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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mmuww | how does reddit enhancement suite know the exact number of upvotes and downvotes a comment receives? | Is it an algorithm that does an estimate of sorts? Or are those numbers actually 100% accurate? How does it work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mmuww/how_does_reddit_enhancement_suite_know_the_exact/ | {
"a_id": [
"c326jl5",
"c326s45",
"c329q68",
"c326jl5",
"c326s45",
"c329q68"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know for sure, so this is just a wild guess, but I'm assuming it has something to do with reddit's API and allowing calls to be made to the server for each comment. The total number of upvotes and downvotes is obviously stored on reddit's servers, so the RES most likely just runs a query on the server for that comment id and gets the upvotes/downvotes.\n\njust guessing, but if I had to program it that's how I'd do it",
"Stick \".json\" on the end of any reddit link to ask the server for a 'computer-readable' version of the thing ([here's your post](_URL_0_)). For submissions and comments, that contains a 'score' variable, as well as 'down' and 'ups'. My guess is that RES asks for the data that way.\n\nAs for accuracy, no it's not completely accurate. Reddit deliberately gives out slightly inaccurate data to confuse spambots.",
"The only TRUE number that reddit provides is the difference between the upvotes and the downvotes. For any submission or comment, at any given time, you can never know for sure the total votes, upvotes, or the downvotes. These numbers are faked just because when reddit admins originally removed them (to help with spam), people complained that they'd rather see fake numbers than no numbers.",
"I don't know for sure, so this is just a wild guess, but I'm assuming it has something to do with reddit's API and allowing calls to be made to the server for each comment. The total number of upvotes and downvotes is obviously stored on reddit's servers, so the RES most likely just runs a query on the server for that comment id and gets the upvotes/downvotes.\n\njust guessing, but if I had to program it that's how I'd do it",
"Stick \".json\" on the end of any reddit link to ask the server for a 'computer-readable' version of the thing ([here's your post](_URL_0_)). For submissions and comments, that contains a 'score' variable, as well as 'down' and 'ups'. My guess is that RES asks for the data that way.\n\nAs for accuracy, no it's not completely accurate. Reddit deliberately gives out slightly inaccurate data to confuse spambots.",
"The only TRUE number that reddit provides is the difference between the upvotes and the downvotes. For any submission or comment, at any given time, you can never know for sure the total votes, upvotes, or the downvotes. These numbers are faked just because when reddit admins originally removed them (to help with spam), people complained that they'd rather see fake numbers than no numbers."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mmuww/how_does_reddit_enhancement_suite_know_the_exact/.json"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mmuww/how_does_reddit_enhancement_suite_know_the_exact/.json"
],
[]
]
|
|
fkmj06 | how do rivers like roe river maintain crystal clear water? | Watching Tom Scotts "[What Counts As The World's Smallest River?](_URL_0_)" on youtube, and he mentions how the water is crystal clear. Wondering how bodies of water can maintain crystal clear water... Let's just say I'm thinking a miniature crystal clear river in my backyard would be a cool project to do, not that I'll ever do it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fkmj06/eli5_how_do_rivers_like_roe_river_maintain/ | {
"a_id": [
"fktk8yf"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"First is flow speed; if a river moves fast its likely to take pollutants that cause staining (leaves, algae) further down stream so build up of leaf matter etc is prevented which prevents staining.\n\nSecond is the source of the river, a lake can trap the leaves, or give algae a good place to grow, which allows the staining to occur meaning the river(s) coming from that lake are likely to be as stained as said lake.\n\nSo basically as long as a river flows fast enough to ensure most plant matter is washed downstream, and the source isn't stained (meltwater, some hotsprings) then you are going to have clear water. If the source is stained or the river flows slow enough for plant matter to build up then it is probably going to be stained also."
]
} | []
| [
"https://youtu.be/WEGzvZ85dgs"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
1kb9r3 | how does gillette style shaving cream spray out of the can as this tiny concentrated foam and magically cover my whole face when i rub it in? | You can see an example at 1:02 [here](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kb9r3/eli5_how_does_gillette_style_shaving_cream_spray/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbn76eg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A can of shaving cream is an aerosol* spray - which here means a gas dissolved, under pressure, in a liquid. When squirted out of the can, the gas evolves from the solution, which is a soapy liquid, creating a foam. There isn't much liquid there - it is mostly the gas.\n\nThe gas will continue to evolve from that liquid for some time after it is released, especially as it is warmed by rubbing against the skin. So the volume increases as you rub the foam onto your face.\n\n*This is a non standard use of the term 'aerosol', possibly from an old trademark. 'Aerosol' actually means a solid, like dust or smog, in suspension in a gas."
]
} | []
| [
"http://youtu.be/WE7BAwcmEFs?t=1m2s"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
65oc6o | what are you actually supposed to do with your voice to sing. how do you get the sing-song sound to come out. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65oc6o/eli5_what_are_you_actually_supposed_to_do_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgbwci1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If it makes you feel any better, Bono had the same problem. One day he just discovered it. Which was good, because the other band members had already elected him singer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2kgk6j | how did they solve trigonometric equations before calculators? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kgk6j/eli5_how_did_they_solve_trigonometric_equations/ | {
"a_id": [
"cll2owo",
"cll3dfe",
"cll3ns9",
"cll3zc6"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
10,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming you mean sine cosine etc? They had tables you'd go to look up the values. ",
"There was a whole lot more memorizing of values such as sin(30[degrees])=0.5 . For uncommon angles or larger radii, there were entire books published of nothing but sine, cosine and tangent charts, though if you know sine, you can figure out the other 5 trig values relatively painlessly. Some higher-end slide rules also have trig functions on them. You could also take a triangle and figure out the ratios of length in sides from the angle in question; as in a right triangle with a 45 degree angle, and a 1 inch vertical, you would state that tan(1/1)=45 {this is a basic trig identity} so then you could use the good ol' Pythagorean Theorem to state that the hypotenuse is [sqrt 2]. So this means that 1/[sqrt 2] =sin(45)\nIf the angle was 34.67 degrees, you would probably look it up if the value wasn't given.",
"I can show you what sin(x) means in terms of a function if you like, its probably a bit in depth for this sub reddit... or maybe not.\n\nsin(x) = (x/1) - (x^3 /6) + (x^5 /120) - (x^7 /5040) .......\n\nThey mean the same thing, you have to raise the powers of x in that pattern to increase the accuracy. so for x^11 and x^13. The numbers the x values are divided by are something called a factorial which is represented by a !\n\nSo, for example you see the (x^3 /6). That 6 is just the the number 3! (in this case the factorial in the bottom is exactly the same as the power you raise x by within the bracket). So 3! = 3x2x1 =6. Factorial means you multiply the number before the ! by every integer down to 1.\n\nSO inside the brackets, it would be written as (x^n /n!) where n= 1,3,5...\n\nDon't forget to alternate the + and - signs throughout.\n\n",
"Basically, you memorized as many as you could and then they had books that listed all you needed to know 9or they might have been a few important ones listed on your sliderule) Source: My grandpa got an engineering degree in the 60's and when he retired I got his slide rule and old textbooks.\n\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=trig+log+book&client=firefox-a&hs=nbm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=t05OVJmdM4WvyATM1IL4Cg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=913#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=m9fNBfBV12tw7M%253A%3Bc8GNXzq7qalsjM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcalculating.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F09%252Ftrig-easy-3.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcalculating.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F09%252F25%252Fworld-war-2-defence-industry-trig-easy-trigonometry-charts%252F%3B1227%3B1024"
]
]
|
||
1x3bdw | if tobacco companies are beginning to get desperate about losing business to a more health-conscious public, why don't they reduce the amount of additives and create a less harmful cigarette? | Surely they don't NEED to put hydrogen cyanide and cadmium in their cigarettes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x3bdw/eli5_if_tobacco_companies_are_beginning_to_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf7pjhq",
"cf7pkhw"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"A lot of the chemicals they add actually serve a purpose, they don't add them to purposely make them more addictive (though maybe I'm naive but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).\n\nFor example, some the chemicals will cause the cigarette to burn out if you leave it unattended. This serves a safety purpose (potential fire risk if you leave it burning unattended) and saves the rest of the cigarette from being wasted.",
"There are cigarette brands that offer no-additive tobacco (such as American Spirit), which have kind of taken off in recent years. That said, the older, more established brands are naturally hesitant to change formulas. Why do that and risk losing loyal customers when you could just make a new line of zero-additive products?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4h4t4o | why does wood rot and go bad if left out in the water too long, but trees that grow in lakes can survive their entire life. | Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h4t4o/eli5_why_does_wood_rot_and_go_bad_if_left_out_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2nddvz",
"d2nde6b",
"d2nderi",
"d2nfhpo",
"d2ng32f"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Some plants are adapted to grow in water like that, but honestly, lots of trees will drown and die if their roots are flooded for a prolonged period of time.",
"The simplest answer is that the trees are alive, and pieces of wood are pieces of dead trees. \n\nA tree has an entire internal system that regulates water and nutrients, and gets rid of excesses and wastes. \n\nThe wood is dead, and therefore will begin to breakdown like any other life form after death. ",
"Wood that is separated from a tree is dead, dead things rot over time. A fish can grow and survive in water, but a fish that is already dead will rot in water.",
"not all wood rots out in the water. There's a whole show about it where a hick in daisy dukes drives a boat around louisiana looking for logs. ",
"Wood is xylem cells. The older rings (those closest to the center of the trunk) of xylem cells within any tree are dead and no longer transport water or nutrients. Their purpose is structural, and this part of a tree can rot while the tree is still alive. Rot occurs when fungus enters a wound created on the tree, e.g. a broken branch or woodpecker hole. The older xylem cells will then begin to decay. In some cases, healthy older trees are rotten and hollow on the inside. As long as the sapwood (newer xylem cells), cambium, and phloem cells (inner bark) are intact, the tree can survive for a very long-time with a rotten core.\n\nSource - Certified Forester"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
12kv6i | if tv shows make the bulk of their money through syndication, why not let all tv shows reach 100 episodes? | If TV Shows make the bulk of their money through syndication, why not let all TV shows reach 100 episodes?
Even if the rating sucks for its intiail run, the money it would generate in secondary markets would make up for it, wouldnt it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12kv6i/if_tv_shows_make_the_bulk_of_their_money_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6vx1bt",
"c6vxx5x",
"c6vz4eq"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If it has low ratings in early episodes, that means nobody's watching it. Why get struggle to 100 episodes then syndicate where even less people will watch it?",
"There's a limited amount of time on any given channel that would purchase rights to a syndicated show. They choose the ones that have proven track records of people watching them, or in rare cases, ones that are cult hits that might get a dedicated viewership, even if they weren't successful in their initial runs. For the rest (i.e., the vast majority of shows), there's no point in pushing them to 100.",
"Because the tv network buying the first run doesn't care about syndication. \n\nModern Family for example is produced by Fox, but ABC purchased the right to air it.\n\nFox would LOVE to have the show syndicated. ABC doesn't have a stake in that game, they're only making money on the first run. \n\nEven if ABC were producing Modern Family, it would be a different part of the company.\n\nBasically syndication helps the tv show production company, which the broadcasting network doesn't care about. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3dhtgs | what makes pee burn when you're dehydrated? | Also, I've noticed when this happens the burning feeling lingers. Is it something in the pee?
Edit: guys I'm not worried that I have an std. This came up today while I was remembering a time I got an IV due to dehydration. I'm honestly just asking to explain what makes pee burn when someone's dehydrated. But kudos for the concern about my sexual health | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dhtgs/eli5_what_makes_pee_burn_when_youre_dehydrated/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct597c4",
"ct5gazw",
"ct5iwu5",
"ct5k9e5",
"ct5qdo9",
"ct5qqei"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Uh, that's not normal. You might want to go talk to a doctor if it burns when you pee. Good luck with that and remember, \"No glove, no love.\"",
"It's kinda like drinking straight cordial concentrate with little to no water. Except in this case, your urethra is ' tasting' this highly concentrated urine and as such it burns.",
"You don't have an STD. It's just that your body is extremely dehydrated. Others probably haven't experienced this before, but it's painful. The pain will linger for a couple days, but take that pain as a reminder to drink enough water.",
"Pee is your body getting rid of toxins that dissolve in water.\n\nIf there isn't enough water to dissolve them all, these toxins interact with your urinary tract more than your tract was designed to take; which hurts.",
"Well I can see from a lot of these answers that these people dont play sports and have never been this kind of dehydrated. As someone who does and has been dehydrated to the point of slightly painful urination an uncountable amount of times, I would have to say its because of the elevated percentage of amonia and other chemicals in your urine as compared to water. Hydrated pee is a much higher percentage water, so you dont feel burning like when you are super dehydrated",
"I believe what causes it to burn is urea and uric acid, which cannot be kept in the blood stream and must be expelled in the urine. The fact that there is a lack of water to dissolve those chemicals makes it painful to pee. \nIn case of infection, the pain comes from the bacterial action over the urine, that transformed it in ammonia. Ammonia is irritating to the skin (as you might know from using certain detergents) and so it causes pain during miction. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3serad | what stops a corporation from creating a country? | A rich corporation could buy a piece of land from some poor country and then pay the country to give up their claim to the land. The corporation could found their own country and use it as a tax evasion paradise. What stops them from doing this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3serad/eli5_what_stops_a_corporation_from_creating_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwwj2e2"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Countries exist only because they are recognized as legitimate by other countries. If a corporation bought a bunch of land and tried to found their own country, the rest of the International community would just say, \"Nope, you're not actually a country, and we're not going to treat you like one.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
66ryv8 | what are swaps in banking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66ryv8/eli5_what_are_swaps_in_banking/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgksy8c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Do you mean a stock swap?\n\nThis is where instead of one company buying another for cash, they use shares to do it. \n\nLets say company A has 10,000 shares trading at $100 each. Company A could be (rather simplisticly) valued at $1M. It wants to by company B which has 5,000 shares trading at $50 each, so a valuation of $250K. So Company A could do a bunch of things to buy B - take a loan, issue more shares of its own... or they could just offer the shareholders of B a swap; B shares are exchanged for new A shares.\n\nAssuming no assets, IP, capital, bank accounts or goodwill gets destroyed through the merger, Company AB would in theory be worth $1.25M, the sum of both A and B separately. B shares are half as much as A shares, so B shareholders get one A share for every two B shares. 5,000 Bs - > 2,500 A's at $100. Total AB shares: 12,500 @ $100 = $1.25M.\n\nBut, the B shareholders have to vote for this action. Maybe they value B at more than $50 and want to hold onto them. But A really wants something that B has, like some patents or something. So maybe A sweetens the pot: \"We'll give you 2 A shares in exchange for only 3 (not 4) B shares.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2ucbuz | how do people make sfx from scratch? | Like sci-fi stuff that you couldn't replicate in real life (lasers etc) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ucbuz/eli5_how_do_people_make_sfx_from_scratch/ | {
"a_id": [
"co73wyw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"One way is to record everyday sounds, and then play around with the recording: pitching it up or down, speeding it up, slowing it down, playing it backwards, adding reverb, messing about with the graphic equalizer (Audacity is one free software application that will allow you to do that).\n\nThe sound of the doors in the classic version of *Star Trek* was based on the sound of a squeaky shoe combined with the sound of a piece of paper being taken out of an envelope. In *Doctor Who*, the sound of the TARDIS dematerialising is the sound of a key being dragged along piano wires, played backwards. In fact, in the early days of TV, the BBC's Radiophonics Workshop was a room full of things that could be hit, twisted, pulled, snapped, dropped and crumpled to make all sorts of unearthly noises, from death rays to flying saucers."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6fo4kl | what's the difference between singing and speaking and are you actually producing a note when you speak? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6fo4kl/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_singing_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"diju901"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is no difference. Singing is just speaking in a different pitch. If you look at languages where the pitch of the pronounciation affects the meaning (e.g. Chinese), the music in these languages have lyrics written in a way so that the spoken lyrics follows the song's progression. If you read these lyrics out through normal speaking, it is almost like singing the song simply by following the correct pronounciation of the lyrics.\n\nA note is just a sound at a particular frequency, which is the same as a spoken syllable. Whether or not speech sounds like an instrument depends on how different the waveforms are that generate the sound. An easy way to see this is to listen to the sounds of a sine wave and a sawtooth wave of the same frequency and compare their difference. Of course, speaking and singing have far more complicated waveforms, but the general idea is the same."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1e4642 | what makes a good cigar? | So I have been smoking cigars on special occasions for several years now, and I still have no idea what I'm doing. I am beginning to associate with superiors at work that enjoy a good cigar, and I am woefully ignorant on the topic- brands, regional variances, differences in styles, etc. All I know is that darker generally means stronger. Help! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e4642/eli5_what_makes_a_good_cigar/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9wofqx",
