q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
661j1b
|
how does one die from shock or pain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/661j1b/eli5_how_does_one_die_from_shock_or_pain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgevafx",
"dgew9nc"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"When someone is in shock or extreme pain, the body has an adrenergic response (fight or flight response). This response can release large amounts of nor-adrenaline and adrenaline into the blood stream and can cause things like brain stroke, cardiac arrest, pulmonary edema, or if you have asthma, an acute asthma attack. ",
"It's worth pointing out shock means something different in medical use. A shocked patient is one whose blood system is incapable of sustaining the metabolic demands of tissue (through loss of blood, severe dilatation of blood vessels, cardiac arrest, whatever). In those cases, shock typically kills by several factors resulting in tissue death.\n\nEmotional shock causing deaths is very rare and as far as I'm aware tends to be due to be caused by an underlying heart defect (Takutsubo's Cardiomyopathy or Broken Heart Syndrome). The wiki page has some theories on what happens but the upshot is we're not really sure. Possibly it's linked to the stress hormones, or a virus.\n\nLong term emotional stress causing a reduction in lifespan is a bit better understood and tends to be due to both poor mental or social factors (eg self harm, binge eating, smoking/drinking, loss of sleep) and biological factors: stress hormones are useful for facing down a predator by causing your liver to dump sugar in the body and pushing up your heart rate. Over a longer period this increases the risk of diabetes and high blood pressure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9zt6li
|
why do litters have runts?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zt6li/eli5_why_do_litters_have_runts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eabuu18",
"eabv3oo",
"eacj4gu"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Logically, unless all the offspring are the exact same size, one of them must necessarily be the smallest.",
"Same reason multiple births usually have one that’s underweight. It could be for May reasons but to name a few, they didn’t develop fast enough, for some animals that can be pregnant by more than one litter at a time, the timing might be off, the other babies might have been hogging the nutrients or it could be a health concern. There’s no one reason or really a way to know why in each circumstance ",
"With dogs it’s usually due to the pups not all being from the same mating, the runt is probably at least a few days even up to a week premature. Other causes can simply be that they had a less developed umbilical cord or that the individual just got unlucky if the mother ran short of resources. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6iiqel
|
why do so many people feel comfort from white noise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iiqel/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_feel_comfort_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj6ki83"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Drowns out the silence. There are stories of prisoners locked in solitary screaming because the sound of their own blood pumping is too loud. Obviously that's an extreme case, but it's the same concept. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6ww4qo
|
why are juries comprised of our peers who know nothing of law and not of a panel of attorneys who have a degree in the particular field of crime?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ww4qo/eli5_why_are_juries_comprised_of_our_peers_who/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmb8112",
"dmb8hxs",
"dmb9mq0"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"A jury doesn't make decisions about the law- those decisions are made by the judge. Juries make decisions about guilt based on evidence and testimony, plus instructions from the judge. ",
"Trials involve two kinds of questions: questions of law and questions of fact. Questions of law are decided by the judge. The jury's job is to decide questions of fact based on the evidence presented to them. They're ordinary people because they're supposed to judge things like the credibility of witnesses and the reasonableness of other ordinary people's actions.",
"I think the original motivation of this system of justice was to give at least a semblance of fairness to the average individual, as opposed to the people in power in a given community having absolute authority. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
17qn4i
|
how does a modern handgun work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17qn4i/how_does_a_modern_handgun_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c87zqhx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"this should explain it\n\n[\nFundamentals Of Small Arms Weapons (1945) - Part 1\n](_URL_1_)\n\n[\nFundamentals Of Small Arms Weapons (1945) - Part 2\n](_URL_2_)\n\n[\nFundamentals Of Small Arms Weapons (1945) - Part 3\n](_URL_0_)\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://youtu.be/5PfNZPSvsAU",
"http://youtu.be/NZX7X3pJgH8",
"http://youtu.be/GgF0X1zjLNY"
]
] |
||
2dqttd
|
if various species naturally went extinct even without human influence in the past, why is it still important that species are going extinct? is it not just nature taking its course?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dqttd/eli5_if_various_species_naturally_went_extinct/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjs4kxd",
"cjs4l4x",
"cjs4pfk",
"cjs5vi3",
"cjs7sxb"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The biosphere is, to us, like a giant laboratory that tells us much about ourselves and the Universe. Each species is an experimental result. But when they disappear, unstudied, we loose the results and are poorer for that.",
"Regions in which humans have developed habitats saw a massive increase in the rate at which megafauna (i.e. large animals) started going extinct. This is WAY higher than what ecologists refer to as the background rate of extinction (the rate at which species went extinct before human influence, with a few special exceptions). Mass extinctions that don't open up very many new niches (fancy word for \"somewhere new species can evolve\"), such as the ones that we are causing, only hurt biodiversity, and imbalance ecosystems. And whether you realize it or not, we rely very heavily on the things mother nature does for us in order to get by.",
"Mass extinctions have only occurred 5 times in the history of organic life. It's important to not go down the road of setting off a chain reaction of food chain disruption. If this ends up being the early beginnings of the 6th mass extinction, earthly life is in trouble.",
"If people naturally die without human influence, why is it still important that people get killed in war? Isnt just nature taking his course?",
"Because like climate change, it's our fault that it's happening hundreds of times faster than it would naturally. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5puvy7
|
why is parcel pickup a thing of the past?
|
When I was younger, barely anyone pushed their groceries past the checkout. I know it is still around, but it is extremely rare to see parcel pickup used anymore.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5puvy7/eli5_why_is_parcel_pickup_a_thing_of_the_past/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcu0x03",
"dcu1nbm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"What the heck is a parcel pick up?",
"Becouse something as simple as putting groceries into your car shouldn't be a 2 person job \n\nDon't get me wrong elder people do need help but others just abuse it \n\nI live in the Midwest where winters are cold and I hate when I see a 30 year old lady pull up in her nice bmw and pop the trunk open so the boys can load the groceries, while her fat ass sits in the nice warm car. the people loading the bags into the cars are the young 16-18 year kids that should be at home finishing up Homework but instead are out trying to make some extra cash by waiting on hand and foot on idiots that don't wanna put effort into putting away 4 bags of groceries in -23 degree weather ."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3f3bn6
|
what is the point of hdmi+ethernet combo cables?
|
I mean, you can't plug an HDMI cable into a modem, can you? And why would you as long as ethernet exists?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f3bn6/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_hdmiethernet_combo/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctkxtjv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Let's say your tv and Blu-ray player are both internet accessable, your tv has built-in Wi-Fi, but your Blu-ray player is Ethernet only (or vice-versa), instead of needing to run an Ethernet cable, the HDMI cable will allow the Blu-ray player to use the tv's internet connection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zsu1o
|
is being 'good at art' or other creative things nature or nurture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zsu1o/eli5_is_being_good_at_art_or_other_creative/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfwmzp9",
"cfwndf7"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It can be trained to a certain degree, but it comes naturally for a large part too.\n\nIt's like some people are really good at math, others are good at language.\n\nIt doesn't have anything to do with IQ or so, it's just a way your brain works\n\n",
"I believe to the depths of my bones for 99.99% of all \"good artists\" it is almost completely *not* nature. \n\nIt might be aided initially by nurture and practise while just a kid *but* there comes a time in that kids life where it becomes a conscious choice to keep creating. And more specifically, a choice to concentrate, focus, apply willpower, achieve/create a desire/vision, and practise, practise and more practise.\n\nPick up a pencil and try drawing something you like 1000 times. And each time, applying focus and concentration to get better, judging and critiquing why the last one is not good enough and how you could do it better.\n\nOr just try it once; I remember my 10 year old brother drew a woman's face from a magazine in pencil greys. Took him weeks - he said he just concentrated really hard and was really careful. Each pencil stroke was a carefully judged choice - do I do it like this or like that? Rub it out, try again.\n\nWe may have different talents when it comes to \"natural concentration\", but it really doesn't matter if you don't choose to apply it and make a string of choices.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
11q7si
|
what is trotskyism and how does it differ from other branches of communism.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11q7si/eli5_what_is_trotskyism_and_how_does_it_differ/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6oqz4u",
"c6orxnt"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"A good place to get an answer to this is /r/DebateaCommunist ",
"Leon Trotsky was one of the leaders of the Bolshevik party when it rose to power in Russia in 1917. The leader of the party was Vladimir Lenin. Lenin died in 1924 and it wasn't clear who would take over from him, but Trotsky and Josef Stalin seemed to be the main contenders. However it was eventually Stalin who took the job. Stalin was very ruthless in holding onto power and afraid of anyone who might challenge him. Over the next ten years he had all the original Bolshevik leader imprisoned and killed. The only exceptions were Alexandra Kollontai, who became ambassador to Finland and basically kept her head down, and Trotsky, who fled to Mexico.\n\nWhen in Mexico Trotsky became a vocal critique of Stalin's regime. He continued to write and publish, and stated that Russia was now a \"deformed worker's state\". In other words, it had originally been on the right track to communism under Lenin, but under Stalin things had broken down. Trotsky also wrote about a lot of other things going on around the world, including a theory on the origins of fascism. In 1940 he was murdered by a supporter of Stalin.\n\nTrotsky had a lot of different views and in any case they changed over time, so Trotskyist doesn't mean someone who necessarily follows everything the man said to the letter. However, as he became an iconic critique of Stalin (whilst defending the 1917 revolution), **Trotskyist is now usually an umbrella term for Leninist communists who do *not* support the Soviet regime as it appeared under Stalin and later leaders, and view them as not being true representations of communism**."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9ijm5b
|
what is happening when my phone displays that it has full 4g signal, but it clearly doesn't because it can't load anything?
|
Problem with the phone? Problem with the network?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ijm5b/eli5_what_is_happening_when_my_phone_displays/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6k3ac3",
"e6k3c3r",
"e6k3moy",
"e6k4cwe",
"e6k5igq",
"e6kemeg",
"e6kivzn",
"e6kpb6o"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the best way to look at it is that signal =/= speed, but maximum speed. For example you have full signal and can have speeds UP to x, but because you're in the hills of nowhere the total speed you get is less than x.",
"It can have a full 4g connection and still have that connection be very slow. The signal is the strength of the connection between your phone and the towers, not the strength of your internet connection. The 2 aren't necessarily the same, even though they usually seem to be. ",
"Either/or/both/neither. There's an incredible amount of potential issues.\n\n1. Signal strength might be good but quality is crap a la noise\n\n2. Cell modem on your phone, drivers, operating system might be crapping out and/or struggling\n\n3. If you say, hit your data cap for the month, your carrier may throttle you to super slow speeds. Some services might work okay but other, more media-rich pages or apps might not load fast at all\n\n4. Carrier could be having problems on their end, either on the tower or something upstream\n\n5. The backbone data network the carrier runs off of could be having problems\n\n6. The specific service(s) you're using could be having issues\n\nAnd probably another dozen or two if I got creative. ",
"Mobile phone networks is shared networks so many phones communicate on the same channel. The channel have a limited amount of data it can transmit so there is a limited amount of users that can connect transmitt data at the same time.\n\nVoice is prioritized so if make a call and get a connection you will get the amount of data that is needed and the phone call will work as long as you are in the area covered by the signal. You can get a drop call if you move or the environment change like rain that block part of the signal even if you are still in the same cell. If you move and the call should be handled by another cell you might get dropped.\n\nHow you prioritize data depend in the operator but you have som limited amount of users/bandwidth used so if you can use it you get a ok experience. \n\nThe result is that you might get a signal as the phone indicate but there might not be any available bandwidth on the the network and you get no data.",
"You could have 4 bars of strength, but if that network is crap, you have full signal strength of a crap network.\n\nQuantity v. Quality, kinda",
"It might be even more simple than people think. If you have your wifi on and it's either struggling to maintain a signal or has a really bad one your phone will primarily try to use the wifi over data. Just turn wifi on all together and you'll get your juicy 4g signal. Happens to me all the time",
"So how can you have 4G? Because your phone sends a message to the tower and says, \"Hey, I can talk in 4G, can you?\" And the tower goes ,\"Yes.\"\n\nThen the cellphone times how long that response took to come and measures how strong that signal is, and gives you some value that represents signal strength.\n\nWhat this doesn't tell you is, \"Hey tower, are you busy?\" And the tower responding, \"I'm up to my antenna in Instagram and porn, you're gonna have to wait.\"\n\nThere is no measure of congestion. So you can speak the protocol, and the signal strength is good, but the tower can be servicing a lot of customers, say, if you're at a convention, or the tower's connection to the service provider could be far away, or limited in bandwidth, or shared and congested...\n\nAnd while signal strength could be good, there could be a lot of noise, resulting in a lot of lost and thus retransmitted communication.\n\nAnd it doesn't matter how many antennas are in your area. You see a tower with a shitload of white rectangles on it, so what? Don't forget that there is one and only one electromagnetic spectrum, that all cellphones of all makes share a very narrow slice of that, and all those cellphones all have to share - given some frequency spectrum, only one participant can be transmitting at a time.\n\nSo if you think about it, the cellphone radio in your phone, right now, is picking up all communication from all other cellphones and the towers within range - it's just inspecting these packets and dropping them, \"Not for me...\"\n\nSame goes with WiFi/Bluetooth/cordless house phones (if they still exist)/baby monitors/microwaves - since they all use the same 2.4 GHz band. And none of these devices give a shit about each other - WiFi plays nice with other WiFi, but Bluetooth doesn't speak WiFi, and will just try to transmit over the \"noise\" in the background. Every single device within range that uses the same frequencies slows everyone down. And it doesn't matter if you're \"not on their network,\" because you're still on the same radio frequencies!",
"* Cell towers have a limited amount of bandwidth they can use to communicate with other towers and other networks. \n\n* Cell towers have a limited number of active connections they can deal with at one time.\n\n* Cell services is like the speaker system you use to order at a fast good drive-thru line. The better your signal, the better the worker can hear you. But there still might be a big long line of cars and your burger might still take a while."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ze9c0
|
what stops employers from firing employees to hide an illegal act?
|
I've been looking into the taboo and legality of firing someone from a job for talking about wages and fairness amongst employees. What stops an employer from firing someone secretly for this reason but blame it on something else, like work performance?
Or maybe even asking illegal interview questions and denying a job because the prospective employee refused to answer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ze9c0/eli5what_stops_employers_from_firing_employees_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cylec4s",
"cyledx0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Absolutely nothing. But if the employee/prospective employer can prove with a reasonable doubt that that was the reason they were fired/not hired the company can get hit with lawsuits and major fines. ",
" > What stops an employer from firing someone secretly for this reason but blame it on something else, like work performance?\n\nNothing stops them from firing that employee. \n\nBut that employee can very easily sue the employer for wrongful dismissal if there is no documented evidence that the employee underperformed so the business would have to find the material that would justify the dismissal. \n\nAnd if that dismissal lawsuit becomes public knowledge it can become a huge black eye for the company and demotivator for its staff. \n\n > Or maybe even asking illegal interview questions and denying a job because the prospective employee refused to answer?\n\nAgain, threat of lawsuit from the interviewee that could result in financial pain or loss of goodwill from the entire business community around that organization. Can get really sticky if, say, the interviewee is a visible minority.\n\nHuman Resources personnel in better companies either sit in on the interviews themselves or train other interviewers about what questions to ask and what questions to avoid. Regional laws can differ, but in general you're not allowed to ask any 'private' questions to the interviewee."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
306pox
|
why are certain 'medicines' which have been proven not to work beyond the placebo effect allowed to be sold as being effecive? is this not false advertising?
|
Edit: I am refering to 'cures' such as homeopathy and reflexology.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/306pox/eli5_why_are_certain_medicines_which_have_been/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpplv0c",
"cppm2re"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure what \"medicines\" you refer to. But I know some things are classified as herbal supplements or just supplements and they don't have to do what they claim. E.g. vitamins, airborne, diet pills, various enhancers ",
"Needs more details. Do you mean quack stuff like Homeopathy, or herbal supplements? \n\nBasically, the biggest way is that they don't claim to be effective for anything. Indeed, look at a bottle and you'll probably see the \"not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease or condition\" language on it. The users may say it does wonders, but not the company itself. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
xcc6h
|
why are plants considered non living things to a vegetarian?
|
So, something to do with central nervous systems? Is it to do with the reproductive methods? Being sentient beings? But then how can a snail be difined as a sentient being? Does it know of and experience its own existence? Being able to react to stimuli? But isn't that how a venus fly trap works? Does a brain mean something is living (in this context)? I know some mollusks like the octopuss and the squid, have brains and are fairly intelligent, but others like slugs just have some nerve cells that animate the creature. It seems the line is not a clear one. Anyway, I feel im rambling a bit now.... ELI5!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xcc6h/eli5_why_are_plants_considered_non_living_things/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5l4ph2",
"c5l5s53",
"c5l6157",
"c5l66r1",
"c5l6aar"
],
"score": [
26,
8,
15,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm a non-vegetarian here and I am sure that a vegetarian will chime in. The vegetarian's I have known didn't classify plants and non-living. They made a conscious choice not to eat animals. None of them ever referred to the fruits or vegetables as \"non-living\" to me and none ever mentioned that they would never eat anything that was once \"alive\".",
"Of course they are alive, but plants do not have nerves that cause pain.",
"People are vegetarians for a wide variety of reasons, from health to morality (on morality, plants take far fewer resources to grow and maintain than animals). Additionally, some people just don't like meat. It isn't necessarily a living vs nonliving issue.\n\nI realize this is kind of a non-answer, but your question is based on a flawed premise.",
"There much better reasons to be a vegetarian than supposedly avoiding harm. It takes much, much less energy to grow a pound of vegetable matter than a pound of meat, so vegetarian diets place much less strain on the resources we use to grow our food. There is also the consideration that plants cannot feel pain and are incapable of suffering.",
"I can't speak for all vegetarians, but the majority of ones I know still consider plants life. However, as far as we know how to tell, by growing and consuming vegetables we are not causing any suffering to the plant.\n\nSome of the most simple life forms have sensory systems in place to detect \"pain,\" or rather sensing something that is aversive to their living conditions. Sentience is not a requirement for suffering, because we know sensory systems are linked to pain that activate regardless of the awareness of the animal. This does become fuzzy for animals like sponges or jellyfish, though.\n\nAs a side note, although plants don't have nervous systems like we do, they still respond to stimuli all the time, like sunflowers moving towards the sun or trees losing leaves in the winter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cdfi7z
|
when we run out of carbohydrates how does our organism decide whether to gather energy from protein or fat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cdfi7z/eli5_when_we_run_out_of_carbohydrates_how_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ettlh7m",
"etuc763"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It‘s regulated by how much and how quick you need that energy. It‘s easier to metabolize proteins than breaking down fat, but if you need the proteins because you do something physically exhausting the body will rather start metabolizing fat. Also important is how often you eat. As an example you did some sport, then eat something and then don‘t eat for like 16 hours. The body will first regenerate your muscles, cell environment and so on. Afterwards while waiting for new energy it will use up the carbohydrates. If they are gone the body will rather start burning fat, because it‘s built up for „bad times“, than proteins because they have a physiological more important function than delivering energy, whereas the main function from (white) adipocytes is storing/delivering energy.",
"The body uses *(and replaces)* energy from all sources all the time, but MOSTLY likes and uses carbohydrates because they're fast & easy to break down. First glucose *(simple blood sugar)* then glycogen *(more complex stored carbs)*. \n & nbsp; \nIt MOSTLY leaves protein for last because important parts of the body are made from protein & are needed in order to keep trying to find food *(heart, diaphragm, skeletal muscles)*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
dsmkai
|
can someone simplify cellular respiration?
