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
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3khkyf | what would china, japan, or wherever do if they wanted to collect u.s. debt? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3khkyf/eli5_what_would_china_japan_or_wherever_do_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuxh1px",
"cuxh1wj",
"cuxh3sf",
"cuxibkf",
"cuxif8t"
],
"score": [
15,
5,
5,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"They would buy the government bonds and then wait for their money. That's how it works. You can't just go, \"Give me my money!\" just like how a bank can't give you a loan and then a week later decide it wants all $200k back. ",
"This phrase basically means they are buying US government bonds. They have a set term at which point the US government repays them with interest.",
"The way the debt is structured they can't simply \"collect\" it.\n\nLike a home loan, the payment schedule is structured. The lender can't demand immediate repayment unless there has been a default.\n\nWhen the US government issues debt, it does so at an interest rate and term it chooses.",
"Sovereign debt generally exists in the form of bonds.\n\nA bond is basically saying \"If you give me $100 today I will repay you $110 five years from now.\" Bonds can't be \"collected\" or \"called in.\" Bonds issued by stable countries like the US have very low interest rates, because the people who buy them are almost guaranteed to be paid. Bonds are issued by governments as a way to raise money, and purchased by banks, corporations, and individuals as a very safe way to grow their money.",
"They would wait.\n\nGov't debt isn't, \"hey, where's that $20 you owe me?\" \n\nYou buy a gov't bond, and it has a very specific timetable when you get your money back. If you want it sooner, you can try to sell it to someone else, but you can't get your loan back any sooner."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
lgdhy | compartmentalization. | In the psychology sense of the word. What is it, and what are the benefits/cons? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lgdhy/eli5_compartmentalization/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2sgsma",
"c2sgsma"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You are going to have to be more [specific.](_URL_0_)",
"You are going to have to be more [specific.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization"
]
] |
|
f9cu68 | why can food or drink of temperatures that are clearly sufficient to scald my lips seem to elicit no pain response whatsoever once within the mouth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f9cu68/eli5_why_can_food_or_drink_of_temperatures_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiqomko"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"When you sip a hot drink, two important things happen; \n\n1. You draw air quickly over the surface of the hot liquid, cooling it more quickly than if the air against the surface were still, and\n\n2. You separate out a much smaller volume of hot liquid than if you were to simply pour it into your mouth like a glass of water. This means that as you spread a small volume of hot liquid over a large area of your mouth, only a small bit of heat gets transferred to any portion of your mouth, ideally not enough to burn you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2obsok | why electricity from fish like electric eel doesn't electrocute everything in sea considering salt water is a good conductor of electricity? | If an electric ray or any other fish sending out electric shocks as a response when attacked, were to be near a ship, would the ship be electrocuted? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2obsok/eli5_why_electricity_from_fish_like_electric_eel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmlmw8g",
"cmlnnvv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you throw a rock into the ocean in california the ripples dont make it to japan. They get smaller each ripple till they are gone. Each time the electricity jumps from one salt molecule to another it gets weaker till theres nothing left. \n\nPure water doesn't conduct electricity at all. Its the salt or impurities in the water that does.",
"Salt water is a pretty lousy conductor of electricity. Its better than non-salt water, but its not an extension chord. There is sufficient loss of electricity through the hops from salt-molecule to salt-molecule that doesn't shock the surroundings. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
edg46m | how efficient are igloos? are they really that helpful for anything other than a fragile shelter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/edg46m/eli5_how_efficient_are_igloos_are_they_really/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbhl7vr",
"fbhlbzf",
"fbhlykl",
"fbhq1y1",
"fbhrkb2"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4,
7,
18
],
"text": [
"Igloos are surprisingly efficient. Ice is an excellent insulator, and helps retain the the heat that is generated inside of the igloo, be it by fire or natural body heat",
"Extremely efficient and effective when made in the correct manner. It’s not just a bunch of ice bricks stacked together. If you fail to construct it right, your ceiling and walls would totally collapse in on you. The Inuit used them fairly often just fine.",
"Define efficient? As a shelter against bitter arctic winds and cold? Very. As a cheap means of shelter? Very. As a way of homesteading over long periods? Not very. For entertaining parties? Not very.",
"Igloos are extremely strong structures (considering that they're just made out of cold water), partly because of the strength of a dome shape, and partly because they're made from a specific kind of dense snow that's been packed tight at a specific temperature. Not all snow can be used for igloos, so the builders are really careful when selecting the snow they cut blocks from. \n\n\nIf the family plans to stay in the igloo for any extended period, they'll usually build a kind of low tunnel as the entrance and exit. This article has a drawing showing how the tunnel is made. The bottom of the tunnel is lower than the floor level of the igloo, and this way, when you push aside the flap that covers the entrance, the heat doesn't get sucked out of the igloo, because it would have to go down in order to exit the igloo, and heat only goes up (hopefully that makes sense): [_URL_2_](_URL_2_) \n\n\nSince the snow blocks have billions of tiny air spaces in them, they make wonderful insulation, and so the inside of an igloo can get to a really comfortable temperature (compared to the outside). You can build a kind of raised bench to use as a bed (since heat rises, making the bed higher than the floor means you're closer to the warm air), lay out some furs to cuddle up in, and light a seal oil lamp or two, and all of that, combined with your body heat, can raise the inside temperature to a very bearable level. Like, not tropical or anything, but when it's 50 below freezing outside, a 40F degree space can feel really nice. \n\n\nIgloos can also be equipped with windows if you like (and you have a good source of clear ice nearby), so you don't have to sit there in the dark. Sometimes you'd cit a piece of ice, and fit it into a hole in the wall, or, if it's not too cold out, you can just cut a hole in the wall and cover it with flaps of animal skins to keep the wind out. \n\n\nIf you're interested, there's a wonderful old documentary series that's considered one of the classic Anthropology films of the 20th century. In this episode you can watch a Netsilik Inuit family making a winter camp and building an igloo: [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)",
"I see a lot of comments here mentioning making an igloo out of ice. This isn't really correct. A proper igloo uses blocks of snow, which has a ton of minuscule air-pockets in them. This makes snow an excellent insulator. You would also prefer to put the entrance tunnel lower than the sleeping space. This way as the air inside the igloo is warmed by your body temperature it rises to the top, and not out of the structure. It also stops cold air from entering. \n\nIn an ideally built igloo one could expect a temperature of about 0 degrees celsius.(32f) And that's a significant improvement if it's say -25 outside.(-13f)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nfb.ca/film/at\\_winter\\_sea\\_ice\\_camp\\_pt\\_1/",
"https://www.nfb.ca/film/at_winter_sea_ice_camp_pt_1/",
"https://boyslife.org/hobbies-projects/projects/6793/how-to-build-an-igloo/"
],
[]
] |
||
9vam23 | what's the biggest difference between judaism and christianity besides the matter of jesus? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vam23/eli5_whats_the_biggest_difference_between_judaism/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9ane7s"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I am Jewish and went to Hebrew school 3 days per week to learn about my religion and prepare for my Bar Mitzvah.\n\nWe learned the biblical stories of Adam, Even, Cain, Abel, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Noah etc. We learned about the holidays - Hanukkah, Passover, Sukkot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Purim.\n\nAll of this content is from the Old Testament, pre-Jesus. In fact we learned nothing about Jesus or his followers or Christianity.\n\nAs for the afterlife, we learned nothing of this. As far as I was taught, Jews do not believe in Heaven or Hell.\n\nJews believe the Messiah will arrive at some point. It's not that we are taught that Jesus is not the Messiah, we are simply not taught anything about him.\n\nSo from my perspective, there are similarities in that both religions share the old Testament, but then move in different directions after those events."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
57dbnl | how are websites able to sell anabolic steroids online when they are a schedule iii drug? | If you do a fast google search for 'buy steroids', there are tons of websites that will ship different kind of anabolic steroids, testosterone, or growth hormones to your door. How is this possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57dbnl/eli5_how_are_websites_able_to_sell_anabolic/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8qz1zj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Its either fake, or they ship it from say mexico, off it gets caught by customs there isn't much the US can do to catch them. If it didn't get caught, enjoy your possibly fake steroids."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
64klvq | would lab grown meat eliminate the risk of certain diseases? | For example, the movie "Antiviral" has entire butchers that specialize in lab-grown meat grown from celebrity cells- would that meat carry the risks of kuru? Would lab grown beef carry the risks of mad cow disease? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64klvq/eli5_would_lab_grown_meat_eliminate_the_risk_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg2wp35",
"dg35o3u"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Not unless the lab growth process is somehow flawed.\n\nKuru and mad cow are diseases caused by [prions](_URL_1_). Prions are misfolded proteins; I ELI5'd them in a previous comment [here](_URL_0_). They're associated with cannibalism because eating the brain of a prion-infected person infects you with the same prion disease.\n\nSimply being a cannibal doesn't mean you're going to get kuru (for example, the men of the cannibal tribes famous for kuru didn't often get the disease, because they ate the muscles while the women ate the brains). So eating lab-grown human meat won't give you kuru simply because it's human meat; it would have to have prions in it.\n\nOn the other hand, it is possible that they develop a flawed procedure for growing lab-grown meat, that as the proteins grow some of them misfold into prions. That would mean a risk of a prion disease like kuru. But I would hope that such a flaw would be identified and fixed before the procedure gets FDA approval.",
"One thing to keep in mind though, is that even though the source might be clean, the handling after that point isn't always clean.\n\nFor instance, it is generally okay to eat steak that is rare or medium rare, but that isn't a good idea for hamburger. Why is that the case when they are both cow meat products?\n\nThe answer is that the cow meat itself is tested and usually comes out clean, however the manner in how it is packaged/handled is unclean.\n\nFor a steak, only the outside layer of the meat touches packaging equipment, plastics, and meat-cutters hands. Therefore, as long as the outside layer is cooked, it is generally safe to eat.\n\nFor hamburger, the outside layer is touched by equipment/plastics/hands, and then it is ground up, so the outside layer can be anywhere on the inside. Because of that, you should cook the entire hamburger thoroughly to make sure it is safe to eat.\n\nWith lab grown meat, the meat will most likely be clean, but how it is handled might necessitate certain cooking practices. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41na21/eli5_why_is_cannibalism_detrimental_to_the_body/cz3pcya/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion"
],
[]
] |
|
7418mb | why can't you use a co2 extinguisher for paper fires? | Just noticed this [tag](_URL_0_) on an extinguisher and wondered why you can't use CO2 extinguisher on paper or textile fires. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7418mb/eli5_why_cant_you_use_a_co2_extinguisher_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnunpz7",
"dnuo1vn"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n\"Carbon Dioxide is a non-flammable gas that extinguishes fire by displacing oxygen, or taking away the\noxygen element of the fire triangle. The carbon dioxide is also very cold as it comes out of the\nextinguisher, so it cools the fuel as well. CO2s may be ineffective at extinguishing Class A fires\nbecause they may not be able to displace enough oxygen to successfully put the fire out. Class A\nmaterials may also smolder and re-ignite.\"",
"Good answers so far citing the fact that the paper could easily reignite when the C02 dispersed. Additionally, pressure released from a C02 extinguisher could also blow around the paper, keeping it from extinguishing at all and/or starting fires elsewhere of it reignites."
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/WXCPlrh"
] | [
[
"https://www.uregina.ca/hr/hsw/assets/docs/pdf/Emergency-Management/The-ABCs-of-Fire-Extinguishers.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
5pyw6r | what protects the united states from becoming a dictatorship? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pyw6r/eli5_what_protects_the_united_states_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcuwxft",
"dcux13t",
"dcuysg9"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"When it boils down to it, the armed forces.\n\nThey have taken a sworn oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. If they are given orders that conflict with that prime directive, they are obligated to refuse those orders. For the POTUS to become a dictator, he needs the support of the armed forces and the vast majority of them would refuse to follow.",
"Theoretically, there are checks and balances on the President and term limits that prevent a dictatorship. In reality, when you reach the point where the President can lie without consequences, pack the government with cronies, silence dissenting opinions, and convince people to distrust in basic facts, then we have reached the state of a *de facto* dictatorship.",
"The Second Amendment.\n\nYou think the Civil War in Syria is bad? That only happened because the US armed its rebels.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4no5p9 | how does a camera know when the image is focused? | When you half-press the shutter, the camera adjusts and you physically see the image become slightly less / slightly more focused until it's done - how does it know that what it's showing you isn't blurry? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4no5p9/eli5_how_does_a_camera_know_when_the_image_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"d45jl2t",
"d45p97f",
"d45qgcf",
"d45uval"
],
"score": [
197,
10,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"3 main ways: \n \nContrast Detection Auto-Focus (good enough) \nPhase Detection Auto-Focus (best) \nLaser Auto-Focus (eh) \n \nWhen the camera picks what the objects it needs to focus on: \n \nContrast Detection looks for the focus level where there is the most contrast (difference between white and black), as that means there is no blurriness, where they fade into each other. \n \nPhase Detection splits the light into 2+ beams and each beam goes into 2 sensors, and both sensors are focused until they are both \"in-phase\": \n > When the light reaches these two sensors, if an object is in focus, light rays from the extreme sides of the lens converge right in the center of each sensor...Both sensors would have identical images on them, indicating that the object is indeed in perfect focus. \n \nLaser Autofocus is just sonar with light, a beam of light is emitted from the camera and the time is takes for the light to bounce back to the sensor is used to determine the focus. ",
"One qyick an dirty way to do it is calculate the standard deviation of an image, the peak SD will be the point at which the entire image is most focussed... kinda...\n We've used it as a video focussing aid at work because it was quick to implement, but it is a tad \"street\".\n\n",
"It measures the contrast of the image and changes the focus until it reaches a peak; it then locks the focus.",
"I would like to see this explained in true ELI5 fashion.. Something that just doesn't happen anymore. A creative analogy, perhaps, to something a 5 year old would understand. Is anyone up for the challenge? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3x6b1w | why are the little "do not attempt" warnings on many commercials necessary? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x6b1w/eli5why_are_the_little_do_not_attempt_warnings_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy1woc5",
"cy1x0bz"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Many companies are worried that, if a person replicates the events of a commercial and gets injured, they will be sued for having encouraged that behavior. Although the chance anyone would succeed in such a lawsuit is very unlikely, a suit itself is expensive and attracts bad press. The lawyers these companies retain usually advise \"better safe than sorry\" and encourage piling up the disclaimers.",
"In addition to the lawyer stuff you'll read, people have tried to copy stunts they see in movies or TV shows like \"Jackass\" not realizing the planning that went into the stunt, and the safety measures taken (usually outside of the shot). Too many people believe what they see in a movie or show and think \"heck, I could do that, too\" and then there's a sad end.\n\nHere's an old joke that helps illustrate: What are a rednecks final words? Hey ya'll, watch this!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5huoi2 | why do teachers in high school want essays to be double-spaced when all the essays students have done before have always been single-spaced? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5huoi2/eli5_why_do_teachers_in_high_school_want_essays/ | {
"a_id": [
"db353if",
"db353wt",
"db35436",
"db356wb",
"db3607t"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Double spacing allows more room for in-line editing and comments, which allows for better feedback on the assignment which in turn aids the student. It is also a little easier to read (compared to no spacing) when many essays need to be read in one sitting, although 1.5 spacing is probably enough to make reading more comfortable ",
"They typically have you double-space the essay as this is what is expected in college and in professional settings so it is good practice",
"As a teacher, I have my students double space essays because it makes it easier to edit/write comments in as I grade because there is more space. ",
"Generally, double-spacing an essay allows an easy margin for teachers to write comments in where they can be placed directly under the words in question (as opposed to putting comments in the side margins, which can be confusing). It can also improve readability for certain essays, especially if unnecessarily verbose language is used or the student spells poorly.\n\nIt can *sometimes* be used to check to see if a student has used an \"essay-extending\" trick like increasing the size of periods by one font point. But as someone who has to grade papers like this: trust me, these tricks aren't going to help you.",
"It simply makes the essays easier for the reader to read and mark for corrections. It's easier on the eyes when you have to read 30+ thousand word essays when you have space between the lines. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
et54lm | why companies trying to build flying cars when small helicopters already exist? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/et54lm/eli5_why_companies_trying_to_build_flying_cars/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffe8ne4",
"ffe8pjy"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's easy to make something FAA compliant it's not easy to make something for the road, because of you crash an airplane airbags mean nothing .\n\nI would imagine they are masking engineering advancements and hiding them under the guise of flying'\n\nAlso engineers like airplanes",
"Helicopters are the most difficult flying machine to learn to fly, by quite a bit. The expectation that you might get 1M people to learn to fly them so you can sell them a vehicle is quite unlikely. The idea of a \"flying car\" is that it handles the \"flying\" autonomously, like an RC Drone, so that the person only has to learn to steer it around. That's a product you could sell a million of.\n\nDon't forget AeroMobil and Terrafugia, they've got flying prototypes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9r7mdy | why does a (nonelectric) train theoretically have to be on tracks? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9r7mdy/eli5_why_does_a_nonelectric_train_theoretically/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8etkhh",
"e8eu7c0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A flat highway or road would require steering. Tracks and rails mean you don’t have to worry about steering the train, just adjusting speed.",
"A tram is an in between really. Olden days they were horse drawn and asome steam powered.\n\nPart of the idea of railways is to create a direct rapid transport system. Fairly direct routes, predefined stops, timetable that isn’t affected by people (more cars on the road in rush hour, more cars on the road in rainy/bad weather). You put that train on the road and you join everything that the railway is trying to avoid. \n\nYou become subject to traffic jams,\nVarying routes,\nPeople requesting stops along the route."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2ttbqa | why do games have an unnecessarily large case, compared to the size of a disk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ttbqa/eli5_why_do_games_have_an_unnecessarily_large/ | {
"a_id": [
"co24wlf",
"co24zub",
"co250x0"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So the box have more room for print and is more visible in the store. It's all about marketing.",
"Bigger cases are harder to slip into your pocket and walk off with.",
"If you're talking PC games it's a holdover from when the manual was 250 pages and the game was on twelve 5.25\" floppies ... you needed a big box. Also the idea of selling software was new to a lot of people. A big physical object helped sell a game that only exists when your computer is turned on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
691swr | if ph is used to measure acidity, why is it named "power of hydrogen"? | What does hydrogen have to do with acidity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/691swr/eli5_if_ph_is_used_to_measure_acidity_why_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh30mnv",
"dh30t78",
"dh30w7g"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"An acid is a solution that contains a relatively large percentage of H+ ions compared to normal water (or a molecule that donates these H+ ions). As a result. pH shows the concentration of the hydrogen ions in moles per liter, is 10^(-pH). Hence why the H denotes hydrogen. These H+ ions really like to steal electrons from other molecules, which is why acidity is generally corrosive.",
"Acids are substances that, for lack of a better term, donate hydrogen ions to other substances. pH is the negative logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions. So, the lower the pH number, the greater the concentration of hydrogen ions.",
"Acidity is measured by the presence of Hydrogen ions [H+].\n\nWater [H-O-H] always exists in equilibrium with some of its ions [H+] and [OH-]. When you have an acid or a base mixed in with the water, the balance between the [H+] and the [OH+] will be skewed towards more of one than the other.\n\npH is defined as the negative logarthm of the [H+] concentration. pH = -log [H+]. \n\nJust plain water usually has a pH of 7 ([H+] = 10^(-7) M, [OH-] = 10^(-7) M). An acidic solution will have a lot more [H+] ... but since it is a negative logarithm, then it will have a lower pH. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4aluc0 | what are delegates? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aluc0/eli5_what_are_delegates/ | {
"a_id": [
"d11i7an",
"d11icg3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > What determines the amount of delegates per state?\n\nThe national party makes those determinations.\n\n > What do delegates do other than vote for the presidential nominee? Or is it a one-time thing?\n\nThey vote for the nominee as well as vote on the rules of the party and the party's platform.\n\n > How do we vote for a delegate?\n\nYou don't, you vote for the candidate you want.\n\n > I want to vote for candidate A, how can I choose a delegate that will do so?\n\nYou vote for the candidate. If that candidate wins, or gets enough of your state's vote, a certain number of delegates will be pledged to vote for that candidate at the convention.\n\n > Why can't we just have a direct democracy?\n\nBecause primary elections are set up according to the rules of the political parties and the political parties want it run by the delegates. This also allows the delegates to conduct the other business of the political party at the convention, like voting on the party platform.",
"Delegates are a feature of the Republic and Democratic process for nominating a candidate for president. They attend their party's national convention.\n\n > What determines the amount of delegates per state?\n\nThe party does. The parties give more delegates to the more populous states, but it's also a question of politics. State parties that are liked by the national committee get rewarded, while those that break the rules for primaries get some of their delegates taken away.\n\n > What do delegates do other than vote for the presidential nominee? Or is it a one-time thing?\n\nDelegates also participate in development of the party platform and other procedural questions at the nomination, but they are not big political questions in the way you might have in mind.\n\n > How do we vote for a delegate?\n\nThe primary election is organized by your state and the state-level party; it depends on where you live.\n\n > I want to vote for candidate A, how can I choose a delegate that will do so?\n\nYour candidate's name will be on the ballot. The delegates are pledged to vote according to the result of the primary election in their state.\n\n > Why can't we just have a direct democracy?\n\nBecause your party doesn't want one. In part the delegate system is a legacy of the traditional logistical problems in U.S. politics, but it's also a useful way for the national party to interact with the state-level party structures. Getting people from across the country in a building every once in a while is healthy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2dd3m9 | how do testicles work? | Why do they hurt so bad when hit? How do they produce semen?
Just was curious always had them never known how exactly they work haha. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dd3m9/eli5_how_do_testicles_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjockl6",
"cjokzou"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert, besides having a pair of them all my life. But I think the pain thing is likely an evolutionary device to tell us that they are one of the most important parts of our body, in terms of procreating and carrying on the species. \n\nJust think about it, if our balls weren't sensitive to pain, we wouldn't protect them so much, which might mean that they get damaged and then we may not be able to reproduce. \n\n\nAs I understand it, they hang below the body because sperm is produced better at temperatures below normal body temperature. ",
"It hurts more than getting hit in any other organ because they are not very protected. The rest of your organs (for the most part) are protected by bone, cartilage, body fat, skin, meat, etc.. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bl0t8k | open vs closed system? | I know that open systems can interact with other systems and closed does the opposite, but what does that really mean? Can you please give me an example.
Thanks!
