward and height lost to gravity. Moving faster will increase the orbital distance opposite to the current location, increasing the perigee (lowest point) and apogee (highest point) of the orbit. Slowing down does the opposite, and allows the craft to land.",
"Because they do. To get into orbit, you have to do more than just get to the altitude of space, you also have to be moving to the side really fast. \n\nThings in orbit aren't in zero-g because they're in space, it's because they're constantly falling. If you just go straight up, you will fall straight down. If you move to the side fast enough, you just continuously \"miss\" the atmosphere as you're falling.",
"The goal is to get into orbit *around* the earth. What's a straight-uppy rocket going to do when it when it get's to space? Make a hard left?",
"\"falling with style\"\n\n\nFrom an intro physics class view:\n\nYou head up nice and high then you slowly begin angling yourself so it would be more like what you would see a plane doing just way higher. It still follows a path like any projectile like if you throw a ball itll fly out horizontally and start going down. The goal with the rocket ship is to make sure that it's high enough and fast enough that it would miss the ground by the time it'll go \"down\" enough. \n\n\nObviously you don't want to narrowly miss the ground so it has to be really high and fast. If you play Kerbal space program you will see that you are just trying to angle your arc just right to get your orbit going",
"The primary reason the rocket turns to the side is to most efficiently gain both the vertical and horizontal speeds necessary to establish an orbit. At the start of a launch, they have to be aligned straight up in order to maintain stability and not fall over. Once they get enough speed going, they can begin to angle themselves to the side without tumbling end over end. Their goal in almost any space launch is to get going fast enough sideways to cancel out the force of gravity pulling down on them. Turning shortly after getting off the ground gets them horizontal movement as early as possible. If they can manage to reach the necessary speeds, they can get in orbit. While in orbit they are falling toward the ground, but they are also moving sideways so extraordinarily fast that, because the earth is round, the ground curves down away from them at the same speed that the fall toward it. Without turning sideways the rocket would just come straight back down when it ran out of fuel and the precious cargo (usually satellites that are supposed to go into orbit) would be destroyed leaving everyone involved very unhappy. \n\nThere are lots of other things that go into this which is commonly referred to as a \"gravity turn\". I encourage you to look more into it. There is a multitude of great resources on this and other spaceflight related topics online if you're willing to look for them and trust their expertise.",
"ELI5: Because it does. \n\nELI10: imagine you have a ball on a long string. 10 feet or so. Hold on to the strong and throw it as hard as you can, straight away from you. The ball takes up all the slack in the string, and bounces back toward you. The ball does not go into \"orbit\" around you. \n\nIf instead of you throwing it, you had your friend stand away from you and throw it perpendicular to the string, the ball would then orbit you. \n\nThe rocket curves to the side because it is transitioning it's path from \"up\" to \"around\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7au5lg
|
why did the union win the war but lose the peace?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7au5lg/eli5_why_did_the_union_win_the_war_but_lose_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpctebr",
"dpctl6j"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Abraham Lincoln was assassinated before he could fully implement his plans, and his Vice President (Andrew Johnson) was a pro-Union Southerner who saw the war purely as a matter of national unity rather than any sort of social reckoning. Johnson sabotaged Reconstruction almost immediately.",
"Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, was one of, if not *the* most racist presidents in history. He pretty much blocked all attempts to expand civil rights and to curb the re-emergence of the Confederacy in the south. He also did nothing while the southern states re-implemented slavery in all but name, and allowed groups like the KKK to flourish."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
agrwyd
|
(cellphones) what is blue light, what is the purpose of a blue light filter, and should certain media be viewed without a filter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/agrwyd/eli5_cellphones_what_is_blue_light_what_is_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee8jots",
"ee8kucu"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Blue light is said to reduce melatonin (the sleepy drug) in the brain, so 'blue light filters' on screens actually reduce the amount of blue light being emitted so you can hopefully sleep easier.",
"The premise is that since blue is one of the spectrum of light we can see, we have a natural reaction to it, that reaction being wakefulness. This idea goes on to say that if you're looking at your phone and viewing that blue light you will have difficulty going to sleep because the blue light is encouraging you to be awake.\n\nFiltering this light is said to make it easier to fall asleep, and is recommended when using your phone in the evening. I have not seen the evidence verifying all these claims, and I would caution blindly following it because almost every single instance you see of it being shown is a product someone wants you to buy, and are thus biased. \n\nIf you have problems sleeping then look into it, if not then maybe not. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6qbzpb
|
why can't indians lie about being a member of a higher caste?
|
How are members in a caste stuck in that caste?
Why can't they lie about being in another caste and assume that identity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qbzpb/eli5_why_cant_indians_lie_about_being_a_member_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkw387w",
"dkw4y3y",
"dkw8609",
"dkwgv20",
"dkwkpb2",
"dkwmwc8",
"dkx2ouw",
"dkx5qrs"
],
"score": [
24,
14,
9,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"if you cant confirm your caste, then you are at the bottom. \n\nYour family and lineage would be easily known and confirmed if you were upper class. \n\nIts like you trying to convince people your an A-list actor. but if that were true, Id know who you are.",
"Can a German go to Paris and lie that he is an Italian? Sure he can, but eventually people will catch on. Mannerisms, accents etc. Same thing with caste. \n\nContrary to popular western beliefs, the Indian caste system isn't a simple vertical hierarchy in a homogeneous society. Caste is an ethno-religious tag. It describes a person's relgious and ethnic background.\n\nYou can't just stop being an ethnic German or Swede can you?",
"The caste system in India is slowly disappearing as higher education becomes more available to everyone. When I lived in India forty years ago it was still a huge presence but more and more the old social systems are being replaced by people who work for foreign companies and they don't care about your cast.",
"Same thing that stops people in America from doing that. The poor people have different clothes, they talk differently, they eat differently, they spend money differently, they have different hobbies, and over all it would be very, very difficult for someone to imitate that without being born into it.",
"Besides the way each caste acts and talks, there is some definite racial / ethnic grouping too. We have a *little/lot* of the same rules when it comes to \"being a blue blood\" and alot of the same rules when it comes to race. Even today, how many people are still scandalized to find out someone from the right side of the tracks has a drop of African blood in them, or has a Jewish relative, or grew up poor?",
"As was answered quite well here, it depends a lot on your family. The only way to enter a higher caste is to confirm who your family is/was, and it is very difficult to be able to lie about that. Generally, most people are born in a high caste. They develop a network of people of a similar caste as they grow up. Without this network, no one in the caste considers you anybody. \n\nJust imagine how hard it is to enter the elite (not 'elite' as in Donald Trump, but the actual elite) of the United States. Well, that's the same deal that goes on in India.\n\nAlso I'm not sure about this, but it may contain some truth, but from what I have observed people of different castes in India look quite distinct. ",
"I would say the most common way to determine a person's caste is by their surname. There are various castes and each caste has a particular set of surnames , the highest being the Brahmins , with surnames such as Shukla , Pandey , Bajpayee , etc. Im pretty sure it would be super hard to hide ur surname. Sure , you could just tell a person the wrong surname. But u sure as hell can not hide it in ur school , college , workplace , etc .\n\nThen there is a another type of system.. based on categories . There are three.\nGeneral , Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and OBCs (Other Backward Classes)\nApart from General , the other three are considered to be , well not really low castes , but kind of underprivilaged , and are given assistance by the government , specially in competitive exams and admissions. All of this is mostly on the basis of surname. \n\nSo , if ur in the General Category , fine. But if ur in the other three , that is fine too .. but sometimes you could be asked to provide a certificate of the same. \n\nSo , as you can see , its pretty hard to hide ur \"category\" or \"caste\" and lie about it.",
"Because the differences are apparent. Accents, skin colour, hobbies, communities, local political parties. One more thing that must be considered is that beyond social stigma (and threat to life in some incidents) there is no incentive for lying that you belong to a higher caste. There are no benefits for being a member of an upper caste. The differences are ethnic. Not to sound racist but it would be like a Mexican or a white person saying they are black. Again, apologies if that was offensive.\n\nBut there is every reason to lie about being a member of a lower cast, forge documents, convert to a specific religion for benefits. The reason for this is there are BC (Backward Class) SC and ST (Scheduled Castes and Tribes) OBC( Other Backward Class), the Open category (the titular upper caste people) and so on. There are previleges for being a member of the lower castes that are intended for their development ( heavily discounted fees, jobs, a lower cutoff in some entrance exams and so on) but are heavily abused today. The caste system today has just reversed but still is defined by things like languages, ethnicity, religion and skin colour. \n\nOne cannot pretend to be something else without engaging in a lot of paperwork. And once you are able to legally convert to a specific caste would you become a higher caste member with virtually none of the above mentioned perks? Nope."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
452pmf
|
why are the assassinations of lincoln and jfk so widely known, but people rarely know about garfield's and mckinley's assassinations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/452pmf/eli5_why_are_the_assassinations_of_lincoln_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czuq3i9",
"czuwk5t",
"czuxvgv",
"czuxyy3",
"czuy4ol",
"czuycfh",
"czuyfvn",
"czuylud",
"czuypsu",
"czuzm8q",
"czuzt45",
"czv03wr",
"czv0ggf",
"czv0iyb",
"czv0ssh",
"czv1jdw",
"czv1qim",
"czv1qt5",
"czv3k2z",
"czv4jcl",
"czv6k0o",
"czv6n0i",
"czv7n86",
"czv7nkc",
"czv7zim",
"czv8jdk",
"czv8r76",
"czvahbt",
"czvaw2g",
"czvc4u1",
"czvdcq7",
"czveafu",
"czvef11",
"czvejkd"
],
"score": [
2603,
8,
39,
245,
142,
7,
93,
21,
8,
75,
6,
3,
3,
4,
5,
2,
7,
5,
10,
12,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Abraham Lincoln is widely considered by historians to be the best president in United States history for his masterful handling of the civil unrest exacerbated by his predecessors. Simply put, his assassination is so widely known because of how important a president he was; the Civil War is one of the largest events in the history of the nation and he was in charge and succeeded throughout its entirety, spearheading the ending of slavery. The guy was a big deal. \n\nJFK is largely in the same boat albeit perhaps to a slightly lesser extent and accounted for by recency and publicity. JFK was another good president during the stressful Cold War period and while he wasn't quite as acclaimed as Lincoln, this happened in the 1960's, barely 50 years ago, on television no less. Not so surprising it's vividly remembered.\n\nHistory has not been so kind to McKinley and Garfield, both of whom died during a very forgettable era of American history, between the Civil War and World War 1. Neither of them were abhorrent presidents, but nor were they noteworthy for any memorable accomplishments or scandals. \n\nThink of it this way, if Lincoln didn't die, he'd still be considered among the most memorable Presidents. JFK died very recently and very publicly amidst the threat of total nuclear destruction. If McKinley and Garfield hadn't been assassinated, they'd simply be recounted among the likes of Calvin Coolidge and William Howard Taft; forgettable.",
"\"Who? And who?\" That's the main reason. They are less \"historic\" in the first place.",
"I really do wonder how these particular presidents managed to piss someone off enough to want to assassinate them if their presidencies were largely forgettable.",
"No one suffered as much as Garfied. He live for 80 more days while contaminated hands and unsterilized medical instruments insulted his body failing to find tge bullet that eventually killed him",
"People are still alive from the time of Kennedy. And no offence to Garfield and McKinley, but Lincoln accomplished more than they ever could. Garfield has a fat cat and McKinley used to have a mountain..",
"JFK is remembered largely because it was filmed. Multiple angles. We've all seen it. So, even though we weren't there in the flesh, we were there vicariously. \n\nLincoln...civil war. ",
"I would say 90 out of 100 Americans wouldn't know that McKinley was assassinated and 999 out of 1000 wouldn't be able to tell you the name of his assassin, much less spell it. Leon Czolgosz.",
"Because of the events taking place at the time of their assassinations and what happened afterwards. When McKinley was shot, Teddy Roosevelt became president, and became a very popular and dynamic figure, while McKinley was seen more as a party hack. So no one really minded all that much. And he was shot by a crazy guy. For Garfield, it seems like he would have been a good president, but it was peacetime, he wasn't president very long before he was shot, and his VP did a decent job of following in his footsteps and enacting the same agenda. So also not a huge blow to the country.\n\nLincoln was irreplaceable and Andrew Johnson was a disaster, so huge impact there, and for JFK there is the mystery surrounding the actual assassination at the height of the cold war and LBJ's subsequent decision to expand fighting in Vietnam, also leading to a lot of wondering about 'what could have been' if he wasn't shot. ",
"The way historians portray Kennedy and Lincoln is fantastic, McKinley and Garfield are seen as the inverse",
"Interesting statistic: 4 work-related deaths in 240 work-years puts \"being POTUS\" at **over 10 times more fatally dangerous** than lumber jack or fisherman (the two most dangerous occupations tracked by US agencies) which each see about a 0.1% annual fatality rate.\n\nEdit: yes: astronaut may be higher.\n\nFurther observation: After a year as a lumberjack/fisherman, there's a 0.1% chance you're dead, and maybe a 1% chance you're injured in a way that presents further pursuing that career. After a year as a POTUS there's a 1.6% chance you're dead and a ~15% chance you can't be a POTUS any more.",
"Garfield's assassination was just featured on an episode of PBS' [American Experience](_URL_0_).",
"Garfield is dead?!\nPoor bastard I thought the lasagna would get him first. ",
"I would think the drama AFTER JFK being shot would have a lot to do with his remaining as common knowledge. His alleged killer also being gunned down and the many theories that still float around as to who shot him and from where make it almost a pop culture drama like the OJ murder trial .",
"Not an attempt at an explanation here, but I think there might be some regional differences too. Like here in Buffalo, the assassination of McKinley is probably the most well known. It happened in Buffalo, and the details are taught in school pretty thoroughly as well as being mentioned during any historic tour and on some monuments. \nGarfield's assassination is probably more well known in D.C. ",
"Someone tried to kill Garfield? Was it Odie?\nI am not trolling, more people think of a cat than a president when they hear the name Garfield. Garfield and McKinley were just not as popular as Lincoln and JFK.",
"Another aspect that makes the JFK assassination so infamous is the conspiracy of the \"magic bullet\". JFK's assassination was an inside job which the truth will probably never be revealed. The seeking of the truth will always keep JFK at the forefront of memorable presidents.",
"Totally late to the conversation but I found [this photo of McKinley speaking in front of the Alamo in San Antonio](_URL_0_) two years ago in an old building downtown. It was taking just a couple of months before his assassination. ",
"Think about it for two seconds. Lincoln is considered one of the most influential presidents up with Washington and FDR. Do you even know off the top of your head what Garfield or McKinley did as president? What state they were from? JFK was a Kennedy who are sort of like American royalty, he was also young progressive and is thought to have had great potential. A guy who was unfortunately cut short. Oh yeah did I mention it was on frickin film!!!???",
"**“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all\nindustry and commerce...when you realize that the entire system is very easily\ncontrolled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not\nhave to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”**\n― *President James A. Garfield*\n\n\nTwo weeks before he was assassinated. I think the bankers had him shot. The moneylenders have fought with numerous presidents, and many presidents have written about it. If you call it a conspiracy theory, then you're calling several former presidents idiots. Read their writings on this subject.",
"Lincoln is kind of a no-brainer, but to expand upon what others have said concerning Kennedy...\nJFK was pretty much like the Obama or Sanders of his day. I don't mean as far as his political agenda. I mean in that he attracted and excited young people about the political process.\nHe was movie star handsome, a war hero, and came from a loaded & lauded family. He had the perfect wife, the perfect marriage, and was the closest thing we had to \"American royalty\". The newsmedia didn't refer to the White House as \"Camelot\" for no reason.",
"A swiss here. I simply didn't know that the USA had presidents called Garfield and McKinnley. This suggests that Kennedy and Lincoln are overall better known.",
"Because Lincoln and JFK are widely known, and people rarely know about Garfield and McKinley.",
"The Lincoln and JFK assassinations are fun. There are all sort of conspiracy theories. With JFK, a ton of different factions/people had a motive. And the whole thing about Oswald being killed before he could testify is suspicious.With Lincoln, there actually was a wider-ranging conspiracy (that failed miserably).\n\nGarfield was killed by some crazy guy that failed to get a government job. Pretty cut-and-dry.\n\nMcKinley was killed by some guy who lost his job and became an anarchist. Boooooring.",
"Destiny of the Republic is a great read on the actually super fascinating Garfield assassination. He was an interesting guy, you.\nHighly recommend checking it out.",
"Holy fuck, was it Jon?",
"They assassinated Garfield??",
"Garfield was president for less than a year, it's hard to mourn somebody you never really knew. McKinley, despite leading America during the Spanish American War was more of a hands-off kind of President. The fact that he was followed by Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most dynamic leaders America has ever known, further sweeps his legacy into the shadows. ",
"As a German I know very much who the first two are and what role they played in US history (slavery, cold war, moon landing). I've never until now heard of the other two. ",
"Who the fuck are Garfield and McKinley? ^^Joke, ^^but ^^case ^^in ^^point",
"Nice! We're covering the Progressive era right now in class so I can answer why McKinley wasn't that well known. \n\nWhat other users said we're correct regarding the legacy that he would've had after his presidency but one major thing that people are forgetting is that Theodore Roosevelt wax the person who came into power after McKinley's assassination. TR was a Republican but he was often seen as the president who was for the people rather than someone who served his party. Go over to your closest supermarket and pick out a meat. Let's say that it's pork. How do you know that the meat you picked was pork? Before Teddy, what you thought was pork may not have been. Many of the things that Teddy did such as the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Conservation Act ( saving natural monuments such as the grand canyon) are visible in our every day lives. \n\n\nIt isn't so much that McKinley was a bad guy, but TR just completely overshadowed him in the eyes of the public. However, if Teddy Roosevelt was a bad president (in the publics eyes at the time) then McKinley may have been more popular, but that's a debate for a different day. ",
"This is a silly question. It's obvious, JFK and Lincoln were much more important than the other two.",
"McKinley has a memorial at the exact spot he was shot. It's a rock with a plaque on it in that was plunked down on the former site of the Pan Am expo of 1901. The Rock is located in the median of Fordham drive in Buffalo, which was developed as a residential street in the 1920s. \n\nI bought a house a few houses down from where the rock is located and only found out about it while walking around and stumbling over it. If I knew a president was assassinated basically in front of my house, I would have paid more for the property.\n\nEvery spring one of the neighbors puts a few small plastic American flags around it. He was the forgotten assassinated president. There is t a day that goes by that I don't mourn him and curse the name Leon Czolgosz...or however it's spelled.",
"I think with JFK people still remember where they were when they heard about the murder. My mom still talks about being in school and hearing about it.",
"Lincoln because of his accomplishments and the Civil War, JFK because we still have people around who lived through it, plus it was filmed.\n\nGarfield and McKinley were neither as accomplished as Lincoln, or as recent as JFK.\n\nHell, in 60 years it's entirely possible that nobody alive will really give a shit about JFK's assassination. I'm in my 30's and I don't really care that much. I can easily see younger generations caring even less."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/garfield/player/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/NrSWs9l"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9zx0uz
|
why have bts become popular in the west whereas it seems to me similar kpop acts have not had similar success outside of asia?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zx0uz/eli5_why_have_bts_become_popular_in_the_west/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eacnonc",
"eacph5k",
"eacpnhf"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Are they? I vaguely recognise the name, which is about on par with most big k/j-pop acts. ",
"BTS has a lot of elements/traits that, combined, made them the successful super-band that they are now, dominating international charts and rising to huge fame.\n\nA couple of them are:\n\n1) They have a literal social media empire. Their presence on Twitter alone is huge, with their frequent tweets getting near 1million or even more likes without issue on a regular basis. They absolutely dominate social media, with a huge, loyal, and energetic fanbase (ARMY) that actively tries to spread awareness and promote their music.\n\n2) They are, or were, underdogs. They were signed with Big Hit Entertainment, which, at the time of BTS's debut, was a pretty small and not well-known entertainment company especially compared to the other companies and K-pop groups at that time. They had considerably less funding and recognition and thus had to face incredible difficulty in rising to become popular in Korea. People tend to like and root for underdogs, and the incredible effort put in from both BTS and Big Hit paid off to launch them to super stardom first in Korea, and then outside of Asia.\n\n3) Their live performances are no joke. They work constantly, writing new songs, practicing new choreography, traveling around the world on their tours. Go watch any of their live performances; they put 100% effort and go all-out on the stage, dancing and singing/rapping simultaneously with sometimes incredibly complex and difficult dance routines. They also have such a commanding presence while on the stage, it's easy to see how all of the individual members really put their hearts and souls into the performance. This type of charismatic energy while performing really captivates a lot of people.\n\n4) Deep and intricate/complex meanings behind their songs. Although a lot of their songs are super catchy and at first glance may seem like simple bops, many of them often have a very deep and layered meaning behind them. For example, Anpanman is a catchy and seemingly silly, light-hearted song about being a superhero. But the more in-depth meaning behind the song lyrics relates to BTS's hard work and efforts; they face incredible adversity and hardship but endure it all for the sake of their fans:\n\n\"Honestly\n\nI’m afraid of falling\n\nOf disappointing you\n\nBut still, even if I have to use all my strength\n\nI will stay by your side\"\n\nIt gives this layered depth to their songs that people can really appreciate once they put in the effort to learn what the lyrics are saying; and often, this happens because the song is so catchy that people are inclined to want to know what is being sung.\n\n5) They're very open to incorporating English, adding English lyrics to their songs, and generally collaborating with people outside of Korea. They have a Nicki Minaj feature on their song IDOL, and have worked with Steve Aoki on both MIC Drop and, more recently, Waste It On Me. In addition to this, they often attend interviews and appear on live shows including but not limited to The Ellen Show and The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. Pretty popular mainstream American artists like Khalid have praised their work, and recently they just did a live collaboration with Charlie Puth. All of this work with more established names familiar to the West only further contributes to their recognition and spreads their name.\n\nThere's much more than that, but that should give you a pretty good general idea of some of the factors that, when all combined together, have launched BTS to this level of incredible international fame.",
"Their personalities and music appeal to westerners. They did projects and a video series on youtube (bangtan bomb) that western fans seemed to like a lot. I followed bts since their debut and they were interacting and communicating with their fans on twitter. They made it seem they were really close with their fans. In addition they were inspired by western hip hop music, which in the mainstream kpop scene there wasnt much of.\n\nAdd all of those together they had something special people around the world liked"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
jh8vg
|
what does the vice president do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jh8vg/eli5_what_does_the_vice_president_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2c341z",
"c2c38ag",
"c2c3g28",
"c2c3h79",
"c2c3l5t",
"c2c44ni",
"c2c71qv",
"c2c341z",
"c2c38ag",
"c2c3g28",
"c2c3h79",
"c2c3l5t",
"c2c44ni",
"c2c71qv"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
2,
19,
59,
17,
2,
10,
5,
2,
19,
59,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Aw, man. I clicked thinking, Hey, yeah! What DOES the VP do?\" And then I was disappointed. Fuck.",
"I'm assuming that this is a US centric question.\n\nThe vice president will take over if the current president cannot perform his duty. In addition to that, the vice president oversees the Senate, but has little to no influence. The job is mostly about making the president look good and carrying out ceremonial duties.",
"I'm assuming you're talking about the Vice President of the United States. His job is to make sure the Senate keeps working, kind of like your mom or dad might make sure that your house keeps working. He sometimes has to go to other countries and show that we care about something there, such as when their president dies or when a king or queen gets crowned. He only does that when the President is too busy. During those times, a man called the President pro Tempore does the Vice President's job. If the president dies while doing his job, or needs to quit, the Vice President becomes President.",
"Teddy Roosevelt was a wild card politician that was disliked by the powers that be. In order to get rid of him, his party gave him a job where he had no real power or responsibility. Then the president died and he took over the job.",
"His most important job is to take over from the president if the president dies, gets too sick to work as president, quits, or is impeached (gets kicked out). This has happened a bunch of times throughout history, most recently in 1973 when president Richard Nixon resigned, making his vice president Gerald Ford president. This is one reason why its so important who the vice presidential candidate is--because they could become president at any time. \n\nAnother official job they have is to be a tiebreaking vote in the senate. The senate has 100 senators, so if 50 vote one way and 50 vote the other way, the vice president decides whether the bill passes or doesn't pass. He or she is not allowed to vote otherwise.\n\nBesides those two jobs, he doesn't have many other official things to do. Sometimes he'll go out to other countries to talk with their leaders if the president is busy. Sometimes he'll go out and give speeches to support the president or his party's ideas. Sometimes he'll negotiate with people in congress on behalf of the president to get things passed. Some vice presidents have done a lot and worked really closely with their president, others haven't really done anything. It depends a lot on who they are and who the president is.\n\nWhen the president is trying to get elected, they'll usually choose someone to run for vice president who will help them get elected in some way. For example, if people think the presidential candidate knows a lot about how to help make sure people have money and can find a job but doesn't know much about how to keep our country safe, they might choose someone to be VP who knows a lot about the military. They might also choose a VP who is really popular in an area of the country that doesn't like the presidential candidate very much.\n\n",
"Nice try, Sarah Palin.",
"I don't mean to be rude, but there are some concepts that we don't need to explain like you're five. I love this subreddit and all, but it's getting kinda out-of-hand.",
"Aw, man. I clicked thinking, Hey, yeah! What DOES the VP do?\" And then I was disappointed. Fuck.",
"I'm assuming that this is a US centric question.\n\nThe vice president will take over if the current president cannot perform his duty. In addition to that, the vice president oversees the Senate, but has little to no influence. The job is mostly about making the president look good and carrying out ceremonial duties.",
"I'm assuming you're talking about the Vice President of the United States. His job is to make sure the Senate keeps working, kind of like your mom or dad might make sure that your house keeps working. He sometimes has to go to other countries and show that we care about something there, such as when their president dies or when a king or queen gets crowned. He only does that when the President is too busy. During those times, a man called the President pro Tempore does the Vice President's job. If the president dies while doing his job, or needs to quit, the Vice President becomes President.",
"Teddy Roosevelt was a wild card politician that was disliked by the powers that be. In order to get rid of him, his party gave him a job where he had no real power or responsibility. Then the president died and he took over the job.",
"His most important job is to take over from the president if the president dies, gets too sick to work as president, quits, or is impeached (gets kicked out). This has happened a bunch of times throughout history, most recently in 1973 when president Richard Nixon resigned, making his vice president Gerald Ford president. This is one reason why its so important who the vice presidential candidate is--because they could become president at any time. \n\nAnother official job they have is to be a tiebreaking vote in the senate. The senate has 100 senators, so if 50 vote one way and 50 vote the other way, the vice president decides whether the bill passes or doesn't pass. He or she is not allowed to vote otherwise.\n\nBesides those two jobs, he doesn't have many other official things to do. Sometimes he'll go out to other countries to talk with their leaders if the president is busy. Sometimes he'll go out and give speeches to support the president or his party's ideas. Sometimes he'll negotiate with people in congress on behalf of the president to get things passed. Some vice presidents have done a lot and worked really closely with their president, others haven't really done anything. It depends a lot on who they are and who the president is.\n\nWhen the president is trying to get elected, they'll usually choose someone to run for vice president who will help them get elected in some way. For example, if people think the presidential candidate knows a lot about how to help make sure people have money and can find a job but doesn't know much about how to keep our country safe, they might choose someone to be VP who knows a lot about the military. They might also choose a VP who is really popular in an area of the country that doesn't like the presidential candidate very much.\n\n",
"Nice try, Sarah Palin.",
"I don't mean to be rude, but there are some concepts that we don't need to explain like you're five. I love this subreddit and all, but it's getting kinda out-of-hand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2faw0f
|
why do tv news reporters seem so technologically inept?
|
i.e mistaking 4chan to be an individual person, when a simple google search would reveal all in two seconds, as well as several other instances.