"c9wp3ju"
],
"score": [
4,
15
],
"text": [
"What makes a good cigar? A committed Cuban.",
"1) If you don’t remember anything else, at least remember this: All cigars are definitely not made the same. If you're looking for a quality cigar smoking experience, picking up a two dollar box of Dutch Masters will not do the trick (unless you're planning to tear them open and fill them with weed, in which case those are exactly what you want).\n\n2) At the very least, find something handmade. White Owls, Phillies, Dutch Masters and anything else sitting behind the counter at your local bodega are machine rolled trash. If you're looking for the good stuff, find a tobacconist in your area. They should have their cigars nicely stored and displayed in a humidor, which will likely be a large cabinet with glass doors or, even more awesomely, an actual room. You'll know it when you see it.\n\nIf the place you're buying your cigar from doesn't have a humidor, you're in the wrong place. Pick us up a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos and get the hell out of there.\n\n3) Cigars come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Instead of bombarding you with information about what differentiates a Churchill from a Lonsdale and such, I'll try to make this part as basic as possible. If you're looking for a full-bodied smoke with lots of complex flavors, go for something with a dark wrapper (maduro). If you're more the born to be mild type, go for a lighter colored wrapper.\n\nThe ring gauge of the cigar (exactly what it sounds like, think finger size) also plays into the complexity of the smoke. A larger ring gauge allows for a more complex mix of tobaccos, more smoke, etc.\n\nIt’s not a scientific method by any means, but think about how you drink your coffee. Do you order the medium roast or the dark roast? Cream and sugar or black? Your cigar preference probably isn't too much different. If you find yourself at a loss to decide, ask the tobacconist for help. That’s what they get paid for.\n\n4) See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Now that you've selected your smoke, by all means, smoke it. Like, right now if possible.\n\nHere’s the thing, cigars are a delicate beast. They have to be stored in ideal conditions or they go right to shit. Unless you have a perfectly calibrated, cedar lined humidor at home to store your cigar in, you want to leave as little delay between purchase and light up as possible. A few hours shouldn’t be a problem, but make sure you keep your cigar sealed in a ziplock bag or something.\n\n5)Before you can fire up, you're going to have to cut the end off. Some people refer to this as “creating an aperture.” Those people ~~are pretentious dickfaces~~ my be your bosses, so it is good to familiar with the term.\n\nThere are all sorts of fancy implements that will do the job, but those in the know stick with the reliable old guillotine. You can buy them literally anywhere that fine cigars are sold. They're cheap. Buy one.\n\nCut right above the cap line just before the curved end of the cigar.\n\n6) Lighting your cigar is a bit more complex than you might imagine. It’s not like a cigarette. Lighting it like one will have dire consequences for your smoking enjoyment.\n\nFirst of all, use wood matches or a butane lighter. It doesn't matter which one you choose, just steer clear of paper matches or gas lighters. They contain chemicals that will alter the flavor of your smoke for the worst. Once you've settled on your fire of choice, do this:\n\n*Before actually lighting the cigar, warm the tobacco in the foot of the cigar (the part you light) by holding the flame underneath the foot, but not actually touching it, and rotating the cigar a few times. This will soften the tobacco up and make it more available to your warming flame.\n\n*Next, hold the flame (use a new match if needed) in front of the cigar, but not actually touching it. Inhale softly and rotate the cigar to ensure an even light.\n\n*If necessary, lightly blow on the foot of the cigar to get everything burning evenly.\n\n7) Cigars aren't meant to be smoked to the point that you can barely hold them without burning your fingers. Once you hit the halfway point, you'll begin to notice that things are getting progressively less pleasant on the smoking front. That means it’s time to let it die."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2x90am | why aren't fish farmed like cattle rather than caught in the wild? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x90am/eli5_why_arent_fish_farmed_like_cattle_rather/ | {
"a_id": [
"coxyfqd",
"coxyfrt",
"coxyftw",
"coxygk3",
"coxyiby",
"coxykit",
"coxyy13",
"coy2j83",
"coynpef"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They ARE farmed like cattle. Have you ever heard of fish hatcheries? This system has the whole nine yards.. everything from birthing ponds to processing ponds.\n\nThis is also just as bad when it comes to the quality of fish meat.",
"They are. Either in dedicated and specially equipped ponds, or in special cages in the sea close to land. ",
"Well they are. There are big salmon farms in Norway for example.\nIt just gets harder to do the same with salt water fish.",
"They are, but they are fairly tricky to farm in land, as the need lots of water.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Some fish are farmed. Others require so much in the way of space and resources/are so plentiful that it's more practical to go out and catch them.",
"They are farmed but some fish don't do well in captivity and some fish have a quality of meat issue if they're not in the wild. Like take for instance some species of crab. King crab is really difficult to keep in a farm because they don't grow as large so they have to be caught in the wild.",
"They ARE farmed like cattle. [Fish Farms](_URL_0_) have been around for a while to make catching fish more reliable and easier. \n\nDownside is they aren't as tasty and nutritious as wild fish. ",
"Fish are farmed. They are actually called \"Farm Raised\" and more of the fish we eat in the US is raised this manner than caught wild. This is why wild caught is more expensive. ",
"They are.\n\nYou, sir, have obviously never been to Louisiana."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ftffa.com/content/fish_farming_in_fl.php"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
dbji5j | how does more than one person at a time play rock/paper/scissors? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dbji5j/eli5_how_does_more_than_one_person_at_a_time_play/ | {
"a_id": [
"f229519"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In general it doesn't really work as it can lead to confusion, but as long as everyone understands the rules ahead of time it is possible.\n\nEveryone throws a sign just like normal and one of three things will happen.\n\nOnly one gesture is used (eg everyone does rock). Tie, nothing happens and you play again.\n\nAll three gestures are used, also a tie, nothing happens and you go again.\n\nOnly two gestures are shown. Everyone showing the \"losing\" gesture is eliminated and the game continues with the remaining players until only 1 player remains. (eg in a 5 player game 3 people show rock, 2 show scissors - the two scissors players are elimated, the 3 rocks go again)\n\nIt should be pretty obvious but the more players you have the more likely it is that you will always have all 3 gestures used. Even with only four players, if the signs are chosen at random the likely hood that the round will end a tie is around 50%\n\nThe more players you add the higher that chance will go, and since it's possible you only lose one or two players at a time, you can stand around forever and get no where.\n\n\nAn alternate method is to count the highest gesture used, and that sign \"wins\" the round. Anyone that would lose to that sign is eliminated, anyone that uses that gesture or the one that would beat it in a normal game stays in the game. Continue until only 1 remains.\n\nEg if there's 10 people and 4 choose rock, 3 choose paper and 3 choose scissors. Rocks stay because they have the most players, paper stays because the majority (rocks) can't defeat them and all scissors players are eliminated.\n\nThis method ensures someone will be eliminated almost every round (perfect ties such as 3-3-3 or if all players choose the same sign) would result in no elimination."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
35jyan | what's that weird tingling sensation i feel in my crotch when i'm on a roller coaster or swing? | Pretty self explanatory. There's a weird sensation that goes through my crotch...like through the testicles to the upper abdomen whenever I have an experience of weightlessness, what is that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35jyan/eli5_whats_that_weird_tingling_sensation_i_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr54q47",
"cr550us",
"cr55plu",
"cr5bpnk",
"cr5btv9",
"cr5e2gc",
"cr5e8c1",
"cr5faj4",
"cr5uz2i"
],
"score": [
22,
196,
10,
69,
7,
2,
4,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"There's a good chance I'm wrong, but I think it's due to the negative g-force your body is experiencing. ",
"Your body is use to certain pressures and changes in pressure, like when you trip. A feeling of weightlessness is a pressure you are not familiar with and the result is a unfamiliar tingle in your guts, which is rich in nerves.",
"It's called the whoop-whoop factor. When you're in a potentially dangerous or precarious situation, your balls will basically pull up to be close to your body, a phenomenon which can cause some tingling or other sensations. ",
"Our body is filled with all sorts of sensors. We generally refer to this array of sensors as our nervous system.\n\nUnlike our computers and other electronic sensors a lot of our bodies sensors learn how they operate through use. The more you experience something the more we understand it. As well there are other sensors that just go off, always relaying information.\n\nWhen you experience these immense changes your body tells you this. Some sensors that inform you of how fast you are moving suddenly go off saying we are going at speeds almost never experienced. This causes an absolute flutter of activity as your body tries to figure out what in the world to do about all of this new info. Specifically how can we not be dead at the end of this sudden deadly speed.\n\nOur bodies systems are regulated by two sides of these sensors. The sympathetic and the parasympathetic. One inhibits things, keeps us calm and enables all sorts of systems we need to eat, reproduce and live. The other excites things, gets our heart going. It also can shut down systems we don't need to live that very second. They are constantly working but can kick it up a notch if need be.\n\nSo when you experience these rushes your body isn't used to them and they send a whole whack of data. Your nervous system pretty much assumes this is the worst thing ever so it prepares you to act. Digestion is complicated and requires a lot of our processes. So does reproduction. You get all tingly because your body is switching gears. Forget digesting and makin babies. We are going to flippin die!!!\n\nOur consciousness allows us to not freak fully out. Our body can't tell the difference so it sends a bunch of the signals anyways. The same way it's hard to stop yourself from jumping at a scary movie even when you know it's coming. The raw input causes the reaction, but we can somewhat control how emotionally nutty we get.\n\nSo basically you are feeling your body going into fight or flight mode. You don't need to eat or have babies if you are dead so those parts react to be turned off. And back on again, it's stressful.",
"Are only men experiencing this feeling? I recall talking with girls about it, and that they never felt anything similar. ",
"Tingling? To me it's AGONY (rollercoaster). Nothing on a swing though.",
"Your organs are usually all smushed together by gravity. When you are in free fall your internals are just \"floating around\", and that causes that strange sensation. Astronauts have that feeling while orbiting.",
"James may would call it \"fizzing penis root\" \n\n_URL_0_ :)",
"Yo i get the same feeling when im playing games like gta and i jump off a plane and watch myself fall...i know its weird but it happens"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.topgear.com/uk/james-may/james-may-fizz-2001-02-24"
],
[]
]
|
|
2l8n20 | seeing the new laws regarding gay marriage in certain states, was same-sex marriage actually illegal in the us or was it just looked down upon? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l8n20/eli5_seeing_the_new_laws_regarding_gay_marriage/ | {
"a_id": [
"clsgw71",
"clsh357"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It was flat out illegal. But that's a curious word to use. Since there was previously no legal provision for gays to marry, you can't really say it was illegal. They could call themselves married, they just weren't recognized as such by the government.\n\n",
"For this question, it would probably be best to distinguish between marriage as a *social* construct and marriage as a *legal* construct. As a social construct, marriage is two people living together in a committed relationship. For many years, this was all that there was to marriage; if a man and a woman said they were husband and wife, that was all there was to it. This meaning still exists in the \"common-law\" usage; if you hear somebody described as a \"common-law spouse\", for example, that means that although they haven't officially filed paperwork for marriage, they've been with their \"common-law spouse\" for long enough that everybody assumes they're married.\n\nMarriage as a *legal* construct in the U.S. involves the government, particularly in that it includes shared property, shared tax responsibility, protection from testifying against each other, and generally includes things like being able to be on each others' health insurance, visit each other in the hospital (during family-only hours), and so forth.\n\nAs a social construct, there were no federal laws against same-sex marriage, and to the best of my knowledge no state laws (though I can't be absolutely certain of that). As a *legal* construct, there was no federal law against it... but there doesn't have to be. In order to be a legal construct, there has to be a law *for* it. On a state level, many states did have laws specifically barring same-sex marriage from having legal recognition; these are what you're seeing get struck down left and right. Many states are now specifically passing laws establishing same-sex marriage as a legal concept. In those states, while it may not have been illegal beforehand, it also wasn't recognized; it just \"wasn't a thing\", officially. So if a gay couple considered themselves married, their friends and families might consider it the case, but the state would not have. The state wouldn't arrest them... it just wouldn't care, and wouldn't grant them the benefits that a legally-married couple would have."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1dcfuu | why do lights hum? | I'm sitting in one of our study rooms and the lights are making a humming noise, any idea why this happens? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dcfuu/eli5why_do_lights_hum/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9oz9kc",
"c9ozbvw",
"c9p0fxf"
],
"score": [
13,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Some lights, like fluorescent tubes, require voltages different from those in regular wall power. To transform wall power into what is required for the bulbs something imaginatively called a \"transformer\" is used.\n\nA transformer uses the fact that an electric current through a wire produces a magnetic field, and a magnetic field produces a current in a wire (induction). This is how electricity is made in a generator, by cranking magnets around near coils of wire. In a transformer one coil can be made to induce a current in another, but with differing numbers of coils the voltage can be changed. So we could increase the voltage for our bulbs with just two coils of wire wrapped around some chunks of iron.\n\nNow if you recall the magnetic field used to transfer this current can be quite strong. Also it isn't steady, it switches back and forth (AC = alternating current). This switching creates physical stresses in the structure of the transformer, it is like a big magnetic hand trying to bend the coils this way and that. While the structure is strong enough to withstand such forces, it is bound to flex somewhat. That means quick, short vibrations which can often cause audible humming.",
"At the end of fixtures, there is an iron core that touches the bulb and limits current (called a 'ballast'), and a magnetic field actually squeezes the iron core that is in it. As it contracts and expands (120 times per second!), it makes a humming noise. ",
"Lights usually only hum when a ballast is going bad. Also, wouldn't the humming have to do with the magnetic field making the sheet metal of the fixture resonate with the frequency of the coil?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
757nd0 | how are some 3d tvs able to turn 2d programs into 3d? don't they need depth information(which they don't have in 2d programs) to be able to display 3d images? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/757nd0/eli5_how_are_some_3d_tvs_able_to_turn_2d_programs/ | {
"a_id": [
"do42you",
"do46xih"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The general idea is that you'd need to infer the depth information from the video; according to an [article on Wikipedia](_URL_0_), this is typically done using a combination of:\n\n - Depth from motion. The idea being that if you can track objects / parts of the video across subsequent frames, you can measure how fast they are moving. Faster moving objects are typically closer to the camera.\n - Depth from focus. Measuring the amount of blur on an object gives you an idea of the relative position of that object compared to objects which are not blurred.\n - Depth from perspective. Sometimes parallel lines (road markings, etc) can be inferred from the video, and their convergence used to indicate depth.\n",
"I don't know about all the intrinsic mechanics of how 2D is transformed into 3D content. But i figure it less like theirs an algorithim to make the content 3d, but more of a shooting fish in a barrel approach. At least i'm thinking it depends on the technology.\n\nYou can make anything 2D content 3D, but it wont look properly. Like having one of those little stretch Armstrong toys as a kid. You can pull and stretch certain parts of the toy right? So you do that with a 2D image on a 3D t.v. You just have certain parts of the frame apply the effect. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion#Automatic_conversion"
],
[]
]
|
||
2bo4p6 | why am i utterly terrified of death? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bo4p6/eli5_why_am_i_utterly_terrified_of_death/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj78f77",
"cj78vs8",
"cj79178",
"cj79kx7",
"cj7autu"
],
"score": [
25,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the best explanation is the evolutionary one. Those people (and other animals) who weren't absolutely terrified of death didn't put out as much effort to avoid it and might have even welcomed it.\n\nIt's better from a survival perspective to be scared and wrong (you're just embarrassed) than relaxed and wrong (you get eaten by a tiger). So the neurotic ones tended to survive longer.\n\n(But of course, it's not better on a daily basis to feel that way.)",
"I am a Christian and I believe the concept of death and the afterlife is too large for our minds to handle. For me- I have a hard time contemplating it and have been driven to panic attacks. Space and the origin of God and the universe triggers me too. We have a fear of the unknown. No person living has experienced death. We are afraid becausedeath is our biggest enemy and life's inevitable guarantee.",
"Fearing death helps you keep yourself alive. Let's look at it a bit more specifically: you know a specific species of spider is poisonous and you're afraid of it. You see one of those spiders and you stay away from it because you know it could kill you. A person who's not naturally wary around that spider is much more likely to get bitten and die.\n\nYour ancestors were afraid of the spider. And of a lot of other dangerous things! The commonality between them all: the fear was justified by the stakes. Death. Pretty big stakes! So in acting on their fears and staying away from dangerous stuff, they stayed alive longer to have more kids, who inherited their fears, and had more kids. Fast forward to you and I: our ancestors didn't get poisoned, crushed, stabbed, sick, or whatever else before they bore and raised our other ancestors. Fear helped us come into existence!",