Edit: In terms of computer systems (Information System Structure) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bl0t8k/eli5_open_vs_closed_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"emkpd04",
"emkqep6"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"In chemistry, open systems are reactions that can be influenced by matter coming in from outside the system. Think about a campfire, it’s an open system because it’s reacting with Oxygen being brought in from outside the system.\n\nA closed system is a system where no matter from outside the system can enter the system to react. Think about mixing chemicals in a beaker with a covered lid, so that only the chemicals in the beaker are involved in the reaction.\n\nImportantly, both open and closed systems allow heat to enter or exit the system from outside the system (defined as the whole universe except the system). A system where neither matter nor heat/energy can enter the system from the outside, sort of a superclosed system, is called an isolated system.",
"**Open system:** Windows can be installed on pretty much any hardware, third party developers can make modifications to it (e.g., by making a computer game that runs on Windows), and Windows can interact with other types of operating systems (e.g., MacOS).\n\n**Closed system:** The US government develops a system to control the launch of nuclear weapons. They want it to only work on official hardware, they don't want anyone else to make any modifications to it, and they don't want it to interact with any other systems. \n\nThese are relative terms. Linux is more open than Windows, which is more open than MacOS. \n\nAs a bonus, **open source** means there is a license that says anyone can study, change, or distribute software for any purpose. It's the ultimate open system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
45yvk2 | what is a foreclosed homes and how does buying one work? | Every Web page I've researched hasn't explained foreclosures too well. Most of the time it only talks about missed payments and the bank repossessing the house and to go see a banker about qualifying for a loan. So I'm kind of looking for actual answers on what this foreclosure process is. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45yvk2/eli5_what_is_a_foreclosed_homes_and_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"d01437q"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"So when someone buys a house, they get a loan from a bank. If they don't pay the loan, the bank takes the house from them. Usually the bank then hires a Realtor and sells the home at a more-than-fair price in order to make as much of their money back as possible. For the most part, it's the same as buying any other house, except that the bank probably won't make any repairs or negotiate on price. Sometimes it even just goes to auction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2cdmvn | how can we see the milky way if we are inside it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cdmvn/eli5_how_can_we_see_the_milky_way_if_we_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjef3a2",
"cjefelk",
"cjegp2u"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"We are on one of the spiral arms, about two-thirds of the way out. [This image](_URL_1_) should do a good job of giving you an idea of where we are. \n\nWhen we \"see the Milky Way\", we're actually seeing the rest of it from our position in the galaxy. That is, we're seeing the centre. In that image I linked, imagine that you were looking upwards. You can see other spiral arms from the galaxy, but most of it is the star cluster at the centre. \n\nEdit: [Here](_URL_0_) is a really great image of what the Milky Way \"looks like\" from Earth. You can see the very shape of the centre of the galaxy, as well as the edges stretching away either side. We are just part of its edge. ",
"We don't know for certain what the Milky Way looks like from the outside, the images we usually see are educated guesses and not the actual milky way ",
"How can you see the ocean when you swim in it?\n\nAnswer: you can't see all of it, but you get a good look at the nearby parts.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/629/cache/each-star-we-see-has-planet_62943_600x450.jpg",
"http://blog.loukavar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/You-are-here.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2olec2 | what were the ideas behind communism and in a society with so much excess does it make more sense? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2olec2/what_were_the_ideas_behind_communism_and_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmo8vn1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Marxism revolves around the idea of control of means of production. In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie (uppermiddle exmerchantile class) controls the means of production by owning for example, factories, and access to raw materials. They hold the lower working class ( proletariat) economically captive, and treat them as a simple commodity of labour. The bourgeoisie need the proletariat as labour in their factories, and so pay them the smallest amount possible for their continued survival, and thus continued work. The bourgeois at the same time collects extravagant profits, with very little effort- the automobile his workers toil to make serves only him as profit, because of his monopoly on the means of production. Obviously the proletariat based on this system can never challenge the bourgeois because he will never be in the economic position to do so. This is the world Marx saw, put simply. This is what fueled the revolution, where Lenin et al. Fueled a uprising of the proleteriot against the bourgeois and the aristocrats. \n\nJuxtaposed to this was socialism, or communism (different concepts but along the same spectrum) - everyone works as hard as they can, and then pools their resources so everyone lives amicably. Consider the maxim \"from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.\" Everyone controls the means of production because no 'one' does, and everyone benefits from the output. That's tje conceptual basis of it.\n\nId recommend obviously the communist manifesto as a good starting point, but State and Revolution - Vladimir Lenin and Revolution Betrayed- Leon Trotsky are great contemporary texts. There are many economic texts on the subject but I personally focus on the politics. \n\nSource: political studies \n/history student "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
85ihh3 | how do submarines resurface, or go up in general? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85ihh3/eli5how_do_submarines_resurface_or_go_up_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvxmuxz",
"dvxrqmr",
"dvxwhnz",
"dvxxawg",
"dvxxf2q",
"dvxxoly",
"dvxzn7z",
"dvy0vk5",
"dvy1yrr",
"dvy21bx",
"dvy4wqt",
"dvy55f0",
"dvy766k",
"dvy9sx8",
"dvya0rb",
"dvygpph",
"dvylgc9",
"dvymde9",
"dvyoc66"
],
"score": [
17,
1039,
6,
2,
59,
3,
209,
5084,
5,
20,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They have tanks filled with sea water that makes them heavy enough to go down. \nSo to go up, they blow air into those tanks, forcing the sea water out, making the boat lighter, thus going up.\n\nTo go down again, they let the sea water back into the tanks.\n\nEdit1: They used to have 2 types of air to put into those tanks.\nWhen they weren't in a hurry they would use 10 pound blowers to push low pressure air into the tanks. When they needed it done faster, they used 600 pound high pressure air they stored in cylinders. Since they couldn't easily replenish that high pressure air at sea\n\nEdit2: Nowadays they do it in reverse: They use the high pressure systems to get most of the way up, then use the low pressure systems for the last part. That's because they can now easily replenish the high pressure air when surfaced",
"Think of a sub like an airplane, and the water as air. Subs have what are called dive planes, which are essentially wings and can be rotated much like the flaps on an airplane. Unless there is a major emergency, a sub always \"drives\" itself to the surface. The high pressure air is what's called the emergency blow system, and is only used in an emergency.\n\nSource: naval shipyard pipe fitter. I'm not an actual submariner but have been on, under and in many of these things. ",
"Submarines are airplanes for the water. The basic principles are the same but the terminology is different. For example instead of altitude you say depth. The control planes in conjunction with the ballast tanks control depth.",
"Ballast tanks to weight down.\nAft planes to change depth.\nForeplanes to maintain depth.\n\nPropulsion and aftplanes get you to the surface. Emergency blows just help point your nose in the right direction in a hurry.\n\n",
"Is it still true that submarines can't come to a complete dead stop under water like in the movies? I was told they had to maintain forward movement at all Times.\n\n",
"In order to dive a submarine a set of tanks are free flooded with water. This is what initially gets the sub down. \nAs others have alluded to, the planes can also be used to control depth and these function in a manner similar to that of airplane wings.\n\nWhen under water the buoyancy of the submarine can be affected by density of the surrounding water, so additional tanks can take on water to maintain neutral buoyancy. \nIt is not possible to surface a submarine only by emptying these tanks, but the sub can be brought close to the surface with these tanks. \nThese tanks are typically emptied using pumps.\n\nIn order to surface the submarine, the free flooding tanks that were filled to dive the submarine are the tanks that get emptied. \nThese tanks have safety features that always maintain a configuration that allows the submarine to surface or remain on the surface. \nThe tanks are emptied by blowing high or low pressure (depending on depth) air into them and forcing the water out leaving the submarine too light to remain underwater. ",
"Source: was sub officer\n\nSubmarines use both buoyancy control (levels of air/ water (and even poop and oil) in various tanks) and their dive planes (wings like an airplane) to control depth. They can use one or both depending the mission/ reason for surfacing. It a complex dance, however, because the fine tuning of the buoyancy is slow to react and changes with water temp and how much the dive planes work depends on how fast the submarine is moving. \nFor periscope operations, you generally try to get the buoyancy neutral, or slightly negative, and control depth with just enough speed for the planes to work. (Slightly negative because it's better to sink the scope than pop up and be seen)\n",
"Replying as a serving submariner, so trying to use ELI5 terms:\n\nThe vast majority of depth changes are done using hydroplanes. Try keeping your hand flat (horizontal) and push it through water in your sink. It should move easily and you won't feel any push up or down.\n\nNow do the same with your hand tilted upwards - you should feel a push up on the bottom of your hand.\n\nBy pushing themselves through the water using various means, and by altering the angle of their hydroplanes, the subs can dive or come shallow as they need.\n\nMany submarines have two sets of hydroplanes, one at the forward end and one at the aft (rear) end. The forward set of planes are the ones that primarily change depth, and the aft ones are used to control the boat's 'trim' (think angle of the boat with respect to the ground). You can still control the boat's depth using the aft ones if you had a problem with the forward ones though. \n\nNow, what we haven't covered yet is buoyancy. The sub's weight changes as depth changes - the deeper you are, the denser you are as the boat gets squeezed tighter by the additional water above us. So you get this effect where if you're heavier than you should be, you might start going deep. This makes you compress, get more dense, and start going deep quicker etc etc. \n\nNot good. \n\nTo counteract this, the Sub control team try and keep the buoyancy of the boat as close to neutral as possible - if we go a bit shallow, we bring some water into some of the tanks in the submarine, and if we go deeper we pump some water out, keeping us neutral. \n\nYou could use this effect to surface, but the pumps are pretty slow as they have to fight against sea pressure. It would take some time. \n\nIf you have an emergency and want to just get to the surface NOW, you can push out lots of water from tanks outside the submarine using high pressure air stored in large bottle groups. This will make us very buoyant and help get us to the surface, but uses up air which we can't get back until we have surfaced. Nothing beats having propulsion and planes to get us to the surface - if we were flooding and super-heavy, pointing up and pushing hard will get us back up there. \n\nThere are various systems that work in different ways involving these three methods - planes, pumping water and using high pressure air - but without going into (sometimes classified) detail these are the basic principles behind all of them. \n\nEdit: clarified a sentence, and thanks for the gold! Now the wife thinks I'm Internet famous! (she does not use reddit despite my continued supply of r/aww pictures)",
"U.S. submarines have 2 sets of wings (fairwater planes, stern planes). By propelling with the screw, basic hydrodynamics drive depth (water moves around planes). To assist with depth submarines also have ballasting features to either preferentially sink/rise/float by moving water in and out of multiple tanks inside. In emergencies, a high pressure air system allows rapid rise to the surface (under certain conditions).\n\nTLDR; Manta ray wings + propulsion, moving air in/out, moving water in/out allows changes in depth and surfacing/diving.\n\nSource: Was submariner",
"There are two things going on.\n\nFirst, lets talk about the small boats. Small submarines, little research vessels. For example, Alvin. They build the submarine to be \"neutrally buoyant\", that is, it won't sink or float, just stay where you put it in the water column. \n\nUse a small tank of air to stay floating, and then they fill that tank. when they fill the tank, the boat sinks. To surface, Alvin has some ballast it will drop, and the boat becomes buoyant again, and comes to the surface. \n\nFor \"Big submarines\", they're flown, much like airplanes. They rarely sit still, and fly. Going up and down, is done with dive planes, on the front and rear of the ship. That's the \"first\" way that they control their depth.\n\nYou'll notice that big submarines sit WAY above the water when they're on the surface. This is because they have really big tanks to provide flotation. To go under water, they fill those tanks with water. This is the second way they control their depth.\n\nNow those big boats can change their weight quite a bit. People and machinery move around a lot too. Also, the density of water changes, both with temperature, salinity, and somewhat, depth. The big submarines have trim tanks, and ballast systems to keep the boat veritcal (an even keel), and level horizontally (fore and aft). Those trim tanks, also allow the boat to chose to rise, or submerge without moving forward. \n\nAs long as the boat is moving, most controls are done with the dive planes. \n\nHopefully that's ELI5 enough. \n\n\n\n ",
"Subs have all kinds of holding tanks on them. Many of them hold water that is used as ballast to maintain whatever buoyancy they desire. There are also pressurised air flasks that hold the air used to push water out of those tanks when they want to be lighter. They use a combination of that system and using their planes and forward propulsion to set their depth.\n\nEdit: I realized you said resurface and not change depth. There are also tanks called main ballast tanks that are open to the ocean on the bottom and have valves on top that open and close. They are similar to the aforementioned tanks which are actually called trim tanks. The MBT are filled with air when on the surface with the valves closed and when it dives the valves are opened allowing water to flood the tanks from the open bottom. When a sub surfaces it will drive to near the surface like I wrote before but then it will close the MBT valves and refill the MBT with air allowing the sub to surface. ",
"There's actually two answers to two different questions. General submerged operations use a combination of control surfaces (stern planes back aft and fairwater/bow planes up forward) and speed to change depths. Water is pumped on or off to fine adjust the overall weight of the boat, so that it can maintain depth without the need of control surfaces.\n\nFor submergence and surfacing, there are giant ballast tanks with vents forward and aft. On the surface, the vents are shut, and the tanks are (mostly) empty to provide buoyancy. When submerging, the vents are opened, and the tanks are allowed to fill. This massive change in weight is the rough adjust for buoyancy and allowed the boat to submerge. When resurfacing, air is blown in the tanks displacing the air and making the boat buoyant again. \n\nSource: former submariner",
"There are many different kinds of submarines. Most use [dive planes](_URL_1_), which are like fins on fish. If they are tilted down, the submarine goes down. If they are tilted up, the submarine goes up... provided the submarine is going forward at the time.\n\nOther submarines use [ballast tanks](_URL_0_). They fill the tanks with water when they want to sink, and fill them with air when they want to surface.\n\nStill other types of submarines (mostly research and maintenance subs and robotic submarines ) have thrusters. These are small propellers that point down when they want to go up, or point up when they want to go down. Some thruster types pivot to push the submarine where they want it to go. Other thruster types are fixed in position and the submarine will have many of these pointing in various directions. \n\nMost submarines and submersibles use a combination of these things to control their vertical motion. For example, I was in a tourist submarine in the Caribbean a while back. They used ballast tanks to get the submarine to a point of having a small positive buoyancy and then used thrusters to push us underwater. The point behind that was that if the power failed, the sub would naturally float to the surface. They also had ballast plates, huge chunks of steel, that they could jettison if all else failed.",
"I’m an actual Submariner, qualifies the watch station of Diving Officer of the Watch (I control our depth among other things) if you guys would like some info... the “driving to the surface” answer is partially correct but we control our buoyancy with water tanks and air as well depending on what the boat needs to do. \n\nSource: Qualified in Submarines and stationed aboard USS GEORGIA (SSGN 729)",
"US Navy submariner; 1962 - 1970. Qualified on two diesel boats, two nukes. Got out, got engineering degree, worked as shipyard engineer 18 years; all work on submarines. \n\nIn general; a submerged submarine is near neutral buoyancy. Depth control is with planes. When a submarine does a normal surface high pressure air is blown into the ballast tanks. Not enough to get all the water out, but enough to get positive buoyancy. HP air takes time to make using compressors. Once on the surface and main induction or snorkel is in air a low pressure blower is used to completely blow the sea water out of the ballast tanks. There are other tanks used for trim, but this is the basic method. There are a bunch of more details for an emergency blow.\n ",
"I'm going to explain like your five.\nThere's big tanks inside the sub that take on water to sink the sub.\nWhen emptied the sub rises again.",
"Submarines have ballast tanks. The tanks are filled with water to go down. when they want to go up, they flush air into the ballast tanks, making it go up. \n\nTo control elevation (up and down angle) they have hydroplanes on the aft and bow. They raise and lower the hydroplanes to control the angle of elevation. Using the propeller shaft they can control how quickly the submarine raises and lowers. \n\nAdditionally, an \"emergency blow\" is when they fill the ballast tanks and go into the highest elevation possible to get up as quickly as possible. That's how subs \"leap\". (_URL_0_) \nIn the same sense, there is a crash dive, to get to the bottom as quickly as possible. same thing happens in reverse by filling it with water and turning the hydroplanes all the way down.\n\n*This is like a ELI3 ",
"I know many people have already answered but I am going to try to go even more five years old and address large military style and small commercial submersibles. \n\nFirst off everything has density. In a complex way that is its mass compared to is volume, or simply how heavy it feels to how big it is. Think about a bag of feathers and a bag of rocks, the rocks would feel heavier even though they are the same size because they are more dense. So now think about a bubble of air in water and a rock. Air less dense rises, rock more dense so sinks. \n\nThen there is the concept of buoyancy, or how well something will float in water. Back to the air and rock, the air is more buoyant than the water because it is less dense and the rock sinks because it is more. So what if you could adjust your density, then you would be able to adjust your rising and falling, right? Problem is that is quite difficult to do, so what if we adjusted your buoyancy instead. So take that air and put it in a balloon, it’ll still rise to the surface, but what if little by little you could add rocks to it? Then you would be able to slow down how fast it goes up, or make it stay at a certain depth, or even make the balloon go down. This brings us to...\n\nThe basic principal by which a submarine rises and falls is by having large tanks, called ballast tanks, that are full of air on the surface and to go down in the water fill themselves, and to rise use the air that was compressed by the water to empty the tanks. Think about how if you are in a pool and slowly breath out underwater you sink and imagine if you could then refill your lungs you would rise back up. \n\nThat is the principal by which all submersibles rise and sink not by becoming more or less dense but by becoming lighter or heavier than something that would rise or sink in the water. There are other more complex elements to buoyancy but this is ELI5 not AskScience. \n\nThat is the general principal but on certain craft they can control their ascent and descent with hydroplanes. These are basically like submarine wings. If you think about when you aren’t driving and you put your hand out of the window and keep it flat palm down it just stays where it is but if you point your fingers down your hand is pushed down, or fingers up push your hand up, that is the same idea. The air moving over your hand meets resistance and to counter that resistance your hand moves. The same idea applies with planes, or here, submarines. The propellers of the submarine push the submarine forward so when a submarine has these hydroplanes it can angle them to change that forward movement, like your hand in the car, upwards or downwards. Without the forward movement the submersible would move neither up nor down. Again this is far more complex and involves the conservation of energy but that’s for AskScience. \n\nLastly, two things you may have heard of in movies, “crash dive” and “emergency surface”, these are, as the name implies, to be used only in emergencies. Both involve the change in ballast and the the propellor to very rapidly move the submarine one way or another. Crash five just angles the dive plane down at a high degree with a rapid taking on of ballast, the emergency surface is the dive plane up at a high degree and using special reserve air tanks to flush the water out of the ballast chambers nearly immediately. The second one is when you see a submarine come flying out of the water in movies. Normally they surface more akin to a crocodile sticking its head out of the water. \n\nSo, simply put after the submarine goes down by letting water into special tanks on the side it goes up by pushing it out. \n\nThere is far more to this in complexity than I’ve laid out here but that’s for when you feel like tackling /r/AskScience. ",
"As another former submariner, it's worth mentioning that oftentimes we (as submariners) get a \"lies to children\" level of explanation as to *why* the things we do work. Which is to say an explanation that is technically incorrect but leads to the same assumptions about operating the actual machine that would cause it to be operated correctly in 99.9% of all cases. It isn't really apparent that we've been taught wrong until/unless we try to go into that field in the civilian side. \n\nThat being said, here's my version of the ELI5 for how this actually works. \n\nSubmarines, like normal ships, are buoyant. On the outside the ship they have big tanks the fill with water to a point that the submarine is neutrally buoyant. At that point, the submarine *can* sink. \n\nIn order to submerge the submarine, the \"planes\" (hydroplanes) are angled downward, much like an airplane's wings, such that more water flows over them than under them. This causes the force of water (from the submarine moving forward through it) to submerge the ship. In order to resurface the ship, generally the planes are merely angled the opposite direction, gradually surfacing the ship. It's worth mentioning that this is dependent on the ship having propulsion; in the absence of any other factors, if the ship has no propulsion it doesn't go anywhere (it actually generally sinks because our \"neutral buoyancy\" is a little on the heavy side but that doesn't matter for this discussion). \n\n\"Neutral Buoyancy\" is a constant process- at any given moment a senior watchstander is maintaining this as a primary duty by moving water from tank to tank and taking more on or more off based on the current heading and level of the ship. These can change due to a variety of factors, including what depth we intend to maintain, what temperature the water is at, and whether we will be moving any non-water weight in the ship soon (or have already moved it). \n\nThere is one other method of surfacing, called the \"main ballast tank blowm,\" which results in [the rather more impressive, whale-like surfacing you see in movies.](_URL_0_) This is not routine. The main ballast tanks are large, partially external (in between the main pressure hull and the exterior hull of the submarine) tanks that contain the bulk of the water used to submerge the ship. These tank levels are maintained by passively flooding or draining the tank by regulating pressure; they have a bottom \"drain\" and a top \"vent\" and as long as the ship is mostly level the tank level remains the same. The emergency blow works by shutting the vent and then injecting several thousand psi of air into the void in short order, which forces the bulk of the water out as well as generating a very large air bubble. The change in volume moves the ship upwards. \n\nThe emergency blow with whale-like surfacing only happens very close to the surface; its effects are less impressive deeper down. It is, as the name implies, for emergencies (and demonstrations) only. \n\nHope this helps, please send another message if something I said didn't' make sense, with the added caveat that my own understanding is only a *little* better than the base ELI5 level since this wasn't my job. ;)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/tech/dive_animation03.gif",
"http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/tech/plane_animation03.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yas33x6iutQ"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/eOqalX5FJ2c"
]
] |
||
g1n6j2 | what is a debt market? what opportunities and advantages are being talked about here? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1n6j2/eli5_what_is_a_debt_market_what_opportunities_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"fngl8wm",
"fngwee3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Debt market\" is just a catch-all term to describe the buying and selling of debt. When people talk about the debt markets, they're usually referring to banks, who will lend money to companies. It also refers to the bond markets, where bonds are bought and sold by investors.",
"Let's say I had a magic box that spit out $1000 every month for 30 years. How much would you pay for it? Probably not $360,000, but it might be worth half that to you. \n\nWell, that's what a mortgage or business loan looks like to a bank. They have to pay a little bit to keep it going and there is always the chance the box will break, but it is pretty much the same. Some boxes are better than others, and sometimes a bank will want to raise money so they sell off some of their boxes to someone else."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.financialexpress.com/market/reliance-industries-mega-cost-cutting-plan-tapping-cheap-ncd-funds-to-replace-high-cost-debt/1927883/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
34dqbl | nasa's new microwave thruster | What exactly is it and why is it such a big deal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34dqbl/eli5nasas_new_microwave_thruster/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqto9ct",
"cqtpel3",
"cqtqxun"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a box that a bunch of microwaves are pumped in to and according to our currant understanding of physics it should not produce any thrust, yet multiple test have reported that it does produce thrust. We have no clue what this means as of yet.",
"It's something that seems like it should be flatly against the laws of physics. \n\nIt's impossible to get thrust in space without using up propellant. Sort of like Equivalent Exchange in Full Metal Alchemist :)\n\nAnd yet ground tests suggest that the machine might work. \n\nWe will see what the answer is when more tests are done. Similar things in the past have failed. ",
"Beyond the physics of \"This shouldn't work, but it seems to be working\" it has big implications for all sorts of spacecraft.\n\nRight now things like the ISS and satellites have to use propellant every once in a while to keep themselves pointing in the right direction and in the right orbit, and when that runs out you have to resupply (in the case of the ISS), or give up on it and let it stop working (in the case of a satellite).\n\nIf we have a way of turning energy into thrust WITHOUT the use of propellant we can save sending all that up and use solar panels to power an EM drive. This means longer-lived satellites and more efficient ISS resupply.\n\nAnother possible use is making long-distance spacecraft faster, remember there's not really friction in space, so even a small boost adds up over time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3twefu | why does a closed water bottle with a little water left get moldy but a full bottle does not? | Whenever I leave my travel bottle closed and the little bit of water gets left inside for a while it starts to smell a little moldy.
When I leave the bottle full for a while, no moldy smell. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3twefu/eli5_why_does_a_closed_water_bottle_with_a_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxa2e9m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"*Note: I'll say mold a lot in this answer, but I'm really referring to mold, bacteria, algea, fungus and anything else unpleasant that can grow in a bottle.*\n\nA **sealed** full bottle was sealed in a clean environment, so there was no mold in the bottle. If there's no mold in the bottle, it can't grow (mold doesn't appear magically, it grows from a small amount).\n\nAn **unsealed** full bottle may have some small amounts of mold in: however there's very little oxygen (because there's only a tiny bit of air in there) so there's not usually enough oxygen for much mould to grow. There might be a bit, but not enough to be visible. There's also not usually been much contamination, so the bottle, even if unsealed, probably doesn't have much mold in.\n\nWith a **mostly empty** bottle, we have a combination of lots of contamination from your mouth, the environment etc, and also a lot of nice oxygen to help the mold grow. This means it reproduces enough to be visible and start making nasty smells."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8a5ko5 | how does an ip address function as a digital identity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8a5ko5/eli5_how_does_an_ip_address_function_as_a_digital/ | {
"a_id": [
"dww1lfx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you're on the internet you send a request to websites asking them to send your computer something back. I'm assuming your confusion is because multiple computers have the same/similar addresses. It's kinda like how you can have two houses on different streets with the same number. But the whole address is more than what you see in the _URL_0_ other than that it tells other computers the return address to send the data that you ask for. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"192.168.1.xxx"
]
] |
||
6labot | - what would happen to the economy if bill gates decided to save every penny he ever made, then burn it all? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6labot/eli5_what_would_happen_to_the_economy_if_bill/ | {
"a_id": [
"djsaal9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Bill Gates has an annual income of 11.5 billion dollars. The American GDP is 17.95 trillion. So he makes up about 0.064% of the economy. His net worth is a bit larger, at 88.7 Billion dollars, but not everything he owns would necessarily be in an easily burnable format, and it still isn't enough to make a difference.\n\nSo the answer is \"Not much.\" There would be some extremely minor deflation, which would quickly be drowned out by the normal rate of inflation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
e115ja | during exams, what actually happens in your brain that causes your mind to go blank? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e115ja/eli5_during_exams_what_actually_happens_in_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8kxtz1",
"f8m8il8",
"f8mdjgk",
"f8mo1ij",
"f8mvtrl",
"f8mxr5c",
"f8myabt",
"f8nqrck"
],
"score": [
313,
8,
52,
3,
2,
19,
22,
10
],
"text": [
"One possible explanation is the stress of exams makes your body go into fight or flight mode where stress hormones such as cortisol diverts glucose (energy) away from the hippocampus and thus decreasing your ability to recall memories. For our ancestors, this gave them the extra punch needed to survive, as it was more likely for their survival to be hinged upon beating the predator threatening them than beating the test curve. Sadly, this means when you're stressed it'd be harder to recall specific memories.",
"Most questions about the brain are going to have no detailed explanation. We just don't understand that particular organ.",
"When I was teaching we were taught specific techniques to avoid pushing students into fearful situations, in order to prevent the limbic system from being overstimulated. Once students get into fight or flight, their performance in class, on assignments and on exams always went down.",
"Autonomic processing. Have you ever thought about exactly what your feet are doing when you run down a flight of stairs? Normally you don’t because you just automatically do it. However, the moment you start trying to think about what your feet are doing, are you taking the right steps, etc. It quickly becomes overwhelming, you have no idea what they’re doing and you’ll end up tripping and falling on your face.\n\nWell, they same thing can occur when you think to hard about your test, which can happen in stressful situations. You are thinking harder than you should about the questions and suddenly you forget everything. Just like tripping over your feet running down a flight of stairs.",
"I went to a course recently about how to perform in job interviews and I assume it’s a similar thing. Your fight or flight instinct kicks in because the stress tricks your brain into thinking that you’re in immediate danger.\n\nYou need to learn techniques to overcome this and calm yourself down, lol. In job interviews it’s why sometimes you get asked your first question and you suddenly forget everything you know. Recognizing it so you can manage better is important in both situations.",
"Reading a book on resilience: cortisol (stresshormon) makes connections between neurons weak. You have to respect your palliatif pallet: relax your brain. Lower the amoynt of cortisol in your body. \nBest way is to lift weight: this injures your muscles which makes your body release a hormone to fix the muscles. This hormone also repairs the connections between your neurons.\n(Not a doctor, nor a sientist. Just a mom ready up to help the kids)",
"You never really knew the information going into the test. You crammed just enough to remember some key terms, but you didn't know how they truly relate to anything. So when the test asked you to use the knowledge you were supposed to have, you couldn't do it. Then you assume your mind \"went blank\" to compensate for the truth.",
"If your mind does freeze during an exam the best thing you can do is daydream. I’m serious. \n\nAs other commenters notes, your brain goes blank due to the stress-triggered flight or fight response. \n\nThe simplest way to break out of this during an exam setting is to daydream. Give yourself permission to imagine winning the lottery for 3 minutes. Your brain reasons that if you’re able to sit and plan what you’d do with your millions, then you can’t actually be in that much danger and reduces the response. \n\nSource: my psychology degree \n(The only degree that teaches you how to take its exams)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
232jjy | what causes the "look of fear" you see on people's faces when they get really afraid? | It just occurred to me that this look is universal pretty much throughout the animal kingdom, which means it's not a human social thing and therefore there must be a scientific reason why we do it. What's going on up in our brains that causes this to happen (eyes to widen, features to draw back etc..)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/232jjy/eli5_what_causes_the_look_of_fear_you_see_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgstbld",
"cgstl8r"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pupils dilate, muscles tense up. It's the fight/flight response ",
"As /u/SurfinSeaOtter said, it's fight or flight. Your eyes open widely (and pupils dilate) to increase your range and acuity of vision. Muscles in your lower face change (jaw relaxes, soft palate lifts, and nostrils flare) to prepare for increased respiratory rate. Blood rushes out of your face (blanching, turning white) to go to other areas of the body, especially vital organs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1zkxvr | what is happening in my brain when... | I'm driving on a well-known road, one that i travel every day, i'll find myself thinking for what seems like an hour and then i stop paying attention to the road, and then realize it was only about 2 seconds and I managed to still drive correctly. sorry for wording, I'm having trouble conveying this. I KNOW someone knows what i'm talking about. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zkxvr/eli5_what_is_happening_in_my_brain_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfuloi2",
"cfum99x"
],
"score": [
2,
13
],
"text": [
"Some of it is muscle memory. I've gotten to work or home so exhausted that I don't really know how I did it. Some part of your brain is paying attention just not your forebrain.",
"Your brain does some interesting things with memory. When you're learning how to drive, there's a lot going on - your brain deals with all the muscle movements in controlling the car, dealing with how to react with new objects and what to do in certain situations, and it's encoding that new information as memory (assuming you're paying attention). Once you're used to driving, your brain has learned that it doesn't need to dedicate so many resources to focusing on something it already knows how to do. So it doesn't. You're driving, but your concentration is elsewhere, and your brain isn't worried about recording a memory of what was going on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3tgnps | why are some organizations like scientology known as being cults, but others (christianity, islam, etc.) not? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tgnps/eli5_why_are_some_organizations_like_scientology/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5yg4w",
"cx5z6ha",
"cx5zb2y",
"cx5zh68",
"cx60vm7"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Though the large, established religions are considered different from cults like Scientology, they nonetheless started as cults thousands of years ago. It's difficult to define when a cult becomes a religion.\n",
"They're the same thing, it's just we have grown so accustomed to the batshit crazy stuff in the bible/koran/etc. that we somehow accept it as being okay. ",
"It's a grey area. Cults are sometimes distinguished from mainstream religions by a few features:\n\n*Cult leaders are an absolute authority, who answer to no-one and cannot be challenged in any way.\n\n*Cults have no discourse. The leader(s) set the rules and that's that. There is no room for individual interpretation\n.\n*Cults require their members to cut off relationships, including family relationships, with non cult members. They are strongly discouraged from socialising with anyone not part of the cult.\n\n*Cults often place a strong emphasis on money. Members are encouraged or required to give up as much wealth and property as they can to the organisation.",
"Snarky answer: They're the ones in the lead, so they make the rules.\n\nLess snarky answer: It kinda comes down to what the person is asked to do, to be a part. Are you heavily pressured/required to give up a large chunk/all of your money, stay away from friends/family who aren't a part of the group, and in general do things which would be beneficial to the leader(s) of the group while hurting yourself in the process (physically, mentally, or emotionally)? It's a cult.\n\nThe thing is, people can use established religions as the basis for a cult. Islam is the best current example, but Christianity has been just as bad, and still is used in horrible ways (the TV preachers who tell people to tithe all their money, for instance).\n\nI guess I can ELI5 a bit better than that....If memebers are being taken advantaged of/hurt in order to be a member (under the guidelines of the organization), it's a cult. If not, it might just be a new idea.",
"Short answer: They are cults because they try to limit you to confine your life's focus on their ideology and doctrine. In other words, one's well-being is dependent upon adherence to the cult's philosophy and teachings. The root of a cult's belief is usually the acceptance of a higher power: essentially god or gods."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
19pqh6 | what's the appeal of rockstars and celebrities in general? | You see people at gigs trampling over each other to brush against the extended hand of the performer, or, accosting their favourite [insert type of celebrity] if they spot them during a mundane activity like shopping - what's up with that?
I'm not talking teenage girls on a Justin Bieber concert, I'm looking for a more comprehensive answer than invoking groupie mentality. I have otherwise reasonable male friends queuing for a post-match autograph of their favourite footballer, gig-crazy girl friends doing a lot of the aforementioned trampling over other people, and, a boyfriend who upon finding out I enjoyed a particular TV programme offered me to go check out the place where its author lives.