|
I have a bio midterm tomorrow and I’m a bit of a science dummy. I’m supposed to be able to summarize the process/inputs and outputs of cellular respiration in the three stages (glycolysis, krebs, and ETC i think?) but I’m very confused!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dsmkai/eli5_can_someone_simplify_cellular_respiration/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f6qfidx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"1) glycolysis\n\nInput: 1 glucose, 2 ATP, 2 NAD+, 4 (ADP + Pi) \n\nOutput: 2 pyruvate, 4 ATP, 2 NADH + protons, 2 H2O\n\nNotes: in cytosol. Does not need oxygen. Produces lactate without oxygen.\n\n----------\n\n2) pyruvate dehydrogenase complex\n\nInput: 2 pyruvate, 2 NAD+\n\nOutput: 2 Acetyl coA, 2 CO2, 2 NADH + protons \n\nNotes: in mitochondrial matrix (in eukaryotes). Happens in pyruvate dehysrogenase complex. \n\n----------\n\n3) citric acid cycle/Krebs/TCA\n\nInput: 2 acetyl coA, 2 oxaloacetate, 2 (ADP + Pi), 6 NAD+, 2 FAD\n\nOutput: 4 CO2, 2 ATP, 6 NADH + protons, 2 FADH2\n\nNotes: in mitochondrial matrix. Needs oxygen but not directly. Actually produces GTP, but that gets converted to ATP.\n\n----------\n\n4) electron transport chain\n\nInput: ADP, O2, NADH/FADH2\n\nOutput: NAD+, FAD, ATP (34 to 36), H2O\n\nNotes: in inner mitochondrial membrane. Definitely needs oxygen. I'm too lazy to do the math, but you can calculate how many products you had from before to get to this result.\n\nAll the above is per 1 glucose molecule. I gave a summary, I didn't explain anything. If you have questions, let me know. Good luck!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
y54en
|
eli: evolution, and how we are so certain of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y54en/eli_evolution_and_how_we_are_so_certain_of_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5sepmf",
"c5sezzs",
"c5sfnrb",
"c5sgg5b"
],
"score": [
4,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As a scientific theory, we have verified evolution to a high standard using the scientific method.\n\nEvolution was originally proposed as a scientific model based on observations. The most famous individual example is probably different beak shapes on slightly different finch species observed by Darwin on the Galapagos islands. This observation, and many others, was well explained by the idea of an original finch populating the islands and slowly evolving on each one to better fit that particular island's niche. This nicely explains their differences (they are well adapted to the very specific situation of each individual island) and their similarities (they share a common ancestor).\n\nHowever, a scientific theory needs to do more than that. It must make verifiable predictions different to those of other theories, by which we can test it. We are nowadays confident of evolution because it has made *many* such predictions in many areas, all correct, in a way that does not also permit other theories. For instance, evolution as presented by Darwin necessitates a method for transferring information from a parent to children that is fairly reliable but which allows for small changes in a specific way - not too many or too large, but enough to allow natural selection over time. The later discovery of DNA provides precisely this.\n\nOther predictions include many diverse things like time barriers before which features should never be found in fossils as they hadn't evolved yet, and that the different numbers of chromosomes in different species must be resolved by previous chromosomes joining or splitting (as they have a common ancestor, and the chromosome can't appear/disappear from/to nothing). For these particular examples, the first is correct so far, and the second was a great specific prediction that turned out to be correct. Amongst many such predictions, evolution has emerged as a good, predictive, scientifically correct theory, leading to our modern almost certainty in its accuracy.",
"**What is Evolution?**\n\nEvolution is change in the population over time. The word population there is important because one animal changing isn't evolution. As you get older you will get taller and then shorter and greyer; that's not evolution because you are just one person. If it helps you can think of evolution as changing the average even though that's not quite right. \n\n**How do we know it's happening**\n\n*We can see it happen now*\nWe know it is happening now because we can see it happen to all kinds of animals if we look at how they were even a few years ago and look at how they are right now. A famous example is peppered moths. They used to be mostly white a long time ago. They were white to hide on light colored trees. When people built factories that made smoke that turned the trees dark colored. After a few years the moths were mostly dark colored rather than white. It wasn't smoke on the moths that made them dark, they were dark as soon as they had wings because that way they could hide on dark trees. The light colored moths were getting eaten so they weren't having baby moths so there were more dark ones. \n\nThere are lots (hundreds or thousands maybe) of examples of evolution happening right now, I can write out some more if you like.\n\n*We see evolution happened a long long time ago*\n\nEven before Darwin, Everyone who cared knew evolution was happening, remember that evolution is change in populations. People for a long time had looked as fossils. Animals and plants don't last long after they die but sometimes their body turns to stone a little at a time. When that happens we can see what animals or plants were like a long time ago. We can make good guesses about how old fossils are by how deep they are buried and we know a lot about the kinds of rocks the fossils are in.\n\nPeople noticed that fossils that are less old look more like the animals that are living today, but as they get older they get more and more different. The animals they had lots of fossils for were certainly changing over time. They called the change they saw in pretty much every type of fossil evolution.\n\n*Why is evolution happening?*\n\nFor a while people were sure that evolution was happening, but they argued about why. Darwin was the first guy to really figure out why. (Another guy figured it out on his own before Darwin told many people though)\n\nThere is one important thing to get if you want to know why evolution happens: *If you have lots of babies and your babies have lots of babies then there will be lots of you years from now even when you die. If I don't have babies then there won't be any of me when I die.*\n\nThere are few ways that can make evolution happen:\n\n*Natural Selection*\n\nIf you are better at living than me, you can have more babies than me. If you are better at finding food then you can feed more babies. If you live longer you have more time to make more babies. If you are different from me in a way that makes you better at some part of life then you will probably be able to have more babies than me and when your babies grow up they will be better than mine at living. Eventually there won't be many of me and there will be lots of you. Since we are different changing to have more of you and less of me a change in the population. Evolutions happened. That's natural selection because you were just naturally selected over me because you were just naturally better than me (at having babies.)\n\nThere are random changes that happen to living things all the time and the place they live in. If they don't make the thing better at living then the changes won't spread because that thing won't have more babies than others and the population won't change: no evolution. If the change does make the thing better at living then that thing will have more babies than others and the population changes: evolution happens.\n\nDarwin wrote about natural selection. It is probably the most important way evolution happens.\n\n*Sexual Selection* \n\nFor most living things you need two to make babies. You need a mother and a father. Being really good at finding food and living a long time only helps you have lots of babies if someone will make them with you. \n\nLiving things try to choose others to make babies with so their baby-making-partner is good at life. Each different animal does it in a different way, one example is probably hair length. Human (that's us) men usually like long hair in women. That isn't just a fashion trend, it's been true as long as we know. To have long hair a person needs to be healthy and have plenty of food, otherwise the hair falls out before it gets long. You can tell if a person is healthy by how long their hair is. You could use that to try and pick a baby-making-partner.\n\nThat makes sense and is fine. Hair length just tells you how good at natural selection the other person is. But remember that people are randomly different. If I happen to be good at having long hair I might be able to trick you into wanting to make babies with me even if I am not very healthy. Then there would be lots of my babies and not as many as babies from my friend who is very healthy but happens to have bad hair. Once there are more of me and less of my friend the population changed: evolution happened. \n\nIn that case the population got less healthy, maybe less good at finding food. It happened because picking someone to make babies with can sometimes select for things that are bad for finding food or bad for living a long time. Like I said before, you can find as much food as you want and live for as long as you want but if you don't have any babies then eventually there won't be any of you.\n\nDarwin wrote about sexual selection too. It is also very important.\n\n*Artificial Selection*\nPeople are very weird. We like to change things on purpose. We like to have huge ears of corn, dogs with shiny coats and cows that make 40 gallons of milk in a day. We have been doing this for thousands of years. \n\nWe take plants and animals we like and make sure that those have lots of babies. It's just like natural selection and sexual selection but instead of being good at life, and good at being picked to have babies, we make sure they live and we make sure they have babies. \n\nDarwin used artificial selection (animal and plant breeding) to help figure out how evolution can happen naturally.\n\n**TL;DR:** Evolution is changing in a population. It happens when one is better at having babies than another.",
"Evolution itself is a very simple process, based on 3 facts:\n\n1. Animals are like their parents: Your body is built from instructions in your DNA, and you get your DNA from your parents. This is why people look like their parents.\n2. Animals are not *exact* copies of their parents: There are some random changes made in the DNA copying process, called *mutations*. You are like a copy of your parents with a few very tiny random changes made.\n3. How many descendants an animal has is affected by your DNA: If an animal is in some way a little better suited to their environment, if they're a little stronger, a little faster, a little smarter etc., they are a little more likely to have surviving offspring.\n\nThe rest flows naturally from that. Traits are passed down through the generations. Slight changes happen randomly. The changes which happen to end up making a creature more suited to its environment get passed on to more of the next generation, and become more common. Over a long time, those slight changes add up to big changes.\n\nThat's the simplest explanation of evolution I have. Other posters have covered how we know pretty well.",
"Why many people have posted longer answers, I will keep this simple as not to sound like a broken record.\n\n\nWhen scientists propose something, they must test it. However, they don't test to prove it, they test to disprove it. Evolution has lived up to every single test they have ever down. It passed so well, there is no way to deny evolution. It has to many branches of science backing it up. \n\n\nAnyone who doubts evolution is denying the facts of biology, physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cwlv0w
|
are sharks self-aware?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cwlv0w/eli5_are_sharks_selfaware/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eycnk6c"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"\"Self-aware\" is a complex term with many different definitions. However, that doesn't seem to actually be the crux of your question, so I won't dive into what is a actively-researched, controversial question. What you are really asking is the much-simpler \"(How) are sharks aware of their own size?\"\n\nYes, they are aware, and this ability is known as *proprioception*. Specialized internal nerve cells feed information about the state (including size, position, tenseness, chemical content, warmth, etc) of one's body. This is how humans can be aware of the position they're in, even in a pitch-black room, and how sharks can be roughly aware of their relative size."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
53ww99
|
how are police supposed to act when they see someone with a gun in a state with open carry laws?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53ww99/eli5_how_are_police_supposed_to_act_when_they_see/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7wymjp",
"d7wznfb"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When they see anyone? Act natural, of course. \n\nIf the police have some reason for confronting the individual, while not yet having cause to arrest them like a traffic stop or general questioning, the cop will (likely) ask that the individual surrender their weapon during the interaction.",
"It depends on exactly what kind of interaction they are having and why the cop is there. \n\nEven in states with open carry laws there are frequently people so scared of firearms they will call the police simply because someone is walking down the street with a pistol on their hip or a rifle slung over their shoulder. It is incumbent upon the police to look into the matter regardless of the validity of the suspicion. Consequently they will speak to the person for a few minutes and then let them be about their business. \n\nIf they are being detained or arrested the police will first want to take possession of the firearm for their own safety. \n\nMore than anything it is necessary for the individual open carrying to avoid taking actions that could reasonably be interpreted as hostile. \n\nWhen carrying and speaking to a police officer, do not handle your firearm unless specifically instructed, do not make sudden movements, and otherwise be polite. If you are not doing anything wrong this will be over in a few minutes and the police officer will be on their way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8rd91c
|
is it possible, through science, to know what flavours a person likes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rd91c/eli5_is_it_possible_through_science_to_know_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0qdpw8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Theoretically, if you put someone in an MRI and fed them different flavors you could look at their brain and see if pleasure centers light up.\n\nBut I'm pretty sure nobody's tried this because it's simpler to just ask people about their preferences, and if you ask the question in a consistent manner and write down the results, then that's science too, and much easier science than trying to find someone with an MRI machine they're willing to let you use as you feed someone flavors and look at their brain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1lrjdx
|
why doesn't a single engine propeller plane need a second propeller to counteract the weight of the front one spinning?
|
Like how a helicopter needs a tail propeller to keep it from spinning out of control, why doesn't a propeller plane need any thing to keep it from doing barrel rolls from the weight of the front propeller?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lrjdx/eli5_why_doesnt_a_single_engine_propeller_plane/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc21c3a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Single prop planes do have a bit of torque that yaws the plane in one direction or the other. Usually, you'll make small adjustments to the rudder and ailerons (aka. trimming) to counteract it, or depending on the age of the plane, compensate for it manually."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2an24l
|
why not just google your question to find the answer instead of posting it on here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2an24l/eli5_why_not_just_google_your_question_to_find/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciwskf4",
"ciwslwy",
"ciwsrs6",
"ciwt3sf",
"ciwt63k",
"ciwt78k",
"ciwtevn",
"ciwtq9j",
"ciwtunr",
"ciwuc10",
"ciwuhal",
"ciwvdwd",
"ciwviaa",
"ciwyn20",
"ciwz1ga",
"cix1c1p",
"cix2j10",
"cix3sij",
"cix3vg1",
"cix4u66",
"cix5yv0",
"cix810z",
"cix8cbh"
],
"score": [
28,
370,
13,
4,
3,
10,
3,
12,
47,
3,
19,
6,
7,
3,
2,
7,
2,
9,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If it's a complex question about a subject I don't have any knowledge in sometimes I need it explained to me like I'm 5. ",
"The purpose of this forum is to have answers explained in friendly, simplified, and layman-accessible explanations. Frequently when you search Google you find explanations that use unfamiliar vocabulary or assume too much prior knowledge, or they're just not explained very well.\n\nThis is the place to go when you asked a question, got an answer, but you don't understand the answer and you'd like some help understanding it.\n",
"Because,if you're anything like me,you end up staring bleary eyed at 15 Wiki tabs at 10am with a dual grip on a mug of coffee.",
"Because Google doesn't give you karma for asking. ",
"I tend to agree. Sure there are lots of things that can be explained much more simply on here by an expert than trying to wade through a Wikipedia article. But as an example, the eli5 earlier where someone wanted quantum computing explained.....that's just not going to happen. The simplified explanation was still comes, as it's a complex subject. In many ways this has just become \"ITLTGI\". I'm too lazy to google it",
"Because we trust people, more than a random block of text on wikipedia, to give us better, more understandable answers. And if we still don't understand after the explanation is given, we can ask further questions to clarify.\n\nSame reason we have teachers actually teach us lessons rather than just having all the students read a book or two to learn something.",
"I like reading the answers that get posted here, I can learn more about a question someone asked about something I may never think about wanting to know.",
"Because:\n\nu/imfive: [Search] What the hell is the benefit of an ionizer and why should I buy a **fan** with one. \n\nGoogle: So, you want to buy a **fan**? Here are 1,003,044,734 results for **fans**, starting at $1.99. (Did you mean **sports fans**?). ",
"The primary reason is that there is an idea of four stages of understanding. They are:\n\n1. unconscious ignorance\n2. conscious ignorance\n3. conscious knowledge\n4. unconscious knowledge\n\nIf you are at stage 1, you don't know what you don't know. People at this stage literally cannot go on to Google with any hope of finding any answer quickly because it's so difficult for them to understand when they have reached any sort of knowledge of a subject. ELI5 answers are meant to break things down simply enough so that such a person can start to ask more relevant questions.\n\nStage 1 people are the ones asking extremely general and/or extremely basic questions that someone with a bit more knowledge would just Google for.\n\nIf you are at stage 2, you may still need ELI5 on certain aspects of a question because the previous explanations you have received didn't fill your knowledge gaps. So what you need is to put the question into context with what you already know and then have it answered simply and again in context with what you already know.\n\nStage 2 people ask much more specific questions than Stage 1 people and often respond with more direct requests for clarification.\n\nStage 3 people don't need ELI5 very much but will often contribute answers because it helps them to solidify their own understanding of the subject. They will start to answer a question, realise that there is a weakness in their explanation and do some research until they can fill that gap.\n\nStage 3 people may like to answer ELI5 questions as their own self-guided learning tool.\n\nStage 4 people know the topic back to front and it is from these people that some of the best answers come from. To paraphrase Einstein, you truly know a subject when you can explain it simply.\n\nTL:DR people with limited knowledge of a subject can't \"just Google\" becasue they can't either sort out fact from fiction or don't know the correct questions to ask",
"Because I want someone on reddit to tl;dr the wikipedia article of some complex concept and I don't want to do it myself",
"I love it when people on a community-based website suggest that it bothers them, or it's wrong for using the community as a source of info through conversation.\n\nOne time in a sub, there was a very interesting topic I was reading about, but didnt quite grasp the core of the idea. I commented on it with a question and a guy told me I was wasting people's time and to asked why I dont go on Google. That blew my mind... I mean here we are on a community-based site, having a discussion about a particular topic with knowledgeable people... and you're telling me to just Google it, read an article on it.\n\nI cant ask the article for clarification, though.. I cant offer feedback or anything. Ffs, maybe I just want to TALK to someone also interested in the topic and have a discussion with someone experienced rather than entering text into a search engine and absorbing info. There's a big difference between learning through a discussion with another human being, and just reading something.",
"[Why not just Google your question to find the answer instead of posting it on ELI5?](_URL_0_)",
"Why don't you google it?",
"From the sidebar:\n\n\"E is for explain. This is for concepts you'd like to **understand better**; not for simple one word answers, walkthroughs, or personal problems.\nLI5 means **friendly, simplified and layman-accessible explanations**, not for responses aimed at literal five year olds (which can be patronizing).\"",
"because google sucks. Bing is king. Just kidding. Posting your question here allows a crowdsourcing approach to obtaining answers based on the intellectual merits of both the question and answer. Google just runs a text based search, and the results you get can be sabotaged by the terminology you use when entering your search parameters.",
"Pretty sure the answer to this question is searchable on Google",
"Why talk to people in person when you can just sit at home and read a newspaper.\n\nIt's the interaction between the questioner and the respondents. Gets a conversation going.",
"Did you Google this before asking?",
"Probably the same reasons you didn't just google this question.",
"Because if others like your question it will get up voted.",
"For a few reasons:\n\nGoogle may answer my question on page 28 of the search results. \n\nI need to sift through 20 Wikipedia articles to get the base knowledge necessary to understand the answer. \n\nMy questions are sometimes answered on Yahoo answers which is unreliable at best.\n\nThere is a social aspect to asking on Reddit. I want am answer, but I also want interesting conversation. ",
"Please allow me to explain \"explainlikeimfive\" like you're five.",
"Often times, I read the answers to questions on ELI5 even if I already knew the answer to the question. I like to read good answers to questions, and it helps me understand the topic better when someone with real experience explains it, even if I already thought I had a grasp on the explanation.\n\nI think that is why people post questions here they could Google or lookup. Great answers that can't be found by simply putting the question in Google and digging through the results."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/#q=why%20not%20just%20google%20your%20answer%20instead%20of%20posting%20to%20eli5"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2nksxm
|
how can professional athletes play sports with flues and high fevers when i can't even think straight enough to perform the most basic functions while i'm sick?
|
Let alone be able to stay standing long enough to make it the washroom, yet these guys will run around for 3 hours.
As a football fan I have seen this many times, the commentators at least claiming that one player or another is playing with a 103 degree fever etc...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nksxm/eli5_how_can_professional_athletes_play_sports/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmegate",
"cmehy0e"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"They have access to the best health care that money can buy. And medication, a butt-load of top-notch medication to help them through it, all paid for by their team / club / whoever to ensure that they can play and not cost any money in down-time.",
"When you have that big of resposibility and get paid like they do you suck it up and get out there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
f8m5lo
|
why do you hear a sudden high pitched noise even though you're the only one to hear it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f8m5lo/eli5_why_do_you_hear_a_sudden_high_pitched_noise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fim7yst"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"It is called tinnitus. Causes can be damage to your inner ear, infection, inflammation, high blood pressure. When you have ear damage you hear it all the time. It is seriously annoying. I suffer from intermittent tinnitus on my right ear. In my case it is triggered by inflammation. I know ex military who have our permanently. Turns out rifles are loud and in combat situations you won't have time to find ear protection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
18ymvq
|
why are catholics against surrogacy?
|
What are they ok with and what are they not cool with?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18ymvq/eli5_why_are_catholics_against_surrogacy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8j5jx2",
"c8j6nk3"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not \"natural\", they are also opposed to artificial contraceptives (condoms/birth control) for the same reason.\n\nIt's probably not just catholics (among christians) that have these objections.",
"Because the general method involves trying to implant multiple embryos at once and hoping one... well sticks.\n\nSo you're still \"wasting\" embryos."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jnbcw
|
why are there miniature horses, but no miniature dolphins, whales, ect?
|
I would really like a miniature orca.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jnbcw/eli5_why_are_there_miniature_horses_but_no/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbgd1z6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Nobody breeds whales. \n\nMaybe you should take up that endeavor... "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38l823
|
what documentation do heads of state have for travel?
|
When heads of state travel to another country do they use their normal travel documents, or are they given diplomatic passports and also are they granted diplomatic immunity.
For example. When Obama visits Canada, does he use a regular passport or have diplomatic papers. Also is he granted diplomatic immunity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38l823/eli5_what_documentation_do_heads_of_state_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crvzarg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"yes they use a passport. But they don't go through customs like any regular person. Instead someone in their team (staff) is responsible for getting the customs stamps.\nSource : The west wing week on White house Youtube channel"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5pz5st
|
. why do people (hunters) club baby seals?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pz5st/eli5_why_do_people_hunters_club_baby_seals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcuzkvg",
"dcuzvmh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's mostly for the fur. \n\nClubbing them to death does less damage to the pelt than shooting them does. They're not very good at running away so no point using a ranged weaoon if it makes the fur less valuable. ",
"Humans are hunting fish which the seals also rely on. This can cause overfishing and a collapse of the fish population. To prevent this there is hunting on seals to cull the population. The seals have excellent meat and nice fur which helps pay for the culling. The hunting is almost exclusively done with rifles although clubs can be the most humane way to kill an animal if a rifle is not available. Because the hunting is done to cull the population they are allowed to hunt baby seals as well as fully grown.\n\nSo there may be some instances of baby seals being clubbed to death but they are quite rare. However it makes for a better headline then the reality."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
26z5so
|
why does my bruise look purple with lots of smaller darker spots in it?
|
Why not just one uniformal, purplish bruise? Wherever the spots are looks like where hair follicles are, but why? Never seen this before so thanks for anyone who can shed some light on it. (EXPLAINED)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26z5so/eli5_why_does_my_bruise_look_purple_with_lots_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chvxxpe"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Think about it this way: when you bruise, you are allowing blood to pool in area's that it isn't normally. This causes your blood, to start clotting, and being degraded at these bruise sites. Your blood clots at multiple points in these bruises, and starts being degraded at these spots, so those spots are going to look different from their surroundings. \n\nOn your hair follicle point, that is definitely a good possibility of what you are seeing. If your bruise allowed blood to leak into a hair follicle, you would have blood trapped in there, that is no longer circulating, and thus turning darker because it's de-oxygenated, and the blood cells are dieing/degrading. \n\nDoes that help?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3g5gx9
|
why are we advised to cool certain types of wounds?
|
For instance, after getting your wisdom tooth pulled. In my 'understanding' the heating up of a wound is related to increased blood flow which in turn helps regenaration. Isn't this process disrupted by cooling? Why do we still cool these wounds? I'm not questioning the effectiveness of such measures but I'd like to know why it works.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g5gx9/eli5_why_are_we_advised_to_cool_certain_types_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctv0vis"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Cooling does slow blood flow, but that's the point. Some times of wounds, such as burns, can get too much blood flow which results in swelling. Swelling can cause damage if there is a lot of it, and by cooling it and letting less blood flow it causes the wound to be numb and less painful."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4hxvnj
|
why did cell phones used to have external antennas? why are they no longer needed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hxvnj/eli5_why_did_cell_phones_used_to_have_external/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2tebfr",
"d2ttpat"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"It has a lot to do with the carrier frequency between the towers and your phone. The antenna size is pretty much related to the frequency of the carrier wave that transmits the information. Old phones used stuff close to 900 mhz, systems now a'days use frequencies closer to 1900 mhz which allows for smaller antenna to be used. Changes in antenna design have also impacted their size. Old phones used simple linear dipole antenna designs (as far as I know), now a'days more complex designs are used which allow for the same intensity of signal while taking up less linear space. ",
"Radio signals are all about signal, noise, power, and attenuation. When early wireless phones used analog towers that covered very large distances they operated more like CB radios or radio stations. The tower transmitting the call could easily be powerful enough to cover a city, but the mobile trying to signal back to the tower had to be powerful enough and it's antenna capable of transmitting clearly with that power back the long distance to the base station. \n\nLater came cellular technology where instead of having a few, very large, very powerful, base stations, they divided them up into a series of interconnected, but much smaller cells. Because the distance between your mobile and a cell tower are much closer than the old IS41 analog stations, you didn't need large aerial antennae or such powerful battery devouring mobile radios to make it back to the tower. \n\nDigital radios signaling methods using things like frequency hopping to avoid interference and spectrum saturation (too many calls on the same frequency) allowed for smaller and more efficient mobile radios, smaller phones, smaller antennae and less power. \n\nMany of the early cellular phones had the back up method of analog roaming and so they needed antennae that could do both. Modern phones don't have this ability and need only communicate with the closest cell tower which are usually just a few miles away and so an integrated antenna is sufficient. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2u14sh
|
when you drink a lot of water and have to pee every 15 mins, is your body still hydrating?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u14sh/eli5_when_you_drink_a_lot_of_water_and_have_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co463dv",
"co47tbn"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"I would like to add to that. When you pee and it is clear, it seems more inefficient than when you pee and it is yellow. Can't your body use that extra water? Or are you fully hydrated at that point and don't need the excess and you get rid of it? ",
"So in terms of physiology, hydrating is a popular slang word without any real definition.\n\nYour body works very hard at separating water and electrolytes into various compartments. For example, there is very little potassium in your blood, and an extremely high concentration within your cells. These differences in concentration are the basis for pretty much all cellular functioning and machinery. Your nerve signals are produced by the ions flowing in and out of cells to generate electrostatic differences around a membrane. Disruptions in the concentration of ions in a compartment, or the amount of available water, are extremely dangerous for what should be obvious reasons. If your cell requires a very high concentration of potassium to function, running out of potassium causes your cell to stop functioning. \n\nWhen thinking about water in your body, there are three main \"compartments\" that hold the water. You have your blood, the fluid within your cells, and the fluid in your tissues. When you drink a lot of water, the fluid is all absorbed into your blood. From there, it distributes into your other compartments. However, increasing the amount of water in your blood also dilutes it, making the concentration of all the electrolytes go down by dilution. This is not something your body wants, so your kidneys will begin to eliminate your extra water.\n\nIf you get dehydrated and chug a giant water bottle, some of the water will distribute into the cells and tissues, but a lot will just get eliminated by your kidneys before the rest of your body gets a shot at it. So I guess the answer is that you can be peeing and still dehydrated at the same time. The best way to replace water losses is by drinking at a steady pace. I'll also add that suddenly giving severely dehydrated people a huge amount of water can kill them because of the electrolyte imbalances it can cause."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2aopqf
|
differences between convection, conduction, and radiation when cooking food.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aopqf/eli5_differences_between_convection_conduction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cix90fu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Rather than summarize, I'll just post this article. It helped make sense of the differences among the three.\n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.appliance.net/2008/how-food-cooks-conduction-convection-and-radiation-411"
]
] |
||
54p92h
|
the difference between how australia and new zealand currently treat and have historically treated their indigenous peoples.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54p92h/eli5_the_difference_between_how_australia_and_new/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d83umsl",
"d83xzwn"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"In brief. NZ, Maori are tribal so before British involvement there were conflicts ongoing. these escalated with the introduction of muskets traded for local goods. British introduced themselves and while typically had the colonial superiority complex of the time were willing to work with some indigenous Maori. British also had the incentive to settle and establish government and agreements with Maori to beat the French. Maori were relatively successful in adopting the market economy introduced and managed portions of timber and flax milling among other interests. Some tribes fought during the NZ wars because of fears of losing autonomy over the land, they ultimately lost men and land as well as political autonomy. Their population was significantly reduced during this time. Maori were given seats in parliament 1867 with the Maori representation act. They still have Maori dedicated seats these days. A lot of land was confiscated following the wars with British. A significant portion was returned (although not always to the people it was confiscated from) and the Waitangi tribunal started 1975 is a legal means of settling land claims, treaty claims, sovereignty issues and other ongoing disputes. Maori are still tribal so it can't be a catch all solution to problems. There has always been racism of one kind or another, and Maori still struggle and are over represented in crime stats, poverty figures, and education rates. Government is sometimes doing things to address these problems.\n\nI can't speak for aussie aborigines.",
"Both the Maori and Australian Aboriginals are the native people of their respective nations. Though the Maori generally kept similar customs and language to the Aboriginals (due to being a smaller nation with less history), whereas the Aboriginals were more diverse in culture, customs and language.\n\nNeither nation treated them particularly well, however at the time of New Zealand becoming their own nation Maori had voting rights and representatives in parliament whereas Aboriginals in Australia were treated with contempt, were second class citizens with no voting rights, and even Prime Ministers said there was no scientific evidence to suggest they were even humans.\n\nAustralia in the mid-20th Century even had the 'Stolen Generation' where aboriginal kids were taken from their families and raised by white families in order to keep them from growing up with their language and culture. Aboriginal people then had to eother be removed from the cities into the outback and reserves to keep their culture, or assimilate with the population where they were treated poorly and developed a stereotype of being lazy drunks. The Australian Government only applogised for these in the last decade.\n\nHowever the New Zealand Government weren't guiltless with the Maori either, however they did sign a treaty with many Maori tribes allowing the Maori to keep their sovereignty. This is a different kettle of fish altogether because the British were not very honest in their translating of the treaty and ended up double crossing the Maori something big time.\n\nThis led to New Zealand Land Wars as the Maori established their own King movement in the fertile lands of the Waikato and Central North Island, which of course the British wanted to use for profits and colonisation. The British ended up winning these wars and illegally took a lot of Maori land that was never returned.\n\nThe British colonists and their descendants then became the majority of New Zealanders and had exorbitant power of the Maori, in the late 20th Century nearly causing the Maori language and culture to go extinct. This was only saved by major efforts to conserve the native culture of New Zealand.\n\nTo this day Maori are still recovering from being treated as second class citizens in their own nation, and have higher crime rates, poverty and unemployment rates, more alcohol and drug abuse cases, and lower levels of education. But the Governments have been working to address this, and dependent on who you ask, have been fairly successful in restoring Maori to the place they deserve in New Zealand culture.\n\nThe Maori, in part due to the relative youth of New Zealand and their less diverse nature, as well as due to the Treaty of Waitangi and the Waitangi Tribunal, remain in a lot better of a position than the Australian Aboriginals to the present day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
d9sqr9
|
why do airplanes on display outdoors often have their cockpit windows completely blacked out?