EDIT: For clarification, I understand that the anchors themselves do not write what they report, they simply read it out from a prompter. What I don't understand is how the people who research/write these reports are so out of touch? How has the news not caught up with the internet yet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2faw0f/eli5_why_do_tv_news_reporters_seem_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck7lve7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The news readers don't write the copy, they just read what's in front of them.\n\nIn the case of TV news reporters, most of them are clueless nitwits who majored in Hair and Teeth in college. The public does not seriously demand facts or accuracy from the news, so they don't get it.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3c8ovk
|
what's preventing people from boosting their own posts/comments on reddit with unlimited alternate accounts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c8ovk/eli5whats_preventing_people_from_boosting_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cst97ed"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mods will notice discrepancies occasionally and send reports to admins to check the IPs of the up votes. \n\nWe had a power user a few months back, /u/unidan, who always dominated topics with several thousands of upvotes constantly. \n\nWell after a few years, he was losing an argument, and the mods noticed that within seconds of his posts, he had 7 upvotes. They sent it to the admins and he was found to have been upvoting himself with alts. \n\nHe was shadowbanned, and now lives on with his new alt, though I don't know how successful he is. \n\nEdit: Looks like his alt was shadowbanned too. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4dhrev
|
in cartoons, humans are frozen and through some sort of heat source, are able to unfreeze themselves and go back to normal. is this realistically possible? what happens on the molecular level?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dhrev/eli5_in_cartoons_humans_are_frozen_and_through/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1r0r3n",
"d1r0wk8",
"d1r0znl",
"d1r1nnz",
"d1r2798"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"No it is not possible with any current or proposed technology. Freezing cells damages them. Irreversibly. There is just no way to freeze someone and un-thaw them.",
"Generally no. There are a couple problems. First, as water incide your cells freeze, it forms crystals that can rip through internal cell structures and cell membranes as they grow. That's bad. Water also expands as it freezes, thus possibly bursting open cells and other spaces.\n\nSecond, if you're talking about freezing someone who is actually alive, they're going to die in the process. Our body needs a wide array of chemical reactions to happen. These happen at body temperature. As the temperature drops, those reactions slow to a point where they cannot support life. Lots of other things happen too, like dropping of the heart rate and cell death due to lack of oxygen.",
"It's not realistic. When the water in your body freezes, it freezes into sharp ice crystals that penetrate through cells and cause massive tissue damage. This is what happens in frost bite.\n\nIt is possible to prevent these ice crystals from forming. It's a process called vitrification, but doing it to people requires replacing their blood.\n\n",
"There are some species which can be frozen and revived. Typically they have some antifreeze agent in their bodies, and I don't know of any mammals that have this ability.",
"Unlikely. \n\nAll of our cells contain water. When water freezes, it expands. Freezing a person would cause most or all cells in the body to rupture. When the person is unfrozen, they would be very much dead. \n\nCryopreservation of specific human cells such as sperm or eggs can work, though. They use a synthetic glycol that displaces the water in the cells. Then, when it is frozen, the glycol doesn't form ice which destroys the cell. Many cells still die, but luckily we produce million of sperm in every ejaculation. This method across all cells in the human body would most likely be impossible, but there are organizations dedicated to figuring it out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4d6dvr
|
how is code scrambled in a corrupt file on a computer? what causes the code to be deleted or moved?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d6dvr/eli5_how_is_code_scrambled_in_a_corrupt_file_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1o3xfa",
"d1o6etc",
"d1oa5k6",
"d1obri3",
"d1oecbo"
],
"score": [
73,
9,
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Files can be corrupted in a lot of different ways. \n\n* the file transfer/ download was not finished and the file is not complete \n\n* there was an error in the packet stream of a download, or a man in the middle was playing with the packets\n\n* a block on the hard drive / solid state drive where the data is located failed, and could not be recovered \n\n* a solar flare caused a higher level of magnetic radiation to reach the earth, and was not stopped by the magneto sphere, the magnetic radiation causes some bits to flip. (yes this happens but the bits are always recovered so you never see any data get compromised because of this.) ",
"The question is a little too vague to answer sufficiently. Almost anything can cause data corruption. An earthquake could rattle the plate inside a harddrive causing the head to write to the wrong location. A virus could deliberately shuffle the bits. Could be anything. The real question is how any of it actually works considering all the things that can go wrong.",
"So, basically, a computer is just a really complicated machine. Corrupted data is the result of it or another machine incorrectly storing information, due to any part of the system failing.\n\nIt could be bad code, power spike, external elements, failing hardware.\n\nCorruption arises from anything going wrong and nothing being able to account for it. \n\n Not all of it presents immediately, either. Some things will, like operating system, but other things take time to get bad enough to even notice that there are errors.\n\nA good simple example of one way is how a game says \"don't turn off power until saving completes\", because if you interrupt saving you get an incomplete file which will appear corrupted. If this file (stupidly )directly overwrites the previous file, your save is corrupted. If it was written to a new file, the new save would be bad and the old one intact.\n\nIt's all just a \"moving parts\" problem.\n\nOne of the big ways we combat corruption in Internet traffic is through checksums. Basically, you can format data so that it should be able to display that it was bad just by looking at it, and in some cases reconstruct it.\n\nCD technology is big on this, and is why scratches don't always corrupt the data.\n\n",
"Remember multiple choice tests? Now what if you filled out the test 100% correctly and put it on the teachers desk. Now John comes over picked up your test and erases half of your answers, switches some of them, and double fills some. When the teacher goes to grade it it's completely wrong now. That's one type of corruption.\n\nAnother type occurs when information can't be read from the disk. You finish your test and as youre putting on the teachers desk, the last few pages fall on the floor. The teacher goes to grade your test and fails you since you're missing information.",
"Imagine you're telling me your phone number. You get four digits in, then a motorcycle passes by and causes me to not hear the last three. Even though I have the majority of the number, that information is useless, because there are 1000 possible phone numbers that start with any given 4 digits.\n\nA corrupted file is the same way. Something, at some point, messed with the saving process. It doesn't have to be very much - even a couple bits out of place can ruin everything. This can happen for any number of reasons, but on modern computers usually it's the programmer's fault.\n\nIn the future it will likely be possible to determine which bits aren't correct and simply fix them, but right now you basically have to do it yourself, and without a reference there's basically no way to know what you're looking for."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2cz3vc
|
- can anyone please explain how a person can be asexual?
|
No i dont mean like a plant. I just heard of it today, how people are saying they are asexual. How does that even happen? I googled it so much today but im still confused.
EDIT:: from the answers i am given comes another question. What is the difference between abstinence and asexuality. (since people who are asexual can still have sex?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cz3vc/eli5_can_anyone_please_explain_how_a_person_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjkg61r",
"cjkgd0a",
"cjkgli4",
"cjkgz1z",
"cjkhiuk",
"cjkhs39",
"cjki963",
"cjkipda",
"cjkm0tc"
],
"score": [
12,
36,
6,
6,
7,
2,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Apparently they just don't feel the sexual attraction to other people, but they can have romantic feelings for them. Basically imagine a relationship with no sex. ",
"Think of something you don't want. Now imagine that thing is sex. That is being asexual.",
"I'm not asexual, so I shall refer you to a resource written by someone who is:\n_URL_0_\n\nShould explain anything you'd like to know.",
"I dated a girl who was asexual and she just wasn't interested in sexuality. She still liked to cuddle, hold hands, and certain tpes of sensual touch but had no interest in actual sex. There are as many types of asexuality as there are sexuality, some don't want anything to do with sensuality, some just don't like actual sex, some are kinda meh about the whole thing and will have sex for the sake of their partner but to them its like a guy going to watch the Notebook, they are just there for the other person. Sometimes asexuality stems from a traumatic experience, some people (like the girl I dated) are just born that way. ",
" > What is the difference between abstinence and asexuality. \n\nAbstinence is a choice, asexuality is an identity.\n\nPeople who abstain still have the drive to engage in whatever it is they're abstaining from, they simply decline to do so.\n\nWhereas people who are asexual, in general, don't have the drive to engage in sexual activity.",
"Some people are sexually attracted to men, some to women, some to both and some to neither. Being asexual means you aren't sexually attracted to anyone. Abstinence on the other hand is the choice not to have sex, whether or not you want it.\n\nA heterosexual person may abstain from sex for religious reasons (they want sex but don't have it), and an asexual person may have sex to please someone else (they don't want sex but they have it anyway).",
"It's the difference between not eating fast food because it's bad for you and not eating fast food because you don't like the taste.",
"Abstinence: I would like to have sex, but I'm choosing not to. Relevant metaphor: No, thank you, I don't want that slice of pizza. I'm dieting.\n\nAsexuality: I'm not interested in sex, so I'm deciding not to have it. Relevant metaphor: No, thank you, I don't want that slice of pizza. I don't like cheese.",
"Abstinence is not having sex. Asexuality is not wanting sex.\n\nMany who are abstinent are not asexual. Think of people saving themselves for marriage, priests who take a vow of celibacy, people who just can't get laid, etc.\n\nSome who are asexual are not abstinent. They may be in a relationship with a person who desires sex and be able to have it for their sake."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.asexuality.org/home/overview.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f25lnf
|
why can’t we cloud seed in fire affected areas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f25lnf/eli5_why_cant_we_cloud_seed_in_fire_affected_areas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhahbx8",
"fhahs9v"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Cloud seeding just accelerates formation that already 'wants' to take place. It doesn't force the clouds to rain, and it can't squeeze water out of dry air. Thus, it isn't a particularly powerful solution for most areas that are likely to have fires.",
"Cloud seeding require very specific conditions to have any effect. As the name suggest you do need clouds that you can seed to form rain. With cloud seeding you can only increase the chance of rain but not form rain from thin air. And if you get favorable conditions for cloud seeding during a forest fire the flying ash from the fires will do a good job of this on its own. So any additional particles we can launch into the clouds may not have any additional effects."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3edvc2
|
what's in accutane that causes all the crazy side effects?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3edvc2/eli5_whats_in_accutane_that_causes_all_the_crazy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cte1lim"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > What's in Accutane\n\nA synthetic variant of Vitamin A. Synthesizes *massive* doses of it, while mitigates the very life-threatening side effects you'd get from actually ingesting that much natural vitamin A directly. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. In effect, it nukes your body, but it's as if we somehow found a safer nuke that doesn't leave the area devastated for the next five decades.\n\n*side note from someone who has taken Accutane - many people never experience horrifying side effects. Negative confirmation bias. Is it a pleasant drug to take? No. Not in the slightest. But this shit works and has worked for tens of millions of people. If you've tried absolutely everything else, please ask your dermatologist about it. I consider it a miracle drug. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
483j8d
|
shouldn't worn tires give you more grip?
|
So it's commonly known to always change tires on cars and bikes when the profile is worn out. I understand that you have less grip in wet conditions because the profile is what drives the water away from the tire. Since professional racing (drag racing for example) always uses slick tires for more grip, why does a worn tire not increase grip in a dry condition?
Edit: I am not considering to cheapskate on tires, but someone told me that worn tires also provide less grip on dry roads and that got me confused a bit about tires and grip!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/483j8d/eli5_shouldnt_worn_tires_give_you_more_grip/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0gz5xo",
"d0gzq07",
"d0h1ntm"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Slick tires increase traction only on very flat, clean surfaces.\n\nThey have poor traction on irregular surfaces found on typical roads, because a small bump lifts a large portion of the tire off the road. Tread allows the tire to flex more and channels debris to the grooves.",
"Water becomes compressed between road surface and slick tire and thus the car becomes a boat planing on water bed with slick tires. Worn out tire is not a slick tire; a racing slick is a fresh rubber tire with dedicated (soft) rubber compound whereas worn out tire is dry and old (hard) rubber - traction reduces as the rubber gets harder.",
"Tires get most of their grip from deforming to irregularities in the road surface. Racing slicks are designed from the outset to be soft, sticky and slick. And they're generally only good for one race because of the heating and wear before they become too worn out. A bald street tire has been through so many cycles of heating and cooling that any advantages to the extra contact area is far outweighed by the hardening of the rubber compound. Likewise, a racing tire for hot weather, or even a soft compound summer tire will preform poorly at low temperatures, because the rubber compound becomes hard and unyielding at lower temperatures.\n\nSee my response to [this](_URL_0_) thread."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/445beu/eli5_why_do_tires_lose_grip_as_theyre_used/cznmnyp"
]
] |
|
61papi
|
what makes a telescope different than a telephoto lens?
|
Besides the obvious mount for a camera, being made to withstand rigors of the road, and a logo on the side, what's mechanically different about a telescope that makes it so special?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61papi/eli5_what_makes_a_telescope_different_than_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfgb9ca",
"dfhjlsc"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A telescope and a long focal length camera lens do pretty much the same job, but there are some differences:\n\n* Camera lenses nearly always use just lenses. Telescopes can use lenses, mirrors, or both.\n\n* Camera lenses are designed to focus over a range of distances, which can mean compromises. Telescopes are designed purely for focusing on distant stars, 'infinity' in photography terms.\n\n* Telescopes are designed to capture as much light as possible. That usually means just two or three glass elements because each surface loses some light. Camera lenses don't worry about that so much and often have lots of glass elements.\n\n* Camera lenses are designed for use with variable aperture - the diameter of the opening for light to go through. They may compromise sharpness at wide aperture, and they need a clear light path down the middle for small aperture (which is one reason they rarely use mirror designs). Telescopes are generally designed for use 'wide-open' only and need to perform well at it.\n\n* Long focal length camera lenses invariably use the 'telephoto group', a lens arrangement to make the focal length longer than the physical length. Long focal length telescopes are often physically long, although not always.\n\n* Telescopes get physically much wider - again, it's light transmission. For example the Skywatcher Skyliner 300P is a £1000 amateur telescope with a 300 mm (12 inch) diameter main mirror. In camera terms it's a 1500 mm f/5 (mirror) lens, and a comparable camera lens would cost over ten times as much. And that's just amateur stuff - professional astronomers use telescopes with main mirrors several *metres* across.\n\n* Camera lenses have autofocus. Amateur telescopes usually have manual focus.\n\n* For photography, normal photographers use exposure times of fractions of a second. Astronomy photographers use exposures of several *minutes*. That means the mounting needs to be rock solid, far more so than a typical camera tripod, and also compensate for the Earth's rotation.\n\nBecause of the 'bang for your buck' performance, terrestrial photographers interested in extreme telephoto shooting often turn to amateur astronomical telescopes despite the drawbacks.",
"You probably mean \"What makes a telescope different than a long lens?\" A \"telephoto lens\" is a sub type (its been optically shortened).\n\n\n\n\n\nVery little basic difference, a long lens is a telescope and many telescope optical arrangements are used in long lenses including using lenses and mirrors. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe difference (as other have said) is: you have to be able to carry a camera lens, it has to be rugged, it has to have irises that control light, ways to focus, ways to zoom, ways to stay at the same focus while you are doing all that, and camera lenses have to cover a large flat imaging plane........ takes allot of engineering and allot of glass to do all that. Telescopes don't need to do any of that so can be optically and mechanically simpler than a camera lens. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4zlhl5
|
what makes up video games' budget?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zlhl5/eli5what_makes_up_video_games_budget/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6wsex0",
"d6wsp9v"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Video game budgets are complicated and it will vary greatly from game to game and team to team. \n\n > But, can't you just make something with a team of friends in your garage or something?\n\nYes in the same way you could theoretically form a new Apple out of a garage. It is literally possible? Sure. Are you going to do it? Almost certainly not.\n\n > Make all the assets yourself. \n\nThat is immediately thousands of hours of labor, which is your largest cost when talking about a game. Making them yourself is not free, its time, and when you are talking about a business venture time is literally money. Also making assets is not some simple task. Odds are if you are good at making 3D models or textures or UI thats your focus. You're not going to have a jack of all trades who can code with the best, script, and make good looking assets. \n\n > Most game engines like Unity, UE4 and Source 2 allow you to use it for free, in exchange to certain amount of your profit if your game becomes viral.\n\nIts not viral its any and all sales. Your game might not make you any profit at all, they are still going to take their slice off the top.\n\n > In all honesty, can i make something with a budget of 0 cents?\n\nAgain technically yes. Will it be any good? Absolutely not. \n\nAll the reasons you have listed for why entry into the video game market its easier / lower cost then it has even been have also made it hyper competitive. ",
"You can very well make a video game with a budget of $0. People make games like that and release them on steam all the time. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with what goes into budgeting, plus the cost of testing. Games with no budget typically don't do as well since they don't get the advertising and don't usually have as big of a team working and testing on it. The reason most people raise funds to make a game is because it allows them to work on the game as their primary occupation. The alternative is working a regular job to support yourself, and then working on the game in your free time. In that case, the budget of the game is however much it costs for you to live. And you are still raising funds to develop it. You are just raising the funds yourself by working for them. Also, putting your game on kickstarter is a great way to get free advertising. Putting your game on kickstarter = getting paid for advertising it. With more funds you can dedicate more manhours to the development, testing, and advertising of a game. The more you raise from donations, the less you have to work your primary job and you'll even have a chance of hiring dedicated testers, artists, developers, etc.\n\nBut strictly speaking, you can just develop a game in your spare time for no cost other than your base living expenses. I've done that a few times. Made a couple crappy games, and now I'm planning on making one that I will actually release on steam if I ever finish it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2t8877
|
why does comcast internet slow down despite offering 20+mbps
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t8877/eli5_why_does_comcast_internet_slow_down_despite/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnwmdjr",
"cnwmfhs",
"cnwus63"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"because it's a shared medium. and your internet speed doesn't depend solely on your isp. it depends on the entire connection from wherever you're trying to access.",
"They aren't offering 20Mbps, they are offering **up to** 20Mbps. That being said, FiOS gives more than they offer, I get 82Mbps up & down on their 75Mbps plan.",
"To be a little more clear, you share the \"pipe\" with your neighbors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1vwjyh
|
why do you get nauseous and start to sweat if you need to poop and wait too long?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vwjyh/eli5why_do_you_get_nauseous_and_start_to_sweat_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewh38n",
"cewkely",
"cewno6w"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I've had this too. I had someone who I admit isn't a doctor tell me it has something to do with the waste and blood pressure. I am most likely wrong about that but thats what I was told",
"Sometimes I'll get goosebumps too",
"When your bowels are full, you can stimulate the Vasovagal response. The Vasovagal response is when your heart rate and blood pressure drops in response to being activated. You can activate this response by bearing down as if to poop, or if there is too much pressure in your bowels.\n\nThe first few symptoms of a Vasovagal response are nausea, sweating, ringing in the ears, ect. This usually happens before someone passes out due to straining or the crampy, aching feeling you get when you have to poo really bad. \n\nI hope this explained it some. Not sure how to put Vasovagal into 5 year old terms without having to go into a huge explanation of what it is, but I can if you'd like."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5rwyuv
|
if light bulbs and space heaters can create heat by running a current through a metal wire, then why aren't power lines always red hot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rwyuv/eli5_if_light_bulbs_and_space_heaters_can_create/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddas9tp",
"ddasgjx",
"ddaslme",
"ddatmwb",
"ddb2vp0"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Overloaded wires do get hot, and can cause an electrical fire. \n\nProperly sized wires for the voltage and current may get warm, but do not get hot enough to glow red, or cause fires. Obviously power lines are sized appropriately for the voltage/current.",
"In a word: [Resistance.](_URL_0_)\n\nPower lines are designed to have lower resistance to electrical flow, while a heating element is designed to convert electrical energy into thermal energy through conductive resistance. \n\nEssentially more resistance = more heat. Heat = energy [transmission] loss = bad for power lines, but good for things where you either want heat or get it as a by-product of some other intended function.",
"Heat in a wire is generated by the amount current flowing through it. In the case of transmission lines they avoid heating up the wires by lowering the current and massively stepping up the voltage. This has the effect of reducing energy loss to heat while maintaining the same amount of power transmission. This is why power lines don't get very hot and why they arc like crazy if the circuit is accidentally broken. ",
"Lightbulb and space heater: Wire thin, current big.\n\nPower lines: Wire thick, current small. \n\n(relative to the wire's thickness of course, compared to what a wall socket in your house can deliver it's still a fuckload of current in the power lines and not very much in the light bulb)",
"TL;DR. Power lines run at very high voltages in order to minimise the current, which reduces the amount of power dissipated as heat.\n\n\nThe power dissipated through a resistance can be calculated with the equation P = I²R. P is power in Watts, I is current in Amps, R is resistance in Ohms. \n\nConsider a 2kW electric heater (I'm in the UK, so I will assume 230V single phase operation); we can use another equation to work out what the current in the circuit must be.\n\nP = IV (P and I as above, V is voltage in Volts). We know the heater is rated at 2kW and the voltage is 230V. P/V = I = 8.7A.\n\nWe can calculate the resistance of the heating element using Ohm's Law (V = IR) since we now know the circuit current. V/I = R = 26.5 Ohms.\n\nWe now know the current and the resistance in the circuit so we can plug the numbers into the top equation. 8.7 x 8.7 x 26.5 = 2006 (slightly more than 2kW due to rounding errors).\n\nNow consider a set of overhead power lines on the UK's supergrid, let's say for simplicity's sake the total length of the run is 50km. A typical line resistance might be in the order of 0.05 Ohms/km (it's actually multiple lines as spaced bundles, but I digress). Since this is for large-scale transmission, we want to transfer a lot more than 2kW. So we'll say it's going to be more like 2GW.\nSo we can calculate the resistance of the line: 50 x 0.05 = 2.5 Ohms. As we're now talking about three phase power, calculating the current is a little more complicated than before (I'll leave that as a further reading exercise). What we are interested in is the current in each phase.\n\nIf we tried to transmit this amount of power at 400V (400V phase to phase, 230V phase to Earth), then the current would be silly; ~2.9MA/phase. This simply wouldn't be feasible, the line can't carry that sort of current (around 6kA is probably the limit, depending on the exact specifications of the lines).\nIn order to reduce the current, the voltage is stepped up using a transformer. In the UK high voltage transmission is typically 132kV, 275kV or 400kV (phase to phase voltage; the supergrid runs at 400kV).\n\nRe-running the calc at 132kV, gives a phase current of 8926A. Still too high.\n\nAt 275kV, phase current is 4284A. If we now calculate the dissipated power, it is 4284 x 4284 x 2.5 = 45.9MW. This is about 2.3% of the total power and works out at 0.045%/km which is too high.\nNational Grid (who operate the UK supergrid) get penalised for lost power, so it is in their interest to minimise losses for both safety and financial reasons.\n\nAt 400kV, phase current is 2946A. Dissipated power is 21.7MW. 1% of total power, 0.021%/km, which is acceptable.\n\nEdit: grammar"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2jqugs
|
why is iron so common throughout the planet, and not titanium or aluminum?