Why would I want to do any of these things? Is there anything wrong with me? Am I just too un-hedonic?
**tl;dr - why do people drool over celebrities?**
edit: Optional extra background info: I'm German:). I was raised in a regular middle class family. When I was younger, our neighbour down the road was Michael Ballack, who at the time was playing for our national football team. Even then I wasn't starstruck or I think sufficiently impressed, the guy was great at what he was doing but I never considered asking him for an autograph of taking a picture together. We were on normal neighbourly terms, he would chat with my dad about football or the kids for a few minutes and that was the extent of it.
These days, an older gentlemen who I say 'hello' to when walking my dog is apparently a retired racing driver Stirling Moss. I've had no idea of that until my boyfriend almost drooled over himself when we went past him one evening.
Whenever I hear my friends/colleagues telling with great excitement about how they spotted someone famous I am really wondering about the appeal of that. Mostly I don't preoccupy myself with those people (celebrities), but I'm forced to consider it I cannot defer myself to them. However arrogant that may come across - I consider them peers/equals, other human beings who happen to be good at their jobs, and, whose jobs just happen to be televised a lot for the purpose of my entertainment;).
I would ask my friends or my boyfriend that, but I'm not sure if I won't come across as patronising, or 'trying to be cool'... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19pqh6/whats_the_appeal_of_rockstars_and_celebrities_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8q8dwi"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because they live the lifestyle that people want.\n\nThey represent glamor and sophistication, and ultimately, wealth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
27d6z1 | where does the opinion that earth is only 5000 years old come from? | I have an uncle who is a minister and he pulled his son out of public school because they were teaching about dinosaurs and about the prehistoric eras, claiming that "the bible states the Earth is only 5000 years old." My parents are devout Christians yet they do not follow this belief. Where did it originate? Where in the bible does it cover this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27d6z1/eli5_where_does_the_opinion_that_earth_is_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"chznu7l",
"chzpu3g",
"chzx5t8"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I dont think it is stated in the bible explicitly but there was a guy (James Ussher) who went through the bible and worked out how old the world was by using the lifespans of the people provided in the scriptures all the way through to the birth of Christ. The number came to 4096 years (from memory i could be wrong, so you add 2000 years onto that and you have the 6000 year earth belief.",
"Another problem is translation. The Flood's \"40 days and 40 nights\" is originally more of an saying that meant \"a long time\".. kind of like some people say \"once in a blue moon\" or \"That class, like, took **forever**!\" \n\nIt didn't literally mean 40 days and 40 nights, and we don't literally mean \"when the moon turns blue\" or actually \"forever\". It's just a saying. Trying to turn a translation of translation into a perfect amount of time when there are all kinds of these sayings about time is just impossible.\n\nBut some people act like The Bible was originally written in English.\n\nImagine trying to say you're an expert on Japanese culture because you watch Toonami.",
"Some retarded smartass added up ages of families in the bible.\n\nRolling dice would be just as accurate, no matter what dice where used and how many of them.\n\nPeople more accurately predicted the age of earth by calculating how long it takes for metals to cool down. They didn't know about radioactive decay heating up earth from the inside and they still where much more accurate than the worst fiction of mankind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
25kfg7 | how machines with bank notes work | Since I have been a child I have always wondered how! ELI5 please!
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25kfg7/eli5_how_machines_with_bank_notes_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"chi1n5m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you mean things like self check outs where you can insert banknotes; this it boils down to this:\n\nInside the machine there are a plethora of detectors. These usually include (but are not limited to) cameras, LEDs, size measurement apparatus and magnetic detectors. \n\nThere is a computer inside the detector that takes in the note, runs it past the scanners and checks if the inserted note matches any of the measurement signatures present in the note. For example, British bank notes have a small magnetic strip in them with certain properties, and a coating that is very hard to replicate, but will expose certain patterns when UV light is shone on to it. The cameras can check for certain markings on the note, such as (again, in British and European banknotes at least) the EURion constellation (which is a set of spaced apart yellow dots in a 'constellation' like pattern; and co-incidentally the thing that stops photocopiers from copying banknotes). The size and thickness scanners can check for a perfect match. If the note passes all the checks it will be accepted, and if it doesn't, it will be rejected.\n\nEDIT: More info on the EURion constellation: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation"
]
] |
|
68y0zr | what causes those sudden urges of motivation? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68y0zr/eli5_what_causes_those_sudden_urges_of_motivation/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh2gnzy",
"dh2k0e3"
],
"score": [
28,
5
],
"text": [
"You mentioned that you wanted to sleep so I'm guessing that it was nighttime when you got your urge of motivation. \n\nI'm no professional on the matter, but I do believe that us humans tend to have a lot of thoughts going through our heads at night in our dark rooms. \n\nDark rooms = Less distractions = More capacity to think. \n\nNighttime/bedtime = No obligations to be here or there or do this or that except close your eyes and sleep. Your favorite shows on TV are no longer on, you don't have to worry about making dinner, picking up your kids if you have any, or communicating with anybody etc. \n\nSo with this freedom from obligations late at night, you feel the urge to stay up and finish that one thing you never got around to doing.\n\n",
"and why don't I ever have those?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
me2yu | why do websites forget me even though i click "remember me"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/me2yu/why_do_websites_forget_me_even_though_i_click/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3066ba",
"c307nz5",
"c3066ba",
"c307nz5"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
3,
13
],
"text": [
"You probably cleared your cookies. Or the cookie for that site that deals with remembering you got deleted somehow. ",
"That's the saddest post I've seen today. I won't forget you buddy!",
"You probably cleared your cookies. Or the cookie for that site that deals with remembering you got deleted somehow. ",
"That's the saddest post I've seen today. I won't forget you buddy!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2904f7 | if movies and shows on your dvr aren't illegal, why are they on your computer? | You have a cable subscription and you record a show/movie onto your DVR. If you were to torrent that same show/movie on your computer it becomes illegal. What is the difference?
edit: You receive your cable TV and internet from the same provider. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2904f7/eli5_if_movies_and_shows_on_your_dvr_arent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cig52cf",
"cig53p0",
"cig556q",
"cigd8sp",
"cigis73"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You paid for your cable subscription. ",
"Because it is authorized . On the internet that site doesnt have an agreement or athorization from the company that releases the show .",
"Consider the source. Your cable company has a deal with the content provider. They pay X amount of money and the creator of the show/movie agrees to let them stream the content to your TV so you can watch it or save it to your box for later.\n\nThere are websites like that, too. Netflix is doing the same thing (though minus the \"save for later\" part).\n\nBut when you torrent a file, you're getting it from a source that has no such deal with the creator of the content. They're distributing it illegally and it's not benefiting the creator at all. That's why it's illegal.",
"*Receiving* the information isn't actually a crime. There's nothing illegal about the movies and shows on your computer.\n\n*Transmitting* the information when you don't have the authorization to do so is in violation of copyright law. No-one has been sued or charged with anything for downloading movies. A few people have gotten threatening letters from their ISPs, but that's an extra-judicial arrangement between content providers and cable companies.\n\nThe reason torrenting gets people in trouble is because you're simultaneously uploading and downloading. ",
"The copyright holder has a monopoly on distribution of his film. There are a few exceptions, like showing a small clip to make a commentary on it, or newsworthy copies. Note, this is a monopoly.\n\nThe easiest example is a book. Copyright holder can print it and sell prints. Once someone buys the book, the copyright holder has no say on what happens to it, except that they cannot reprint it.\n\nFor a show, the betamax case gives rights of the consumer to \"time shift\" something legally received to play later. They can't broadcast it, but they can enjoy it the same way.\n\nAs far as downloading, you have the right to timeshift it, but the act of downloading is making another copy that is not authorized by the copyright holder. It doesn't matter if the ISP and cable are the same. So even if you have it on your DVR with the rights to play it, it's unclear if you have any right to download it and make another copy on your computer, but probably not.\n\nBlizzard tried to argue that the bits on your computer as it receives anything, even from the disk, is a copy that has to be authorized. I think that was rejected on appeal, but a torrent is certainty an unauthorized copy unless the studio posted it originally.\n\nEdit: clarification, spelling."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c1j89d | how does dissociative identity disorder work? are all the personalities conscious the same time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1j89d/eli5_how_does_dissociative_identity_disorder_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"erdltan",
"erg4zt6",
"etkposg"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"When one personality is aware of another, they are able to communicate. There are several types of personality relationships; \nIf they are mutually amnesic, they are not aware of the other personality(s)\nMutually cognizant is when they are aware of other personalities and know each other. \nThey can be one-way amnesic, meaning that one personality knows about another, but the other does not know about them (most common). \nAnd they can be co-conscious, meaning they quietly observe the other personalities but the others are not aware of that personality because there is no interaction. These personalities are still aware while another personality is in control and can fill in blanks from amnesic relationships.",
"It doesn't. It's not real. The theory came sbout in the 1970s after a psychiatrist met a schizophrenic and wrote a book claiming that this was a new psychiatric condition.",
"When a child is exposed to trauma the brain can split off and compartmentalize those experiences. Normally a child's personality will come together and integrate between the ages of 6 and 9. Often when there is trauma that doesn't happen. It varies from system to system as to whether the parts are conscious at the same time. Some systems parts are totally unaware of everyday things that happen and may even be unaware of other parts. Other systems the parts are aware of each other and can communicate or even blend together. I think it comes down to how much healing has been done. Stress plays a big part in how much parts are aware of what is going on. Lots of variables and not the same for everyone."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bqdn86 | what are gearbox ratios? | I often see ratios for the specs of gearboxes like 4:1, 7:1, 30:1. What does this mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bqdn86/eli5_what_are_gearbox_ratios/ | {
"a_id": [
"eo3k0c9"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's the ratio between the number of teeth on the input gear to the number of teeth on the output gear.\n\nFor a ratio of 4:1 (4), the output gear will complete 4 revolutions for each revolution of the input gear.\n\nFor ratios where the input gear has more teeth than the output, speed will increase at the cost of torque. If the input gear has less, torque will increase at the expense of speed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2t8n7d | how is paypal not a bank? | In practice, I guess, if not in actuality, what's the actual difference? *Is* there one? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t8n7d/eli5_how_is_paypal_not_a_bank/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnwqx08"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"From PayPal's Wikipedia: \n\nPeter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, has stated that PayPal is not a bank because it does not engage in fractional-reserve banking. Rather, PayPal's funds that have not been disbursed are kept in commercial interest-bearing checking accounts.\n\nCheck there for more info"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
42hhsq | how do news/radio stations get their four letter name ex: "wrcb" | When you listen to a radio station you might hear them say "You're listening to WKXJ" or while watching the news they say "You're WRCB Channel 3 News". Though major news sources such as NBC Nightly News doesn't seem to have one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42hhsq/eli5_how_do_newsradio_stations_get_their_four/ | {
"a_id": [
"czabulf",
"czabv5e",
"czabvg3"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Every television and radio station in the world has a station ID. In the US, these start with K or W, generally with W being east of the Mississippi River and K to the west.\n\nThe station IDs are assigned by the Federal Communications Commission. A station can request a certain callsign, which it will get if it's not previously assigned elsewhere.\n\nNetwork news doesn't have one because it's the individual stations that actually do the broadcasting that need the callsign, and not the network that's carried over satellite.",
"That's called the station's call sign and in the US it is assigned by the Federal Communications Commission when it grants the broadcast license.\n\nNetworks like NBC aren't broadcasters themselves but providers of programming to their affiliated stations.",
"They are assigned by the FCC, it's their call sign. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nNBC nightly news is a national program, that is either played on a cable only channel, or broadcast on a local NBC affiliate station which has it's own call sign."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_States"
]
] |
|
2swt78 | why are we so determined to find extraterrestrial life? | I'm not against exploration, but the older I get the less enthused I become over space exploration. Sure, it would be wild to find another habitable planet with other species living there, but I want to know deep down, what are we really trying accomplish? What would we do if we did find something? IMO, human beings already have enough to deal with on our own planet, what makes us think finding something new would be a good thing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2swt78/eli5why_are_we_so_determined_to_find/ | {
"a_id": [
"cntm0ya",
"cntm2uz",
"cntm4u7",
"cntqbkv",
"cntqd54",
"cntvixb"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"One reason, that is a popular belief, is that we are looking for another place to live on. The reason is because we think one day we'll use up all the things we need to live. So we look for life because all living beings need the same things to live, meaning the planets with life are planets we can move to and live on. But we aren't specifically looking for intelligent aliens, micro organisms and bacteria will do too.",
"New medicines, new technologies, new trade partners, resources we could exploit... take your pick really. Advanced or primordial, extraterrestrial life could have very solid benefits that don't exist on Earth simply because our form of life went down one possible route while their form of life went down another. *Or* they could have nothing of any use whatsoever. It's a crapshoot, but then again most scientific endeavors are to a greater or lesser extent.",
"this is a tough one for eli5 because it really comes down to opinion. Me, I say we are looking for the next challenge, the next goal. As some song lyrics say \"we are only going straight ahead with no escape\", so we need some other things to work towards, and for humanity to feel like we have a definable future",
"because we, the scientists who are responsible for 100% of the progress in human history, are always curious about what we don't know. \n\nevery day people who don't care for knowledge probably won't understand this (otherwise they'd probably be into science too as a consequence). ",
"Sometimes, you do things just because you can. For example, going to the moon. Finding extraterrestrial life, it's not only really cool to know that something out there exists, but it's also fascinating because of the questions that we can gather. How do they communicate? Are they sentient and smart as us? How long have they existed? Are they carbon based and \"similar\" to us at all? What can we learn from aliens that we can apply at Earth?\n\nA lot of science is based on curiosity and just trying to find answers and test things for the sake of testing. Searching for aliens is just another way to do that, and if we ever find any, the implications would be enormous, even if all we can do is watch light years away.",
"There's a really famous saying about the question of extraterrestrial life. Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Either answer is equally terrifying.\n\nIf we are alone in the universe, we give the entire universe purpose. We are it's only chance to know itself. But everything about us is so fragile, and we fight over such inconsequential things. [This picture](_URL_0_) is the furthest picture ever take of our planet. When it was released, Carl Sagan had this to say: \"From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every \"superstar,\" every \"supreme leader,\" every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.\n\nThe Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.\n\nThe Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.\"\n\nWhat is the purpose of existence if we don't give it one? How shameful is it that we, with our conciousness, refused the only responsibility we really have, which is to understand? How shameful is it that everything we ever did as a species would have amounted to nothing? Because we didn't have the foresight to see our own potential shortcomings.\n\n\nNow, if we were to find extra-terrestrial life, imagine what that would do people. We're no longer the privileged who sit in our own vast universe, we're small, we're primitive. We'd have to hope for the benevolence of others. We're potentially vulnerable to immensely advanced races.\n\nBut if they were benevolent, then they could open up new understanding for us, just as we could for them. Every problem wee thought they'd cause for us (what would the existence of a second Genesis have on religion?) we'd cause for their home. But more importantly, we then get to share the responsibility of understanding, of knowledge. The universe doubled it's chances of being understood. As a species, we'd have our soulmate.\n\nThe question of whether we are alone is, as a species, probably the most important question we could ask. If you grew up in a fully built city, in a fully built country, but with no phones, and no other people the question you'd worry about most, the question that would keep you awake at night isn't: \"what shall I have for dinner tomorrow?\" It's \"am I alone?\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png"
]
] |
|
aocitx | can someone explain concentrated stress? | And why fillets help fix that problem | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aocitx/eli5_can_someone_explain_concentrated_stress/ | {
"a_id": [
"efzwamk"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Check this out: _URL_0_\n\nThe closer the hook is to the hinge, the more force you can apply, right? If the hook was, conceptually, infinitely close to the hinge you could apply infinite force, right?\n\nA bigger radius is just like moving the hook away from the hinge. The sharper the corner, the closer to the 'infinite force' situation you get. Technically, if you could make a 'perfect' sharp corner in a perfectly brittle material it would basically break under any load at all. \n\nIn brittle materials, fillets are *super duper important*. In materials that suffer from fatigue, fillets are *super duper important*. In designs that are stressed anywhere near max, fillets are *super duper important*. \n\nIn extremely over-built mild steel constructions, they're not that important. :-P\n\nEDIT: for a little more in depth look at it, you have the highest stress at the corner, where the strain is the highest. If you have a perfect sharp corner, the first molecular pair at the corner take up the entire quantity of stress in the area, because they're the first pair to see strain. A big corner rad distributes that strain between many pairs of molecules, which distributes the stress as well. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://hsautoshot.com/product/uni-7600-01"
]
] |
|
5h5xku | why do people never make fake papers instead of fake ids? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h5xku/eli5_why_do_people_never_make_fake_papers_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"daxo9f3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Some people do. If the bar does chose to accept it, and there's a very slim chance they will, it it must have a photo ID and could realistically only be used once or twice because you would receive an actual ID within a week or so. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
13y97r | - keynsian economics, classic economics, pros, cons, and which is better, etc. | So I'm trying to figure out which opinion I have, so which system is better, and what exactly are they? And stuff. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13y97r/eli5_keynsian_economics_classic_economics_pros/ | {
"a_id": [
"c787ze8"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There was a recent thread on just Keynesian economics that would be helpful:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nFor a ELI5-style overview of other economic concepts, check out the *60-second adventures in economics* video playlist (The first video is the other 6 combined into a single 7-minute video):\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhat's the best economic theory? Let's put it this way: President Harry S Truman was once talking to one of his economic advisers about what could be expected in the coming year. After the economic adviser gave a forecast, Truman asked, \"So, we can expect interest rates to be about 6% next year?\"\n\nThe economic adviser replied, \"It could happen, other the other hand...\"\n\nTruman interrupted him and shouted, \"What this country needs is a good one-handed economist!\"\n\nIn other words, economics today is about where medicine was in the middle ages: The practitioners can see *what* works, but they're still struggling to understand *why* it works."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EChQpDGfX5e7DDGEQvLonjDQsbclAF2N-t&feature=plcp",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13vq3t/eli5_what_is_keynesian_economics_and_why/"
]
] |
|
2w7ohl | how does amazon local make money? | Amazon local is full of great deals, most of them 50% off to local stores (ie pay $10, get $20 to this local restaurant)
How does this make money for amazon and the restaurant? Does Amazon pay the restaurant the full $20? Can anyone explain how anyone but the consumer is making money on this deal?
P.S. This is my first ELI5, I did search first and didn't see anything explaining amazon local. Sorry if I somehow missed it | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w7ohl/eli5_how_does_amazon_local_make_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"coodaco"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's the same business model as sites like Groupon in that the business pays Amazon to show their deal. This is advantageous as it is simply another advertising front for the business. Beyond that, they are relying on you coming back after using your deal and also spreading the word to your friends etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
d63v4a | how is it that some music/songs can "bring you back" to the first time that you heard them? | I recently listened to some songs that I loved in high school and had flashbacks to when I used to hear them, that I wouldn't have otherwise remembered. It's almost as though the songs that I heard were keys for these particular memories. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d63v4a/eli5_how_is_it_that_some_musicsongs_can_bring_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0ppbpq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your brain works by association. Things that happened together will be \"stored together\" in the brain, and bringing one up, will bring up the other. This is why Pavlov's experiments work. The dogs remember that when the bell ringed they got food, and so when the bell rings, the start salivating because they expect food (bell and food go together)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
85sev7 | how do conservationists repopulate almost extinct species | I read today that the world's last northern male white rhino passed away today in Kenya. Now the only surviving members of the species are his daughter and granddaughter. Since the only surviving members are related by blood, how are they going to repopulate the species while avoiding inbreeding down the road? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85sev7/eli5_how_do_conservationists_repopulate_almost/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvzzozh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They won't. Even when he was alive, there really wasn't hope with such a small population.\n\nWhile you can try and repopulate with a pretty small pool, not that small.\n\nOne example of successful conservation efforts was the American Bison. Before colonization, its estimated that there were possibly 60 million bison. By 1889, there were about 1,100. Now there are 500,000, though most are farm raised, not wild. \n\nHowever, even with a sample of around 1,100, the Bison population still has a problem with a limited gene pool\n\nGrizzlies in the Yellowstone region went from 136 in 1975 to about 700 today. \n\nIn NJ, bald eagles have grown by a factor of 7 in 15 years.\n\nAny animal that has gone through a quasi-extinction event, or a population bottleneck will have the problem of inbreeding. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1dqzcj | if aliens were to pick up one of our radio signals, would they be able to read its message? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dqzcj/eli5_if_aliens_were_to_pick_up_one_of_our_radio/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9szwo6",
"c9t5lv4"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"No. Or maybe yes.\n\nThere is a thing called signal-to-noise ratio. Think of it like this: we two meet in a pleasant, quiet room and exchange noises. I hear what you say, you hear what I say, perfectly clear.\n\nNow imagine us meeting in a stadium during the superbowel. I sit on one side of the field, you sit on the other side. We try having the same conversation we did before, at the same level of intensity.\n\nWell, that is just not working, because the sound of 74.903 other people screaming at the top of their lungs tends to drown out our conversation effort.\n\nWith radio signals, the situation is pretty much the same. We may send them into outer space, and after a certain distance the signal looses to the noise. Granted, there are many techniques that we know of to boost the signal and reduce the noise, both at the sending and the receiving end. But somewhere along the line, the signal-to-noise ratio has the noise winning.\n\nApart from that, if aliens *could* receive our messages, could they *understand* them?\n\nAgain, yes and no. Just like us, they will have scientists dedicated to the cause. We send a short signal, pause, send two short signals, pause, send three short signals ... Chances are that when they receive our signals they will eventually rule out natural phenomena as a source for what they receive.\n\nAt present, basic mathematics are considered a source of knowledge that another civilization might pick up on as being intentional instead of random.",
"Almost certainly not, as they would have no Rosetta Stone.\n\nSo far, every time Man has successfully decoded a forgotten human language it's because there was some document somewhere in which the same text was written twice. Once in the unknown language, once in a known language. \n\nThere would be no such thing for our radio signal. So our aliens would have nowhere to begin. They probably wouldn't even be able to figure out which sound were words. Much less what those words mean.\n\nNow, there are a bunch of interesting exceptions to this. First of all, our aliens might be able to decipher a message we sent INTENDING to be picked up by aliens!\n\nWe would take such a message and begin by teaching what could be taught with audio. We would start with ideas that are A: universal and B: fundamental. So...\n\nbeep\n(pause)\nbeep beep\n(pause)\nbeep beep beep\n(pause)\nbeep beep beep beep\n(pause)\nbeeeeeeeep\n(pause)\nbeeeeeeeep beep\n(pause)\n\nWe just taught our aliens how we will be using numbers, 1 through 6. I picked base 5 arbitrarily, you get the idea.\n\nNow we could do something like this.\n\nbeep 'one'\n(pause)\nbeep beep 'two'\n(pause)\nbeep beep beep 'three'\n\nNow we've taught our aliens our words for one, two, and three.\n\nHow far could we take this? I dunno. I suspect we'd be stuck at math. If we and our aliens were clever, we might be able to start talking about atoms. Then we'd really be on to something.\n\nAudio is pretty limiting though. We could using radio to transmit video though! And then I think all bets are off. I think certainly an alien civilization could figure out...basically everything about us, just watching TV. We encode a LOT of information in our TV shows. The aliens would be able to figure out what our planet looks like, what we look like, how we develop, what we call everything.\n\nContact, the novel by Carl Sagan, covers this pretty well and it's a good read. Sagan was one of the people who thought about this problem professionally. :D\n\nAlso, there's a great short story called Omnilingual by H. Beam Piper which you can read here:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAbout some scientists on Mars trying to decode an ancient Martian language. They find books and magazines, but can't read them. They think there is no Rosetta stone, but there is! It's the same Rosetta Stone we stick in every High School, just in case some aliens are combing over our civilization in the future.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.webelements.com/",
"http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19445"
]
] |
||
1hovtk | the current coup d'état in egypt | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hovtk/eli5_the_current_coup_détat_in_egypt/ | {
"a_id": [
"caweb15",
"cawfjng",
"cawjykm",
"cawmfai",
"cawmhf6",
"cawmjhx",
"cawo95j"
],
"score": [
34,
428,
3,