"Even if you're atheist, you're not dead when you \"die\". Even before you were born, you weren't dead.\n\nLife isn't something that was first created in single celled organisms. Life exists in the fields (like electromagnetic fields) or strings (string theory?), that connect subatomic particles together. It might not be advanced, it might not be able to carry memories, it might not be able to think the way we think since we are basically a network of trillions of trillions of living things that all work together to form what we think is a single consciousness, what we think is a single life.\n\nYou, your body, is trillions upon trillions of living things. All your brain cells are individual living things, all connected. One brain cell is a living thing. It's not the carbon that is alive, the life is somewhere in the connection between the carbon atoms, probably even between the subatomic particles in each atom.\n\nWhen you die, you don't disappear from existence. It's more like you dissolve and become one with eternity for a while, totally in the moment every moment until you connect with a bunch of other particles to become a giant system of living things again. When you dissolve into those fundamental units of life, you, or some part of you, is now in each of those things, disconnected from each other in one sense, and yet the connection to everything in the universe is always there, like how gravity connects every unit of matter to every unit of matter in the universe. Gravity even affects light. What I mean by always being in the moment is that at that fundamental unit, many times smaller than an atom, you don't have that organic brain with the trillions of trillions of atoms making up each individual brain cell that each make up your whole memory storing brain. Without that giant brain to store memories, there is no past or future, there just is. THAT is exactly what they mean when they say you die and become one with the universe, one with everything, one with eternity.\n\n Even a single celled organism is the combination of millions of atoms. A single celled organism is millions of atoms communicating to each other to strive for these goals: Live, grow, and spread.\n\nHow does this single celled organism know this by instinct? Every single living organism inherently knows this. There isn't a single living thing in the universe that doesn't inherently know this. Life exists before the single cell. Something exists in the very ether of the universe, think the Philotes from Ender's Game. When you die, you just dissolve into those trillions of trillions of units of life again. \n\nWhen you die, think of yourself as being set free. You are now in that state of everything again, no sense of time, no sense of a past or future, just the eternal present. You're still there, you're just divided and spread out everywhere now.\n\nSo you will never be completely gone, just momentarily separated until you join with other parts of the universe into clumps of advanced self-aware hydrogen atoms again, basically.\n\nThe universe isn't going to last a trillion years, or quintillion, it goes on forever. Anyone that believes that we had one Big Bang and then one day it will be over doesn't understand anything about the universe at all. That belief in itself breaks so many laws of physics that it baffles me why any scientist would actually believe that. The universe(s) cycle(s) for all eternity. It's either spiraling around and everything goes from the center and out and in again, or it's pulsing where everything spreads out like a strange multi-dimensional balloon and then in again. Whatever way it would look to a human floating outside the edge of the universe, somehow it cycles.\n\nThe universe is one giant living thing that divides into countless living things, and then joins into one, and just repeats forever. It's a beautiful thing once you realize it. We will all be one one day, and then divide into a bunch of living things to discover ourselves and existence, and then back, and just keep doing it. It's a neverending party of birth and rebirth. There is no death, there is just the transition from life to rebirth. The universe was never dead, you're just not always perceiving you as yourself all the time, because you're not always you, and not always self-aware in this endless cycle.\n\n\nAnd don't even worry about death. There are ways to die painlessly nearly instantly without pain, either a massive explosion up in your face, closed room of carbon monoxide, whatever. So don't worry about cancer, don't worry about disease, war, old age, or any of that. There will always be a kind and gentle way to \"die\", and then one day after floating around as a basically non self-aware unit of life, you will be a complex self aware living being again.\n\nSo you will never suffer for eternity always stuck as you, or always stuck as not you, you will always be cycling. Think of starting a whole new MMORPG everytime you hit max level and do all the end game stuff. Don't be afraid when the game is over, just be happy and cherish those old memories as they fade away and make room for a totally reliving a whole adventure all over again, without being bored because it will always feel like you're experiencing it for the first time all over again.\n\nAnd yet, you will always have this slight little feeling, that somehow, you've been here before. You've always been here. It's like when you played Pokemon Red/Blue on the Gameboy, and then Fire Red/Leaf Green on the Gameboy Advance. Rediscovering things you've done before, but it never gets old.",
"Everybody dies, they die in their beds, they die at their tables, they die on their chamber pots. Sooner or later death comes for everyone, so don't worry about your death. Worry about your life. Perfect what can be perfected, prepare a death song for when your trumpet sounds. And die like a hero, going home."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4cdt17 | why i'm able to over-eat for months at a time, then seemingly able to eat nothing following those months. are calorie deficits/debts a real thing? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cdt17/eli5_why_im_able_to_overeat_for_months_at_a_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1ha7ng"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Technically, you can go without food for a long time. A very long time. Depending on fat stores. Is this healthy? Not really. I remember reading about a severely obese man eating nothing for 1 year while staying/monitored at a hospital in some very controversial treatment. So yes in a way calorie deficits and debts are a thing, but remember that your body prefers to be at a natural size and would like to stay that way. Forcefully starving/overeating yourself is not a truly not a healthy choice. \n\nWater is another thing. You can't go without water, that will kill you in about 3 days. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1y1xzv | how exactly does a quantum computer contain the superpositions of many bits? | I know that the number of classical bits contained in a set of qubits is given by 2^n, where n is the number of qubits, but how exactly does a computer store that much information? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y1xzv/eli5how_exactly_does_a_quantum_computer_contain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfgnkf0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Quantum computing works because, if you're very careful about what you're doing, you can maintain small particles in a state called \"superposition\" where they're in multiple states at the same time. \n\nFor quantum computing, you maintain the qubit in the \"0\" and \"1\" states at the same time while you do the calculation. Effectively, you do all possible calculations at the same time. The qubits only settle down to the final state (the answer) at the end. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
9io2tf | why does amazon purchase all of these different companies completely unrelated to online shopping like whole foods? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9io2tf/eli5_why_does_amazon_purchase_all_of_these/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6l4u2s",
"e6l56o2",
"e6laoip"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Their goal is to control as much of each person's total shopping as they can. For items that are better sold in person than by shipping, they are tired of missing out on that business.",
"Because amazon is always looking to expand and make more money right? They experimented in markets for grocery delivery and what's a better way to own groceries if you're amazon? Buy them or own a chain of grocery stores that only exist in moderate to high income areas where there is a dense population? That's an easy choice for amazon to make and it saves them the logistical trouble of moving or procuring groceries, they just buy a company that already does it. \n\nThe other thing amazon is experiment with is brick and mortar grocery stores. Well, instead of building a bunch of their own and trying to weasle into the market, they can buy a chain that would be slightly receptive of the model they want to use. \n\nWhole foods served a lot purposes for amazon. \n\n\nIn general, companies buy others that seem unrelated for a few reasons. 1, they want to get into that market and dont want to have to compete with them. Or 2, they want to elevate their product or integrate their product in some way and instead of paying a company to buy their product to merge with it's own, a company will just buy the other so it will cost them at cost as opposed to a market sale price. ",
"A lot of it is knowledge. Buying these companies help with data that is crucial to knowing how to sell these products that Amazon didn't use to, rather than starting from ground zero.\n\nAs for selling new products like groceries, it's so that they can compete with other companies that are trying to go online."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3ah9tm | why don't we point hubbles and/or all other "magical" telescopes to our closest celestial body and show everyone once and for all, the artifacts of human lunar landing? | If we purport to see something more than 13 billion light years away, we should be able to a lunar lander if not the flag, right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ah9tm/eli5_why_dont_we_point_hubbles_andor_all_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"cscmgcr",
"cscmh1k",
"cscmhf5",
"cscmhwg",
"cscmka8",
"cscmy2x",
"cscnu8o",
"csco5w0",
"cscoq28",
"cscou4s",
"cscoumo",
"cscp6cc",
"cscpbam",
"cscpfv5",
"cscpkzh",
"cscptyx",
"cscqos1",
"cscrhac",
"cscu3qw",
"cscuw49",
"csd0dxh",
"csd2x7a"
],
"score": [
2,
203,
5,
53,
70,
61,
37,
3,
2,
12,
6,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"We can see stars and celestial bodies because they emit massive amounts of light and are gigantic compared to the small artifacts we left on the moon, which do not reflect a lot of light and are incredibly tiny.\n",
"The distant objects Hubble can see are inconceivably huge. The flag on the moon is not. Hubble could resolve approximately a football field sized object on the lunar surface but it's nowhere near powerful enough to resolve the flag. ",
"Telescope time involves a huge amount of money and paperwork ([explanation](_URL_1_)) and the telescope's owners don't really deem it necessary because to them there's no question as to whether we landed on the moon. Although, the moon has been thoroughly mapped by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and as a by product we have some [reasonably good quality photos of most of the landing sites](_URL_0_).",
"The Moon is surprisingly far away from us. [The Earth and the Moon are to scale here](_URL_0_) (with a demonstration of light speed to boot). Making out something just a few meters across on the Moon is actually harder than taking a picture of something 13 billion light years away, especially when you factor in that that super distant object is giving off its own light, that it is hundreds of light years across, and that we're satisfied with a speck of light instead of a detailed image.\n\nWe do have lunar orbiting satellites taking pictures that have sent back images of the landing sites, though.",
"We *have* taken pictures of the lunar landing sites.\n\nHalf the problem is, most of the equipment that can/has taken pictures of these sites is still NASA equipment, ie the same organization who performed the landings and *of course* they're going to continue to claim the events happened as they claimed they did. \n\nWhat we need is proof that comes from *another party* that is neither NASA & the US Government *or* the Moon hoax landing conspiracy theorists. A third independent party.\n\nThe amount of verified 3rd party evidence is pretty large but mostly forgotten when it comes time to claim the moon landing was a hoax. _URL_0_\n\nBonus: The Hubble itself dos not have enough resolution to see the teeny tiny landers, flags, etc on the moon. It needs to look for gigantic stuff like *whole galaxies*",
" > If we purport to see something more than 13 billion light years away, we should be able to a lunar lander if not the flag, right?\n\nNo, actually. In much the same way you can see a mountain 100 miles away, but not see an gnat a foot away. The large telescopes can resolve details as small as a few ten thousandths of a degree. That is enough to see enormous galaxies billions of light years away, but works out to about parking lot size on the moon.",
"Even if Hubble could do that - and it can't - it wouldn't be worth the time. A space telescope has a lot of demands on its time and catering to the insane theories of a pack of fucking idiots is not a useful use of that time.",
"The only way moon-landing deniers are going to believe we sent a person to the moon is if they are the ones making the trip",
"Lots of people here are focusing on the equipment used, and the science behind it. That's fine and dandy, but I think there's a more important point. \n\nEven if you could use Hubble to photograph a lunar landing site (you can't), the people who think the landings were faked would just say the new pictures were faked, as well. \n\nI'm all for conspiracy theories. I don't see it as a derogatory term, as some do. I think having a questing attitude is a good thing. However, there's already plenty of irrefutable evidence that we landed on the moon, from both NASA itself, and third-parties. Again, I'm all for conspiracy theories, but there's just no conspiracy to be found there. The people who have it in their heads that we didn't land on the moon simply will not be swayed by some photos from the Hubble, even if it could do what OP is asking (it can't). ",
"I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, the HST's aperture is 2.4m across. The amount of light that comes in will render the cameras unusable, just like how shining a torch in your eye hurts.\nIf you have ever tried using a 5 inch telescope (12.7cm, or 20x smaller in aperture or 400x smaller in area) to see the moon, you will know how bright it is (and ruin your eyesight in the process)",
"The Hubble was not made to aim at anything as close as the Moon, it could not track it. But even if it could, it lacks the resolution to make out something as small as the Apollo leftovers.\n\nHowever, The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter satellite orbiting the Moon IS able to resolve the landing sites:\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n\nThis, of course, doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the Moon loonies, NO amount of evidence would, their beliefs are not based on reason. They just claim these images are fake, or that this stuff was unmanned craft secretly sent to the Moon (like THAT would be possible).\n\nAnd the flags left have been bleached white by the radiation by now. The Apollo 11 flag was planted too close to the lander and blew over when they lifted off.\n\n",
"We do have pictures of it. But it doesn't matter, the conspiracy theorists will not accept evidence that is counter to their narrative. Hell, we have a mirror we placed on the moon that we can shine a laser at and get a reflection back. It doesn't matter what NASA, or anyone else, produces as evidence. As a result, everyone's efforts are much better spent probing the origins of the universe.",
"Wouldn't work anyways. If they don't believe the pictures we took while up there, why would they believe them from a telescope?\n\nFor most conspiracy nuts, it's not actually about proof, it's about what they want to believe. Once you want to believe something that much, any contradicting proof can be easily explained away.",
"I think it would be easier to fake a photo from Hubble than to fake the entire lunar landing. The only way to convince a kook that it was real is to fly them to the moon and show them. On the other hand....",
"Some civilian/private telescopes carry the capability of seeing the moon in high detail. While it may not be as close as what you're asking, it would work better than Hubble.",
"You phone can take pictures from a mile away, but you can't zoom in to see a micro organism. It's the same thing. In space proportion those things are smaller then a micro organism. ",
"Aren't there mirrors on the moon the NASA let there so that we can shoot laser at it to test the moon distance or something like that ?\n\nThat's not a picture, but that's a proof.",
"Because if you provide proof, the sceptics will just turn around and demand *better* proof.\n\nLook, there are [human artefacts on the moon](_URL_0_) we've been interacting with since they were left there. Somehow, that's not enough. Nothing will ever be enough to change the mind of someone who's convinced we never went to the moon.",
"Hubble actually would be a terrible telescope to do this with. It's mirror (equivalent to the lens in a regular camera) is only 2.4m wide.\n\nTo see very small and distant things you are limited by the width of the mirror.\n\n > (object width)/Distance ≈ (wavelength of light)/(mirror width)\n\nThe lunar module is 4m wide. The moon is 400,000,000m or 4e8m away. Visible light (what the Hubble observes) has a wavelength of 500nm or 0.0000005m or 5e-7m. Plugging that in you get\n\n > 4/4e8 = 5e-7/MirrorDiameter\n\n > Mirror Diameter = 50m\n\nThat means that to see the lunar module you would need to have a mirror about 50meters across. We don't have any telescopes like that at all (radio telescopes use much larger wavelength so they are worse not better)\n\nThe largest telescopes that we have on earth are about 10m. Interestingly, being in space doesn't really make Hubble any better at this. It does make the images a lot clearer. It does mean you can look at a lot more wavelengths, but it can't do anything about the problem of the mirror being to small. Being in space actually makes the problem worse because it's hard to get a really big mirror into space. If we wanted to spend billions on proving that we went to the moon then working on a terrestrial telescope would be much better. ",
"Astronomer here. I've used telescopes to take some of the clearest photographs achievable with present technology. The Hubble doesn't have the sharpest images around. That being said we need a telescope with a mirror the size of a football field to photograph the lunar landers. \n\n\nOh and the lunar landers were photographed a few years ago by a a Japanese lunar orbiter. ",
"To the people that say \"there are no photo's because it didn't happen\":\n\nThey left retroreflectors which are devices designed to reflect lasers shot from the earth in order to get accurate measurements of the distance between the earth and the moon. These devices are still there and can still be used. They were even used by the Russians..\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nAlso, while the missions to the moon were taking place anyone with the proper equipment could listen into to the radio chatter taking place between the orbiter, lander and mission control. With a little more equipment they were able to triangulate the origins of the radio signals and confirmed they were coming from: the surface of the moon, orbit above the moon as well as mission control. \n\nLastly: if they \"faked\" the landing why not fake some decent pics of the rover sitting on the surface rather than the grainy ones that sparked this post in the first place? Because it did really happen.\n\nYou shouldn't be asking if it were real or not, instead you should be asking why hasn't it happened again or why not move on to Mars? Of course the answer is $$",
"In part because the Hubble Telescope isn't capable of doing so. But even if it were, there are a few reasons why this would not be done:\n\n - Doing so would offer no net benefit, since conspiracy nuts would just say that the resulting photo had been doctored.\n\n - Hubble is a very busy telescope. Wasting precious time on something so stupid and lacking in scientific benefit would take away from actual important work.\n\n - Dancing when the idiots suggest that you dance is only going to increase the frequency with which they extend the suggestion."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0CoXFApnM"
],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/",
"http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment"
],
[]
]
|
|
16omcd | how can i make my laptop run faster with a very minimal amount of computer knowledge | I'm 22, I think I'm mildly tech savvy but. Don't know how to make my computer faster. It has problems with Chrome and VLC. I've deleted many large movies off of my harddrive, but it hasn't done much. Is defraging still a thing? will it help? if so how do i do it?