|
I know that most elements are deposited onto planets through supernova explosions, and I know that stars can only fuse up to iron before they go supernova. Is this the reason why so much iron is found in our planet? It's just the last element to fuse before something goes boom?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jqugs/eli5why_is_iron_so_common_throughout_the_planet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cle9xz9",
"clebpti"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
" > Is this the reason why so much iron is found in our planet? It's just the last element to fuse before something goes boom?\n\nYes, that is exactly why iron is more abundant than heavier elements; the heavier elements cannot be made but in the moment of supernova, where as iron is made for a while before that point. Most of the iron made before supernova is not fused into heavier elements, instead being ejected in the supernova.",
"Kind of.\n\nThere's energy in messing with atoms. Things you do to atoms can either consume energy [commonly \"endothermic\"] or release energy [\"exothermic\"].\n\nNuclear fission is when you get energy out by splitting one atom into two. It's exothermic, which is why we do it. Note that when we do it, we do it with big, heavy, atoms, like uranium or plutonium.\n\nNuclear fusion is when you get energy out by joining two atoms into one. It's exothermic, which is why we do it. Note that when we do it, we do it with small, light, atoms, like helium and hydrogen.\n\nIntuitively, there's something going on here. Energy can't be released by splitting *and* by joining, ad infinitum.\n\nWhat happens is that when energy is released, atoms are becoming more stable. They contain less energy ready to release, so they're nominally more stable. In the end... there's a point where atoms are at their \"most stable\"; where just futzing with them won't inherently get you any more energy. That point is ... [iron](_URL_1_).\n\nNote especially [the diagram](_URL_0_). Going from Uranium towards iron releases energy [goes upward on the diagram]. Going from Hydrogen/Helium towards iron also releases energy... a *lot* of it.\n\nThis is why:\n\n* Iron is the most common thing. There has been a *lot* of time for atoms to do their thing and release energy, getting to their most stable states\n* Everyone is so excitable about nuclear fusion. Because going from hydrogen and helium [relatively safe things for humans] towards iron [another relatively safe thing for humans] is both more energy-effective *and* more human-safe than uranium [which is so unstable it gently kills people nearby while releasing energy, of its own accord]"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-56#mediaviewer/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-56"
]
] |
|
2azgcz
|
why does spinning around many times and fast makes us desoriented?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2azgcz/eli5_why_does_spinning_around_many_times_and_fast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj09vm9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Your sense of balance, or equilibrium, is determined by a fluid, and the position of stone-like things in it within the inner part of the ear. When you vigorously spin around you shake up these stones, so when you stop spinning they are still moving about causing you to feel dizzy. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1nrx06
|
eli 5: fibonacci spiral
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nrx06/eli_5_fibonacci_spiral/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cclgxqe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I can see that there is an explanation gap that you would like filled.\n\nOn one side of the gap, is the fact that Fibonacci numbers can be related to a spiral like [this](_URL_2_).\n\nOn the other side of the gap is the fact that Fibonacci spirals can be seen in nature like [this](_URL_1_).\n\nThe explanation gap is: Why does nature generate these spirals?\n\nA short summary would be this: \n\n* Imagine you are a plant that is arranging leaves around a stem. You want each leaf to get maximum sun, so you don't want leaves at the top of the stem to pop out at the same angle as leaves lower down because they would tend to shade them.\n\n* When you start with a point and you want to arrange more and more points around it in a circle with the same angle between the points but no points overlapping, some angles are better than others. \n\n* An angle of 60 degrees will repeat, so that after six points have been placed you start placing points on top of the ones you've already set down. An angle of 36 is better, but runs into the problem after you place 10 points.\n\n* The best angle turns out to be [137.5](_URL_3_).\n\n* Growing plants like this angle because it's good for arranging things like leaves without them overlapping (and hence shading each other), or packing seeds in a flower head without leaving wasteful gaps\n\n* But how do plants calculate 137.5 degrees?\n\n* They don't.\n\n* When you blow a bubble the molecules in the bubble don't have to calculate the spherical shape that they adopt. It just happens. The molecules push and shove and jostle and the sphere happens because it is the least frustrating arrangement for the cells to find themselves in.\n\n* When bees build a honey comb they don't need protractors to calculate how to make hexagons - they just happen as a consequence of hexagons being the optimal shape for packing. Bees push and shove to make their little honeycomb cell bigger and other bees push and shove from the next door cells, and hexagons happen. \n\n* Here's how the same thing might happen for a plant: When the seedhead of a daisy is developing, each new seed pops up one after the other in the middle of the seed head and pushes the nearby ones away from it - so the seeds are pushing each other around a little like the molecules in a bubble or the cells in a honeycomb. As the seed head grows the earliest seeds get pushed outwards from the center. And, as a consequence, over time, the seeds pack themselves into the optimal arrangement which is a phyllotaxis spiral. \n\nA good explanation is [here](_URL_0_).\n\nThe search term that you need to use to find out more is \"phyllotaxis spiral\" (try google images)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://goldenratiomyth.weebly.com/phyllotaxis-the-fibonacci-sequence-in-nature.html",
"http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/http-inlinethumb59.webshots.com-42298-2561778790105101600S600x600Q85.jpg",
"http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/images/fibonacci-spiral.gif",
"http://www.natures-word.com/sacred-geometry/phi-the-golden-proportion/phi-the-golden-proportion-in-nature"
]
] |
||
b12fr9
|
how should one care for their car? when people talk about a "well maintained car" what does that mean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b12fr9/eli5_how_should_one_care_for_their_car_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiiqseq",
"eiirr62",
"eiisgxd"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Change the oil when needed, rotate the tires, change filters, and when something seems wrong take care of it, don’t just ignore it.",
"Ideally, your car has a maintenance schedule booklet - keep up to date with it. This is going to see to all the regular maintenance of your car, from oil, to greasing hinges, adjusting headlights, and doing all sorts of not-obvious things that individually may sound like a dumb expense but in sum make for a better driving experience. Fix obvious problems, including paint and body damage. Cosmetics are more important than people give credit - chips and flakes lead to rust, and that's a much bigger and more expensive problem to deal with. And if your car starts looking like crap, you're going to start treating it like crap.",
"Here is what I do and my mechanic always tells me I'm doing it right. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nEvery 6000-8000 miles or every 6 months, which ever comes first, I get an oil change along with oil filter. This is for a full synthetic car so if you are running an older car that takes regular oil, it's more like every 3000-5000 miles or every 3 months which ever comes first. This alone will make your car run better for longer. People who wait too long or never go will have more problems in the long run.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAt every oil change I let the mechanic know if I need my tires rotated. This makes the tires last longer and give better fuel efficiency. They also do a full checkup to make sure my breaks aren't bad or anything else that may be going on. The key is fixing stuff before it gets really bad. Anything they say I need to fix at the oil change I fix right away. They also top off all my fluids etc. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAfter oil changes I pour one can of 44K gas treatment into a full gas tank. This may sound like I have fallen for the fuel injector cleaner scam but it's not. Every mechanic I know swears by it and I buy it off Amazon not them so they aren't trying to sell me on anything. If you put this stuff in your tank once every oil change, it really does keep the engine running and the injectors clean. I have had older cars that had the check engine light on for \"Misfiring Cylinders\" and one tank of 44k later the light was off. Good stuff. \n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
62yk2r
|
why are some smiles seen as friendly, and others seen as creepy?
|
Smiles are usually a sign of friendliness so why are some so unsettling, especially in horror films? I'm thinking of creepy clowns, dolls, psycho killers etc. Can someone sciencey explain why our brains see the smile as creepy and not friendly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62yk2r/eli5_why_are_some_smiles_seen_as_friendly_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfq0gyt"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"A laugh is not just done by the mouth/lips, but also by the eyes. This is also the reason why people sometimes look stupid on photos where they laugh. Try covering one half of the photo and see the emotions the eyes and lips show separately.\n\nThe same thing is done in scary movies, the lips laugh but the eyes are angry/intensely focused. Find a photo from a scary movie and do the same thing as I said above."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4fgf10
|
a water resistant phone like the new samsung galaxy s7 still damaged by salt water even though the phone is sealed up.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fgf10/eli5_a_water_resistant_phone_like_the_new_samsung/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d28m5bi",
"d28mdwd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Salt water is more corrosive than fresh water. It will damage the seals the phone uses to keep the water out.",
"Salt water chemically reacts with a lot of components inside of a phone and can really mess it up. Fresh water will mess it up too, but salt water is much more corrosive.\n\nThe water resistance is really just designed for fresh water, because it's usually not rated very high. there's totally waterproof phones but they are big and have a protective case, most consumer waterproofing is just a protective coating sprayed on the circuit board. Stuff like that will survive being fished out of a toilet bowl but not much more"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1kzwsp
|
why is the west supporting the syrian rebels, and the east supporting assad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kzwsp/eli5_why_is_the_west_supporting_the_syrian_rebels/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbueuoj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's about interests, and it's kind of a continuation of the allegiances that built up during the Cold War.\n\nSyria is basically Russia's only remaining ally in the region; Moscow has a naval base there which provides them easy access to the Mediterranean and stuff.\n\nThe West is allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt (although who knows what'll happen there) etc. These are all countries that Syria doesn't get on with very well.\n\nSo when the civil war broke out the West was free to align itself with the rebels. The West has an interest in seeing a more friendly government in Syria. This would help the West get its way in the region because Assad would no longer be working against its allies, or helping its rival Russia.\n\nIf you ask the Russians, they are standing up for the legitimate Syrian government against violent overthrow by terrorists including Islamic extremists. If you ask the West, they are standing up for freedom and democracy. Neither of these statements are untrue, but they aren't the full story: if all the alliances and power relationships didn't exist then there probably wouldn't be any real international support for either side.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
czu8k8
|
why are "asians" not called oriental or mongoloid?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/czu8k8/eli5_why_are_asians_not_called_oriental_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ez1n0uj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The term mongoloid has been historically used as a degrading term for those with Down syndrome. When John Langdon Down first defined the mental disability, he equated their physical appearance to those of Mongolian origin. As I'm sure you could imagine, tying a genetic disorder to a geographic population's physical appearance wasn't received well. This is why the term Mongoloid, though *technically* a term that was originally used to describe those from East, Southeast, and Central Asian descent has fallen out of use.\n\nAs for the term Oriental, I would venture to say that this term is a Western nomenclature that sets up a distinct \"they're not from here\" attitude between those in the East (the Orient) versus those in the West (the Occident). I think because we don't typically use the Occidental to describe Westerners, using the term Oriental to describe Easterners is setting up that \"They are different than us.\" As a person of European descent, I can't speak to this one any further, because I legitimately do not know.\n\nTo the real problem statement of this question: \"How did 'Asians' steal and claim that word?\" I think is a little misguided. I think preferentially, people would prefer you to their national origin based on the country they're from. However, in a lot of nations that have a great immigrant population, we unfortunately group together people based on notable physical characteristics. We try and get as granular as we know how.\n\nFor example; although *technically* Pakistan and Iraq are on the continent of Asia, we would refer to these people as Middle Eastern to try and get the best approximation of they're country of origin. I am not saying it's right, I'm sure the people of China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia would rather us (using the 'us' as a somebody from European descent myself) refer to them as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Mongolian respectively. However, if we don't have the skill set to distinguish these differences, the term Asian doesn't incite any negative (or not as negative as Mongoloid and Oriental) connotations.\n\nI am unsure where you live, or where you're exposure to these people are, but where I live I would be hard pressed to find a Chinese person becoming aggressively upset over a Pakistani calling themselves Asian. I do, however, understand from my aforementioned, why us Westerners tend to call the person from China an Asian and the person from Pakistan a Middle Eastern. We should really strive for a situation that if we're trying to refer to an ethnic group based on national origin, being able to identify their actual country of origin.\n\nHope this helps clear up your question!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5i5az8
|
what does 'draining the swamp' mean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5i5az8/eli5_what_does_draining_the_swamp_mean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db5gsgq",
"db5jjlj",
"db5juap",
"db5lg8a"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Washington DC was built on \"swamp land.\" Obviously, to most, it has a double meaning. A swamp is thought of as a nasty place by many. \n\nSo, DC is the swamp.\n\nTrump says he will drain the swamp. He means he's going to get rid of (drain) what he calls corrupt politicians/ lobbyists, etc., from the Washington DC political arena. ",
"The term 'drain the swamp' is a phrase that has traditionally referred to a 'final solution' effort to resolve all issues rather than trying to battle each of the alligators.\n\nThis year it was code for \"I'm going to get rid of the folks we don't like, and replace them with folks we like.\" embedded in the image of making things better.\n\n",
"_URL_0_\n\nThe goal is to prevent elected officials from becoming lobbyists immediately after leaving office. The idea being that a corporation could offer a cushy lobbyist job to government employees in return or getting help passing favorable legislature.\n\nWhile a noble goal, it gets kinda undermined by all the CEO's and corporate executives he is nominating to his cabinet. ",
"It's meaningless rhetoric like \"read my lips: no new taxes\" and \"jobless recovery\"\n\nIt's word-noise to fool people who don't have enough skepticism to know they're being lied to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform"
],
[]
] |
||
3rhxsy
|
if america has a war on on its own soil, what are the procedures for u.s civilians?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rhxsy/eli5_if_america_has_a_war_on_on_its_own_soil_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwo5v4s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They would probably evacuate people in effected areas to safety as much as possible, this evacuation would follow similar protocol to any other evacuation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ijs4u
|
what is going in my computer when it's booting up? from pressing power button onward
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ijs4u/eli5_what_is_going_in_my_computer_when_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb54kph"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The first thing that happens is that your BIOS starts to run. The BIOS - or Basic Input Output System - is stored permanently on a chip inside the computer, and it enables some very basic operations to take place, such as using the keyboard, mouse, monitor and hard drive.\n\nYour BIOS can be configured as to what it does when it starts, but it is most likely configured to look on the hard drive for something \"bootable\" - something which can run when the computer is first started. If it finds something bootable there, it will run it.\n\nWindows is an example of something which is bootable.\n\nWhen Windows starts, it:\n\n- Loads the core parts of the operating system\n- Loads the drivers which tell it exactly how to interact with all of the computer's hardware\n- Looks in various different places for lists of things to do as it starts. There are files on your computer with names like SYSTEM.INI, WIN.INI and BOOT.INI that contain these lists\n- Looks in the registry for a list of programs and services to run once Windows itself is running\n- Looks in the Startup folder of your Start menu to find a list of programs to run when you log on (which will happen immediately if your computer is configured to not have a logon screen)\n\nIf you hold the F8 key when you turn on your computer, Windows will give you a list of options of how to start the computer. One of these is to \"Enable boot logging\". This will create a file called NTBTLOG.TXT, which will contain a list of everything that happened while Windows was starting on your computer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2pyzht
|
is there a limit to how long dreams can last (for the dreamer), without meaning something else?
|
As in, how long it feels like you're in the dream. Is there anyway for you to know if you're really in a coma?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pyzht/eli5_is_there_a_limit_to_how_long_dreams_can_last/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn1bm8m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're thinking of dreams as if they're movies that have to be played out by your brain. In this case, it would make sense that there is some conversion rate between dream/movie time and real time.\n\nThis isn't the case. Dreams are just signals firing in your brain. The signals are random, but are very similar to the signals that are normally fired from your senses. When signals are fired in your brain, one results is feelings arise. You may feel like you are scared, or happy. Or you might feel like you're flying. Or you might feel like the dream is moving in slow motion. You might even feel like you've been riding in a car in your dream for several hours, but actually you've only been dreaming for a few seconds. \n\nBasically, dreams are just random signals firing which produce memories of emotions and feelings and fake images and sounds. There is no connection to real time at all. You could even have a dream that felt like 1 million years, I'm sure that would be weird though, as your brain has never experienced that kind of time, so you have no idea what it feels like."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4uml2d
|
how can countries use grams for mass and weight measurements if they are different things?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4uml2d/eli5_how_can_countries_use_grams_for_mass_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5r0eox",
"d5r0hhd",
"d5r39ye"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They can't. Specifically, the SI unit of weight is the [Newton](_URL_0_). The confusion arises because laymen don't have a good sense of mass; high mass means something resists its acceleration (i.e. F=ma, as m increases, it takes more force to accelerate an object). Weight is a _force_ that occurs on a mass in a gravitational field, and just so happens to depend linearly on the mass of an object (F = GMm/r^2 ). In fact, when the mass of the earth is constant and the distance is mostly constant (i.e. on the surface), the difference in weight of two objects is _entirely_ due to differences in mass, which is, in my opinion, why people get confused.",
"An objects weight depends on the force of gravity while its mass doesn't. People tend to use the two terms interchangeably even though it's technically incorrect because as long as you're always talking about objects on earth there isn't much need to make a distinction between the two.",
"Because acceleration due to gravity is approximated as a constant. Similar to how 100 cm and 1 m are the same, 1kg and 9.81 N are approximately equal across the globe. \n\nMass is preferred, because it is assumed that you can appropriately calibrate your scale to your local gravity fluctuations. That way even if a recipe calls for 100 g sugar, you can be sure you're using the same amount."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight#SI_units"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3jp5w3
|
how did mma become so much more popular boxing?
|
My dad sometimes tells me how popular boxing used to be. Now nobody really talks about it unless there's a super big fight like mayweather pacquio. Everybody I know that is into martial arts or follows combat sports tend to watch the UFC more than any boxing match.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jp5w3/eli5how_did_mma_become_so_much_more_popular_boxing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cur5x7r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The slow death of boxing can be blamed on a handful of things. For one, all the organizations. WBC, WBA, and like 10 orhers that all have stars and fame. It can create this \"No one true champ\" at any weight. Meanwhile, take MMA, which has the one dominant organizarion, the UFC. There's one world champion in MMA. There's one best lightweight in the world. Or featherweigjt, Welterweight, etc\n\nAlso, Boxing was just mismanaged and corrupted. And it also doesnt hurt that general opinion is that MMA is the deeper and better sport. Hell, MMA even has boxing in it. One of the martial arts in the mix."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6i65ho
|
why do airlines sell seats that are originally reserved for their crew?
|
I have a seat in the last row which is, according to the seat plan, "usually used by crew or for safety equipment". Should I be worried about being booted off the plane because they decided their crew also needs to sit somewhere? Or will they place me somewhere else once the gate has closed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6i65ho/eli5_why_do_airlines_sell_seats_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj3t2ew",
"dj4u742"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is indeed a chance that you could be bumped for an essential crew member. That was the situation with the United flight last month, where the passenger refused to relinquish his seat for a pilot needed for another flight, and was dragged off the plane. But as for why they sell those seats, well, you're a paying passenger vs. a non-paying crew member: it's all about money in the end. ",
"Safety equipment does not go in seats. And it would be weird to tell you what a seat is usually used for. Are you sure it is referring to the seat itself, rather than the overhead bin above the seat? For example, it could be telling you not to expect to be able to stick your duffle-bag in the overhead bin, because that is where the crew is sticking their duffle-bags, or the defibrillator."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1s9r5w
|
how nasa's proposed "warp drive" is supposed to work
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s9r5w/eli5_how_nasas_proposed_warp_drive_is_supposed_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdvfqg7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The version I've heard the most about is the Alcubierre drive. It works by creating a pocket of space-time with a large gravity well in front of the ship, causing space-time in front of the ship to contract, and a gravity \"mountain\" behind it, causing space-time behind it to expand. The pocket of space-time in the middle (and anything in that chunk of space-time) moves away from the expanding bit and toward the contracting bit.\n\nThe ELI5 version would be like a surfer riding a wave. The surfer is constantly sliding down the wave, away from the crest of the wave and towards the trough. But relative to the wave he's riding, he appears stationary. He never gets any closer to the trough or any further away from the crest.\n\nSince you're stationary relative to the wave (spacetime) you don't violate that whole faster than light thing. In fact, anything inside the bubble wouldn't even know it was moving, you'd be in freefall the whole time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4f36e5
|
what is 'kafkatrapping'?
|
I saw the word used a few times, but when can't find an authoritative definition for it. Searches just seem to come up with blog posts that call it a logical fallacy but I don't see it included in any list of logical fallacies. Is it something new?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4f36e5/eli5_what_is_kafkatrapping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d25hmg6",
"d25jmq1"
],
"score": [
6,
22
],
"text": [
"I'm short term I think it means if you deny doing something wrong you're just proving your own guilt.\n\nFor example if you're accused of rape and you deny it you're just proving yourself quilty. The more you deny it the more your proving your guilt in a vicious circle.",
"It refers to *The Trial*, by Kafka, where a clerk is accused of an unknown charge by a bureaucratic, totalitarian gov't, and because of all the red tape, is unable to defend himself, or even learn exactly what he is being accused of.\n\nKafkatrapping is when your are accused of something, and your denial is used to \"prove\" you are guilty. It comes up mostly when talking about racism, sexism, homophobia, and privileges, as in \"your white privilege makes you unable to see the racists things you do\". This creates a no win situation, either you admit you do racists things, or your denial is used to show you do racist things.\n\nI would not consider fallacy in its own right, it is just a load question/circular reasoning fallacy, akin to \"when did you stop beating your wife?\" Kafkatrapping is just a label used to imply people making such accusations, who are usually from the liberal side of the political spectrum, are in fact being totalitarians. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3pwvla
|
voltage
|
Very confused on what voltage actually is. What is the difference between voltage and current? Why is voltage "across" and element while current is "through" it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pwvla/eli5_voltage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwa39ar",
"cwa3vp8"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Current is the actual amount of elecrons flowing in the conductor. Voltage is more like an attraction between two points. In one point the potential is higher than in the other: the difference forms a kind of force that makes the electrons moving. This force/attraction is called 'voltage'",
"Voltage is a difference in electrical potential energy. You can only measure voltage between 2 points. Thats the where the whole \"across\" thing comes from. Current is an actually flow of electrons. A high enough voltage between two points will cause electricity to flow between the two points."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bco442
|
why can't we have a universal format for all video files?
|
Why so many ? why not just one?
* MP4 (mp4, m4a, m4v, f4v, f4a, m4b, m4r, f4b, mov)
* 3GP (3gp, 3gp2, 3g2, 3gpp, 3gpp2)
* OGG (ogg, oga, ogv, ogx)
* WMV (wmv, wma, asf\*)
* WEBM (webm)
* FLV (flv)
* AVI\*
* QuickTime
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bco442/eli5_why_cant_we_have_a_universal_format_for_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eks7s8g",
"eks7v05",
"eks9heb",
"eksd94x",
"eksf9sd",
"ektc18y"
],
"score": [
77,
14,
4,
6,
12,
4
],
"text": [
"[relevant xkcd](_URL_0_).\n\nEveryone format is trying to be the universal format, but each format is gonna have its on intricacy that some people find incredible useful and others find insufferable. The end result is that as long as competing formats exists someone, somewhere, is gonna demand that all work be done in that format.",
"Formats have different intended distribution and quality/size ratios and compression.\n\nExample: Mpeg2 is a DVD format that's rarely used these days.\n\nAVI is on it's way out.\n\nAdditionally, formats like some quicktime, Mkv, uncompressed, AppleProRes444 are used as 'lossless' to be exported to another portion of production without any degradation of the footage and are rarely used for consumer level (though some folks insist on lossless formats because of the quality and the fact size restraints are less of an issue these days.)\n\nEdit: changed flv to mkv.",
"You are mixing several things, and you have QuickTime twice (.mov is QuickTime, which was used as the basis for the MP4 container format), but the short answer is that there is a lot of effort being put into improving video encoding, because customers want higher quality and bandwidth isn’t growing fast enough to support that. This means making breaking changes, ie new formats. Some people will stay on older formats for various reasons, so you have several generations of formats being active at the same time.",
"Why can't we have one universal car?\n\nDifferent formats and codecs all have pros and cons. Some are simpler while others offer more advanced features. Some make trade offs which make them more suitable for streaming (error correction) while others might be more efficient (higher quality) but aren't very suitable for streaming.\n\nOne of the biggest considerations is of course the evolution of formats and codecs. In order to get a lot of video quality in a small number of bytes you'll need to do a lot of computations. Modern codecs can offer higher quality with fewer bytes because they include computationally intensive algorithms which simply couldn't be used in the past, while other algorithms simply had not been invented yet.\n\nWe can't have a universal format or codec for video until we invent something that can't be improved. And even then, videos encoded in older formats and codecs often won't get converted to newer ones both because of laziness and because it's impossible to improve the quality (only make it more efficient) but you will probably lose just a little bit of quality.",
"Video is more complicated than it would seem. Most (if not all) of what you listed are containers, which is different than codecs. Some of the responses here deal more with a codec than a container. One reason I would add is DRM and companies wanting control of their format/devices. Another reason is some containers offer options that other ones do not. There is a [Wikipedia chart](_URL_0_) what each one supports. Menus are something that a lot of containers do not support for example.",
"There's a bunch of reasons!\n\n**Building it to solve different problems:** Do you want to make the smallest files possible? Do you want it to be as simple as possible to decode the file into a series of images on the screen? Do you want it to use as little memory as possible to decode the file? Do you want to make it more resistant to errors? Do you want to include a *ton* of detail in your images? Do you want to lock down the video stream against making unauthorized copies? Do you want to make it super easy to skip around in the file instead of viewing it from start to finish? Building a format that's good for one of these things is generally going to involve making it crappier for other things.\n\n**History:** People have been trying to cram video into computers for about thirty years. Even if your phone is a cheap old phone it has a lot more resources than a late eighties computer; old video formats were designed to fit those limits. FLV, for instance, filled a sweet spot in terms of how big its files were versus the Internet speed of its time (and also in terms of how permissive its license it was) and ended up being part of what made YouTube come together.\n\n**Financial/licensing:** Figuring out how to efficiently compress video is a hard task. People who come up with compression methods often want to get paid for their work, so they will say \"you have to pay me money to use this format\". So other people who don't want to pay that money will come up with their own format - maybe they'll want people to pay to use their format too, maybe they'll want to give it away like Ogg."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://xkcd.com/927/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_formats"
],
[]
] |
|
44q3yp
|
how does one bet against the market?
|
I was reading up on the Chinese currency devaluation, and it mentions speculators betting against the market.