10,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"From an Egyptian friend:\n\nThis was not a military coup.\n\nWhat we saw today was the culmination of a massive, nation-wide conspiracy to deliver the Egyptian people from a US-imposed terrorist regime. The conspirators were: Egyptian peasants; Egyptian factory workers and labor leaders; Egyptian millionaires; Egyptian writers and thinkers, poets and songwriters; Egyptian judges, lawyers, prosecutors and constitutional experts; Egyptian singers, actors, dancers and painters; Egyptian housewives and mothers and professional women and workers (my God, the women inspired us all so much!); Egyptian soldiers, Egyptian police officers; Egyptian liberals; Egyptian conservatives; Egyptian leftists; Egyptian journalists; Egyptian tourist guides and hotel employees; the Egyptian Church; the Egyptian Islamic scholars of Al-Azhar; Egyptian comics and satirists; Egyptian bus and taxi drivers, Egyptian waiters and grocery store workers; Egyptian teachers and students and doctors and I hope I haven't forgotten anybody.\n\nThe US-imposed regime was terrorizing and oppressing Egyptians, using murder and threats of a \"blood-bath\" should the people rebel against the \"democratically-elected government\" of armed terrorists, which was brought to power via fraudulent elections under the approving eye of the US. Every day, the terrorist regime grew more powerful, its ranks swelled by terrorists from \"Al Qaeda\" and other, more obscure but no less bloodthirsty groups who were welcomed into the country from Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. Weapons, including anti-tank missiles and rpg's and guns were flooding the country. Egypt was becoming fragmented into a number of isolated enclaves, placing its continued existence as a unified state in doubt. The regime's supporters were openly inciting sectarian hatred and constantly threatening to launch a civil war against the nation's Christians, whom they refer to as \"Crusaders\". The people begged the military to save them, but the Egyptian military was openly threatened by the US that any \"military coup\" would be \"unacceptable\" to the \"international community\". Even when the soldiers and regular police officers became openly rebellious against the top brass, the army refused to step in, fearing US military or economic retaliation, or both.\n\nThus, the Egyptian people put aside their differences to provide the army with the visible and undeniable proof that it is they, and not the army leadership, that is calling the shots and that is demanding that the army remove the terrorist US-imposed regime from power and disarm its militias. And that, boys and girls, is what they did, in numbers never before seen in human history and the military responded, to great nation-wide exultation and the relief of millions of grateful Egyptians. As for what comes next, the Army is leaving that to a number of widely trusted and respected individuals with a spotless record of bravery in standing up for human and civil rights even at the risk of their own lives, led by Dr. Mohamed El Baradei. The army and the police have strictly defined their role as servants of the people's will.\n\nI know, it sounds too good to be true. If you like, you can choose to believe CNN instead. It doesn't matter in the least. We've lived through the nightmare of the past two and a half years, we've tasted bitter despair and the sure knowledge that as a nation, we were hurtling headlong towards the edge of a cliff, and it was every single one of us who made the massive effort to pull off this miracle. We did it, and we know exactly how and why we did it, and that's all that matters.",
"Some time ago, Egypt held a revolution of sorts to kick out an effective dictatorship. The army helped the people do this, and set up a temporary government and helped set up elections. The people had to get angry at the army to convince the army to do this.\n\nElections were held with a lot of candidates, and finally someone won, someone who only had the support of about 1/4 of the country, but who still had the highest number of votes. This person was backed by various hardline Islamic groups.\n\nAs time went on it became apparent that the person that was the first democratically elected leader of Egypt was not living up to the people's expectations. However the new democracy had no legal mechanism for the people to remove from power a government that they no longer had confidence in. \n\nSo the people arranged a large demonstration. The western media first portrayed this as being roughly evenly split between people who liked the current leaders and people who did not, but it quickly became apparent that the vast majority of people did not support the government, and large protests were held.\n\nThe Egyptian army had a different leader than last time, and they told the government that the people had spoken and insisted that the leaders leave office. The leaders refused, so the army removed them and set up a caretaker government so the country can try again to vote a new government.\n\nThe western media called this a 'coup' but the people who live in Egypt and Cairo specifically do not see it as a coup, they see it as being liberated and impeaching the existnig government that they no longer democratically supported. There are many people who think this should be the army's job, helping the people remove governments they have no other way to remove.\n\nHopefully this time they will set up a better government and voting system.",
"How does the army have to much power? The US army doesn't have this power, or do they?",
"Alright, bud. Sit down because this is a really difficult situation.\n\nYou see, when you're young, you have your parents to help you decide what's best, and sometimes you just have to trust them on that sort of stuff. As you grow older, you grow smarter. You're now a lot smarter than you were before you went to school, aren't you? So when you grow up, you get to decide more and more things on your own. But when you make a mistake, you have to man up and face that mistake too. That's called being responsible for your actions.\n\nNow think of the government as a parent, but for the whole country. They can help you do all sorts of things, and sometimes they have to tell you what to do, so you don't make a really bad mistake or something. But when you're a grown up you don't want a the government to tell you what to do every step of the way, do you? You want to get a say in what the government does.\n\nNow there was a man in Egypt, that's a very far away place. His name was President Poopyface. He was picked by the people of Egypt to be the boss of the government. But now President Poopyface wanted to keep the grown ups of Egypt from deciding how to live their lives. He wanted to take their right to make a lot of decisions away. When a President does that, we call him a dictator. Dictators are grumpy and mean, and people often don't like them.\n\nNow the grown-ups in Egypt didn't like President Poopyface, so they all got together and went to the town's square, where they told President Poopyface to stop being so mean, or to go away. President Poopyface decided he was going to stay a mean ol' dictator. After a while, the soldiers of the country of Egypt said to the grown-ups: Hey, you're right! This man is really mean to you guys. We're going to help you! They then said to President Poopyface: You have to stop being mean now, or we're going to send you away! But President Poopyface stayed mean, so the soldiers went over to his house, and said to him: You can't be the President anymore, President Poopyface! We're going to pick someone else to do that job. And now the people in Egypt are really happy, because the man who was mean to them is not the boss anymore.",
"Hank Green of the vlogbrothers posted a video walking through the Egyptian situation - it's very comprehensive and easy to follow, with reading provided in the video description.\n\n_URL_0_",
"[Vlogbrothers just released an exceptionally informative video about it!](_URL_0_)",
"great video explaining it.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5suNtLwbBw"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5suNtLwbBw"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5suNtLwbBw"
]
] |
||
32bbja | how exactly did the word "dank" come into it's current meaning? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32bbja/eli5_how_exactly_did_the_word_dank_come_into_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq9m7ye",
"cq9mmjo",
"cq9mwwi",
"cq9p5ii",
"cq9r845",
"cq9syd7"
],
"score": [
116,
5,
78,
6,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Similar to your grandparent's cellar, stoners describe smelly, potent marijuana as \"dank.\" They and many others then started to use \"dank\" as an ironic or self-aware description of so called \"memes.\"",
"Originally it meant a dark wet marshy place, possibly from Scandinavian origins. However I was only aware that this was still the only use for the word or similar environments like your mentioned grandparent's cellar.",
"I would argue that it's current meaning has roots in 'weed culture'. Initially dank was used to describe a dark marshy smelly place as /u/MJmurcott mentioned. From this original meaning potheads began to use it to describe particularly smelly and/or powerful weed, for example; that kush is so dank. Because potheads used this word to describe weed so often it began to permeate their normal way of speaking, so it's meaning became more broad among weed people. \n\nGiven the link between people who smoke weed and gaming/internet culture it worked it's way into the common vernacular. Thus it began to mean powerful, strong, or particularly awesome. \n\nThis is my interpretation as a former pothead, so don't take it as scripture, but that's where I believe it came from. ",
"Manny the Hippie introduced the modern sense of the words \"schwag\" for bad, \"dank\" for good, \"diggity dank\" for excellent and \"schwiggity schwag\" for worst, on David Letterman in 1996.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nLetterman had Manny rate various presidents: Jimmy Carter (dank), Ronald Reagan (shwag), Abraham Lincoln (diggity dank) and Bill Clinton (schwag). \"I mean, why would you want a president who couldn't smoke a bowl?\" Manny pondered Thursday.\n",
"[KnowYourMeme](_URL_0_) has documented how and when it came into it's current usage.",
"Not too sure on details, but we were calling good weed \"dank\" in the 80's, and I'm sure it was used in the 70's as well.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_the_Hippie"
],
[
"http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dank-memes"
],
[]
] |
||
ez4dlk | how does video compression (such as on netflix) work exactly? if the quality is hurt by compression, why can't netflix have an option to stream compressed data to the device and have the device's cpu then decompress the data? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ez4dlk/eli5_how_does_video_compression_such_as_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgl3jvj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"But... that *is* how they stream video. The server and the receiver negotiate what kind of compression the receiver is capable of, and the server sends the appropriate data. Netflix would literally be impossible if they were sending uncompressed streams. See [H.264 / MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding](_URL_1_) for history and details.\n\nThe pipe between you and the server is not a static quantity... it depends on other traffic on the line and how efficiently the receiving device is using its resources (like when you are watching video in a browser, but there are other browser pages or windows that are still active, or there are other programs running on your machine, or someone turns on the microwave and your WiFi stumbles). So Netflix even goes beyond the blanket compression of the entire stream to [selectively tweak](_URL_0_) the compression so the image doesn't chug when the bandwidth falters.\n\nThe word 'codec' originally stood for 'coder/decoder', but 'coding' effectively meant 'compression'. Nowadays the word is often used to stand for 'compression/decompression'. Some of that compression is built-in at the network hardware level, some of it is handled by the AV hardware on the receiver, or (if all else fails) the CPU. But for streaming video to happen *at all*, the content needs to be compressed.\n\nEdit: spleling, brane, added AVC link, third paragraph"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://qz.com/920857/netflix-nflx-uses-ai-in-its-new-codec-to-compress-video-scene-by-scene/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding"
]
] |
||
mwmy5 | herman cain's 9-9-9 plan | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mwmy5/eli5_herman_cains_999_plan/ | {
"a_id": [
"c34g2e0",
"c34g9ym",
"c34ps9j",
"c34g2e0",
"c34g9ym",
"c34ps9j"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" It regards taxes. 9% tax on corporate income, 9% tax on individual income, and a 9% national sales tax across the board. \n\nof coarse this is impossible, but people are having fun with herman, and I think he is having fun too",
"hmm...did you ever play sim city? You know how taxes start out at like 9% for residential, commercial, and industry? It's kind of like that\n",
"9% Corporate Income Tax\n\n9% Personal Income Tax\n\n9% National Sales Tax\n\nThe elimination of loopholes would make large companies (like GE) that can typically lawyer their way around taxes start paying. The national sales tax would enable the federal government to tax money they can't otherwise tax very efficiently now, such as money brought in from other countries or money earned illegally or paid \"under the table\" rather than through the payroll system.\n\nIt is believed by some that those two factors, combined with the simplicity of the new tax code, would increase the federal government's income and make it harder to avoid taxes. \n\nIt's believed by others that the net tax burden to the poor would be increased, because they don't pay income tax right now, however, others argue that the elimination of other taxes the poor do pay (payroll, social security, etc.) would make up for that difference.\n\nSome people refer to it as a 27% tax. That is incorrect, because people don't pay corporate income tax. Corporations do. \n\nIt is also a little-known fact that Mr. Cain intends the 9-9-9 plan to be a bridge to the FairTax. [[source](_URL_0_)] [[Info on FairTax.](_URL_1_)]\n\nOn a purely personal note, I am in favor of almost any plan that reduces or eliminates the gamesmanship of our present tax code, therefore, I am at least intrigued by Mr. Cain's proposal.",
" It regards taxes. 9% tax on corporate income, 9% tax on individual income, and a 9% national sales tax across the board. \n\nof coarse this is impossible, but people are having fun with herman, and I think he is having fun too",
"hmm...did you ever play sim city? You know how taxes start out at like 9% for residential, commercial, and industry? It's kind of like that\n",
"9% Corporate Income Tax\n\n9% Personal Income Tax\n\n9% National Sales Tax\n\nThe elimination of loopholes would make large companies (like GE) that can typically lawyer their way around taxes start paying. The national sales tax would enable the federal government to tax money they can't otherwise tax very efficiently now, such as money brought in from other countries or money earned illegally or paid \"under the table\" rather than through the payroll system.\n\nIt is believed by some that those two factors, combined with the simplicity of the new tax code, would increase the federal government's income and make it harder to avoid taxes. \n\nIt's believed by others that the net tax burden to the poor would be increased, because they don't pay income tax right now, however, others argue that the elimination of other taxes the poor do pay (payroll, social security, etc.) would make up for that difference.\n\nSome people refer to it as a 27% tax. That is incorrect, because people don't pay corporate income tax. Corporations do. \n\nIt is also a little-known fact that Mr. Cain intends the 9-9-9 plan to be a bridge to the FairTax. [[source](_URL_0_)] [[Info on FairTax.](_URL_1_)]\n\nOn a purely personal note, I am in favor of almost any plan that reduces or eliminates the gamesmanship of our present tax code, therefore, I am at least intrigued by Mr. Cain's proposal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.hermancain.com/999",
"http://www.fairtax.org"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.hermancain.com/999",
"http://www.fairtax.org"
]
] |
||
74m14p | how do telescopic sight or scope in sniper rifle work? the scope is few inches higher than the bullet line so how are the bullet hit the mark in the scope? | Just like the title. And super sorry for my english. my Third language | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74m14p/eli5_how_do_telescopic_sight_or_scope_in_sniper/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnzdj4u"
],
"score": [
73
],
"text": [
"[Here is a helpful diagram](_URL_0_), that shows an exaggerated view of what's going on.\n\nBullets don't travel in a straight line, despite what it might look like. They travel up and then down in an arc, called a ballistic arc or path, just like throwing a football. Light on the other hand, for all intents and purposes, does travel in a straight line, which brings about your question. To make sure your bullet hits what you see through the scope you \"zero\" or \"sight in\" the scope or optic. This is where you pick a certain range, say 25m, where the bullet will be passing through that point where it looks like it is in the scope. It will then again pass through another point that is in line with the scope on its way down, say 300m. \n\nA shooter can pick different ranges to zero his scope, and each one will have a point where it intersects with the straight line path of the sight or scope on its way up the arc, and again on the way down. Different bullets, different barrel lengths, different calibers, etc all change what these paths are, so a good shooter will make a table or chart for a specific rifle, scope, bullet weight, amount of gunpowder, etc and calculate where the bullet will be for that particular setup at any given range. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/30/178630-004-C40430FD.jpg"
]
] |
|
alsiqm | what is the most common underlying biological cause of male erectile dysfunction as one gets older? | My understanding of the engineering of the male body is something like this, am I right?
The penis is a bit like a balloon, add internal pressure and up he rises. The pressure is supplied by the blood flow into and out of the penis. If you block the exit flow with a controlling 'valve' (a sphincter muscle closing off the exit vein) then the back pressure will fill the penis. Sproing! There needs to be a method to control this valve of course which I presume is a combination of hormones and nerves.
So what can go wrong?
I'm guessing the possible faults are a blocked artery to the penis, a failed sphincter muscle on the blood flow out or a failure in the control system such as low testosterone? All of the above? Or is there something else completely? I know there can probably be lots of options but what is it commonly that's attributed to 'old age'?
Finally what does a well known pill do to the system to temporarily patch it?
Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/alsiqm/eli5_what_is_the_most_common_underlying/ | {
"a_id": [
"efgr44k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe high blood pressure is one of the most common causes. Viagra was developed specifically to be a blood pressure med but turned out with the best side effect ever."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1el7ab | where does the debt go when someone or a company declares bankruptcy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1el7ab/eli5_where_does_the_debt_go_when_someone_or_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca1ar8o",
"ca1arj9"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Any assets of the person or company will be sold where possible.\n\nAfter that, whatever money there is will be split between the various people that are owed money. In most countries, there is some kind of order of priority, for example the taxman might be paid before everyone else.\n\nAfter that, any remaining debt is written off.\n\nWhat does that mean? Well, imagine you lent me £10, and I promise to repay you next weekend. But next weekend I don't have the money. Nor the weekend after. Eventually, you realise you'll never see that money again. You write the debt off. That's what happens when someone declares bankruptcy and there aren't enough assets to settle all the debts.",
"No where. The company just doesn't get that money ever. They write it off as a loss, which they can usually declare on their taxes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2h675v | what happened to the economy the first time the government raised the minimum wage? | Did the economy perform poorly, better or no change? Did employment fall or rise? Did the number of people in poverty increase or decrease? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h675v/eli5_what_happened_to_the_economy_the_first_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckpt2i3",
"ckpt41r",
"ckptg78",
"ckpvghf",
"ckpvsny",
"ckpw58d",
"ckpwcux",
"ckpwz0t",
"ckpxo3a",
"ckpxqhi",
"ckpxx81",
"ckpxxme",
"ckpy0hj",
"ckpysp6",
"ckpz29w",
"ckpz7as",
"ckpz9z3",
"ckq0sth",
"ckq0uyg",
"ckq198h",
"ckq25ig",
"ckq32uz",
"ckq3kof",
"ckq3xnm",
"ckq40hv",
"ckq4b5o",
"ckq4gdz",
"ckq4oel",
"ckq5t4k",
"ckq5xb2",
"ckq6aml",
"ckq6po7",
"ckq7k1k",
"ckq8tol",
"ckq9bvg",
"ckq9mp1",
"ckqauff",
"ckqdk49"
],
"score": [
3,
1394,
108,
7,
6,
13,
12,
2,
18,
3,
2,
3,
6,
12,
11,
8,
4,
4,
3,
2,
3,
6,
5,
4,
2,
4,
2,
6,
2,
7,
2,
15,
2,
2,
10,
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"It gave people more money to spend on necessities and a few extras. This in turn created more demand and increased the work force to add to the supply. Causing lower unemployment. Most people if they have more money they will spend more money. Again this creates more of a demand, more demand creates more jobs to produce the goods, to deliver the goods and sell the goods.",
"Looking at the first time might not do too much for us, maybe more interesting to see what happened when the states got free to set their own minimum wages as it creates a bit of a ideal laboratory for us.\nin between 1997-2007 the federal minimum wage didn't change but states fluctuated theirs and the overall consensus is that raising the minimum wage in no way leads to fewer jobs in the economy. You can read more about it in the study *\"Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?\", the Center for Economic and Policy Research*\n\nYou can also read more about it from *\"Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders\", Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley* This study compared all neighboring counties in the U.S. located on different sides of a state border with different minimum wage levels between 1990 and 2006 and found no adverse employment effects from higher minimum wages.\n\nSo we know that raising the minimum wage does not negatively affect employment, so what about the other stuff?\n\nWell, raising the minimum wage generates several benefits, it has been shown to reduce staff turnover and it also increases the disposable income of low wage earners stimulating consumption. An added benefit is also that a lot of minimum wage earners will be able to get off government aid, this lessens the stress of state finances.\n\n**DISCLAIMER** This is a simplified view on a minimum wage increase, although not incorrect it is a complex issue and I urge anyone to take a in depth look on your own, ask questions and clarify opinions.",
"Which government and which minimum wage? The first minimum wage (according to Wikipedia) was set in 1389 in England and was pegged to the price of food, so it went up and down frequently. I doubt that anybody can find you good data on the impacts of the changes in that wage. \n\nHistorically, however, it has been hard to predict how a minimum wage will play out. It depends on lots of factors, such as the unemployment rate, the overall economic situation, whether or not there is one employer or lots of employers, what the inflation rate is like, how big the jump in minimum wage is, how broadly it is applied (industry and geography) etc. \n\nThe fact that it is so complex means that nobody finds any clean, strong correlations that apply in all cases. This leads to debates with cherry-picked data. \n\nWhen looking at meta-studies (studies that draw on as much data as possible across as many other studies as possible), what typically happens is that employment stagnates. Nobody gets fired because of a small raise in minimum wage, but the rate of hiring new employees slows, leading to more unemployment over the next few years. \n\nWhether or not raising minimum wage is good for the economy overall, however, depends on how you define \"good\" and how minimum wage is raised. Typically, frequent small increases in minimum wage have all the benefits with fewer of the costs (shocks to employment). A high minimum wage is typically a drag on growth and employment, but ensures that companies that can afford to pay good wages do. A low minimum wage can't prevent abusive business practises. Since you can never pick the perfect minimum wage, raising it and lowering it simply brings different sets of problems and advantages. \n\nAs for the question of poverty, it depends on where you set your poverty line, how good your country's safety nets are, and what percentage of the population is actually making minimum wage. Higher minimum wages can lead to more unemployed or underemployed people, who will be in poverty if the country doesn't have a good welfare system. A lower minimum wage can mean that people who work full time are still in poverty. ",
"Raising the minimum wage can benefit those who already have a minimum wage job, but can negatively impact those who are looking for work and have a productivity level that falls below the legally set minimum wage-rate. The problem is that it is hard to collect data on the people who cannot find jobs because the minimum wage has now been raised. It looks great if you just look at people who already have the jobs, assuming that their hours are not cut or their jobs are not automated. But if you look just at the winners of Russian roulette it will look good too.",
"Going off of that, what were wages like *before* the implementation of the minimum wage? ",
"Couple things going on here. First, to address your question directly, as another commenter noted that's more of a question for askhistory. Simply asking \"what happened\" isn't really ELI5 material IMO, ELI5 is more of a \"why\" not a \"what\" question.\n\nNow, it appears that the motive of this question is to try and glean some insight as to the effect increasing the current minimum wage (let's assume the US) will or will not have, using past economic performance after such an event as a predictor for future performance. In fact, what happened the first, or the second or the third time the minimum wage was modified are completely independent events from one another, and would be completely independent in the event the US raises minimum wage again.\n\nNow, trying to keep this in as ELI5 terms as I can, and without going off on a billion tangents a topic of this complexity deserves, the largest factor a minimum wage increase will have on employment depends on the size of the increase. In simple supply and demand, static model, ELI5 terms, there is a price for labor (wage) at which the amount of people willing to work equals the amount of jobs available at that given wage.\n\nOption 1:you raise the minimum wage above this (called an equilibrium) you will have a surplus of labor - since workers are being paid so much, there will be more workers than jobs available. Employers value the labor performed at a lower wage than it's mandated they pay, so they reduce the amount of jobs available and look for other ways to accomplish it (outsourcing, automation, illegal labor, etc)\n\nOption 2: you raise the minimum wage to a point below the equilibrium point. Not much happens TBH, at this price employers are still demanding jobs, there are still people willing to work for this wage, small modifications like messing around with hours goes on. There will still be employers who cut back on jobs, but for the most part this isn't a huge deal\n\nOption 3: you raise minimum wage to exactly the equilibrium point. This is always the most efficient, best way, but is accepted as nearly impossible (by economists at least) to get exactly right, and what is exactly right one day, may not be exactly right the next day. This has to do with the fact that the US economy is what's known as a complex-adaptive system, but to expound further on this quickly leaves the realm of ELI5. For all intents and purposes, nailing the exact equilibrium in a market the size of the US labor market, is impossible, due to *many factors*\n\nFor more on this principle, you can do some research on price floors and price ceilings. Minimum wage is a form of price floor\n\nIt's ridiculously more complicated than that, but that's as simply as I can put it. I know I've assumed a lot about the transparency, elasticity, and non-tradeability of labor here but this is ELI5, so, starting with the Econ 101 explanation.",
"The 13 States that raised the minimum wage this year have the strongest job growth in the country. ",
"economics come into play. nothing changes since the price goes up relative to the minimum wage. goods will just cost more. ",
"The minimum wage argument cannot be dictated by historical precedent, nor can it be dictated by a couple simple rules. \nRaising the minimum wage may or may not increase prices that consumers pay. It depends on a number of factors. \nFirst off, is the economy at full economic productivity? In this case, there is already a glut of economic demand, and the increase in demand will be immediately balanced out by increased prices. For instance, to get more raw materials when all of them are already being used, then the increase in demand for those items will not cause (much) more to get created; they're already at capacity.\nIf the economy is NOT running at full economic potential, then there is unused potential and a lack of demand. An increase in the minimum wage will increase the amount of demand, and that will spur the creation of more raw materials, more finished goods, and that will lead to an increase in the number of people who are employed. \nCompanies do not hire because of tax breaks. They hire because they have more orders than they can fill with their current workforce. An increase in the minimum wage when the economy is not at full production can help create more demand. \n < edit > \nSecondly, are companies profitable? Do they have the ability to absorb increased wages without increasing prices? Basically, can companies shed a little profit in order to keep prices stable. \nThird, is worker productivity increasing faster or slower than the overall increase in wages? If productivity is increasing at a faster rate than the wages increase, companies are STILL harvesting better value from the labor of their workers. \nFourth, is the labor market loose (high unemployment) or tight (full employment)? High unemployment means there is little reason for the market to raise wages, so a government-imposed minimum wage hike is more likely to have consequences. \nFifth, what does inflation look like? If inflation is high, the wages have to increase at a good clip in order for workers to continue to keep their demand. But it ALSO means that companies have added incentive to borrow money/grow, as the cost of something today will \"cost\" less in the future. However, high inflation means interest rates will likely be higher, increasing the cost of borrowing. \n\n",
"In the late '40s Harry Truman raised the minimum wage to 75 cents (from 25 cents, I believe). \n\nThe country was in a post war economic boom (accompanied by record inflation), so the increase didn't have a significant impact on jobs or GDP.",
"Last time I've read one, meta-analysis of enormous body of academic research on the subject of minimum wage hike effects on employment yielded about zero median effect with some dispersion around it.",
"Here's an example of [San Francisco](_URL_0_)\n\nBasically, the number of jobs was the same. Pay went up 17%, the cost of goods went up 2%-3%",
"[The history of the minimum wage](_URL_1_) is very clear. Those unions that were trying to keep African Americans out of the labor force wanted to increase the cost of labor to encourage people to pay [white union members over \"Scabs.\"](_URL_0_)\n\nThe problem with your question is that Congress is very clever. If today the minimum wage is $7 and tomorrow they increase it immediately to $15, unemployment would skyrocket - they know this... but they won't admit it - all economics textbooks agree. That is why all implementations of minimum wage increases have been relatively slow (you must consider inflation to find the real value of the minimum wage increases - it is a complex calculation beyond an ELI5). \n\nBut, the concept of elasticity is now vital (but again, too much for an ELI5). Simply stated, a rubber band can only be stretched so much before it breaks, right? That is a sufficiently similar explanation to what elasticity means. In this case, with unemployment and minimum wage, a market can only take so much of an artificial increase in wages before it snaps. \n\nFor example [in American Samoa](_URL_2_) the minimum wage was increased very slowly and was around $3/hour (Congress made a special category for territories so they would have a much lower minimum wage - ask yourself, why?!). During one of these increase cycles, the major employers in American Samoa could not break even anymore and shut down their factories, moved onto mainland US soil and automated. Unemployment skyrocketed (the rubber band snapped). \n\nThe same thing happens with all increase in minimum wage but Congress does it subtlety and slowly so the economy is able to adapt and prices just go up a little bit. Over the course of a couple years, no one really notices (except the poor and unemployed, but supporters of minimum wage don't care about them) but over the course of decades and the last century - the trend is very clear. Cost of living has skyrocketed and jobs are shipped overseas (the rubber bands keep snapping). \n\n----\n\nSo I said earlier that all economics textbooks agree and you might think that is an outlandish claim. But I guarantee that every single econ book that handles supply-demand and prices will state the following: \n\n**As the cost of a good or service is increased above its market rate, consumption of it will necessarily decrease.**\n\nAbsolutely 100% of all economists and all econ textbooks agree on this **fact**. Like, you know how climate change scientists talk about the 97% consensus? Yeah, well this is 100% all economists agree. \n\nBut as with all clever people, people like Paul Krugman are greedy and clever and will manipulate data to make himself rich. But when the above fact is applied to minimum wage, it becomes clear: \n\n**As the cost of a person's labor is increased above the ability or desire of the employer to pay, consumption of that person's labor will decrease.** \n\nSo if I want to pay you $5 to flip burgers for me, but you want me to pay you $7, I'm not going to pay you. If I am currently paying you $5 to flip burgers for me, but the gov't forces me to pay you $7, I'm going to fire you.",