|
I was at an air museum recently and I noticed that a lot of the jets and other aircraft outside looked like their cockpit windows had been painted black or had very dark tint on them. Why is that? Or are they that way while in use as well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d9sqr9/eli5_why_do_airplanes_on_display_outdoors_often/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1l41j4",
"f1lb8w6"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"I was told (when I was in the Air Force) that it's because some of them aren't being made anymore so the old static displays are harvested for certain parts, to include the windows.",
"Because the interior is most likely stripped of the parts. Plane instrument are big business. Even an altimeter is a lot of money used. They most likely left the wire. In order to not look like a total mess, the blacked out glass is used."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7nz89t
|
how does ozone water cleaning work and is it safe?
|
I just bought a Bottom loading Water Dispenser and I read in the manual that it cleans the system using Ozone every 4 hours. I just wanted to know how this works and if the water is safe to drink. Thank you!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7nz89t/eli5_how_does_ozone_water_cleaning_work_and_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ds5nnvu",
"ds7oday"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Ozone is a very effective antimicrobial agent. It is created via a high-voltages corona discharge and then bubbled through the water. This kills nasty germs in the water or on the surface of the plumbing. Ozone eventually breaks down from O3 to O+O2 which eventually recombines to O2 with free O. ",
"If you're worried about safety, alot (most, I think) of Europe uses ozone for municipal water disinfection. Ozone is actually more benign for people than the chlorine based disinfection used in the US. However, it also doesn't last as long, so it's less effective as an antimicrobial where water might not be turned over quickly. If it's cleaning the system every 4 hours as you state, this should provide sufficient periodicity to ensure potable water is available. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1btaik
|
cold temperature and colds
|
Why is it that if I lock myself up in a cold room, I will catch a cold if I'm not warm if colds are a virus? How does that work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1btaik/eli5_cold_temperature_and_colds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c99uekk",
"c99zzlj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body likes to stay a certain temperature, and bodily functions run best at that temperature. If you get too cold, your immune system takes a hit. This makes it much easier for viruses to attack and make you sick, once you come in contact with said virus.\n\n(Edited with clearer information)",
"You don't catch a cold from being cold. When the weather is cold, people move indoors, placing more and more people into a confined space. This allows the virus to move between people more easily. Which makes you more susceptible to catching a cold."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
102zf9
|
what all this talk of warp drives means?
|
I understand that it's strictly theoretical at this point, but why all the recent buzz? if it was proven at a small scale what applications could we expect. I'm assuming actual warp drives are still years away, but could this research lead to energy or weapons breakthroughs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/102zf9/eli5_what_all_this_talk_of_warp_drives_means/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c69yf83",
"c69ys2o",
"c69zgxq",
"c6a0ejb"
],
"score": [
25,
17,
34,
2
],
"text": [
"To answer your last part regarding energy/weapons breakthroughs: no, not likely.\n\nBasically, awhile back, someone theorized how you could make a warp drive. The only problem was, it required more energy than exists in **the entire mass of Jupiter**, so it was obviously never something that could be built.\n\nThis recent discovery that the article talks about, made a change to the original design and reduced the required power amount many many times down. Still far more than we'd be able to produce (and even if we could produce it, how we'd USE all that energy that we obtained would be just as big of a hurdle), but it shows that the model at least has the possibility of being on the right track.\n\nNext steps would be for scientists to try and determine if they can reduce the required energy to a feasible level. They're just barely scratching the surface with this, and it will likely be far beyond our lifetimes before anything like this is within the realm of actual possibility.",
"I'll explain the 'buzz' part. b1ackcat covered the other parts.\n\nTheoretical physics lately has been kinda lost. The top minds have mostly been diverted into string theory, but that is starting to look like a giant dead end. A recent Nobel prize was given out for showing that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, even though a more recent and better study got a null result. A recent survey found no evidence for dark matter out to 13,000 light years, but the headlines all go crazy when some dark matter is 'found' between two distant galaxies. (And the data is better explained by some sort of diffraction anyway.) The Higgs Boson was 'found', even though the state of the theory is so poor that you could drive a planet though the error bars and they could really have found anything. (Do you remember only a few years ago they were looking over a huge range of energies, they don't mention that now.)It seems that the more lost they get, the more the hype machine turns up. Anything that can sound even remotely positive is spun up to eleven on the hype scale, and all negative results are simply not mentioned. I'm not proposing any sort of conspiracy, only pointing out that people tend to crack a bit when billions of dollars are being spent and careers are on the line. Scientists are people too, and politics comes in play whenever you have people interacting. \n\nMy prediction is that nothing much will come of this, and you won't really hear much about it either.",
"Just a warning, you're going to get a lot of opinions in here and they're going to be light on peer-reviewed evidence.",
"The Alcubierre drive ideas have been around for years. Not quite sure why they suddenly got an upswing lately. \n\nAs has been pointed out, you basically need to pour a small star's worth of energy into the thing to make it work - using technology we don't know if it could exist to interact with spacetime in ways we don't know how, to potentially exploit a loophole in relativity we're not sure exists.\n\nIt's as functionally useful as Heim Space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tf82c
|
why do some lights make that insanely annoying buzzing sound?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tf82c/eli5_why_do_some_lights_make_that_insanely/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx5mbfu",
"cx5py8q"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"If it is an incandescent bulb (the kind you see in cartoons over a characters head when they get an idea) it is usually caused by a dimmer switch. The dimmer switch turns the bulb on and off very quickly and causes the filament to vibrate. That makes the hum. Turn the dimmer switch to full light or remove it entirely.\n\nIf it is a fluorescent bulb, it is caused by the transformer on the bulb, or by dust or particles on the little prongs where the bulb plugs in. Make sure it is plugged in correctly and clean, and if that is not it you have a old magnetic transformer. Newer electric transformers are much quieter.\nTLDR: bad vibrations caused by dimmer switch, dust, or the light not being fully plugged in.",
"one of the funniest things is to tell people about the noise.. it makes them realize it and then they can't ignore it haha"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3g9k4s
|
what would happen if a presidential candidate dies?
|
I am interested in the answer for every step along the line.
What would happen if the candidate died after being nominated by his party?
What would happen if the candidate died a day before the general election in November?
What would happen if the candidate died a day after the general election in November?
What would happen if the candidate died a day after the electoral college decides their votes?
What would happen if the candidate died a day after Congress officially counting the votes?
And if there are any other events that a candidate dieing would complicate please include those too.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g9k4s/eli5_what_would_happen_if_a_presidential/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctw3iqo",
"ctw3oy3",
"ctw6615",
"ctwd92g",
"ctwdmfu",
"ctwf3tx"
],
"score": [
5,
36,
8,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"What would happen if the president died after an election but before the president elect is born? It seems kind of pointless for the VP to serve for two months.\n\nOr what would happen if the VP **is** the president elect and the incumbent dies before the inauguration?",
"If the candidate dies after the nomination but before the general election, the party has rules for how to choose a new nominee.\n\nIf it happens after the election but before the Electoral College casts their votes, then the Electors will choose who to vote for, most likely the Vice-Presidential candidate.\n\nif it happens after the Electoral College casts their votes in December and before inauguration day, the Vice President-Elect will be sworn in as President.",
"John Ashcroft lost the 2000 United States Senate election in Missouri to a dead man, Mel Carnahan, who had died in a plane crash weeks before the election.",
"If a candidate died after being nominated by his party, each party has its own protocol for this scenario, but in neither case does the running mate automatically take over the ticket.\n\n* If the Republican were to die before the election, the [rules of the Republican Party](_URL_3_) authorize the Republican National Committee to fill the vacancy, either by reconvening a national convention or by having RNC state representatives vote. The new nominee must receive a majority vote to officially become the party candidate.\n\n* If the Democratic candidate were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's [charter and bylaws](_URL_2_) state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that.\n\n* Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.\n\nIf the candidate died a day before the general election, a party may quickly converge a new presidential nominee by elevating its vice-presidential candidate to the top spot, but it will then need to fill the bottom spot. This will require vetting possible nominees. It, too, will take time to be done right. Things become even trickier if party leaders decide that the former vice-presidential nominee—perhaps a ticket-balancing sop to the party's losing wing—should not top the new ticket.\n\nIf a candidate died anytime after the Nov. general election but before the Electoral College votes in mid-to-late Dec., the outcome is a little more straightforward, though not necessarily more politically satisfying. There's no federal law that mandates how electors must cast their votes; theoretically, if the candidate to whom they were pledged dies and their party has not made a preferred successor clear, electors can vote for their party's VP candidate, a third-party candidate, or a leading preconvention contender within their own party. Under this scenario, however, individual state laws have the potential to make things murky, given that each state has the power to determine exactly how its electoral votes are to be cast and distributed.\n\nIf a candidate dies after the Electoral College decides the votes but before Congress counts the votes, Congress, when it convenes, has to decide whether to count the votes cast for him. (In 1872, three electoral votes cast for the late Horace Greeley were discounted by Congress, but it's unclear whether votes cast for a living candidate who subsequently dies would be treated the same way.) If Congress decides the votes are valid, then the laws of presidential succession kick in, and that candidate's running mate moves up the ladder. If Congress decides to throw out the votes, then the question becomes whether the living candidate can be said to have a majority of the overall electoral votes—if not, then, according to the [12th Amendment](_URL_1_), the House of Representatives must elect the president from among the three candidates with the most votes.\n\nIf a candidate dies after Congress officially counts the votes, then the laws of presidential succession kick in, and that candidate's running mate moves up the ladder b/c [the 20th Amendment](_URL_0_) states that if the president-elect dies before beginning his term, then the vice president-elect assumes his or her spot. ",
"You're thinking of killing Donald Trump aren't you?",
"You planning something op?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution",
"http://www.essexdems.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Charter-and-ByLaws.pdf",
"https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
9dtuxb
|
why do humans crack their finger knuckles before they're about to do something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9dtuxb/eli5_why_do_humans_crack_their_finger_knuckles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5jw2rh",
"e5jzek0",
"e5jzzti",
"e5k2ymb",
"e5k4hhi",
"e5k6b6k"
],
"score": [
10,
9,
15,
27,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I read somewhere that it increases mobility or something. I frequently crack my knuckles and find this to be true tbh",
"I would suggest that you ask some of these humans. You may gain a variety of answers or just one. Either way you could advance science.",
"So the cracking of knuckles really is just forcing the movement of fluids around the knuckle. My guess is there is some comfort obtained by cracking your knuckles. If our bodies didn’t naturally block some levels of pain, or we were more sensitive to the feelings of pain we have we could probably perceive a huge difference when releasing the tension between the knuckle.",
"It’s a common film trope, so maybe you’re seeing people emulate it? ",
"My hands feel really stiff if I don’t crack them, I’m able to move my hands more properly if I do all my fingers and knuckles.",
"“Cracking” joints, especially knuckes and/or fingers, is mostly habitual, but the act is also attributed to relieving some stress inside the joints.\n\nFrom what I’ve understood, joints are filled with synovial fluid, which acts as a lubricant between the cartilages, to avoid excessive friction. So in the event of “joint-cracking”, the joint expands, which creates a negative pressure inside. In the low-pressured environment, dissolved gases (mainly CO2) leave the fluid, making a bubble/cavity, which then immediately collapse, hence the loud “crack” of the joint. The gas is then reabsorbed in the fluid, that is why you can’t “re-crack” your joints for a period of time.\n\nTl;dr - cracking of joints relieve some stress because of the sudden release and reabsorption of gas inside."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1y5nr3
|
evolution: if modern humans have been around for ~200,000 years, why have no other post-human species branched off of us yet? is there a projected timeline for that to happen? will we even recognize if it's happening?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y5nr3/evolution_if_modern_humans_have_been_around_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhjv99",
"cfhjzjz",
"cfhjzz5",
"cfhk0gd",
"cfhkrvy",
"cfhmm51",
"cfhmmo0",
"cfho6ja",
"cfhscbr"
],
"score": [
2,
41,
3,
5,
15,
2,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Im interested in this as well. Are there already post human species but is too hard to find?",
"Speciation generally happens much slower than that. Further, you probably wouldn't even recognize the branch until well after the fact. It's possible that if technology hadn't advanced then some of the distant clusters of humans would become isolated enough to eventually branch off, but at this point there is constantly gene flow amongst nearly all human populations. For speciation to occur you need some mechanism (physical separation being a good one) that prevents genes from flowing from one group of species to another. This separation allows for the slow build up of mutations that allow them to start to move off in different directions. Even with limited interbreeding of the two groups you keep sharing all the mutations from each side with the other, preventing a branch from occurring. So if, for example, one of the groups of island people were never \"refound\" by the rest of the human population for many tens or hundreds of thousand years, they could have become a separate species.",
"200,000 years isn't that long in evolutionary terms. But either way, with our advances in technology and a sort of \"global civilization\", it's tough to say whether or not humans will naturally evolve into new species. Divergent species generally come about in response to differing environments, but with our technology we, in many ways, have moved ourselves outside of that system. \n\nWe don't have to adapt to different environments, we adapt the environments to ourselves. With a few tiny exceptions, we don't have geographically isolated groups of humans that are evolving independently, people are constantly moving around the planet and intermingling. \n\nThat's not to say that all biological evolution in humans has stopped, there's certainly still room for smaller changes, but with the amount of mobility and wide-scale genetic \"mixing\" that's going on, it's probably unlikely that we'll see humanity biologically split in a big way, like to the point where two branches couldn't interbreed.",
"There is new evidence showing that humans continue to evolve still. We are starting to have shallower and shallower jaws, which is the reasoning behind getting out wisdom teeth out, our jaws are becoming more efficient. I've also heard facts showing that our brain and cranium size were decreasing due to the same reason. In Africa a genetic predisposition to have sickle cell anemia is very prevalent as well, because Malaria is a big killer and sickle cell enables you to not contract the disease.\n\nEdit: clarity ",
"It has happened several times...humans just keep messing it up.\n\nEvery time there has been a migration, the various migrations out of Africa, or into the Americas, the gene pool is split, and given enough time, speciation could have occurred. \n\nThe problem is that humans have always been catching up with an reuniting with the migrating populations, and reuniting the gene pools.",
"The TV shows Heroes and Touch try to cite human evolution in their story lines, not that this is related...",
"I think the simplest answer to this is that evolution isn't as necessary for humans to survive as it used to be. Evolution occurs when species adapt to an environment. We've become very good at controlling our environment and can survive without needing to be as \"fit\" as another species.",
"It has (sort of) happened already. There are distinct differences between the various human populations on Earth, such as resistances to AIDS in Caucasian populations, the increased efficiency of the lungs of Tibetans, or the preponderance of Sickle-Cell Anemia in populations of African descent. The main issue is that these populations haven't diverged far enough genetically that they are no longer able to breed consistently.\n\nAs far as future evolution, modern technology has largely removed evolution from the picture.",
"200,000 years is an eye blink in evolutionary time. Most species can take millions of years to speciate into new ones. We were in the process of speciation, but globalization halted that specific mechanism due to interbreeding. Did we recognize it? Yup, they are called ethnicities. Ethnicities are the preliminary stage in speciation (despite what many politically correct politicians would have you believe), but are FAR from new species. \n\nLong story short, a new species will occur when populations are separated from breeding with each other, and face different environmental pressures. With our new society, we probably will not speciate unless we develop strong mating barriers. They don't necessarily have to be physical mating barriers, they could be cultural. Two populations of frogs have been known to speciate from each other in the same environment by changing their mating calls. Thats a cultural change."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ec06p7
|
why can't they just make the xbox one backwards compatible for every game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ec06p7/eli5why_cant_they_just_make_the_xbox_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fb8a1pz",
"fb8aciu",
"fb8aera"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They could. But it would cost more money make, take more time to design, and it would incentivize players to play old games when what they really want is for players to be incentivized to buy new games. So from a business perspective, it's not a profitable choice.",
"There are some legal issues with it. Licensing contracts may limit the platforms the games can be release on. NCAA 14, for example, can not be updated to a new platform as EA no longer holds the trademarks for the schools involved.",
"So xbox games were written in french, xbox 360 games were written in german, and xb1 games were written in Italian. \n\nSo basically xb1 needs to understand french or German. Or the old games need to be translated to italian. \n\nSo as you know translating things are not easy and something's dont translate well and requires time and money to do so. Someone at Microsoft decided that it's not worth the return on investment to translate all games but only some games."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2gcjxq
|
why must we compost compostables separately front trash? won't they compost in the landfill with the garbage? aren't we wasting a lot of effort separating all of this compostable material from trash?
|
I understand why composting is important, but not why it needs its own place.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gcjxq/eli5_why_must_we_compost_compostables_separately/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckhrn1z",
"ckhrnwj",
"ckhrsff"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Basically, compost can be used as fertilizer. So, if something is compostable, i.e. organic material, instead of sending it to a landfill you can compost it and spread it on a garden or field rather than waste it.",
"the word trash from your title implies garbage that can't be composted. Compost is used in soil. Trash, being unable to decompose most likely has plastics and various other compounds that can leech into the ground polluting/poisoning the soil.",
"I might be wrong, but compostables need air, soil, water, and sunlight to compost. In a landfill they are deprived of a few or all of those things, and then Just become trash and never decompose. *maybe not never, but not like they're intended to at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2xb3un
|
how do we know (or why do we suspect) that a black hole is a dimensionless, infinitely small point rather than just an extremely small sphere if we can't see past the event horizon?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xb3un/eli5_how_do_we_know_or_why_do_we_suspect_that_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coyjq3b",
"coyk62d"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"We don't. \n\n\nThere are a number of theories regarding the interior of black holes. This is one of the mysteries of the universe and connected to the theory of quantum gravity. \n\nI've heard possibility that the mass is actually all right inside the event horizon, that it's all string (cause string theory), and that they age anomalies in a universe that isn't actually three dimensional. ",
"Black holes were \"discovered\" mathematically long before there was any observational evidence supporting them. The math requires that the singularity itself be a point. The event horizon is a sphere of varying size, depending on the particular specifications of the black hole."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8ncpzy
|
how does "happy" hormones make you happy?
|
What does dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin and endorphins actually do to cause happiness?
What is happiness and how does look like on a brain level, what are the difference between a happy and normal state?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ncpzy/eli5_how_does_happy_hormones_make_you_happy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzunodd",
"dzuo10i"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"OK, so first of all, dopamine and serotonin aren't hormones. They are neurotransmitters. I answered a post like this previously, I'll just copy and paste it.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------\nI think you have a misunderstanding of how neurotransmitters work. A neurotransmitter is a molecule released by one neuron and received by another. That's it. Nowhere in the definition of a neurotransmitter does function come into account.\n\nLets talk dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter heavily implicated in reward pathways, specifically, in stimulus-response pathways. If you do something and you get positive feedback for it, you see an increase in dopamine release. However, dopamine also inhibits the release of prolactin, which stimulates lactation in females. This doesn't have anything to do with happiness-- it's just another thing that dopamine does.\n\nSerotonin plays in a role in depression, but it doesn't make you happy. For example, giving SSRIs to non-depressed people won't make them happier at all. Depression is thought to be caused by an inability of the body to successfully deal with higher-than-normal cortisol levels, and serotonin helps with that. Many mechanisms that regulate sleep and awareness also rely on serotonin. Destroying these pathways, or destroying the sertonin producing neurons in them causes cats to fall into permanent comas.\n\nOxytocin is a neurohormone that's released that likely facilitates social bonding. It is released after sex, when two strangers meet for the first time, when an infant suckles a mother. However, it is also released when an in-utero infant pressures the uterus, triggering uterine contractions.\n\nSo the difference between dopamine and serotonin and oxytocin is not like the difference between a pencil and a pen and a marker. While all three play a role in happiness and mood, that is not their only, or even primary, function.\n\nTake a look at [dopamine](_URL_1_), [serotonin](_URL_2_), and [oxytocin](_URL_0_). They're completely different molecules with completely different functions, all of which just happen to play some role in regulating mood. So because of that, I think it is unfair to label them as \"happiness chemicals\".\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis said, it is undeniable that all of these chemical messengers have some effect on mood. However, the bridge on how molecular events in the brain translates to abstract feelings we can experience is a question that we are far, far away from answering. How does dopamine cause feelings of reward? It binds to neurons in an area of the brain called the nucleus accumbens. How does dopamine binding there actually cause happiness? We have absolutely no idea.\n",
"You vastly overestimate how advanced the study of neuroscience is. While we have some information on how the activity in certain areas of the brain correlates with mood, whether this is cause or effect, or how it is related to the perception of mood is completely unknown. In all liklihood, we would have to solve the hard problem of consciousness before we could answer: How does the activity of the brain shape the perception of mood.\n\nYou also have fallen victim to psuedo-scientific ideas about neuroscience. The idea that dopamine or serotonin or oxytocin \"makes you happy\" is flawed, and not supported by evidence. No one taking SSRIs (indirect serotonin agonist) reports that they are suddenly happy, no one taking apomorphine or Bromocriptine (D1 and D2 receptor agonists) reports they are happy. \n\nThese ideas that generally revolve around the concept that your brain is little more than a soup of chemicals, and altering the ratio of ingredients in the soup alters who you are is a pervasive mistake, that can be blamed on pharmacuetical companies, poor medical education and the occasional lazy scientist.\n\nHowever, to answer you question to some minor extent: dopamine serotonin and oxytocin are all neurotransmitters, not hormones. They are released by neurons, and in once released, the alter the activity of other neurons. This alteration in activity is caused by the neurotransmitters binding to receptors which exist on the outside of neurons. Different neurons have different receptors, and hence are effected in different ways by these neurotransmitters. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Oxytocin_with_labels.png",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Dopamine.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Serotonin-2D-skeletal.svg"
],
[]
] |
|
1j6yng
|
why is teleportation impossible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j6yng/eli5_why_is_teleportation_impossible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbbpn1y",
"cbbqvev"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Who says it is?",
"With our current technology most definitely not, that is not to say that some day, it may not be. The possibility of teleportation raises a far more interesting philosophical question - \"What makes you, you?\"\nGenerally two things make it impossible today (or near future): the amount of information and the machinery to manipulate atoms or even smaller particles.\n\nEverything is composed of atoms and atoms are further subdivided into even smaller particles. We are still discovering the basic components of these particles and we still have no idea what an electron actually is, much less any interactions between various atoms and the fundamental levels.\n\nAnyways, if theoretically we can store the information of every atom that is YOU, and then transport that information from location A to location B, and then reassemble atoms and smaller particles with that same information; then theoretically yes, teleportation is possible. But just imagine the amount of information necessary. Every atom, every electron, the spin of the electron all have to be placed together and all have to be triggered to move in a certain spin to recreate - you.\n\nThe far more interesting philosophical question is: what makes you, you? And assuming we recreated the process described above, which of the two individuals is you? Are you the information, the original image, what if we literally copied you from that image, then, which of the two are you? Both? And how will You, tell You apart form the clone?\n\nConsider this: You_original enter room A and are cloned/teleported to room B. Then both you_original and you_copy exit room B. How will you be sure that you are _original or _copy?\n\nTL;DR; it's impossible because of our current technology and information necessary in such a process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7rs2tg
|
why can't humans hold themselves perfectly still without twitching, hence the difficulty of the game "operation"?
|
I don't understand why we twitch slightly holding tweezers, standing still, etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rs2tg/eli5why_cant_humans_hold_themselves_perfectly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsz6m3b"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Muscles are composed of many strands. When your arm is held up, not all fibers are being used simultaneously, as that would need you to carry an extra weight. Over time fibers get tenuous, needing to relax, so your they switch to other strands, and this switch is usually abrupt, so our arm twitches a bit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2vmmvt
|
why do shoes have tongues?
|
How come the shoe doesn't just wrap all the way around the foot? The tongue just gets in the way and is annoying and frustrating, especially when running.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vmmvt/eli5_why_do_shoes_have_tongues/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coj0zi2",
"coj13w5"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"All feet are not created equal and so a tongue allows more feet to fit in the same \"size\" shoe. Also if you're looking for no tongue running shoes, Nike Frees 3.0 pretty much don't have one.",
"The tongue is what makes the shoe adjustable. If it was just one piece of material, it would need to be tailor made for your particular foot, and then it would be hard to put on and take off and feel uncomfortable depending on the weather and your activity. \n\nThe tongue lets you move either side of the show up or down. It's part of the lacing mechanism. The alternative is a single piece of material that overlaps on itself once, like [ski boots](_URL_0_). Or you can have a shoe with no laces that is [loose, like a Loafer](_URL_1_) or [tight like a cowboy boot](_URL_2_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Ski_boots_alpin_large.jpg",
"http://www.zappos.com/images/733/7339437/7769-462680-p.jpg",
"http://cf.ltkcdn.net/shoes/images/std/26885-233x350-Brown_cowboy_boot.jpg"
]
] |
|
1orhpe
|
why has "squirting" had a rise in porn in the last few years, surely girls could always do it, what suddenly made it popular?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1orhpe/eli5_why_has_squirting_had_a_rise_in_porn_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccuujem",
"ccuvych",
"ccuw1b4"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Porn takes something that is rare and cranks it to 11. \n\nThese girls aren't legitimately squirting. It's the WWE of sex. ",
"I think, and this is of course only what ***I*** think, is that a large part of the phonographic industry is based on the reaffirmation of gender roles in regards to sexuality. There is a fairly common notion that stereotypically-speaking, women are supposed to be sexually desirable and men are supposed to be sexual stallions. The imagery of a man sexually stimulating a woman to the point that she orgasms so hard as to \n\"Squirt\" everywhere is very appealing, both to most peoples preconditioned ideas of sexuality, as well as to the graphic imagery of pornography. \n\nTL;DR: Its kinda what people expect to see, and its pretty hardcore. A dude screwing the hell out of a pretty lady so hard it might as well be an workout routine. How original. ",
"When a guy cums, there is a physical reaction that can be seen and noticed with little ambiguity. A guy can't really pretend to cum, because there is semen that needs to come out. When a girl squirts, it has that same physical reaction that can be empirically viewed. It isn't based off of how tightly she holds on or flexes or other reactions she can manipulate in order to fake an orgasm. I know without a doubt, that I got her off.\nBasically, its a huge billboard stating she came and you did a good job, pat yourself on the back."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3sqp6p
|
if ketchup needs to be refrigerated, why can restaurants leave it out ll day without any issues?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sqp6p/eli5if_ketchup_needs_to_be_refrigerated_why_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwzlvii",
"cwzlwms"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
" > If ketchup needs to be refrigerated\n\nIt doesn't. Because of its high acidity, ketchup remains good for up to a month without refrigeration, and restaurants go though ketchup quickly enough that a single bottle isn't going to last a month to begin with.",
"Ketchup does not, unless the color of it is your concern. Resturaunts churn through enough that the added shelf-life of refrigeration is irrelevant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2srj2h
|
if a website says "all on content copyright by x 2013" does it hold any legal value?
|
If the website has done nothing other than publish "All content copyright by 'x website' 2013" does it hold any legal value ??