I believe Soros did something similiar that made him famous in the UK, and that the Chinese government hate him for attempting it now.
How does one actually "bet" against the market? Is the concept of "shorting" related to this/similiar to this?
Don't possess a finance background, but the scientist in me is curious.
Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44q3yp/eli5how_does_one_bet_against_the_market/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czs1xay"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You basically sell something that you don't own and buy it back later when the price drops. Of course that is the extremely simplified version of it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1pszv9
|
why did society's view of 'the future' change from being classically futuristic to being post-apocalyptic?
|
Which particular events or people, if any, acted as a catalyst for such a change in perspective?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pszv9/eli5_why_did_societys_view_of_the_future_change/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0ju7d",
"cd5p2wo",
"cd5pagi",
"cd5pmgh",
"cd5ppzb",
"cd5psq6",
"cd5psvp",
"cd5pts7",
"cd5pvo7",
"cd5pvyh",
"cd5pw72",
"cd5pz5y",
"cd5pza9",
"cd5q1xr",
"cd5q27p",
"cd5q3yb",
"cd5q6o2",
"cd5q81e",
"cd5qbg8",
"cd5qc04",
"cd5qdrr",
"cd5qg0e",
"cd5qg3s",
"cd5qgca",
"cd5ql2o",
"cd5qvw3",
"cd5r3vo",
"cd5rc1p",
"cd5rem0",
"cd5rmir",
"cd5rn1h",
"cd5roxh",
"cd5rt9w",
"cd5rxvw",
"cd5sjld",
"cd5soap",
"cd5srtw",
"cd5t8ku",
"cd5u2hi",
"cd5u45q",
"cd5u658",
"cd5u6si",
"cd5u9sr",
"cd5ug6m",
"cd5uhp1",
"cd5v26g",
"cd5v42k",
"cd5w97a",
"cd5xcik",
"cd5xqqo",
"cd5y2sv",
"cd5z4jg",
"cd5zcqr",
"cd601xg",
"cd61coh",
"cd61lpb",
"cd63buo",
"cd63mz7",
"cd64pz0",
"cd656wi",
"cd65alk",
"cd65hkb",
"cd65qj3",
"cd66546",
"cd667kk",
"cd6775g",
"cd67uk1",
"cd68b6n",
"cd68o09",
"cd692p6",
"cd69vxh",
"cd6agjn",
"cd6c1rl",
"cd6ca6h",
"cd6camp",
"cd6cwkr",
"cd6dkvl",
"cd6e24o",
"cd9ldfa"
],
"score": [
2,
292,
4,
126,
9,
17,
2164,
38,
99,
15,
8,
4,
13,
177,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
121,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
189,
3,
2,
2,
11,
3,
5,
6,
4,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
5,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"because deep down,...we know.",
"Probably the Cold War if it had to be ONE AND ONLY ONE thing, may be more accurate to just say nuclear weapons in general. Also I think the upheaval and social restructuring that went on in the 60's, what with 'Nam and LSD and Watergate and all, kinda slapped the rose tinted glasses off of the face of society in a way and thus we have this pessimism.\n\nEdit: I can't believe I left out the assassination of JFK! That was another tremendous kick to the collective balls of the optimistic and really reminded the world that, yes, shit does indeed happen, even during an age of \"prosperity\" like post-WWII America. All that hope people had through\n him, gone in an instant.",
"What the future holds is very questionable. We know shit is fucked up, deep down we all want to see it end. So we fantasize about it. \n\nEdit: I should clarify. I didn't mean we all want to see the *world* end, but rather, we all want to see the state that we've collectively put the world in come to an end. \n\nAnd by \"we all\" I mean a great amount of people. ",
"When the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, we created a 'post-apocalyptic' society, in that there was one immensely catastrophic event that changed everything about that society's sense of self, operation, and obligation to the world. Then, we watched as, they didn't improve anything too much more than the rest of us. So, we now, instead of the optimism of the the 'atomic age' being growth, we see it as being atrophy. \n\nThink of it this way: instead of using the power of the atom to fix everything wrong, like every body hoped, we made a better killing machine. That makes it easier to see death ahead than better life. ",
"I think it was in the early 1970s with the oil crisis and Watergate. I know HG Wells did post -apocalyptic stories, but I think that if you look you'll see that it was in the 1970's that it really took off.\n\nThat said, one reason you see so many of these movies is because they are cheap to make. Mad Max costs much less than Star Wars or Aliens. ",
"We've become a very self-centered society - so much so that we think everything is all about us, and that we will see the world end within our lifetime.\n\nWe honestly don't believe that the world and the universe can continue on without us when we are gone, so it's nice to think about the apocalypse...\n\nScrew that pretty classical future if we aren't around to see it.",
"It's easy to underestimate the amount of knowledge and scientific advancement that have taken place in the last fifty years. In the movies, scientific achievements solve problems; in the real world, they often highlight them.\n\nWe got more and more information on the problems with the environment, with the political system, with poverty and class inequality, corporate greed, and all aspects of our society. And the media perpetuated the shocking and fearful in order to sell their services. We arrived at the future and saw ourselves still stuck with the same problems we've always had, the same problems we will probably always have. So it's easy to turn to cynicism and extrapolate that we're hopeless and will eventually self-destruct in one way or another.\n\nI think of the situation somewhat differently...like what happens when someone hurts themselves badly in public. They're bleeding badly and everyone is watching, but because nobody is doing anything, nobody does anything. Until someone breaks ranks, takes off their shirt and starts applying pressure to the wound. I believe individual effort will push us towards a better future, but it's not something that's going to happen on its own.\n\nAnyway, TLDR; he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.\n\n**Edit:** Sorry for making the \"problems with society\" overwhelmingly liberal. But substitute in whatever you're concerned about and I think the point still holds. Also, keep scrolling down for a lot more interesting responses and other answers which point to more concrete events in history.\n\n**Edit 2:** Thanks generous individual for the gold. Go team Reddit! Keep asking questions and having conversations.",
"I think we've always dreamed of an apocalypse. We've always wondered about the origins of the world and created myths to explain that- that's why so many ancient religions had, in addition to colorful and elaborate creation stories, these horrific eschatologies. \n\nIn fact, I'm having difficulty thinking of \"happily ever after\" stories along the lines of what you've mentioned, aside from, maybe, The Jetsons. I can think of Brave New World, 1984, Revelations, The Road, Ender's Game, etc. which all depict a future that is in some way unsettling or grotesque. \n",
"A lot of people here have given very interesting answers to this question, but it seems to me that it should be acknowledged that there are many who are optimistic (if cautiously so) about the future. Just pop on over to /r/futurology or /r/singularity. Those people are undeniably excited about the future. \n\nAnd so am I!",
"This hasn't happened, sure there are people proclaiming the apocalypse but a damn sight more is looking forward. \nHistorically end times have always been proclaimed as nigh and a section of the population has believed them because for thise people its easier to believe the world we as we know it will end with them rather than it just carrying on as if nothing happened if they die. It's just a way to deflect that fear into something else that isn't just that their death is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.",
"Was there ever really a change in perspective? As long as there's been speculation about 'The Future' there's always been a strand that focuses on the post-apocalyptic, it just waxes and wanes which view of the future has the upper hand.",
"People wanted something edgy. We were bored with all the government is good crap, the pure shiny hero, the just causes. \n\nWe got anti-heroes like Dirty Hairy. We did away with Star Trek and got Logan's Run. No more The Virginian, we got The Divinci Code.\n\nIt's like highschool where the jocks who date the pretty girls are now less interesting than the bad boys who drive fast cars and date broken girls.\n\nAlso, there are always more story possibilities with broken systems than a system that runs flawlessly.\n\nThe guy who wrote the book Deliverance? In real life he liked to canoe with his college professor buddies. They were canoeing down some river in the South when they tipped and were thrown into the rapids. Some hillbillies fished them out of the water, took them home, dried them off, fed them and drove them back to their cars.\n\nThat's not the story he wrote and if he did, I don't think it would be very popular.\n",
"Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction has been around for a very long time (pre-1900, [according to Wikipedia](_URL_0_)). Whether fiction more influences or is influenced by the popular conscience, I couldn't say, but it's been on the mind of people for a while.\n\nTo the best of my understanding, the optimistic view of the future of humanity in American culture was a post WW2 thing, around the time of the baby boom, which maybe lasted up until the Cuban missile crisis. Certainly we'd turned back to the scary place by the mid 70s.\n\nThese days, there's money to be made by selling \"the end\" of the world/country/economy/environment/etc to the public, so it's to the seller's advantage to crack open our cynicism with marketing and sop up as much sweet, sweet cash as they can.",
"What you are basically referring to is the philosophical and sociological change from the modern era to the postmodern era and cannot be attributed to a single event or date.\n\nBut basically, the two World Wars happened and that's that.\n\nAt the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, western society developed rapidly. Mechanisation and industrialization happened. Wealth and standard of living exploded. Cities grew to dimensions never thought of before. Technological advancements were made that never before happened with such rapid pace. People could fly. People built skyscrapers. There was still poverty (especially by todays standards), but the average life was better and longer than ever. People had access to resources like never before. Medicine developed penicillin. Basic education was developed for many people. Capitalism happened. The future was bright and everyone was in a state of \"it's maybe not now, but it will be. And it will be great.\"\n\nThen the first World War happened. Suddenly all that industrialisation was used to systematically murder millions of soldiers. Sure, there were wars before. Of course, people died there. But the systematic eradication with machine guns, the widespread use of chemical weapons, artillery and the likes created new dimensions of killing that never happened before on such a scale.\n\nThe 20ish years between the world wars was a very unstable time. New(ish) political movements settled themselves (e.g.: Bolsheviki in Russia). Financial crysis happened. Then the second world war happened. Now not only soldiers died. I will not recount the gruelties of the 1939-1945 here, we all know about that.\n\nIn the end, the USA dropped some pretty destructive bombs on Japan. That unsettled the people even more.\n\nIn the aftermath, Europe was in ruins. What followed was again uncertainty - the cold war. While still technological advancements were made (wheee, space), everything was under the constant threat of \"West vs East\", \"Capitalism vs Communism\" and those destructive bombs I mentioned above were roundabout everywhere. People had a lot of fear. Fear doesn't make happy. So the outlook went from \"The future will be great\" to \"well the future looked great once, but we've been burned by that belief\".\n\nThe 50s and 60s were also eras of extreme conservatism in the western societies, especially if you compare them to the 20s. 1969 happened and everything looked a little brigher again, but not because of technology and futurism. The hippies were far more \"back to the roots\". The future might look good, but no thanks to science and technology.\n\nAll of this of course just scraps some parts of the development. Encyclopedias have been written about that. Philosophical debates happened about that. Hell, subcultures (think: Punk - \"No Future!\") developed. But this should give you some idea about the huge changes that erupted through western society between 1900 and, lets say, 1970.",
"Because the discussions we have for politics are no longer about the future but rather about sticking it to the poor people. The discussions we have for education are no longer about learning but rather getting the kids through with basic skills the cheapest. The goals for universities are not about sharing knowledge and growing more but rather a quick win on the football field and paying the least for the adjunct help. The goals for companies are no longer about creating a company that looks to the future (even for their employees) but rather about blowing through all the capital a company holds, and selling the company for short-term gains. What other future can there be?",
"A post-apocalyptic story makes no sense if you're not in a highly technologically/institutionally dependant society.\n\nThe idea of a \"post-apocalyptic\" society without advanced technology would not have generated a sense of alienation and wonderment among an audience for whom technological dependance was still new, as it was when optimistic futuristic stories (up until the 1960s-ish) were written..\n\nThe western fear of post-apocalyptic or dystopian scenarios is just a reformulation of the fear of being like... well... the rest of the world.\n",
"I take it that by \"classically futuristic\" you mean \"like *The Jetsons*\". The basic issue with this sort of futurism is that it tends to have a soap-opera sort of narrative that doesn't depend very much on the futuristic setting, which is used to provide flavor and comic relief. In other words, if the future doesn't cause *any* problems, then it's not essential to the plot, which could just as easily be set in the present. At the same time, rosy predictions of how much happier future technology would make us turned out to be consistently incorrect both in (a) the details of which technologies would be feasible, and in (b) the extent to which these technologies would solve problems that were at root social rather than technological. \n\nIn other words, you can only predict flying cars in twenty years so many times before people start to laugh at the next guy who predicts flying cars. As such, people who want to explore plot tensions that are germane to contemporary life started to stick to the present, leaving depictions of the future to writers/ directors/ artists who want to explore the potential problems and tragedies of advanced technology.",
"Check out the [Strauss-Howe generational theory](_URL_0_). It's an interesting notion, and, if there's any validity to it, describes us as in a 'crisis' turn in American society. Imagining the 'what if' post-apocalyptic scenarios that might come out of a crisis would seem to me to be a part of our subconscious processing of what we're up against, both individually and culturally. Sometimes we have to mentally conquer the fear of the worst devil we're up against before we know how to fight our way out of a situation. Zombies. QED. ",
"Possible dystopian and utopian futures have both been pondered for a long time. Where did you get this idea of \"society's view\" on it? Was there a survey?",
"This hasn't changed. There always has been and always will be a mix of people who see a brighter future and those who see the end. \nWhether it is the rapture or a zombie apocalypse people have always thought the end was near. On the same token people have always wondered about the future. If you want to see a future of humanity based on our best watch Doctor Who. If you want to watch the worst then Walking Dead. \n\nWatch Bloomberg Brink on NetFlix or read about guys like Ellon Musk or the things Google are doing and you will see there are still many people dreaming big about our future.\n\n\"\n'Homo sapiens... What an inventive, invincible species. It's only a few million years since they crawled up out of the mud and learned to walk. Puny, defenseless bipeds. They've survived flood, famine, and plague. They've survived cosmic wars and holocausts. And now, here they are, out among the stars, waiting to begin a new life, ready to out-sit eternity. They're indomitable. Indomitable. ' - The Doctor\n\nEdit: Changed to The Doctor since it makes more sense to quote the character and not the show.",
"To be fair, there's always been elements of both in fiction. Take \"The Shape of Things to come\" which is extremely apocalyptic and probably one of the first apocalyptic futures written, in 1933; meanwhile compare that to things like Star Trek (especially 80s and 90s Star Trek) which in general is very \"optimistic\"",
"I don't think society's view of \"The Future\" has changed, it's just that the post-apocalyptic version is in favor right now, especially in movies and literature.\n\nWhile I do agree that the threat of nuclear winter and the cold war strengthened the popularity of a post-apocalyptic view, there are plenty of examples from long before World War II. Mary Shelley's [The Last Man](_URL_0_) is probably the earliest example, published in 1826. H. G. Wells' *War of the Worlds*, from 1898, is arguably the most well known.\n\n\"Star Trek\", OTOH, is a franchise that still promotes \"classic futurism\", even with the recent release of *Into Darkness*. Does the popularity of that film compared to World War Z, for example, give any indication that society's \"view of the future\" has changed?\n\nIf I had to pick a specific point in time, though, it would be 1968, when we grew from The Jetsons into Planet of the Apes. However, the 1970s went on to give us Star Wars vs. Alien, Logan's Run vs. Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Moonraker vs. Mad Max.\n\ntl;dr: You've been watching too many zombie movies.",
"The current view of the future reflects our own growing sense of despair and pessimism based on our present day circumstances. As such our view of the future is a fairly good barometer of where we think we are going. It's tough to be optimistic about the future when we have so many unsolved problems now.",
"I disagree with your implication that society's view changed. There's always been people who have felt that the future was bleak, and people who looked forward to it. I don't think there's been a change at all. \n\nThe only thing I can think of that post-apocalyptic futures make for movies that currently are more popular. But that has nothing to do with society's view of the future, just with society's preference in stories.",
"We walk around with devices capable of carrying most of the collected knowledge of humanity (Wikipedia is 10 gigs) that are instantly capable of communicating with almost any other human on the planet, and we pay about $100 a month to do so.\n\nOur biggest concern with food (in developed nations) is how not to eat too much of it.\n\nChildhood disease is so uncommon (in the developed world) that most people don't know of anyone who died in infancy.\n\nWe routinely travel on the surface at speeds approaching 100 miles an hour, and find air travel so unremarkable that we complain about it more than marvel.\n\nFrom my desk i can order almost anything that is made and expect it to be delivered to me in about two days.\n\nIf you don't think we already live in the \"classical future,\" as I type this on my outdated iPhone 4s, you aren't paying attention.\n",
"Historically, how we a culture has viewed future has switch between outrageous optimism and chronic pessimism. For a good few hundred years the people of Rome thought their glorious empire would go on forever. Then in the 5th Century after Rome had been sacked by the Goths, the cultural view seemed to be that civilisation was entirely doomed, we were going back to barbarian hordes. At the time a guy called St Augustine wrote a book called the City of God which in part sets out why he believed as a Christian this wasn't true.\n\nNeedless to say, the Roman empire did eventually collapse and others rose from the ashes. In the 1600 and 1700 hundreds various Christian religious movements believed that there was an earthly period of peace and unity round the corner waiting to be ushered in. Oliver Cromwell, while ruling Britain, was encouraged by one of his advisors to promote the immigration of european Jews to bring about this period. Some of the early american settlers held a vision of creating a perfect society. That of course, faded fairly rapidly.\n\nInterestingly, while we're thinking about theological movements, in the last three decades a popular idea in American christianity has been that they'll be a period of terrible darkness and destruction and end of civilisation before the ultimate peaceful heavens and earth. It's an opposite interpretation of the bible to the people of the 1600/1700's hundreds.\n\nI wonder if we keep on changing our minds culturally, because neither the perfect utopian future or the post-apocalyptic future really satisfy us. We know that any future utopian society will fall apart. Consider *Star Trek*, can we really imagine a federation with no money, no obvious vices, no boredom? Well, no, and neither can the script writers given the amount of conflict they have to introduce to keep the universe entertaining. The post-apocalyptic does us no better either, we might enjoy *Mad Max* or *The Matrix*, but neither of those worlds make sense to us.\n\nA better picture, is probably the world carrying on much the same but different. Think of the world of *Firefly* or *Star Wars*. It's still an equal amount disaster and glory as this world, just with space-ships and laser beams. I think this satisfies us because that society reflects what humans are really like; An equal amount of disaster and glory.",
"The realization that natural resources are not infinite?",
"For me, zombies or any other apocalyptic tale, are way more entertaining than the already overplayed future utopia scenario. \n\nApocalyptic stories contain measures of triumph of the human spirit. I don't enjoy zombie/survivalist movies/books because I believe that's where we are headed, I enjoy them because it highlights the social struggles that come with surviving something like an apocalypse. \n\n",
"They didn't. Both are still out there, and the zombie apocalypse idea is just the current trend in entertainment. They aren't \"views of the future\" in any realistic, \"I expect this is how things will turn out\" way. \n\nExcepting those who believe zombies are coming, of course.",
"It has to do with current societal conditions. In times of peace and prosperity, our future looks golden. In times of war and upheaval, we crave dystopian futures. ",
"According to grandpa:\n\n---------\n\nBecause the age of idealism that existed after WW2 is gone. Vietnam, the dissolution of religious authority (Catholic pedophilia, slaughter of the Tibeten Buddhists, blow back from the Nationalist Socialist war on Jewish religion, restructuring of the Hindu hierarchy in terms of Harijan (untouchables) being \"banned\" (sarcasm), but also the advent of industrialism allowing previous under classes an attempt at rising through economic ranks, etc), the realization of environmentalism, the nuclear scare, etc, etc, etc.\n\nInitially, the future was presented in a utopian light as a hopeful dream, as it was felt that after the second great war and the new technology and science that created (not to mention leaps in healthcare!) that we had found 'the perfect system'; a.k.a. golden age America in the 1950's. That image was very closely tied into Cold War propaganda, to serve to placate and provide a model of behavior to bring America greatness.\n\nAs we dug ourselves out of the hole (and we did so faster than anybody else), we experienced the first true burgeoning middle class, with an unprecedented amount of wealth being held by the average American family.\n\nIn the next two decades, the reality set in that people were still killing each other over gods in the clouds, resources, and long held feuds started by men long dead. The cold war had caused a series of proxy engagements with USSR, of which the two most notable were the Korean War (1950-53) and the Vietnam war (1950ish to early 70's). Meanwhile, America was not nearly as nice as Norman Rockwell would have us believe (check crime statistics), and the children of the WW2 were unprepared for the reality that the world was presenting, as they had been sheltered from reality by propaganda and parents desperately trying to move on from WW2.\n\nThus the hippies were born; handed a world with a whole class of problems that didn't exist in their parents time, plus a whole host of problems that didn't get solved by them, while being sheltered due to the emergence of mass propaganda, and wealthy / comfortable enough to be able to have massive amounts of free time (comparably). As the facades faded and cracked, the hippies protested and caused a huge media stir, but were a heavy minority of the time: there were certainly many more straight laced 'honest Americans' than hippies at any given time.\n\nFor what it's worth, the 60's and 70's brought massive social and civil change, with the help of said hippies (and the African American community and a new form of feminism). That said, the rest of straight-laced America went about their lives trying to live the American dream, which was based around the capitalist values of hard-work, making money, and a productive house. This brought us to the 80's.\n\nStill god loads of bullshit happening, the hopeful idealism dead, business men were the rock stars, and it was a new world, faster than anybody had ever thought possible, but still filled with all the same pain, and more, as America was hit by recessions and rampant crime waves. The hippies didn't make peace for the whole world, the greatest generation (WW2 and 1950's) didn't bring liberty to really anybody without making a crater out of them first, Atomic energy didn't stop the wars or create a scientific utopia of flying cars and automated luxury, etc, etc.\n\nAnd thus, dystopian futures were born. As the cold war slowed down, people were more free to write of 'anti-American' things, reality had bitch slapped 3 generations in a row, and the revolution never came. Government control became more apparent due to mass media (the effect of Waco is nothing compared to the effect of every American hearing about Waco), and it was really hard to pretend that utopia could be found in any place we thought it would be found previously.\n\n---------\n\nI skipped a lot of what he said, and summarized about an hour of talking. I can't type as fast as he speaks, but I think I got the important bits. I am unsure if any of this checks out in a historical, sociological, or cultural sense, but this is the way it is according to an almost 90 year old 'reformed' Catholic (he goes to church to make grandma happy, but otherwise has decided religion is pointless. \"Good people are good and bad people are bad, and the only difference is which voices in their head they listen to\") farmer from Minnesota.",
"When things are going poorly, we like to imagine a brighter future. We do this to escape hopelessness.\n\nWhen things are going well, we like to imagine a bleaker future. We do this to escape boredom.\n\nDespite our problems, things are better now than they ever were before. And they keep getting better.\n\nIt's kind of like when you're playing SimCity - it's tough in the beginning, but you're driven by your aspirations of grandeur, and all your efforts are dedicated toward that end. However, once you've achieved all you've set out to do, ennui sets in, and you look to think of all the disaster you might encourage.",