"I don't think it's black and white, like any political decision it will have positive and negative effects. \nOne problem is not all industry's should have a minimum wage. Let's say I make $6/hr, and that's all my boss can afford to pay me, then they raise the minimum wage to $7/hr I would be let go. My boss would lose money by keeping me on payroll and I am now out of a job. Now my boss could raise the prices and pass on the cost to the consumer. This could mean that consumer then takes a pay cut since his purchase power parity has dropped, or the consumer buys less. The price of both the product and my wage are governed by the laws of supply and demand. \nOn the other hand, if I should be making more, and my boss can afford it, that would be a good thing. I would rather see unions getting into places like this then forcing everyone to pay a minimum wage. Just my two cents. ",
"After reading a lot of good points. How do those who don't advocate a lift in minimum wage or an increased marginal tax rate suggest one born disadvantaged raise themselves out of poverty? As an egalitarian I'm genuinely curious what another point of view is. ",
"How about a wiki page:\n_URL_0_\n\nOther countries have minimum wage too! The interesting thing, the EU countries without minimum wage instead have strong Union presence that negotiates a min wage in their field.\n\n_URL_1_",
"The first few minimum wage rates were substantial changes. People lost hours, and jobs didn't replace turnover employees. Significant increases in minority unemployment were observed, and with each large increase it was continued. Small increases have less noticeable effects and are usually negated by inflation.\n\nIn 1938 there was a large increase in unemployment. (When very high unemployment rates had already been trending declines, it was still the FDR era depression.) From about 12% to 15% unemployment to about 20%.\n\nUnemployment rates began to decline with the pre-draft and draft enlistment in the military.",
"Read \"Economics in One Lesson\" by Henry Hazlitt.",
"Imagine if an owner of a company got an individual tax break if they paid their lowest paid employees a certain percentage of their highest paid employee. The tax break would get better if that percentage PER EMPLOYEE was further above minimum wage. This creates incentives to pay better with company money. Meanwhile, the corporation still get taxed but the owner gets the tax break eliminating the reason to sneak money around. Everyone wins.",
"A good place to start your research would be to find out when and why the government got involved with setting minimum wages in the first place. From my knowledge, I believe it started during the industrial revolution when kids were \"forced\" to work for little to now money. citation needed. The rest of the story is just us trying to keep up with inflation that is partially caused by these government interventions to begin with. ",
"Usually, minimum wage changes remain below what most workers are already earning. A small percent of the economy is affected, so the effects are masked by other changes unrelated to minimum wage.\n\nNo one would argue that a sufficiently large rise in the minimum wage (say, $1000/hour) would be detrimental to poverty, employment and the economy.",
"It works everywhere but America for some reason. Perhaps it is because of the fear mongering lobbyists. It is hilarious how all you armchair economists use scare tactic sound bites like rampant inflation and mass job losses yet ignore the fact that hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars are locked up not being spent... ie not contributing to the economy, thus forcing more money to be printed which contributes to higher inflation. But that is all CEOs and such's money and we all know they are the only people who work hard.\n\nRaising the minimum wage will not tank the USA's economy just like paying some stage monkey 50million for making a crappy movie dosnt tank the economy. ",
"\"In 1938, the federal government set the first U.S. minimum wage at 25 cents per hour. At the time, the average wage in the United States was 62.7 cents per hour, so most workers were unaffected. However, the law also applied to Puerto Rico, which was poorer and underdeveloped relative to the United States. Many workers in Puerto Rico earned only 3 to 4 cents per hour at the time. The result of the minimum wage was massive business bankruptcy and high unemployment in Puerto Rico.\"\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"I'm a single white male who works at Walmart. I make just under my state's poverty wages level. I work 32-40 hours a week. I tried working 2-3 jobs at once to get ahead but it doesn't work because you end up spending more just to stay on top of work.\n\nA theory I've been toying with is having all businesses of a certain size be required to pay min wage times a certain percent more. This would come into effect after a certain number of years in successful business. Less time for large chains and big box stores. Small businesses would only pay min wage until they grew into more than just several businesses (they'd be a chain then). Franchises would have a certain amount of time before they would have to pay min plus a certain percent more. Just an idea.",
"its just a price floor. it works on other things too, like rent in New York. it does however make a surplus of people willing to work said wage. The whole economy isn't going to be that influenced by a minimum wage hike. Not everyone is only capable of working at McDonald's or Wal-mart or some shit.",
"Could someone please explain what would happen to the pay rates of employees making slightly higher then min wage? Example: min wage employee performing basic job functions is making $8, but then it gets bumped to $12. So what happens to the employee currently making $12 (maybe a more specialized position) after min wage is bumped up? Do those employees get a boost in their rate as well? If they don't, what would prevent them from asking to be demoted? Essentially they'd be making the same $12 but with less responsibility. ",
"I believe even if we had slave labor the owners would still complain. the worst of the owners will always scream and complain that they are just not making enough. like how my fat cat keeps screaming that i don't feed it enough.",
"A capitalist neo liberal will tell you raising wages will cause unemployment, aids and cancer.\n\nLook at Ecuador, In 7 years the gov......\n\n[Lowered poverty from 37% to 25%,and extreme poverty from 16% to 9%](_URL_0_)\n\nGrowth wise, during the 2009 crisis Ecuador grew 2% while L America got -0.9%. Booming economy\n\nnumber 2 in the region in lowering inequality aka gini\n\nUnemployment was cut in half\n\nRidiculous amount of roads, schools, universities, housing for the poor, and hospitals built. Free education and healthcare, both got a million times better quality wise.\n\nPut banks in their place, which is to serve society and not the other way around\n\n[etc, etc, etc](_URL_2_)\n\n[**all of this and more while raising the minumum wage by %100 in just 7 years**](_URL_1_)",
"There was an interesting documentary from VPRO Backlight just a couple of days ago, unfortunately it hasn´t been translated to English yet but it will most likely be done soon and 80% of it is actually English spoken already.\n\nThe basic idea is that with more and more labour being taken over by computers and robots there is less and less labour to go around for humans, and the traditional idea of exchanging labour for wealth might have to change. It follows the thought experiment of not just guaranteeing a minimum wage, but giving all people a free base income with no demands on labour attached to it. This could free people up to spend more time taking care of their elders, do volunteer work, etc.\n\nAnyway, if you´re interested you can watch it here:\n\n_URL_0_",
"There's a great NPR show called Planet Money that tells the story of a mall that is divided across two municipalities with different minimum wages (and it's not too long, I promise):\n\n_URL_0_",
"I don't know about the first time, but the 4 or 5 times they did it during my lifetime: Nothing.",
"It's been raised 3 times in my life... and nothing bad happened.Cities didn't come to a halt, the world did not end. I had more money in my pocket after taxes... for the 2nd & 3rd increases, I didn't see a change because I was earning way more than the minimum. \n\nI like how people still subscribe to the idea that if the wage is increased, horrible things are going to happen. Bet these people are the same who think that Reaganomics is still a solid economic plan. ",
"scanned most of the thread, did not see anyone relating the cost of living to minimum wage. it is my understanding that when the minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of housing and utilities. ",
"I cant believe some of the so called \"facts\" people are posting in here. As a business owner I can tell you by raising the minimum wage raises the cost of the products the company is marketing. So the \"raise\" gets passed on to the consumer. Enjoy more expensive products! Minimum wage jobs are not designed to raise a family on or buy a house with, they are simply ENTRY level positions for people new the \"work force\". Why in the hell would anyone want to stay in a job that pays minimum wage? Why not work harder for another job? Oh that's right, because its easier to complain about not getting paid enough for a starting job that requires no skills or education. This country is doomed with this mindset. /End rant",
"The minimum wage in Australia is $16.87 and our economy has generally performed better than the U.S. and Europe (esp. During the latest economic crisis). Having high minimum wages does mean that our cost of living is a bit higher, but we also don't have anyone who works full time and can't afford rent, food, transport and other basics of life. I don't understand why this is even a discussion- why on earth would it ruin the economy? And more importantly, who would want to perpetuate an economy that is so blatantly unfair? I thought you guys got rid of slavery... Instead you just outsourced it to Walmart. ",
"Yes, but lately people have been arguing for $15 minimum everywhere. That won't work everywhere.",
"You would think that the economy would crash and everything would be fucked up if the min wage was increased what with all the negative views it has, but in reality, nothing really significant happens because the changes are so small they can't be seen on an individual level. What you'd see, though, is many lower class workers would get a small boost, and have a small amount of extra money, which they would put back into the economy by buying shit they need or want or whatever, so in all reality, workers having more money means more stimulus to the economy- at the expense of the company they work for having to pay them fractionally more. However, eventually inflation etc. catches up to the changes, and it evens out again, to where workers have less extra money to spend on stimulating the economy.\n\nIn countries like USA, we keep our wages stagnant in an effort to keep corporate profit solidified at the top- for those with wealth. Supposedly, Americans think if the rich get richer, everyone benefits, but you tell me where money is best spent- being invested by a rich person, whose main motivation is for their money to go back to them, or to be stored in a bank or mutual fund? Or could that same money be better spent from low class or middle class workers who will spend it immediately on whatever real products they need?\n\nI think America has the answers- we've seen through history, America is most strong when there is a strong middle class. Right now we have a strong upper class and it's only a very few- and a very weak middle and lower class which both border on poverty. If I had any type of say in the USA, I'd say our money is best spent being invested in things like minimum wage increases and health care expenses for everyone- that way the middle and lower class would have more money to spend and we would see an immediate boost to all sectors of the economy, because people would actually have money to spend on things, and whne people spend more money and businesses get more money from sales, they can do things like expand, hire more employees, etc. Instead, in the USA, there is this idea like lower/middle class spending is not important or devalued- there is this idea that only the wealthy having and spending money is important, and rather than providing a living wage, the upper class wants to keep wages stagnant so they can keep that money from being spent on payroll, whereas if I were a business owner, and had large sums of money, I would prefer my workers have more money to spend and value their jobs more.\n\nI dunno, it's all a bunch of BS just so a few people can benefit by keeping more money in their own pockets by keeping thousands of people at or slightly above the poverty line. It's ridiculous.\n\nIn countries like Australia, the minimum wage is constantly raised to keep worker's pay above inflation, so they are always one step ahead of cost, which is completely opposite of what we do here in the USA. In USA, we keep wages stagnant, and that extra money goes back to the people at the top instead of allowing it to go back to workers. ",
"When employers decree that they will have to stop hiring, let people go, or reduce people's hours they are pretty much attempting bull shit the public and congress out of raising wages.\n\nIf you are a employer paying nothing but minimum and can't afford more, your business model needs adjusting. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023116005_wageimpactsxml.html"
],
[
"http://userpages.umbc.edu/~pyoung/Publications/whatsrace.pdf",
"http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm",
"http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=aq&v=74"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_minimum_wage",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3559"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nuevatribuna.es/media//nuevatribuna/images/2013/02/27/2013022712001262464.gif",
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3UHg9ddQ7L4/Udty0jgl5zI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/h46rmdRGGrk/s1600/salario+2.png",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybZyri43qtA"
],
[
"http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2014-2015/gratis-geld.html"
],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/08/28/343430393/a-mall-with-two-minimum-wages"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
70b6bl | why do crickets get quiet around humans, considering we aren't one of their predators? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70b6bl/eli5_why_do_crickets_get_quiet_around_humans/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn1t0bi",
"dn1t0bi",
"dn1th3d",
"dn1vyol"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Cos they don't know that. Something big just walked past and that's terrifying when you're an insect.\n\nBut all insects are edible (so long as they're not brightly coloured) and in many places people do eat them.",
"Cos they don't know that. Something big just walked past and that's terrifying when you're an insect.\n\nBut all insects are edible (so long as they're not brightly coloured) and in many places people do eat them.",
"When a lumbering monstrosity twenty thousand times your size clomps past, you may want to hush for a second and let the beast pass without trouble.\n\nSure a human is unlikely to stoop down and eat a cricket these days, but that's not true for all animals. Laying low while unfathomably bigger animals pass is a good survival strategy that most flightless insects have adopted.",
"Same reason you might get nervous when a cop is driving behind you, even though you aren't doing anything wrong.\n\nYou can't know whether or not your break light is out, and you don't know whether you look just like the guy who robbed the liquor store, so you are going to be extra careful. Crickets aren't nearly as smart as you are and don't know you are not a predator, so they are going to be careful, just in case."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4wva64 | why do sinus problems sometimes cause headaches? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wva64/eli5_why_do_sinus_problems_sometimes_cause/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6aeae4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sinuses are air filled pockets in your skull. When you get certain infections, the inflammation and mucus built up nearby will put pressure on the sinuses. That causes pain, in the usual way that increased pressure will on any part of your body."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1bc8oj | why is the legal limit 0.08? | I just don't know anything about the history of the legal bac being 0.08 to drive car. Is this a completely arbitrary number? Or were there studies done and most people can't operate a motor vehicle with a 0.08 level? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bc8oj/why_is_the_legal_limit_008/ | {
"a_id": [
"c95jpzj",
"c95k6wu"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"The original limit was 0.15, and this was set based on a study done by the American Medical Association in 1938. The group MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) came along and lobbied hard to lower limits, first to 0.10 and then to 0.08. *This is not based on any science.* They'd really like to have prohibition back, and they are just working the limit down little by little. \n\nIn 2010, 70% of drivers involved in a drunk driving fatality had a BAC of 0.15 or higher. \n",
"It's an arbitrary number and different countries use different numbers.\n\nIt started as 0.15%. Various countries have different limits, [between 0.08% and as low as 0.00%](_URL_0_).\n\nAll these limits are very strict and it isn't really very dangerous to drive over the limit, especially in low limit countries.\n\nThey are often set too low compared with actual risk, so politicians can claim they are \"tough on drunk driving\".\n\nPeople don't normally carry breathalizers so they don't know how much alcohol they had, and it's easier to just teach them to not drink at all before driving rather than teach them how to measure how much they can drink.\n\n0.08 is not too unreasonable, but low limits like 0.02 many countries have are just politicians being assholes to appear tough."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Legal_limits"
]
] |
|
r5mkg | the different types of wine and how they are paired with food. | Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r5mkg/eli5_the_different_types_of_wine_and_how_they_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4356u4",
"c4377ee",
"c439a30"
],
"score": [
31,
19,
6
],
"text": [
"Ok so you've got your red wines and your white wines. In America we tend to call the wine by the actual species of grape in it: Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Pinot Noir, Chardonnary, Sauvignon Blanc. They all sound exotic because they came from overseas - nothing snobbish. And of course you can have wines that are a blend of different grapes to get different tastes (or to make cheap grapes into cheap wine that tastes ok. Like generic table wine.)\n\nIn places like France the wine will be named after the place it's grown: Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc... This tripped me up for years, but I tend to stick with California wines anymore (because I live here and take wine tours here)\n\nTraditionally white wines go with lighter foods: fish and poultry. Where reds go with heavier dishes: beef and lamb. But it's pretty much poppycock. Really you just want a wine that compliments what you're eating - and to learn that you just need to drink a lot of different wines (or ask your waiter, eventually you'll get an idea what you like.) The way I think of it is this: if you sipped some wine and ate some food at the same time - would they taste awful together? Like something really watery and sweet with a mouthful of bratwurst and mustard. Likewise you don't want to drown a piece of nice fish with a giant red wine that's overpowering. The wine should follow the food and make the food seem even tastier while cleansing your pallet for your next bite. You shouldn't take a shock to the system drinking it. \n\nThings I like: Grenache Blanc which is a light, crisp white wine that's often very green apple-y. It's great for a warm summer day picnic. It goes great with picnic snacks like cheese and crackers and fruit. Everything is light on the tongue. Who wants a giant meat-pizza out in the hot sun?\n\nPinot Noir: a lighter red that's very easy to drink. You can have a glass by itself (or a bottle). Sit on the patio at night and chug some down. Goes great with most dinner foods. Lamb. Grilled artichokes. \n\nMerlot: makes great wines that tend to be cheap. If I need to serve lots of wine to friends or at a party, I'll probably get a case of merlot. Goes with most stuff. Maybe a little sweet however. \n\nCabernet Sauvignon: the classic red wine. Tends to be tannic - leaves your mouth slightly dry on the finish - but not in a cottonmouth way - the kind of way you want to start eating again. I tend not not like cab unless it's a really exceptional bottle - and then I fall in love all over again. It tends to be a stronger taste and feel in your mouth so it likes to go with equally strong food.\n\nHope it helps. Also \"Wine for Dummies\" is an AWESOME book. Check it out.",
"I spent a few years pouring wine for a living and the quickest way I found to match wine and food is to judge the wine on two things, both of which relate to the ever elusive concept of \"mouthfeel\":\n\n* **Body:** Full or light. This basically refers to the richness and intensity of flavor. A difficult thing to describe, but you'll know it when you drink it.\n\n* **Dry/Sweet**: The tannins/acidity of the wine. More tannins/acidity = drier. More ripe fruit/residual sugar = sweeter.\n\nIf you imagine each of these categories as an axis on a table, you get a quick and dirty way to judge wines. Just sticking with grape-types (varietals) you can shove the most common US types of wine into easy groups:\n\n**Red**\n\n* Light/Sweet: Pinot Noir\n* Light/Dry: Merlot\n* Full/Sweet: Zinfandel, Syrah/Shiraz\n* Full/Dry: Cabernet Sauvignon\n\n**White**\n\n* Light/Sweet: Pinot Grigio, Riesling\n* Light/Dry: Sauvignon Blanc\n* Full/Sweet: Chardonnay\n* Full/Dry: Chenin Blanc/Viognier (Not really a good mainstream US choice, sorry)\n\nThe first thing you should know is that these groupings, like most broad descriptions of varietals, are complete and utter bullshit. The same grape can make enormously different different wines depending on where they are grown and how they are made into wine (vinified, yes it's a word). A straight syrah from Bordeaux is pretty innocuous, but a shiraz (same grape, diff name) from Australia is engineered to punch you in the face and steal your car. Similarly, most rieslings in the States tend to be on the light/sweet side, but a lot of the traditional German styles are amazingly crisp and dry. I've gone with kind of the stereotypical average styles you'll find in the US, where the whites are sweet and the reds are bold and sweet.\n\nAnyway, food.\n\nSo, try judging food on the same full/light & dry/sweet criteria, then select a wine that matches it. A meal of roast grouper with a side salad? Light and dry, grab a sauvignon blanc! BBQ ribs with a side of mac & cheese? Full and sweet, grab a zinfandel or shiraz. Essentially, choose a wine that is the boozy twin of whatever you're eating.\n\nOnce you've got that basic concept down, you can start learning more specifics about wine styles from various regions: their individual quirks and flavors. Then you can start making more sophisticated pairings, like knowing a full & dry wine can be great with rich and fatty foods (i.e. steak), or working out how to find something that pairs well with salty or spicy food (hint: try sparkling), or finding something that pairs with chocolate (hint: nothing, it's too sweet, pour some madeira). Of course, to really get good, you'll have to drink lots and lots and lots of wine. Try making tasting notes after your first few sips to get a feel for what works for you. Also try tasting a bunch of different types in the same sitting to compare styles. Make all your friends bring a bottle (or two) over, then start drinking and discussing. You already know what a bunch of different food tastes like, right? Now you've got to learn what a bunch different wines taste like. You. Poor. Soul.\n\nFinally, not to contradict BaconPotPie (whom I would pair with a nice Montepulciano d'Abruzzi or perhaps a Cote d'Rhone, depending on the specifics of the pot pie), but I am a European wine snob. Not only do you get to poke around with more obscure styles of wine (Basque Txakoli! Sicilian Nero d'Avola! Galician Godello! Hungarian Egri Bikaver!), but their wine labeling system actually is a lot more organized than America's. Even France, which gets needlessly complicated in the details, can give you a general expectation of what you're going to be drinking simply based on region. A Bordeaux red, to be legally called a Bordeaux, has to be made from certain grapes (mostly CabSav/Merlot with some CabFranc/Syrah/Petit Verdot) in a certain style. Same with a Rioja, Vouvray, Chianti, or Vinho Verde; you can have a certain expectation of what regional style of wine you're going to get that the American focus on varietals misses. Basically, Europeans focus on the style and ignore the grape, Americans focus on the grape and ignore the style. \n\nOK, that's my parting stereotype, commence drinking.",
"I teach and write about wine (and I am trained as a chef), and just want to add a few things. Drink what you like with what you like, that is the most important thing. Secondly, do a tasting with a bunch of wines and a bunch of foods to see what works for you. Everyone's taste are different. The tasting is great fun, and you and your friends will love it. Lastly, sweeter wines and sparkling wines usually do really well when I conduct these food and wine tastings. Enjoy!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
76abtp | why does the fed matter so much? and what sort of power do they have over the us economy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76abtp/eli5_why_does_the_fed_matter_so_much_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"dochwfw"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The Federal Reserve matters because it is the Central Bank of the United States and the lender of last resort for all of our other banks. It has a great deal of power over the economy, primarily through the buying and selling of Treasury Bonds and setting the \"ground rules\" that all other banks follow.\n\nIt's worth noting that people tend to massively misunderstand what the Fed is. It is not a Private Bank, it is a weird mix of Private and Public. It's Board of Directors is appointed by the President, but the Fed does not have to seek approval for its actions from Congress or the President. So it is an independent agency that ultimately acts on its primary mission - keep the US economy ticking along nicely."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4brk6o | what is difference in coffee roasts such as medium and light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4brk6o/eli5_what_is_difference_in_coffee_roasts_such_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1bqetp",
"d1br7kc",
"d1c8r1r"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The amount of time the beans are roasted for. Roasting for longer changes some of the chemical composition in the beans, which affects the flavor and mouth feel. Light roasts tend to have a sharper taste (called 'acidity' in coffee lingo but it's not talking about actual acid), while darker roasts tend to have a smoother taste.",
"In addition to the other answer: roasting longer results in less caffeine (it cooks it off), so dark roasts have the least and light have the most caffeine.",
"There's actually an incredible amount of science that goes into coffee believe it or not. Light vs dark is the same concept as cooking a steak, you can have it rare, or well done depending on your preferences. Different coffees from different regions are also better suited for different roasts. A lot of African coffees are very \"bright\" or acidic as another commetnor mentioned and theyre usually better as light-medium roasts. Due to this, they are also very sweet and even fruity tasting. while coffees like colombian, mexican, and some asian coffees are better as dark roasts and are heavier on chocolatey notes. There can be over 100 different sugars and compounds in a coffee bean so manipulating the heat and roast time can make a huge difference(even 2 degrees farenheit can dramatically change flavor).\nNeed anything else answered just ask for specifics\n\nSource: spent 2 years roasting for one of the most renowned coffee gurus in california"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
z93e5 | why is it more feasible to keep existing customers than getting new ones? | I don't study economics but i heard this from watching The Office but I'm assuming this is why telco companies try to give you a good deal when you threaten to cancel their products. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z93e5/eli5_why_is_it_more_feasible_to_keep_existing/ | {
"a_id": [
"c62joyh",
"c62jt1m"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are a source of income for them. They will try and get as much as they can from you but will accept less if it stops you leaving.\n\nIf say from your current deal they might be making £10 a week off you then that is great for them. If you leave they will make £0 a week off you. So if you threaten to leave they will try and keep you, even if you have to be reduced to say £4 profit a week it is better for them than losing a source of income completely up until a point where it would be a loss to keep you on.",
"Some businesses are basically impossible to grow overall. For instance, nearly *everyone* has some kind of phone. So for you as a phone company to get more customers, you have to take them away from other companies. That's much more difficult than just keeping a current customer, because changing phone services is a decent amount of work on the customer's part."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4nlpdr | what's the difference between voxel and point cloud based graphics? | I don't really understand this, from what I can gather both are based around points in 3D space
context:
I was looking at a video of Alex Evans talking about the tech behind their upcoming game which is apparently based around point clouds unless I misunderstood what he was saying
_URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nlpdr/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_voxel_and_point/ | {
"a_id": [
"d456s2g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They're essentially the same thing, points in a 3D space like you said. Voxels are generally thought of as the \"pixels\" of a 3D grid of known dimensions, say 512x512x512. Like how pixels are a unit of a 2D grid. Point clouds are generally used is a world space of undefined dimensions, like cm or mm in XYZ as floating point coordinates, but they can just add easily be integer coordinates just like in a voxel volume. It's trivial to convert a point cloud to a voxel volume and vice versa, so they are equivalent mathematically. I think the easiest way to think of it is that voxels are an element of a space with predefined, quantized dimensions, and points of a point cloud are elements of a space with undefined, non-quantized dimensions. Or maybe more succinctly, voxels are elements of a specific, defined voxel volume, and point clouds are just a collection of points."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9KNtnCZDMI"
] | [
[]
] |
|
70pvuh | why does a heavy night of drinking feel like such a dice-roll for how you'll feel in the morning? some mornings i feel like death while others i've never been more comfortable. | I don't really have different types of drinks either. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70pvuh/eli5_why_does_a_heavy_night_of_drinking_feel_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn566ck"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think a lot of it depends on what activities you were doing in the first place, and also your general health before you started drinking. Most of the times I feel bad after drinking is because ive only actually had 4 or 5 hours sleep after a night of dancing and running around etc. If you were drinking water during the night you might combat some of the effects of dehydration, same goes if you've eaten some food. If you throw up the alcohol hasnt always had time to enter your system and so you might feel better in the morning, plus your stomach isnt full of all the crap you have inevitably eaten over the course of the night.\n\nAlso alcohol contains a lot of histamine, if you have hayfever and its during the season for pollen alcohol will make your allergies go crazy, but its worse in the spring/summer compared to winter. Its why I always take an anti-histamine before I go out drinking.\n\nTL;DR lots of variables go into how you feel the next day, some you can control, others you cant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3c3a6d | why is ellen pao hated? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c3a6d/eli5_why_is_ellen_pao_hated/ | {