Also, is it better to have the copyright date current (2015) vs. when you first wrote the notice in 2013?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2srj2h/eli5_if_a_website_says_all_on_content_copyright/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cns6seo",
"cns6xaa"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Those statements do very little - they're just evidence of when the copyright was made (so it should say 2013 if that's when the content was first made).\n\nHowever, the reason they do nothing is because copyright attaches automatically as soon as your content is written down (or \"given material form\"). You don't need to do anything to make copyright legally effective.",
"You have automatic copyright on anything you create (text, image, audio, video...). Writing \"copyright 2013\" doesn't matter, it's just common practice and a bit of a way of saying \"I don't want you to copy this\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4fe2jx
|
why are people being arrested at the democracy awakening protests?
|
This goes for most protests actually. It's my understanding that we have a freedom of assembly and that you can't be arrested for peacefully occupying a public space. But yet I keep reading about all these people being arrested at these protests and I don't understand what their actual charges are. Do I just have a flawed understanding of what freedom of assembly means?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fe2jx/eli5_why_are_people_being_arrested_at_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d281346",
"d2815id"
],
"score": [
14,
7
],
"text": [
" > It's my understanding that we have a freedom of assembly and that you can't be arrested for peacefully occupying a public space.\n\nThat's totally true - but \"peacefully occupying\" means \"following the rules.\" Protesting groups near the Capitol, for example, have to agree not to protest on the actual Capitol steps - that's a rule that the protesters were totally aware of. And the ones that chose to step past the barricades did so knowing they'd be arrested - for the most part, that seems to be part of their plan to earn some press.\n\nLike all rights, the right to freedom of assembly ends when we judge that it could harm others. It's the classic \"Yelling fire in a crowded theater\" argument - protesting outside of the set boundaries is dangerous for protesters and for government officials, so we limit it.",
"There are limitations. You can't peacefully occupy NORAD, or hold a protest inside the President's bedroom, or **block a fucking highway**\n\nThe protesters were being an obstruction, but they seem to have gone in intending to be arrested as a statement, which isn't quite as powerful a statement as being shut down forcibly. It was just a bunch of people coming in and standing there and being courteously arrested and let go. Amusement park civil disobedience ride, you might call it.\n\nIf the protest becomes a riot, then it can be shut down as well, and that's when the hoses and tear gas come out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2cze49
|
why is it bad to use hydrogen peroxide on a piercing?
|
I am prone to infection, and against the will of my piercers, I have used it to remove the infection on all of my piercings with no ill effects. I only use it after an infection sets in, and when it's gone I switch back to antibacterial soap and water. Why is it advised not to use hydrogen peroxide at all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cze49/eli5_why_is_it_bad_to_use_hydrogen_peroxide_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjkj1of"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hydrogen peroxide is not antibacterial. It cleans up blood stains really well, but has virtually no ability to kill bacteria. \nAccelerated peroxides can be used as surface cleaners, but I wouldn't risk using those on skin. Plain, 3% hydrogen peroxide does not kill anything.\n\nIf you have actually had infected piercings (and not just inflamed ones), all you were doing was keeping them clean, which could be done with soap and water just as well. The infection resolved itself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2c5qsa
|
before telephones or internet, how did a business quickly verify an applicant's education/work history...or did they take it on good faith?
|
Ex:
Applicant: "I'm a doctor."
Employer: "Alrighty."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c5qsa/eli5_before_telephones_or_internet_how_did_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjc6h69",
"cjc6jbc",
"cjc6uh8",
"cjc7q7a"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If it is a licensed profession like a doctor, the person would present a copy of their license.",
"For one thing, there are professional qualifications. \n\nAnd before the telephone or internet, there was snail mail. But back in those days, it was quick mail. Maybe there were two deliveries a day. \n\nThus, one could write a professional letter requesting a good reference or confirmation and this letter would arrive maybe in the same day, if it was in the same city. ",
"Before telephones, you attached a written letter to your CV from previous employers as well as a copy of your degree diploma. \nIn the interview you'd show the originals. Even today I interview people that follow this, probably passed down from older generations. \n\nWithout this it was hard to get into positions of high responsibility. ",
"Before telephones, there were no cars. Presumably, any references they have were in the local area, or not particularly relevant. You wouldn't exactly move to another state to apply at a hospital; rather, you would move to another state *and* apply at a hospital.\n\nBTW, mail. Sure, it'd take days or weeks to get a response, but either 1) the \"doctor\" killed a bunch of people, in which case references are a moot point, or 2) no obvious harm comes from the wait.\n\nAlso, degrees were a little more difficult to fake, what with no Photoshop. Frankly, even if someone managed to fake one, and had the knowledge to trick another professional... Given a lack of professional licensing, whose to say they wouldn't be just as qualified as someone with a degree from an unknown college?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6c3371
|
why is go considered a more complex game than chess?
|
I love chess, but don't know anything about go. I would have guessed that the game with six different kind of pieces that all move according to different rules is more complicated than the game with only one piece and no moves, only placement.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c3371/eli5why_is_go_considered_a_more_complex_game_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhrh7rp",
"dhrhd0u",
"dhrhg0f",
"dhrhvn4",
"dhrv93y",
"dhrvef9",
"dhrvvje"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
15,
8,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That \"Go is more complex than Chess\" thing comes from the fact that go can support more different possible situations (arrangements of pieces on the board) than chess, in fact the number of possible situations in go is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. [Source](_URL_0_)",
"Every turn on chess there is a pretty finite number of turns you can make. There is only 16 pieces you have and each one on any one turn has maybe ten choices of squares it could move to. \n\nGo has 361 squares and for a lot of the game you can move to a majority of them. ",
"Aside from probably more valuable assessments about the depth of strategy involved, the larger board of go makes for far more states a game can be in and different paths it can take.\n\n_URL_0_ this table illustrates it nicely.\n\nA game of chess can have in the ballpark of 10^120 different permutations, whereas a game of go can have 10^360 ones.\n\nBoth games are impossibly hard to \"solve\", but from a purely mathematical standpoint it is much harder to tell who will win a game of go than chess because at each turn there are far more possible moves.\n\nEither game can arguably be played better by a computer than a human but we can take solace in the fact that both are too hard to ever be realistically figured out completely. Indeed especially go, the arguably more complex ones, is only manageable for a computer because it learns strategy from humans and then figures out which of these strategies work best for it, it can't really come up with them entirely on its own.",
"So when you play a game of chess, as the game progresses, the number of valid moves generally decreases, and many of the moves that are technically valid, can easily be dismissed as unhelpful. (removing a queen from the game, prevents all moves by the queen thereafter. decreasing the amount of moves massively for each piece removed)\n\nIn go, placing a piece, doesn't prevent any other moves, except placing a stone at that exact spot. Also the value of each move is much more nebulous. There's no checkmate in go, no end goal except \"acquire more territory\"\n\nThen there's the fact that the board is just way bigger, 19 by 19 instead of 8 by 8, this increases the number of moves exponentially and prevents brute forcing complex problems. (something that is semi viable in chess) ",
"Take it to basics. Imagine tic tac toe, or noughts and crosses. \n\nFirst play you have one of nine places to put your X or O. \n\nThen next play it's 8, and after that, 7 and so on, as the positions get used up. \n\nThat means at most, the game has 9 possibilities of moves, and it reduces as the game goes on. \n\nFor Chess, on average, this number is about 35. That is, throughout a chess game, each player has on average about 35 different possible moves open to them, and it varies up and down as the game progresses. Obviously it's smaller at the start, it'll get bigger as the game opens up, and will reduce again towards the end as pieces get captured. \n\nGo, on the other hand, this number is about 250. So for each and every turn, each player has about 250 possible moves open to them. \n\nGo is one of those games that the basic idea of it is quite simple, but the way it plays out requires quite deep strategy in order to win, and it's not obvious to look at a Go board (between two decent players) which player is winning. Therefore it's more difficult to establish strategies on how you're going to get one-up on your opponent, and it requires more experience. \n\nChess, generally, the person with the most high value pieces left is doing better. It's easier to judge a game from any particular position than it is with Go, far easier. ",
"It may seem counter intuitive, but having more pieces with more rules makes it easier for a computer to calculate, since there are only a certain, small number cases to consider.\n\nWhereas with Go, you can place anywhere, really. So you'll have to calculate every single possible move.\n\nMore rules means less complexity, for the most part.",
"Consider the fact that chess' objectives are very specific; Eliminate the king's legal moves to win and steal a piece's place on the board to capture that piece.\n\n\nIn go, each capture is like a checkmate; You have to eliminate an enemy piece's/group of pieces' legal moves to capture them. Even then, your overall score is usually calculated by empty spaces completely bordered by your pieces with captured pieces typically being worth less or nothing. This means the complex process of capturing enemy pieces is usually a means to clearing up captured spaces.\n\n\nSo, generally speaking, in go there are more spaces on the game grid, more moves to make each turn (pieces can be placed anywhere on the board), and eliminating opposing game pieces is as complicated as the climactic objective of chess."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3zw7iz
|
why isn't there a better system to buy tickets for concerts?
|
You see online how within minutes a concert gets sold out, and there is sometimes a 300% rise in prices for nosebleed seats.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zw7iz/eli5_why_isnt_there_a_better_system_to_buy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cypgf3h"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"For the promoters, this seems like a pretty good system. You don't seem to agree, what would be a \"better\" system in your mind?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7v2kdh
|
how does cauterization of a wound/blood vessel work?
|
A friend of mine recently had a blood vessel in her nose cauterized because of frequent nosebleeds. I've heard that cauterization helps to prevent bleeding and infection in a wound, but would it cause damage to the blood vessels themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7v2kdh/eli5_how_does_cauterization_of_a_woundblood/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtp0wko",
"dtp6ci5"
],
"score": [
27,
4
],
"text": [
"Cauterization heats up and blisters the tissue and causes blood coagulation to help sealing of the blood vessles. Chemical cauterization does this as well. So yes, it helps by actually doing controlled damage to tissues and vessels and makes them more susceptable to infection. However, when done in an emergency situation, it is better to save the patient from immediate bleed out and deal with infections later.",
" > I've heard that cauterization helps to prevent bleeding and infection in a wound, but would it cause damage to the blood vessels themselves?\n\nFor small vessels (for example, the blood vessels that could be near exposure in the nostrils/sinuses), sufficient cauterization can prevent it and the surrounding tissue from healing in such a way that it is easily exposed again. This varies depending on the individual, however.\n\nCautery in the case of a near-exposed blood vessel is different than cauterizing abnormally exposed vessels (ie. due to an injury). The former is generally very mild and is done to help build scar tissue where the vessel was orginally close to being exposed. The latter is a more immediate response to prevent further blood loss and is more aggressive.\n\nsource: personally have had 7 chemical cauterizations and a final procedure involving electrode cautery to solve my own nosebleeds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
77hnhq
|
why do vitamin companies like one a day have vitamins specifically for him/for her? are there vitamins that only benefit males or females?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77hnhq/eli5_why_do_vitamin_companies_like_one_a_day_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dolx5hv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Marketing. \n\nThe entire vitamin industry is a money making rip off. If you eat even a vaguely balanced diet, it is highly unlikely you need any vitamin supplements, unless there is an underlying medical condition.\n\nIt is also good business sense to market to different groups. In general, you can charge more for products you market to women.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
r7sgy
|
the conflict between cuba and the usa, fidel castro's part in the revolution, che guevara's part in it, socialism, and communism please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r7sgy/eli5_the_conflict_between_cuba_and_the_usa_fidel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c43mvvc",
"c43qkda"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There are [several posts](_URL_3_) regarding Castro, [several posts on Che Guevara](_URL_1_), over [30 posts](_URL_2_) on socialism, and [over 30 posts](_URL_2_) on communisum. Many of those also talk about Cuba and the revolution.\n\nYou might want to start with:\n\n * [Can someone explain LI5 the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara's involvement in said revolution?](_URL_0_)\n\nDid you have any specific questions those posts don't address?",
"Spanish interests turned Cuba into one giant sugarcane plantation in the 18th century. At first this relationship was mutually beneficial but as sugarcane farming expanded to other parts of the world and techniques were developed to make sugar out of beets, the price of sugar cane plummeted and the Cuban people were left in a state of virtual slavery. They remained subservient to Spain until the Spanish-American War of 1898 which the US won.\n\nThe US granted Cuba independence in 1902 but there was still very much a colonial-era parent child relationship tied the production of sugar. Basically slaves to the sugar export system, fed up farmers had no choice to but to take to the hills and become guerrillas against the Cuban leaders who did little to alter the status quo. Eventually these guerrilla-farmers became organized in the 1950's under charasmatic individuals like Castro and Guevera. These leaders were motivated by other revolutionary movements around the world and the end of the colonial era after WWII. Communist ideology addressed the history of Cuba naturally and was an easy motivator for the guerrilla fighters who were mostly proletarian laborers and farmers with families who had lived under capitalist masters for centuries. The Communist took full control of the island nation (except for Guantanamo Bay which was put under perpetual lease by the US in 1903) on Jan 1 1959.\n\nThe master-slave relationship based on sugar monocropping continued after Casto came to power, however. Only now, since relations with the US has fallen apart, Cuba relied almost exclusively on the Soviet Union as the sole purchaser of cane sugar. In exchange for the crop, the USSR exported much needed food, oil, weapons, and other commodities to Cuba. This all dried up in the late 1980's when the USSR was on the verge of collapse. Without a large buyer of the cash crop the 1990's were one of the harshest decades of Cuba's history.\n\nBy the 2000's though, Castro recognized the dire straits his nation was in. No longer able to rely on single crop agriculture to fund the country, he took steps to diversify the Cuban economy. A strong tourism industry developed, new agricultural and industrial investments were made, and the use of US dollars was legalized. Though the people of Cuba today are still very impoverished, their poverty has ironically forced the creation of an economy that is one of the most diverse and self sufficient in the world. The centuries long history of reliance on a single sugar cane purchaser has come to an end and their is reason to believe that a bright future may be in store for the island nation that once was little more than a single sugar farm from shore to shore \n \n**tl;dr** The history of Cuba is tied to the history of sugar cane agriculture. Communism is a very small chapter in this history. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j406j/can_someone_explain_li5_the_cuban_revolution/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=Guevara&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=socialism&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=castro&restrict_sr=on"
],
[]
] |
||
8k5p3h
|
why is it after we’ve finished crying and we eat something after, it’s harder than usual to swallow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8k5p3h/eli5_why_is_it_after_weve_finished_crying_and_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz5u0lz",
"dz5u713"
],
"score": [
3,
30
],
"text": [
"I could be wrong, but i think it has to do with our glands in the throat that are puffed out or swollen when we cry, i remember a friend telling me that it has to do with our throat muscles or something like that being swollen, that's all i know, and it sounds plausible lol",
"Crying increases the size of the Glottis, to allow for more oxygen to pass through to your lungs. (This is what feels like the lump in your throat.\n\n When you need to eat again, this becomes a problem as the glottis (now swollen) needs to close and stop the food so it doesn't reach the larynx (voice box) \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
cyi67y
|
why do the sounds of a crowd (clapping, cheering, booing,...) seem to unify the more people do it?
|
When a crowd claps, we only hear one loud - or a few - clap sounds, when the crowd cheers we hear a louder and unified cheer. Why is that?
PS: English is not my primary language, grammar might be horrendous to some!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyi67y/eli5_why_do_the_sounds_of_a_crowd_clapping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eysca35",
"eyscc4y",
"eyt6955"
],
"score": [
47,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine your shower is slowly dripping water, and you put your hand under it. If you closed your eyes, you'd still be able to tell each water drop apart, because only one water drop is hitting your hand at the same time. Now imagine you turned the shower on. The water is still coming in drops, but there are so many at once, that you can't tell them apart. The tap of one drop is so close to the tap of the next drop, that it doesn't feel like taps - it feels like constant pressure. \n\nIt's the same thing here. Your ears have tubes in them covered by little hairs. When sound enters these tubes, it shakes the hairs. These hairs are attached to nerves that carry a signal to your brain, and that's how we hear. A clap is a kind of sound that shakes a lot of hairs, but for a very short amount of time. \n\nWhen there are lots of claps, then each hair never stops being shaken by claps - they're constantly shaking, and can't tell one clap apart from another. Just like the droplets in the shower.",
"Regression to the mean, I suppose? The more people join in, the more data there is for everyone involved to peruse (sounds in these cases). People will naturally tend to 'go with the flow', so once more participants appear, the action becomes more regularized. Eventually, the sounds that are synchronized outweigh (outsound?) the ones that deviate, so the overall sound seems far more unified than before.",
"Because sound is a mechanic phenomenon that happens in the same space.\n\nSound is the result of our perception of a physical object moving or vibrating the element that separates that object from our ears. In most cases, this is air.\n\nA single clap is moving the air in such a way we perceive it like a clap. But two claps is a different story. The vibrations produced by the first clap are going to interfere with the vibrations produced by the second one, because they're in the same space and they're vibrating the same air, resulting in a totally different vibration of the air, making us to perceive it like a different sound.\n\nIn the event of thousands continuous claps, the vibrations of each individual clap will uniform the air vibration and so the way we perceive it as a single unit. It can be louder because some vibrations can be added up and make higher peaks of air vibrations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2745vm
|
why did we stop building those big ass marble sculptures and monuments?
|
Every country has them, dedicated to the best men and women, to a certain conquest or revolution. Since when and why did they stop ? Economical reasons? Art?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2745vm/eli5why_did_we_stop_building_those_big_ass_marble/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chx8hkx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Statues still get built, albiet with cheaper materials like metal and stone. \n \nIf they wanted a big statue in them olden days, they would only need to convince the locals that it's a good idea, as no-one really cared very much about what went on further than a day or so's walking distance away so you wouldn't have to deal with people at the other end of the country whinging about the crown/government spending the money. \nNowadays, You'd need to convince the whole country"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
b0sdmk
|
what is the practical use of the stapler setting that makes the staple prongs go outwards instead of inwards?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b0sdmk/eli5_what_is_the_practical_use_of_the_stapler/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eigv9qw"
],
"score": [
42
],
"text": [
"the correct answer is that the outward setting makes the papers easier to pull apart than the inward setting. it's a temporary attachment rather than a permanent one"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
32dpgc
|
why does so much animals, even bugs, fake their deaths?
|
Is it genetic or something? I understand that it's a good evolutionary advantage, but the fact that so many animals do it is what I think the craziest.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32dpgc/eli5_why_does_so_much_animals_even_bugs_fake/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqa9gr4",
"cqa9nds"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Faking ones death is a good means to escape a predator. Many animals track their prey via movement, and it suddenly stopping and playing dead make it unappealing or invisible. Some will release a stench on top of not moving which adds to the effect.",
"Remaining unthreatening is one of the best ways to stay out of trouble with large predators, especially if you are not part of it's typical diet. \n\nPicture going through the woods and you see a bear at the same scale that a small animal does and you know that the bear has noticed you. It's faster than you, stronger than you, and although it is not particularly afraid of you it hasn't eaten much of your type of meat before and is not too sure about you. It's probably more curious than anything but any sudden movements will result in it disabling that body part so it can continue deciding whether you are a threat. Most animals are cautious and stick to what they know, it would take a few encounters before they decided to incorporate your body into its normal diet.\n\nThat's my guess at least. I have more experience wit mammals than bugs though, and I don't know how it would work if a predator came across something faking its death a few different times in its life."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2lkbtr
|
why does pain start to lessen within minutes/hours of most injuries, despite the injury not having healed at all in those minutes/hours?
|
For example, if I cut my thumb on a knife, it will be a very sharp pain, but almost immediately lessen until it is almost unnoticeable - despite the cut being exactly the same. Is this psychological?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lkbtr/eli5_why_does_pain_start_to_lessen_within/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clvnaj7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Similar to a constant noise in the background, or a strange smell, that both seem to fade away until you don't notice them anymore, the same process happens with a pain. Your brain will eventually 'filter' that stimuli as it is a constant one, so you don't notice it. If you bang the injury, it's no longer constant, but a spike stimuli, so you can feel it again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
21py8k
|
how do people in wallstreet trade with all that noise and ruckus?
|
I mean the noise is so much and with everyone yelling, how do they get their trades in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21py8k/eli5how_do_people_in_wallstreet_trade_with_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgfe559"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The noisy pits are really commodities, in Chicago at comdex or CBOT. Wall Street, and the NYSE is noisy, compared to some offices, but not crazy. And most trades are done through computers these days"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3cqkwy
|
what is ayyy lmao
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cqkwy/eli5_what_is_ayyy_lmao/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csy1oup"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nTL;DR: Its just a thing people say because other people also say it. Nothing more, nothing less. It started with a dumb picture of an alien saying \"Ayy lmao\" and took off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ayy-lmao"
]
] |
||
j2gs2
|
the great depression ended because we entered world war ii. why did the wars in afghanistand and iraq screw our economy?
|
I was talking to my dad about the great depression and comparing to our current economic status. Then I realized this huge glaring difference. The great depression ended with a war stimulating the industry. This depression started with a war screwing our economy. Why?
Also, this subreddit is genius
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2gs2/the_great_depression_ended_because_we_entered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28l39u",
"c28l3mh",
"c28l5rs",
"c28l6l9",
"c28lsc3",
"c28q17w"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
8,
2,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it has something to do with the Bush tax cuts, so the wars were paid for with loans and not a surplus.",
"This is pure speculation but I would guess that it was the nature of the war.\n\nWorld War II mobilized the ENTIRE country into plant production, farming, etc. for the war effort.\n\nAfghanistan and Iraq didn't really do anything for any industry that wasn't already invested in Government security...as well, it took money from other places and programs causing the Government to stop spending on certain things thus creating smaller demand and making other industries hurt.",
"Entering into WWII made a lot of jobs for people without jobs. When we entered into the Afghan and Iraq wars it only created more money for the corporations who make guns. \n\nWWII: Back when it started we needed a whole lot of manual labor to make guns/bombs/vehicles/equipment. It took a lot of people to do this so a lot of people were hired by companies to do this. People who were once poor and now had jobs had money to spend and stimulate the economy.\n\nAfghan/Iraq wars: Everything these days is made by large well established companies. Also, everything these days is automated. Government puts in orders for new military equipment, companies turn up the speeds on the machines making that equipment. Large companies make more money and put more money in their bank accounts. ",
"With WWII, the country was mobilized to produce a lot of goods very quickly for a vast number of troops. When the war ended, we had that infrastructure in place without the troops using it. This meant that we could export our goods to other countries and get money.",
"Many people have said that the scale and nature of the war and its specific influences on the economy, this is totally true. But we also must note that most of the world was in utter ruins after the war. Europe was a rubble filled charnel house, Russia was communist and isolated, China was in civil war, japan was burned to cinders, and everyone else was still the the stone age. So there was an insane amount of demand for Americas' goods and services, while very little competition. This was coupled with pent up domestic demand after years of scarcity during the depression and war-time rationing. This was why after all that sexy wartime stimulus ran out in the late forties the economy kept banging on for more than a decade.\n\nCompared to now where America must compete with a world that is mostly on equal footing in terms of economic development, and is in many ways outstripping it (BRIC countries). Instead of rising to meet this competition America is pouring precious capital and human resources into disappointingly unproductive wars. Proving that it's always best to fight (and destroy) your economic rivals, not ideological ones.",
"Wow. One data point and you’re jumping for joy,\n\nthe Last time I checked, wars only destroy,\n\nThere was no multiplier, consumption just shrank,\n\nAs we used scarce resources for every new tank.\n\n\n\nPretty perverse to call that prosperity,\n\nRationed meat, Rationed butter… a life of austerity,\n\nWhen that war spending ended your friends cried disaster,\n\nyet the economy thrived and grew ever faster...\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc"
]
] |
|
1o5c1m
|
what did aol actually do during the 90s? could you access the internet (as we know it) without aol? was aol an isp? how did it become valuable enough to become the major shareholder in the time warner merger?
|
Originally posted in AskReddit accidentally. Trying to get an answer with a lot of substance.