"I remember a quote from Isaac Asimov that best sums up where sci-fi has been and what it has become:\n\n\"Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all.\"\n\nOr in more modern terms, sci-fi is an existential metaphor that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Our social shift from hope of a better future, one of peace and prosperity, to the constant fear of social collapse and eternal conflict provides the base for our post- apocalyptic future. When we had hope, there was little class conflict, society was very egalitarian, and the future was seen as a betterment of many over a select few. The last 30-40 years, thanks to media, social engineering, etc. has shifted the social consciousness to one of internal social conflict, high economic anxiety, and the preference of the individual over the society.\n\nThere is a reason we eliminated the national motto, \"e pluribus unum,\" it no longer applies to the social consciousness.",
"Its mostly the West that sees the future as \"post apocalyptic\". And, to us, post apocalyptic is merely what the majority of the world calls life today. Its largely because the days of us soaking up resources from the world and passing them out to guys on the assembly line are over. Today, the majority of Americans still see success as being able to afford this or that. Same with Europe. Success is about a happy life. Unfortunately, these workers now have to compete with third world competition that has a much simpler threshold for happiness. They're willing to do more work for less benefit.\n\n\nIn these third world places, and even places like China and India, they don't see the future as post apocalyptic. They see a bright future with wonderful things coming their way. I would say one of the most optimistic places in the world today is Africa. Because they're on the cusp of benefitting from the kind of boom that built modern China.\n\ntl;dr - westerners are whiny and pessimistic because they are no longer the only prosperous people in the world",
"I'm going to guess that you are talking about the transition from the Golden Age of science fiction (1940s to 1950s) to the New Wave and beyond. To understand why we changed, I think it is important to understand what the cultural beliefs that led to classic futuristic writing.\n\nTo begin with we must remember that the Golden Age came about in the closing hours of WWII, and that almost all the famous writers of the time were either born in America or emigrated there (Campbell, Asimov, Heinlein, Gernsback). What was America like in the 40s and 50s? \n\nThey had just won the greatest war of all-time, and their economy was in tremendous position. As Europe's factories were decimated during the war and Asia did not have significant technological advances yet American's factories were producing for the entire world. To an American of the time, post-apocalyptic writing would not have made sense. After all, how could the apocalypse happen to America, the country with endless jobs and an invincible military?\n\nWhat changed? Perhaps the first thing that changed was the social conscious of America. With the struggles for racial equality and the second wave of feminism, the classic WASP(M) future of the 40s and 50s simply stopped seeming realistic. \n\nAnd then the invincibility of America ended. Their military was unable to keep Korea as a unified buffer against communism, and subsequently allowed communistic forces in northern Vietnam to take Saigon and create a unified socialist Vietnam despite massive US casualties. What's worse, the American public saw everything for the first time, with color video of showcasing the atrocities of war. So America grew tired of war, their military was no longer invincible, and the great threat of communism appeared on the horizon.\n\nAnd then America had to deal with the economic problems of the 70s. Oil crises in 1973 and 1979 showed a fundamental weakness in the economy, while stagflation from 1973 to 1975 created high inflation and high unemployment. An economy built around being the only production center in the world could not possibly survive the rebuilding of Europe and advancement in Asia without taking a few hits.\n\nSo in the span of a few decades, the society that was creating science fiction changed profoundly. The science fiction that prospered was always that which spoke to the people of its time, and the sense of wonder and amazement that dominated the Golden Era did not speak to the Americans of the 60s and 70s. In specific, the feeling of complete security was replaced by fear and tension that made post-apocalyptic settings much more realistic to a society marked by economy problems, military defeats against the threat of communism, and social upheaval.",
"During the cold war people realized that we could actually drive ourselves extinct. A lot of people thought we were all going to die, even back then.",
"Well, look how perception of science has changed.\n\n[This is a commonly used graph of U.S. budget spending on NASA](_URL_1_)\n\n\nI think people used to be more optimistic about the future, science and technology. (I tried looking up publications that bore the headline \"city of the future\" and compile that into a graph, a project for this week.) Most technology (like anything) has a dark side. Nuclear fuel can power a city or destroy it. Scientists can program a virus to kill cancer, or make super viruses. Rocket guidance systems technology can send a man to mars or inexpensively target a school. The list goes on and on.\n\nAlso, as our lives become more technological we are at greater risk of not just intentional negative side effects of technology, but unintentional ones. A computer error at the NASDAQ stock exchange ( [not impossible]( _URL_0_) ) could wipe out a good portion of your life savings. Yet it is a popular marketplace because it makes our lives easier and more efficient. Maybe we just don't want to admit to ourselves the dangers that our technological advancemens pose to us.\n\nBut with science fiction, we can exorcise that negativity, deal with it indirectly with common narrative elements of conflict and resolution. We tell ourselves that we will be one of the survivors, we will persevere, even in the face of war, famine or alien invasion.",
"I mostly blame Cormac McCarthy",
"It is a cultural switch from Romanticism to Realism. Romanticism is not concerned with how things are but how they might be and should be. Realism is accurate depiction of gritty realism with all of the ugly exposed. ",
"I always saw post-apocalyptic futures as just being easier to imagine. It's hard to guess or understand a global future, and to make one up takes too much creative and intuitive energy.\n\nIt's much easier to just take what we've got now and destroy it.",
"Literature has often provided us with distopian scenarios, though the modern version is mostly formed by Cold War era politics and the authors of that time. Phillip K. Dick is a huge influence in that, and (if I can find it) the Today I Learned page posted about a government campaign to reign in people's hopes of the future after raising them so high.",
"Couple of reasons (I think): I believe people are getting smarter, more intuitive and even more intelligent. As such, we've finally realized that humans are not going to change much in any positive way. That the despots of yesterday are here today just disguised in business suits with flag pins on their lapels. We intuitively understand that the humans that rise to the top are the same humans that are moving us in to apocalyptic scenarios (short and long-term). In addition to that - we're creating an unsustainable dynamic. Specifically, the ever expanding population and diminishing natural resources gives rise to this dynamic. Add to that the lack of real technological solutions. Fukushima is a good reference for the failure of technology in the context of human needs. ",
"When we realized that the hoverboards for which movies raised our hopes aren't coming any time soon.",
"Lack of hope. ",
"People view of the future reflects their current view of today. \n\nIf they think today is a great new day, then chances are, their view of the future will be equally bright. Conversely if their days now are tough and they struggle to make ends meet, then chances are their view of the future will be gloomy. America having been in a downward spiral for many things for the last 30 years, its not to tough to see that much of the imagery of the future that we have tends to be apocalyptic in one form or another. ",
"Sci fi used to be mostly of, by, and for science nerds: technologists, engineers, and others who saw science and tech as changing the world and the human condition, not always for the better.\n\nBut post star wars, a lot of sci fi is now made by dramatists and humanities types looking primarily to tell human stories in imaginative settings. Since wars, disasters, etc tend to make for the best dramatic settings, those are the kind of scenarios we usually see for space thrillers, romances, heroic epics, etc.",
"Blade runner. It was the first time in cinema that the future was represented as being bleak, polluted, and totally fucked up. I believe this brought the idea of a dystopian/grungy future to the masses in a way that had never been done before.",
"As a child of the Cold War, I'll offer that my generation was the last to have a realistic vision of what the future *could* be, and the first to see what it likely *would* be. The discrepancy between the two is heartbreaking. The fundamental problem can be summed up by Scott Adams' maxim: \"In the future, everything gets better except people.\" In a more naive past, we used to imagine that science could solve the big problems because better science would make us better people. But by the late '70s it finally became impossible to ignore the obvious: We are not going to get better as *people,* as a species, due to our scientific advancement. We just keep coming up with better and more efficient ways to fuck ourselves and each other over. Any meaningful improvement in humanity will not likely be helped by science or technology, and it will more likely be tens of thousands of years before *people* improve by any significant margin.\n\nI don't want to sound too much like a doomsayer, so I'll offer that some memetic solutions exist in the short term. Philosophy and education can make us better in much less time than evolution. But these are the products of choices that we make, and to realise their greatest benefits, a large proportion of people must simultaneously choose to pursue these goals. That unfortunately seems unlikely.\n",
"Utopian conditioning was used on earlier generations as a means of fostering Hope in the potential of tomorrow, now with the rising popularity of \"Zombie apocalypse\" \"Road-Warrior-esque wasteland\" etc I think it is because of the now extremely useful way of making people fearful of the future and to be reliant on the rules of the elite and to stay in check. Class warfare, It's just no longer simply feasible to the string pullers of the world to be optimistic. Fear is very lucrative. ",
"look around.. what future do you see? it will not a white shiny apple store... not if current forces/trends continue the way they are... the future will look like elysium... giant spacestation that looks like an apple store in space for the .01% and a slum of environmental disaster for the rest of us...",
"I don't think the answer is as profound as people think. There are still plenty of positive depictions of the future and there have been negative depictions of the future since the invention of the science fiction genre.\nI think the only reason positive depictions were more common in the past is that those were more family-friendly times. Now every form of media wants to be dark and edgy. Post-apocalyptic future is just more interesting than some cheesy \"Jetsons\" vision of it.",
"I think, more is the \"artificial intelligence\" that everyone can use (like PC's) less is the \"human intelligence\" that everybody are going to use. For example: if I have to do a difficult calculation and I have a I7 processor in my notebook, maybe I'll not write down on paper. If you rely your life to the technology, where the value of your identity will end? Yes, I know, without the super PC's there will be no reserch in the medicine and other important things. But the lazy people don't want to find the difference, and that is wrong, because the technology is an instrument and anything else. Less the people think, and more the people will be stupid, and that is true because the brain learn to learn, but if it doesn't learn to learn, it will not learn and your \"calculation capacity\" will not grow up. And you will remain stupid like an ignorant. And if you're ignorant you can't find the difference between one true thing and another, precisely because you don't know the thing that they are talking about, and in the end you will accept the most accommodating thing for you (the money doesn't make you happy, but have things that others can't have makes you happy, for example if you have a lot of money, you have a lot of pretty girls). And this mechanism/system will destroy the humanity, but it creates something that the people call with the name of \"society\". And the end of humanity is the end of society, because if there aren't people there will be not a society.\nI'm sorry for some mistakes but I'm not English. Bye guys.",
"If you're from Britain Sci-Fi has always been 'post-apocalyptic'. For example, The War of the Worlds. \n\nThe reason American Sci-Fi is so optimistic and Utopian is because for a large part of this century the USA has been the dominant super power in the world. It is only now beginning to take a more post-apocalyptic form because the U.S has begun to decline as a nation, economically because of the 2008 crash and the rise of China, but also 9/11 and globalised terrorism has threatened and undermined the U.S as the predominant power. ",
"Isaac Asimove explains it in his essay \"The Sin of the Scientist\"\n\nIt was the invention of poison gas weapons in World War One by Dr. Haber.\nUp until that point, Science was going to bring a bright new future. But poison gas was a rude awakening to the fact that Science could also invent new horrifying ways to commit evil acts.",
"NASA stopped sending missions to the moon in 1972.\n\nSince then, we have slowly lost all of our optimism.",
"Scientist should have created the light saber and hover board by now. The absence of these two has led to my own disappointment in the future and I have since developed a more apocalyptic outlook. ",
"Oh man, I hope I'm not too late here. \n\nThis is something I've spent ages thinking about. There are sort of a set of different periods of \"future\" and I believe they reflect the spirit of an age's self-impression.\n\nEarly early science fiction is absolutely rooted in the fear of the unknown and the unknowable. We forget now, but Dr. Frankenstein's Monster is in part a warning not to \"play god\". Early speculative authors like HP Lovecraft are obsessed with the dangers lurking in the unknown.\n\nFlashing forward to the 1950s we see the post-war technocratic futurism in science fiction. Men tap their cigars cigars into desk-mounted atomic ash-trays and rockets take off and land on their fins, with sexy (mostly obidient) babes in space suits on board. America is on top, STEM drives the economy, and by God, we're going to show those commies who's boss by getting to the moon first.\n\nIt doesn't take too long for counter-culture to really set in. Some of the early Sci Fi authors are among the first to portray homosexual relationships and other communal structures (Ursula LeGuinn, for example) and presage or otherwise document a lot of the social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s counterculture.\n\nBy the 1990s, the politically correct sci-fi of the future is one of massive alliances. Clinton is in power. The Enterprise isn't a warship anymore, it's a warp-speed fable generator, dispensing a morale of tolerance and forgiveness in every episode. Captain Janeway, an under-appreciated Feminist figure, commands her own starship with a First Nations First Officer.\n\nThere are early signs of cynicism about that technological future. The recession of the 1980s probably explains Bladerunner and the (incredibly weirdly adult) world of Captain Power. By this time, Isaac Asimov's characters have become green crusaders and the atomic ash trays are traded for fears of radiation poisoning.\n\nI think the first decade of the 2000s is where you really see America start to lose its confidence. Battlestar Galactica is rebooted into a series where the heroes even become the suicide bombing insurgents. It's anti-war agit-prop in prime-time, and it's a smash hit. Adama, the moral core of the show, asks literally \"why are humans even worth saving?\" Apocalyptic sci-fi is everywhere. The future is nearly universally bleak. Technology is not our savior, but an inescapable force that drives us to our own destruction.\n\nI would suggest that all of these developments track the American Empire's rise and decline. As a counterpoint to all of this, Joss Whedon's Firefly posits a world where the center of future power is China... and it's okay. You learn a few new cuss words, pick up a pair of chopsticks, and get on with your day.\n\nI think this is the future for both America and the west's sci-fi. As America learns to become a former hyper-power, it can settle into a merely influential role as the UK did. When the national identity begins to be okay with that outcome and regains its moral center, I think we'll see sci-fi go back to its previous optimism.\n\n",
"I would say that sci-fi has taken a direction towards the apocalyptic theme because of two reasons. First, as technology has advanced and our ability to observe physics on a molecular level, as well as peering into the universe, we are beginning to realize that there are limitations in place that could prevent things like interstellar travel. A hundred years ago, these limits weren't discovered yet, so there were more creative views on what our technology can do.\n\nThe second thing is that a LOT of money spent at the bleeding edge of most technologies is going to weapons or defenses. This behavior perfectly outlines our species nature to make things \"us v. them\" and instead of collectively looking to improve technology for the better of every human being on the planet, we instead blow all of that money researching weapons that will keep \"us\" in power over \"them\". This sort of situation usually ends up in war, and because our technology mainly deals with mass destruction, an apocalypse seems inevitable. ",
"The Cold War. Everyone has nukes and could potentially use them, and the only thing stopping them from nuking each other was the fact that the enemy had nukes too. Wouldn't you be scared?",
"ITT: people helping OP with his essay.",
"I still picture the future like a science fiction smorgasbord",
"After world war 2, there was a long period of strong economic growth, leading to steadily improving standards of living. At the same time, technological advances were accelerating. Projecting these trends into the future led to very rosy predictions of what the future would be like.\n\nThen the post war boom ended. Technology's dark side emerged (pesticides/herbicides unintended damage, nuclear arms race, etc), and things like Vietnam and Watergate eliminated the publics unwavering faith in government. The rosy future no longer looked so certain. ",
"It was the 1960's. \n\nThe generation that was born around 1900 was using horses for transport (cars were the plaything of the rich), news/music radio and radio communications were not around, and planes had not been invented. Even things that had technically been invented were not really common. A man born in 1900 would be only 69 years old when men walked on the moon. Supersonic aircraft, nuclear submarines, yada, yada, yada...\n\nAfter the moon landing, we stopped doing stuff like that. Previously it seemed like any difficult problem that presented itself...we could eventually invent stuff to help us conquer any problem that ever arose...\n\nIt's only natural in that mindset to project the current trend farther into the futur (men landing on the moon = colony on Mars soon).\n\nNext, what did the media begin promoting to the public as a constant theme? \n\nWars that seem to never end or seem like we're never winning (Viet-Nam lasting 10 years vs WWII being a complete victory), pollution being reported instead of covered up for the corporations, overpopulation causing mass starvation and illiterate populations being stuck in a downward spiral of poverty, struggles over limited local resources.\n\nThe media used to be a cheerleader for positive reinforcement, and then in the 1960's, tens of thousands of 18-20 year old college students who didn't want to be drafted into a war where they couldn't even vote until they were 21 began entering the media and moving up the ranks.\n\nAlso weed and birth control in the colleges. In the 1960's...the chickens finally decided that they didn't want to make eggs for the chicken rancher anymore...and then they graduated and went out into the world...",
"I think Neil Degresse Tyson said it best: ...we stopped dreaming.\n\n_URL_0_",
"This is such an epic question I don't even think it can be an eli5 buts it's a great social/psychological question ",
"Decades of optimism, followed by decades of mistrust and pessimism",
"Hippies from the 60s and 70s found nuclear power scary and a prelude to the end of the world as a certainty. ",
"The way people behave and Bible prophecy seem to go hand in hand\n.",
"That is not necessarily true take for example The Omega Man (1971) vs Lockout (2013)",
"**tl;dr The American dream died.**\n\nBy \"classically futuristic\" I take you to mean in the style of *The Jetsons*, and others, and post-apocalyptic to be just as we are, only darker. The 60's and 70's were a radical time, politically and culturally. \n\nThe American dream was no longer the white picked fence as it had been. It had changed, gotten dirtier by way of war. But the spirit of humanity retained some vigueur. Upon the end of the Vietnam War, the future seemed darker, reality started to creep in, and eventually though the 80s, 90s and 00s our view of how the future would be became bleak. Our ideal house, beaten and battered.\n\nNo longer did we think peace would ring true for everyone, instead we understood the weight of the world on us, and in doing so, the American dream's pulse ceased. Crushed under the burden of it's antithesis, reality.",
"Several things happened. In the old days, Industry was newer, so pollution wasn't so noticeable. The agrarian economy also didn't have the highs and lows of economic flux that heavy mass industry produced; but as long as at least half the population was self sufficient, the overall quality of life remained above par. Not only did the early days of mass production seem to democratize goods and services, but it enabled people to breed more people. There was even a demand for it to feed industry. Optimism came from the fact that jobs were plenty, incomes were high, talents could flourish, ideas found favor, and the demand for mass cooperation during this constructionist age bred people who were organized, well mannered, hard working and altruistic. \n\nShift to the nearing of our current age of 'Peak resource'. World War II ended the notion that it would take only one global war for mankind to grow out of his old, feudalistic tendencies. It was clear that bigger and better also meant bigger, better wars from now on. The bomb also came from WWII, and carried a looming threat that remains to some effect today. The peaking of resource further assured the permanence of war. It shifted the economic outlook to a state of permanent austerity with a few high points, nothing more. The 'need for workers' quickly became 'surplus population'. Jobs pay low. Education is meaningless, as is talent. Leisure time is gone. As the infrastructure decays, wealth concentrates. With the dying infrastructure, education is lost. Myths, legends, and primitive thinking returns giving way to re-tribalization of people in small groups opposing one another. We're halfway to a Road Warrior scenario at this moment, but we've got our Iphones to distract and give us the illusion of freedom and space age magic for a little while. \n\nUnless something so truly paradigm shifting happens that it creates another golden age of illusion, our current trends suggest that mass population bottlneck is inevitable, and a return to the dark ages for 90% of our surviving grandchildren is simply the way it is. \n\nLong story short : We went from a constructive age to a deconstructive one. The pattern of past empires implies that once the last vestige of our enlightenment is finally, officially over, we'll enjoy a dark age for 5 times as long as our golden age.",
"Because it's nearly 2015 and there are still no hoverboards.",
"Because the stories being told changed. \n\nStart telling good stories again. Everyone reflects what they see so art imitates life. \n\nBut it works the other way too. \n\nLife can imitate art. \n\nCreate beauty in stories and visions of the future and life will reflect it. ",
"Our views changed from \"The Jetsons\" to \"Terminator\" because the internet allowed us all to 'meet' a lot more of the people who would create that future.",
"Humanity has ALWAYS viewed the future (and for that matter the present) as the so-called End Times. Every generation thinks that it's special and can find enough confirmation bias to put themselves alive during apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic times. \nI think the only people who ever saw the future as being classically futurist were architectural students. \n",
"World War 1 was a cataclysmic event shaping much of the rest of the 20th century politically, historically, and philosophically. It tore apart the fabric of European life, ushered in the age of mechanized warfare, slaughtered a generation, caused a loss of faith in God and progress, engendered bloody revolutions, collapsed empires, displaced millions, and set the stage for its sequel. The Second World War is almost a continuation of the First after just a 20-year truce.",
"Fear sells better than hope.",
"There have been some great comments, but I had bookmarked [this picture](_URL_0_) a long time ago, though it may not be completely relevant to the question, and I apologize in advance if that's the case, but it is worth seeing.",
"No five year old would ever understand what everyone here is saying."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_Generation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Man"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9475292/Knight-Capitals-440m-trading-loss-caused-by-disused-software.html",
"http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-04-30-Presentation1.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/DKpau.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
3gfutx
|
why cant they mass-produce honey bees
|
i've heard somewhere that they released massive numbers of sterile male mosquitos. why cant they do it for bees, but maybe remove its venom instead of vasectomy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gfutx/eli5why_cant_they_massproduce_honey_bees/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctxqxsa"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"1. Raising bees is a whole lot harder than raising mosquitoes. The hive takes care of the larvae and feeds them etc, while for mosquitoes its rather \"dump a bunch of eggs into water and you are done\".\n2. Making them sterile is rather trivial through hormonal treatment. So they are not operated on (and esp. not individually). The same does not apply to stingers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
64shru
|
how is using a vpn for anonymity different than using a vpn for remote access to a network?