"a_id": [
"csrufaj",
"cssfuhm"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Since the subreddit ban wave (Fatpeople hate ect.) reddit decided she was satan, and never really came back from that. \n\nSome people believe she's commercializing reddit and steering it away from its roots. \n\nPersonally I don't think we have the information to read her character one way or the other. ",
"Ellen Pao has done some controversial things since becoming CEO at Reddit, like banning FatPeopleHate and a handful of other subreddits. There's some criticism that she doesn't really understand what Reddit is about and, given her VC/business background, is only interested in monetizing Reddit instead of promoting the ideals of Reddit's founders and/or improving the functionality of the site for moderators and users.\n\nShe also has a somewhat checkered employment history, having sued a former employer for gender discrimination after being terminated. She eliminated salary negotiation at Reddit as a result, claiming that salary negotiation leads to gender-based wage disparity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4hjln5 | if 2^-4 is 1/16, how come 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 isn't 1/16? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hjln5/eli5_if_24_is_116_how_come_2_2_2_2_isnt_116/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2q3cce",
"d2q3fzi",
"d2q3igr",
"d2q3j5t",
"d2q3klm",
"d2q3nk4",
"d2q3vw1"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because 2^-4 isn't 2/2/2/2. \n\n2^-4 is 1/(2x2x2x2), or rather, 1/(2^4 ), which is 1/16.",
"2/2/2/2 isn't 2^-4, it is 2 * 2^-3 or 2^-2 = 1/4. 2^-4 would be written as 1/2/2/2/2 or 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2.",
"When you're working with exponents, multiplying the same number is the same as adding their exponents - and dividing is the same as subtracting exponents.\n\nSo if you have 2/2/2/2, you're starting at 2^1. Then you divide that by 2, three times over - that's the same as subtracting 3 from the exponent. So our answer is 2^ (1-3), or 2^-2.\n\n2^-4 is equal to 2/2/2/2/2/2. You were just a couple of divisions off.",
"Power edit:\n\nYou're not accounting for 0. 2^0 is one. Divide 1 by 2 four times, you get 1/16th. So look at it more like 1 (your starting number, or 2^0), which is 1, then you get 1/2/2/2/2. The four twos act as your -4.\n\n2^0 = 1\n\n2^-1 = 1/2\n\n2^-2 = 1/4\n\n2^-3 = 1/8\n\n2^-4 = 1/16\n\nAt least, I think that's right. I suck at math.",
"2^-4 is the same as (1/2)/2/2/2. Because the 4 is negative, the first 2 becomes the inverse of 2, which is 1/2. This applies to other negative exponents as well. I hope this explains your question. Automod pls don't kill me. \n\n\n\n",
"Because: 2^-4 = 1/2^4 = 1/16\n\nOr in general: x^-n = 1/x^n\n\n[Exponential Function rules](_URL_0_)",
"2 divided by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 is just halving a number over and over.\n\n2 divided by 2 is 1\n\n1 divided by 2 is (.5)\n\n(.5) divided by 2 is (.25) = 1/4 \n\n\nWhereas, raising a number to a negative base is like taking 1 and dividing it by the base raised to the positive version of the exponent (i.e. 1/(2 ^ 4) = 1/16), which is 1 divided by 16, which is (.0625). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.math.brown.edu/UTRA/exponentials.html#rules"
],
[]
] |
||
puc69 | why is it that when i look through someone else's reading glasses i have blurred vision, but if i look through them with a camera i can see clearly? | I tried looking through my dad's reading glasses and it was so blurry it gave me a headache. I put my cell phone camera behind the lens and when I looked through I could see clearly. My brother and I couldn't figure out why that was. Could someone please explain? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/puc69/why_is_it_that_when_i_look_through_someone_elses/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3sb8f7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Just a guess but I'm pretty sure the camera has an autofocus. When you look at something a few inches away, then really far, your eyes adjust. It takes less than a second but your eyes are focusing until your brain decides that it is the proper focus.\nMost cameras do the same. The computer knows its blurry so continues to try to fix it. If you pointed it at something close and then far away it would have to take a moment to adapt. I would bet of you took it away very quickly it would be blurry for a moment before it adapted to the new situation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2o5knv | the u.s. national debt. | For the most part I understand the national debt but what I dont understand is that some people (conservatives) are saying the debt has gone over 18 trillion and others (liberals) are saying the debt has gone down. Is there anyway to get an unbiased answer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o5knv/eli5the_us_national_debt/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmjwcd1",
"cmjwgf7",
"cmjwkuo",
"cmjwllv",
"cmjwomc",
"cmjwpgk",
"cmjx5r0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
4,
38,
2,
10,
5
],
"text": [
"In 2013 it was 16.7 trillion, approximately 101% of GDP. It was 17.8 trillion as of June 2014, approximately 103% of the GDP",
"In short, the common tactic is to push the debt down the road a bit to make it look better now. So you can say that the debt is rising because we owe so much down the road (5 - 10 years from now) or you can say it is stable or going down because the current year's debt is lower. Both are right, and both are incorrect in different ways. \n\nWith complex economies and complicated accounting, there are always multiple \"right\" ways to look at the numbers. The best bet is to compare numbers historically using the same method, and stick to that method for comparison. \n\nIf you want something a bit more than ELI5, [this Atlantic article](_URL_0_) covers the debt and how it relates to the US budget. ",
"The debt has definitely been rising over last few years. Here are a couple of sources to see what the figures are:\n\n- _URL_0_ is a very popular site. I'm not sure where they derive their data from but you can explore their sources section at the bottom of the page to find out.\n\n- [The Treasury's site should be pretty unbiased (hopefully).](_URL_1_)",
"It's important to know the difference between the Debt and the Deficit.\n\nThe Deficit is going down, which means that the Debt is rising more slowly than it used to. As long as there is any Deficit, the Debt will increase.",
"Isnt more debt a good thing? it is impossible in our monetary system to pay all debt off, debt is a placeholder for the amount of money \"put into circulation\" and every dollar CREATED is created from bank credit and borrowed at interest. There is not enough money in the world to pay off total debt, and this is what drives the system forward ...debt is good, deficit is bad. We want to keep the amount of money being created going UP at the same rate new money is created, if the world money supply ever reached the level of debt ..and all debts were paid. The system would crash. \n\nThis is why we make more things, expand, grow, and spend more and more money and consume more resources. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nNote the following true statement:\n\n > At the end of the Clinton Administration in 2001, the United States was on track to pay off its debt and accumulate $2.3t in savings by 2011.\n\nThen Bush (a republican) gave tax cuts, and we went to war.",
"Is there an unbiased answer? No, because everyone has an agenda and has some opinion on the current debt situation. Every year, the U.S. government operates on a deficit. That is, the federal government spends more money than it receives in revenue. Expenses exceed income. More goes out than what comes in. The totality of these annual deficits is the national debt. This has good and bad implications, depending on how you look at things. Your political goggles are going to determine if you see this as a big issue or not. \n\nFrom accounting, finance, and economic perspectives, this also has good and bad implications. So much depends on how you look at things. \n\nThe real problems comes in when / if the government defaults on its debts (fails to pay in a timely manner). The way the government is able to operate with an annual deficit is by selling bonds and other types of securities. Folks lend the government money with the promise of being paid back with interest. Thus, they are \"securities\" because the government has an obligation to pay back the borrowed money at interest in a certain timeframe. The problem is when the government does not do that. \n\nFailure to pay back debts would result in people losing their investment and/or refusing to invest (loan money to the government) in the future. Federal bonds (the way the government makes up its financial shortfalls) are unsecured. Meaning the only guarantee you will get your money back is the fact that Uncle Sam has promised to do so. You are otherwise shit out of luck if the government decides to not (or that it cannot) pay you back.\n\nTL;DR--The government borrows money every year in order to operate. Your opinion of this depends on how you look at it. Regardless of your political affiliation, however, there would be huge negative consequences if the government ever failed to repay its debt. \n\nEdit: Spelling and grammar"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/"
],
[
"http://www.usdebtclock.org/",
"http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=&startDay=&startYear=&endMonth=&endDay=&endYear="
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt"
],
[]
] |
|
6j3lef | why does hot (and humid) weather make some people become more prone to aggression and overall "cranky" mood? | Title. Been having really hot and humid weather in Southwestern Ontario and it always drives me crazy. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6j3lef/eli5_why_does_hot_and_humid_weather_make_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"djb8ocd"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Extreme weather is an example of stress on your body, which likely results in a sour temperament. This is similar to why you feel cranky when you are in pain. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2tegn6 | how a company like hbo can detect a torrent on my pc? | I received an email from my ISP stating that they an infringement notice from HBO that I was torrenting a file. While my ISP claims they do not monitor my traffic, how can HBO detect the name of the file and application used to torrent the file? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tegn6/eli5how_a_company_like_hbo_can_detect_a_torrent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cny9gxp",
"cny9jxl",
"cny9zdg",
"cnya630"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because HBO (or some agency contracted by them) themselves have downloaded the torrent and ran it. They're writing down IPs, filenames, and applications, which you can garner from a torrent while it's downloading or uploading from/to other users.\n\nHBO then sent a letter to the ISP saying \"This, on this date, was committing piracy.\" HBO doesn't know it was you, specifically, who did it, but they know someone at that time was doing it from that connection. From that point, your ISP probably sees which client was using that ISP at any given moment, and sends the letter.",
"BayTSP is one of the bigger contractors that HBO uses in order to \"poison\" torrents. ",
"BayTSP or Media Defender, or some other agency, will be working for HBO. \n\nThey have a modified torrent client that joins the swarm you're participating in. When their modified client successfully downloads (and verifies against checksum) a piece of the file from your IP address, they can legitimately say you have been torrenting the file, or part thereof. They then get in touch with your ISP to send out the notice.\n",
"Because when you torrent a file, you're not only downloading -- you're uploading. One of the sites you were uploading to was contracted by HBO to find out who is sharing their shows.\n\nIt's really akin to you walking door to door and saying \"Hey, want a copy of Season 2 of Game of Thrones\" hundreds of times a day. Sooner or later, you'll knock on the door of someone who HBO is paying to look out for someone just like you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4ep1xq | why do bugs drown while floating | Sitting in a pool watching a fly struggle on the surface. Why do bugs drown even though they float? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ep1xq/eli5_why_do_bugs_drown_while_floating/ | {
"a_id": [
"d223ppr",
"d223qo8",
"d224hil"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Ill take a guess. Most insects don't breath with a set of lungs or the like but through their bodies. They drown because they are essentially porous? They fill up with water and Blub^Blub^Blub^blub",
"Insects breathe through small holes in their exoskeleton called \"spiracles.\" What happens is that water gets into these holes, and then doesn't flow out because the strength of surface tension overpowers the weight of the water at the minute scale we're talking about. Finally, they can't just cough it up because they don't have the anatomy for that. So they drown.",
"I'm not sure they necessarily drown all of the time... the water restricts their movement, sticks to them, and effectively traps them. This could kill them through exhaustion as well as damaging parts like wings or legs... Plus as they struggle, more parts of their body would come in contact with water and they'd be more likely to lose access to air. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
64ew1m | how is the inflation rate near zero when housing and rent have had substantial increases yearly? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64ew1m/eli5_how_is_the_inflation_rate_near_zero_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg1lwpq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Inflation is calculated by summing up the costs of certain expenses (food, water, etc) and dividing it by their costs from a year ago (or ten years ago, or whenever you want to compare)\n\nThere are different metrics used though, meaning that some may take into consideration some expenses (like housing or gasoline) while others do not look at these numbers. Odds are what you are looking at doesn't include these numbers, or just gives them a minimal weight.\n\nWhy don't we look at these numbers? Well for one the fluctuate a lot. Gasoline might cost $2.50 today but in 2 weeks it's down to $2.25, that's a drop of 10% which is way more volatile than the jar of peanut butter at your store. Why not a house? Well you buy a house once, maybe twice in your life time. It's not really the best metric to compare year to year to for inflation. That's why the housing market has its own numbers-like the 8% inflation you noticed"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4xkpep | the difference between a 40$ haircut and a 400$ haircut. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xkpep/eli5_the_difference_between_a_40_haircut_and_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6g913k"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"I got a $300CAD haircut plus my roots done. I was at the hair dressers for 3 or 4 hours. The hairdresser cut my hair as if it was an art piece, it was a really cool experience to see someone so passionate about cutting hair. There was a point when he was doing the finishi g touches where he was pretty much cutting hairs on an individual level. He even had me stand up, and cut my hair while I was standing to make sure that everything would hang perfectly. He also styled it in the end using products that are probably really expensive to buy. \n\nI got this done 2 months ago, and have since not been to the hair dressers once. As someome with platinum blonde hair this is pretty crazy, it is typical for someone to go every 5 weeks if they have bleach blonde hair. Mind you I am transitioning from full platium to streaks. \n\nIf you know anything about platinum blonde, it is pretty difficult to do your roots perfectly each time. Alot of people have \"banding\" of different tone. \n\nA good haircut lasts a long time. Yea you spend a lot to get it done but it will look good for 3 - 6 months, depending on if you like it at a certain length or not. \n\nI have hair just above my shoulders, longer hair does cost more, and depends on the cut. I have an assymetrical bob type cut. \n\nYou probably dont need to spend $400 for a good cut but $200 you should be able to get something very good if you just need cutting. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
y9b57 | how quad core (multi core?) works. | I actually have no idea what it's meant to do. I have a quad core computer but no idea what that means. Anyone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y9b57/eli5_how_quad_core_multi_core_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5th7gd",
"c5tit3s"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"It's like having more than one cook in a kitchen, instead of one really, really fast cook.\n\nWell, the problem is actually a little more complex: for years and years, they were training cooks just to work faster, but realized that they were getting towards the top of how fast one cook could work, so they decided they'd start working on having multiple cooks at a time, even if they didn't work quite as fast.\n\nIt should be noted that you get the usual problems associated with this: one cook will have something another cook needs, and time is taken up handing it from one to the other; it doesn't make any particular dish get cooked faster unless you teach the cooks how to work on different parts of it at the same time; no particular task goes any faster, since it only takes one cook to make a steak; etc.\n\nHowever, if you have many dishes that all need to get cooked at roughly the same time, having more than one cook is a big help.",
"I'm going to recommend you read this [amazingly simple yet detailed ELI5 post](_URL_0_) on the matter from a while ago."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jo4qc/eli5_why_is_a_22_ghz_i7_processor_better_than_my/"
]
] |
|
3abwhq | why does continuously mixing cement, like in the back of a cement truck, stop it from hardening? | Just as the title asks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3abwhq/eli5_why_does_continuously_mixing_cement_like_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"csb62po",
"csbblrm"
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text": [
"Cement will set at a fixed point in time based on its temperature and the amount of water in it. The goal is to make the cement slurry at the production facility and then time the trip of the delivery truck so that it shows up at the job site with the slurry in a useable state, can be poured, and then will begin to set on the schedule requested by the contractor (i.e. they don't want a liquified concrete puddle sitting around all afternoon).\n\nThe continuous mixing in the truck causes the water to evaporate at a predictable rate which means that the slurry will set at a predictable time. It also continues to mix all the aggregate and binder together ensuring that it doesn't separate by density during transport.",
"It doesn't. Concrete sets by chemical reaction. The rate of setting is determined by the precise mixture of ingredients in the concrete and any special additives (you can get accelerated setting additives and delayed setting additives), as well as temperature.\n\nThe cement truck will get filled with dry materials, have water added, and set mixing. The concrete will be tested for consistency, and when the right consistency is reached, it'll be set off. \n\nThe mixing will be scheduled so that the truck arrives at the job site with the concrete properly mixed, and with a reasonable amount of time remaining before the concrete sets. On really hot days, the concrete will be mixed with ice, to cool it down and slow the setting, so that it doesn't set in the mixer.\n\nYou do occasionally get problems, especially in Summer. If it's a really hot day, and the truck gets stuck in traffic, and delayed, then the concrete can start to set in the mixer. I've seen that happen once, and when the concrete was poured from the truck, it came out with big lumps in it and was completely useless. It just had to be poured out into a pile, left until it hardened, and then some guys with jack hammers could smash it up, and get rid of it.\n\nOf course, the real problem is if it sets in the truck. Someone's going to have a long day cleaning the truck out with a jack hammer..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3lu3i4 | what does it mean when a country 'nationalizes' something? | Like when a president or prime minister will nationalize a domestic or foreign company within their country. An example would be Mossadegh nationalizing the oil industry. Why was that a big deal, is that legal in any circumstance to do that to a foreign company? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lu3i4/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_a_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv9a1t3",
"cv9a5wb"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It basically means the government takes control of the company or their assets. It puts the operations of that company in government hands.\n\nSince its that country's government doing it, it can't really be illegal (unless it violates their constitution). But in modern democratic countries they probably wouldn't simply seize a company's assets, they would buy them out for a reasonable price.",
" > What does it mean when a country \"nationalizes\" something?\n\nNationalization is when the government takes over ownership and control of a company/industry. In some cases the government purchases the company/ies from the previous owners. In others, the government simply seizes ownership.\n\n > Why was that a big deal?\n\nThe (very profitable) oil industry in Iran was owned mostly by British interests (in particular the company that became BP). Mossadegh (and many Iranians) felt that more of the profits from Iranian oil should go to Iran, and took control of the industry. This immediately led to conflict, since many of the employees were paid by the British and much of the equipment was owned by them as well. This, of course, eventually led to a coup. All in all, it was a big deal for lots of reasons.\n\n > is that legal in any circumstance to do that to a foreign company?\n\nWell, there's not really such a thing as \"international law\" in many ways. What the sovereign government of Iran says is law in Iran, is the law in Iran. So it wasn't technically illegal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
332xi8 | what is "lbs of force" and is it the same as lbs? | If someone can kick at "3,000 lbs of force" would that be the same as saying their kick weighs in at 3,000 lbs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/332xi8/eli5_what_is_lbs_of_force_and_is_it_the_same_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqh0frl",
"cqh0jk3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, that's true. Pounds are force units. However, we colloquially use pounds as a unit of mass, so the \"of force\" modifier is necessary to remind us that it's actually force. ",
"There is pound force and pound mass. \n\nIt's the difference between kilograms and newton's in SI units "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2xah38 | why doesn't bill gates just invest his billions and donate the earnings rather than just donating his billions? | Wouldn't he donate more in the long run? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xah38/eli5why_doesnt_bill_gates_just_invest_his/ | {
"a_id": [
"coydbvq",
"coydcgh",
"coyeioe",
"coyfvx1",
"coyhoww"
],
"score": [
20,
5,
5,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"They do do this.\n\nThe Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is split into two sections - one is the actual charity (a certain amount has to be given each year in order for the charity to maintain its charitable status), the other is a trust that makes investments with the sole aim of having the highest return on investment.\n\nYou can see the list of investments on the website or on [Wikipedia](_URL_0_).",
"He does. Most of his donations are through the Gates Foundation, which like many charities is an investment point that uses the donations that they get to generate more money. ",
"The ELI5 of it is that he donates money to the foundation. The foundation then invests the money and spends it for the charity. The difference is that the foundation owns the money can can spend or invest as much as they need to achieve whatever goals they want - otherwise they'd have to beg Bill for more money if they needed it.",
"There are two philosophies when running a charity.\n\nOne is to give the money away slowly, like you suggest. You may give away more money in the long run, but you will accomplish your goals more slowly. Some goals you may not be able to accomplish at all.\n\nThe second philosophy is to give it away more quickly. This can be for selfish reasons, so that the donor can live to see the results of their work. Or it may be to allow the donor to accomplish bigger things than would be possible only with the earnings.\n\nGates is setting ambitious goals. He wants to eliminate entire diseases, for instance. That's not the sort of thing you can nibble away at. You go after a project like that with the biggest hammer you can.\n\nGates was encouraged in this philosophy by Warren Buffet who gave an enormous pledge to the Gates Foundation with the requirement that the Gates Foundation give it away at a rapid rate.",
"Keep in mind that its not like Bill Gates has a bank account with $40+ billion sitting in it. Most of his wealth *is* tied up in investments. For a long time, he held the majority of MSFT, but I don't think that is the case anymore. The same is true for a majority of the ultra-wealthy. I would even make the claim that everyone with a net-worth greater than $500 million has the majority of it in assets that are not very liquid. (Keep in mind that even if a specific stock is rather-liquid to the average person, whenever you own > %50 of the stock, it looses its liquidity because you selling out would literally demolish the price)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Bill_.26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation_Trust_Investments"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cukwp9 | what are the differences, plus strengths and weaknesses of different web browsers? explorer, chrome, duckduckgo, firefox, etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cukwp9/eli5_what_are_the_differences_plus_strengths_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"exvlo6u",
"exyb8so"
],
"score": [
20,
3
],
"text": [
"All those browsers are made by different companies with different visions/goals. This means some may be outdated, slow or gather all your data.\n\nDo note that I am personally using Firefox for years now, so when describing major differences I will probably be biased/haven't used the browsers for too long and only know what I gathered from other users.\n\nInternet Explorer is really old and not developed anymore. This means it is missing many new features websites nowadays will try to use and in return often not display everything correctly. It also is slow.\n\nChrome is made by Google. They got a lot of money - > Put a lot of money into developing it and currently chrome is the fastest browser*. Chrome also plans to prevent ad blocking in some ways in the near future (For example you will probably see Google ads, even with an ad blocker)\n\nFirefox is the second fastest browser after Chrome and is open source, meaning everyone can look at their code. This helps finding bugs/security exploits or even malicious code. Also Firefox doesn't save all your browsing data to analyse you.\n\nDuckduckgo is not a browser but an extension for different browsers AND a search engine replacing Google Search. Duckduckgo doesn't track your searches like Google Search does.\n\nAll in all - for the love of god, don't use Internet Explorer. Otherwise choose as you please.\n\n*Found some number regarding speed in [this article](_URL_0_), they say that while chrome is faster, it's only marginal and usually not noticeable.",
"Others already answered the question directly, but I want to add an important note. Internet Explorer should not be used for general web browsing. Even Microsoft considers it to be a \"compatibility solution\" at this point. Meaning that it should only be used to access old sites that had been made to work specifically with Internet Explorer and won't work on modern browsers. While there have been several emergency security patches made for IE, it still has many vulnerabilities. This is all in addition to the fact that it can't do many of things that modern web pages require and is generally a very slow and poor browsing experience. If you really need to use a Microsoft web browser, use Edge. More reading at the link below for those interested.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.netzsieger.de/ratgeber/firefox-vs-chrome"
],
[
"https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/8/18216767/microsoft-internet-explorer-warning-compatibility-solution"
]
] |
||
366y05 | why do gay people get so much (often violent) hate? | I grew up in suburbia, my neighbors were a gay couple and I never saw anyone treat them with anything other than the same respect they showed anyone else. Even the gay people in my rather small high school weren't bullied any more than the average slightly different student (to my knowledge at least).
When I went to college was the first time I saw the other side of this. I know from the news that some places don't approve of people being gay. I know that most, if not all, of the anti-gay marriage stuff comes from a religious stand point. And I can totally understand someone being uncomfortable with something different from them.
But I don't understand why they get so much violent hate. How people can go on TV and say they they want to murder/decapitate/torture gay people and feel like they are in the right, or how anyone isn't immediately appalled by this kind of talk. How people can feel justified in attacking a gay person, whether physically or emotionally.
To my knowledge gay people, collectively, have never done anything to inspire such hate in them. I can understand hate (but don't condone it) directed at groups of people known in the past or from history as "bad" or "dangerous" but gays have never oppressed people, committed genocide or spread a message of anything other than love and acceptance. So where does this hate come from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/366y05/eli5_why_do_gay_people_get_so_much_often_violent/ | {
"a_id": [
"crb9wx6",
"crba4np",
"crbabtt"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Leviticus 18:22, \"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.\"\n\nSome people take that book very literally and very seriously.",
"People generally fear what they do not understand. Most of the time it is just out and out ignorance.... and sometimes it is a fear that they may actually be gay or like the idea of trying it out.",
"In a word: ignorance. And I meant that in the truest sense of the word. A lack of knowledge. The people who prothletise about the dangers of \"the gay lifestyle\" don't actually know a single gay person in a personal way. How could they? What they have is some ancient caricature of a degenerate, diseased, sexual deviant that wants to topple civilisation. Most gay people just want to sit around in their underwear watching Netflix and eating cheese with the person they love while benefitting from the equal protections offered by recognition of their relationship by the state."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5sb243 | how do nfl/american football coaches coach using their headsets? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sb243/eli5_how_do_nflamerican_football_coaches_coach/ | {
"a_id": [
"dddo5bs",
"dddo5jw",
"dddo5s0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"They are communicating with coaching staff up in the boxes that can see the whole field. Additionally, offensive and defensive captains (usually a qb and a lb, respectively) have headsets in their helmets. ",
"Some helmets have both speakers and mics, the coaches are also talking to other members of the coaching staff located in the skyboxes to get different points of view as well. ",
"One player on offense (always the QB) and one player on the defense has a headset. When there are 15 seconds left in the clock to snap the ball, or when the ball is snapped, the headset is turned off, so they don't work in the middle of plays, only between plays.\n\nAnd the coach is talking to other coaching staff as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2bt3ff | why is it so easy to notice bad acting? what are good actors doing that makes them seem more natural? is there a scientific explanation for how we tell the difference? | Edit: So far everyone has said that we pick up on various cues. But I was thinking that there might be a more in-depth explanation:
1. For instance, suppose I wanted to learn how to be a good actor. Presumably an expert could teach me more technique than just "act natural and don't give any unreal-seeming cues".
2. Also perhaps there is some info on the part of our brain that identifies bad acting.
3. I was also thinking especially of the use of the voice. A well-known film director sometimes seems to have had good actors speak in a way that sounds like a bad actor. What are they doing differently? OK, they are somehow not giving natural vocal cues. But isn't there some better explanation of the difference between natural and unnatural voices?