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16omcd/eli5_how_can_i_make_my_laptop_run_faster_with_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7xw6fa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Install ubuntu. It really doesn't take much tech knowledge anymore and will make your computer fly compared to windows."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4gp4nl | how is being sequestered for jury duty not a violation of habeas corpus? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gp4nl/eli5_how_is_being_sequestered_for_jury_duty_not_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2jg304",
"d2jgasc",
"d2jhkhp",
"d2ji10a",
"d2jrsgt"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Habeas corpus means that you have the right to have a judge determine that your imprisonment is lawful. That's all. So if you're thrown in jail, you have the right to appear in front of a judge. If the judge finds your imprisonment is lawful, you go back to prison. ",
"The issue is if an imprisonment is lawful. Being sequestered as a jury is lawful so I doubt it would even come up.",
"Jury duty is considered a service individuals owe to the state, so is not an infringement upon your liberty (as is an arrest or imprisonment) nor is considered involuntary servitude (as with slavery).",
"If you are sequestered during jury duty, someone can issue a writ of habeas corpus. You'll be presented in court, and the court will be told you're serving jury duty, and then that's it. You'll go back to serving jury duty, since you're not being unlawfully held.",
"Why would it be? Jurors are not the ones on trial. They've not been arrested. They're not facing criminal charges. \n\nHabeas Corpus is a writ used to bring a criminally charged individual before a judge to determine if their imprisonment/detainment is lawful. The key words there being *criminally charged*. \n\nJury duty is considered a duty that individuals owe the State (government) as part of living in this society. It is considered a condition of US Citizenship and has been since our justice system began. There are a handful of reasons one can refuse or delay serving jury duty, but you're expected to show up if you have no good reason not to. \n\nWe live in a society. The people who live in this society are expected to contribute to it, however minimally some do. That is not the same as being held prisoner and accused of a crime."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
44f6uq | was martin shkreli legally allowed to plead the fifth in his congressional hearing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44f6uq/eli5_was_martin_shkreli_legally_allowed_to_plead/ | {
"a_id": [
"czpsoue"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Supreme court has ruled that the 5th amendment applies in criminal and civil proceedings including Congressional hearings and anywhere else you may incriminate yourself. The case was MCCARTHY v. ARNDSTEIN. So yes it was legal for him to plead the 5th before Congress."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2o5pq0 | since some planets are solid planets and some are gas planets, why aren't their liquid planets? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o5pq0/eli5_since_some_planets_are_solid_planets_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmjxi77",
"cmjxkie",
"cmjxm1g",
"cmjyga5",
"cmjzuz1",
"cmk0j5z",
"cmk2fqa",
"cmk33iw",
"cmk35lh",
"cmk65ie",
"cmk6hup",
"cmkicnz",
"cmkk6xe",
"cmknbah"
],
"score": [
405,
9,
105,
14,
3,
2,
12,
5,
9,
2,
2,
4,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water. Most of its interior, past a rocky crust, is liquid rock.\n\nWhat makes you think you're not standing on a liquid planet?",
"You can consider Jupiter a liquid planet.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Gas giants aren't all gas. While we don't know exactly what it's like inside, a pretty good guess is that they have a solid core surrounded by liquid metallic hydrogen. Under the tremendous pressures involved, most things will turn solid.\n\nIf you go smaller, so that the gravity isn't as high, and start off with a sphere of water for example, the water will boil (because it's exposed to the vacuum of space) and freeze (because all that boiling water carries off a lot of energy). If the gravity isn't high enough to hold onto the water vapour, it'll just drift off into space and you'll be left with a ball of ice. If it's high enough to retain an atmosphere, you're going to have some water vapour, maybe some liquid water if the temperature is right, and almost certainly a solid core of ice due to the pressure.",
"Planets aren't all solid or all gas, they all have all 3 states of matter usually. \n\nThe gas giants have a solid core, and probably liquid layer between the gas and the solid core. \n\nEarth has a gas atmosphere, solid surface/core, and a liquid outer core.",
"Gas giants have solid/liquid cores just like earth. Infact the core of all planets is pretty much this. The difference really comes down to Gas giants having massive atomospheres compared to the thin 'film' found on terrestrial planets. ",
"Most planets actually do contain solid, liquid, and gas \"layers\" so to speak. The earth has a gas layer (the atmosphere) a solid layer (the crust/inner core) and a liquid layer (mantle/outer core). \n\nFrom my understanding, gas giants just happen to have a much larger gas layer - jupiter for example, has such a massive gravity that it can hold a much thicker (in terms of depth) atmosphere than can a planet like earth. There is still a liquid metallic hydrogen core in there somewhere, and probably a solid core as well given the amount of pressure involved. ",
"/u/Earhacker is exactly correct. Now if you're talking about a completely liquid through and through planet, its because solid and gas are both the end of phases, yet liquid is in the middle. And since space is a place of extreme temperatures, rarely ever is there a place in which a liquid can form and stay liquid. I believe Europa is thought to be mostly, if not all water, however it lacks the energy to keep the outermost layer as a liquid, so it is covered by a sheet of ice. the only thing keeping the water inside as a liquid is the pressure. Sometimes cracks in the ice can relieve some of this pressure which leads to the geysers of water we have observed in the past. \n \nOne thing you have to remember, though, is that we don't know whats in the center of gas giants. Perhaps the pressure and friction has created a molten core over millions of years, maybe it has a solid ball of mass in the center. We can make our best guesses but until we can prove them, its just a hypothesis as to whats in there. ",
"It's proposed that Europa and Enceladus are liquid water moons with an ice crust. ",
"First of all, it's *there,* not *their*. 'Their' is the possessive form of 'they'.\n\nSecond, so-called 'gas giants' *are* mostly liquid. Gas in sufficient quantity compresses under its own cumulative weight into liquid. Most gas giants are also presumed to have rocky or metallic cores, but the much greater volume of their spheres is gas in liquid form. There is however no clear point where they go from gas to liquid. As you get deeper into them, the gas gets denser and denser, and eventually has properties better described as liquid. Much deeper down, the liquid might even compress into ices or various other solid forms.\n\nIn fact, this is exactly the process of how stars are formed. Enormous interstellar gas clouds gradually come together and compress under their own gravity, and the tightest clumps compress into stars.\n",
"One factor to consider is that most substances aren't liquids over a very wide range of temperatures.\n\nIf you picked a random temperature between 0 and 1000 K, you'd only have a 1 in 10 chance of picking one where water is a liquid...less if you account for pressure.",
"Well, solid planets aren't completely solid, and gas giants aren't completely gaseous. Take Jupiter, for example. It has a gaseous part, a liquid part under higher pressure, and a solid core under extreme pressure. \n\nAnother example is Earth. Earth has a solid crust and core, but it has a liquid mantle and oceans.\n\nThe words \"gas giant\" and \"rocky planet\" aren't completely accurate.",
"Earth is a mostly liquid planet. Only the crust and part of the core is solid. The rest is molten. ",
"Whose liquid planets? Why aren't they what?",
"Technically Venus' \"atmosphere\" is liquid \n\nThis is why heat is trapped and our probes get crushed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6aqevt | why is the head of the penis shaped like that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aqevt/eli5_why_is_the_head_of_the_penis_shaped_like_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhgkvs2"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I remember it being like that to act as a pump that would pull out a competitors semen. \n\nThat, or it's there to make sure your hand doesn't fly off and hit you in the forehead when you're whackin it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4coa9e | why over the last ten years or so have there been so many "startup" companies? | Are they somehow different from just a "new" company? Is it trendy to say startup? Or us there some sort of legal basis? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4coa9e/eli5_why_over_the_last_ten_years_or_so_have_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1k09si",
"d1k0gn1",
"d1k0s94",
"d1k2yzi",
"d1k31no"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In the past, all of our bigget markets have required huge amounts of investment to start a company in. The nature of technology allows companies to \"start up\" with much less initial investment. Services like Facebook and Paypal have proven this - ideas initially thought up by college students have become multi-billion dollar companies, which is something unique to our new technology-centric market.",
"The main reason is because of the internet. The internet allows for quick and cheap access to the masses in order to gain investments, generally essential for new businesses. You end up with sites like Kickstarter or IndieGoGo, which make it completely possible to do this, not have to preach your idea to only a select few wealthy businessmen who are solely in it for the profits. And now they have a global market they can quickly get to, again because of internet communication, allowing you to quickly advertise to the masses.\n\nThese are also new markets that have these startups, you generally do not see startups being created to compete with giants. ",
"Start-ups are defined in a certain way. They aren't just tech things. A start-up is defined as having an unproven concept, but large growth potential. \n\nTake UBER for example. At first UBER was basically just a bunch of private drivers (UBER Black) using an app in San Fran to drive people around in-between jobs. It was a start-up because they thought they could scale it to taking over cabs with normal cars and people driving in their spare time. The market was completely unproven because it only had a small share of a very wealthy, tech-savvy city. \n\nInvestors like high growth potential and tech DOES offer that faster than most things, but a start-up isn't limited to tech. \n\n",
"There have always been startups. You are probably confusing an increase in visibility with an actual increase in occurrence.\n\nTech-related startups have been a larger share of the startup in the past decade **because the internet and internet-connectivity has increased so much during this time**. The internet is the easiest way to reach a wide market and quickly scale-up.",
"I thought the number was declining. See [this chart] (_URL_0_). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/GMJ/616sgtntbeas692w57hlvq.jpg"
]
]
|
|
21jz4f | how do energy drinks work if vitamins and minerals are absorbed in the large intestine. | If it takes 5-6 hours for the food and drinks to reach the Large Intestine why do energy drinks seem to work right away, when the energy enhancers aren't digested till the large intestine. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21jz4f/eli5_how_do_energy_drinks_work_if_vitamins_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgdrqb5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"From wikipedia:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > Caffeine from coffee or other beverages is absorbed by the small intestine within 45 minutes of ingestion\n\nThe \"vitamins and minerals\" in an energy drink have nothing to do with the effects you feel; it's all just the caffeine.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine"
]
]
|
|
dfr316 | how does uv light reveal bodily fluids | We’ve all seen it in movies and stuff but how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dfr316/eli5_how_does_uv_light_reveal_bodily_fluids/ | {
"a_id": [
"f35f48g",
"f35jtvg",
"f35pn5c"
],
"score": [
63,
77,
3
],
"text": [
"IIRC in reality it doesn't work like that (Edit: The only thing I found was seminal fluid was naturally florescent, so there is some exception). They need to first spray a chemical called Luminol which reacts with the iron in blood causing it to be luminescent under black light. Not sure if there are other chemicals that are able to detect other bodily fluids, but this is how they detect blood.",
"Basically, when a photon uv particle hits a phosphoric material (like pee or sweat) it excites the electrons in the phosphorus. When the electrons move back to their original position, it's releases energy which we see as light :)",
"UV light causes energy to \"go in\" to a molecule, if it has the capacity for it, and then that molecule \"shines\" the light back at lower energy (visible light). What kind of molecules have this property? Anything that has double bonds (high energy bonds) in it, especially if it has a lot of them. A lot of organic molecules just happen to be like this.\n\nThe case with blood and Luminol is a reaction that creates a molecule that does this, and phosphorus has high energy bonds with other atoms and also exists in bodily fluids. I'm sure there's more to this, but that's my understanding from way back in college organic chemistry in the simplest way I could describe it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2al36f | how come when a page doesn't load, the refresh button does nothing but clicking the link in the address bar and pressing enter works? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2al36f/eli5_how_come_when_a_page_doesnt_load_the_refresh/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciw7rwk",
"ciw7rz3",
"ciw9ar3"
],
"score": [
20,
12,
5
],
"text": [
"In some browsers, reloading will reload from the cache, and the cached page may be damaged or incomplete. Pressing enter will ignore or wipe the cache and request a new page from the site.",
"Clicking the link loads it like new, pressing refresh loads it from a cache (which you'd need to clear). Don't quote me on that, though.",
"The specific process on the web server could be hung due to resource issues. Pressing enter starts a new connection, and you connect to another process on the web server that has all the resources it needs to fulfill your request.\n\nSource: me, a webserver sysadmin."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2mvd23 | why are drones a threat to airplanes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mvd23/eli5why_are_drones_a_threat_to_airplanes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm7wbmh",
"cm7weif",
"cm80gdg"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Assuming you mean civilian drones, if anyone is allowed to fly their quadrocopter anywhere they please, airplanes can crash into them. It can damage the propeller or turbine (especially since turbines like to suck things in) or hit the fragile control surfaces, damaging maneuvrability, or just straight-up smash trhough the cockpit on smaller crafts. Imagine a 3 kilogram hunk of metal and plastic crashing through your wind-shield as you're driving 130 km/h down the motorway. Now imagine you're at several hundred metres high up in the air. Someone's about to have a very bad day.\n\nBy restricting flight ceilings and/or areas, pilots can be relatively sure there are no tiny robots cluttering up their designated airspace. Pilots have enough to be attentive for while in the air without having to look for tiny robots whizzing by erratically.",
"Most airliners operate in \"controlled airspace\". This means that an air traffic controller is responsible for managing the traffic inside this airspace.\n\nMost controlled airspace is intended to provide what air traffic controllers call a \"known traffic environment\". This means that the air traffic controller knows what every aircraft is, where they are going, what their intentions are, and so on.\n\nIn a \"known traffic environment\", the controller can pass aircraft relevant information about all this traffic. For example \"The B737 ahead of you will be turning left\", or \"You may see an Airbus ahead of you, he's cleared to be 1000' above you\".\n\nThe first problem with drones is that there is no way for air traffic control to communicate with their pilots. That means they can not possibly know what their intentions are, and they can not possibly pass information about the intentions of the drone to other pilots. They can't deny or delay access to airspace to drones, if the airspace is particularly busy, for example. The controller has no way of interacting with the drone.\n\nThe problems are made worse by the fact that drones are so small. Regardless of how much help air traffic control can or can't be, pilots rely on being able to look outside their aircraft and see other aircraft to be able to avoid them. Airliners, being pretty large, are often (but not always) quite easy to see, but light aircraft can be very difficult to see because they are so small. Remember that, at the speeds at which aircraft travel, seeing an aircraft just a couple of miles away might be considered a \"near miss\". And however hard it is to see something as small as a light aircraft a couple of miles away, it's much, much harder to see a drone because they are so small.\n\nThere are tools which can help pilots look out for other aircraft. Air traffic controllers have radar displays and can tell pilots what is going on around them (even when they are not in a \"known traffic environment\"). Airliners, and also many newer light aircraft, have on-board systems to help pilots spot and avoid other aircraft. But all these systems rely on the aircraft having a piece of equipment called a \"transponder\" - a device which responds to radar signals and lets the radar equipment know more about the aircraft. All airliners, and most light aircraft, are fitted with transponders, but drones typically are not. So there's literally no way for a pilot to avoid them, other than by spotting them visually. And, what's more, the drone pilot may or may not be in a position to spot the other aircraft, so it's quite possible that see-and-avoid will only be going one way instead of both ways.\n\n**TL;DR** - for all kinds of reasons, there's a much, much higher chance of a mi-air collision with a drone than with a piloted aircraft.",
"Anything that flies is a hazard to everything else that flies.\n\nImagine the sky as a bunch of city streets. And imagine drones as little RC cars.\n\nThe kid driving his RC car can't always see the dangers of collision he puts his RC car in, and his toy is too small for drivers of real cars to see.\n\nThere are some back-country roads, dead end streets, and alleys where cars go slow and a responsible RC car driver can keep his toy out of the way. But there are also lots of highways, expressways, and very busy city streets where drivers are too busy monitoring other cars, trucks, traffic lights, and street signs and they are driving too fast to see & avoid the small RC car toy if it were zipping around.\n\nSo, RC cars aren't allowed on the majority of roads.\n\nThe difference is... If a bus hits your RC car and blows a tire it can pull over easily. If a plane hits something as small as a bird it becomes a huge problem because the speed of impact is so much greater and there's no way to easily \"pull off the road\".\n\nIf a pigeon is enough to break a windscreen and kill a pilot when he gets hit in the face, or take out an engine and crash a plane... Imagine what a hard Metal/Plastic/Fiberglass contraption will do. Even if it's only the size of a small bird.\n\nImagine the damage even the tiniest Drone would do if it hit you going 400 or 500 mph. Even if it only hit you going 100 mph.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3u3m8h | since the earth is so hospitable to life, then why isn't there multiple origins of life/ multiple coexisting trees of life? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u3m8h/eli5_since_the_earth_is_so_hospitable_to_life/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxbku3q",
"cxbp9kt"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The conditions on Earth at present are very conducive for sustaining life, but not for life to originate.\n\nThe theory of life that is well accepted is primary abiogenesis and then biogenesis ever since. The first molecules of life originated from non living substances then these living molecules started self replicating and evolving.\n\nThe most important condition required for primary abiogenesis was a reducing atmosphere. Or an atmosphere that does not have much oxygen which will oxidize the organic molecules.\n\nOnce the planktons and other small celled photosynthetic organisms evolved, they produced oxygen as a by product and slowly the atmosphere became an oxidizing atmosphere.\n\nOnce atmosphere became oxidizing, the original condition in which self replicating aggregates formed was changed. Hence now new life cannot form from non living substances when exposed to the atmosphere. But living organisms can arise from existing living organisms.",
"Life is selfish. As soon as life got started it immediately started changing the environmental conditions around it, thus making the environment less conducive the the emergence of life again. It burned its bridges behind it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
duu7st | why was life in wwi trenches so terrible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/duu7st/eli5_why_was_life_in_wwi_trenches_so_terrible/ | {
"a_id": [
"f788hu6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Outside in the elements (cold, heat, rain, snow), nowhere to shower, lack of proper latrines, no beds, in trenches full of mud, feces, and blood (biohazard city), dissentary and other ailments.\n\nFor months at a time.\n\nWith people shooting at you and lobbing artillery shells into your meager shelters.\n\nAnd then be expected to, at any time, grab your gun and run across fields of barbed wire to kill people while, at the same time, they're trying to kill you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5aqb8p | benefits of shaving with a 1, 3, 5 blade razor | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5aqb8p/eli5_benefits_of_shaving_with_a_1_3_5_blade_razor/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9ieq2i",
"d9ijnlh",
"d9injms"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's called merchandising. How much can you \"improve\" a simple device like a razor? They add more to make it.... New and exciting to drive sales. Have you ever had a shave with a cut throat razor... So smooth.... One blade... Lol",
"It's pure marketing. They add features in order to justify the insane price. The expensive 5 blade cartridges cause people to use them for too long without replacing them, which causes skin irritation and ingrown hairs. \n\nGet a double edge safety razor. Blades are so cheap you can see them just a couple times before replacing with no worries, like you're meant to.",