|
I see some people subscribing to a VPN service to remain anonymous online, but then I also here people say " I am VPNing into work so I can work from home". Is this the same thing or are there different types of VPNs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64shru/eli5how_is_using_a_vpn_for_anonymity_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg4nbqc",
"dg4nglh"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is the same type of VPN. When you connect to a VPN the server you connect to will send you a list of routes for the different networks it will route for you. When you use VPN to get access to your work network it will send you routes for the networks used at your work. However when you connect to a privacy service they publish a route that applies to the entire Internet. So that all your Internet traffic goes though the VPN. Some work VPS also does this so that all your traffic goes though their firewall but not all.",
"It's essentially the same, with a different purpose.\n\nThe way the internet works is there's only so many public, internet routable IPv4 addresses. They are predefined. There wouldn't be enough of them if all the corporations and private devices to have their own IP address.\n\nSo what happens is that we use a process called NATing (network address translation) to hide your device's IP address from the rest of the world and use a private IP address. To do this private IP addresses are within predefined ranges, and are not internet routable. You need to go through a router or firewall via it's public interface to gain access to those private networks.\n\nTo gain access to those resources you would need to create a tunnel from one use in their private network to another location in someone else's private network. This is what you do when you VPN into a work account. You are using a tunnel that connect to a remote device that has access to resources in their private network. Common practice for a VPN is to secure this connection because it is likely going over unsecured network devices to get there (like public wifi or over the general internet).\n\nIf you're using an IP address for anonymity you're basically doing the same thing. You're creating a private tunnel to a device that your VPN provider is managing and using the VPN device to access a network (in this case the public internet). When you do this your final destination sees the source of the traffic request as the VPN node you are tunneled into, NOT your local device. So you are anonymous to the destination device, but not to your VPN service. In theory, theory law enforcement or the government could pull logs or monitor your VPN service and trace back your traffic to you.\n\nBut, the private destination you are seeking likely wouldn't have direct access to that information and be able to identity your local device and where you are since they don't have the public IP address assigned to your modem/router by your ISP."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ap32f
|
why are so many people pedophiles? is it actually a mental disorder from life experience or are some of us genetically made to be attracted to younger people?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ap32f/eli5_why_are_so_many_people_pedophiles_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cixcfi2",
"cixd289",
"cixew49",
"cixf10u",
"cixgft1",
"cixj1by",
"cixkjfe",
"cixl1c3",
"cixlzde",
"ciyfiw6"
],
"score": [
57,
13,
7,
7,
6,
9,
22,
5,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"One thing that's important to note is that humans become capable of sexual reproduction at ~12 years old. The concept of waiting at minimum 6 years before it is acceptable to engage in sexual acts is a VERY recent development and is also culturally specific.",
"Check [this documentary](_URL_0_) out. The definition of pedophile is not the context in which society mostly uses it. A very smal percentage of the population are true pedo's, whereas almost all men would qualify as ephebophiles.\n\nEDIT: changed hebephile to ephebophile, flame on",
"If you're talking the specific mental attraction you'd also need to figure out why people are attracted to legs or tits or muscles or bondage or furries or shemales or hair colors. We don't really know, as preferences aren't exactly a hard science, but we can make lots of guesses.\n\nIf you're talking people who sexually act upon children then it's probably more of a psychological or medical issue with the aggressor in question. But you also need to define \"children\" at that point, since a 15 year old isn't technically a child by biological standards, just by legal ones.",
"So many people are not pedophiles. The incidence is estimated at less than 5% of the population.",
"We're genetically attracted to be attracted to younger people traits according to neoteny, but at the same time, the symbols of puberty imply fertility, which also leads to greater attraction, at least when people were asked to judge the appearances of women.\n\nPedophilia is assumed to be < 5% among adult men, so including women, we might be able to assume < 5% among the entire population. This is when the definition is traditional, so the abuse of prepubescent children.\n\nAttempts to find a link to pedophilia and biology do exist, but imply on correlation, not causation.\n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_",
"This in no way answers your question, but you might be interested in a segment from a This American Life episode about a pedophile. I thought it was very well done. _URL_0_",
"~30 comments and already this thread is an absolute car crash",
"I am a pedophile. I am exclusively attracted to boys under 14. I believe pedophilia is genetic. However, I believe most molesters are sexual deviants who would end up sexually abusing a cat. People think that a child molester ('sexual deviant') is the same as a pedophile. It is not. ",
"Cultures of the last 100k-yrs had an average age of about 13. For short periods entire cultures who carried the genes that lead to us were based on peoples with average ages of 10 or less. We made messed up choices a few thousand years back.\n\nEdit: Is anyone actually interested in the answer? Pedophilia is an interest in markedly pre-pubescent girls. Very few people are pedophiles. Its not a favored genetic trait because it tends to threaten potential child-bearing members of a society before they are ready to pass on their traits. \n\nWhen girls clearly become women,.. as in over 5'5\" and 125 lbs, or more.. they're bigger and healthier than 98% of our genetic grandmothers. Its uncool to be interested but not a sickness.\n\nEdit 2: not sure why I want to explore more negatives.. we did not evolve in cities. It was in matriarchal tribes many thousands of years ago. We stopped evolving in the conventional sense when cities came about. Matriarchal societies are not all fun and games when you're a young girl and looking for protein and fat in your diet.\n\nIn tribes women developed regular periods when they were about 22 years old. Young tribal women had no breasts or hips and lacked a lot of the cues that make guys interested. Lots of these girls weren't interested even though they were borderline fertile. Many guys weren't interested and those tribes died out because the average lifespan was only 30.",
"God, reddit is the worst fucking place on the planet. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_All_Men_Pedophiles%3F"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1502002/Attractive-women-are-more-than-just-a-pretty-face.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny"
],
[
"http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2af4cy
|
as a male that is afraid of heights, why when up high on a ladder or peering over a high balcony, do i get a tingling sensation in my balls to go along with the fear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2af4cy/eli5_as_a_male_that_is_afraid_of_heights_why_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciufuai",
"ciuiro0",
"ciuje9h",
"ciuos8h"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
68,
3
],
"text": [
"Your balls are trying to stay safe and you have adrenaline coursing through your veins as well. Your brain is telling your body that there may be danger coming. It's kind of fight or flight kicking in. So all these tied with other signals from the brain make your balls tingle some when peering down over something high up",
"I am familiar with this sensation. I think it is due to your balls trying to retract into your body in the face of perceived danger. I would like to really learn the truth, though",
"Well, I was intrigued by this, because I get the same feeling as a female. There's a muscle in your balls called the cremaster muscle, which is also responsible for pulling the balls up when you're cold, or dropping them down when it's hot outside. According to a [thread](_URL_0_) elsewhere on the Internet, both sexes posses this muscle, and it's theorized this is an evolutionary response to the fear of falling and injuring your reproductive ability.\n\nTL;DR: Your balls are afraid of you falling and hurting them, so they're trying to hide.",
"I asked the same question here 4 months ago... F-ing admins said its a personal medical issue and not an eli5 topic... Wtf"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613173"
],
[]
] |
||
anjg4u
|
how do dryer sheets remove wrinkles and/or reduce static if it's just the small sheet? wouldn't it not be touching all the clothes in the load?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/anjg4u/eli5_how_do_dryer_sheets_remove_wrinkles_andor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eftt94a",
"efu35gz",
"efu7ioz",
"efu7rih",
"efu9gsg",
"efu9nxd",
"efudjb5",
"efudoy2",
"efukqk8",
"efv2ffu",
"efv2win",
"efv3ccv",
"efvozzk"
],
"score": [
6300,
86,
762,
154,
26,
12,
34,
36,
55,
7,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Dryer sheets are fabric squares soaked in fabric softener (either quaternary ammonium salts or silicone oil).\n As the dryer blows hot air through all the clothes and mixes them around, the fabric softener very lightly coats all of the load. This thin coating of softener gives the laundry the nice scent and the positively charged chemicals (cations) help equalize the electrons building up from all the clothing rubbing against each other. ",
"How do the spiky dryer balls work?",
"Top comment doesn't address wrinkles, just static. \n\nHeat and tumbling is what de-wrinkles clothing in the dryer. The heat relaxes the fabric threads, and the tumbling motion flexes them repeatedly.",
"Can you re-use them? Haha not out of necessity but you know it would save money.",
"I've also heard you can use a ball of aluminum foil to reduce static and replace dryer sheets. Any idea if that works? And if so, how?",
"I'd like to know if they still work when you take the clothes out when they're still damp? Or do the clothes have to be somewhat dry?",
"Dryer sheets are really bad for your clothes and a lot of clothing manufacturers have said they will ruin your garments.\n\nThey're also loaded with unnecessary chemicals all just to remove a few wrinkles or static.\n\nI use four dryer balls. Static dissipates as soon as I remove the garment from the laundry and have had zero issues with wrinkles.",
"Fun fact. Dryer sheets can stain your clothes. If you’ve ever washed your clothing and noticed small oily splotches on your shirts, etc. it was probably from dryer sheets. \n\nTo each their own, but dryer sheets are the biggest rip off ever. \n\nDon’t get me started on dryers, either. Whoooof!",
"Wow, all these comments, and not a one mentions paraffin. The wax in the dryer sheet does a lot of the work, such as keeping the softener from spoiling, and the fragrances stay longer. It also helps with making the barrier against static from forming, by lubricating the fabric, and reducing wrinkles, by making ther fabric stiffer.\n\nIt's also the main reason why you should never use more than one sheet per load. The excess will coat the inside of your dryer, make your lint burn longer if it ignites, and blocks your moisture sensor from reading the humidity in your clothes, so your automatic cycle stops working. The last thing can be fixed easily by taking some fine grit sand paper, and lightly sanding the sensor bars.",
"Somewhat unrelated, but as others have explained there's fabric softener on the sheet. A pro tip for y'all is that in areas with huge mosquito infestations, use those cheap ass store brand unscented sheets. The cheap old ones contain citronella and will make you more repellant to mosquitoes, I even carried them in my pockets in SC.",
"Fabric softeners are pretty toxic.",
"What is wrong with America that they apparently need to remove static from their clothes with a sheet? I've never heard of that being a problem in the UK. Heat will get creases out of clothes, too, so as long as you're folding your clothes fresh out the drier, you're fine.\n\nAlso, do you guys not add fabric conditioner/softener to your normal wash or something? Why would you need to add it in the drier via a sheet?",
"Silicones & waxes. Like candles, heat them & they melt (off the sheet) covering everything, allowing the fabric to relax & creates a positive charge.\n\nAs a few others pointed out, they eventually wreck your clothes & dryer. They will also WRECK a paint job on a vehicle! Just the simple act of brushing against or leaning on a vehicle (wearing clothing with any fabric softener) causes transfer of the silicone, creating an oil/water effect with the future paint. \n\nThe only positive use for dryer sheets I've found is for keeping mice & rodents away. Out buildings, garages, vehicles being stored. Generic cheaper brand dryer sheets seem to work the best :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
78ozyg
|
is leaving a cup of water overnight a bad idea?
|
I often use the same cup for a week or so and have it sit overnight most nights in case I get thirsty. Sometimes in the morning the last bit of it has a vaguely "skunky" smell/taste.
Is it a bad idea to drink this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/78ozyg/eli5_is_leaving_a_cup_of_water_overnight_a_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dovhuiv",
"dovi5pt",
"dovjvxy",
"dovocf4",
"dovp2nz",
"dows17d"
],
"score": [
30,
5,
2,
4,
39,
2
],
"text": [
"Plain water doesn't \"go bad,\" but water with a tiny bit of your saliva in it may grow some bacteria over time. Also, a little dust may land in it. Overnight is no problem if you empty and refill it daily.",
"I don’t go to sleep without a glass of water out. After awhile the carbon dioxide in the air mixes, and it will change the taste, but overall not unsafe to drink. ",
"Pure water does indeed go bad, or 'stagnates'.\n\nThis occurs from shit falling into the cup over time, allowing bacteria to grow. Additionally, bacteria from humans touching or drinking from a vessel will grow and eventually become dangerous.\n\nBacteria from your own body is less likely to harm you than another person's bacteria, so it's best not to use other people's cups. This is doubly true after the cup has sat out for a long time. \n\nNot enough research has been done on how long it takes for water to go bad in different environments, so anyone giving you firm rules about that is making things up. Water on your bedroom nightstand will likely be safe to drink longer than water in a mud puddle in the woods.\n\nIts best to cover your drinks if you intend to leave them out, or drink from a source of running water like your sink. \n\nEdit: Personally I do not drink from a cup thats been left out uncovered for more than 6 hours",
"Nalgene bottle bro. It'll cost you like $12. Buy two so you can have one to use while the other is in the dishwasher.\n\nI seriously never go anywhere without mine.",
"If it smells: don't drink it.\n\nLiterally this is what the human sense of taste evolved to let you avoid.\n\nHowever generally leaving a cup of water overnight in a clean glass isn't a problem. I think your issue is you don't wash your cup often enough. ",
"What you are tasting is particulates from the air that have fallen into your glass. I live in the desert where there is really low humidity, so most of what falls in is just dust particles. But of course, dust can have all kinds of stuff in it, including dust mites. I have to fill my pets water dishes several times a day because once they detect dust on the surface of the water, they won't drink it. So I'd say, don't drink it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4wtn8w
|
air pressure in houses? why do some doors hit a cushion of air when they close, some doors slam when they close, and some doors get sucked closed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wtn8w/eli5_air_pressure_in_houses_why_do_some_doors_hit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d69ujil",
"d69vxlb",
"d69xaho",
"d6a0zpe",
"d6a6st0",
"d6a7uyv"
],
"score": [
102,
26,
4,
6,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's depends on how air tight the room is. You will notice this with doors that are tighter to the carpet and not under cut. Take a door that you can't slam because of this and open a window in that room the air will be forced out the window and the door will close easier. Opening or closing a door rapidly will generate lots of air movement. Without somewhere to go it will be more difficult to close. Undercut doors allow air underneath. Similar to Windows letting air outside. Also to note in commercial buildings many glasses enclosed rooms and others have what's called transfer air duct that as well as allowing air out functionally assist in the same way. Source union sheet metal worker. Duct work. ",
"OT: Fire Safety doors are required to close under pretty severe draft conditions: that draft from your open window is close to what a burning fire can do, sucking in oxygen as it burns.\n\nConsequently, if your door is a fire door (mine is) the auto-closer is set to 'damn strong' by the installers to meet fire compliance rules. If you know how to fiddle with the adjustments you can try and reduce the strength it has against the wind, but bear in mind you may breach fire safety codes for your property and it will be picked up by a survey at some point.",
"Depends on the air pressure. And which direction the door swings. \n\nMushroom barns are negatively pressurized. Meaning when you open a door, it sucks the outside air inside the building, making it harder to close the door (if the door swings open into the building.). If the door swings out, or, away from the building, it will be harder to open, and be easier to shut. \n\nFire codes state that man-doors (regular exterior doors) in commercial buildings, must open out. \n\n\n\nClosing a door in a sealed room will cause it to not fully close. If there isn't enough air to replace what was moved when the door tried to close, the door won't close. \n\nYour average home is a positive pressure system for a couple simple reasons. \n\nPositive air pressure allows hot, dry air to leak out, so cold, damp air can't get in.\n\nIt stops outside contamination from entering the home. \n\n\nIt's all about equalizing the air pressure. \n\n",
"Depends on if other windows or doors are open in your house. Imagine blowing a balloon vs blowing in an open tube. The air has a way out. When my room door slams, I know my window is still open. It's a good alarm.",
"When the HVAC is on it creates positive pressure in the building or house.\n\nTo test this knock a baseball sized hole in your wall and put a sheet of paper over it. With the AC on the paper will \"stick\" to the wall because of the lower pressure inside of the wall. With the AC off the paper will just fall to the floor.",
"A door is quite large. Standard air pressure is 10 tonnes per square meter. A door is about 2 square meters, so there is 20 tonnes of force available. A difference of air pressure between both sides of 1% means that the door would be pushed by a force of 200kg. A force of 2kg would be more than enough to move and slam a door."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2m00va
|
how is a gravity field determined through doppler tracking?
|
I have searched the internet and have not found any actual answers to what this means. Specifically, the Cassini space craft was tracked by radio by 3 stations on earth as it approached Enceladus. "Doppler data was used in gravity field determination" - What does this mean?
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m00va/eli5_how_is_a_gravity_field_determined_through/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clzqi6e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Doppler effect allows extremely precise measurements of how fast Cassini was moving at the time. By using that very precise data on its movements, we get very precise data on the forces at work on the spacecraft - which when it's in space is almost entirely gravity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8rvp6t
|
how do credit card issuing banks, (chase/wells fargo), processors (visa/mc), and merchants make money and still afford to give consumer rewards?
|
Basically I know that smaller merchants don't like credit cards because of the share they take which bite into the margins.
Is it as simple as the bank takes a 2-3% cut, the processor takes a 2-3% cut and the store is left with 95 dollars on every 100 they make on top of razor thin margins?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rvp6t/eli5_how_do_credit_card_issuing_banks_chasewells/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0ukyg7"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"\n\n\n\nThey make a huge amount of money on consumers maintaining a balance and collecting interest. You can easily owe them hundreds of dollars per month since you have to pay them every month.\n\nThey also charge businesses transaction fees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8puido
|
what would happen if theoretically an astronaut was to die in space at the beginning of their trip but the rest of the crew was still alive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8puido/eli5_what_would_happen_if_theoretically_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0e6gc5",
"e0e6yfj",
"e0e73y5",
"e0e75hh"
],
"score": [
15,
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Real answer: They're not sure. NASA puts a lot of energy into making sure astronauts are healthy and they don't seem to have a plan for what to do if someone dies unexpectedly. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nProbably they'd send the body down to burn up on rentry like they do with waste. ",
"Freeze-Dried Funerals?\n\n > NASA may not have specific contingency plans for a sudden death, but the agency is working on it; in 2005 they commissioned a study from Swedish eco-burial company Promessa. The study resulted in a yet-to-be-tested design called \"The Body Back.\" The creepy-sounding system uses a technique called promession, which essentially freeze-dries a body. Instead of producing the ash of a traditional cremation, it would turn a frozen corpse into a million little pieces of icy flesh.\n\nDuring the study, Promessa creators Susanne Wiigh-Masak and Peter Masak collaborated with design students to think about what this process might look like while en route to Mars. On Earth, the promession process would use liquid nitrogen to freeze the body, but in space a robotic arm would suspend the body outside of the spaceship enclosed in a bag. The body would stay outside in the freezing void for an hour until it became brittle, then the arm would vibrate, fracturing the body into ash-like remains. This process could theoretically turn a 200-pound astronaut into a suitcase-sized 50-pound lump, which you could store on a spacecraft for years.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"I would imagine they'd put it in a body bag and tether it to the outside of the ship, leaving it to freeze in space. Then bring it back inside before reentry procedures",
"**Please read this entire message**\n\n---\n\nYour submission has been removed for the following reason(s):\n\nELI5 is not for:\n\nStraightforward answers or facts - ELI5 is for requesting an explanation of a concept, not a simple straightforward answer \n\n* Recommended subreddit(s): /r/Answers\n\n---\nIf you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](_URL_0_) first. If you still feel the removal should be reviewed, please [message the moderators.](_URL_1_?)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.bnd.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/answer-man/article180606656.html"
],
[
"https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-to-your-body-when-you-die-in-space#page-3"
],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules",
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Can%20you%20review%20my%20thread"
]
] |
||
af7vpe
|
is it really bad for our eyes to put on prescription glasses that we don’t need or aren’t meant for us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af7vpe/eli5_is_it_really_bad_for_our_eyes_to_put_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edw7ces",
"edw9oke"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It will cause eye strain. This isn't a problem for short periods of time but can cause issues long-term.\n\nIf you put on glasses that don't match your eyes needs then the image that your eye receives will be out of focus. To compensate your lens will try to fix the focus. Depending on how much it needs to fix the focus it will cause strain on your eye. If you do this for too long it can cause headaches and problems with the muscles in your eye.",
"Yes, because it makes your eyes try to focus while it can’t really focus well. This causes eye strain.\n\nThis is also why reading with your eyes very closely also makes your eyes hurt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4j8f0r
|
why do we learn song rhythms so much quicker than the lyrics?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j8f0r/eli5_why_do_we_learn_song_rhythms_so_much_quicker/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d34joum"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The rhythm of the vast majority of popular music is very predictable. 4/4 measures, stable tempo throughout, people experienced in music can often \"know\" the rhythm of the song after only listening to a small part of it. Lyrics, however, can be any words!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2kk23p
|
why do so many people trust google with their personal information, but don't trust companies such as facebook?
|
Me and a friend were discussing the new Gmail app and how it essentially reads your e-mails to finds specific subjects such as things you have purchased etc. and they've had a massive number of people sign up for the beta version. Where as when facebook bought out the Oculus Rift, everybody freaked out and a lot of people cancelled their pre-order. Same thing with the Facebook messaging app as well. Why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kk23p/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_trust_google_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clm0z93",
"clm1goa",
"clm1h6z",
"clm2uh0",
"clm36ha",
"clm5hvu",
"clm8mff"
],
"score": [
9,
10,
3,
6,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think your assumptions are correct -- there seems to be a habit here of treating personal experience or anecdotes like global truth. \n\nAs to why we trust these large corporations with all sorts of private data without any appropriate safeguards, it is because the ease and convenience of the service outweighs our concerns about privacy. If there was no usability difference between self-hosted PGP email and Gmail the market would look fairly different even with the same level of customer ignorance about privacy concerns.\n\n(If you use Gmail Google has always been reading all of your email.)",
"People like to pick their bogeymen as they will and rarely use rational thought processes to do so. One example: there's a rather large number of people who will insist on buying iTunes cards in order to make iTunes purchases without using their credit card online. They will not think twice about using their credit card to buy the iTunes card despite the iTunes store being more secure than most retail stores when it comes to credit card info. But they once heard that internet purchasing is sketchy, and it sticks in their head even if that info is 10 years old and was wrong to start with.",
"I don't trust Facebook because my spam/phishing contacts are frequently identified as coming from my Facebook friends. ",
"people worry about Facebook more than Google for a number of reasons:\n\n1) We generally end up giving Facebook *a lot* more info than we do Google. Unless you're actively using Google+ you aren't spelling out your entire life online like you do with Facebook. Sure, you got your common search terms and favourite youtube videos on Google, but you have your life history on Facebook, as well as your immediate plans via status updates, and your current position at the time of writing.\n\n2) Facebook has been known to conduct borderline-unethical research on it's userbase without their knowledge. See the research they did where they were altering people's timelines to reflect more depressing shit etc. Google has never done anything like that.\n\n3) With the information we share on Google, unless we are actively using Google+ or leaving YouTube comments, most of that information is not shared with the public (some of it may go to advertisers in anonymised format). With Facebook, if you make a mistake on your privacy settings, people with tenuous links to you, or even the general public, can see information you didn't want them to, and attribute it to you. I'm not sure if Facebook advertisers can also do this, but Facebook App developers certainly can.\n\n4) Bloggers. We all hear about the one time someone accidentally shared something they shouldn't have on Facebook and got fired etc. Hearing about the woes of sharing your stuff on Facebook from fellow people make the dangers feel all that more real. We even hear about kids commiting suicide over things they have over-shared. Comparatively few people get in trouble for Google searches however, and most people don't actively use Google+, so that service does not suffer from the same effect. \n\n5) Information friends share about you. You can control what you put on a Facebook post, or what you Google, but it's much harder to control what someone else uploads to Facebook about you. You can untag yourself from pictures but you cannot force them to take them down or delete a post. Google+ has this problem too, but that service isn't nearly so widespread.\n\nEDIT: added number 5",
"I think it's because people are used to the idea that Google actually does a lot of good. Facebook is just a website that invites you to share your personal information in what is fundamentally no different to what MySpace was.\n\nGoogle on the other hand:\n\nHas a fantastic free map service\n\nHas a great lineup of tablet devices \n\nTranslation software\n\nRuns a video website which for many people has entirely substituted regular television\n\nFinally, is a competent search engine.\n",
"I would say that many people are upset about all these companies using personal data and don't feel any better about Google. But there are differences in the business models -- how the companies make money. Google gets paid to place ads from advertisers, but they don't feed information about you back to the advertisers. Facebook does exactly the opposite.",
"There are plenty of people who don't trust google.\nThat said, I do feel from personal observations that there's significantly less trust for facebook.\n\nI suspect the biggest difference comes from how they represent themselves.\n\nGoogle puts forth an image of \n\n* Professional tech company\n\n* Unobtrusive advertising (adwords incorporating into page colour schemes)\n\n* Free access to extensive information unsurpassed in many areas (google maps, etc)\n\n* Free services that have the features and usability to rival even paid-for competition. (gmail)\n\n\nFacebook put forth the corporate image of\n\n* Exploitative microtransactions (Buy more farmcoins to unlock walking south!)\n\n* Slightly seedy advertisements (Single gay muslim paraplegics in your area!)\n\n* Advertisements masquerading as your friends likes and recommendations.\n\n* Manipulating your page and behaviour with often only subtle ways of opting out. (Stacy wanted to pickle your sausages but you have no sausages to pickle! Stacy wants you to play Sausage Pickler Pro X Ultra today!!!)\n\n\n\nOne of those companies will make you feel secure and build trust - even if it's unwarranted.\nThe other leaves you with little doubt they'd sell their own grandmother if it raked in more money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
qjau1
|
how the backbone of the internet works? (tier 1 tier 2 networks)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qjau1/eli5_how_the_backbone_of_the_internet_works_tier/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3y1a9l"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The internet is quite a lot like the interstate system. Roads going EVERYWHERE. When you want to join a new city up, you just join to a local road and you're done.\n\nWhat happens if that road is clogged with traffic? Well, you can connect up to a second road, too. Now you have two routes. Also, traffic can go from one road through your city and on to the other roads you're connected to.\n\nThe tiered providers provide the Interstates, and the structure necessary to keep them going. Everyone who joins to them has to provide their own infrastructure and interact nicely. They may provide the local highways that lead out to cities, or they have have cities themselves.\n\nEssentially, though, the \"information super-highway\" wasn't a bad analogy for a first go at it.\n\nIs there anything more that you'd like clarifying?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3jo6a7
|
why is political "flip-flopping"(i.e changing your stance on an issue) considered bad? doesn't that mean you're actually listening to both sides?
|
Heard a couple politicians being put down because they've changed their stance on some issues. That's exactly the kind of politician I want, whether they agree with me or not, but it seems like it's an easy target for people to criticize. I don't understand...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jo6a7/eli5_why_is_political_flipfloppingie_changing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuqwsql",
"cuqwsuq",
"cuqwvw9",
"cuqwzmt",
"cur0lmj"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"As far as I can tell, before 2004, changing your mind based on new information wasn't really an issue. \"Flip-Flopping\" was an attack tactic on the part of George W. Bush against John Kerry in that election cycle.\n\nSo, yes, there shouldn't be anything wrong with changing your mind based on new information, but in politics, it's not about rational transactions. It's about the sound bite and how you can make someone look stupid out of context. It gives the appearance of not having the courage of your convictions, even if they're wrong.",
"Most people see flip flopping as pandering and think the politician is just appealing to anyone who he thinks will vote for him. If they are changing their stance because they have genuinely changed their opinion thats good but its also indistinguishable from the arguably more common pandering",
"Flip flopping isn't really just changing your stance. I agree with you - politicians get bashed for not being fucking omniscient all the time. A logical person will reconsider their views when presented with new evidence and arguments. Politicians are often not logical, but rather claim to have some divine morality guiding them that is solid and unchanged. That is terrifying to me.\n\nHowever, flip flopping might be used to refer to that but that's bullshit. However, it can also be used to refer to saying contradicting opinions to different groups. For example, you go to an NRA meeting and you're all like \"YEAH GUNS ARE THE BEST FREE GUNS FOR EVERYONE!\" and then going to a school assembly that had a shooting recently and being like \"I stand to reduce guns and increase gun regulations!\"\n\n\n",
"Well, I think when it's used as an attack on someone's character, the idea is to illustrate the person is indecisive, lacks convictions, and is unpredictable. In other words, you may be voting because you agree with his/her stance on a particular issue (or set of issues), but then the person could change position at any moment, so you don't really know what you're going to get. If this \"flip flopping\" happens frequently, I think there may indeed be some validity to that argument.\n\nThat's the answer to your question, but I believe that if it's a one-off change of position on a single issue (or maybe only a couple of issues), then I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing (to the contrary, it may serve to show that you're open-minded).",
"Flip-flopping isn't where you change your position once. It's where you just say what you think people want to hear to be popular. \n\nMost politicians tend to be at least somewhat to the left or right. Ones in the middle are often known for being swing votes and rarely actually get tagged with the flip-flopper label. It's when ones not in the middle that begin to vote which ever way the wind blows who get attacked with it. People change their stances on issues but not all the time and not back and forth. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2lojul
|
why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different?
|
I've noticed that the difference in price between regular gas and midrange, and between midrange and premium, is almost always 10 cents. This seems to hold true no matter what the price for regular gas. This doesn't seem to make sense, as the difference between $2 and $2.10 and the difference between $4 and $4.10 /gal are proportionally very different. Is this just an arbitrary convention that undermines arguments of a rational basis for gasoline prices?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lojul/eli5_why_are_different_tiers_regularmidpremium_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clwqgxl",
"clwqpjq",
"clwuh3s"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. ",
"The difference is in how it burns though is what's critical for you as the end consumer. I drive a forced induction car, so air coming into my engine is compressed before it enters the cylinder where it's further compressed by the piston. The Regular, Mid, and Premium gas are rated by octane, which in the shortest definition is how well it resists ignition, meaning higher octane fuel won't ignite from high pressure or heat, until the spark plug fires. Now that being said, you can look at as a price gouge, as it's not too hard to make higher octane gas, but cars that need it are typically sports cars as their engines run hotter, higher compression, and forced induction. Tying it back into what I said in the beginning, since I drive a forced induction sports car I have to run premium, and gas stations/companies know people like me are going to shut up and pay the extra 30 cents a gallon to protect our engines from lower octane gas detonating in the engine. ",
" > Is this just an arbitrary convention that undermines arguments of a rational basis for gasoline prices? \n\nYou already know the answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
jbakq
|
what is it about tilt-shift photography actually makes it look like figurines?