4. Could a computer be programmed to identify sincere and insincere emotions by analyzing vocal expression? If so, what would it be doing to accomplish this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bt3ff/eli5_why_is_it_so_easy_to_notice_bad_acting_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck6bzlu",
"cj8ml5e",
"cj8mn1m",
"cj8mn2e",
"cj8neoy",
"cj8npgf",
"cj8nv84",
"cj8of9q",
"cj8pf0m",
"cj8pqwv",
"cj8qd4r",
"cj8rtsd",
"cj8spx6",
"cj8tks7",
"cj8tlcg",
"cj8u5bi",
"cj8v1da",
"cj8wcai",
"cj8wg90",
"cj8wop2",
"cj8wycn",
"cj8xpg5",
"cj8xu9y",
"cj8xyv3",
"cj8ygms",
"cj8yong",
"cj8yxjk",
"cj8z2s0",
"cj8z643",
"cj8zda6",
"cj8zfx2",
"cj8zllj",
"cj8zvjl",
"cj90ftc",
"cj90vnr",
"cj90z2f",
"cj91400",
"cj917or",
"cj91crl",
"cj9346y",
"cj934wm",
"cj935tz",
"cj939fa",
"cj93b5n",
"cj93t8t",
"cj93xbi",
"cj93y0x",
"cj953e8",
"cj95lpn",
"cj96f6k",
"cj974w6",
"cj98882",
"cj99417",
"cj99eqz",
"cj99xda"
],
"score": [
2,
38,
4,
1423,
2,
8,
2,
25,
219,
20,
17,
19,
3,
17,
18,
3,
4,
34,
17,
5,
2,
3,
23,
2,
3,
3,
2,
34,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
10,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
10,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's simple to identify bad acting because we are built-in with social skills that we can identify a person's emotions through body language - assuming that in order to act, you need to feel the emotion of what you are playing. \n\nNumber four is impossible.",
"It's seems pretty simple really. When we watch a film or TV programme we subconsciously compare how an actor is acting to how we see people act in the real world, or even how other actors act in the same scenario. If the way they act isn't congruent to our pre-concieved notions of how they should act, then we regard the way they act as wrong, and regard the actor as a bad actor.",
"You make a good connection there. Human beings are social, co-operative animals, at least most of the time. However, it's very important evolutionarily to be able to tell when someone isn't pulling their weight, or is trying to get something for nothing. All social animals are very good at identifying 'cheating' behaviour.\n\nWhile I can't tell you about particular features of behaviour which make it obvious to us that someone is acting, I can tell you that we have an exceptionally well-developed faculty to try to identify that kind of behaviour.",
"Humans are social animals. If you want to have a cushy life in the group, you have to pick up on lots of little cues. Body language, tone of voice, facial expression, every little detail is important and we are trained to pick up on discrepencies. A good actor has to fool you on all of these fronts. A bad actor might only fuck up on one. His smile dloesnt reach his eyes. His voice doesnt sound as angry as his face looks. His face is scared but his body language says hes calm. He fucks a line or his voice cracks. Theres a million ways for his act to be off in just a tiny way, but you pick up on it because social cues are important.\n\nEdit: to address ops additional clarification/questions.\n\ntraining to be a good actor: method acting is the big one going around, but in truth a lot of great actors use it, and a lot of great ones dont. Everyones different, some things work better for some people than others, but essentially its a feedback system: an actor in training tries something, gets feedback and fixes it based on the feedback. Even the really good actors do this a lot. a movie isnt just a bunch of scenes stitched together, theres outtakes and bloopers and redos galore, though there are scenes done in one take. \"Try it again with FEEELING!\". \n\nAs for the brain section I imagine its a bit complicated there, primarily involved with language processing and emotional processing, but I dont know enough to pinpoint any particular areas beyond conjecture that it would be heavily biased towards the \"limbic brain\" which processes emotional decisions.\n\nI dont have any idea about the director bit except to say that maybe with a bad director the actors care less about the acting, or are more stressed or riled up emotionally and it bleeds into the performance.\n\nOn detecting it with a computer, I can say pretty definitively that we cant currently detect any but the worst examples by voice. We cant even tell when people are lying definitively without reading scans directly from their brain. But we're getting there. as technology advances im sure we'll develop software that can analyse everything we as humans do, (body language, facial cues, etc.) Its just not there yet.\n\n\n",
"Our analytic sides pick up on anything that is out of the ordinary. Speech, movement, etc. This type of observation can get stronger over time as well",
"The key is sincerity. Once you can fake that it's easy. ",
"Bad Acting represents the Uncanny Valley of movement, vocal timbre, emotive quality, and facial expression.",
"Like lots of people have said before me, good actors line up their facial expressions, body language, tone of voice (etc) with the character they're trying to portray. You and I look at a portrayal, and we can tell if the overall character lines up or not. An actor or an acting coach can break it down and tell you your portrayal doesn't line up because you hold your arms too stiffly. Or your face is making an angry expression when you're trying to be sad. \n\nThis is similar to visual art. If you look at a bad painting, you can tell that the horse or whatever doesn't really look like a horse and doesn't feel real. But most people can't tell why it doesn't look real. A good artist will be able to look analytically and say that the light source doesn't line up with the shadows or the red balloon disrupts the flow of your eye around the picture.\n\nFor both art and acting, these skills are learned through observation and practice, although some people can pick them up more easily than others.",
"Actor here. I'll have a go:\n\n1. Acting is both a craft and an art, so yes, you can learn techniques to help you improve, yet at the same time you may or may not have an innate ability to be truthful when you act. In everyday life you do everything truthfully with maximum commitment, even when you are lying to someone or being lazy, you are maximally committed. The second you stand before a Broadway audience, or in front of a camera, you become self-aware. The untrained person gets dizzy, confused, nervous, has a lump in their throat, you name it. Add to that, they have to hit their mark, remember someone else's words, and effectively tell the story. So acting technique is the training that allows you to function among these distractions, suspend disbelief and engage in storytelling in a truthful, committed manner.\n\n2. Actors study human behavior. Acting is a physical expression since it's impossible for a viewer to see your thoughts, they must be expressed physically, through a look or movement, or some inflection of voice, etc. You as a human, have perfect knowledge of human behavior built up over a lifetime of, as others have said, social and cultural interaction, therefore when an actor fails to commit to a moment or has very little going on with their physical expression or behind their eyes, you may pick up on it and sense it as a false moment.\n\n3. This gets into more specific area of acting instruction, but yes, voice matters tremendously in acting. Mastering power, enunciation, timbre, tone, and so on, helps an actor communicate in the same way a singer's dynamics would. Actors train their voices to add depth and color to the words they speak as this is vital to telling a story. Typically the best actors have well-trained voices, some stand out because of this training, others stand out to you because the actor is famous and you're used to their voice. In film, directors rule, so it is possible that there are directors who want a certain level of performance that is flat sounding and fits the director's vision of reality. Although in my opinion, most humans are very animated and can have great vocal range (just watch the local news when they interview someone on the street). Without picking the best examples, Kristen Stewart has a very flat, monotone approach with a ton of glottal fry, while Tom Hanks is incredibly deep and expressive with his voice. \n\n4. I have no answer for this, but if a computer could some day do this, I'm sure a good actor could fool said computer.",
"A lof of people have been talking about how we can tell a bad actor b/c they act differently than a person would in real life. But the truth is that people, in real life, generally act nothing like how actors act. In other words, if you saw someone in real life acting like a really good actor, they'd still out like a sore thumb. ",
"I've just finished training at Drama School in the UK and I think Sanford Meisner explained it best when he said \"Acting is behaving truthfully in imaginary circumstances\". Most of the time these imaginary circumstances are extraordinary however some actors are better finding what they would actually do than others. This might not be their own choice however, often it is the decision of the director. In the UK we have a phrase when referring to \"bad\" acting which is \"Hammy\", this is when an actor is being over the top with his emotions. Good actors are able to show the emotions in the text without making them completely over the top.",
"So my crazy theory here is that good actors are good at pretending they don't know what's going to happen next. Good actors hear what they other person in the scene says, and it seems like it's actually registering for the first time. Bad actors act like they already know what was going to happen and already knew what they were going to say. They're paying attention to their next line, or their next cue, not responding to what's happening in front of them. \n\nAnd for me that's it. Good actors have brains that are divided in half. They're really good at remembering what they have to say next, but really good at *not* remembering what the other person is going to say next. So they really hear the other line, and they really respond to it like it's an actual total newsflash, but then the words that they use to express their response to that newsflash are the script words not their own words. \n\nI have no idea how to act. ",
"ACCURATE micro expressions. Accurate emotional vocal intonations",
"Sir Ian McKellen, On Acting: _URL_0_",
"Professional full-time actor here. SAG-AFTRA member. Graduate of one of the top acting programs in the world.\n\nHere's my guess at it...The best actors that I observe have three things: empathy, creativity, and comfort. Empathy, in this case, is the ability to actually feel what you believe is happening in a scene. And the willingness to release yourself into the feeling. Creativity is observed by the choices an actor makes. A choice could be how social this character is, how does this person display happiness/sadness/etcetera, the selfishness/altruistic nature of the person, the physical placement of the voice, how a body is held, what the events in the scene mean to the character (are they attached to the present moment, a character memory, an unconscious response, etc), plus a bunch of other options. Comfort relates to confidence and self-awareness. Some actors are just themselves on camera and that works because they are charming and interesting to look at. Some actors create characters that are outside of themselves but still reminiscent of the person they are. In all instances, the actors that are most watchable are the ones who are confident in what they are doing. The audience can pick up on anxiety of the actor which manifests itself in different ways (inhuman speech patterns, holding the face and body in idealistic ways, impersonating other actors/humans, forcing an emotional response in ways that the actor isn't actually feeling). \n\nBad actors emulate what they think an actor should be. Good actors are just present and believe that they are enough.\n\nThat's my guess, anyways. I'm still trying to figure out many things myself.",
"1. Communication happens on dozens of levels, body language being the most important. An actor needs to control their body language properly which is incredibly hard because there are so many factors and we expect the language only to a certain degree. Facial expressions take up a lot because they're obvious. But we do catch onto more subtle queues like stance or posture, movement (stiff or relaxed) and even smaller things like eye movement. The level of difficulty here is why a lot of actors use method acting because it allows them to tap into something sincere which lets them respond pseudo-sincerely to the acting role\n\n2. I would imagine that it is/was part of our threat recognition response because determining intent was and still is key for our survival. I can't get too sciency here because I don't know that much about this part of the subject, but being able to identify threats is a basic ability that most animals have. If we perceive someone as acting \"off\" or \"strange\" it calls more attention to that person as an individual and we pay more attention to them and their flaws.\n\n3. don't know enough about this to even answer relevantly\n\n4. I imagine something could, but given the inconsistency of human behavior it would probably be something like the polygraph, which is a flawed machine and strategy because there are so many ways to trigger a false positive or to trick the machine purposefully.",
"Oh man! I could go on and on on this subject. As somebody who does a little bad acting in my spare time ;) I have a lot to say on this. But I'll try to be as brief as I can. \n\nBut let's start with a sports analogy. What makes a good baseball player? Was Sandy Koufax better than Derek Jeter? The reason I ask is because those two players are so vastly different that they are impossible to compare. They have differing skills...which are all useful if you want to win a baseball game. \n\nSo theater can be divided, I think, into toe competing objectives:\n\n1) Acting: The process of creating a personal reality. \n\n2) Performance: The process of communicating to an audience. \n\nThe problem is that these objectives really are in opposition. Acting is an introverted process. It focuses on grasping real emotions and real reactions. It doesn't care what the audience gets, only that the actor a chives a real character amidst imaginary circumstances. The performer on the other hand excels at making sure that the audience receives every intended nuance. That no thought or decision is wasted. These traits are not mutually exclusive...but they do oppose one another. Because sometimes the character you are portraying would swallow his anger...but the scene calls for the audience to see this. What results must be false. \n\nNext, I think you need to understand something about the audience. An audience member may be searching for certain characteristics in a show, but always, the audience is fundamentally a voyeur. So, every audience member is hoping to be witness, even for just a moment, to a real emotion. In order to accomplish this, the audience must be left to believe that the scene continues when they're not watching. And whether you realize it or not. What that means is that the actor/performer must build a robust character that he/she never shows you. \n\nExample: the best acting I ever managed was in \"All My Sons\" where I was the neighbor who was in an unhappy marriage. And when I realized the extent to which Jim was depressed, I had to find a trigger. And I did...any time I was forced to discuss money. So, when Mrs. Bayliss suggests I should make a house call because of the money, my response was sincere. I was pissed, but in a neighbor's yard, so I couldn't make a scene. So, I use my neighbors as a passive aggressive shield. My response is so real. Likewise, I played the lead in No, No Nanette! and had no idea why I did anything in that show. I'd get laughs, but to this day, II can't remember anything about the show. \n\nWhich brings me to my final point. Bad acting and good acting are a hair's breath apart. Because both are taking risks to make you feel with them...to share in their reality. The worst crime an actor can commit is to be forgettable, to take no risks. \n\nSo, based on all of that, how can we tell good acting from bad?\n\nWell, the good actor finds small, nuanced ways to prime you. To let you know what the character values. That way when the stresses come, the actor's response will ring with truth, because it agrees with all of the actor's actions to that point. Good actors achieve reality with the least amount of performance. Whereas the bad actor forgets the context...forgets the moral equation that the character is trying to solve. And has to maximize performance to achieve any kind of connection. Think Bryan Cranston's Walter White versus Jack from Lost. ",
"One of the most impressive things to witness is a great actor playing a character who is a bad actor. It is a thing of beauty to see them play a person well who is playing another person terribly. ",
"To quote my grade 6 drama teacher \"the worst thing an actor can do is act\"",
"Speak for yourself. I can't tell good from bad, unless it's almost comically horrible.",
"Micro expressions. Good actors feel their part and are therefore able to use the microexpressions that we associate with what the character is feeling. Bad actors cant do that no matter the practice they get ",
"Caveat: Bad writing and filmcraft can make good actors look bad. And good writing and filmcraft can boost mediocre actors quite a bit, and make many passable.\n\nAs for acting craft: Solid technique and training as well as experience matters, but so does emotional imagination.\n\n\"Act natural\" is not technique. It's general, bad direction. Technique is not vague or nebulous. If I thought your performance was stiff or unnatural, I would never tell you to act natural. Naturalness, or the perception of such, is a side effect -- it's the illusion created by the action you are playing inside the context of the scene. For instance you can't play \"lying.\" You play the scene straightforward and the context of the scene and overall movie (or other work) shows that your character is lying. \n\nExample: If I thought your performance within a scene where your character is lying (let's say you are secretly a double agent who is trying to deceive their long-time handler) was unnatural when instead they were supposed to look casual because in the screenplay the handler believes her agent even though he is lying, then I might be like, \"look, for me this scene would be like if I were having a conversation with my best friend about what I did earlier in the day. Just shooting the breeze.\" Now if you and your best friend IRL are having issues and in the middle of a fight, obviously that metaphor won't work for you because it wouldn't be low key and comfortable. But actors (via technique) know they are supposed to find a similar metaphor that will bring out that category of performance. Everyone is different, so you can imagine the subtle variations different actors might bring to the same role under the same conditions. Consider how that scene would look different if I said, \"for me, it would be like I was taking a tour through the entomology department of the Smithsonian as a part of a press event, because I really have a terrible time being around bugs and I get anxious and just want to get out of there, but I wouldn't want to be impolite and obviously I couldn't just leave in the middle, but I would want to run.\" Same dialogue, much different scene. It would make you play as nervous, and that might tip off of the handler that her spy was off the rails. The acting would look like overacting. Emotional imagination matters.\n\nSome directors are not writers or actors' directors (they are EFX directors or have other tech strengths that somehow gets them the job), and it usually shows in performances in those movies. However those movies tend to put more emphasis on action and bombast than emotional truth.\n\nIf you want to learn to be a good actor, i.e. professional, then audit the major acting techniques (I'm partial to practical aesthetics) and audition for the school(s) that you like best. You'll need scene study, improv, as well as some physical and vocal training. The baseline can be done in about two years. If you audit one basic workshop at a strong school, you should be able to see how \"truthfulness\" is accomplished. Meisner exercises are about training to listen and pick up on cues, and to see how characters react differently when their lens/perception is changed. Each school teaches Meisner a little differently.\n\nAdditionally text study is foundational (English lit) because context matters to what choices an actor will make. Other humanities classes are also important. Social psychology is the topic to look into if you want to think about human behavior. \n\nI could show you all of this in a few minutes if I was in the room with you and had another actor to demo with. Technique is really rather simple once you get down to it, but applying it repeatedly (making the best choices repeatedly for a particular work while also staying spontaneous) is what's challenging. The wrong choices or poor writing and filmcraft is what leads to a feeling of unnaturalness -- a lack of truth and believability.\n",
"Director of education at a college for acting here.\n\nTwo huge things.\n\nThink about how much of your body you see on any given day. None of your back, none of your head, face, or neck unless you look in a mirror, very little of your legs, and the rest. Mostly, it's your hands. So when you act, you attempt to 'be real', but to be real, you've got to move your body the way you would in real life, only all of those actions are instinctual, so you don't know how to control them. You are saying words that belong to someone else, so you don't know how to say them, you're just really overly aware that it's awful and forced, with no way to fix it, because you're trying to 'be real' with no concept of what your body does in real life because you can't see it.\n\nThen, you add in how you were taught to read. You were taught to read by explaining things to yourself so you could decode 'what it means'. So when you read your script, your constantly explaining the words to yourself, so that when you memorize things, what you're memorizing is the beats and patterns of explanation. So you don't follow the logical thought process of the person in the scene, who may blame, insult, forgive, confess, beg, etc. you only 'explain' all of your words to someone else.\n\nSo you end up overly indicating things like 'you' and 'me', physically, because everything you are doing with your body is tied to your hands (those are the only things you can move with awareness), in a furtive attempt to 'explain' all your dialogue.\n\nGood acting takes true physical, intellectual, and emotional awareness, and learning how to break through the bad habits of bad acting we all share. That's why there are so few truly talented actors in the world.",
"Most people see Tom Hanks crying over Jenny's grave in \"Forrest Gump\" and think he's a good actor because he realisticly \"pretends\" he is crying. This is incorrect. Tom Hanks is ACTUALLY CRYING and the reason he is a good actor is because he can pull on those real emotions when the camera is rolling.",
"I think it was Hitchcock who said most of acting happens in the eyes; it's nonverbal. \n\nSince then I have paid attention to actors I think are skilled, and I gave watched their eyes. He was right. There is a boatload of information communicated by good actors through their eyes. Between one line and the next, sometimes you may see several emotions and thoughts flicker though their eyes. You just can't add that to the dialogue in a script. Sometimes you just have to shake your head in a 'wow' moment, amazed at what complexity an actor can bring to a scene. \n\nThe other thing to keep in mind is that there are tons of really good actors out there. They aren't all stars. There are lots of opportunities to see quality acting but often they are in character driven roles. \n\nI haven't seen 'A Most Wanted Man' yet. But go see it and tune into Philip Seymour Hoffman's eyes. I predict it will answer your original question. The eyes reveal the heart of the character. ",
"You need to read Jason Alexander's *[Acting Without Acting](_URL_0_)*",
"The reason is because good actors do as little acting as possible. A good actor is able to simply channel honest emotions and reactions into the make-believe scene.",
"**This is gonna be long so TL/DR at top:** Basically the cues we pick up on in bad acting are mostly the same cues we pick up when someone is lying unconvincingly. Shifting eyes, fixed, dilated pupils, unusual vocal rhythms, cadence or volume, unusual muscle tension (rigidity), inability to keep track of conversation and being easy to distract. Most everyone can spot a bad liar, and in the same way, we spot bad actors. **End TL/DR**\n\n*Good actors vs bad actors - some of the reasons:*\n\nNot surprisingly, a great deal of difficulty (with beginning actors especially,) is tied to the challenge of being able to remember lines. They spend so much time trying to remember which line comes next, they end up looking tense, uncomfortable and uncertain. They stutter or talk too softly or pause just a beat too long before remembering that they talk next, or (the opposite) rush the line out too fast. Meanwhile they look constipated or (worst of all) are concentrating so hard on the words that they forget they have a face and look robotic. \n\nMost good acting coaches and casting directors recommend that actors know their lines in their sleep. If I can give you your cue and you can automatically give me the next line, then you're going to be able to spend more time concentrating on other things like posture, expression and projection. (I've helped cast a boatload of independent films and I've see a lot of bad acting. Some of the worst habits I see over and over are actors who don't prepare their character before walking in the room or those who think they're Nic Cage and don't like to memorize lines because it keeps the reactions \"fresh\". The Nic Cage types are the worst (imho) because they're constantly causing retakes for flubbed lines or having no idea what the emotional cues are because they don't understand the dialogue or screwing others up because they get the lines out of order. Veteran actors can sometimes get away with this, but in fledgeling actors the talent of memorizing a complete scene in five minutes that can be delivered competently is very rare.) How good are *you* at preparing? Try this: memorize any of the soliloquies from Hamlet. Now try to make me understand what you're saying by voice inflection and body language. Then do it like a Klingon warrior. If you get that, then do it like \"Jack\" from Will and Grace. If you can make an audience understand Shakespeare under those varied conditions, you might have some talent. Do you want to see an example of Shakespeare that's told so well you understand what's being said by body language alone? Check this out:\n\n[Henry V - Henry and Katherine](_URL_0_)\n \nWhen you get past knowing lines, the next hurdle for actors is the ability to \"act naturally\". (Your question #1.) This doesn't mean become totally relaxed like you'd smoked a blunt, it means that you react \"as\" the character, not \"acting\" like the character. Here's an easy visualization. Imagine that you find yourself sitting next to the person you've been desperately wanting to ask out for a year, but you feel is totally out of your league. Next imagine that you have to have a conversation with them on a subject you know nothing about because she heard you talking to a friend earlier when you were acting like an authority. Finally, imagine that what you say in the next five minutes will determine whether she speaks to you again (ever) in your lifetime. Just reading that, a lot of you are tensing up. That's what most people go through when on stage (or in front of a camera, or behind a podium speaking to a room full of people for the first time). It's fear of failure, looking stupid and being judged by people you really want to impress, all at the same time. \n\nGood actors find a way to get past the ego part of the situation by using the emotional experiences of their own lives as a template while being someone else. What do I mean? Well, have you ever watched someone you know do a *really good* impression? Like maybe one of Christopher Walken or Al Pachino? It's like your friend \"becomes\" that other person so well that they convince even you for a moment. Gestures, voice, mannerisms,... all generated from mimicry and muscle memory. Another good example is stutterers. Put a stutterer under stress and they can't finish a sentence.(See your #3: This is an unnatural voice.) Ask a stutterer to do his Al Pachino and if they're confident about their impersonation, the stutter suddenly goes away, and they're shouting, \"Say hello to my little friend!\" while firing off belt-fed machine guns with both hands. (This would be the natural voice.) \n\nActors are basically doing impressions *of their characters*. Christian Bale isn't doing an impression of Christopher Walken,... he's doing an impression of Bruce Wayne, using his own voice and mannerisms. (Thinking about it this way also makes a lot of actors less self-conscious because it's not really them on camera, it's The Black Widow, or Hermione, or Hamlet or whatever the role is. If you can be someone else, it reduces your personal vulnerability.) If I was giving you an instruction in a class, I might ask you to do a character like Chis Walken being interviewed to be a baker. That might be easy for you to visualize and fun to try. Then I would say, now do it as your dad when he's in a bad mood. You'd probably find it's easier because you've already got the hang of being someone else who you could feel unselfconscious about. Then if I asked you to do a whole script as the dad character, you'd be able to pull it off because you're impersonating someone you know well. \n\nFor a-listers like Tom Cruz or Jennifer Lawrence or Russell Crowe, no matter who they play, you know that it's them, but they do a good job convincing you that they're Jack Reacher or Katniss or Captain Jack Aubrey. \n\nBut then you get to the master class of actors who surprise you with how incredibly different each role they play is. Gary Oldman is one of these. This guy is Commissioner Gordon, Sid Vicious, Sirius Black and the bad guy from the 5th element (the character name won't mean anything to most people). Every time he shows up, he's someone you don't recognize and you believe who he says he is. (A lot of people also put Meryl Streep in this category, and while I won't argue, I prefer Cate Blanchette - Galadriel, Queen Elizabeth the First, and Jasmine (Blue Jasmine) - you barely remember it's the same face much of the time. How about Sir Ben Kingsley? He was Gandhi and The Mandarin, not to mention Issac Stern (Schindler's list) and Don Logan (Sexy Beast). Then there's Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster and Martin Sheen and Angela Bassett and William Fitchner and the list goes on and on.\n\nThere's a lot more to acting that a good coach will be able to express better like what the various acting techniques are and how they differ (Stanislavski, Meisner, Adler, Practical Aesthetic, etc.) but this gives you an idea of why bad actors look bad and some of the things good actors do differently. \n\nSorry this is so long, but acting is a difficult craft to compress into a short explanation and I've really done it no good service here, although I enjoyed trying. If you feel I'm in error in anything I've said, you may be right and I may be crazy (but I just may be the lunatic you're looking for). However, as I mentioned, I've seen a LOT of bad acting through auditions and have learned to spot those who are good, bad or great often within the first minute or two of a reading. \n\n*Edit: I saw that some of the stuff I've mentioned was mentioned by others. Sorry for the duplication, I was typing out a reply when there were only a handful of comments then had to leave my computer for a bit before finally coming back to finish. Anyone who actually made it through all of my babble,... you may have a future as a script-reader. ;)*",
"There are many many many aspects to consider and those aspects will differ from person to person. One huge aspect for myself is delivery of dialogue. One must have a \"it\" to make radiate the intended feeling of dialogue. If it's sad then they make you sympathize/empathize with it. If the dialogue is angry then they make you feel the intensity of that anger.\n\nTo dig a bit deeper I personally see dialogue as singing. Especially monologues. There's a rhythm that makes it catchy as opposed someone just \"repeating words\". Singers really belt out the songs they sing and put so emotion behind it. Same thing with Actors. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nTake this scene for example. Like or hate the movie, very few will deny the talent of Daniel Day Lewis. If you read what he says yourself is nothing special. Just a words describing how he hates other people. Nothing special. But when delivers these lines you feel the hatred and emotion behind them. You almost feel sorry for him because you sense his loneliness. I attribute this to the rhythm of his voice. The pauses. almost as if it's hard for him to say out loud. Or could be his trying to find the right words to express himself. I could go on and on so I'll leave it there. Sorry for ranting. Hope I made sense. \n ",
"There are two different types of acting: Representation and the art of experience. This theory was pioneered by a man known as Constantin Stanislavski (and I highly reccomend you read his book \"An Actor's Work\" if you're serious about getting into acting. It's 101 reading for Theatre Majors.)\n\nThe art of experience is what most excellent actors are using. It involves mentally placing yourself as far into the character as possible and responding to stimuli in a manner that character would. This involves remembering your own past experiences, feelings, and sensations. For example, when you need to be angry, you want to feel exactly like you do when you're ACTUALLY angry. This requires a lot of meditation and thinking on the part of the actor to adequately show.",
"Like with bad writing; anytime you find yourself catapulted outside of the story/movie, because of unbelievable storyline/acting - to feel the frown on your face, its because your connection with the story/movie has been severed with the disconnect in empathy that just occured.\n\nA good actor, isnt acting out the scenes. He/she is acting by being whatever he/she is portraying. The moment the actor becomes self conscious of whatever they are doing, the moment of truth is broken. - Good actors dont act, they do - in the scene. The acting happens while they discover who their character is. the crafting of the behaviour, and the learning of their mannerisms. - If they arent done with that process by the time the filming starts, or if for some reason they cant connect to their character, you get bad acting. - Because the actor is miming the emotions and behaviour at the camera, and because you, the viewer has been able to pick up on dishonest and disingenious behaviour since you were a child (and you get better at it the more naivity you shed), you disconnect from the movie. You dont believe the storyteller anymore, and no matter how much you want to like the movie, it wont sweep you off to another world/time/place like it could have done without the disconnect introduced with the bad acting.",
"I'm hoping a working actor will chime in, but in the meantime, here's my experience: The best actors I know/work with find a way to see the world through their characters' eyes. It's not that they forget who they are, but they're almost wearing their characters' perspectives like a pair of glasses. So when they're in a scene, and they're flirting with another character, the flirting is believable, because they want the other character to like them; when they're confronted with an embarrassing secret, their shame is believable because they're ashamed for the character they're playing. \n\n(The best example of this that comes to mind is that Bryan Cranston always need to understand why Walt was doing something from the perspective of a man wjo believes he is a good father and husband -- because that's who Walter White thinks he is. Nobody on the writing staff thought that -- or at the very least, they were all more aware of Walt's flaws than Walt was -- but Bryan was always careful to keep a clear line between the story the show was telling, and the story Walt was telling himself.) \n\nThe distant cousin of this is improv. I've been in improv scenes where I was so far inside the character's head that I had no sense of time passing, or even of audience reaction. I don't know how believable it was, but given how completely absorbed I was in the character's psychology, I think it was something like the mental state approached by actors with a ton of craft and the bravery to use it.",
"Okay here is what I know, old school actors used to 'act-like' something in particular, then a new method came around called 'act as-if'. So instead of 'acting-like' you were this person, expressing this emotion; you would 'act as-if' you are that person expressing that emotion. \n\nWhat you act as if you are, you become. Therefore this acting is expressed by actually being the thing you are seeking to be. \n\ncoolio? does this help you?\n\n",
"Acting is not just about acting natural. In fact, irl, people make lots of 'mistakes.' We don't convey our emotions clearly, we fill our speech with odd pauses, errors, and repetitions. Most acting actually cleans a lot of this up. Actors do not act natural, they act how you expect people to behave most accurately in that situation. So they \"clean up\" the actions of real people to make the core emotions more immediately recognizable and powerful to the audience. A kind of emotional photoshop.\n\nThere are schools of drama that avoid doing this, and try and mimic the messiness of real life speech and behavior. David Mamet is probably the most famous, and Harold Pinter is probably the best. Watching good actors perform roles by these writers can be quite jarring - it feels wrong because it is not what you, as an audience, expect from a film or whatever. Take, for example, Val Kilmer's performance in Spartan, which is quite jarring because it doesn't follow our expectations of how an action hero acts. \n\nThe schools of acting that emphasize naturalness as a path to good acting - the most famous of which is \"method\" acting - are actually not the most common form of acting. Rather, most actors follow schools that involve being aware of the presence of the audience (or camera) and making conscious choices of what gestures and expressions will be most effective to convey the content of the scene. Good acting can communicate to the audience the emotional importance of information that is not available to the character (but of course is to the actor, because they have read the script). For example, a last goodbye between a parent and child may be incredibly emotionally powerful because the actors know it is the last goodbye, and are performing accordingly. \n\nThey may also convey themes and connections far outside the scope of the characters. There's a famous example from the great actor Helene Weigel playing Mother Courage. The play is set in the 17th Century, but was written in Germany in 1939. In the performances from 1941 until the early 50s, Weigel famously included a gesture reminiscent of the Nazi salute. This is completely unnatural - there's no way the 17th Century character would have done this. But the play is about the horrors of the rise of Nazism in Germany. So the acting here powerfully connects with the audience about the theme of the play.",
"Stanislavski on Acting: \"So tell me what you want, what you really really want.\"",
"I'm studying acting in school, and one of the things they tell us is that you should strive not to act. One of my professors told us, \"Your goal is not the emotion. Your goal is simply to respond. You do not construct the emotion.\" You want to do your best to create the situation around yourself so that you experience the emotion instead of only pretending to experience it. Yes, its amplified, but it should be real. Good actors are not really acting.",
"This will probably get buried since I'm so late to the game, but I figured I would throw in my $0.02 (if for no one else but my own benefit). Also, this may be a slightly (or largely) different perspective, as I'm an opera singer.\n\nPeople usually think of opera as fat people standing on stage, screaming high notes while dying of tuberculosis. By the very nature of the craft (being restricted not only by text [often in a foreign language] but also by the music), it can be very difficult for opera singers to act. That's why a lot of old singers used to \"park and bark,\" as we like to call it now.\n\nNowadays, opera singers are expected to be acting singers. You can't just stand there and sing pretty. You have to be believable (as much as you can with the art form). All of the schools of thought of acting can be applied to opera as well. That being said, there are also several simple techniques or \"rules\" that can make someone look infinitely better on stage. Seriously, I did a performance once where the baritone was the stiffest, most wooden character on stage I'd ever seen, but in following the \"rules\" of opera movement, he actually looked pretty decent by the time opening night rolled around.\n\nSo yes, there are techniques you can learn that will make you seem a lot more \"natural\", even though you have to work on them. Even something as simple as how to walk across the stage suddenly becomes a feat when you're trying to sing over an orchestra and have to keep facing out so the audience can hear you.",