"I'll disagree with some of the others here. More than one blade certainly does help (at least did for me). Single blade razors caused cuts more easily. A two blade (or higher count) razor is smoother, and less cut prone. I found that I could go substantially faster, while expending less energy being extremely careful.\n\nThis advantage goes only so far though. Too many blades make it harder to get into tight spaces - like close to your nose, angles on your face, sideburns etc. Higher number of blades also don't deal with longer facial hair too well.\n\nI find that three blades is a good number for me. You should find out for yourself by trying different counts out. [Droco](_URL_0_) sells a trial kit with several different blades you can try."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dorcousa.com/"
]
]
|
||
8iowca | what is the psychology behind competitiveness? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8iowca/eli5what_is_the_psychology_behind_competitiveness/ | {
"a_id": [
"dytetqf",
"dytjc9b"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Dominance. Usually being the best puts you in a leadership role. Leadership means success. And humans usually tend to strive for success.",
"It is definitely a tribal mentality that typically benefits everyone has a whole. If you are more competitive and \"assertive\" you typically are more successful at obtaining and maintaining control of resources and power/influence. \n\nSince Humans evolved as a tribe, it was clear that the more assertive hunters and gatherers were getting more resources. It also made it so leadership wasn't called into question as frequently which can cause issues.\n\nThe unfortunate thing that evolved with this was the \"win at all cost\" mentality. That is the part that is detrimental to progress."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2ppkwh | why do we sometimes get the urge to clear our throat or cough when we see or hear someone cough or clear their throat? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ppkwh/eli5_why_do_we_sometimes_get_the_urge_to_clear/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmytynv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Ok, just reading this post made me clear my throat. I'm genuinely curious and hope a psychologist or scientist will answer this :)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1lyo4a | why does america have so much more firepower than the rest of the world? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lyo4a/eli5_why_does_america_have_so_much_more_firepower/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc42jh3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's a vote-winner. Even if a presidential candidate could make a brilliant argument for cutting the military budget while retaining the same efficiency and thus saving the US tens of billions of dollars, the other guy would simply make a big hoohah saying \"HE HATES THE TROOPS\" \"HE WANTS TO WEAKEN AMERICA\" and other such rhetoric, and go on a whole \"I'm the pro-troops patriotic candidate\" march. \n\nSadly, enough Americans would eat it up for it to affect the campaign. So nothing changes. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3chzfx | what does "open source" mean when people are referring to software and programs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3chzfx/eli5_what_does_open_source_mean_when_people_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"csvpuxw",
"csvpybl",
"csvscjk",
"csw3fpe",
"csw905n"
],
"score": [
66,
3,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"When a programmer works on an application, the file or files they produce are usually called \"source code\", and those files are used by a compiler to build an executable program.\n\n\"Open source\" means that a project team has intentionally posted their source code publicly, so that anyone can inspect it. Other programmers can read the code to see exactly how the program was built and what it does, which allows others to learn from the code, audit it for bugs or security issues, and potentially contribute patches back to the project.\n\nMany open source programs are free to use, and people tend to associate the two ideas, but it's not necessarily a requirement.\n\nYou can find many open source projects on websites like GitHub or BitBucket, which provide free hosting for those projects.",
"The open source movement is interesting. It is based on the share-alike model - where you are entitled to modify and share the source code of the software you are using as long as you obey the terms of the license (there are different kinds of licenses that allow different uses and require different attributions).\n\nOpen source code is different from proprietary code - where you pay for a license and have no to modify or redistribute the software.\n\nFans of open source see advantages in sharing and improving ideas without restriction. ",
"This was originally a reply, but I'm just going to finish the post and post it as a complete answer.\n\nProgrammers write what is called source code (sometimes just called \"code\"), which are the instructions that we provide to the computer in order to accomplish a task (such as creating a web browser, video game, office application, etc). There are many different \"languages\" that we can express these instructions in.\n\nAll but one of these languages (machine language) are not actually understood by the computer, however. They exist solely for the benefit of humans. This is because machine language is very difficult for humans to understand and reason about. So we invented other languages that are simpler for us to read, write, and comprehend.\n\nHowever, when we want to run our programs, we must use another program to translate these human-readable programming languages into machine-understandable machine language. To make this explanation simpler, I am only going to talk about *compilers* which are one (out of a few) types of these programs.\n\nA compiler takes our source code in our fancy human-readable language and spits out incomprehensible gibberish that only a computer can understand. These things are the .exe, .dll, .o and .lib files that you may have seen on your computer. \n\nIt is very difficult for us to take a compiled application and decompile it; since a *lot* of information about how the program was coded is lost during the translation. In fact so much information is lost, you will never be able to 100% go from source code - > machine language - > source code and get the same source code back. While the decompiled source code will be _equivalent in functionality_ it will not be equivalent in structure or understandability.\n\nFor example, let's pretend that you have a mathematical expression such as: \"isOver18 = age > 18\". When compiled, then decompiled, you may receive something back that looks like: \"a = b > 18\". Notice how the human-meaningful information has been lost forever.\n\nOpen source programs are programs where the source code itself is distributed. Closed source programs are for when the company who makes the software only distributes the final, machine-readable software in the form of what are called \"binaries\", or \"executables\". Most open source packages, especially in Windows land, are distributed as pre-compiled binaries, and then have an option to also download the source code if you wish to view it.\n\nThere's a lot more complexity to this, however. While most open source software is free: not all of it is. Also, each software package has it's own end user licence, which may restrict how you may modify or redistribute it. Some open source packages are open source and free for non-commercial use, but require you to pay if you make money using it. You should *never* assume that open source software is automatically free, or that you are allowed to modify and redistribute it.",
"Hey everyone! Thank you for all the replies! I woke to many great comments. ",
"I'm surprised nobody actually linked the the official Open Source Definition. Here it is: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://opensource.org/osd"
]
]
|
||
1qp015 | why when you wake up after dreaming it feels like the dream was interrupted by your waking, even though it took place hours ago | We are told that dreaming takes place at about 1am (edit: whenever your deepest sleep is during REM), so why then does it feel like the dream is prematurely ended at 8am? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qp015/eli5_why_when_you_wake_up_after_dreaming_it_feels/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdeyvrs",
"cdez1u3"
],
"score": [
5,
10
],
"text": [
" > We are told that\n\nWho told you that?",
"Dreaming happens during most of sleep, not just during REM. The REM-only theory has been popularized in the lay press based on misunderstandings of the type of brain activity (as measured by instruments which make those wavy lines) required for dreaming."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
52nxvv | how does hard drive / ram work exactly with the computer? how is data access on both of them exactly? and how does to know where to find that data? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52nxvv/eli5_how_does_hard_drive_ram_work_exactly_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7luqe9",
"d7lvgy3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Accessing RAM is like the mailman directly putting mail in a row of mailboxes, each one has a different address you can access.\n\nHard drive access is more like mailing a letter from Los Angeles to New York, it first gets sent to the local Los Angeles post office (disk controller), sent between post offices (drive cable), then the New York post office (hard drive) knows how to access the correct address. So hard drive access is much slower than accessing RAM directly as there are more layers. The CPU doesn't need to know how the hard drive stores the data (spinning platters or memory/SSD), it just needs to provide an address.\n",
"A traditional hard disk drive is a spinning metal plate not entirely dissimilar to an old vinyl record. Instead of grooves in the material, though, the metal plate is very very slightly magnetized. A reader head passes over the plate as it spins and detects whether or not one particular location is magnetized (1) or not (0). Your hard drive has a small computer chip that controls the arm (which moves blindingly fast, by the way). The chip contains a built-in list of sectors on the disk - the physical locations of the tracts along the disk. Your computer, meanwhile, keeps its own list of where data is supposed to be in the register, which is a file your operating system uses. So you say, \"I want to watch this movie which is saved on my hard drive\" and your computer looks at the file address (C:\\ShimormurasFiles\\Movies\\Westerns\\TheGoodTheBadTheUgly.mkv) and then checks its register on where that virtual location should be. It then sends a request to the hard drive's tiny computer chip and says \"I need the data at this virtual location\" and the computer chip reads its registry that tells it where the physical location on the disk is that's associated with that virtual location. It tells the arm to go there and check that location, which the arm does, and returns the data that is your movie.\n\nThe good thing about hard drives is that they continue to hold onto that data even when there's no power (it can't read the data, obviously, but the data doesn't go away), it's cheap and relatively easy to shove a ton of data capacity into a relatively small space (Need more data? Use both sides of the disk...then add another disk...and another disk...and then magnetize smaller spots on the disk so they're closer together and you can fit more of them on each disk...), and they last pretty much forever, until the motor for the arm or the spinning disk wears out - even then, the data is still present on the disk for a *long* time.\n\nThe downside is that it takes a (relatively) long time to access the data. The reader arm has to physically move into place, and then wait for the spot on the disk to move under the reader arm. You can make your disk spin faster, but it can only go so fast...\n\nThe first way we dealt with this was with Random Access Memory, or RAM. RAM doesn't use a spinning disk, it uses sets of chips. RAM doesn't have that bottleneck of a reader arm and the one chipset controlling the reader arm. Instead, it can have a *lot* of different connections accessing different parts of the RAM at the same time. RAM also has a register, but it's a matrix of chipsets (like Row 1, Column 5). Your computer says \"I need the value of this virtual location\" and it doesn't have to convert that into a physical location - which memory chip is physically holding the data doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that when the controller chips for the RAM say \"Give me the data from Row 1, Column 5\" the same chip answers every time. All of this makes RAM go *really* fast. The downside is that RAM is expensive - it's hard to make RAM bigger without getting prohibitively expensive pretty quickly. There's also a different bottleneck, where you have to devote memory and access to that memory for remembering the matrix that tells you where everything else is. At some point, you end up using a good chunk of your CPU processing just to keep track of your RAM. As well, RAM does *not* hold its data when power is removed.\n\nSo we put the two kinds of memory together: HDDs hold the long-term storage and big files, and we use RAM for the stuff we need access to *right now*. When you run a program, your operating system takes those files from your HDD and puts them temporarily into a chunk of the RAM. So when you're playing a game, it doesn't have to constantly check the HDD for the files it needs. Instead, your OS has loaded all the files it will need into the RAM, and your game checks that instead, which is much faster. When you save your game, or change something that needs to be permanently recorded, your OS takes the data from your RAM and uses it to modify the permanent files on your HDD. Programs may load up slowly, but once you run them the first time they should load up much faster until you turn off your computer. If you run out of RAM, your computer simply over rights data for something you're not using. That also means you only need a fraction of RAM compared to what your HDDs can store: you'll never need every single file on your HDD at the same time.\n\nSolid State Drives are similar to RAM, but store data permanently. They use chip sets like RAM, but a little different in that they don't lose their data when the power turns off. SSDs can process data much faster than HDDs because there are no moving parts and your computer mostly doesn't have to remember physical locations, just virtual ones. But they're typically much more expensive than a similarly sized HDD (although the prices of SSDs have been dropping for years, now). SSDs also wear out much faster. To clear the data from the logic circuits in an SSD, you *basically* have to zap it really hard with electricity. Every time you do that, tiny bits of conductive material burn off, and eventually that logic circuit will stop working. The more often you write data, the more likely a chip is to die. The tiny computer controlling the SSD keeps track of which chips are dead and tries to avoid them, but there are occasionally errors when it tries to access the wrong (broken) chip. Luckily, your computer is smart enough and fast enough to fix those errors before you even notice. Unluckily, eventually they add up until you *do* notice and the drive becomes unusable entirely."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4fn6oz | what makes the computer run fast? | It's kinda embarrassing to ask this question as an EE student, yet I need to know - what is it that makes the computer run fast and smoothly? Is it the amount of RAM? Or is it the speed of the CPU? The latter makes me kinda curious, too. The new Macbook is said to have the speed of 1,3 GHz. My processor has more, and my computer is relatively old now (10 years). Yet my pc doesn't run so smoothly as the Mac would.
Why is that so? Can you explain to me, like I'm five, or maybe 15 (and, to remind you, I study EE so don't hesitate to use some of the more advanced glossary), what do different parameters of the computer mean when it comes to the speed (and quality) of work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fn6oz/eli5_what_makes_the_computer_run_fast/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2a8un3",
"d2a9num",
"d2aetws"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Computer analogy:\n\nComputers main components are Processor, System Memory (RAM) and Storage (hard drive).\n\nImagine a table, a closet with lots of shelves, and you. \n\nYou are the processor and you sit at the table.You process tasks with items that are right in front of you. However if you need to switch tasks quickly, you can take what you're working on, set it aside on the table, and grab something else and work on that for a minute. \n\nThe bigger the table you have, the more things you can switch between quickly. However you can't fit everything on the table. Most of the items are stored on the shelves in the large closet. You can get up and go get things from the closet but obviously it takes longer to do that then it does to just swap something on the table.\n\nSo now you see the table is the system memory and the close is the hard drive. \n\n\n\n",
"The difference with processing and clock speeds like you have noticed is generation. The age of each processing unit. Newer units tend to have similar clock speeds but tend to do more processing per cycle. As in they perform more tasks in the same time. Newer processors tend to have more cores as well, resulting in even more things can get done at once, because the load can be spread out amongst multiple processors rather than tackled by one. In some situations you'll have one core working on background programs (Operating system and such) and another on a game or software you may be using in the foreground. So basically:\n\nHigher clock rate (Gigahertz) will be faster. But a new processor will be even faster. Greater results will be noticed with more cores. \n\n\nThe speed of a computer isn't only reliant on the processor though, the RAM or memory is like your hot bar in a video game, and is used to dump bits of information here and there and then be able to pick them up again very quickly (the hard drive is like the inventory, you have to open the inventory and go through extra steps to get new things) When your computer has an abundant supply of memory, it can perform tasks quicker as it can dump and pick up things quicker and more often.\n\nWhen you have a modern processor that can perform many tasks per cycle, in combination with fast, high amounts of RAM more things can happen at once, without others needing to wait in line.\n\n\nThis was very basic. But just be warned: more cores does not always equal more power.",
"Not a fan of the answers here I'll attempt my own.\n\nFor a computer to run smoothly it really only needs ONE thing; Free resources. These resources are processing power (CPU, Video Card), short term memory (RAM & cache), Long term memory (HD, SSD), and communications between these systems (BUS), and smooth external communications (Wifi, Ethernet, Internet).\n\nLimiting any of this will drastically slow down your system as the computer has to wait for resources to free up before proceeding. If you have all of these in abundance your system will run smoothly. However computers almost never have all of these because the user or the system and its sub tasks demand too much of it. \n\nSo why does your mac run smoother? Probably because Apple has tighter integration between the OS and the hardware allowing them to optimize it better. Your also more likely running more background programs on your PC than you are on a Mac; both because of availability and there ability to sneak onto your PC.\n\nSo if you want to speed up your system, you need to find out what resource is limited and improve that (either by adding more or eliminating processes that are using them). Windows Task Manager and OSX Activity Monitor are two programs already on your system that can let you view many of these systems, and what is using them. If you see anything being fully utilized then that will reduce the responsiveness of your system.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3hmjz4 | why do people on bikes have to ride on the side of the road and not on the sidewalk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hmjz4/eli5_why_do_people_on_bikes_have_to_ride_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu8nb58",
"cu8nby7",
"cu8ng7l",
"cu8ngzj",
"cu8nvhs",
"cu8o84h",
"cu8ogw8",
"cu8ok50",
"cu8os4r",
"cu8pvi0",
"cu8px8v",
"cu8pxzp",
"cu8qd18",
"cu8qtyy",
"cu8qwdj",
"cu8r8ml",
"cu8scgf",
"cu8sgwi"
],
"score": [
200,
27,
73,
18,
11,
15,
2,
11,
3,
3,
4,
8,
4,
12,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bike traffic is too fast for sidewalks and given that a bicycle can be peddled 20-30 mph a sidewalk would not work. What works is actual bike lanes and drivers who watch were they're going as well as bicyclists that obey the rules. ",
"Bikes are vehicles, so they should be in the road. They move much too fast for sidewalks and sidewalks in a lot of places are too small to avoid collisions. Roads are wider and drivers are typically paying more attention to the road in front of them than pedestrians pay to the sidewalk in front of them.",
"Riding on the sidewalk is really dangerous.\n\nThe safest way to ride a bike is to act like traffic and behave in a way that is predictable to the rest of the traffic. \n\nIf I'm riding my bike in the road, going in the direction of traffic, stopping at lights, signalling my turns, etc. it's very easy for drivers to see me and anticipate what I'm going to do. \n\nIf I'm riding my bike on the sidewalk, I'm going to interact with traffic in an unexpected way. There's a strong chance that drivers won't see me, or if they do see me, they can't anticipate what I'm going to do because I'm not part of the typical pattern of traffic. \n\nAlso, riding bikes on the sidewalk is dangerous to pedestrians, and it's best practices to protect the safety of human beings first, and the convenience of drivers second. \n\nYou should know that there is nothing to be nervous about if you're driving and you see someone riding a bike in the street (going the direction of traffic, behaving appropriately, etc) ahead of you. You can see the bike. You can easily avoid hitting the bike. There is pretty much nothing that can go wrong in this situation assuming you don't deliberately hit the cyclist. ",
"First, it is much safer. You can see a cyclist better in the road than on the sidewalk, especially when they are crossing an intersection or driveway. If they annoy you or make you nervous, that means you see them. The real danger when you don't see them.\n\nSecond, in most jurisdictions, cyclists are entitled to be on the road, so long as they say as far right as the *safely* can. That means they can be in the traffic lane if that is the safe place to be. If you can't go by them with at least 3' of clearance, you shouldn't. Instead, treat them like you would treat a car that was slowing down the turn. ",
"Because bicycles are vehicles. Vehicles go on the road, pedestrians go on the sidewalk.\n\nIt's codified in law in some areas. As in \" no bicycles on sidewalks\"",
"When I was a newbie bicyclist and riding on the sidewalk (I didn't know), lots of cars turned corners and nearly hit me. It's not at all safe for a cyclist to be on the sidewalk.",