As a kid growing up in the 90s I have a very blurry recollection of what AOL was, basically just chat rooms. Help me to understand how and why it worked.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o5c1m/eli5what_did_aol_actually_do_during_the_90s_could/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccowe1q",
"ccoy6uw",
"ccp10zt"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A network is a lot of computers, all connected together so they can access shared resources. My office has network, so we can all access documents about our work. Your office or school probably has a network too.\n\nThe Internet is a load of networks all connected together.\n\nThese days, many of those networks belong to ISPs, and serve no particular purpose except to allow computers on the network to access the Internet.\n\nHowever, in the 90s, AOL did something different. They set up their own network. Their network was connected to the Internet, and allowed users to access the Internet. But their network included lots of other resources, too - chat rooms, etc. These resources were *not* part of the Internet, and you needed to be connected to the AOL network in order to use them.\n\nThe other thing which AOL did that was different was provide a complete user experience for accessing their network and the Internet. Remember, this was before the days of \"always on\" Internet - you used to dial up to the Internet only when you wanted to use it. Other ISPs used to have a very small program that dialled up, and then rely on other programs (Internet Explorer, etc) to actually present information on the Internet to you.\n\nWhat AOL did was provide a very big application, which dialled up, and then presented you with everything you needed for accessing the Internet and all of AOL's own services, all in one application.",
"There are two primary reasons AOL became the major force in the Time Warner deal. First it made a compelling argument that it did a better job of connecting people who were technologically less literate or illiterate to the internet through a walled garden experience that AOL claimed added value and provided for more opportunities for revenue. This was at a time when most of the country was not yet connected to the internet or using it fully and it was clear this was the wave of the future. \nThe second was that the Time Warner Board was horribly advised and was clueless about the business they were entering into. Most people I knew in the industry at the time were shocked that Time Warner made such a move. It was truly viewed as the worst deal in history and that was saying something. Cable modems were clearly on the near horizon and the leading technology, AOL was clearly much better at marketing than technology, ISP's were not trading anywhere near the multiples TWC paid for AOL and the walled garden was clearly a dying idea. Basically Steve Case is the best salesperson in the world because he sold a business everyone knew was dying for a crazy price to a company with a bright future that he could then play with. Technology played a very small role in the life of AOL. It was much more about business and salesmanship. Happy to offer more but that is it in a nutshell.\n\nTL:DR Steve Case is a very impressive salesman.",
"AIM was the best part of AOL. I probably shouldn't still be using it today, but it was THE instant-messaging service of the 90s. \n\nAOL also sent out fleptillians of free trial discs, and was the source of \"You've got mail!\" (which was the name of a 90s romcom), so it was a bit of a pop culture thing as well. For the average 90s American, AOL *was* the Internet. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
o6j4s
|
nikolai tesla and thomas edison
|
What did they do individually? Why were they enemies? Why are they famous?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o6j4s/eli5_nikolai_tesla_and_thomas_edison/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3ertyh",
"c3eryod",
"c3et6gf",
"c3etk5q"
],
"score": [
11,
13,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Edison was a dick. A good portion of what he invented was either bought or stolen. One popular moment in time between edison and tesla, was when edison was trying to show how dangerous AC current electricity was. He would happily pay children 25 cents to bring them stray animals so anytime he had a press conference he would be able to show off how dangerous the AC current is. Finally he uses the AC current to build the very first electric chair in a mere effort to scare people off.\n\nBut tesla came back with his own plains and demonstrated that the AC current was actually safe. He held a demonstration where the current ran through his body with light bulbs. ",
"Tesla was an inventor first and businessman second. Edison was the other way around.\n\nTesla worked for Edison for a while after immigrating to the US from Eastern Europe. Tesla developed the concept of alternating current (AC) power and presented it to Edison. Edison, along with one of his benefactors Westinghouse, had already invested deeply into direct current (DC) power and was not willing to see his financial status be jeopardized by a competitive technology.\n\nTesla went into business on his own promoting AC electricity as being more efficient in transmission over long distances, pissing off Edison royally. Edison spared no opportunity to try and discredit Tesla, including show piece demonstrations such as electrocutions by AC electricity to proved how \"dangerous\" it is and scare investors and adopters away from it.\n\nAs it turned out, Tesla was absolutely correct about AC's superiority in long-distance transmission. Without his efforts the development of electricity grids would have been reduced or never achieved until a later date (if at all).\n\nBut Edison was also correct in the importance of DC. Machinery requires a steady and predictable stream of electricity to operate properly which only DC can provide. So the current state of electrical affairs has AC transport power to your house and a transformer in your electrical appliance converts the AC to DC for use by the device.\n\nNOTE: AC can be thought of as electricity that changes direction. It \"pushes\" and \"pulls\" along the electrical cable. In the United States this occurs at 60 times per second (60 Hertz, 60 Hz).\n\nDC current flows in one direction and maintains that same rate consistently, making it the more reliable source.",
"Tesla looked like David Bowie with a really bad fake mustache and despite his efforts to mask it had a hint of an English accent. Some of Edison's cronies came and burned down his compound.",
"[Really explained like you're 5](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ"
]
] |
|
1cicby
|
why does cell phone service seem to worsen as you increase elevation?
|
ie. on top of the mountain vs in the valley.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cicby/eli5why_does_cell_phone_service_seem_to_worsen_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9gss2d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are fewer people in the mountains, and thus generally fewer towers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
x5kzd
|
what is ron paul's "audit the fed" bill trying to do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x5kzd/eli5_what_is_ron_pauls_audit_the_fed_bill_trying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5jdey0",
"c5jfpzz",
"c5jgbsq",
"c5jphqj",
"c5jqe6l",
"c5jr4rs",
"c5jrtaq"
],
"score": [
2,
55,
12,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I would also like to know. Upvoted for support.",
"Some don't believe the Fed is being truthful in it's reports and this bill is meant to require they be audited independently. The problem is they already do quarterly audits and release the data publicly. It is a bill that has more to do with conspiracy theory than fact. \n\nEdit: If you do not believe me or think I am being biased or speculative, you can read the Fed's books [here](_URL_0_) where all balances are made publicly available. The market would basically accept nothing less than full transparency but no facts are ever enough to convince a conspiracy theorist they are wrong. It is not bias to call people on not living in a factual world.",
"Auandi is basically correct. While the Fed does release data publicly, it essentially audits itself. That might be a little bit of a conflict of interest. Because of the complex and non-public nature of many transactions, some people are not confident in the Fed's published numbers. As an example, use of the Fed's discount window isn't fully published (for various reasons). So basically, the public relies on Fed releases that are somewhat similar to 10-K releases that public companies release, but public companies have an independent entity sign off on their filings while the Fed does not. In a regular audit, the audit firm signs off on the filing that basically the filing isn't misleading and reports all important facts. Obviously it's an imperfect system because of the business relationship between the auditor and the auditee.\n\nThe reason that people don't like the Fed audit idea is that it is a backdoor move to exert more political pressure on the Fed. Let's imagine that an in-depth Fed audit is authorized. The senior people on whatever committee is overseeing the audit are going to have significant ability to pressure the Fed (there is obviously already political pressure that happens, but this could dramatically increase the potential for political pressure). We like the Fed to be politically neutral (also doesn't happen in practice) for various reasons that are outside the scope of your question.\n\nIn short, proponents of the bill think that the Fed *might* be up to some sketchy business and want more oversight/disclosure of what's actually happening. Opponents of the bill think that this is a sneaky way to inject more politics into the Fed. Toward the last point, it's been made abundantly clear that the Republican leadership thinks the Fed has been too active in trying to stimulate the economy while some Democrats and many left-leaning commentators think that the Fed should be significantly more active in stimulating the economy.",
"So a few things- \n\n1. Ron Paul hates the Fed and would like to see it eliminated. Failing that, he wants to severely restrict the authority and power of the Fed. \n\n2. The Fed is already regularly audited by the GAO. \n\n\n\nPaul's current bill is meant to expand the role of audits and exert governmental control over the Fed's decisions regarding monetary policy. \n\nMany people think this would be good, mostly because they don't really understand the Fed. \n\nMany people think this would be bad because there's a reason for some of the Fed's secrecy and the last two times the government exerted control over our national banks, they failed horribly. ",
"First, the Federal Reserve has GAO (Government Accountability Office) performance audits that primarily cover bank supervision, payment systems activities, and government securities activities.\n\nFinancial audits of the Fed are also conducted regularly. Each Reserve Bank is audited every year by independent General Auditors who report directly to the Board of Governors. These examinations involve financial statement audits and reviews on the effectiveness of financial controls. Each Reserve Bank also has its own internal audit mechanisms. The Board contracts each year with an outside accounting firm to evaluate the audit program's effectiveness. \n\n\nBasically, Ron Paul wants to increase the scope of the GAO audits. The current exclusions from the GAO audits can be found here: _URL_0_",
"Okay here we go, like you were five.\n\nThe Federal Reserve is a group of wealth holders. They are NOT controlled by the government. They create money for the USA and loan it to the USA at interest.\n\nRon Paul wants the government to be more involved in what the Fed does. He wants a government body to be able to see all of the dealings of the Fed which is essentially a private corporation.\n\nLike every decision, there are pros and cons to this.",
"In the last few decades - the legislative branch has delegated the responsibility of regulating monetary policy to the Federal Reserve.\n\nThis may seem to be a perfectly acceptable practice... After all what do our congressmen and senators know about monetary policy? Entrusting experts with the ability to regulate currency certainly would seem prudent in practice. \n\nThere is a catch however. The Federal Reserve exists as a private entity beyond the scrutiny of the normal balance of power that exists in our government. The Federal Reserve answers to no one, audits itself, and generally speaking provides very little information about it's business activities outside of minimally defined requirements (such as profits which are turned over to the government). This veil of privacy may more easily allow the Federal Reserve to withhold information of activities which may not best serve American citizens.\n\nThe results of Federal Reserve audits should allow the legislative branch an opportunity to re-evaluate the decision to delegate the practice of regulating monetary policy to the Federal Reserve, and if information is being withheld - this evaluation cannot be performed in good faith.\n\nThe spirit of Ron Paul's proposed law is to provide independent auditors more complete access to the Federal Reserve's records and practices. This is to ensure the Federal Reserve is hiding no scandals or potentially harmful activities as well as to provide legitimacy to the assumptions that the federal reserve is acting in the best interest of the American Economy. It is a motion in the spirit of governmental transparency. \n\nA lot of people are assuming the bill will inject politics into monetary policy - however as written, the bill would only bring information into the public's view (potentially even revealing existing political manipulations/scandals). The House and Senate have never had the authority to tell the fed what to do - and will continue NOT to even after this bill is passed. The authority to delegate who regulates monetary policy, however, has and will continue to be a constitutionally enumerated responsibility of the legislative branch. (layman's: the house and senate have always had the ability to pull the plug on the Fed, and this bill will help them decide if it's a good idea.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/714"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
5x5c3k
|
from what i gather, wikipedia seems to be a fairly neutral source. what prevents the polarization of facts on wikipedia?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x5c3k/eli5_from_what_i_gather_wikipedia_seems_to_be_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"defciow",
"defcpyx",
"defcrke",
"defd9ep",
"defdc9i"
],
"score": [
19,
7,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a lot of arguing going on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. Visit the 'talk page' of the article on a controversial person or topic and there will be long discussions on what should be included and how it should be worded. Controversial topics also will have a lot of people watching their edits. If you want to wreak havoc at Wikipedia, then make an edit to an obscure article that nobody cares about.",
"Three points:\n\n1) Wikipedia has a cadre of highly dedicated (occasionally fanatical) people who police the site and try to keep it on track.\n\n2) Many fingers in the pot means that the version that survives the edit wars is the one that is most palatable to the widest number of editors.\n\n3) Wikipedia really isn't that great. It is extremely useful and often well-done, but it also has a reputation for vicious flame-wars involving deeply entrenched factions, which often require moderator intervention. Ever notice how some Wiki pages are locked to prevent further editing? In most cases, that means the page attracted so much controversy and debate that the only way to resolve the problem is to shut it down entirely.",
"1. Community takes it very seriously\n2. A demand for citation on *everything*, so statements are always backed up\n3. No opinion pieces or anything like that allowed, just facts with no interperetation or opinion. Most places that consider themselves news sites (CNN, Fox News, whatever) also do \"opinion\" pieces, and while these are clearly labeled as such, if CNN runs \"Opinion: Donald Trump is a screwup\" some people will just treat that like a fact when it's really an opinion, a fact would be \"Donald Trump has done and said x y and z\"\n4. No attempt to present articles that drive traffic. Most news sources try and put things on their front page that makes people hang around and read, which is profitable for them. This can often lead to cherry-picking juicy stories for more attention. Wikipedia doesn't try and present anything to entice readers other than information. ",
"There are two core policies of Wikipedia work together to facilitate its neutrality: [Verifiability](_URL_3_) and [Neutral Point of View](_URL_1_).\n\nVerifiability means that all information of Wikipedia must come from a reliable source. Editors compile and distill this information in articles - they are not supposed to draw their own conclusions from the information (this is covered in more depth by the [No Original Research](_URL_0_) policy). This makes Wikipedia a reflection of reliable information that already exists rather than a place that can develop its own ideas and biases.\n\nNeutral Point of View dictates that where there are conflicting statements *in reliable sources*, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the various viewpoints in reliable sources in proportion to their representation in the total literature of reliable sources. This makes the information on Wikipedia a neutral reflection of the (reliable) information in the world, not an arbiter of truth. See the essay [Verifiability, Not Truth](_URL_2_) for more on this point.\n\nOf course, correctly identifying reliable and unreliable sources is central to all of this. Wikipedia's central guidelines on this are [here](_URL_4_), but what is or isn't reliable ultimately gets hashed out in behind-the-scenes debates (which anyone can participate in!).",
"Two main factors come to mind:\n\n1: Although Wikipedia is editable by anyone, there are content and style guidelines. One guideline is that content needs to be presented in a neutral way. Edits that are overly partisan are generally recognized and changed.\n\nAnd 2: the very fact that Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Presumably people of all viewpoints are represented among the editing population, and as as they compete for editing their interpretations of articles, what ultimately is left is sort of a least-common-denominator of facts that everyone agrees on.\n\nBut neutrality is relative. A person who doesn't believe in the Holocaust, for instance, probably wouldn't think Wikipedia was all that neutral."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources"
],
[]
] |
||
a9qfj3
|
how do rockets keep going in a straight line during takeoff and landing (spacex)? what prevents them from going sideways?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9qfj3/eli5_how_do_rockets_keep_going_in_a_straight_line/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eclj3js",
"eclmys1"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A couple of things:\n\n & #x200B;\n\n1) The rocket is built such that it is balanced right. The axis of thrust is straight up and down along the body of the rocket. Play Kerbal Space Program sometime and see what happens if you don't balance the center of gravity along with the axis of thrust.\n\n2) The engines themselves can pivot/gimbal on their mounts. This is what is used to steer the rocket as it makes its ascent. In the case of Spacex's Falcon first stage, there's also gas jet thrusters and fins that are used to rotate and control the rocket stage to put it in landing orientation.",
"Falcon 9 has three sources of control authority: \n\nThrust vectoring of main engines. \nCold gas thrusters(RCS) \nGrid fins (while landing) \n\nThe main engines control the ship kinda like you would balance a broom on your fingertip, it's called an inverted pendulum. If you want the rocket to go to the left, you move the bottom of the rocket to the right. on the way up anyway. Landing is more complicated, but you can think of it like launching, just in reverse. Here's a good video of that: _URL_0_\n\nThough the rocket only goes straight up at the very start, after a few seconds it starts turning towards its desired orbital plane(usually mostly east), because most of the velocity you need to gain is sideways. You only go up at all because you have to get out of the atmosphere. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBlIvghQTlI"
]
] |
||
7gb7mv
|
people claim doctors get kickbacks for prescribing certain brand meds to patients. how can this be true, if patient information is kept confidential?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gb7mv/eli5_people_claim_doctors_get_kickbacks_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqhvc83",
"dqhzeek"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Doctors are sometimes bribed or paid large amounts of money from large companies, who make medicine, to sell their particular brand of medicine. Even if many other companies make the same medicine without charging as much to the patient. The big company that sells the medicine doesn't have to know anything about the patient, but they do know which particular doctor is selling more of their brand. Thus, the doctor makes more money, and so does the large company.",
"Every time the pharmacy tech puts prescription information into the computer, certain information is automatically added to a database. No patient information is listed, just doctors, prescription names, dates and pill counts. Pharmaceutical companies have access to this database, and thus can tell which doctors are prescribing how much of which medications without violating HIPPA. \n\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/YQZ2UeOTO3I"
]
] |
||
5qx85w
|
what happens in our minds at each stage of wanting something really badly, getting that thing, and then not wanting it anymore?
|
There is a classic example of a child wanting a toy. He begs his parents for it and they eventually fold and buy them the toy. After a while the child doesn't care for the toy.
What happens in our minds during such scenarios?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qx85w/eli5_what_happens_in_our_minds_at_each_stage_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd3b41x",
"dd3bolh",
"dd3bvq2",
"dd3dbkn",
"dd3fauz"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
21,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"This is me with every hobby I've ever tried. Love it more than anything. Buy proper equipment. Lose interest.",
"_URL_0_\n\nPREDICTIVE UTILITY\n\nEXPERIENCED UTILITY\n\nMOMENT UTILITY\n\nremembered utility",
"I'm wanting to use a No Man's Sky as a base model for this.\n\nWhen you first come across something you think it's pretty cool and then it's possible you hype it ups mentally and set an expectation for the amount of dopamine that will be released once you achieve your goal. If the release of dopamine is too low you will end up being sad, if it ends up being higher you will be glad.\n\nEssentially you release the dopamine based on a subject then once you get that subject if it pleases you less than imagined you are sad due to being use to that level of dopamine or less.",
"A couple of different aspects of human nature come into play:\n\n* A case of be careful what you ask for, because when you get it, you may not like it. Like how Rick Perry wanted to be Secretary of Energy, and once he got it found out it wasn't about regulating energy but maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal. Or how the Republicans wanted to win the presidential election at any cost, but the candidate from their own party that won may do more damage to their party than anyone expected. Or the management position you always wanted, but once you got it you realize the stress of being a manager isn't as personally rewarding as you thought.\n\n* Love and excitement of a challenge or power grab, but once you get it there is no challenge to get excited about. Like the guy who hopes to date a specific girl, but once he does looses interest. Or the job acquisition you always wanted, but once you got it, you immediately start looking at your next advancement. \n\n* Insatiable greed. Like once you made your first million dollars, you are drven to acquire more wealth.",
"People who are not happy, especially those who are just incapable of genuine, self-generated happiness, believe that something else will make them happy. The next toy, the next car, the next house, the next job, the next SO, whatever. It's always some other thing that will cause their happiness. They're not unhappy because they're unhappy people; they're unhappy because they don't have the right external thing. \n\nWhen they get the next thing, after experiencing a brief \"happiness,\" they realize that it only makes them happy for a little while. It brings fleeting joy, at best. It isn't an answer, it is merely a distraction. \n\nThat thing stops making them believe they are happy, so they need to move on to the next thing. Worse, the first thing reminds them that they can't be made happy by the things they thought would do it, so they want to discard it entirely. \n\nIn a child, with a toy, this is understandable and good. Adults should, but unfortunately often do not, grow out of the expectation that the rest of the world should cause their happiness, rather than expecting them to find their happiness within. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/memory-vs-experience-happiness-is-relative"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7w4agd
|
do those “credit card-debt forgiveness” advertisements legitimately work? if so, how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7w4agd/eli5_do_those_credit_carddebt_forgiveness/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtxdeh9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I used one years ago, and it did work. But, it was also kind of a hassle.\n\nThe way this one worked, they talked to all of my creditors, and made arrangements to help me pay them off as soon as possible (freeze account, cut interest, etc). The debt definitely did not \"vanish\", but I paid it off a little quicker without officially going into default or bankruptcy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
56oram
|
why does medication predominately gets flavored in cherry or grape?
|
Especially kids' medication.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56oram/eli5why_does_medication_predominately_gets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8l2ljs",
"d8ln9cm"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They're really sweet strong flavors that can mask how gross medication actually is, and they give you a reason to make medication brightly-colored, which also makes most kids more willing to take it. ",
"In the UK it's usually Banana or Strawberry - but strong flavours that kids like is the reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3s98ic
|
what is the mechanism behind my white light bulb looking blue or green after turning off the lights?
|
So, I have this lamp with a white light bulb. Instead of turning completely off, the color from the light bulb is vaguely blue and will continue to be so for the next 10 minutes approximately. What is the reason for this? Is it a certain type of light bulb that will do that?
Another thing is, if I have had the lights on for hours, the light will appear green-ish after turning off the light switch, not blue. Because I know nothing of light bulbs, I am thinking about the phenomenon of staring at a certain color/light, removing the color/light and another color (the complimentary color) will appear. But green and blue are not complimentary colors, as far as I can gather.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s98ic/eli5_what_is_the_mechanism_behind_my_white_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwv6lon"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Typical light bulbs (non-LED) work by applying energy to a container filled with an inert gas. The electrons of the inert gas become \"excited\" and move to a higher level. This action creates light. When the energy is reduced/eliminated, the electrons fall back to their natural state. Depending on what type of inert gas the bulb contains and the amount of energy applied, what you are likely seeing is a lower level of energy for the electrons as the residual energy in the bulb dissipates. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1r16cf
|
why are boxer dogs more prone to cancer than other breeds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r16cf/eli5_why_are_boxer_dogs_more_prone_to_cancer_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdix1kb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Dog breeds come from inbreeding a small group of dogs to intensify particular traits, this can also intensify the likely hood of genetic disorder (Which is why inbreeding is bad). One or more early boxers probably had some genetic disorder that made cancer more likely and this trait was passed down to all its decedents."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3taxqb
|
if daesh's specific goal is to start the islamic apocalypse, why doesn't the west just crush them in legitimate battle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3taxqb/eli5_if_daeshs_specific_goal_is_to_start_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx4l2mw",
"cx4muo0",
"cx4r4ae",
"cx6qbnx"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The nature of modern international policies is inherently very inhibiting for any attempt of open \"legitimate battle\", or even simply declaring war. It is built this way to inherently discourage modern nations from trying to solve anything with war.\n\nISIS doesn't play by the rules set by these policies. But the states that you want to just \"crush ISIS\" do, and they are bound by them.\n\na) A few countries ignoring these policies just to take out ISIS would instantly be severely sanctioned by the rest of the modern world, causing economic and social problems that would seriously affect said countries. It is for this reason that ISIS cannot be fought efficiently, unless *everyone* agrees to forgo policies. Which is slowly taking place due to increased attacks and violence attributed to ISIS.\n\nb) It would set a historical precedent that could be appealed to in the future for other opportunities where war could easily seize some assets for a powerful nation.",
"The reason NATO hasn't done it, is because they were hoping to use DAESH against the Assad regime, to pave the way for the regime change that they want while weaking DAESH at the same time. That has now backfired in a big way. ",
"Why don't we just win the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Apply that same logic here. ",
"Dabiq is a small town on the Northern Aleppo plains, not defensible at all. Any ground forces there, however advanced, would be overwhelmed by the hundreds of VBIEDs IS would undoubtedly throw at such a battle. \n\nImagine being Barack Obama and explaining hundreds of US casualties by saying you were trying to prove their prophecy wrong.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2joqmr
|
ale sperm "compete" to ensure optimal genetics... what "quality control" do female eggs have? does every egg a woman produce have the same genetic makeup?
|
It seems a bit strange that the male side of the genome is ruthlessly optimized, but the female side would simply depends on timing and luck.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2joqmr/eli5ale_sperm_compete_to_ensure_optimal_genetics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cldsfzd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"To my knowledge the sperm does not compete according to the genes they carry. The genes sperm carry do not dictate their competitivy.\n\nEDIT: I was on a cell phone earlier so I'll expand: to my knowledge the ability of sperm to swim and penetrate the egg is dependent on the genetic makeup of the male that produces them, not the genes the sperm ends up carrying. As all the sperm comes from the same male, all the sperm have the same genetic starting point. From there on, the \"fitness\" of the sperm is dependent of the environmental factors like temperature, radiation, toxics and so on. So sperm are not like animals with their own \"genetic fitness\" or their own \"evolution\", but they are mere moving cells of the male."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4l9uth
|
how do people make those celebrity face collages made out of pictures of people's faces?