|
Why does it look like miniature figures as opposed to just looking really far away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jbakq/eli5_what_is_it_about_tiltshift_photography/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2aoqlm",
"c2aqnee",
"c2aqz5z",
"c2ar0y7",
"c2arw6y",
"c2at3gg",
"c2at4mr",
"c2aoqlm",
"c2aqnee",
"c2aqz5z",
"c2ar0y7",
"c2arw6y",
"c2at3gg",
"c2at4mr"
],
"score": [
106,
2,
2,
14,
7,
14,
3,
106,
2,
2,
14,
7,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because a scene viewed close up, either by the human eye or a camera lens, has one very distinct visual characteristic. A tilt-shift lens can simulate that characteristic. I'll explain.\n\nCamera lenses can only truly focus on a single distance from the lens at any given time, however anything close enough to that distance will appear to be focused as well. The size of that nearly-focused area is called the \"depth of field\".\n\nThe closer the subject is to the lens, the smaller the depth of field, so more of the image is out of focus. You will see this often in photographs of small objects: insects, flowers, etc.\n\nThe tilt of a tilt-shift lens can be used to approximate the look of a small depth of field, by forcing certain areas out of focus. Your brain recognizes this look from all the times in the past that it has seen small objects close up, and mistakenly interprets the subject as a miniature.\n\n**Edit:** removed an unnecessary speculation",
"I was going to ask this! Thanks :D",
"Vision Scientist here. \n\nYour retina (the part of your eye that processes the light allowing you to see) has a central region, called the fovea, which allows you to see sharp details. As you move away from the fovea, to the periphery, the details get more and more blurry. Now, if you look at an object, say a car , from really far away, much of it will fall on your fovea, and even the part that is not in your fovea will still be in pretty good focus as it is not extending too far out in the periphery. As you get closer to the car, much less will be in your fovea and much more will be very blurry and out of focus.\n\nNow we are ready for tilt-shift. First you begin with a small photograph of a large scene. Without any manipulation you 'correctly' see this as the large scene as viewed from far away (in fact this is an illusion since it is really a small picture, not a large scene). So although the image of the building or the person is really small on your retina your brain says: \"well, that's cause it is really far away\". So you perceive it 'correctly'. What tilt-shift does is to mimic the effect of viewing this scene from up close. Since only a small region is in focus, your brain thinks that you are very close to the scene. Thus, the fact that the objects are small cannot be accounted for by distance. Thus your brain infers that they must in fact be miniatures. \n\n\nInterestingly, as I mentioned before, you could make the argument that the what you perceive without tilt-shift is just as illusory as what you perceive with it. I actually use tilt-shift as an example in class to illustrate the remarkable guessing games the brain uses to extract the perceived 'truth'.\n\n",
"Overly-simplified, but this is for ELI5\n\nThink about your lego toys. If you were to take a picture of it with a camera you might notice two things. For one, most of the image is blurry except for the toy in the middle. You'd also notice that the toy is very bright and colorful (and toys tend to be. Who would want to play with a boring dull looking lego set?)\n\nNow, if you look at a photo from our trip to the grand canyon it's a little different. It's bright, but not as bright and colorful as the lego set, and the image isn't as blurry. That's because the closer an object gets to your eye your eye begins to focus on it more and blurs everything else out. This is called \"depth of field\" (roughly.) In fact, you can look at your finger close-up right now and you may notice that when you focus on that finger everything else gets a little blurry.\n\nThis doesn't really happen for objects that are larger and farther away, only for smaller objects closeup, so in order to trick your eyes and make it look like our car in the grand canyon photos looks like the lego set we need to change the photo so that it's brighter and more saturated (like toys) and add a lot of blur around the edges of what we're focusing on (to simulate depth of field.) This tricks your eye into thinking you're looking at legos because the image has two main qualities that your brain associates with toys.",
"Try this experiment; close one eye, and hold your fingers 10cm from your face. Now bring those fingers into focus with your one open eye, and notice how everything in the background, behind your fingers, becomes very blurry.\n\nNow, keeping focus on your fingers, move your hand further from your face. Your background should become less blurred.\n\nSo, tilt-shifting photography mimics this behavior by making the background very blurry, which in turn makes the in-focus objects appear smaller because: Your brain is used to blurry backgrounds meaning that you are focusing on something very close to you, and so details that appear sharp in the picture seem like they are very small.",
"Most of the answers here don't really explain *why* your brain interprets blurriness as \"small\", which I think is the core of your question. There is a very logical answer to that, but in order to explain it, I'll have to explain how a camera works. It will take a little while, so bare with me:\n\nEvery camera (your eye included) works the same way: At the back of the camera there's a sensor. The sensor is anything that knows how much light is hitting it at every place across its surface. In your eye, the sensor is your retina, which responds to light by sending signals to your brain. In an older camera, this is the film, which changes its chemistry in response to light. In a modern camera, the sensor is the CCD sensor, which electronically measures and stores data about the incoming light.\n\nIn front of the sensor is something called the aperture. The aperture is basically just a hole that lets light into the camera, so it can fall on the sensor. The aperture is very important because it restricts the incoming light to very narrow beams. If you think of it another way, each part of the film can only \"see\" a very narrow part of the scene through the hole. This alone is enough to make a working camera; it would be a [pinhole camera](_URL_0_). However, in order to make a sharp image, the hole would have to be very small. If the hole weren't small enough, then each part of the film would \"see\" too wide an area of the outside scene, and the image would be very blurry. A small hole is a problem, though, because it means that the inside of the camera will be very dark, and not enough light will reach the film to take a picture quickly.\n\nThis is why most cameras have one more piece: The lens. The lens's job is to concentrate all the light from one area of the scene to one area of the film. If we use the lens to put each individual part of the scene into its own \"right place\" on the film, then we've made an image. Another way to think of it is that from the film's perspective, the lens will magnify a *very specific part* of the outside scene. If you imagine looking at the lens from different parts of the film, you'll see different parts of the scene magnified through the lens. So we don't need the aperture to restrict our view of the outside scene, because the lens does that for us by magnifying very specific parts of it. Then we can make our aperture much larger, let in more light, and still maintain a sharp image.\n\nYou with me so far?\n\nThere's one more problem, though: The lens will only perfectly magnify parts of the scene that are a *specific distance away from the camera*. This distance is the *focal distance*. Everything which lies exactly at this distance will be perfectly sharp in the picture, because each part of those objects is \"exactly magnified\" by the lens, from the perspective of each part of the film. If something is far away from the focal distance, then it won't be magnified as much. That means that it'll appear smaller through the lens, which means we'll see more of the object. If we see more of the object, then that means we have a wider view of the scene. If each part of the film has a wider view of the scene, then the image will be blurry, just like our \"bad pinhole camera\" example! So this means the image will be *more blurry* where the subject is *farther from the focal distance*. This is what causes depth-of-field.\n\nBut we can fix this effect-- at least a little bit-- This is where the aperture comes back into the picture. Remember how we used the aperture to restrict parts of the outside scene? Then we handed the job over to the lens, which is better at restricting the view for some parts of the scene, but worse for others? Well, let's imagine you're looking through the lens at a place where it's doing a bad job. You'd see a little upside-down picture of the outside world, instead of a really-magnified detail. So you make your aperture a little bit smaller! Now you can only see a small part of the *lens*, which is *showing* a larger part of the scene. So like before, once again, you are seeing a smaller area of the scene *through* the lens, and your image gets sharp again.\n\nI hope this is making sense. We're getting closer to the real question now. You might be wondering now: What does it mean to be \"close\" to the focal plane, and what does it mean to be \"far away\"? In other words, how many inches in depth do you have to step away from the camera in order to become \"this much blurrier\" in the image?\n\nThe answer depends on two things: First, the size of the aperture (and hopefully now, it should be obvious why-- the smaller the aperture, the more restricted the view of the scene for each part of the film, the sharper the image). Second, the distance to the focal plane. This is harder to explain in five-year-old speak, so you'll have to just take my word for it. Just know that the farther away the focal distance is, the wider the aperture has to be to make a blurry image. So sharpness depends on aperture and focal distance.\n\nSo what does all this have to do with tilt-shifted images? In a tilt-shifted image, close-by objects and far-away objects are artificially blurred, much more than they would be in a normal photograph. There's also a middle ground which is perfectly sharp. It just so happens that this is exactly what you get when you take a picture with narrow depth-of-field (i.e. a wide aperture). In a tilt-shifted picture of very large, far-away scene like a cityscape, the sharp area-- the focal distance-- would be very far from the camera lens. In order to compensate for this, to make a blurry image, the aperture would have to be *huge*! Like, several meters across.\n\nSo let's say there's an object in the center of your tilt-shifted cityscape that's very sharp and in-focus; let's a say it's a car. Your brain (which is hard-wired to analyze images this way) asks the question, \"How far away is that in-focus car?\" In other words, you're asking \"What's the focal distance of the lens that took the picture?\"\n\nWithout knowing the aperture size, that question can't be answered. But your brain makes a hard-coded assumption: That the aperture is somewhere close to 2mm. Now why would it make that assumption? Because your *pupil* is 2mm, and your pupil is the *aperture of your eye*. Your brain then uses the information that \"aperture = 2mm\" to **UNCONSCIOUSLY SOLVE THE LENS EQUATION FOR FOCAL DISTANCE**. It then gives you a wildly wrong answer: \"That in-focus pedestrian is 5cm away\", instead of \"that in-focus pedestrian is 5km away\". The bogus answer comes from the bogus assumption-- if the blurriness weren't fake, the camera would have had a much, much larger aperture (several meters, remember?). \n\nSo there you have it. It looks small because your brain has been wired by evolution to think that every camera everywhere has an aperture of 2 millimeters across. Even though most film cameras can have apertures larger than this (1-2cm, e.g.), it's not enough of a difference when we're talking about taking pictures of things that are hundreds or thousands of meters away.\n\nMake sense?\n\n",
"Can the effect be achieved with a non-tilt-shift lens, say on a high def video camera that is not SLR, in post production?",
"It's because a scene viewed close up, either by the human eye or a camera lens, has one very distinct visual characteristic. A tilt-shift lens can simulate that characteristic. I'll explain.\n\nCamera lenses can only truly focus on a single distance from the lens at any given time, however anything close enough to that distance will appear to be focused as well. The size of that nearly-focused area is called the \"depth of field\".\n\nThe closer the subject is to the lens, the smaller the depth of field, so more of the image is out of focus. You will see this often in photographs of small objects: insects, flowers, etc.\n\nThe tilt of a tilt-shift lens can be used to approximate the look of a small depth of field, by forcing certain areas out of focus. Your brain recognizes this look from all the times in the past that it has seen small objects close up, and mistakenly interprets the subject as a miniature.\n\n**Edit:** removed an unnecessary speculation",
"I was going to ask this! Thanks :D",
"Vision Scientist here. \n\nYour retina (the part of your eye that processes the light allowing you to see) has a central region, called the fovea, which allows you to see sharp details. As you move away from the fovea, to the periphery, the details get more and more blurry. Now, if you look at an object, say a car , from really far away, much of it will fall on your fovea, and even the part that is not in your fovea will still be in pretty good focus as it is not extending too far out in the periphery. As you get closer to the car, much less will be in your fovea and much more will be very blurry and out of focus.\n\nNow we are ready for tilt-shift. First you begin with a small photograph of a large scene. Without any manipulation you 'correctly' see this as the large scene as viewed from far away (in fact this is an illusion since it is really a small picture, not a large scene). So although the image of the building or the person is really small on your retina your brain says: \"well, that's cause it is really far away\". So you perceive it 'correctly'. What tilt-shift does is to mimic the effect of viewing this scene from up close. Since only a small region is in focus, your brain thinks that you are very close to the scene. Thus, the fact that the objects are small cannot be accounted for by distance. Thus your brain infers that they must in fact be miniatures. \n\n\nInterestingly, as I mentioned before, you could make the argument that the what you perceive without tilt-shift is just as illusory as what you perceive with it. I actually use tilt-shift as an example in class to illustrate the remarkable guessing games the brain uses to extract the perceived 'truth'.\n\n",
"Overly-simplified, but this is for ELI5\n\nThink about your lego toys. If you were to take a picture of it with a camera you might notice two things. For one, most of the image is blurry except for the toy in the middle. You'd also notice that the toy is very bright and colorful (and toys tend to be. Who would want to play with a boring dull looking lego set?)\n\nNow, if you look at a photo from our trip to the grand canyon it's a little different. It's bright, but not as bright and colorful as the lego set, and the image isn't as blurry. That's because the closer an object gets to your eye your eye begins to focus on it more and blurs everything else out. This is called \"depth of field\" (roughly.) In fact, you can look at your finger close-up right now and you may notice that when you focus on that finger everything else gets a little blurry.\n\nThis doesn't really happen for objects that are larger and farther away, only for smaller objects closeup, so in order to trick your eyes and make it look like our car in the grand canyon photos looks like the lego set we need to change the photo so that it's brighter and more saturated (like toys) and add a lot of blur around the edges of what we're focusing on (to simulate depth of field.) This tricks your eye into thinking you're looking at legos because the image has two main qualities that your brain associates with toys.",
"Try this experiment; close one eye, and hold your fingers 10cm from your face. Now bring those fingers into focus with your one open eye, and notice how everything in the background, behind your fingers, becomes very blurry.\n\nNow, keeping focus on your fingers, move your hand further from your face. Your background should become less blurred.\n\nSo, tilt-shifting photography mimics this behavior by making the background very blurry, which in turn makes the in-focus objects appear smaller because: Your brain is used to blurry backgrounds meaning that you are focusing on something very close to you, and so details that appear sharp in the picture seem like they are very small.",
"Most of the answers here don't really explain *why* your brain interprets blurriness as \"small\", which I think is the core of your question. There is a very logical answer to that, but in order to explain it, I'll have to explain how a camera works. It will take a little while, so bare with me:\n\nEvery camera (your eye included) works the same way: At the back of the camera there's a sensor. The sensor is anything that knows how much light is hitting it at every place across its surface. In your eye, the sensor is your retina, which responds to light by sending signals to your brain. In an older camera, this is the film, which changes its chemistry in response to light. In a modern camera, the sensor is the CCD sensor, which electronically measures and stores data about the incoming light.\n\nIn front of the sensor is something called the aperture. The aperture is basically just a hole that lets light into the camera, so it can fall on the sensor. The aperture is very important because it restricts the incoming light to very narrow beams. If you think of it another way, each part of the film can only \"see\" a very narrow part of the scene through the hole. This alone is enough to make a working camera; it would be a [pinhole camera](_URL_0_). However, in order to make a sharp image, the hole would have to be very small. If the hole weren't small enough, then each part of the film would \"see\" too wide an area of the outside scene, and the image would be very blurry. A small hole is a problem, though, because it means that the inside of the camera will be very dark, and not enough light will reach the film to take a picture quickly.\n\nThis is why most cameras have one more piece: The lens. The lens's job is to concentrate all the light from one area of the scene to one area of the film. If we use the lens to put each individual part of the scene into its own \"right place\" on the film, then we've made an image. Another way to think of it is that from the film's perspective, the lens will magnify a *very specific part* of the outside scene. If you imagine looking at the lens from different parts of the film, you'll see different parts of the scene magnified through the lens. So we don't need the aperture to restrict our view of the outside scene, because the lens does that for us by magnifying very specific parts of it. Then we can make our aperture much larger, let in more light, and still maintain a sharp image.\n\nYou with me so far?\n\nThere's one more problem, though: The lens will only perfectly magnify parts of the scene that are a *specific distance away from the camera*. This distance is the *focal distance*. Everything which lies exactly at this distance will be perfectly sharp in the picture, because each part of those objects is \"exactly magnified\" by the lens, from the perspective of each part of the film. If something is far away from the focal distance, then it won't be magnified as much. That means that it'll appear smaller through the lens, which means we'll see more of the object. If we see more of the object, then that means we have a wider view of the scene. If each part of the film has a wider view of the scene, then the image will be blurry, just like our \"bad pinhole camera\" example! So this means the image will be *more blurry* where the subject is *farther from the focal distance*. This is what causes depth-of-field.\n\nBut we can fix this effect-- at least a little bit-- This is where the aperture comes back into the picture. Remember how we used the aperture to restrict parts of the outside scene? Then we handed the job over to the lens, which is better at restricting the view for some parts of the scene, but worse for others? Well, let's imagine you're looking through the lens at a place where it's doing a bad job. You'd see a little upside-down picture of the outside world, instead of a really-magnified detail. So you make your aperture a little bit smaller! Now you can only see a small part of the *lens*, which is *showing* a larger part of the scene. So like before, once again, you are seeing a smaller area of the scene *through* the lens, and your image gets sharp again.\n\nI hope this is making sense. We're getting closer to the real question now. You might be wondering now: What does it mean to be \"close\" to the focal plane, and what does it mean to be \"far away\"? In other words, how many inches in depth do you have to step away from the camera in order to become \"this much blurrier\" in the image?\n\nThe answer depends on two things: First, the size of the aperture (and hopefully now, it should be obvious why-- the smaller the aperture, the more restricted the view of the scene for each part of the film, the sharper the image). Second, the distance to the focal plane. This is harder to explain in five-year-old speak, so you'll have to just take my word for it. Just know that the farther away the focal distance is, the wider the aperture has to be to make a blurry image. So sharpness depends on aperture and focal distance.\n\nSo what does all this have to do with tilt-shifted images? In a tilt-shifted image, close-by objects and far-away objects are artificially blurred, much more than they would be in a normal photograph. There's also a middle ground which is perfectly sharp. It just so happens that this is exactly what you get when you take a picture with narrow depth-of-field (i.e. a wide aperture). In a tilt-shifted picture of very large, far-away scene like a cityscape, the sharp area-- the focal distance-- would be very far from the camera lens. In order to compensate for this, to make a blurry image, the aperture would have to be *huge*! Like, several meters across.\n\nSo let's say there's an object in the center of your tilt-shifted cityscape that's very sharp and in-focus; let's a say it's a car. Your brain (which is hard-wired to analyze images this way) asks the question, \"How far away is that in-focus car?\" In other words, you're asking \"What's the focal distance of the lens that took the picture?\"\n\nWithout knowing the aperture size, that question can't be answered. But your brain makes a hard-coded assumption: That the aperture is somewhere close to 2mm. Now why would it make that assumption? Because your *pupil* is 2mm, and your pupil is the *aperture of your eye*. Your brain then uses the information that \"aperture = 2mm\" to **UNCONSCIOUSLY SOLVE THE LENS EQUATION FOR FOCAL DISTANCE**. It then gives you a wildly wrong answer: \"That in-focus pedestrian is 5cm away\", instead of \"that in-focus pedestrian is 5km away\". The bogus answer comes from the bogus assumption-- if the blurriness weren't fake, the camera would have had a much, much larger aperture (several meters, remember?). \n\nSo there you have it. It looks small because your brain has been wired by evolution to think that every camera everywhere has an aperture of 2 millimeters across. Even though most film cameras can have apertures larger than this (1-2cm, e.g.), it's not enough of a difference when we're talking about taking pictures of things that are hundreds or thousands of meters away.\n\nMake sense?\n\n",
"Can the effect be achieved with a non-tilt-shift lens, say on a high def video camera that is not SLR, in post production?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera"
],
[]
] |
|
2ah0ti
|
why it's forbidden to plug a ups to a surge protector? or daisy chain surge suppressors (assuming you are not overloading them).
|
The UPS only has 300 Joules Surge protection so I want to augment this with a better quality Surge protector liket he Tripp-Lite ISOBAR that has 3k+ joules of energy dissipation. So my idea was to plug the ISOBAR to the WALL then the UPS to the ISOBAR and all electronics to the UPS. Why is it not recommended?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ah0ti/eli5why_its_forbidden_to_plug_a_ups_to_a_surge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"civ2s60"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"UPS's and surge protectors both use Metal Oxide Varistors as components in the circuit.\n\nThe way these things work is by converting excess voltage to heat. They are designed that they have a \"clamping voltage\" which is the maximum amount of voltage they allow through, before they start absorbing the excess voltage in the form of heat.\n\nPlacing Metal Oxide Varistors in series (daisy chained) causes the clamping voltage to be raised. So if you have two MOV's that were each individually designed to allow < 120V, after you connect them in series they could allow more than 120V. Too much voltage could damage electrical devices and start fires."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4y58yz
|
how would human-level artificial intelligence be programmed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y58yz/eli5_how_would_humanlevel_artificial_intelligence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6l138s",
"d6l1o06"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't know or we'd be doing it! =]\n\nWe really don't know how to create a human level ai. Right now we use something to try to make a computer act like a brain called neural nets. They work well but they're... Lacking. Might be due to computing power, the way we're simulating it (a mind) or something completely different altogether.",
"We don't even really understand how human intelligence works. \n\nBut also there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom. The common joke is that intelligence is understanding that a tomato is a fruit but wisdom is knowing it doesn't belong on a fruit salad.\n\nI don't think that's quite right.\n\nSay you have a puzzle in front of you and you have to solve it.\n\nIntelligence is solving it on your own, wisdom is solving it because you've seen it solved by someone else. Wisdom is the knowledge you have learned from others, intelligence is your ability to learn those things.\n\nComputers can store a huge amount of knowledge and use that to solve problems faster than we can, remember more and reproduce that knowledge faster.\n\nBut can they make leaps of imagination that lead to new knowledge? Can they move beyond what is essentially pure logic?\n\nLike the Doctor said, \"Computers are really just sophisticated idiots.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7ye8zp
|
how does clicking your fingers work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ye8zp/eli5_how_does_clicking_your_fingers_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dufskdc",
"dufstxu"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If I understand the question correctly, you are asking about cracking of knuckles. This is a response of the joint’s sinovial fluid being displaced by a brisk wrenching movement, often producing an audible “pop”.",
"Do you mean snapping your fingers? The noise is created through 1. friction created between the middle finger and thumb 2. the 'impact' of the groove your palm makes when your thumb and middle finger is connected in such matter and 3. the pop sound is created through rapid compression and decompression of air between the fingers. \n\nsource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Finger_snapping.html"
]
] |
||
jj0fg
|
the urge to mess with cuts, sores, and burns inside my mouth
|
I burnt my mouth today, and I don't understand the urge I have to rub my tongue over the spot over and over again. It doesn't make it hurt any less, but it almost seems involuntary. What gives?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jj0fg/eli5_the_urge_to_mess_with_cuts_sores_and_burns/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2cjsjq",
"c2cjsrd",
"c2cjsjq",
"c2cjsrd"
],
"score": [
3,
12,
3,
12
],
"text": [
"Your mouth has something foreign and unfamiliar feeling in it, so naturally you will subconsciously play with it, maybe try to soothe the pain even if you know it won't work.",
"Your mouth is a certain shape and taste, your tongue has it well mapped out, it knows every little nook and cranny. When you get a cut or you bite your cheek or when you burn the roof of your mouth, the shape and the taste of your mouth in that area changes. The shape because of swelling, the taste because of blood or increased sensitivity in burned areas. And so your tongue keeps going back to that area to keep checking any new developments.\n\nI dunno if you are too old to remember this, but when your milk teeth become loose, your tongue also played with them. ",
"Your mouth has something foreign and unfamiliar feeling in it, so naturally you will subconsciously play with it, maybe try to soothe the pain even if you know it won't work.",
"Your mouth is a certain shape and taste, your tongue has it well mapped out, it knows every little nook and cranny. When you get a cut or you bite your cheek or when you burn the roof of your mouth, the shape and the taste of your mouth in that area changes. The shape because of swelling, the taste because of blood or increased sensitivity in burned areas. And so your tongue keeps going back to that area to keep checking any new developments.\n\nI dunno if you are too old to remember this, but when your milk teeth become loose, your tongue also played with them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
27heen
|
why did i start to get hay-fever when i was 17?
|
I never had any signs of hayfever until the summer where I turned 17, now I get it pretty bad, why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27heen/eli5_why_did_i_start_to_get_hayfever_when_i_was_17/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci0tfpz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I didn't get it until summer 2013 (turned 23 that year)... Would like this answered too!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3n6yq8
|
why does love hurt ?
|
Why do the feels hurt so bad? ...in other words, after a serious breakup what causes the depression and other shitty emotions? Is it the sudden loss of oxytocin?