"Because a bike is a vehicle and a sidewalk is for people walking at a reasonable pace. I despise people who ride on the sidewalk, with a few exceptions. I condescend those who do not fall under those exceptions, and also do not get out of their way. Bike lanes or roads, don't obstruct the sidewalk. ",
"Bikes are legally recognized as vehicles, and riding on a sidewalk is dangerous. It is dangerous to slower moving pedestrians, and it only encourages more unsafe riding when a cyclist on the sidewalk wishes to cross a street, for example. \n\nCyclists typically don't obscure traffic. The only times they take the lane is if they are going fast enough (20-30 mph), are going to make a left turn, or if the road is too narrow to ride on the shoulder. Other than that, they ride on the shoulder. Any cyclist who knows what they're doing will ride on the side of the road, with traffic, and obey all the traffic laws that cars normally would (stopping at lights and stop signs; signaling). Of course, not everyone on a bike does this. There is no mandatory road test or licensing for people wishing to cycle on roads. And unfortantely, a lot of idiots in the cities on their fifth DUI will ride against traffic and weave in and out and generally do whatever the hell they want. \n\nThat said, if you encounter a cyclist, slow down, give them space, and safely pass them when you can. That's it. It will take 15 seconds out of your commute. ",
"Go to Japan. They ride on the sidewalks there. It's a horrible experience for bipedal pedestrians.",
"Bicycles have to follow the same rules of the road as cars, they use the same hand signals, and really I'm the a bike can keep up with traffic just fine, they know people will pass them, just try give them some room and you will be fine.",
"Sidewalks are treacherous as hell. You've got dips and bumps that'll throw you over your handle bars every couple blocks. Trees are overgrown and people back out of their driveways and you don't have time to react. It's safer for them on the street. ",
"Sidewalks have numerous obstructions that block the view and make things more dangerous. Trees for greenification, signposts, mailboxes and so on all reduce both the available real estate for travel and visibility upon crossing to the next block. Groups of schoolchildren, parents carrying children in strollers, old people with assistive mobility devices also reduce the available travel real estate.\n\nIn city driving, which is what I assume you're talking about, roads are also contiguous and generally flow more than sidewalks - it's no big deal for a pedestrian to stop at a corner and congregate for a walk signal, but cars and bikes spend comparatively more energy to get going from a start, and therefore should optimally be using the flow paths designed for continuous movement.\n\nFinally, roads are often in much better repair than sidewalks. Sidewalks use discrete bricks that will often heave up and create a rough, unever surface. Your mileage may vary, but there's a good chance potholes in the road that could fling a cyclist onto their face are repaired a lot more quickly than heaved sidewalk slabs that might make someone stub their toe. ",
"oh we make you nervous? I get nervous when I see dumb cunts on their phone merge into the bike lane even though traffic is backed up out the wazoo and there's nowhere to go in a car.\n\nIn a large metro city, bikes are the most convenient, affordable, fastest way to get around, and we do it without the massive incurrence of pollution that some fat guy driving alone with the air conditioning on high. bikes are the future and if you merge into my lane I will break your tail light with my u lock ",
"Cycling doesn't, in fact, impede traffic by a significant amount. Here's some things that you should know:\n\n* In every jurisdiction that I'm aware of, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as a motorist.\n\n* Riding on the sidewalks places cyclists in peril: drivers very seldom notice riders and turn in to them, causing fatal accidents.\n\n* Cyclists often can't ride safely near the edge of the roadway due to potholes, puddles, debris, etc.\n\n* Even bike lanes are often not safe for cyclists. Just as one example - street sweepers almost always blow dangerous debris in to the bike lane.\n\n* Bike lanes are often designed poorly, either too narrow or placed too close to the \"door zone\" where a motorist can open their door in to an oncoming cyclist, a frequently fatal accident.\n\n* Riding on the sidewalk greatly increases the risk of right hooks, left crosses, and drive-outs. It also makes left turns much more complicated. Sidewalks offer more blind spots and physical hazards than the roadway. If the only sidewalk forces the cyclist to ride against traffic **it has been shown to increase crash risk by a factor of four**.\n\n* **All road users routinely (and legally) delay other road users**. Motorists making left hand turns, transit bus stops, pedestrian crosswalks all frequently create greater delays than a cyclist.\n\n* **It is rare for a bicyclist to cause more than 30 seconds of delay to passing motorists. On the other hand, traffic lights are often as long as 90 seconds.**\n\nFinally, and this is important:\n\n------\n### We cyclists want to get from A to B, just like you. We don't think we deserve to be killed for choosing a more economic, environmentally-friendly vehicle, and we hope you agree too. Please be considerate to bicyclists.\n------\n\nWhether you're a motorist or a cyclist, please consider [reading this article](_URL_0_). It gave me some much needed perspective and I hope it will do the same for you.",
"It's in the name. Side walk, not side ride. That's how a cop told it to me when I was little. \n\nPlus the dangers of walking plus having riders. \n\nAs a driver, pay attention and give 3 feet. Otherwise wait and pass safely. Treat a bike like you do farm equipment on the road and you'll live. ",
"Riding a bike on the road is much safer for example I'm riding on the road using my phone to type this messadfhjkkl",
"I see lots of people reinforcing that bikes are vehicles, but in Washington state, cyclists can legally ride in either location, so long as they obey the laws of that location. Riding in the street means following traffic laws, riding on the sidewalk means following pedestrian laws. My view, as a mostly trail rider, you ride where it's safest at that time. An empty sidewalk is safer than riding 10 mph on a 40 mph road with no bike lane or shoulder, but doing 20 mph in a 25 mph in a crowded downtown, the roads are probably safer.",
"Because I'm sick of cyclists forcing me off the path so they can keep up their speed. They're a vehicle, get on the road."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7db9t0 | why are there so many deaths in boxing, while there are zero deaths in mma? especially since mma appears to be more violent and bloody? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7db9t0/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_deaths_in_boxing_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpwg69q",
"dpwg7me",
"dpwhiis",
"dpwyc6m",
"dpx5ey6"
],
"score": [
11,
15,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"MMA is actually a lot less brutal. MMA has a lot of paths to victory. Boxing is mostly wearing down your opponent and then hitting them in the head until they fall down. (This is a very simple explanation, don't get your panties in a knot you boxing fans)",
"There's several deaths in MMA, mostly due to dangerous weight cutting and drugs.\n\nThe amateur circuits have a couple due to injury.\n\n\nTo answer your question though: The gloves.\n\nBoxing gloves are larger and naturally force the boxer's swing into a harder hitting punch than would be delivered bare handed. This causes more internal injuries.\n\nBack when boxing was done bare knuckle though, there was less risk of death, but a far greater risk of injury.\n\nThere's records of fights needing to be stopped temporarily while they put boxer's eyes back into their sockets, and relocate jaws.",
"Another safety concern that no one has mentioned is that in boxing, a blow that would finish the fight by the fighter going down, and not being able to defend himself. The fight will get stopped. With boxing you take a hard blow and go down. You can take a few seconds to get back to your feet and try to recover. That's not good for your brain.",
"Boxing gloves deliver way more blunt force trauma. While mma gloves are more likely to cut you or knock you out cold, at least the punishment ends there. Boxers must endure through this, often given chances to get back up even though their brain is clearly rocked. Mma fighters are not given the opportunity to get back up, fights end quickly and efficiently. It's also important to consider that boxing matches can be more than twice as long as the standard 15 minute mma match. Floyd Mayweather throws on average 450+ punches per fight, which is undoubtedly much higher than any mma fight. Mma fighters can grapple when they're hurt or tired to recover, boxers cannot. \n\nAlso, perhaps the most important reason why boxing is linked to more deaths, is the age of each sport. Boxing has existed for thousands of years and caters to a bigger audience worldwide at the moment. Mma is fairly young as far as sports go, so the sample size is much smaller. We haven't gotten to see the effects a long career in mma can have on the body, we haven't seen former legends be reduced to an Ali-vegetable. So only time will tell, but based on everything I said above, ironically mma is probably the \"safer\" sport.",
"* there are way, way more boxers than MMA fighters...boxing might be on the decline, but at its grassroots, it is still a significantly bigger sport \n* the fights are much shorter, leading to less cumulative damage\n* MMA fighters have other options to win than punching each other in the head until someone falls over\n* MMA gloves are such that you have to punch in such as way as to avoid breaking your hand"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9u6ufe | why when you look into horizontal water you see a reflection but not vertical water? | EG I could look into a pool of water and see myself, but if I look into a fish tank the water doesn’t reflect.
Maybe a stupid question... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9u6ufe/eli5_why_when_you_look_into_horizontal_water_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"e91ykgs",
"e91yofw",
"e921nwh",
"e925mty"
],
"score": [
9,
7,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's because the reflection from the surface of any medium is dependent on the refractive index of the medium, the refractive index of the medium in which the light is first travelling, and the angle of incidence. So when you're looking down on the surface of a pond, you're looking at it from a large angle, and light tends to reflect more highly at large angles. When you look directly into a fish tank, the light is entering the water at a lower angle and so it's less reflective. . . If you want more information on the physics and maths behind this, you can read up on the Fresnel relations/equations. ",
"The inside of a fish tank is generally well-lit, but the inside of a pond or a puddle is not. \n\nThus, when you look into a fish tank (from any angle) your reflection is more difficult to see since it has to compete with the light coming out from the inside.\n\nThis is the same principle used in [one-way mirrors.](_URL_0_)",
"I doubt 5yos know what refractive index is so:\n\nThink of it like a billiards table. Imagine all the pool balls are scattered on one half and the que ball is at the other end. If you shoot the que on a small angle, it will spend a lot of time near the balls at the edge of the cluster. This means it's a lot more likely to bounce off of them and never enter the cluster.\n\nNow imagine shooting the que ball straight towards the other balls (but not aiming at anything directly). It's now likely that the que will miss the first few balls and instead bounce off of one further back. Now here's the trick; If the que bounces back towards you, it has to get past the balls in the front. If the que hits one of them then it bounces and is now travelling deeper into the field of regular pool balls.\n\nScale this waaaay up and you see that photons moving directally towards water molecules will be more likely to get caught in the swarm of atoms and end up bouncing around underneath the water. Whereas photons hitting water on an angle will be more likely to bounce off the top layer of atoms and continue through the air.\n\nBonus: the randomness of photons bouncing around the water molecules is what makes liquids cloudy an explains translucency.\n\nSource: I do a lot of 3D rendering with sub surface scattering",
"If I look at a fish tank, aren’t I looking at a sheet of glass or plastic and not water?\n\nNot sure I get the OPs differing scenarios. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_mirror"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
enoaxy | why is 70°f (21°c) water unbearable but 70°f air is perfect? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enoaxy/eli5_why_is_70f_21c_water_unbearable_but_70f_air/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe2nupf",
"fe2nw8v",
"fe2p9vy"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
18
],
"text": [
"Water is a good heat conductor, and air is a good insulator. Therefore, a volume of water will feel warmer to us than a volume of air with the same temperature.",
"First things first, your headline is your own opinion, I like 21°C water very much. \nSecondly, because water transports temperature about 4 times faster than air. Your body temperature \"drops\" much faster in water than on land/in air, thats why it feels colder.",
"Because water is a better heat conductor than air. Whenever you're in contact with something colder than you, it absorbs some of your heat (if it's hotter than you it gives you some of that heat). The better it conducts heat, the faster this exchange of heat happens. So at a same temperature, water absorbs your heat much faster than air.\n\nThat's also why you can stick your hand in an oven for a few seconds or touch the parchment paper in it without burning yourself but you absolutely can't touch the metal plate inside of it without burning yourself : the metal and the air are a the same temperature, but the metal \"gives\" you its heat much quicker than the air or the paper do."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
bsz3qp | how do random glitches happen on computers and smart phones when the code is perfectly fine? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsz3qp/eli5_how_do_random_glitches_happen_on_computers/ | {
"a_id": [
"eos1rgj",
"eos6k0k",
"eosc59j"
],
"score": [
24,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They happen because the code is never perfectly fine. There are errors in any software. The code just mostly works, while in a stable situation. Once in a while something unexpected happens - like a network loss, or a hardware problem, or some weird user input - and the software might not be ready for this kind of scenario. This is when you see a glitch.",
"Imagine building a bridge. Now imagine building another bridge on top of that one. Now imagine ANOTHER bridge on top. Repeat ad nauseam. Your foundations become more unstable the more you pile on. Think of the game of Jenga as a good real world example. \n\nEven if every one of those bridges worked “perfectly fine” they were not designed with other bridges in mind. The more bridges you have to deal with, the higher the chance that parts no longer work together. Even if some of those bridges were designed with other in mind, they weren’t designed for ALL other bridges. \n\n\nThen there is the issue of timing. Even if there’s only one bridge, delays can cause errors that in a normal situation would never happen. If one piece of software requires the information from another piece of software, then an exception can occur if they don’t get that information fast enough. An extension of this is when you have two pieces of software both waiting on each other, resulting in a never ending loop of waiting until the system runs out of memory and crashes.",
"Well... I was listening to this Radiolab episode the other day, suggesting that it’s possible in some instances it could be down to cosmic rays. Seriously. Kinda fascinating. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bit-flip"
]
]
|
||
1wwcs1 | how do i learn how to speed read? | Is this even an actual thing or is this just something that is made up? I'm willing to put in effort, but only if it will actually result in something. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wwcs1/how_do_i_learn_how_to_speed_read/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf5y9lb",
"cf5zdfy"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"it is an actual thing: _URL_0_\n\nI think you'll have to put some serious effort in it, and I guess it would not be a pleasure to use it if you're using it on books to entertain you.\nIt's mainly for gathering as many informations possible as fast as possible. I.e: large contracts and such. I highly doubt you'll get involved with it as much as by standard reading.\nTruly interested if that's true though.",
"I'm sure someone from the Sylvan Learning Center is going to hop on and get into detail, but I'll give it a start since I took a speed reading class from there a long time ago. Here's a few pointers:\n\n* Practice - Duh\n* Don't focus on the simple words (the, and, a, etc) \n* Focus on pronouns, names, and harder words, the actual depth of the sentence (a dictionary might be handy here)\n* Peripheral Vision - don't stare at each word in sequence, your brain can register faster than that. So when you start a paragraph, look at the first word, and slowly skim over the line (without really focusing on each word), but when you go to the next line, **start around the 3rd to 4th word in**, you're peripheral vision will take care of seeing the words you didn't look at directly.\n* When you finish a page, test to see how much of what you read you remember/comprehend. The higher the comprehension, the better you're doing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading"
],
[]
]
|
|
4ehtsb | why do people say the wage gap is a "myth" and what are the counter arguments? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ehtsb/eli5_why_do_people_say_the_wage_gap_is_a_myth_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d208b1q",
"d208dss",
"d208dv5",
"d208jnr",
"d208nka",
"d208qhz",
"d208x2b",
"d208xgr",
"d20a05s",
"d20ba2c",
"d20e0qe"
],
"score": [
106,
7,
22,
7,
3,
8,
4,
5,
4,
47,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the most often cited \"77 cents to the dollar\" line is \n\n1. Out of date\n\n2. Faulty as it does not compare wages for doing the same job. \n\nWhen that statistic was created it compared the sum total of wages for women to the sum total of wages for men. The problem: That this does not compare equal jobs. For whatever reason women are less likely to pursue careers in hard science and engineering fields on the high end, and even less likely to pursue dangerous manufacturing jobs that pay well on the low end. \n\nWhen comparing within the same field, for the same job, women tend to make within 2% of what men do. ",
"Because it is. Men make more overall because they work longer hours and higher paying jobs. It's not a thing where women are making less than men for doing the same job. ",
"It's not as much that it's a myth, more that it's *mostly* accounted for by differences in the nature of men's and women's employment.\n\nMost higher-level positions don't have a fixed salary, it's negotiated. So it's not like the pay is set in stone and women are given a lower one. Women don't tend to pursue raises as aggressively as men and thus tend to have lower salaries. They're more easily negotiated lower and tend to settle. Choice of work, maternal leave, etc. are big factors.\n\nWhen all that's accounted for, there's still around a 5-7% difference in pay that can't be explained. Some of that may be additional extraneous factors, but there's still definitely a gap that we don't have a good explanation for at this point.\n\nThe most basic and intuitive argument against the existence of the 20-30% ceteris paribus pay gap is \"if I can hire women for 20 cents less on the dollar, why would I ever hire men?\"\n",
"If you mean because of gender....\n\nBasically, there isn't a wage gap if you compare two people with similar backgrounds, similar education, similar years of experience, similar illness/leave histories in similar positions. Typically, a Principal Scientist is paid the same whether a boy or a girl. A male and female cop are paid the same right out of the police academy.\n\nThe problem comes in when you account for the idea that women tend to take more time off when kids are born, tend to get degrees in things that pay less, spend more time outside of work doing necessary things (so have less extra time at work). Women also tend to expect pay and position raises based on merit while men ASK for a raise and APPLY for that better position at a higher rate. That male cop is more pushy and gets the better job. So, Boy get the raise when girl doesn't. These things don't really need fixing...they need education of women on how to do it.\n\nWhat does need fixing is when you have two people who are equal in all ways and the woman gets paid less. The big example in the news recently is the US female soccer players getting screwed when they are quantifiably equal in output, skill and income generation as their male counterparts. This type of inequality needs to be fixed.\n\nAnother place that wage gaps come in is when you have all white males doing the hiring. They tend to hire other white men for the best positions so that women and minorities of equal quality end up in a junior position because of bias. The bias isn't even necessarily deliberate....but it does happen.",
"John Green does a good job of explaining the wage gap. If you expand the details area of the video information he even provides some text explanation and links to his sources. It's a much better job than I could do personally. _URL_0_",
"There is a wage gap. The myth is attributing it entirely to inequality of pay. Some inequality of pay (which is what has been made illegal) likely does exist, but differences in skill, experience, wage negotiation, gender-based situations (maternity leave) and most of all deciding what job to take in the first place makes much more of a difference.\n\nA man and a woman doing the same job with the same experience for the same length of time at the same company should be earning the same wage and typically the difference between them in that situation is much, much less than people who cry about \"wage gap\" want to admit.\n\nA very prevalent issue is that women tend not to go for higher-paying jobs in the first place (like STEM jobs), but things like \"Equal Pay Day\" don't account for this at all!",
"It's not a myth, but the typical numbers thrown around misconstrue the difference and reasons... The 79cents for every dollar is comparing median incomes, and men are more likely to have higher paying jobs than women, in addition to differing balance of work and home life.\n\nWhen looking at specific fields and experience, it narrows but still exists, because women may choose to work for a company that pays less but has more flexible hours (ie. lawyer choosing law firm vs. non-profit), or may choose to do her job but not go that extra mile (working long hours, traveling a lot) to earn promotions because she has family responsibilities. \n\nThen there are issues like women being less assertive in negotiating salary when accepting a job, and asking for raises. And these snowball over a career. You take 2% less than an equal man when starting a job, and subsequent raises and job offers are based off that lower number, so the difference grows over time.",