|
[This] (_URL_0_) for example, even had to be made with a select assortment of pictures, yet it still comes out perfect.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4l9uth/eli5_how_do_people_make_those_celebrity_face/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3lk1eq",
"d3lk93i",
"d3m0afd"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Either they spend a long time getting the colouring right, or they use a computer program to do it for them. Probably the second one.\n\nAlso some of the pictures have tones of colour added to them to make them fit.",
"If it were me, I would reduce each little picture to its own average RGB value, sort those by value, take little-picture sized chunks of the target image, preform a similar averaging, index those so you can preserve their original placements, sort them the same way I did the first little pictures, line them all up, transfer the index values to the list of little pictures, then put them back in order according to their inherited index value. No idea if it works like that at all though.",
"There are multitude of programs that can do this for you. Essentially it lays out a grid of pictures based on relative color prevalence. Then it tweaks them slightly by contrast ratio to get the better shading. If each picture is a \"pixel\" of the overall image, then you can just tweak the existing pictures to be slightly lighter or darker. If you start with a rough layout of color density, then the slight changes per picture are hardly noticeable. \n \nAnother way to do it is to have the overall image be an overlay with high transparency. The underlying pictures are then impacted by the transparency overlay. With enough pictures, each individual picture is barely impacted, but the overall effect ends up the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/i34kcZw"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d5zko7
|
how does therapy actually work, how do you find a good one, and what's the difference between counseling/therapy/psychiatrists/psychologists/etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d5zko7/eli5_how_does_therapy_actually_work_how_do_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7cg4yn",
"f0oxoze",
"f0oynv0",
"f0oyonf",
"f0oyquv",
"f0oywq5",
"f0p1j6e",
"f0p28o9",
"f0p30ld",
"f0p61yr",
"f0p6o94",
"f0p8o7n",
"f0p8z86",
"f0pailm",
"f0pdbto",
"f0pdxla",
"f0pe8al",
"f0pk9hy",
"f0pm7x6",
"f0pt5m7",
"f0pv2rz",
"f0q1qlr",
"f0q77fn",
"f0qduuj",
"f0qdvhe",
"f0qf4t1",
"f0qkeha",
"f0qkp9s",
"f0ql03k",
"f0qole3",
"f0qosio",
"f0qrr5r",
"f0qrrpw",
"f0r1crd",
"f0r1zzs"
],
"score": [
2,
169,
36,
3114,
7,
2,
18,
1154,
34,
8,
3,
5,
2,
14,
25,
2,
922,
12,
6,
3,
3,
2,
9,
5,
3,
2,
9,
2,
2,
21,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know. I tried therapy for 6 years with 2 different therapists and I still have no idea what was supposed to be happening. They would not answer the questions I had (one kept telling me I \"fought the process\" but would never explain what that meant). They were less worthless as a place to vent about my sick and dying partner but that was mostly because even a therapist couldn't screw that up. Basically I paid rent to two of them to sit there and do nothing.",
"Psychologists are people with degrees in psychology, while psychiatrists have medical degrees and thus the power to prescribe medicine. Finding the right therapy for you is a long process that might include a lot of trial and error, but a good place to start is with your general physician who should be able to refer you to the proper instances for your issues.",
"What each role does is answered elsewhere in the thread. The best way to get a mental health professional is to ask your general practitioner for a referral to either a psychiatrist or a therapist, whichever you feel you need more. They can help you find someone in-network and get in to see them within a month or two, instead of having to search for one who’s accepting new patients. If you don’t like them you can say you don’t think they’re a good fit for your needs and a good one will give you a referral to a different one.",
"The psychiatry/psychology distinction is taken care of, so I’ll weigh in on therapy a little bit. Counselors typically have less formal training than psychologists, who carry doctoral degrees, but I’m not aware of conclusive research to suggest that one is necessarily always a better therapist than the other. \n\nThe most important aspect of therapy is feeling that you have a strong fit with your therapist. This person needs to understand you and see the big picture of your life. You may not find this fit with your first therapist, but I encourage you to give it a few sessions to figure that out. It’s also completely normal not to be able to explain why the fit is or isn’t there. A lot of that stuff is beyond words. Once you find a good fit, you can focus on what is of secondary importance, which is the type of therapy you do with the therapist. One type of therapy that I like a lot is called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). You can look up “The happiness trap” on YouTube for some short videos that explain some of the core concepts. Again, therapy type (ACT or whatever else) is secondary to fit. Feel free to message me for more info or resources.",
"There're many type of mental illness as well as therapy for them but for example, therapy can teach you control your emotions better, reform the way of your thinking, exercise that reduce stress or unwanted behavior,...\n\nCounseling: you ask a professional for advice\n\nTherapy: you work on your therapist's plan to resolve your problem.\n\nPsychiatrist: Psychology Doctor that can give prescription. (usually for really grave disorder that can't be helped with therapy or need monitoring ex: schizophrenia)\n\nPsychologist: Psychology expert, can't give prescription. Can do therapy. (for thing like stress, depression, phobia)",
"Counseling is not a really define role, it's an umbrella term for anyone that could help someone by talking with them. There is no legal requirement to be a counsellor, unless a specific organisation demand it. In general they are less qualified and can only help you so far. They are often the first person someone will get help with, trying to figure out what is wrong and getting recommended to a specialist that could better help you.\n\nTherapy is where you meet with a legally bound specialist. So anyone with a license and a title protected by the law. This include psychologist, Social workers, Marriage/Family Therapist and some specific type of counsellors. Basically if you specific requirement for you role defined by the law, you are a therapist, if not you are a counsellors. A Therapist can call himself a counsellor, but a counsellor can't always call themselves a therapist.\n\nPsychologist are there to talk to you and help you figure out what is wrong and how you can fit it. They are a type of therapist that studied psychology and is licensed.\n\nPsychiatrists are something completely different, they are medical doctor specialist in brain chemistry. They gonna identify what mental problems you could have and with the help of medicine try to balance the chemistry of your brain to either fix the problem or more likely fix the symptoms.",
"In most cases, therapy works because it helps people figure out why they have certain feelings and reactions to situation. Once they understand that, they can learn how to change unhealthy patterns of thinking and acting.",
"A lot of misinformation in this thread. Clinical psychologist here. Sometimes these terms depend on state and date of license issuance, but generally:\n\nA therapist is someone who does therapy, this can be done by individuals with masters or doctorates. It is a catch all term.\n\nPsychologist is a legal term for someone with a doctoral degree in psychology. This could be in a research field (ex cognitive psychologist) or a clinical field (ex clinical psychologist, neuropsychologist).\n\nPsychiatrist is an individual who went to medical school and then chose to specialize in psychiatry, a blend of medicine and therapeutic skills. Some psychiatrist do therapy, some do more therapy (edit: provide medication), many do both. \n\nA general difference between psychologists and psychiatrists is that psychiatrists can prescribe medication and deliver psychotherapy. Clinical psychologists can do psychological testing (IQ, personality, etc) and deliver psychotherapy.\n\nCounseling and therapy are essentially synonymous, though sometimes counseling is used to refer to therapy for individuals without a severe mental health diagnosis. \n\nOne way to find a psychologist is to call your insurance and ask them to recommend providers in network to you. You can also use a resource like _URL_0_ to search in your area. You can also just google the above terms in google maps. \n\nVery briefly, therapy/counseling works by using psychological principles like insight, behavior, and relationships in order to help a person change both their intrapsychic and interpsychic behavior.\n\nThere are exceptions to the above, and obviously a lot more detail. Please feel free to ask more.",
"HEADS UP LONG COMMENT!\nThere are a lot of different kinds of therapy. I’ll try to give the best description and advice I can based on personal experience.\n\n-CBT aka cognitive behavioural therapy. This is usually a group based therapy, that focuses on teaching you how to identify problems, learn how to fight problematic feelings and thoughts, and it teaches you a lot about taking a step back to see how your thoughts affect your actions. It’s really good and it really helps with coping. CBT is a short term therapy following several modules for a few weeks or months.\n\n-DBT aka dialectical behavioural therapy. This therapy is often group based as well and also follows several modules as a short term therapy. It builds off of CBT but focuses more on validation, social aspects, and relationships. DBT helps correct destructive behaviour and negative thinking patterns and teaches you how to recognize and identify these problems.\n\n-One on one therapy. This is exactly what it sounds like. You privately meet with a therapist, usually for around an hour, and you talk about your, stresses, feelings, problems with a professional who went to school to help you find solutions and offer knowledgeable advice on these things. This therapy is long term and very helpful in finding helping you with any problem or stress that you approach your therapist with. If you want to vent and cry or have a more serious discussion that’s what they are there for. They will validate your feelings in the right situations and still offer advice on what to do or how to manage in the problem. If you have some trauma or heavy experiences, they will help you open up and help you recover as it is mostly affecting your life in small ways in the present. Your therapist is someone that you go to who you can talk to about anything, even stuff you don’t feel comfortable talking to your friends or family about. Any conversation that happens with your therapist is confidential unless you want to hurt yourself or someone else.\n\nNow to answer the next part. Counselling is usually short term and is used for more general issues. Therapy is long term and focuses on a broader spectrum of issues. Psychologists usually take on people with more severe mental health issues. They can diagnose disorder based on studying behaviour and can help treat the issue. Psychology is a PHD while a therapist is a Masters. Psychologists sometimes work with psychiatrists to provide proper treatment. A psychiatrist is the only one of those who can prescribe you with medication. Their main focus is figuring out what medication you need and what specific variant of medication is best suited for you. A psychiatrist will often recommend seeing a psychologist while you are getting help to get the best results for long term treatment.\n\nLastly, finding a good therapist can take some time. It’s important to find someone you actually feel comfortable talking to. Sometimes it can take a couple sessions to feel comfortable opening up, but if you still aren’t feeling too great about it, don’t be afraid to look for a different therapist. If you feel like you can talk to them about anything, and also think the advice and solutions they offer you are helpful, you’ve found someone good. Personally I found that looking for my own therapist online gave me better results than one recommended by my school or family doctor. Where I live they offer “sliding scale therapy” in some places. These are students who’s are finishing their masters or returning to do their PHDs. Not only is it cheaper, I’ve found it so much easier to click with someone who speaks to me the same way I speak to them while still being professional (it may have also helped that I felt more comfortable because the were closer to my age). I’ve found that I like behavioural one on one therapy the best, because while it’s still a normal session your therapist will pick up on small physical behaviours that you do while talking about specific issues and figures out how it’s subconsciously related to a problem. ex, sitting with your arms and legs close to your body or holding a pillow when talking about a certain issue can be a boundary problem. You are putting an object between you and the other individual or staying compact subconsciously. It’s a habit you probably developed from negative a serious of negative past events and your body is showing hints of that in ways that you don’t usually notice. They help you open up about those events and lower the walls you put up to help you heal.\n\n\nPersonally, I know I’ve found a good therapist when they aren’t treating my as “just another patient” and are actually engaging and attentive when I am talking. It’s important not to get discouraged when trying to find the right fit for you and it’s always good to ask someone who likes their therapist how they found them.\n\n\n*this is only personal knowledge and understanding, it’s always good to do your own research to get the best understanding and most accurate results*",
"Where are you? Where you live will affect these answers. A lot.",
"Psychiatrist: a medical doctor (or nurse practitioner)--someone who can prescribes medication. \n\nPsychologist: has a doctoral degree in psychology, provides talk therapy. \n\nTherapist: provides talk therapy. Depending on your location, this term is not strictly legally regulated. In my experience, but almost all have some kind of license like \"licensed clinical social worker (LCSW),\" \"licensed professional counselor (LPC),\" etc. Those qualifications do have specific legal requirements, probably including a master's degree and supervised work experience. I'd be reluctant to see a therapist who wasn't certified or licensed in some way, partly because the certification implies that they have experience and partly because it requires them to follow a variety of ethical rules.\n\nIn my experience, people who are using medication don't just see a psychiatrist--they'll see a therapist or psychologist regularly for talk therapy, and see a psychiatrist less frequently when they need to adjust their meds or get new prescriptions.\n\nSuggestions for finding a good one:\n- Read up on some common treatment approaches (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychodynamic therapy, etc). If one sounds like a good fit for you, you can look for therapists who use that approach.\n- Use listings on _URL_0_, your health insurance website, or similar sites to find local therapists (i like psychology today because it has more filtering options you can use to narrow down the options). Read the profile info to see if they specialize in the type of issue you're trying to address or treatment approach you're interested in. \n- It can take a while to find a therapist who is a good fit for you. Don't be afraid to try several. In my experience, maybe 30% of the therapists I've seen were (IMO) bad people (ethical issues, judgemental/not respectful, etc). Another 40% seem like they're probably good therapists for other people, but their methods and personalities didn't really click for me. The remaining ones were a good fit, and they were really helpful.",
"There's already a lot of conversation on degrees and education, so I won't focus on that much here. All I'll say is that degree mostly tells you 1. how much research experience the person has (PhDs are research-heavy), which frankly has little to do with you in therapy, and 2. some insight into the therapist's background (social workers look at social factors impacting mental health, marriage/family therapists use the whole family system in treatment, etc.)\n\nHonestly speaking, your relationship with the therapist is the biggest driving factor for change. So, don't focus too much on degree when looking for a therapist.\n\nFinding a \"good\" therapist is all about finding a good fit for you. Some people scoff at the idea of Christian or religious therapy, but others would only feel comfortable with a therapist who shares their spiritual beliefs. Therapists with a strong background in research may be a good fit for clients with specialized and complicated problems (like multiple severe mental disorders), but typically wouldn't serve diverse populations as well as social workers. So, your search should mostly focus on the therapist's personality, with a little consideration for specialization.\n\nPersonality is basically random. It's normal to \"shop around\" and see a few therapists before finding someone who you mesh with. Please remember to ask plenty of questions when you do this! Therapists understand that shopping around is a part of the process, and they don't get offended by it. They want to help you find a good fit, too.\n\nSpecialization is easier to recognize. What's important to note here is that certifications and trainings have nothing to do with the therapist's degree, as they are acquired after graduation. The degree is foundational knowledge; the certification/training is specialization.\n\nWhile not every problem needs a specialist, that information can be helpful to know. Psychology Today's website is actually a great resource for looking up therapists in your area, and you can filter results by many things including the issue you want treated and the type of therapy used to treat it.\n\nAs a general rule, most therapists are experienced in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT). Trauma specialists are often trained in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and, for youth, Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). Marriage Therapists typically pursue training in the Gottman Method and Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT)/Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy (EFCT). Child therapists usually have training in things like Sandplay and other play-oriented methods. However, this barely scratches the surface of certifications so there are certainly other models that are useful with these problems.\n\nAgain, it's the therapist's individual personality/skills and their relationship with the client that makes therapy successful - the method that the therapist uses is pretty much secondary. And, honestly, very few therapists are \"purists\" - most would call their approach \"integrative\" which means that they pull skills and theories from multiple models (called \"common factors\") into their work. Just focus on how you feel in the therapy room with them and they'll figure out a treatment that works for you. That's their job, after all.",
"\n\nReally simply, psychiatrists can prescribe medication and conduct therapy. Many choose to do brief sessions focused on medication and maintenance. Counselors and psychologists both conduct therapy but cannot prescribe. Counselors tend to get more training surrounding conducting therapy, but little on testing and research. Psychologists (PhD) are trained more heavily and conduct more testing and research than counselors. A psyD psychologist will likely have more therapy training than their phd cohorts but less research. Finding a good one is very specific to you. A different tool for every job. For instance, an individual who has strong insight and meta cognitive Skills could greatly benefit from straight forward CBT or ACT, whereas someone with more difficulty in this area might benefit more from say DBT or talk therapy. Even those examples are not catch all’s as every Person is different.",
"People used to talk to me about therapy work when I was studying psychology and doing PhD. I never had any training in therapy during 6 years of psychology study. We were just doing experiments. We would touch on mental health and other issues, but usually it was through the lens of what does someone's issues tell us about how mind actually works? So a psychologist is not always a trained therapist. I would be terrible at that too, I get social anxiety around someone in need. All psychologists from my uni who wanted to be therapists had to go to clinical psychology training and masters route, for actual application of knowledge and therapy skills.",
"Not really an answer to the question, but Thank You.\n\nI’m struggling right now, both with the idea of going to a therapist and finding one (why does it have to be so difficult??). This thread has been very informative, helpful, and terribly coincidental!",
"Lots of good points here. I’d add one thing.\nTherapy is work. Sometimes, it’s grueling work.\n\nThink of it along the lines of physical therapy. Let’s say your arm’s all screwed up. Just showing up at the PT office isn’t going to magically fix anything. They’ll give you some guidance, in the form of exercises that kind of hurt. And you have to do them, over and over again. It’s not much fun. No ‘major break throughs’ will suddenly miraculously heal you.\n\nOnce I figured this out, I got a lot more out of therapy. It’s something you have to actively participate in, and it takes a long time. No miraculous healing here either.",
"I'm going to vastly oversimplify how it works, but: \n\nMe: shows up to therapy as a simmering cauldron of low self-esteem and negative self-talk\n\nTherapist: gets me to talk about these things \n\nTherapist: helps me explore where these things probably came from (i.e., formative years with fucked-up parents)\n\nTherapist: validates that things were severely fucked-up; provides thoughts on how it could have been handled better (if you really trust and respect your shrink, this voice will eventually replace the shitty-parent voice in your head)\n\nMe: continues week-by-week to report new stimulus from my life and how I am handling these things \n\nTherapist: understands current course of action based on deep understanding of my past, continues to validate current feelings, but also suggests different ways to handle and interpret these things going forward \n\nMe: very slowly learns a different way of thinking about life and about myself, and of handling the things the world throws at me\n\nI really believe in therapy as a long-term iterative process. It doesn't happen in a weekend workshop; you have to keep experiencing the world and give your brain the chance to assimilate the possibility of doing things differently.",
"Simple explanation:\n\nTherapy tries to teach you how to better process, cope with, or otherwise address whatever the issue is.\n\nWhen repeated, it can also make these better coping mechanisms automatic. \n\nA psychiatrist is a physician and can therefore prescribe medications, order labs and imaging tests, etc. A psychologist cannot.",
"You’ve gotten a lot of great answers but I wanted to clarify what you mean by how does it work. Do you mean, how does it “fix” mental illness or struggles? If that’s what you mean, I’d love if you could provide more information about what your concern is if you have one or are asking for a friend. A lot of the comments gave great descriptions on the different modalities (approaches) of therapy but they still have some variation based on the issue being addressed (ie personality disorder, mood disorder, substance abuse, trauma, etc). \n\nI wanted to address the middle part of your question. Some of what I’ll mention is a repeat of previous comments but it’s important enough to say again. If you’re asking because you or a friend/family member is considering treatment please consider the following:\n\n-Finding a good fit is HARD. Even harder if you’re in distress. Don’t give up but more importantly don’t give in. If it’s not working that’s okay...therapists know that their work is incredibly subjective and will sometimes even refer you to a colleague they believe will be a better fit. In the end the effort is worth it.\n\n-Don’t discount group therapy. For a lot of people it’s super uncomfortable at first and it takes awhile to acknowledge it’s helpful. For sure it’s not for everyone, but it’s not as awful as a lot of people assume it is.\n\n-Most primary care providers will prescribe antidepressants if you’re experiencing mild-moderate symptoms. That being said, seeing a psychiatrist is definitely a better option if insurance covers it and/or you’ve got significant symptoms. I’ve compared it to this: if you occasionally have symptoms of asthma your PCP will likely run some tests, prescribe an inhaler and they’ll monitor you. If you have significant respiratory issues, they’ll refer you to a specialist who can ensure all aspects of the illness are being treated. \n\nI hope you’re able to find the answers you need.",
"Not sure if this was mentioned here, but there are also currently 5 states in the US in which Clinical Psychologists with a post doctoral degree in psychopharmacology can prescribe within the field of mental health (e.g. SSRIs, MAOIs, etc.)\n This is an interesting (and for some people controversial) trend towards granting psychologists prescription privileges.",
"It’s complete bollocks and I can do as good a job as any therapist. It’s just having someone to listen to you babble then tell you common sense solutions or responses. People like to hear their own voice and having someone there to listen. Anyone who pays for therapy is getting fleeced.",
"From experience, Psychiatrists can prescribe medication, psychologists cannot except currently in three states. For my two cents; therapy/counseling are pretty much the same though some may argue degree of clinical training is involved with distinctions. I look at the end results personally.\n\nThis is where it becomes tricky, finding the right one, it's kinda like dating. There is a learning curve I have found. I don't look for deep problem solving skills or to make me feel better from my psychiatrist. He is there for medication monitoring and suggestions for medication for my chemical imbalances. Ironically though, if I can listen to the \"off the cuff comments\" or side remarks, the wisdom he has is amazing and shows a depth of understand and a degree of \"non judgement\" that is inspiring. As a side note, coupling a Psychiatrist AND a psychologist together is the way to go. I wasted a year or two seeing only the psychiatrist with no other support. Again it's a learning curve for all.\n\nI'll be honest, I picked him because he was 2 blocks away and I thought he was Italian (he's Greek) and in my plan. I lucked out.( My last psychiatrist turns out was dying of cancer and incorrectly prescribed drugs that although made me feel great, were never monitored and pretty much gave me whatever I wanted. Two years of unchecked hell that shall we say was expensive. I being a Dr. I am sure he assumed a degree of \"knowledge\" which he was mistaken.\n\nWe were not a good match (Dr, cancer), and I went to a psychologist to wean myself off of improper medication, which I (we) did but ironically never addressed the chemical imbalances, another setback for 2 or 3 years.\n\nFinally properly diagnosed with two knowledgeable individuals strides have been made.\n\nSo again to the learning curve, for me it came from a lot of reading of books and the internet.\n\nI kinda immersed myself in my condition to a point of probably knowing more then I need to but then that is me.\n\n(Something should be said too in fairness to my past doctors, there is a point where you will find their views contrary to your own. Their was a degree of denial involved here on my part as there were facts I wasn't ready to own so I could progress faster, we all have our own speed, it seems.)\n\nSo if you made it this far with my tales (or wows), see how for me it was like dating, sometimes you need to go through a few before it clicks. Good suggestions are to be as honest as you are aware of (hard when drugs are involved). A good relationship takes time to develop, like dating don't be afraid to move on if it is not working, but try not to move on it becomes too uncomfortable. ( I am a wimp, my therapists go slow and are appropriately confrontational.\n\nBottom line for me is to find a support group where you feel you can be heard in a non judgmental way. Watch for \"familiarity breeds contempt\" in that you need to continue to move forward with the experience. If it's not working, tell him/her, they won't be upset. Sometimes another perspective is needed even if it means going out of the practice and coming back (experience here) Finally having a team works best, 2 heads are better then one.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWill I stick with these doctors? I will as long as I continue to learn about myself and see behaviors change. Simple as that.",
"Cognitive-behavioral therapies and most other therapies that are popular assume that you know what's wrong with you (your 'symptom') and then they try to fix it.\n\nPsychodynamic and psychoanalytic therapies assume that you don't necessarily know what the problem is -- that the problem is unconscious, and that there are reasons that you want the problem there. Understanding those reasons is the *real* problem. \n\nI'm a big advocate of the latter, even though they're \"out of fashion\" because people want quick fixes. Go find a local psychoanalytic institute, and be prepared to spend a lot of time. In exchange you will get to know yourself and change in a far deeper way than is likely with other therapies.",
"Why do some people need regular therapy/counseling throughout life and some don’t? My sister and I grew up in the same household and are and have always been very close and similar, but she goes to counseling every week and has been for years. I have no desire or need for it and live a very happy fulfilled life. We have gone through many of the same good and bad life experiences yet the ways we cope with them are very different. Is there any psychology behind this?",
"It's a scam, don't bother. At best, they're going to have you believe that your mental \"illness\" is your own fault. At worse, they're going to get you committed involuntarily.",
"In my experience, therapists are often more of an informed 3rd party that you bounce ideas off of without fearing judgement. Something most people lack in their lives. Genuinely, I'd advise even healthy people to see one. You can think of it as your primary doctor is for physical stuff and your shrink is for mental stuff. Even if nothing is wrong you should check up with both occasionally.",
"I once went to one in a bad neighborhood. She was more like a social worker, but I was depressed and that's all I could afford. It was 25 dollars every visit. Basically, we sat and talked and she pointed things out to me that I wouldn't have noticed on my own. I always felt a little better after talking to her.",
"I developed OCD when I was a kid but didn’t get diagnosed until going to a string of expensive doctors much later on. I got recommended to see a counselor/therapist to do Cognitive Behavior Therapy. It’s been IMMENSELY helpful in my life. \n\nEven without ocd though, therapy is great to teach you how to properly think through tough issues and handle particular problems. It’s your mind and emotions—everyone should go occasionally and it shouldn’t be viewed as any bigger deal than regular physical checkups.",
"I've had psychologists and a psychiatrist.\n\nPsychiatrists prescribe drugs.\n\nPsychologists worth their salt work with you to put you on a healthy path in your life. Whatever is broken, they try to guide you. They give you advice. It's your job to do the work to improve your life.\n\nThe sober you are open and honest the better. They are not there to judge you. Be honest though and they're an amazing asset!",
"I’m pretty sure I was a narcissist in my early 20s when I started psychotherapy. The way I would describe my treatment is imagine having a closet where you’ve been putting all sorts of shit all your life. Some stuff is dirty, some is broken, some is rotten. But some is clean, some is valuable, some has sentimental value, etc. Now, this closet is big and deep and you can’t see everything in there from the outside. You remember some things but mostly you’ve forgotten about the things you can’t see. \nPsychoanalysis for me was opening that closet and taking things out one at a time, and seeing what’s in there. Some ugly stuff you can’t throw away because it’s valuable, but now you know it’s there. Maybe something rotting could be cleaned so it doesn’t ruin what’s next to it. Maybe what you remember as something big, is actually quite small, and so on and so forth.. at the end you have an inventory of your closet (aka you as a person in case you didn’t get the metaphor) and learn to accept the good, the bad and the ugly. This way you can approach life knowing that some things trigger you, some things you don’t care much about, some things are to be cherished, and some things are not worth wasting your time on. \nI’m no psychiatrist but this was my experience with 3 years of therapy, which honestly, saved my life. I’ll be eternally grateful to that psychiatrist",
"Speaking as someone with generalized anxiety disorder, who has seen therapists, councellors, and psychologists, and whose work focuses on understanding interpersonal relationships and dynamics, my take is as follows:\n\nPsychologists, therapists, and councellors have one job: to help you develop coping skills and to train you to modify the functioning and reinforced behaviours of your brain to help you achieve personal goals. E.g., managing and reducing anxiety. \n\nHaving someone who is a \"good fit\" for you is key. People find this hard to quantify, but it's generally relates to what we can call \"belonging cues\". Social behaviours that signal you to:\n\n- feel safety\n- share vulnerability \n- align you to a purpose \n\nThese three elements together allow you to have faith in the person you're looking for mentorship and support from, energizing you to act on their advice. \n\nWhen these three factors don't happen, you tend not to trust or feel comfortable with the professional. \n\nOn the different professions, think of it similar to a hospital: \n\n- you have care workers, who support you through your daily life\n- you have nurses, who provide you the medical support you need for your ailments\n- you have doctor's who diagnose complex problems and prescribe complex treatments to remedy them. \n\nIt's the same for councellors, therapists, and psychologists. You need to decide whether your issue falls into basic support through your life, treating an ailment, or dealing with a complicated problem. E.g., stress vs mild depression vs major depressive disorder.",
"A psychologist has more assessment-based training. They specialize in providing assessments and interpreting assessments. While counselors specialize in the therapeutic process and specific interventions. Counselors can do assessments just like psychologists can do therapy, it’s just that each profession specializes in one aspect of the field more than the other. \n\nBoth can assign diagnoses, but psychologists typically are sought out for this due to the in depth testing they can provide.\n\nPsychiatrist is a medical doctor who specializes in mental health. They are the only mental health professionals who can prescribe medication so they are highly sought after, expensive, and often the demand from patients far exceeds the supply of doctors. Counselors and psychologists can oversee the impact of medication and make recommendations, but only a doctor can prescribe.\n\nThe terms counseling and therapy are typically used interchangeably nowadays. In some cases, therapy is thought of as more formal or for more severe psychological issues.\n\nWhen seeking counseling, a good place to start is looking at your health insurance and what they cover. Then, look for a counseling center that takes your insurance. If they have a website, they may have a list of professionals that note what they specialize in (I.e age groups, topics, type of therapy).\n\nThe key is to find a therapist/counselor that is a good fit for you. If you aren’t comfortable with them, it will be difficult to make progress. Ask them questions just like you would a doctor or any other person you are choosing to be on your “team.” Ask them how this works, how they like to do sessions, how they’d help you reach only our goal, etc. The first step is just trying it out and seeing how you feel. You don’t have to discuss anything that makes you uncomfortable and you can go at your own pace. You can stop and start at anytime.",
"Make sure you find a good one. i left my first psychiatrist and never went back because she kept challenging me when I would express things and say \"this is how I feel\" she would constantly say no you dont. She also got upset at me because I didnt listen to her enough about what she thought my problem was, going so far as to ask \"why are you even here?\".\n\nShe was rude and demoralizing, ive had severe trauma and PTSD from military experience and a violent and abusive upbringing. Make sure you feel comfortable saying how you feel and just remember, because they're \"the authority\" doesn't mean they're good. if you dont feel like things are going in a good direction, you have the right to find another.",
"A psych student friend of mine said if you don't feel catharsis after a visit then they aren't the right psychologist for you.",
"You find a person you feel comfortable talking to, and can maybe relate to.\n\nCounseling and therapy are close cousins- they talk to you and try to solve issues by helping you to understand how you feel about them.\n\nPsychiatrists also do this, but are more inclined to look for a medical diagnosis and prescribe medication for a specific issue.\n\nTherapy is helpful if you’re honest. Open up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Psychologytoday.com"
],
[],
[],
[
"psychologytoday.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2dss6x
|
why does science and creation contradict each other?