Edit: I understand that losing a significant relationship is always painful, but why does losing someone you love in a romantic manner typically hurt more (and is harder to forget/move on from) than other emotional investments you make throughout life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n6yq8/eli5_why_does_love_hurt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvle4wt",
"cvlf57d"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's because you vest a degree of emotional trust and attachment to someone. Not only do you lose your love, but maybe your best friend too.",
"That is... a good question and a good guess. Could be something hormon related. Either way... It really sucks "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8rn2h4
|
before spoken language was developed, were humans able have an inner monologue?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rn2h4/eli5_before_spoken_language_was_developed_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0smcid",
"e0sow41"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Yes, I'm sure they could but the monologue would have been in feelings, sights, smells and sounds. It would have been much the same things we think about and discuss with ourselves. Just think about deaf blind mutes. They still have inner monologues don't they?",
"Not really, a monologue is by definition language. If language didn't exist then they couldn't have been doing it internally either.\n\nThere is a bizarre misconception held by some that all or even the bulk of thinking is done via an internal monologue. When you wake up in the morning and need to pee you don't need to think \"Hey, I need to pee,\" you just... feel that you need to pee and understand. You can have thoughts and feelings which you struggle to put into words but you cannot have an inner monologue which you struggle to put into feelings."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
33nrea
|
what does the united states and canada do differently that their immigrants are assimilated easier and quicker?
|
Compared to Europe.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33nrea/eli5what_does_the_united_states_and_canada_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqmoguc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Well, times have changed. In 1800-1950's the majority of US immigrants wanted to assimilate. It was important to them to learn English and learn the laws/rules/morays of the US. Many of them still kept their native customs, (foods, music, names) but they didn't expect to come to American and NOT have to learn new things. Now the laws/rules/moray of the US have to change to accommodate all the various immigrant ways. While I am proud that my country welcomed immigrants then and now, I am sorry that now we have had to lose some of our identity in the process. So, then and now - it's a whole different ball game. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6zkb08
|
after a hurricane, blizzard, etc. how do electric power companies get the power working again? how do they know where damage exists and where to go to find it and fix it?
|
After a big storm goes through an area, how do they figure out where damage is and what needs fixing, etc.? They certainly don't go around and inspect every foot of transmission line. If they think a section of wiring is fixed but it's not, and they turn the power back on don't they risk more damage both to their equipment and any people in the vicinity of cables that are still down, short circuits, etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zkb08/eli5_after_a_hurricane_blizzard_etc_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmwxypl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The answer to your question is that it depends on what voltage we are talking about.\n\nThe high voltage lines don't have regular fuses because fuses don't react fast enough to be safe when there is a failure. Instead they have constant monitoring equipment that automatically disconnects the line when there is a failure.\n\nYou can, and most power companies do, connect communication equipment so that the operations centre gets a mark in a map on a screen when the line goes dark.\n\nIf you want to complicate things further, it's also possible to have all the circuit breakers on the line automatically open when the power goes out.\n\nSo the next logical step is to automatically attempt to reconnect the line again. And then quickly close all the circuit breakers, one at a time, until the line has a fault again.\n\nOnce that is done, you have a sector. \"The fault is somewhere between breaker 19 and 20.\" You got your work order done there and then. The line workers are to inspect section 19-20 and fix the problem.\n\nIf that is the only problem with that line you'll be kind of fine. Except, sections 20-42 has no monitoring any more and whenever something happens there, it will be a surprise for later.\n\nFor this reason, the first step after a storm is to get a chopper up. Follow the lines. Mark all the visible faults on a map. Send out woodcutters if it's impossible to raise the line because there are trees everywhere, send lineworkers if you can use them at that location. Send machinery if that helps.\n\nOnce the high voltage is up again, the real mess begins. The low voltage grid is not monitored in the operations centre.\n\nLow voltage is made safe with regular diazed fuses, and those are not monitored. If your fuses are out, they'll rely on your desire to have power back and expect you to report the fault.\n\nThis means that they depend on you to report that your line is down. And your neighbour. And your mum. And everyone else.\n\nThey have a call center for this very simple task; identify yourself and your house and take a report. Make their job easier and faster by having your latest power bill nearby (it has some identifying data on it they need to look you up real fast) and do the decent thing and call on behalf of the elderly lady next door while you are at it.\n\nThere is every chance that they will misplace your specific work order and it's not at all impossible that they fix a fault that affects your entire suburb, but misses the simple thing that leaves you and just you without power.\n\nFor this reason they will go out to media and give rough progress reports now and then. And they probably issue maps online with all the reported faults marked on a map. So that you can see if your report is taken action upon or not. So that you know if you have to call again.\n\nIf they are smart, they will give priority to bakeries, restaurants and gyms and such so that you can eat and have a shower now and then."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1twbnm
|
the confederacy and what it stands for.
|
I see the Confederate flag a lot nowadays, and I know it has to do with the south during the civil war but what exactly did the Confederacy favor in comparisons to the Union
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1twbnm/eli5the_confederacy_and_what_it_stands_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cec2sdl",
"cec31kz"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It boils down to states rights. The Confederacy believed that the states ought to be able to govern themselves in an independent fashion. This was in a time when human slavery was rampant, and the Union wanted to outlaw it in the entire country. The southern states largely believed that slavery was necessary to keep their rural economy going, and that the northern states had no business in their affairs. States began declaring their own sovereignty from the original United States of America, and they were all represented under the confederate flag.",
"The Confederacy seceded from the US over slavery (an oversimplified, but basically true statement). The flag today, though, stands for a lot of things:\n\n1. Regional pride - southerners and \"country\" folk are often depicted as uneducated bumpkins (or, southerners believe they are depicted this way). The flag is a way to express regional pride in the face of that perception.\n\n2. Defiance to the \"northern culture\" - many southerners see the South as having a distinct, regional culture, and being part of a rebellion against \"northern elites\" is part of it. Flying the flag expresses identification with the rebellion, and a rejection of \"elite\" or \"Yankee\" culture.\n\n3. White power- some people fly the flag because they're racist, and either want to go back to the antebellum south, or they want to reduce the cultural and political influence of all sorts of minorities.\n\n4. Some combination of the above, or some other personal reason. I'm basing the above off my experience of having grown up in New Jersey but live in central Virginia for 11 years. I expect I'm right for at least some people, but you'll probably find a thousand other reasons to fly the flag."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4re8ur
|
why do student loans have such a bad rep? isn't it just like any other loan where you have to pay it back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4re8ur/eli5_why_do_student_loans_have_such_a_bad_rep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d50cyai"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"While the other answers have concentrated on the mechanism, there may also be a feeling that the whole idea of paying for tertiary education is wrong.\n\nYes, being educated is of benefit to the individual, but it's also a huge benefit to society. Some countries take the view that to a greater or lesser extent is is worth the community making the investment in its future rather than leaving it to individuals. A huge loan is almost certainly a considerable disincentive to further education if you come from a background which just doesn't have that kind of money.\n\nWere I a teenager approaching it, it'd scare the willies out of me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3php4f
|
what evolutionary human trait or function has no practical advantages or disadvantages -- it just "is"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3php4f/eli5_what_evolutionary_human_trait_or_function/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw6dc7p",
"cw6dflb",
"cw6dihv",
"cw6gh5d"
],
"score": [
20,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Tons, actually. Rather, there are tons of traits that are only slightly advantageous, are only helpful in very limited situations, or are actively worse than they could be. For example, at one point our desire to cram sweet foods into our mouths at an alarming rate was a big advantage. Now it's a disadvantage for some, but for others it's just a trait and doesn't impact them much. \n\nEye color is another example of a trait that doesn't really have any positive or negative impact on us. Fingerprints have a very slight advantage (they help us grip) but the unique nature of them is not an advantage or a disadvantage: it's just a byproduct of how they are created. ",
"The chin may be considered one. Though, some people find a \"strong\" chin or jaw line to be attractive, making it somewhat useful for mate attraction.\n\nA few others: floating ribs (debatable), appendix, toe nails, body hair (may also be considered useful for mate attraction), and the xiphoid process (also called the ensiform process)",
"A boatload off them.\n\nThere's the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which starts at the base of your skull and ends at your larynx five or six inches away... via your chest. It goes down into your chest, loops around the heart, and comes back up to the front of the throat.\n\nOur retinas are backwards and upside down. The light-detecting cells are on the back and the blood vessels and nerves are on the front. Our brain has to compensate hard for both. Which it does just fine, but still...\n\nHandedness. Why should we have a strong preference for one over the other? Why would part of the population have their preference reversed? There's no good reason for it...",
"Something I experience is hypnic jerk _URL_0_\n\nIt's believed to be an evolutionary leftover to wake up our ancestors when they were about to fall out of a tree."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnic_jerk"
]
] |
||
27fg1v
|
why does it take longer to develop professional baseball players than professional football or basketball players?
|
Baseball players tend to have to spend 1-4 years in college, rookie, and minor leagues before they are called up to the show. Most NBA bound athletes are ready right after high school and most NFL bound athletes are ready after 1-3 years of college. Why is it this way? Is the talent gap from lower leagues to MLB that much greater than in other sports? As a baseball fan first and foremost I am curious.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27fg1v/eli5_why_does_it_take_longer_to_develop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci0apoy",
"ci0bmhv"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The average length of a professional baseball player's career is longer than that of an NBA or NFL player, largely because the athletic skills needed don't drop off as dramatically once the player gets into their mid to late 20s.\n\nSo, since a baseball player has a longer career, they can take longer to develop the skills.",
"Baseball players can typically play professionally for longer than NFL or NBA players can -- baseball doesn't take quite the toll on their bodies. Meaning spots in the big leagues don't open up as often, so you may very well have to wait some time, and you may never get called up at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8c7q6n
|
why does burping and exhaling through the mouth sound and feel so different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8c7q6n/eli5_why_does_burping_and_exhaling_through_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxcs4o6",
"dxctkf3"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I would think that is because a burp comes from your stomach but you breath with you lungs. The come from 2 different places",
"What is actually vibrating in a burp? Is it your pyloric sphincter?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5fz8v2
|
why do contractions in writing exist and why do they stop at two words?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fz8v2/eli5_why_do_contractions_in_writing_exist_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dao6n0n",
"dao7jxs",
"dao7vmt",
"daoa192"
],
"score": [
8,
18,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"1st question: Because people are lazy and like to shorten common things.\n\nYou wouldn't've asked your second question if you grew up where I grew up though.",
"They don't stop at two words.\n\nYou shouldn't've made such an assertion, they'd've told you differently if only you'd've asked.",
"Contractions were designed in order to more accurately reflect common speech in writing. Authors like to do try to write in such a way that accents and dialects come through in the text. \n",
"They exist in spoken language because the shorter sound is easier to say while still being understood. That is then reflected in written language, mostly when a writer is showing a conversation. Sometimes that can include contractions of longer phrases, which do appear in some dialects.\n\nFor instance: ''y'a'reet?' would be a contraction of 'are you all right?' which is a common greeting in some parts of northern England."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
43meu4
|
why aren't (most) electronics made with the ability to use multiple types of batteries?
|
I was just replacing batteries in my wireless keyboard, and was wondering why I've never seen something that can use either triple A or double A batteries, or in other instances other types. Is there an actual reason behind this? Would a keyboard be overcharged if it used double A instead of triple A?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43meu4/eli5_why_arent_most_electronics_made_with_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czja2j9",
"czja4y4"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"To make it capable of using both types of batteries would require creating separate battery compartments for each type, as they are different in overall length (AA are longer). When choosing a battery size, the product manufacturer must make a tradeoff between longer battery life (AA) or smaller size (AAA).",
"All of those battery cells are actually very similar, they supply ~1 amp at 1.5 volts. You can use D, C, B AAAA, AAA, AA interchangeably. \n\nExcept, of course, a AAA battery doesn't have much juice in it, whereas a D cell has an assload of juice. You can power a boom box with double A batteries if you connect them to the terminals, it's just that it won't last long. at all.\n\n9 volt batteries are literally 6 AAAA cell batteries in sequence to supply 9 volts of power. A 12 volt lantern battery is similar but with much bigger cells.\n\nIf you use too many volts to power a device, then yeah, you can fry it. But volts just measure the 'strength' of the electricity and not actually the power being used, your phone battery isn't measured in volts it's measured in amp-hours (well, it's a 3.7 volts because it's a lithium ion battery but thats a whole different ball game)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
elsx0f
|
how bugs and maggots eat a dead corpse inside a coffin? how they get in there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/elsx0f/eli5_how_bugs_and_maggots_eat_a_dead_corpse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdjysoa",
"fdjyw1f",
"fdk1oa8"
],
"score": [
27,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most coffins aren't airtight, hermetically sealed, rot-proof structures.\n\nMost of them are wood. Wood eventually rots, and has small ways that small things can get inside.\n\nEven the metal coffins, while less subject to rot, could eventually oxidize and rust away, but that's not even necessary for little crawly things to find an entry inside. Seams and hinges are perfectly large enough for small bugs to get inside.\n\nOnly in the most expensive tombs with gel or silicone hermetical sealants in which a coffin is then laid would be bug-proof, but even then they're not going to be microbe proof and the corpse inside would still rot and decompose. It just might not be eaten by maggots too.\n\nPersonally, I say rot away. Once you're dead the \"person\" you were isn't inside the meat bag you leave behind. Let it be returned to the earth from whence it came. I'm all for Capsula Mundi and similar bio-urn projects.",
"You do have some parasites show up on your surface from your insides, but the vast majority are from the outside.\n\nWe can’t see the really small things in our world without the help of microscopes. Most maggots that show up in coffins are there because they were eggs before the body was buried.\n\nBugs… are literally everywhere.\n\nLet's think about your kitchen.\n\nIf you leave your food out for a few minutes, you might get some bugs.\n\nIf you leave it out a few hours, you for sure have bugs on it.\n\nA day or two? That's super gross.\n\nWe don't bury our dead immediately. Usually, we keep them for a few days before getting buried. It's often the case they aren't hermetically sealed the instant they die. Worst case scenario, they lie in bed before being discovered, they lie on a table while autopsies happen, they lie on another table while they get embalmed and makeup on and they lie in coffins while relatives cry over them. Just after that, they go in the ground.\n\nThis means lots of chances for flies to lay eggs on dead people.",
"They don't most decomposition is from bacteria inside the body at the time of death, maggots and other similar bugs are normally only found on a corpse exposed to the air. - _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/_7Xk8t7pVLM"
]
] |
||
5lpwu5
|
why do many tv advertisements seem to have nothing to do with their products?
|
For example the most recent ad campaigns by Nike and Coca Cola.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lpwu5/eli5_why_do_many_tv_advertisements_seem_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbxkl6l",
"dbxlrxs",
"dbxoc3f",
"dbxwiz2",
"dbxwynh"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Artificial demand inflation through memorable experience, mainly. Ads that matter-of-fact present a product 'the way it is,' don't really stick with you and make you remember that product the next time you're shopping.\n\nImagine if Old Spice commercials were the Proctor & Gamble CEO sitting down with you and having a deadbeat chat about how Old Spice Odor Blocker Body Wash really does fight BO for 16 hours. It's not quite as memorable as Terry Crews screaming it at you, even if Terry Crews can't give you a reasonable representation of the product's quality.",
"Many things are difficult to portray on television - like smells as poly brought up. There is no real way to portray smell through pictures so old spice has terry crews screaming to create some sort of memory for their intended audience.\n\nOther times the product being sold isn't what the obvious. Nike isnt really selling shoes, a comparable shoe from another manufacturer can cost significantly less. Nike is selling an image and that is what they are portraying in their ads.",
" Most advertisers realize that if you are just selling a product to people, then you won't be very successful. What many companies do, is they find something that appeals to people in a great deal emotionally, such as a puppy being adopted, and just slap their brand on a good feeling. Later, when you see that brand or product, you connect the happy feeling of that commercial to the product itself, making you want to buy it. ",
"ads often dont advertise the product itself, but a feeling they want associated with the product.\n\never seen an apple ad? they never focus on the product itself, but on things you can do with it.\n\nor malboro ads - they dont say that their cigarettes are best. they say that by smoking malboro, you are a cowboy/man.",
"They're selling you a lifestyle or experience, not a product. \n\nEver heard of the saying 'Sex sells'? That's why you get adverts like a woman making orgasm sounds while washing her hair. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
18tgaf
|
why is the leaning tower of pisa so revered when by most accounts it could be considered an architectural failure?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18tgaf/eli5_why_is_the_leaning_tower_of_pisa_so_revered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ht328",
"c8ht5e9",
"c8huswx",
"c8huz4e"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
6,
8
],
"text": [
"The tower *is* an architectural failure, but it's also a mind-boggling miracle of physics. There is no good reason why the tower lasted for 800-odd years before serious restoration efforts began...and the first of those may have done more harm than good. \n\nSeriously, nobody's been able to model how the tower remained standing after the tilt passed 4 degrees. \n\nIf you're curious about the architecture, history and physics of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I highly recommend the book [*Tilt* by Nicolas Shrady](_URL_0_), in spite of the gimmicky diagonal shape.\n\n*edit: spelling*",
"For me, the thing that makes it so revered is its uniqueness.",
"Marketing by a small town in Italy with nothing else going for it.",
"It's similar to the Eiffel tower in that regard - the Eiffel tower was, by any standard, an engineering miracle of the time, but was considered by many to be an architectural and artistic abomination completely out of place in a city like Paris. The original contract for its construction stated that it would only remain standing for 20 years and should be built with being easy to take down in mind. However, they quickly changed their minds once the tourist money started rolling in, and it even became the world-renowned symbol of the city that once hated it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/TILT-Skrwed-History-Tower-Pisa/dp/0743229266/ref=la_B001H6MG3A_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361283845&sr=1-2"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4hyfqw
|
why do schools have such a problem with bare shoulders and yoga pants?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hyfqw/eli5_why_do_schools_have_such_a_problem_with_bare/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2tgcfq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It is a professional setting in which you are developing habits that you can use later in life when you are a working adult. Not many jobs are ok with Yoga pants and showing a bunch of skin. This isn't some \"old\" way of thinking. It's common sense, and If you worked on a campus you might understand that there are reasons that rules exist. Yuo would be blown away at the things kids try and wear on campus. Now if we could do something about those girls Volleyball shorts, they seem to have some ultimate loophole somehow. \n\nOn the note of boys and girls. Boys are held to the same standard as girls. Boys cannot wear compression pants/shorts by themselves as well. Recently (I work at a school) I had to send an adult male off campus because his junk was protruding out because he was wearing compression pants while volunteering in a class. Trying to make the argument that it's somehow sexist is way off the mark. \n\nThe better question is, why do parents have no grasp on what is appropriate for a school setting?\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8kqu3x
|
why can people in some cultures survive the cold better than others?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8kqu3x/eli5why_can_people_in_some_cultures_survive_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz9wmbd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because your body adapte to the environment over time. Also you can train yourself to withstand certain temperatures, doesn't matter if extremely cold or hot. As long as you expose yourself to it for a long time your body will find a way too deal with it.\nI can only tell you the example of moist heat. I'm from Europe with moderate weather and dry hot summers. But my fiancee is from Singapore. When I am over at her place I immediately start to sweat because my body is used to do so in order to cool my body down. It would actually make sense, if it wasn't +80% humidity and sweating is good for nothing here. \nMy fiancee and anyone else who grew up under this conditions is used to it. And the body is conditioned to not sweat. After 2 months here my body actually does react the same way.\n\nThe other way around, she cannot produce her own body heat or only very very little. Last winter she was over at my place and we went for a walk during a light snow storm, it was about -5°C, I wrapped her up and me just went in a thick Pullover, sneakers and a beanie. While she already started shivering before we even left the building. \n\nIt all comes down to what you are used to. And with enough time you can adapt to extreme weather conditions too. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
20qgnk
|
what happens when the "color is drained" from my face when i am sick or scared?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20qgnk/eli5_what_happens_when_the_color_is_drained_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg5rt91"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When the flight or fight instinct occurs one of the things that happens is that blood is pulled away from less immediately vital locations and towards your major muscles to prepare for action. For those with light skin, that cause a visibly lighter appearance to the color of the face. The butterflies in the stomach sensation is another similar impact (as digestion is non-vital during a fight)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2wi955
|
why is canned dog food labeled as "not fit for human consumption" if it contains standard human-friendly ingredients like chicken, lamb, rice etc?
|
Not that I want to eat it or anything...just kinda crossed my mind when feeding my dog last night. Just what is it about the food that isn't human-friendly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wi955/eli5_why_is_canned_dog_food_labeled_as_not_fit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cor39a5",
"cor3a7k",
"cor3am2",
"cor3pgw"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it is not inspected in the same way and to the same level of hygiene as human food. The disclaimer lets you know that the FDA doesn't stand behind the food and if you ate it and got sick you would find it very hard to litigate.",
"While the manufacturer will usually try and make sure there's no germs in there, hygiene standards won't be the same as for human foods.\n\nIf you ate it, you'd most likely be fine but if it upset your stomach, you wouldn't be able to sue. That's the prime reason for the warning.",
"The food safety requirements are much lower for pet food processing then the human equilivent. ",
"Animal and livestock food, while consumable or made to be eaten, it isn't prepared to the same safety and consumption standards as food prepared for humans is to be made to.\n\nThe FDA strictly imposes certain guidelines to prevent the transmission of food based illness or allergies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4wb2ic
|
what was the major breakthrough in technology that recently made autonomous cars a possibility for the public?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wb2ic/eli5what_was_the_major_breakthrough_in_technology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d65htnv",
"d65i567",
"d65if5p"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Compute power. An autonomous car needs a computer capable of taking in data from multiple sensors, and making a virtual world out of it in order to \"see\" and process its surroundings so it can make decisions",
"I work in this industry!\n\nOne of the biggest things is just processing power. Coming up with where you want a car to go when you know where the road is, where other cars are, where pedestrians and other obstacles are, what signs are around you, etc, is *relatively* straightforward. Figuring out that a group of pixels from a camera is a person is hard. It takes a lot of computation, and you need to be able to go from a raw camera frame to making a decision in a split second, so you need a fast computer.\n\nAlong with this is the development of better algorithms for solving those problems. The most notable class of algorithms here is neural networks, which really took the industry by storm a few years ago, with the 2012 victory of Alex Krizhevsky's \"AlexNet\" in an image recognition challenge really marking the beginning of the widespread adoption of neural networks for vision processing tasks. This is still a major area of development. Just last November Microsoft Research Asia (MSRA) published a paper on a new approach to neural networks and a couple months ago I attended a conference of robotics researchers where it seemed every group doing vision processing was using that approach already.\n\nOther developments like better sensors help, too. The company I work for has had robotic vehicles (not for public street use, of course) for a couple decades with varying levels of autonomy and functionality. Looking at the older vehicles they had to have some oppressively expensive sensors, especially for things like Lidar, and many of them relied on many-thousand-dollar GPS units. These days as self-driving cars are becoming more popular you see more people buying these sensors, which means that the individual unit costs go down and there's more money funneled into making them better.\n\nThere have also been general improvements in other areas of software, like natural language processing or navigating and re-planning routes, but these are relatively minor. They are the polish on the system that makes it work even better, not the things that were keeping self-driving cars from being a possibility.",
"Machine learning has been rapidly developing over the last years. It's basically what allows an AI to process information similar to how a human does it. There's a long road ahead to sentient AI, but what we have now is pretty much sufficient for driving us around cities. Computers are way better at recognizing objects and predicting their movements than they were several years ago. The algorithms are better.\n\nRemember the recent [Go match](_URL_0_) between an AI and one of the very best humans? Just two years ago everyone thought an AI's victory was at least a decade away. The problem wasn't computational power, it was about the machine not being able to think the way it should to beat a human in a game where you should be a very good player to even understand what's going on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol"
]
] |
||
4xdln2
|
how does amazon control shipping costs if they send packages out one by one?
|
Do they have a special contract with the carriers? I can't understand how I'll order 5 things and get 5 boxes but pay one shipping fee.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xdln2/eli5_how_does_amazon_control_shipping_costs_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6ekkj6",
"d6ellai"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Amazon does it by shipping in bulk as much as possible and having big warehouses near where a lot of deliveries happen. There isn't 5 trucks all going to your house. Once the truck is moving a box, it doesn't cost much more to have more boxes on the truck. They'll ship to warehouses all of the boxes going to that big area, then ship all the boxes going to that city and finally all the boxes going to you. \n\n\nThey also have a bunch of smart programs constantly trying to decide where products will most likely end up being bought, so they have to make the fewest hops to the final customer.",
"Yes large companies sign deals with carries. They pay x amount per year instead of x amount per box shipped. Plus all the other things other commenters have said. Edit they also get to negotiate that deal every year. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6z7047
|
how are traditional old paintings digitalized with such accuracy?
|
For example. The mona lisa. There seems to be no, detail or quality difference between [the original](_URL_0_) and the [pictures on the internet](_URL_1_) (never seen the real one on person)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z7047/eli5_how_are_traditional_old_paintings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmt14c3",
"dmt3mvi"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Digitizing\" a painting is simply taking a good photograph of it--so what you're doing here is comparing one photograph to another.\n\nOf course there are tricks to accurate digitization. The angle needs to be exactly right. You want to make sure that the lighting and color balance is correct. For large paintings you may need to take multiple shots and accurately edit them together. But ultimately it's still photography.\n\nAt the same time, digital images are never quite true to the original, because you few real paintings at different angles and under different lighting conditions. Digital images give you only one kind of perspective.",
"Some companies such as [Cruse] (_URL_0_) make fine art flatbed scanners. These work on the same principle as typical flatbed scanners, but using lower light (since harsh light and UV can damage artworks), and they work more slowly to produce finer results."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://i.imgur.com/Ro1NKfk.jpg",
"https://i.imgur.com/B42aCLl.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://crusescanner.com/"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.