"The wage gap is not a result of women simply being paid less than their male coworkers. That is the myth. The gap exists because men are attracted to higher paying industries, like engineering and computer science. In my first programming class, there was *one* girl in the whole class. She was constantly picked on by both the teacher and the other students. She was hit on, patronized, teased on a daily basis. This is why this gap exists. Higher paying industries have been dominated by men for decades and are now treated as an old boy's club.",
"The study people quote when saying that there is a gender-based wage gap only looked at total GDP of employed men vs total GDP of employed women. This study did not break the total GDP down into a per-field or per-job title assessment. The main reason for this is that very few women are performing jobs in the S(cience)T(echnology)E(ngineering)M(athematics) fields, which is where the most of the money is. If the study were to break down salaries on a per job basis, assuming equal education, experience and qualifications, they would find that men and women make the same money. But because the study is so broad, it is impossible to extrapolate anything useful or accurate from the data.",
"Point: If compare the the average amount a woman and men earn, women make around 20% less.\n\nCounter point: Women as a group work in lower paying fields and work fewer hours...when you compare men and women with the same experience and qualifications doing the same job, the gap shrinks to a few percent.\n\nCount counter point: Discrimination and cultural expectations often discourage women form pursuing and succeeding in high paying careers, and the gender cap is a symptom of those problems.",
"Like others have said it's old data, it doesn't compare years on the job, experience, education and sometimes the same jobs. It also doesn't account for the fact that some high paying jobs such as welders have way more men and have always been dominated by men and it's only recently that women have started working in those fields so all the higher ups who make more money are still men.\n\nAlso another huge factor is maternity leave, women often take time off work in their mid to late 20's and early 30's, this is when most people would be starting their careers, receiving promotions and solidifying their position in a company. There is actually data that shows women who don't have children end up making just as much money as men if not more. Also it wasn't that long ago that families still lived off of one income and many of those men are still working but in very high up positions.\n\nThe reality is, if you live in the west you live in a very tolerant country where everyone is afforded equal opportunities, listening to people bitch over non existent wage gaps is irritating after a while when there are still many countries where women can't even go outside by themselves, it's an absolute non issue that people complain about because they need something to complain about.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/it0EYBBl5LI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5mojes | how do tv advertisements earn so much money when it seems like no one pays attention to them? | Commercials can cost millions but I feel like no one changes their buying habits based on TV ads. Don't most viewers either change the channel or ignore it altogether? I can't remember one time I watched TV with a group and anyone actually purchased anything different based off a commercial or ad | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mojes/eli5_how_do_tv_advertisements_earn_so_much_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc54hkl",
"dc54iya",
"dc54k8u",
"dc54lr0",
"dc55ec8",
"dc59j4r",
"dc5c9vv",
"dc5gupl",
"dc5h7lj",
"dc5hl56",
"dc5hlbm",
"dc5hwoq",
"dc5i66o",
"dc5ip7o",
"dc5irdo",
"dc5jfcz",
"dc5kcop",
"dc5l4vg",
"dc5ldh6",
"dc5lhw6",
"dc5lkr0",
"dc5llkw",
"dc5lrff",
"dc5majf",
"dc5md5u",
"dc5me2p",
"dc5noh3",
"dc61kex"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
1240,
54,
152,
1185,
83,
11,
33,
49,
881,
2,
2,
4,
4,
26,
2,
2,
5,
1192,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"A company must publicize itself in order to gain a foothold in its market. Unless publicity becomes actively harmful, i.e. an ad that alienates consumers, most ad work will benefit the company. Often it's not so much about the single product a company is advertising, but instead showing their market and and range. ",
"TV adverts are to get into your head - being in there makes them a contender when you make your purchasing decisions. ",
"Most TV commercials are about creating and reinforcing a brand.\n\nQuick question: off the top of your head, when you think of NFL football, which beer comes to mind? If you live in the US, chances are you answered \"Bud Light\". And that's because TV advertising works.\n\nIt doesn't necessarily mean you are going to go out and buy a case of Bud Light right away, but next time you're in the liquor store staring a fridge full of cases of beers, you will \"know\" something about Bud Light, as opposed to the 30 other beer brands you've never heard of. And that \"knowledge\" might influence you to buy Bud Light, because hey, you like NFL football, and it's the official beer of NFL football.\n\nTV ads work because we as human beings simply don't have the time or inclination to exhaustively research every single thing we spend money on every day. We make the vast majority of decisions based on what we \"know\", not really caring how we got that information, or taking the time to judge its relevance or verify its accuracy.",
"You may not buy that particular product, but you may recongise the brand when shopping down the road. \n\nExample when I google search an item, I would trust the sites ive heard of before",
"Car adverts aren't to make you go out and buy a car that very same day. They're placed to make you aware that the Volkswagen Jetta is a thing. So that when you decide it is time for a new car, the Jetta might come to mind before the Chevrolet Malibu.\n\nSome adverts are intended to induce rapid buying. Often these are placed by stores. An example would be a grocery store saying \"bananas just 39c a pound, fresh Illinois watermelon just $2.99 each, now through Sunday at Food Lion\"\n\nI'd like to say it doesn't work, but I know I picked my plumber based on adverts. There's probably other things that don't immediately come to mind.",
"Every person thinks that advertising doesn't work. On him / her especially. \n\nIt works though. On all of us.\n\nExcept me.",
"\n\nLook at Coke and Pepsi. Is there anyone on earth who doesn't know what they are? They have both had saturation advertising campaigns going on for 100 years. They ran out of things to say about the product a long, long time ago. Then they ran out of things to say entirely. They were down to slogans like \"Uh Huh\" and \"Coke is it\" (were they playing tag?)\n\nIf they stopped advertising people would stop buying their products. They have tried scaling back the ads to save money but every time they do sales drop off.",
"::Leonardo Dicaprio voice:: Now, obviously buying cinnamon breadsticks from Domino's as a \"healthy choice\" is an idea that you would choose to reject. Which is why they need to plant it deep in your subconscious. \n\nBut y'know, sometimes ideas sink in better when you are NOT directly paying attention them as they are being presented.\n\n**tl:dr** \"Inception\" is a brazillion times easier than they made it out to be in that movie.",
"It works on what's called your Salience List.\n\nLet me give you an example:\n\nName 5 drinks. I'll go first\n\n1. Coke\n2. Fanta\n3. Pepsi\n4. Sprite\n5. Water\n\nNow imagine you've just ordered a burger at a fast food place and the cashier asks if you would like a drink. What would be your first response? In your head you work your way down the list until you find an acceptable solution. There's a good chance that what you actually wanted didn't even make your top 5, but you may just have ordered #1, because it suited your needs at the time\n\nAnd that's why some companies pay millions for ads\n\nThis is all based on low engagement decisions or something (I can't remember the exact term), but basically things you don't give much thought to, like what to have for lunch or what brand of toilet paper to buy. High engagement decisions, like buying a car, are still affected by this Salience List, but only as /u/PAJW said, only to make you aware that the item being advertised exists\n\n",
"With popular and powerful brands, there's a whole lot of psychologies that come into play. There's brand loyalty (Oh, you don't like Bud? What do you like, some faggy craft beer? You think you're better than me or something?) and sheer saturation (Brand X? I dunno, never tried it, I just order Bud).\n\nMost of this is imaginary, but it gets into your head. Like, when you go to a party, it's likely that nobody actually gives a damn that you're not drinking Bud or Heineken or whatever. But there are enough people who think it *would* matter.\n\nLike personally, I slightly prefer Pepsi to Coke. There is always a splinter in my mind that if I bring Pepsi to a party, people are going to laugh and make a deal of it, however small. So I'll bring Coke most of the time. I'm even less likely to bring Brand X Third Option Cola even if I find one that I like better.\n\nI'm Australian and I used to drink VB, a ubiquitous beer down here that's probably comparable to your high exposure, low quality beers. I drank it even though I always thought it tasted like refrigerated dog piss. I didn't even like beer until I started breaking away from the culture and experimenting with better beers, and realizing that the cultural pressure was completely in my head.",
"Let's say that you were shopping at the supermarket one day and you decided you were going to buy some laundry detergent. For the sake of simplicity let's also say that in the laundry goods aisle there were only two product brands to choose from: Soapy Suds, and Sunshine detergent.\n\nNow let's assume that at this point you had NEVER even heard of Soapy Suds before. You know almost nothing about the product except that it's laundry detergent because it states so on the product label, and besides that it's in the laundry detergent section of the store. However, while you also know little about Sunshine detergent let's assume that you have actually heard several commercials on the television talking about how great the product is. So you've at least HEARD of that product before, if only in passing.\n\nFaced between purchasing a product you had never heard of before, and purchasing a product that you had (even perhaps a semblance of a passing notion of) it would be human nature to choose the one you had heard of before over the one you knew nothing about.\n\nThis is the essence (highly oversimplified) of the power of brand recognition.",
"We don't have time to process and analyse hundreds of brands in a supermarket, so we rely on instincts and habits. Advertising works by creating easy-to-access \"memories\" that you access (often subconsciously) at a busy store shelf - this is called \"salience\". By getting into the \"consideration set\" of potential brands, there is a higher likelihood of actually getting chosen, and this makes advertising worthwhile. But if a product is only bought by very few people (e.g. Ferrari), then mass advertising (e.g. TV) would be a massive waste of money, and instead something like sponsorships of high-end events would make more sense.",
"Hearing something over and over again creates a weird confidence in that brand. The first digital camera I bought was the Kodak Easyshare, and I know it was because at the end of every episode of The Amazing Race for the previous year or so, it had been given as a price, along with a sort short little ad about the camera. When I went to buy one, I remember the woman trying to sell me a different brand, but it just didn't 'feel' right... which I know was stupid, and I try not to be this affected by advertising anymore, but well.. I know when I recently ordered some snacks online, I went to Naturebox before anywhere else because at the beginning of every podcast I've listened to for the past few years... there's Naturebox...",
"They pay the money because ads work and they work really well. The fact you don't realise you ate influenced is part of how they work. You think you are self aware and like the stuff you like when actually you have just accepted the things which have been marketed to you as part of your identity. ",
"Corporate marketing communications manager here. \n\nWhile I never was involved in TV advertising, I got a lot of emails and cards over the years from people who purchased a commercial shade installation because they either went back to an ad I ran in a magazine months ago or that they kept in a file long ago. So you may not be paying much attention to a TV ad you have seen lots of times due to the repeated airing each day on so many channels, but you do remember that you have seen it before. Whether you like the ad or not, it made an impression on you when you finally did make a purchase of that type of item. And its not just the TV ad. Its a combination of exposure from TV, print ads, internet search results, YouTube videos, highway billboards, vehicle wraps, radio, Tee shirts, trade show exhibits, window merchandising, football stadium naming, etc. constantly reinforcing the brand over and over and over.\n\nAnd there are other factors, like:\n\n* The 80/20 Pareto Principle that states 80% of the sales will come from 20% of the ad impressions and that 80% of the sales will come from 20% of the customers.\n\n* Ads from competing brands work together to make social change. For example my product was a visually transparent roller shade which is not the dominant shade in commercial office buildings. Thus, my ads and my competitor roller shade ads worked together to convert commercial offices to no longer purchase mini blinds. Thus if any one of us roller shade advertisers succeeded in getting a bid we all succeeded in getting to bid. Beer does not just compete with beer, it competes with water, soda, juice and other drinks. Thus the goal of each advertiser succeeded if you went to the freezer containing their drink category. Its also why gas stations and grocery stores are across the street from each other.",
"It's not necessarily about purchasing something \"different\" than you normally would. In some cases it's just providing a slight push. Restaurant/fast food ads are a big example here. Sure, if you absolutely never eat fast food or at chain restaurants then those ads mean nothing to you. But most people do have fast food or eat at chain restaurants, even if it's only occasionally. \n\nWe live in a age where, if you live in a decently sized town (in the US at least), you have a lot of options when it comes to eating out. There's local restaurants/diners, big chain restaurants like Olive Garden or Outback Steakhouse, and of course fast food. Some people develop habits and just go to the same few places over and over again, but most people want some variety. How do you choose where to eat/order from? Usually it's based on what you're \"in the mood for.\" Restaurant ads won't make you go anywhere that you'd never be willing to go without the ad, but they can provide a small nudge in one direction or another that could make you choose one place over another:\n\n* You're hungry and are thinking about getting food. If you see ads for pizza, you might think \"hey, I haven't had pizza in a while.\" You might decide to get pizza instead of Mexican food or Chinese food or whatever, because why not? You like pizza and it's been a while. \n* You decide to get pizza. Your options are some local pizza places, or one of the big pizza chains. Maybe there's a local place you like, but it would cost more than you want to spend today, so you decide to go with one of the chains. You vaguely remember that Pizza Hut has some new garlic bread pizza thing, and that Domino's has a some sort of cheap carry-out deal, etc. Some of the things you know about these chains will be from personal experience, and some of the things you know will be from ads. You're not going to make a decision that you'd never be willing to make in the first place, like ordering from a place you hate, but the ads can nudge you into choosing one place over another, for reasons that are perfectly natural.\n\nBasically, ads can nudge \"getting food\" into \"getting pizza\", or nudge \"getting pizza\" into \"getting Pizza Hut.\" It won't work all of the time, or even most of the time. But as long as it works on some people some of the time, it's going to have a sizable impact on a chain's business. Maybe they affect your pizza-buying decisions once a year. Even if ads only affect the pizza-buying decisions of every pizza consumer once a year on average, ads would still be responsible for millions of pizza purchases every year. Maybe most of those purchases would still happen without the ads, but the ads will affect which chains people purchase from, as well as whether or not they order from a chain or from a local place. \n\nNow, it's possible that if all the pizza places just agreed to stop advertising, they could save money and people would still buy tons of pizza, because people love pizza. But there are a lot of reasons why that would never happen.",
"Many people here are correct but I feel they lack examples. There are studies that have had people repeatedly told \"the body temperature of a chicken\" and then asked if the body temperature of a chicken is 47 degrees and those who were repeatedly told the phrase were more likely to decide it was true.\n\n\nThis is because it is familiar, those adds are trying to make the product familiar and when you sub-consciously decide what you want this familiarity will give it a higher chance of being chosen.",
"Shortest answer I can think of: \n\n\"what's the first company you think of when you're planning to book a vacation?\"\n\nWe only book a vacation once or twice a year. For travel agencies, that means next to no one will know their name because by the time six months have passed, few people will even remember them. The advertisements are meant to keep their name in your head. Doesn't even matter if you actually care, as long as you remember them. Because the next time you think of booking a vacation, you'll be thinking about them too.",
"Everyone feels that they're not affected by advertisements, propaganda, PR, spun news, etc; but they are.",
"Hello I'm an advertising guy. Most of the replies in this thread are not incorrect, but seem to lack knowledge deeper than \"because of the brand\".\n\nStart by understanding that advertising is a huge, huge world. In that huge, huge world, you have lots of different 'methods' of advertising. Each type of advertisement will be seen by different people, at different times, will promote different products and will take different forms.\n\nFor instance, your advertisement can appear in a magazine, a newspaper, on a webpage, on a flyer, on the radio, on a billboard, or on the television.\n\nLet's assume it's 7pm on a Monday, in a country with a population of 100. 2 of those people will be reading magazines. 3 will be reading newspapers. 10 will be on the internet. 8 will be outside. 1 is listening to the radio. 9 people are not exposed to any type of media. But a whopping 67 people are all watching television!\n\nYour advert can appear in any of the media I just mentioned. But you need to consider the question, 'why am I advertising in this instance?' Are you trying to get people to buy direct from you, there and then? Or are you looking for exposure – for instance, because you're launching a new product?\n\nIn the first instance, your advert will be considered \"direct response\". Think of an ad you see in the newspaper that has a coupon attached to it. \"20% off with this voucher!\" You take it to a store, buy a product, and now the store knows that you bought a product after seeing an ad in a magazine. It's instant feedback. Direct response isn't just print, mind you: ever see a TV ad that tells you to ring a phone number? How about an email that takes you straight to an online store? These are all forms of direct response marketing.\n\nIn the second instance, the ad is classified as \"ATL\", which stands for above the line (direct response is sometimes called below the line; the two definitions are hard to stick to, however, because some ATL advertising can also be direct response, and some BTL may use ATL tactics). You're not looking for quick sales, probably because you're already an established and trusted brand, but you do want to uplift sales – perhaps you're approaching the end of this quarter and you need a sharp uplift in sales to meet your forecast. Or something like that.\n\nNow, let's assume your product is what's classified as an FMCG, which stands for \"fast moving consumer goods\" – basically anything you buy off the supermarket shelves. Soft drinks, packets of crisps, fruit and vegetables, dairy and laundry detergents, as well as some pieces of hardware, furniture, and electronics.\n\nYou don't care who buys your stuff, because there isn't a specific audience. Everyone drinks soft drinks. Everyone sits on sofas. Everyone uses toothpaste. So, at 7pm on a Monday, when you can assume almost everyone in your country of 100 people will be at home, in front of the TV, after a long day's work, that's the best time for you to advertise.\n\nYou're just letting people know you're there. But in the week after you've played your TV advertisement, 99% of people in your country will have visited a supermarket or mini-mart. Some of them will want soft drinks. Some of them will want toothpaste. And when they stumble across your product on the shelves, the brand exposure they have already experienced is enough to increase their odds of purchasing your product – and that's a fact.\n\nIt's not guaranteed, of course. Your competitors might have run an ad campaign themselves. Or they may have a product next to yours on the shelves that is lower in price. They may even have advertising in the store, which we call POS (point of sale advertising). Such is the wonderful world of marketing.\n\nSo, I guess, TL:DR is: you may not pay attention to advertisements, but many other people do. And even if they're not asking you to buy there and then, TV advertising is proven to make you more likely to buy in the long-term.",
"Because your awareness isn't required.\n\nWhen I say soda, you say?\n\nWhen I say candy, you say?\n\nWhen I say laptop, you say?\n\nNotice how none of your answers here were B-brands. You're not thinking of Fujitsu-Siemens laptops; you're thinking about Apple, Samsung, and the like. \n\nThe fact that you have a response to these at all is because you're bombarded with possible responses (i.e. brand names) all the time—of which televisions can be controlled most easily by those brands. They have no clue when you'll pass that one street sign, if at all, but when a network tells Coca-Cola that about 50million people will tune in to watch the Super Bowl, then they'd be happy to have their names mentioned in between, if only for a second or two.\n\nIt's propinquity: simply having heard the name somewhere before makes you more likely to pick that over its unknown alternatives. ",