|
Why can't they co-exist? Is it not possible to say, maybe some entity started the Big Bang?
Edit: Thanks for your answers guys!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dss6x/eli5_why_does_science_and_creation_contradict/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjsoalj",
"cjsode5",
"cjsodgz",
"cjsodn4",
"cjsods2",
"cjsohw8",
"cjsopaj",
"cjsq2r1"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
12,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That's certainly possible, and it's something many people believe. The problem arises when you take the bible literally, as it gives a much shorter timeframe for the creation of the universe.",
"There's a broader idea called Intelligent Design, that says that some force (usually God) guided the process of the creation of the universe. Some people think that God created the big bang, and science neither confirms nor denies that, since science doesn't deal with religion - only tangible things.\n\nHowever, there are others out there, usually called Young Earth Creationists, who believe that the universe was created exactly as told in the Bible, and that the earth and the universe are approximately 6,000 years old. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to contradict this such as evidence for evolution, geological formations that have taken millions of years to form, carbon dating, and the fact that we can see light from stars that are millions of lightyears away.",
"Science deals with things that are testable and falsifiable. Creation, as it is generally practiced, does not meet that criterion, in that faith is based on... well... faith. Therefore, there is not a condition in which intelligent design could necessarily be tested and proven false. It is thus not considered scientific. The important thing to note, though, is that science doesn't directly say creation MUST be false, but that it simply cannot be proven false, and so it doesn't count as science (as a personal note, this is why I tend to agree that creation should never be taught in science classes, even as a so-called counterbalance to appease people who don't agree with evolution).\n\nI should also note that I use the phrase \"proven false\" not to imply that creation is false (feel free to debate that to your heart's content), but because in science, you *technically* never prove anything to be absolutely and incontrovertibly true. ",
"Maybe it did, in fact I think that's why the catholic church was quick to embrace the idea. But that doesn't really explain anything. Where did the entity come from then? And why not try to find out what really caused it? Maybe there are other big bangs our there, maybe we live in a multiverse. \n\nAs science has advanced, the role of \"god did it\" has been pushed into a smaller and smaller corner. Humans used to blame everything on god or gods, even the weather. And they've been proven wrong as science has progressed. Why would \"god caused the big bang\" be any different?\n\nThe idea of creation is simply unscientific, it makes no predictions, and it can't be tested. It's just a lazy throw away explanation.",
"The problem is the kind of creationist that makes a fuss at school board meetings isn't just saying, \"maybe some god caused the big bang\".\n\nThey are saying creation happened in the as described in this holy book and if science says differently, science is wrong. When they want their religious beliefs taught as science, that's a problem.\n",
"Science is **formalised experience,** religion is **taking somebody's word for it** - No overlap.",
"Well science doesn't know what happened before the big bang, so yeah anything you say about that time might be possible",
"Yes, many people do believe that a \"god\" started the Big Bang. \n\nBefore the creation of the Big Bang theory the general scientific consensus was that the universe had always existed in and had not \"start\" (and subsequently no \"end\" either). As such, when it was first formulated ([by a catholic priest no less)](_URL_0_) many religious people and organisations (Vatican City funded a lot of the original research) used this as evidence of \"devine creation\".\n\nSo, yeah... basically they do coexist already.\n\nHowever, when most people talk about \"creation\" in relation to religion, they're talking about the \"alternative\" to evolution, and that's a whole other kettle of fish."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre"
]
] |
|
7nym2k
|
success of scandinavian countries.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7nym2k/eli5_success_of_scandinavian_countries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ds5iorx"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Adequate social welfare programs, like universal healthcare, paid leave for new parents, subsidized childcare, low cost university, etc. provides people with the tools to succeed and safety net for when issues arise. Simply giving people tools and support and taking away risk and anxiety can do a lot to promote widespread prosperity and happiness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2drzjz
|
what does a computer's processor do, and why are intel's portrayed as the best?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2drzjz/eli5_what_does_a_computers_processor_do_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjsgll1",
"cjshf3x",
"cjt2pbq"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the past there was a difference in the way chips were made and the features they supported. Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments, and Motorola (among others) fought for the position as the \"best\" chip. In the end, Intel remained strong and the other three suffered. AMD has remained a competitor but targeted the lower cost market and has done quite well under the circumstances.\n\nJust as in the Windows v. Linux v. Mac war, you have the Intel v. AMD war with people passionately on both sides.\n\nThe unbiased reason I would say Intel tends to be viewed as the best is because they target a wider range of systems. They sell extremely expensive chips for very high end systems and low end chips for mobile and embedded systems. AMD is not quite as well known for the high end systems.",
"A processor loads software and runs it instruction by instruction until you turn it off. Some of these instructions load and store data from other parts of the computer, some of them do math on the data, and some of them change which instruction to run next based on some condition.\n\nIntel's processors are the best processors for typical consumer applications because Intel has better manufacturing technology than anyone else. The processors themselves have to be compatible with Intel's instruction set, which is widely regarded in the industry as being below average and unnecessarily power hungry. Their manufacturing prowess makes up for this deficiency.",
"Intel got the design win in the original IBM PC. Microsoft got the design win for the operating system. Microsoft has always espoused binary distribution, so that in order to run their software, and most of the software that runs under Windows, the processor must run the same basic machine commands as the original 8080, generically the X86 architecture.. This has operated in favour of Intel, and against innovation is machine languages.\n\nMost cellphones run a very different processor architecture, the ARM architecture which is completely incompatible with X86 machines. While the 8080 architecture was designed against a stringent limit on the number of transistors which could be put on a chip, the ARM architecture was designed decades later as an abstract architecture with no such limitation in mind. Semiconductor processing had made great strides in the intervening years. \n\nThe ARM architecture will do more processing on less energy, so in a cellphone environment it wins on battery life. It is now spreading into larger sytems. Many semiconductor companies license the ARM architecture, Intel amongst them.\n\nIntel is a large company with a huge market presence and a lot of cash. They spend a good deal on advertising their product as the \"best\". In fact, the X86 architecture is outdated and likely to be overtaken by the ARM. If Intel really believed their own hype, why take out an ARM license?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
12p31g
|
gene expression and the process of dna to rna
|
I do not get how operons/introns/exons work. Also the process of translation, and transcription RNA. It would be awesome if this could be explained.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12p31g/eli5_gene_expression_and_the_process_of_dna_to_rna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6wzs20"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"DNA is a code of nitrogenous bases and is in a double strand. It is the \"dictionary\" for all proteins. It contains every gene needed to make you. When these proteins need to be made the DNA \"unzips\" or comes apart to form two single strands. Enzymes then come to the DNA along with RNA bases to make mRNA(messenger RNA). Cytosine pairs with Guanine and vice versa, but instead of Thyamine(like in DNA) we have Uracil(in RNA) pairing with Adenine. \n\nWhat is made straight from the DNA is called pre-mRNA(this includes the introns and exons). The introns are then spliced out(cut out) by several different enzymes and the exons are attached back together to make the mRNA. I like to the think of **ex**ons being **ex**pressed.\n\nWhen this mRNA strand is complete it leaves the nucleus(keep in mind it stays as a single strand) and goes to a ribosome. This ribosome will either be freely floating in the cytoplasm, or attached to the ER(endoplasmic reticulum) depending on the destination of the protein.\n\nThe Ribosome then reads the mRNA in sections of 3 base pairs, known as codons and matches them with anti-codons that are present on tRNA(translational RNA). These tRNA's have amino acids associated with them and as they are brought together at the ribosome, peptide bonds are made between them. These amino acids make up a polypeptide, and several polypeptides make up a protein.\n\nIf there are any more questions or you need clarification let me know."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3al05v
|
how do we get close up shots of animals like this...
|
_URL_0_
Was there a guy just running next to these animals in action or what? I can't see how recorders were able to capture this
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3al05v/eli5_how_do_we_get_close_up_shots_of_animals_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csdlf1y",
"csdlufl",
"csdlv8g"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That is probably a small camera hidden next to a trail used by whatever rodent that was. Most nature docs are shot in combination of actual camera men and \"trail cams\", meaning a stationary camera like this or a camera controlled remotely. ",
"Careful editing and stationary cameras. They probably had to capture hundreds of hours of nothing happening. They probably spliced multiple scenes together to make it look like one continuous scene. ",
"If you spend enough time in the outdoors, you learn to see animal trails. Deer and rabbit trails are much easier to see. Small rodent trails are a little harder to see. \n\nFor example, this is probably a [rabbit trail](_URL_0_). \n\nPerhaps a few cameras mounted on remote operated sleds, a few trail cameras. Maybe a telephoto lens on a camera.\n\nThe hawk being caught might have been luck."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/IsAdwwR.gifv"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.simply-san-juan.com/images/american-camp-national-historical-park-animal-trail-san-juan-islands-washington.jpg"
]
] |
|
41lj8d
|
i need explanation on quote pls help
|
Can anyone explain to me what this quote means?
"A cardinal principle of our polity has always been the subordination of the military to the civil authority as a necessary safeguard for the republic"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41lj8d/eli5i_need_explanation_on_quote_pls_help/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz39do2"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"One of the most important things in our political society is that the military is controlled by the civilian government as a way to protect the government that represents the people. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5ccmq5
|
does "end to end encryption" means that the service that offers it is does not have the means to decrypt the messages or that the messages sent back and forth are encrypted but decipherable?
|
In como sci and attended a lecture on encryption/decryption methods that exist.
How do services like WhatsApp and Facebook supposedly offer end to end encryption? From what I understood, there are two forms of encryption/decryption. Symmetric and asymmetric encryption. I assume that services like WhatsApp and Facebook use asymmetric encryption, which requires public and private keys. Which to me means that when the app downloads, it creates both a public key which it sends to recipients and a private key which it keeps for itself. But doesn't that mean that the app can simply send the private key to Facebook and WhatsApp's servers and kill the idea of "end-to-end encryption"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ccmq5/eli5_does_end_to_end_encryption_means_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9vg5mt",
"d9vgdjx",
"d9vibxr"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In theory, yes. That is the price we pay. We trust the service to not access our private key.",
"Yes in theory. The central equipment/infrastructure/service doesn't need to know the key in use. ",
" > But doesn't that mean that the app can simply send the private key to Facebook and WhatsApp's servers and kill the idea of \"end-to-end encryption\"\n\nYes, it comes down to how much do you trust facebook to keep your private keys private. The program that handles your private key (whatsapp) cannot be audited by you. Is this sufficient security for your purposes?\n\nThe good news is that there is plenty of free open source software that will handle this, that *can* be audited, to make sure it is not compromising your privacy.\n\n---\n\nThis is tangential to the question, but you might be interested as a computer science student; symmetric key encryption is comparatively a lot faster than asymmetric key encryption, and uses much smaller keys (256**bits** is a typical size for symmetric, you need a few kilobits for asymmetric keys and that size needs to constantly increase as computers become faster), so symmetric key encryption is almost always preferable.\n\nOn the other hand, symmetric key encryption presupposes that you have a secure way to exchange key. A common solution is to use asymmetric key encryption to exchange symmetric keys. This is implemented almost everywhere that symmetric key encryption is used, and allows you to do other useful things like encrypt for multiple recipients with little overhead.\n\nThere are also ways of two people agreeing on a shared secret that cannot be deduced (efficiently) by someone eavesdropping. These protocols are similar in a lot of ways to asymmetric key cryptography (in that they exploit the difficulty of solving NP type \"hard\" problems), see [Diffie-Hellman key exchange](_URL_0_)\n\nBoth of these are used together in the [off the record protocol](_URL_1_), which provides end to end encryption (among other privacy features). Asymmetric keys are used to authenticate when you start a conversation, and then diffie-hellman is used to establish a symmetric key to use. Once the first key is established, every message is also part of a diffie-hellman exchange so that encryption keys are constantly being changed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman_key_exchange",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging"
]
] |
|
5hk10n
|
if the average lightning strike can contain 100 million to 1 billion volts, how is it that humans can survive being struck?
|
The numbers in the title are from this source: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hk10n/eli5_if_the_average_lightning_strike_can_contain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db0qvko",
"db0s09j",
"db0ssop",
"db0t1qh",
"db0t7vk",
"db0t9wf",
"db0tbdd",
"db0tehb",
"db0tjlt",
"db0u3oi",
"db0u7dm",
"db0uqu7",
"db0uvmo",
"db0v8qr",
"db0vlgu",
"db0w48c",
"db0wl8g",
"db0wsal",
"db0x9yo",
"db0xope",
"db0yvc4",
"db0z93x",
"db10731",
"db115cx",
"db11knz",
"db11usy",
"db13hc7",
"db15fa9",
"db16gao",
"db17ji5",
"db19hgo",
"db19yb1",
"db1d9j3",
"db1g7xq",
"db1hgam",
"db1tm85"
],
"score": [
704,
12,
4,
5,
1032,
3,
2,
13,
77,
3,
7,
60,
6,
4164,
2,
25,
129,
2,
18,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The lightning will take the path of least resistance through the human body. If that happens to be through or over the skin, missing important organs (especially the heart) then it's survivable, although you will likely come out with some burns and of course enough burns can kill you by themselves. \n\nElectricity is always most lethal to the heart, as it keeps its timing using electrical impulses",
"Voltage is a measurement of the potential energy in a lightning strike. Current is a measurement of the amount of energy actually moving as a result of that potential energy. Having a high voltage is analogous to holding something up really high in the air (ignore air resistance). It can get going to a really high speed. Speed in this analogy is similar to the current. It is the actual transfer of energy that the height represents. \n\nSo something moving really fast only hurts if it hits you, right? Lightning usually never directly hits anyone. There's a good comment here describing why lightning takes the path of least resistance. Usually it hits the ground or a tree near them and a small portion of the current moves through the ground and shocks them to almost-death. ",
"Basically, there are two types of materials when it comes to electricity, insulators and conductors. Metals are generally conductors, while things like rubber are insulators. \n\nHumans are conductors, really bad conductors, but conductors nonetheless. The only stories of survival I've heard required the person to be ground, such that the current travels through the body almost immediately without hitting anything important on the way out. \n\nOne of my teachers got electrocuted by one of those big 50,000+Volts power lines, he has a crazy scar that does a loop around his back before leaving his arm. He's lucky it didn't pass through his heart.",
"A current of less than half an Ampère passing through a body is usually enough to kill you. \n\nA lightning strike can go up to 10000 Ampères. \n\nBut people 'struck' by lightning usually don't get hit in the head. \nThis would almost certainly be fatal...\n\nIn the majority of cases, the ligthing strikes near the person, either on the ground or on a large object near them.\n\nIn the first case, the ground becomes an electric field. If one of your feet is closer than the other to the point where the lightning struck, this could certainly be fatal. \n(Hence why some cows survive a lightning strike in a field because they were standing lateral, and didn't have that high of a voltage difference between their legs)\n\nIn the second case, for example a tree, a 'secondary strike' could branch off that tree, passing to the ground via your body. In this case, it depends on where this strike would hit you, and again, the amperage going through your body!\n\nSource: Civil Engineering student, currently studying an electrical energy course.",
"Ignoring complex things about how electricity works, as far as the killing power of electricity; it can be described easily with an analogy of falling objects. Imagine instead of getting zapped by electricity, you're having an item dropped on your head. Voltage would be the height it was dropped, and current would be the weight of the item dropped (non eli5 explanation: the voltage is potential energy and current is kinetic energy and potential energy such as height is transferred to kinetic energy through falling in a ratio relating to it's mass and gravity). So if you have high voltage, and really low current, it's like having something dropped on your head from the empire state building but that something is a feather. If you have low voltage high current it's like having a brick dropped on your head from the top of a house. In most cases like people have mentioned, electricity takes the path of least resistance, so when you're struck by lightning, a large portion of the current from that strike goes to the ground (less resistance) and a very small portion goes to you (more resistance). So it's a high voltage, low current scenario in this case. In addition, the way your body is laid out, most of the current would be directed away from vital organs in most cases and travels around them. I can explain why the current splits between you and the ground as well as why it goes around your organs in more eli5 detail if desired.",
"Most people struck by lighting aren't hit directly, they're usually standing near to where it struck and the current passes through their body, usually through their legs and bypassing critical organs. ",
"The main cause of death when exposed to an electric current is current passing through the heart. The rhythm of the heart beating is controlled by electrical impulses. Small shocks don't disrupt the heart and the person lives. Medium sized shocks disrupt the rhythm and the heart fibrillates (basically twitches instead of completely contracting so that it doesn't actually pump blood) and the person dies. Defibrillators, those machines you see on tv that are used to revive someone during a heart attack, just like lightening, produce a shock to the heart large enough to stop the heart. When the heart is stopped, the body usually resumes its normal rhythm and the person usually lives.",
"So should I drink more or less water to avoid this ?",
"Saying that lightning *contains* 1 bn volts is like saying that your car *contains* 200 MPH. It doesn't really make sense. Voltage is a property of electricity that represents the **electromotive force** in the system, and is a difference between the voltage of the two connected points (a 10V source connected to a 100V source will create a circuit with 90V).",
"It depends where you get Lightning! If Lightning doesn't get to your heart, or head, it might not kill you. Keep your hands in your pockets!\n\n(Folk that's what I'd tell a five year old. Path, surface resistivity vs. internal conductance, current vs. potential etc all fine for ~10 years + ;)",
"An important factor that is being overlooked here is negative vs positive lightning. A typical lightning strike consists of negatively charged ions--this is the lightning strike you're more likely to survive. A positively charged lightning strike, however, often forms way up in the anvil of a cumulonimbus cloud, and these are the strikes that can reach 1 billion volts and 300,000 amperes. When they say that, theoretically, if you could hear thunder, then you could be struck by lightning...it is because of this type of lightning. Positively charged lightning strikes could hit a person from more than 25 miles away. And, most importantly, they are much more deadly.\n\n\nedit: a clarifying sentence",
"My father is an electrical engineer and this is what he told me when I younger about electrocution. \n\nThe two ways electricity kills is by stopping your heart or by cooking you. Lightning doesn't last long enough to cook you very much. \n\nMuch like being shot, it depends where you get \"hit.\" If electricity travels through your heart, you will probably die. But if most of it goes around, like from your arm, down your side, down your leg, you may live. The biggest factors are if your heart restarts on its own, or if you are given attention quickly enough to restart your heart.\n\nEven if you live, there will be a lot of damage from a lightning strike. If you search lichtenberg figure scar on google, you will see lots of scars from people being hit. It can also cause lasting neurological damage. In addition, you will be slightly \"cooked\" which is a lot like a skin burn... except it'll be parts of your internal organs and muscles. \n\nSecondly, voltage is just one measurement of electricity and not very important in terms of killing power. Amperage is much more important in terms of what will kill you. \n\nThink of it like a car. A car can be measured by speed or by weight. A car moving .1 mph probably won't harm you when it bumps into you, no matter how much it weighs. But a car moving 60mph will probably kill you regardless if it is a heavy truck or a light sedan. Like voltage, the weight doesn't matter very much. ",
"I'd like to take a shot at this, because I a lot of people are simply describing how electricity works without giving you an answer to your question of how humans can survive lightning strikes.\n\nThis may be above 5 year old standard, maybe 10, but I personally think this is a sufficiently simplified explanation while also explaining the very basics of electricity and circuits.\n\nI'd like to piggyback on what /u/principal_luvbuts said about voltage and current (amps). There is an obvious relationship between the voltage (let's call it V) and the current (let's call it I). This relationship can be described by the simple equation V=I×(something). That something is resistance. More properly, the equation exists as V=I×R. This is Ohm's Law.\n\nSo, Volts may not be what kills you, but the presence of volts means the existence of amps. Here's an example:\n\nSay you stick a fork in a socket. 110v is going to come out of that socket. That voltage will remain constant. What determines how many amps go through your body is the resistance of the human body. In dry conditions, the human body can have a resistance of up to 100,000 Ohms (unit of resistance measurement, like volts and amps for voltage and current), while wet conditions and broken skin can bring the body's resistance down to as little as 500 Ohms. Other things like clothing can affect this resistance. This would cause the amount of amps going through the body to range from as little as 1.1 milliamps (high resistance limits) to 220 milliamps (lower resistance limits). Anything over 10 milliamps will give you a noticeable shock, while anything in the range of 100-200 milliamps can be lethal.\n\nPeople who survive lightning strikes must have had a very high resistance to not allow a lethal amount of amps to course through them.\n\nEither that, or they are touching another object that provides resistance to the \"circuit\" which creates a voltage divider (now we are definitely leaving ELI5 territory and entering Circuit Theory) which basically just splits up the voltage on the involved resistance providing objects based on the resistance of the individual objects.\n\nSource: I study Electrical Engineering ",
"**TL;DR the TL;DR**: In very specific conditions, it's possible for the electricity to flow around you. This causes severe burns, but can leave you alive if you're lucky.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\n**TL;DR:** Often when lightning strikes a person, the person is wet. If the layer of water is less resistive than your internal organs, most of the current will flow through the layer of water. It'll heat up and burn you, but it doesn't necessarily kill you. \n\nAlso, often times lightning strikes in the vicinity of a person, but not the person directly. This usually means they'll get current flowing through their legs, but not across their heart, which usually isn't fatal. Again, serious burns will occur.\n\nOne more thing that contributes to this all is the fact that a fast changing current (like the short burst of a lightning strike) tends to flow through the outermost layer of whatever is conducting it, furthering the tendency to flow through the water/skin instead of your heart.\n\nAlso read /u/bearpics16's comment [below](_URL_0_). It explains the physiological changes lightning strike burns cause, which often result in death.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\n**Longer explanation**\n\nSomething \"containing\" a certain amount of volts really doesn't convey well how it all works.\n\nThe voltage (or potential) is a measure for the difference in electric charge between two things. So when we say, there's 3.7V **across** a battery, that's a measure of how much work can be done when a certain amount of _electricity_ (charge) is moved from one terminal to the other.\n\nThe bigger the voltage, the harder the electrons try to go from one place to the other (which is why the water pressure analogy often is used). Dry air can insulate about 3000V (3kV) per mm (about 76.2 kV per inch). So if you put two conductors 1 cm apart and put over 30kV across them, the air will start conducting. When this happens, the electricity will ionize the air, creating plasma. This is the spark you see. \n\nLightning is just a bigger version of that process, where the air in the clouds is electrically charged. This electricity tries to jump to anything with a lower charge. If the voltage across the air/ground gap is big enough, the electricity can flow across he gap.\n\nNow, what you need to understand is that electricity only kills if you get enough of it flowing at once through the wrong parts. The amount of electricity flowing **through** something is the current or amperage. \n\nPeople always say that it's not the volts, but the amps that kill you. In reality, there's more to it. You need enough voltage to get enough current flowing to hurt you. Your body has a certain resistance to electricity flow. (current = voltage / resistance). \n\nWhat's also important is the path the electricity takes. A big-ass current flowing from the tip of you finger to the palm of your hand will give you a nasty burn, but it won't stop your heart from beating. A small zap flowing from one arm to the other might do that more effectively.\n\nYou also need to know that electricity will ~~follow~~ prefer the path of least resistance. If there's multiple paths available, the current flowing through each will be inversely proportional to each path's respective resistance.\n\nAnother thing is that a lightning strike behaves a lot like AC (it's DC, but the short burst nature makes it adopt behaviors from AC). One of the things AC does, is that it will flow through the outermost layer of whatever is conducting it. This is called the _skin effect_. This means that if you're the conductor, it'll prefer flowing around your internal organs, if your skin's resistance isn't too high.\n\nThus, if lightning strikes you when you have a layer of water all over your body (it's raining, most likely), that water might be conducting enough to keep most of the electricity from even entering your body. It just flows through the layer of water on your skin.\n\nA lightning strike will heat that water up a lot, though. So you'll probably have some serious burns. But if there isn't an appreciable amount of electricity flowing through your heart, chances are you'll live to tell the story. \n\n--------------------------------------\n\nEDIT: corrected breakdown voltage for air, thanks /u/yanroy. Also, RIP inbox\n\nEDIT2: ~~it's both~~ there's more to it. I realize this is dumbed down. This is still ELI5, not askscience\n\nEDIT3: forgot correcting one of the voltages -_- thanks, /u/Timst44\n\nEDIT4: thanks for the gold, kind stranger!\n\nEDIT5: alright, alright, rewrote the explanation of voltage. Added note about the skin effect, and expanded on burnt tissue damage causing death. Added a TL;DR for the TL;DR to satisfy one commenter I can't find again.",