"I haven't looked for evidence of this, but it could be the same \"mechanism\" that makes us worry about sketchy people out in public. Often bad actors try too hard to be convincing, or miss out on natural human reactions because they are trying so hard to play their role and do the more complex skills before they master the basics. This is why we are afraid of people who seem sketchy, they exhibit these same behaviors and something in our brain tells us to be uncomfortable around these people. I will try and find some sort of source, but this was my hypothesis.",
"*The Room* would be fundamental in programming this application... If you don't know what I'm talking about, google: \"you're tearing me apart Lisa!\"",
"It's called the theory of honest signals. Evolutionarily speaking, a signal (that is an indication of a trait you have) is only useful when faking it is \"more expensive\" (read: harder to do) than being truthful. There is survival value to identifying correctly, if someone is actually friendly towards you or just faking it. It has been evolutionarily advantageous to correctly display being friendly with \"hard to do things\" like a genuine smile. It's hard to fake a genuine smile.\n\nThat's why it's easy to identify bad acting. You have been trained (socially and genetically) to identify fakes easily.",
"Skiense says, if you saw it happen, it iz bad akting",
"I know this is late, but I'm currently teaching acting for the camera, so maybe I can help.\n\nIn the words of Michael Caine:\n\"Behaving realistically and truthfully in front of a camera is an exacting craft, one that requires steadfast discipline and application. Film acting was never easy, but during the past 30 years, this craft has become even more demanding, partly because of changes in technology, partly because of the requirements actors and directors have placed on themselves, and partly because of shifts in audience expectations... If you catch somebody “acting” in a movie, that actor is doing it wrong. The moment he’s caught “performing” for the camera, the actor has blown his cover. He’s no longer a private character in a private world . Now he’s a highly paid actor on contract to speak these lines for the public. Good-bye illusion. Good-bye career.\"\n\nFilm actors are especially good at subtlety, rather than the more expressive theatre performance. During an acting masterclass with Phylicia Rashad, she told us that the key to filmic performance is, \"Do Little, Think Loud.\" I've been quoting her ever since.\n\nNatural talent can happen. Those who are comfortable with themselves in front of a camera can learn lines and let them roll out of the mouth like it ain't no thang. But others who are trained in, for instance, Musical Theatre, it can take time to buckle down and perform with their thoughts rather than through the voice. As they say, Film is a visual medium. If you are deaf, you should be able to understand what's happening in a film. Blind, and you should understand what's happening in a theatrical production. \n\nSometimes bad editing can ruin a performance. A bad script, off lighting, a weird sound cue, etc. Most of the time, however, it is the actor's fault. They should be ready for EVERY take. But again, the take that the actor wasn't great at could be the one that the cameraman pulled focus the best, so that's what the director and/or editor will choose. A film actor must be ready 100% of the time.\n\nAlso, volume. When I was 15, I was in the process of workshopping a film for something that never got made. What I learned there was that so many professional film actors use only as much volume as they need to play to the other person, *not the audience*. It is the boom microphone's job to get that audio. It is that connection with the other person that the audience resonates with, rather than the actor trying to play for an audience.\n\nThere is no perfection in acting, as my voice instructor says, \"perfection is vanity in the actor.\" Even if an actor has every subtle move and line perfected to a T, it can look off. My auditioning instructor, who worked as the PrimeTime Casting Director for CBS for ten years, will jot down a note next to an actor's headshot that reads TP. TP = too perfect; not real enough, they've gotten rid of any \"mess\" and whatever makes people interesting. Juilliard students, for example, sometimes have this problem, and TPers don't get the job.\n\nI love this kind of stuff. I obviously don't know everything, but if anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to do my part and answer the best I can. Hope this helped!\n\n**TL;DR: Act better.**",
"Nice try, Tobias.",
"Actor here.\n\nMy old director in school always told us the same thing. \"Acting is reacting.\" Movies are a little different for me, but as far as plays or musicals go I can point out why I may or may not have liked that actor. \n\nA lot of it has to do with being emotionally believable. It's like telling a lie so much that you start to believe it yourself. You have to be that character. For instance, Leonardo DiCaprio, great fucking actor... I mean \"the wolf of Wall Street\" he fucking nailed it. Denzel Washington in \"fences\" (Broadway show). I just think that a good actor can make him/herself go from happy to angry or sad in a matter of seconds, and make people believe it.",
"Simple. Good actors have convinced themselves and believe they are who they are pretending to be. ",
"Nice try, Nicholas Cage.",
"What I find strange is that good actors still don't act like real people in most cases. They present a caricature of humanity, with an emphasis on drama, far more than any of us should encounter in everyday life. But yet we still buy it. It's the same reason that we buy into stylized animation and exaggeration over hyperrealism, compare something like Toy Story to The Polar Express. One is believable since it is stylized. One we find fake because it is too realistic but not realistic enough. ",
"You see, when watching Twilight, you'll notice that Kristen Stewart makes a lot of awkward little noises and twitches her face quite often. This is considered \"bad acting\". She is attempting to convey her emotions and feelings through unrealistic motions. Since nobody actually acts this way, she is entirely unbelievable as a character and, thus, should never be hired for another film and probably shouldn't have even been in that one.",
"Have been studying films/TV/acting basically all my life, and have taken some acting classes myself. Good and bad acting comes about through a number of factors. None of it really has much to do with science, and everything to do with *people*.\n\n > For instance, suppose I wanted to learn how to be a good actor. Presumably an expert could teach me more technique than just \"act natural and don't give any unreal-seeming cues\".\n\nIt's all about embodying the moment and channeling emotions. Good actors believe in their characters reality 100%. *Bad* acting involves *knowing* you're acting and pretending, and *forgetting* to forget about that. Good directors will plan out the flow of the scene in detail with their actors, and figure out how to \"break\" the scene, that is, how to take it all apart, then put it all together for filming They will tell the actors exactly the kind of emotion the scene needs, and the actors will do various takes to get it right. \n\nAn expert acting coach would emphasize being natural, but would also tell you to write essays about your character, get in their heads, create a history for them, focus on their movements, just bring them to life any way you can. Make it less about you and more about the character.\n\nHere's some examples:\n\n**GOOD ACTING**\n\n[Supernatural: Dean reveals to his younger brother that he was in Hell for 40 years](_URL_3_).\n\nHad the chance to veer into melodrama and bad acting multiple times but never did thanks to the skill of the actors, their ability to listen carefully to each other and a script that doesn't overdo the dialogue or direction and leaves both actors plenty of room to emote. It doesn't overload the scene with anything. Look at the way Jared (long haired one) is watching the back of Jensen's head the whole time. It doesn't matter that they're not looking at each other, it's just his job to listen and take cues from what Jensen is doing. As Dean's emotional state deteriorates, so does Sam's. It's the logical progression to finding out something traumatic. It's Dean's darkest moment, all the emotions felt by both actors needs to stay on and about Dean only. Jensen Ackles (the one talking about Hell) said this was the most emotional he ever got filming something and could not stop crying after they finished filming. He and his co-star, Jared, had to take the rest of the day off. You'll see further down with my Lost example why taking away from the emotional center of a scene can ruin it entirely. \n\n[The Walking Dead - Morgan's pain over his lost son](_URL_0_): Now it's important to acknowledge the character is mentally unstable here so a bit of melodrama makes sense. The other important thing is he's filling the audience in on something significant that happened that we will *not* be seeing. So the character has to explain a traumatic moment to us and make us feel as though we know what happened. He builds the emotion as the explanation progresses, pauses in logical places, realistically considers outside elements of the incident, uses the minimal physical space he has, and becomes overcome with emotion when we logically should - when he tells us how the boy died. The script writer understands not needing to explain every detail to get the point across and rather brilliantly paints an even *more* vivid picture with \"I see red\" instead of the too obvious \"I see blood\". Similar to how the Supernatural clip has Dean say \"They ripped at me in ways you...\" but knows that \"...you never even imagined\" is so cliched and not needed. The secondary character to the moment, Rick, is simply listening in horror, like Sam is in the previous one. It's always important to show characters listening.\n\n**BAD ACTING**\n\n[Supernatural again, in a funny examination of bad acting](_URL_2_). The two main characters, Sam (the one with longer hair) and Dean, are taken to an alternate universe where their life is the TV show we watch, and they are forced to play themselves in a scene. Playing yourself should be easy, right? Nope. They're unfocused, unprepared and therefore unbelievable. They showcase all the \"bad acting 101\" techniques. It's a step by step 'what not to do when you're acting'. Stiff body language, trying too hard to look casual, not knowing lines, not listening to the other actors etc\n\n[Lack of focus/direction in an emotional scene](_URL_1_). The stupid added in music doesn't help. Now this scene starts off good, but slowly spirals down into one of the messiest pieces of acting I've ever seen. Charlie's \"death\" goes on too long for the actors to *know what to do*. The actors know he's coming back eventually, so they hold out on mourning fully and it really shows. I'd say the script was too brief or Matthew Fox held out too long, because Evangeline Lily is completely and utterly lost (ha) and cannot for the life of her figure out where to place herself. Look at her awkwardly pawing at Fox at 1:46. \"Do I pull him away? Logically, I would but he needs to start bashing on him again in a minute, so I can't but I *should*...\" and now she's over thinking it. Boom, bad acting. The focus is bizarre too - Is this scene about Charlie's near death? Or Jack's inability to give in? Or Kate's trauma? Who knows? A much better scene would've been Kate not moving away to cry until the *second* time Jack starts bashing on Charlie's chest, because that *is* unusual and disturbing and you *would* want to move away from that. Just a bit of editing and direction goes a long way. Bad acting isn't always the actors fault.",
"Evolutionary we have developed compassion since a group who take care of each other, mend their wounded and so forth have, as a group, better chances of survival. \n\nAs individuals however, within a group of humans, your chance of survival is improved if you are skilled at soliciting care, food and favors from other group members. \n\nNow I'll take a little detour and talk about another evolition. Why does certain snakes have a venom so potent that it can kill several humans? Usually it's the result of a weapons between two species. Where one predator mostly feeds on one species of squirrel or possum and one predator, the snake, accounts for almost all deaths of said prey. \n\nThe snake has venom, so whichever possums has the better antibodies survive and breed. So only the snakes with the strongest venom eat, survive and breed at a better rate. This development keeps going untill the snake can kill an elephant, while the possum still has a chance of survival. \n\nThat brings us back to humans. We have an arms race between A) The ability to bluff, conning or \"influence\" our way into getting favors or having strengthened positions in the community(which usually carries benefit of putting more food and protection in the direction of yourself and your own offspring) and B) both being able to detect the cons and also getting a great sense of injustice if we are tricked or if someone abuses their position of power. \n\nIn other words, we humans, as with the viper and the a squirrels, have developed great skills at both at acting aswell detecting an act. Sometimes all it takes is the wrong tension on the wrong facial muscles for to throw us off and make it feel like you're being lied to. You cant tell exactly what it is, it's just a result of instincts and practice. You get simply get a feeling about it and we get suspicious. And according to our instincts we should feel upset about it if we confirm our suspicions. \n\nEven if you get it down into a science it's just so many details to think about that it's almost impossible not to do a tiny mistake and give off the wrong vibe. So personally I think the difference between a good actor and a bad actor is that good actors to a larger degree don't try to act or fake an emotion, but rather try to think about something that makes them actually feel in a way that is suitable for the scenes. \n\n",
"Acting major here: A good actor is living truthfully in the fictional circumstances of the scene, while a bad actor is thinking about how he's acting in a scene. It definitely shows. The audience member is taken to an emotional place if the actor truly goes there too. It's like yawning. It's an emotional reflex triggered by truthful storytelling. ",
"Surprised that no one has said this yet, but I'll have a go. A lot that has to deal with good vs. bad acting also relies on the person who is directing. \n\nDirectors have a particular vision for their film or play, and sometimes if the vision is a little...off... it can lead to \"bad acting\" when in reality, it's just the actors doing what the director wants. \n\nTake for instance Kristen Stewart. Many people think that she is a terrible actress due to her role in Twilight. The odd staring thing she does, the whispered dialogue, the weird emotionless reactions. But in Twilight, all the actors do this, not just her. This is a product of the director's vision for the movie. \n\nNow take a look at her role in Panic Room. Granted, she is younger, but the acting in this movie is quite different. She is a snark tom-boy teenager, but when shit goes down in the house, she demonstrates her intelligence (even though she is clearly scared) to help her and her mom get out of a really bad situation. This is an example of good acting - but it is the result of the Director's vision for this thriller, and the mood the director wanted to project. \n\nSoap opera's are another great example of bad acting - the overly dramatic reactions, the off-base dialogue, and the sepia slow moving camera work. This isn't the actor's fault - it is the director's instruction. ",
"It's about whether the actor can actually \"act as an character\". \nWorst actors are the ones who are not portraying a character but rather being just themselves. For example: Arnold Schwarzenegger will always be Arnold no matter what movie he plays in. He is not acting as a character, he is just Arnold. Watch several movies with Nicolas Cage, you will notice he is always Nicolas Cage, looks and behaves just like himself. You can say he acts the same way, but he is just really himself, doesn't act. \nGood actors don't bring their own personality / style to the role, rather try to be as close as you can get to 100% just being the character / not themselves.\nThe best actors are these who can play two or even three roles in the same feature unnoticed. For example Chia-Hui Liu and Michael Parks in Kill Bill. They both played double roles. Master acting.\n\nTo analyze: find same behavior / style in multiple roles of the same actor in different movies.\n\n",
"I think the script has a lot to do with it. Most of who we recognise as \"better actors\" work on films / productions with the best script writers with larger budgets (better equipment and more time to retake and edit etc). Obviously talent and imagination comes into it, probably in the same way some of us are better liars than others. ",
"I think Spencer Tracy once said 'the secret to acting is not to get caught.'"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/nyoWmkhRyp8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/vhyGlGgXMxY?t=1m30s"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQONty9uRgA"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28BXqQWqYJU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97oLujucX9k",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8VBR1TvnQw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLj7xLtO6Rw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79S1ni_NooY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1l2qrk | if america wanted to impeach barack obama, could they do it now? how would that practically happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l2qrk/eli5_if_america_wanted_to_impeach_barack_obama/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbv6tcd",
"cbv6vmy",
"cbv71az",
"cbv7y8m",
"cbvbg1l",
"cbvg0cm"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
4,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The House would have to vote to impeach and then the Senate would act as the Jury.\n\nSo, you would have to convince your elected representatives. This will not happen because:\n\n1) POTUS has not committed an impeachable offense\n2) Even if he did, the Democrats control the Senate\n3) Even if they didn't, it takes a 2/3 majority to convict\n",
"\"America\" does not impeach the president. The president can be impeached by a vote of the House of Representatives, upon determining that it's possible the president is guilty of having committed a high crime.\n\nSince there's no evidence that the sitting president has committed any crimes at all, much less high crimes, it would not be possible for him to be impeached today, regardless of who wanted it.",
"In order to be impeached, the House of Representatives has to agree to have the president tried for \"...Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.\" If impeached, the president would be investigated and given a trial to have the Senate determine if he should be removed from office. Two-thirds of the Senate need to approve of removing the president if the previous steps had been completed. Because the system involves multiple steps, a president can be impeached and stay in office.\n\nAs for Barack Obama specifically, he definitely could be impeached in theory. In fact, any president could theoretically be impeached during his or her time in office. In reality, though, Obama isn't going to be impeached. He's done a lot of stuff people don't like (which can be said of almost any politician), but nothing serious enough to necessarily warrant such action. There is also the fact that the Democrats make up the majority of the Senate, so they would never convict Obama if he were impeached based on anything he's done so far. \n\nIf you want to know more about this topic, there was an [article](_URL_0_) on this topic in the New York Times today. ",
"The PResident may only be impeached if he is found guilty of a \"high crime or misdemeanor\". Barack Obama has committed neither while in office.",
"Don't forget that impeach does not mean \"remove from office\". Bill Clinton was impeached in 1999, but served the rest of his term. As did Andrew Johnson in the 1860's.\n\nDid you mean \"kick out\" instead?",
"ITT: People who were literally 5 years old in [1998](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/politics/ignoring-qualms-some-republicans-nurture-dreams-of-impeaching-obama.html?_r=0"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton"
]
] |
||
6611c6 | what causes loss of time-place awareness after a sudden wakeup? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6611c6/eli5_what_causes_loss_of_timeplace_awareness/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgf5m3h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe it's to do with how deep you are into your sleep. Your brain has entered a stage, and if woken up suddenly, it is pulled out of that stage quickly, which leads to confusion."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5lceor | how did it happen that the honey bee became critical to our (north american) habitat, when it isn't native to here. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lceor/eli5_how_did_it_happen_that_the_honey_bee_became/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbuni0a",
"dbunn8q",
"dbusmd1"
],
"score": [
8,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"I guess because many of the crops that the honey bee is the main pollinator for are not native to North America either.",
"It's not critical to the north American habitat. It's critical for our large crops that are mostly from europe/Asia and need a swarm bee to polinate them",
"Lots of other bee species are native to north America, and most of them have very drastically declined. A lot of native plants depend on those pollinators, so they're in trouble. Honeybees can fill the gap, doing some of the pollination that native bees do, but honeybees are mostly used to pollinate commercial crops, not native ecosystems.\n\nThey're useful for commercial crops because they live in large hives which can be easily shipped around, so they can be sent to each farm at the right time when whatever it grows needs pollination, then sent on to the next farm a few weeks later - a farm that grows something else and needs pollination at a different time of year.\n\nMost native bees are solitary, or live in small groups, and they do things like nest in the ground or in hollow twigs. Most of them would be much harder to grow in captivity in large numbers and send around to different farms."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4jue68 | will we ever develop a space telescope that will resolve exoplanets with satellite fidelity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jue68/eli5will_we_ever_develop_a_space_telescope_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d39p4pp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"problem is that you need light. planets don't emit light. they only weakly reflect light. \n\nin abscence of light, you can compensate by making the subject stay still and you can take a long exposure shot.\n\nproblem is..planets don't stay still either. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9v20h3 | what are the mid-term elections and who won? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v20h3/eli5_what_are_the_midterm_elections_and_who_won/ | {
"a_id": [
"e98px9w",
"e98qh8a",
"e98qx5e"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
16
],
"text": [
"Each state in the US sends a couple senators and a handful of representatives to the capital as \"Congresspeople\".\n\nThe elections in the US are set up in such a way that the Presidential election and Congressional elections occur every four years, but are staggered two years apart, kind of like the Summer and Winter Olympics. Mid-term means it is the election in between Presidential elections.\n\nAs to who won, it varies between each state and voting district, everyone is voting in their own local elections amongst a pool of local candidates, not for a single person.",
"They're elections held every 4 years and take place in the even year between presidential elections. At the national level, every single seat in the House of Representatives is voted on (435) and about a third of all Senate seats (senators have 6 year terms so that means that the it's a different 1/3rd for each midterm). \n\nMembers of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, so what that means is that the midterms are the time when they are elected without a Presidential election going on.\n\nMost of the time, the pendulum swings back away from the current President. It's common for the opposition party to make headway in midterms. \n\nWhat it means this time is that now the President doesn't have a majority in both the House and the Senate, like he has for the past 2 ish years. That should make it more difficult for him to push his agenda (because the House is 'against' him), although that's not certain. \n\nThe biggest thing that it's likely to mean for America is a continuation of the partisan politics. It's pretty certain that the new Democrat-led House of Representatives will challenge the President - such as trying to force the release of his tax returns, for example. \n\nThe Republicans actually increased their Senate majority by a little bit, but that probably won't make a huge difference. \n\nIf you're asking who \"won\", well...probably the Democrats - there was a big swing towards them in the House elections, and they also did well in the local elections (oh yeah, local elections happen at the same time) - they now have more state senates, houses and governorships than they did before. That *could* suggest a move away from what Trump is pushing (place he won heavily in 2016, the GOP lost or had their majority hugely reduced) but really that won't become clear for 2 years. \n\n",
" > Every state is represented by two Senators, but by different numbers of Representatives based on their population. The Senate gives small states equal representation, because the Senate is about representing the states. The House is about representing the people directly. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nLong story short, Democrats took back the majority in the House while the Republicans got a higher majority in the Senate. With as divided as our politics are currently, I don't see anything getting done for the next 2 years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4k09j1 | why are teachers exempt from the overtime laws/changes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4k09j1/eli5_why_are_teachers_exempt_from_the_overtime/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3b6aiq",
"d3b7dsq",
"d3b7uwp"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"(It's been a while, so things may have changed, but...) \n\nTeachers aren't paid by the hour. It's as simple as that.\n\nThe way it was when I knew the way it was, was: Each school district has a pay scale, like a matrix, that tells what the base annual salary is for a teacher with X years experience and Y credits. Add to that a fixed fee for coaching, or mentoring the math club, or whatever. Teacher signs a contract to be paid Annual Amount for Defined Task.\n\nThen: ask the teacher whether s/he wants to be paid that annual amount in 9, 10, or 12 equal portions.\n\nIs it still that way? I don't know.\n",
"I'm sorry that you're not eligible for overtime, and I really wish teachers got paid more. However, the only reason that you're not eligible for overtime is because you have a salaried position. You don't work for an hourly wage; therefore there is no overtime. Whether you work for one hour a day or 12, you make the same pay rate, which sucks, plain and simple. ",
"No one seems to be referencing the new announcement from the White House: [Bloomberg](_URL_0_) \n\nI suspect it's mostly because it would put a large financial burden on state governments to comply with this for teachers. Doesn't make it right, but..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/new-overtime-rule-may-benefit-millions-of-millennials-in-the-u-s"
]
] |
||
4zd7l6 | are new born childs genetically predispositioned with their parents behaviors/abilities? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zd7l6/eli5_are_new_born_childs_genetically/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6usxvi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The general answer is yes, genes inherited from the child's parents will predispose that child to certain traits and abilities. This does not mean their genes absolutely determine what they'll be capable of achieving or performing. Even identical twins with the same genes from their parents will differ in terms of what they can do and what personalities they'll have, because environmental influences are important as well. Depression, for example, is estimated to be about half determined by genes and half determined by environment, at least according to [these Stanford Medicine doctors](_URL_0_). In the end, the debate about what makes the most difference - genes or the environment - continues on, with some traits and abilities being highly determined by genes and others traits not so much."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://depressiongenetics.stanford.edu/mddandgenes.html"
]
] |
||
5k0upp | why does parts of the world call petrol; gasoline? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5k0upp/eli5_why_does_parts_of_the_world_call_petrol/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbkg8ji",
"dbkgfuh",
"dbkgs5e"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Why do some parts of the world call gasoline petrol?",
"Gasoline doesn't in any way mean that is in a gaseous state.\n\nIt's not petroleum oil anymore either. It has been refined into something else, so why call it petrol?",
"Petroleum is the name for unprocessed crude oil. The first, mass produced product from refining petroleum was Kerosene for lamps, which replaced whale oil. A waste product was a clearish liquid that was highly flammable. That waste product was originally called gasolene and is noted as such in the Oxford dictionary from 1863. Around a decade later the British started to call it \"petrol\" in common verbiage due to French influences, while the US and Canada kept the original name only altering the spelling to \"gasoline\". \n\nOver time places under more British influence, or under their influence more recently took up use of \"petrol\" and those English speaking countries under more American influences use \"gasoline\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3dtqfw | how does lower taxes result in higher revenues and vice versa. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dtqfw/eli5how_does_lower_taxes_result_in_higher/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct8jfmw",
"ct8kn7n",
"ct8koyl",
"ct8nkmb"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, this isn't universally accepted but here's the idea. The government takes a percentage of the money that people make. If they lower how the percentage they are taking then people will have more money to spend, which will help the business that they buy stuff from, which allows them to hire more people and pay higher wages. This all adds up to people making more money than they originally did with higher taxes. So, even though the government is taking less percent of everyone's pay, the overall economy is larger and so it more than makes up for it.\n\nIt's like taking a smaller piece of a bigger pie.",
"Look at the two most extreme examples of taxation.\n\nAt 0% taxation, it should be obvious that the government receives zero revenue.\n\nAt 100% taxation, it's less obvious - but still true - that the government receives zero revenue. After the government has confiscated everything, there's nothing left to confiscate next year and no production is possible (because the government took all the means of production).\n\nBut outside of these two extremes, the government *can* make revenue with taxes. As a result, we know with certainty that there is some point of 'optimal taxation' where additional taxation will yield lower revenue - the curve must rise as we increase taxation from 0% and at some point it must fall again as go towards 100%.\n\nWhen you hear a debate about this concept (termed the 'Laffer Curve'), it's not about the accuracy of the theory. It's about where that optimal point lies.",
"In addition to the other answers here, very high taxes can cause people to work less because they value free time more than extra after-tax income. If the state is going to take 80% of every extra dollar I earn, then maybe I'll spend more time walking in the park, going fishing etc. instead of working more. If the government drops the tax rate to 50% then maybe I'll start working more and overall the government will get more. Here's a hypothetical example:\n\nLet's say the 80% tax band starts at $100,000 and I earn $110,000. So of that last $10,000 I pay $8000 tax. So maybe I don't really see the point in working extra hard to get $130,000. Now the government cuts the tax rate above $100,000 to 50%. Suddenly I see much more personal benefit from upping my work efforts to earn $130,000. On that last $30,000 I pay $15,000 in tax. So the state gets almost twice as much tax money as before. I spend less time fishing and walking in the park, but I consider the personal benefits of more work to be worth it at 50% tax rate but not at 80%.\n\n(For this example, we assume all taxes below $100,000 stay the same, so the state is getting the same amount from that $100,000 both before and after the tax change above $100,000)",
"One must also take into account the velocity of money. Basically, how fast the money flows. And what's important is the direction of that flow. For instance, if you lower taxes on corporations their revenue does increase, which provides more money for stockholders, board members, owners, etc.... Ultimately the wealthiest individuals which gain these increased profits through capital gains. (lower tax rate than income.) Which they don't spend, usually they just increase their wealth. In this instance the government has only reduced their revenue without increasing it. Now, if you lower taxes on the poor/middle class they start out with more money. At the bottom with less they spend more quickly which increases the speed at which the money changes hands. Also, the money moves upwards increasing everyone's \"wealth\" on the way. The business owner makes more money, buys more suppliers. The supplier makes more and purchases more raw materials. The huge conglomerates that produce your steel, paper, plastics, and agriculture make more. They increase revenue which increases the shareholders, owners, and ceo profits. And the government makes money every time it switches hands so in the end they make more revenue. And that doesn't even include the increase of employment due to the increase of demand. The growth of an economy comes from demand. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2za8i5 | what is the appeal of instagram? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2za8i5/eli5what_is_the_appeal_of_instagram/ | {
"a_id": [
"cph1pjm",
"cph1vnz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Everyone that I know that uses it as their primary photo sharing site sees it as some sort of alternative to Facebook (and they weren't too happy to see Facebook buy Instagram). As for why, I think it's mainly because they were generally annoyed by Facebook due to their particular group of friends on the site, and they were looking for an alternative. Also, everyone that I happen to know in this group were programmers living in the San Francisco area at the time, so who knows how representative my example is of the overall user base. ",
"It's an incredibly simple, straightforward photo-sharing platform that was largely designed with mobile users in mind. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
qo90z | -what causes someone to pass out? (not alcohol or drug related?) | Example: I passed out after having a wisdom tooth pulled, but I felt perfectly fine before the procedure. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qo90z/eli5what_causes_someone_to_pass_out_not_alcohol/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3z5qyo"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"More often it's a *drop* in blood pressure.\n\nAlso, what's called a vasovagal syncope. Your body has a very [important nerve, called the vagus nerve](_URL_1_), that does a whole bunch of stuff. Sometimes it can be triggered accidentally and make your blood pressure go low for a couple seconds, long enough to make you pass out.\n\nThis vasovagal response is what happens when someone passes out when seeing blood or experiences a lot of pain, along with [a whole bunch of other reasons](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasovagal_response#Cause",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve"
]
] |
|
649jqv | why are earth solar panels blue and space solar panels orange/brown. | I was looking at some images of the space station and noticed that their solar panels were orange/brown. Most satellites and probes have orange/brown solar panels as well. Why aren't they blue like here on Earth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/649jqv/eli5_why_are_earth_solar_panels_blue_and_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg0i2r7",
"dg0jgg9"
],
"score": [
2,
14
],
"text": [
"There are two types of silicon cells mono-crystalin (black) and polycristalin (blue). The blue ones are cheaper and a bit less efficient.\n\nThe ones that go into low-earth orbit on the ISS are a different type. They have copper circuits printed on them. [here's a close-up](_URL_0_)",
"The orange color of the panels around the ISS and some other space applications is [Kapton] (_URL_0_), a polymer (polyimide) that is space rated for holding together electronics. We used to use it a lot when I worked for NASA. The solar panels around the space station are covered in sheets of flexible Kapton so they could be folded and unfolded for delivery."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-afb15c450544aa4b0e267708deb589a0-c"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton"
]
] |
|
atbr4l | do you stay sick for longer if you brush your teeth, then continue to use that toothbrush before you fully recover? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/atbr4l/eli5_do_you_stay_sick_for_longer_if_you_brush/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh020fp",
"eh09m92"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Once the immune system has destroyed a type of infection or virus it saves a sample of the successful (t?) cell so that when they encounter it again it is killed in minutes instead of weeks or days. So no.",
"Opinion in the medical community seems divided on the likelihood of reinfection (with strep in particular) because of a toothbrush.\n\nFor younger kids who are prone to strep (Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis) some pediatricians say toss the toothbrush after the course of antibiotics is done... Others say just rinse it in listerine or something similar and it's fine.\n\nKids under 5 can be what's called 'strep carriers', meaning the bacteria is basically always present in their system, while others are prone to infections because of their physiology (tonsils etc.) I've also read that strep throat will eventually resolve itself as antibodies kill the pathogens, but there is a slim chance that something called rheumatic fever can develop which has lifelong consequences, so that's why they recommend a doctor visit. \n\nFWIW I'm not a medical professional, but my daughter has had a rough go of strep infections, so I have tried to understand what is going on as best I can. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3rbfug | how are episodes of a tv series all around the same length? | How can show makers make their episodes exactly the right length, especially for dramas?
When I make a video the only way I can guess somewhere around the final time, I have to storyboard it, do they do that for the entire episode? It just seems impossible that every story they make is always around the same length. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rbfug/eli5_how_are_episodes_of_a_tv_series_all_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwmmgll"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Depending on the scriptwriter and how descriptive they are with scenes, usually around a minute is a page long. Also the magic of editing. Many of the skits at the starts of shows that have nothing to do with the actual episode (e.g. The Office) are made for that reason."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.