"First off, voltage is only one part of the equation. Power is a function of both voltage and current; energy is a function of voltage and charge. Ordinary static electricity that you produce by rubbing your feet across the floor is often north of 20,000 volts; the reason it isn't harmful is because the charge/amperage is very low.\n\nLightning is quite similar to static electricity, and has really, really high voltage. However, unlike static, it also has high amperage as well. The overall energy in a lightning bolt is spread out between the cloud and the ground; it contains about a billion joules of energy, but while that is a huge amount, it also lasts only for a fraction of a second and is going from a cloud several miles up to the ground. Most of that energy won't end up in your body; if it did, you'd be vaporized.\n\nWhen you're struck by a lightning bolt, the main question is the path of travel of the lightning bolt through your body. What actually kills you from a lightning strike is your heart being stopped by the electrical discharge throwing your cardiac cells (which rely on bioelectric signals to coordinate themselves) out of whack. If the bolt doesn't travel through your heart, you'll very likely survive, though you may suffer some tissue burns.\n\nNote that there are also multiple kinds of lightning strikes; about 5% of lightning strikes are what is known as positive lightning. Positive strikes are *much* more powerful; they contain more energy and last much longer than ordinary strikes. A positive lightning strike is considerably more likely to kill you than a negative one, as much more energy is involved, and the energy is passing through your body for a longer period of time.\n\nOnly about 10% of all people who are struck by lightning die, but it is thought that a significantly higher fraction of those who are struck by positive lightning die.",
"I posted this as a reply to someone else, but I'll comment it here too because to be honest, I don't feel any of the top comments cover this as well as they could.\n\nTruth be told, **electricity is complicated** and so are injuries related to it. There is no simple explanation. There are some basic principles that help understanding this though. For 1, **resistance of human skin is very high.** Don't think too hard about that, we'll cover it in a second. It's very high. Some multimeters will measure it as OL, which basically means too high to count. \n\nSecond, **the higher the resistance of something is, the lower the amps flowing through it.** It's a bit more complicated than that, but it's functionally that. High resistance = lower amps.\n\nThird, **the higher the voltage, the less amps are lost to resistance.** If you have 10 amps, at a low voltage, and high resistance, you may lose 9.99 amps. But if you have 10 amps at a high voltage, and high resistance, you may only lose 5 amps. Again, it's more complicated than that, don't try and answer an exam question with this response. But again, it's functionally what happens. Amps = voltage / resistance. (Ohms law.) **The closer the voltage is to the resistance, the less amps are lost.** If you're still struggling with this concept, imagine it like this. Some amps are strolling through a piece of wire. Suddenly, *the resistance*, a group of murdering thugs, starts attacking the amps, killing them. But wait, the amps have a lot of volts with them, acting as their personal guards. There are half as many volts as there are members of the resistance though, so the resistance manages to kill about half of the amps. This is not even close to how it physically works but it gives you the idea of the relationship between the 3, which I struggled with for a long time.\n\nFourth, now we know all that, I will expand on what I said earlier, **your skin has a really high resistance.** What this means is, yes a lightning strike may have 100 million volts, 20,000 amps. But because your skin resistance is so high, that 20,000 amps may be reduced to 1 amp. Which is still enough to kill you but...\n\nFifth and finally **electricity isn't always lethal.** As I'm sure you're aware. You've probably gotten a static shock or made out with a 9 volt battery before. **Electricity takes the path of least resistance, to the ground** and in the case of your static shock, that's probably going to be in one side of your finger, and out the other. It zaps your finger, but does little else. This scales right up to a lightning bolt. The electricity doesn't want to waste time hanging around in your chest fucking up your heart, it wants to get out of your gross body ASAP. So, say it hits your right hand which you're holding above your head to cover yourself from the rain, it's going to travel down your arm, down the side of your body, your leg, and out your foot. Even with the previously mentioned lowered amperage due to your resistance, **this will still hurt.** A lot. You probably have permanent nerve damage (Our nerves operate on electric signals, and can easily be overloaded and damaged.) as well as some crispy skin and possibly a few organs. But as long as that damage isn't too severe, and the electricity didn't cross your heart (From a lightning strike, this is pretty much guaranteed death.) you'll survive. Which is why, even when we get hit by several million volts, we can still live to tell the tale. I hope this is helpful OP.\n\nSource: Comms Tech in the military, work with and continue to learn about this stuff on a daily basis.\n\n**Edit:** As /u/browncoat_girl pointed out in [their comment,](_URL_0_) my third point is not technically how it works. For a basic understanding, it does the job, but if you want to know more about the actual workings, see her comment. This is why I said not to use that as an answer to your exams.",
"I'm an electrical engineer and here's my take on lightning. It's a common misconception that people survive being struck by lightning. When people are *\"struck by lightning\"* and survive, they're always struck by what is called a streamer. Streamers are small off shoots of the main arc or bolt of lightning. The streamers contain much less energy than the main arc. \n\nVoltage is not really relevant when it comes to injury. What kills is the current or actually the combination of current and voltage or the energy of the arc. \n\nThink of the static spark you get when putting on a coat or touching a door knob. This spark is often 10,000's of volts. However, if you touched a power line with 10,000 or more volts you would not likely survive in one piece. The difference is that the spark on the door knob has a very tiny current whereas the power line has a huge current potential. It's really the dissipated watts in the body that kills. Let me give you a personal example. \n\nYears ago, I was working with a 500,000 volt (400 watt) Tesla coil and suddenly it arced to my finger tip. The discharge nearly killed me. I had psychological problems for a month following the shock and still have some nerve damage to this day.\n\nHad the dissipated power been higher than 400 watts I would have likely died, had it been much lower I would not been injured. \n\nI have witnessed lightning strikes which have exploded trees and in one case blew up a brick patio with such force it threw bricks so high in the air they fell back and through the roof of the house and were found over 100 yards away from the strike. This happens because the energy in a main lightning arc is staggering. It will literally super heat the water in a tree or root as was the case with the patio, until the water turns to steam and a steam explosion occurs. \n\nNow imagine the human body taking the full energy of a lightning strike, the chances of survival are nearly zero. Yet the side streamers containing less energy (much like the Tesla coil) can hit a person such that they survive. \n\nA direct lightning strike on a human body will typically burn it to the appearance of charcoal, if it doesn't explode. \n\nIn this picture you can see a main lightning arc with many streamers. You can survive a streamer but not the main strike. \n_URL_0_ ",
"Well, you can send as much electricity through your arm as you like and it will never kill you (as long as it's on/off in an instant).\n\nWhen lightning strikes a person, it travels through their body in a certain path (much like how it travels through the sky). If that path does not intersect anything vital (basically just the heart, which can stop the heart) then it most likely won't kill you. ",
"Lightning strike survivor here. My strike went through my body and basically fried my nerves, so I was paralysed for awhile. It didn't get directly to my heart though. Took a path of least resistance. My nerves are still regenerating 9 years later.",
"I learnt at mechanic school that it's the amps that kill, the volts measures the amount of \"push\" in the system. The amps are what is being \"pushed\", and are what actually power a device. The volts are what knocks your ass across the room also causing injury from impacting whatever you've been thrown into.",
"It's the volts that jolts, but the mills that kills.\n\n1 billion volts won't kill if the are are only a small number of electrons being pushed through. 12 volts producing a high current flow (in amps) through the center of your body can.\n\n100 milliamps can kill you.\n\nHuman skin has certain resistance properties, partiularly when wet, that cause current flow to be mostly superficial.",
"I'd like to share this story, because there's rarely any opportunity to tell it, but I thought it was interesting and have never quite figured out what all happened.\n\nSo what day, it's overcast, sprinkling but not quite raining, but you can here the grumble of thunder in the distance. I'm on the phone with my mom -- just an iphone 4S I think -- in the laundry room in the back.\n\nWell, the laundry room has a big window, and but the door opens in front of me. I'm just pacing around as I'm on the phone, and I turn around to leave -- standing right next to the open door in front of the window -- and I hear what sounds like a loud *CLAP!*, and see a blinding, almost greenish flash.\n\nFunny thing; the sound didn't seem *that* loud, but I couldn't hear anything for like 10-15 seconds. I look at my phone, and... it's off. I try to power it on, and it's still working, but shows a low-battery sign, even though I know it had been pretty well charged.\n\nWell, about a minute later, I smell something weird in the laundry room.\n\nI close the door -- which had been open, in front of the window -- and the back of the door is completely charred. I'm talking a painted white door, is now burnt and completely black, but no sign of heat or flame.\n\nHere's what I find truly strange, though; the window it was in front of was completely fine.\n\nTo this day, I'm still wondering what the hell happened. Like, if lightning had truly struck the house outside of where I was, wouldn't there have been more damage? Yet, all evidence seemed to suggest that, yeah, lightning had struck just feet -- maybe inches -- away from me.\n\nDefinitely gave me some perspective, though, that apparently there is just *so much* energy, it managed to affect *the cell phone in my hand*.\n\nI dunno. Definitely something I wonder a lot about.",
"\nTL;DR: Often when lightning strikes a person, the person is wet. If the layer of water is less resistive than your internal organs, most of the current will flow through the layer of water. It'll heat up and burn you, but it doesn't necessarily kill you. \n\nAlso, often times lightning strikes in the vicinity of a person, but not the person directly. This usually means they'll get current flowing through their legs, but not across their heart, which usually isn't fatal. Again, serious burns will occur.\n\n\nLonger explanation\n\nSomething \"containing\" a certain amount of volts really doesn't convey well how it all works.\n\nThe voltage (or potential) is a measure for the difference in electric charge between two things. So when we say, there's 3.7V across a battery, that's a measure of how many electrons there's more on one terminal vs the other.\n\nThe bigger the voltage, the harder the electrons try to go from one place to the other (which is why the water pressure analogy often is used). Dry air can insulate about 1000V (1kV) per cm (about 2.54 kV per inch). So if you put two conductors 1 cm apart and put over 1kV across them, the air will start conducting. When this happens, the electricity will ionize the air, creating plasma. This is the spark you see. \n\nLightning is just a bigger version of that process, where the air in the clouds is electrically charged. This electricity tries to jump to anything with a lower charge. If the voltage across the air/ground gap is big enough, the electricity can flow across he gap.\n\nNow, what you need to understand is that electricity only kills if you get enough of it flowing at once through the wrong parts. The amount of electricity flowing through something is the current or amperage. \n\nPeople always say that it's not the volts, but the amps that kill you. In reality, it's both. You need enough voltage to get enough current flowing to hurt you. Your body has a certain resistance to electricity flow. (current = voltage / resistance). \n\nWhat's also important is the path the electricity takes. A big-ass current flowing from the tip of you finger to the palm of your hand will give you a nasty burn, but it won't stop your heart from beating. A small zap flowing from one arm to the other might do that more effectively.\n\nThe last thing you need to know is that electricity will follow the path of least resistance. If there's multiple paths available, the current flowing through each will be inversely proportional to each path's respective resistance.\n\nThus, if lightning strikes you when you have a layer of water all over your body (it's raining, most likely), that water might be conducting enough to keep most of the electricity from even entering your body. It just flows through the layer of water on your skin.\n\nA lightning strike will heat that water up a lot, though. So you'll probably have some serious burns. But if there isn't an appreciable amount of electricity flowing through your heart, chances are you'll live to tell the story. ",
"When I describe electricity to an electrical layman, which you could consider most of the public, I like to use water as an analogy.\nVoltage is the speed the water is moving at, so you can see how you would never say that a hose contains 60 miles per hour of water. You would talk about gallons or pressure. Electricity is the same. Lightning doesn't \"contain\" volts, it contains charge, which you could think of as amps or Watts (to avoid using the correct technical terms). \n The reason lightning often doesn't kill people is because it doesn't contain very much charge. \nThink of it as somebody pointing a hose at you that is a millionth of an inch across with very high pressure water. It is possible that this hose could cut a hole through the wrong part of you and kill you, but it isn't likely, and the hose is only on for a millisecond.",
"There are too many variables and too little time to accurately predict the outcome. Suffice to say that most people who are hit by lightning aren't directly hit. It just appears that way and we are notoriously bad observers. Anyway, the chances of a personal lightning hit are extremely remote, even if you are taking chances. ",
"A little over simplified, but:\nThere is a formula of Voltage=(Amperage)(Resistance). Think of electricity like water flowing down stream. Voltage is how much is going past a point, Amperage is how fast it is going, and resistance is something like rough pebbles on the bottom slowing it down. \nVoltage can be very large, like if you are swimming in the middle of a river, but if the water is not going very fast you can keep pace. If that same volume of water were going very quickly through a narrow canyon it would be much more dangerous.\nLightning has very high voltage, but the amperage is not very high in comparison (500 to 20000 A). It only takes about 0.1A to stop a heart, however, resistance and the path the electricity follows are a big factor. \nElectricity always takes the path of least resistance, so as others have said sweat or moisture will encourage the strike to run over the skin and muscles not through the core. \nResistance converts some of the electricity to heat, that causes burns along the path of the strike, and often an entry and exit wound where it arced out to the ground. As long as the path doesn't cross the heart or fry something vital the person will live.",
"[You know how lightning travels randomly through the sky, seeking out the least resistance path?](_URL_2_)\n\nSame inside a body. It doesn't have to transfer all of it's payload evenly, or even all across the vitals. Often it's across the skin that's wet with water. Your skin is a strong resistor, and acidic rain water is not.\n\nThat's why people who survive it often have[ fractal scars](_URL_0_), as the bolt[ skidded across the surface](_URL_1_). If it went inside, you'd be a crispy critter. But they're lucky if it does not.",
"You've got a ton of good responses already, but I always like the water example.\n\nIf you had a drop of 500 degree water (ignoring that it would be steam) dropped on you, you'd be fine. If you got into a bathtub of 500 degree water, you'd be dead.\n\nThe amount of degrees (or volts) is only relevant if there is a sufficient amount of energy behind it.",
"If you could somehow harness this lightning, channel it into the flux capacitor, no human harm will occur....you might get sent back in time to October 25, 1955 if you are cruising at precisely 88mph, but we never know when a bolt of lightning, capable of generating 1.21 giggawatts of electricity, will hit.",
"Follow up question - I've heard that a person who has been struck by lightening is statistically more likely to be struck by lightening again than someone who's not been struck. Would anyone know if this is true, and if so. . . Why?",
"Rough analogy is that volts are 'force' but amps are mass. Sort of. But yeah getting hit by a fly at high speed isn't so bad. Getting hit by a truck at low speed isn't so bad. Lightning is like getting shot by a bullet in that sense. It's bad and might kill you, but just cause it has a lot of force doesn't mean you get vaporized",
"How about an actual simple answer?\n\nAmperage is what will stop your heart, not voltage.",
"To make it super simple, not exactly the explanation but a good visual or idea why. Going into a plane at 500mph doesn't kill you, hitting a wall at 40mph does. Plane definitely have more energy but how that energy is used matters. Just like volts and amps. ELI5 version.",
"You forgot to talk about the scatter affect. The demonstration is the best I have seen. It is in the Natural History and Science Museum in Boston Mass. They have the two Tesla generators that were in the original Frankenstein movie that they use for demonstration. ",
"A lightning strike is a completely different animal than a shock you would get from the grid or household source. \n\nA major difference is frequency. 50/60 Hz, which grids run at, is horrible for surviving. Lightning is a complex signal comprised of many high frequencies. High frequencies cause most charge to flow through the outer edge of the conductor (in this case, the human body). \n\nAnother difference is duration, which makes a huge impact on the survivability. \n\n",
"Volts don't kill. Amps kill.\n\nIf you get *current* of any appreciable level run through you, you're toast. Just raw power won't really harm you as easily, at least not until it's at \"vaporize you\" levels."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/lightning-profile/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hk10n/eli5_if_the_average_lightning_strike_can_contain/db0zjdj/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hk10n/eli5_if_the_average_lightning_strike_can_contain/db1b7za/"
],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/17/4a/f3/174af3cdbaed72b77a3bbffd85bcf621.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/lightning-strike-scar-lichtenberg-figure-11.jpg?w=500&h=579",
"https://wyrdwordsandeffigies.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/10561524_1530525440496217_1652544327751371395_n.jpg",
"http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/slow-motion-lightning.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
g03wqs
|
why are constructors still using crushed stones alongside new railroad tracks instead of concrete?"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g03wqs/eli5_why_are_constructors_still_using_crushed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn7lwxw",
"fn7m2zw",
"fn7m9eg",
"fn7mfba",
"fn7mm06",
"fn7qp1y"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2,
13,
80,
14
],
"text": [
"Concrete can’t absorb water into the ground like the ballast you commonly see on tracks. They’re also better at distributing the weight of the tracks and the trains that travel along them.",
"This may not be the only reason, but using gravel is much cheaper than pavement and requires far less maintenance.",
"The rocks allow water to flow doen out of the way. If it were built on concrete, the water would pool and make it dangerous for trains to travel (think of driving fast on a puddle which causes you to hydroplane and skid uncontrollably). \n\nIt also helps protect the tracks from damage and being washed out.",
"Concrete is brittle in comparison and the weight and vibration would lead to cracks. It would be very costly to repair and you would have to repair very frequently.",
"Higher surface energy can absorb way more than things with lower surface energy without suffering catastrophic failure. Try hitting the sand in the beach with a hammer. It's very tough. It is very malleable. You can't cause it to \"fail\".\n\nNow take the sand, and turn it into glass. Hit it with a hammer, and you'll see that it can shatter. It is harder, sure, but it isn't tougher. It is brittle. It fails immediately.\n\nThe purpose is to maintain integrity of the surface. Bunch of smaller rocks can maintain a surface exposed to constant vibrations much more cheaply and effectively than one large solid piece.",
"Short answer: Ballast (crushed stone) is cheaper to install.\n\nLonger answer: Ballast is cheaper to install, but more expensive to maintain (depending on the lifetime of the railway, condition of the subsoil etc) than slab track (concrete). However, as trains become faster more slab track is being used as it's more stable and there's no risk of bits of ballast being made airborne by high speed trains passing over concrete slab. Slab is also commonly used in stations and tunnels where even a small amount of track movement would be unacceptable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4y99od
|
what happens to light beams when the light source is gone?
|
Imagine a scenario where a flashlight was pointing to space at night. Imagine turning off that flashlight, what happened to the light that came from the flashlight? Imagine the same scenario but with a laser pointer, does the same thing happen to the laser?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y99od/eli5_what_happens_to_light_beams_when_the_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6lzldf",
"d6lzvb3"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
" > Imagine turning off that flashlight, what happened to the light that came from the flashlight?\n\nThe light that was emitted keeps on going until it hits something.\n\n > Imagine the same scenario but with a laser pointer, does the same thing happen to the laser?\n\nSame thing, yes.",
"It takes light from our sun 8 minutes to reach earth, that means that if the sun somehow disappears, we'll find out 8 minutes later.\nThe same thing applies with the flashlight/laser, you turn it off, the light will continue to travel. As far as i know, there's no difference between a laser and a flashlight, they both travel the speed of light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7z917y
|
why are expiry dates almost always written poorly?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7z917y/eli5_why_are_expiry_dates_almost_always_written/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dum82u1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Partly because they're not really required; they're meant for grocery stores to know when to rotate stock, not an exact date for when food goes bad. By and large, if something doesn't smell or taste off, it's probably still good to eat, so don't worry about the dates.\n\nBut as for why they're written poorly: same reason that your local Best Buy has employee computers that run Windows XP or Vista and are 10 years old: cutting costs. It's not important that these be super-legible or easy for the stocker (remember, it's for them, not for you) to read, so they don't waste money on it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2kbpa8
|
in the case of reporting the names and pictures of people infected with diseases such as ebola, is it not a hippa violation.
|
Is there no confidentiality? And why would these peoples info be allowed to be publicized? Is this actually a violation of HIPAA?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kbpa8/eli5_in_the_case_of_reporting_the_names_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cljq7zs",
"cljqjcv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Medical professionals and anyone named in the HIPAA (not HIPPA) act cannot release the information.](_URL_0_) This does not stop journalists from releasing information once they have it. Journalists should balance privacy with public need-to-know information, but they are not required to keep names confidential.",
"Hippa isnt a gag order from a judge. On the consent to treat form it gives options limited to one with a pw to few to any on who gets info when asked about your condition. And it can be modified on an ongoing basis as requested by the patient or power of attorney"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/index.html"
],
[]
] |
|
3d7zvn
|
why does deepdream seem like it's mainly just adding eyeballs and animal faces to everything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d7zvn/eli5_why_does_deepdream_seem_like_its_mainly_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct2ohab"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"It relies on the image dataset you have given it. When you feed it animals and eyeballs, it's gonna dream about animals and eyeballs.\n\nThere is now a live system of DeepDream and it has a different dataset - > _URL_0_. You can see it's dataset in _URL_1_\n\nYou can guide what DeepDream is dreaming about in twitch chat and even combine words. My favourite was \"bikini\" ^^"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.twitch.tv/317070",
"http://image-net.org/explore"
]
] |
||
7nadrt
|
why google need to make sure that i'm not a robot ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7nadrt/eli5_why_google_need_to_make_sure_that_im_not_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ds09611"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They want ta prevent overuse o' their services by companies that want ta (fer example) create thousands o' email accounts fer spammin'.\n\n\n\nAlso, they make they money by sellin' ads, so they want their services used mainly by human users -- no one pays ta show advertisements ta bots. \n\nThere ye have it!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1hyxxb
|
cab someone explain apr to me?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hyxxb/eli5cab_someone_explain_apr_to_me/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cazbsri"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Simple interest is where the interest on your saving is paid in one lump sum. If you have $10,000 in the bank at 6%, after a year, they give you $600.\n\nCompound interest is where they pay interest more than once a year, usually monthly. So instead of getting 6% a year, you'd get 0.5% a month....after that first month, you'd earn $50 interest, and have $10,050 in your account.\n\nThe second month is where it gets interesting. You still get the $50, but since you have an extra $50 in the account, you get interest on that, too, for a total of $10,100.25. The next month, you get another $50, plus 0.5% of $100.25. By the end of the year, instead of $10,600, you have $10,616.78.\n\nSo it would almost like earning simple interest at 6.17%. That's basically what APR is, showing what the effective interest rate is, accounting for compounding.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.