"Don't underestimate the power of slow but steady change, changing the mind of one person out a thousand is a huge success. Usually the point of ads is changing public consensus slowly but surely.(like how your friend of a friend changes his mind, and eventually you do too) That is key, the most important part of ads is that you don't realize it's affecting you. My favorite example In advertising that seemed pointless but changed everything is Pepsi. Pepsi actually pulled off one of the greatest yet most simple advertising campaign ever, the famous \"Pepsi challenge\" simple blind test gained them 14% of market share (coke has about 35 right now). This happend when the market was challenging as fuck, and it worked. (fun fact : Steve Jobs convinced the Pepsi executive behind this idea to work for him by saying \"do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you Wang to come with me ans change the world\")\n\nanyways the point is, the beauty in advertisement is that you think no one cares, but a lot of people actually do without realizing it, and as a creative advertiser your job is to sell an idea without your target audience realizing tbag. Personally I think you really only \"get\" this when you actually start making ads yourself. I dont do this myself professionally but most of my friends do. \n\nThe fact that you think no one cares means its working",
"you know what (x-post with shower thoughts) i cant wait for weed commercials. you think beer commercial were niche and clever, wait until you see these bad boys on the airwaves. i mean, most of the awesome commercials were thought up in hotbox bases think tanks!",
"Ads aren't usually meant to work in solitude but as part of a bigger campaign, it's about slowly changing your opinion or making you buy something. \n\nFor example take the diamond jewellers De Beers, they completely changed the way people buy diamonds by introducing the concept of an engagement ring and that it should cost 3 months salary (or whatever) together with the line \"A diamond is forever\" \nJust seeing a poster with the line won't make you do anything but it's just a small part of a bigger campaign to introduce the concept \n\nOr the Swiss watch manufacturer Patek Philippe who changed the way people looked at buying luxury watches with the line \"you never actually own a Patek Philippe, you only look after it for the next generation\" changing what essentially is the ultimate selfish act to what can be seen as almost an altruistic act. \n\n\nSource: have worked in advertising for 20 years, currently work for one of the best known ad agencies in the world ",
"It's more about wearing down the consumer and subconsciously getting that information in over time. ",
"It's all about having you aware of the product, either consciously or due to a half-remembered jingle or funny commercial. It may not make people with set brand preferences change their shopping habits, but there's plenty of people who don't care what brand they pick up, and will just go for whatever is cheap and looks 'familiar'. So if you're buying deodorant and laugh a little as you remember *'I'm on a horse'*, chances are you're going to at least pick up some Old Spice and have a sniff to see if it's any good. Which, in turn, makes you more likely to buy it.",
"I heard some years back, and it made complete sense to me at the time, that many commercials (especially with regards to the auto industy) are less to do with pushing sales, and more to do with combating buyers remorse and building brand loyalty. People inherently want to feel good about their investments, be it a 2007 Ford F-150 they purchased new at the time, or the $30 they dropped at KFC last night. You don't always feel great about the money you've spent on things, so having Denis Leary remind you from time to time that that old F-150 is still the best selling blah blah blah may ease that guilt, and prod you along into buying Ford again for your next vehicle.\n\nThis is something I've noticed in my own viewing habits. As quick as I am to flip channels or zone out, when it's a brand I am actually invested in myself, I tend to pay a little more attention.",
"Let's talk about frame shifting! Cause that's a huge part of marketing and advertising. \n\nLike moving the [overton window](_URL_0_), that in advertising, is taking existing trends and making them more acceptable to the public. Need to clean yourself with soap? Well, what if you need different soaps for different parts of your body? Like how you need body soap and shampoo already?\n\nThere's metric shifting, like: Okay, your house *looks* clean, but is it really clean? Are you really killing 99.9% of bacteria?\n\nThere's value shifting, like: Okay, you have your daily hygienic ritual, but are you shaving some of that nasty body hair off?\n\nUsing these different methods in some combination, marketing can create new niches and new demand for products, or simply capture existing market by modifying or creating new social norms. There are several that reddit is generally aware of, like how wedding rings and diamond marketing are intertwined. First they shifted the metric that weddings should be grand, in order to always include a nice ring and rock, then they shifted the overton window of reasonable expense to be 'a months wages', then there's further metric shifting with engagement rings and promise rings and men's rings and other things. There's razor blades and creating the market to shave lady legs. \n\nIf we look at a lot of shifts over time, they often create entire subcultural phenomena. No intention to do that needs to exist. Just marketers gathering around exploitable markets and all trying to leave their fingerprints. \n\nWe can look at gaming culture, for example, and see how competing systems & game companies tried to create an ever more 'badass' reputation that led to exploitation by mountain dew and doritos and cheaply produced FPSes to create a very corporative subculture which is nonetheless traceable back to ads for the failed game, Daikatana, and before that, to . . . Sonic the Hedgehog. We might not have modern FPS CoD culture if it wasn't for sega trying to pass itself off as more 'adult' and 'badass' than nintendo, since that started a whole marketing oneupsmanship in PC gaming that led to the nature of the advertising in Doom vs. Quake, which led to Daikatana . . . It's actually very direct and for a long time existed only in the marketing. And somehow that leads to red food colouring in soft drinks making them sell better. \n\nWithout you, or actually, *anyone* saying: \"Well, geez, I'm going to go out and buy that product now\", a market niche can be created through this type of renormalization to sell products that wouldn't ever have sold a single unit before. In the short term, that can be hard to see, but in the long term, how many restaurants don't have either pepsi, coca cola, or some other soft drink available? \n\nIf you change social norms, you don't need to make people actively think \"I need to buy this product\", you don't need to rely on people being more familiar with your product, it's just what people do. It's just one of these things that people buy. \n\nI mean, you want to do both those things as well, but a lot of car commercials don't even sell the cars, they just build consumer identities, like \"This is an ACTION MOVIE CAR\", or \"People who own this brand of car are classier\", \"This is a vehicle that goes off-road, like real men do\", and slowly over much time and ads effect social norms and expectations of what classy is, or what masculinity is. You don't need to be the one buying a mercedes to effect the general purchasing habits by being part of a society that thinks that mercedes are classy. \n\nFrom a day-to-day viewpoint, marketers aren't really usually thinking of this kind of stuff, but you can see from the person talking about BTL and ATL advertising that this is the type of indirect approach that most TV commercials even unintentionally head for. It's subtle shifting of the frame, not drastic changes to. \n\nSo the TL;DR: even ads that don't succeed in selling a particular item have a drastic impact on our culture over time in combination with other ads, and marketers are smart enough to notice, track, and use these subtle trends to sell more shit. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window"
]
]
|
|
4ihsqe | how does gambling on horse racing work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ihsqe/eli5_how_does_gambling_on_horse_racing_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2y7anf",
"d2y979s"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The track gives odds such that they take roughly equivalent action on each horse. See, the horses that everyone expects to win, everyone wants to bet on them. So the track sets the odds on the favorite at, say 2-1. This means that if you put down a $2 bet and the horse wins, you will receive $4 back.\n\nBut if everyone bets on the favorite, even with a small payout, and the favorite wins (which it often does), the track loses a ton of money. So they set the odds differently for less favored horses. For instance some of the Derby horses were at 55-1. That means if they won, you'd get $110 back on a $2 bet.\n\nNow not many people will bet such a long shot. But that huge payout is enough to attract at least a little action. If the odds are set correctly, the track expects to pay our roughly the same no matter which horse comes in, either in many, many small amounts, or in very large amounts to a very few. Odds are all about managing risk (not just in racing - this is true in all sports book, although different sports' odds are set in different ways.)",
"Horse racing (definitely in the US, probably in most other places) is what's called Parimutuel betting that means the payouts are not determined until the race is over.\n\nThere are lots of different bets so let's start simple. One way to bet is called the \"win\" bet. If your horse wins the race, you win your bet. If your horse doesn't win the race, you lose the bet. They take all the money that people bet on horses to win, put it in one big pile, take out a commission/takeout/house cut for themselves, and distribute the money equally to everyone who bet on that horse to win (if you bet more you win more). At the Kentucky Derby the math worked out so that everyone who bet $2 on Nyquist won 6.60\n\nAll the other bets work really the same way, they have their own pool of wagers, and the payouts are usually bigger or smaller depending on how easy/hard it is to win that bet and how many people correctly made the bet.\n\nHere are some other bet types:\n\nPlace (your horse will finish first or second) Nyquist paid $4.80 on a $2 bet, Exaggerator paid $5.40. They are not the same because there are sort of 2 pools here. Half of the money that was going to be paid out to \"place\" winners went to Nyquist bettors, and half went to Exaggerator winners.\n\nShow (your horse will finish in the top 3) Nyquist paid $3.60 on a $2 bet, exaggerator paid 4.20, and Gun runner paid $6.\n\nYou can also bet on things that involve multiple horses.\n\nExacta means you pick the horses that will come in first and second in the same race, in order.\n\nTrifecta means you pick the horses that will come in first, second, and third, in the same race, in order.\n\nSuperfecta means you pick the top 4 horses, in one race, in order.\n\nYou can also make bets that span more than one race.\n\nDouble/Daily Double: pick the winners of 2 races in one bet before they both start.\n\nPick 3,4,5,6, etc: pick the winners of that many races in a row beofre the raes start."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3ftc1c | why is porn banned in india? | India appears to have banned porn, ordering internet companies to turn off access to adult websites, dating pages and pornographic blogs. What purpose does it serve? Who benefits from this? I just can't get it around my head.
As a Dane I have free access to pornography; it is sold in most convenience stores, and is available for purchase or rental in practically every video store. Even our local TV channel "Kanal København" broadcasts hardcore pornography free and uncoded at night.
Link (SFW): _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ftc1c/eli5why_is_porn_banned_in_india/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctrx62z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Other answers notwithstanding, from what I've read it seems porn has been banned because certain activists have taken it upon themselves to stop the \"exploitation\" of individuals involved in pornography, particularly children and other women. They asked the Supreme Court of India if the Court could ban porn, and the Court said \"nothing doing, if we do that then someone will come and tell us you're violating our freedoms\". \n \nDespite this, the government of India has gone ahead and directly asked the ISP's to block about 900 websites, including 9gag and Collegehumor, for hosting pornographic content. I can't offer any reason as to *why* they did this, I can only guess they were a little overzealous and underestimated the number of Indians who like to rub one out. It was an appallingly poor decision, and it should be overturned soon. \n \nHere is more info from a [New York Times article](_URL_0_) that should give you more perspective. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://i.imgur.com/sUxRV.png"
]
| [
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/world/asia/india-orders-blocking-of-857-pornography-websites-targeted-by-activist.html"
]
]
|
|
j3nao | application programming interface? | Please, I feel like a mentally challenged person around my geek friends and when I go to Wikipedia I fall asleep at "particular set of rules and specificatio
EDIT: I think I now understand it from a conceptual/analogical level, but can someone give a more concrete explanation of how one - e.g., the API of Twitter - would work in relation to a hypothetical site that I would make, and how my hypothetical site would go about using this API? Where does this API thing reside and how would my hypothetical site go about accessing it? How do they actually communicate? Thanks all! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3nao/eli5_application_programming_interface/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28v1c8",
"c28v42u",
"c28v4ee",
"c290oce"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's basically the rules one program sets up so that another program can talk to it. \n\nIt's like talking to a cashier at a fast food restaurant. You can't just ask the cooks in the back to make you curly fries. You have to ask the cashier first, who then tells the cook. This way, the restaurant can make sure that you're paying for the fries instead of just stealing them from the cook.",
"When you go to the supermarket, you get a cart, you put stuff in the cart, you put the items in the cart on the conveyer belt, and this signifies to the teller that you want to buy this stuff. The checker scans your items, and puts them in bags, and gives you a price. You pay the price and go home.\n\nYou could go into the store, knock every item you want on the ground, and someone behind you could pick them up and move them to your car, if you wanted. Or you could play basketball with your groceries and for every thing you got into the hoop, you got to take home.\n\nThe store has an interface known to you and to the teller, that tells you the exact order things need to be done in. What needs to be provided from you (the groceries, the money) and what needs to be provided from them (the check).\n\nAn API (Application Programming Interface) broadcasts this information to the public. It's a standard of talking to a server as a client. This way, we don't have weird things (like paying by throwing things through hoops), and we have a way of knowing exactly what the program wants in order for it to give you what you want.",
"So imagine that there's a big machine that makes shapes. It can make squares, circles, triangles, and everything other kind of shape you can want. You want to make a machine that takes squares and paints them red. Instead of making the squares yourself, you want the big machine to give them to your machine. To do this, you need to set up your machine so that it \"talks\" to the big machine. So let's say you set up a conveyor belt that goes from your machine to the big machine. You also set up a bell on your machine. When your machine rings the bell, the big machine makes a square and sends it to your machine. From there, your machine does the painting to make the square red. The conveyor belt and bell is essentially how an API works.",
"I try to stick to LI5 (LI12 in practice). But following your edit, I'll step it up a few more years.\n\nThe API of Twitter lives in it's web servers. When you browse around the web, your web browser is talking to web servers. At their core, web servers only know how to do a few basic commands. For example they know how to let you GET some data or PUT some data.\n\nThe magic of the Twitter API is that web browsers aren't the only things that can send GET and PUT commands to a web server. You can write your own program that looks nothing like a web browser, but still send GETs and PUTs to Twitter's web servers.\n\nYou can even have your own web server send commands to Twitter's web servers. That way your web server can GET someone's Twitter updates and display them on your web site. If you have permission, you can even have your server PUT new updates into Twitter in the name of somebody else.\n\nBy setting it up this way, Twitter can take all of the work they did to get their service to work with web browsers and reuse the same tech to get it to work with other programs almost for free. Because so many people all over the world have poured so much work into the way web browsers & web servers communicate, that system is being reused for a lot of thing that only vaugely resemble web browsing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
76peik | ; why is it said that it is very difficult to change your iq to a higher score? | Surely by training our brains it becomes more effective at seeing patterns and working faster? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76peik/eli5_why_is_it_said_that_it_is_very_difficult_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dofq1wx",
"dofq6z9",
"dofvd0b",
"doh204b"
],
"score": [
15,
7,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"I studied brain science in university.\n\nYes, it some cases it is possible to raise your IQ score by 10-15 points through focused study and practice -- especially if that represents a reversal (you used to never study or practice many thinking techniques).\n\nThe IQ test, then, is not a perfect test of what you might be capable of.",
"The test is designed in such a way that the average humans ability to score on it does not vary too much.\n\nIt is like having a test for running, no matter how much you train, the average human is unlikely to improve their running speed by more than 30% within a fixed amount of time.\n\nThe IQ test may not be a perfect test, it may not measure what is claims to measure (intelligence) in any complete way. But whatever it does measure (maybe a particular kind of brain ability), it seems that particular parameter does not vary much over a person's lifetime.",
"Whomever is saying that is blatantly incorrect. It is in fact almost *inevitable* that your IQ score will change as time goes by, since the IQ test is meant to measure a person's (very specific) academic potential *compared to other people of the same age/background*. That is **not** something that remains static! ",
"IQ is not a measure of what you know. That changes from nothing to lots to nothing over your lifetime. It's a measure of how fast you learn. That is pretty consistent over your lifetime. People smarter than you can figure out how fast you learn quite easily. A written test not so much.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
a7lyox | why do some letters like "a" or "g" look different on a computer than when normally written? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7lyox/eli5_why_do_some_letters_like_a_or_g_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec3yw4x",
"ec3zgma",
"ec402i2",
"ec42nf6",
"ec460yt",
"ec4a9y5",
"ec4bqcz",
"ec4cdxo",
"ec4ynyr"
],
"score": [
1311,
47,
199,
13,
3606,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on the font. For example:\n\n𝒂 𝒈 versus 𝗮 𝗴\n\nAnd, in actually writing, you'll find both of the above used variously over history. But humans trend toward the simple and easy, which the ~~former~~ one of those is, so most people write like it like that today.",
"Because hand written letters take time and effort. When writing a lot, people tend to use simple, short lines to record their letters as quickly as possible. Computers and printing machines use the same amount of time to display a super-fancy letter as a super-simple one.",
"A lot of people write in the cursive handwriting. The letters on a computer are not in cursive writing, that is until you change the font ofcourse. \nAnother reason would be, as u/glyttch posted in another thread, \n > Partly because of old printing presses with handset type. The lettering used on old presses could become worn, making that a look like an o, or vice versa. By using the a we know in common typefaces today readers could easily distinguish between an actual a and a worn o. \n\nAlso, α actually is lowercase Α in Greek.",
"One of the reasons is for legibility, especially with the ‘a’. The handwritten ‘a’ can often look like an ‘o’ at first glance.\n\nEdit: see futura for an example _URL_0_",
"A number of reasons, some of which go back hundreds of years. More or less in chronological order, they are:\n\n\\- Legibility: Handwriting conventions are a compromise between readability and the mechanics of the human hand. While any human can conceivably fashion highly readable letters similar (or even identical) to those used in printing, it is impractical for most people to do so, and so how we're taught to draw letters is usually a convention based on compromise. But printed letters are not limited by human needs, and can be absolutely anything. There are millions of typefaces in the world, but they fall into broad categories, and most are devised to be easy to read, using long-established practices found to help with that. Printed letters are generally more readable because they **can** be, and follow forms that are known to help with that but which are harder or slower for most humans to draw clearly and reliably, such as the \"a\" and \"g\" glyphs you refer to.\n\n\\- Legacy: Once these conventions were established, they became standard for nearly all typography, starting a very long time ago. Many other factors have influenced their specific design since, and many of those results also became legacy conventions.\n\n\\- Efficiency: Automation in typography required strict standardization of form. When you've invested in a huge expensive machine like a Linotype, you're pretty much bound to one typeface, and it better be one that's versatile enough to handle a wide range of content. Longstanding typographic conventions developed over many years of movable-type printing helped to establish these conventions. Consideration such as how a letter may look if it's over-exposed or over-inked on a certain kind of paper influenced these designs, and the specific glyphs that became standard were those found to most reliably serve the goal of legibility under the widest range of conditions. The double-loop lower-case \"g\" glyph has a shape that is recognizable even when malprinted.\n\n\\- Efficiency, again: When printing moved to digital, the shapes we knew were instead approximated with dots in a matrix, and there was a memory cost that had to to be accounted for. It was important that characters not 'cost' too much. Simplification of form helped make data-processing more efficient, at a time when RAM was counted in kilobytes (instead of today's gigabytes) and CPU speed was counted in kHz.\n\n\\- Legacy, again: Today's computers inherit the conventions of earlier ones, even though they're much faster and more efficient, and that includes many of the small changes made to glyphs during the metal-to-digital transition of half a century ago. This isn't due to laziness, but because they glyphs we have work well, and always have, so there's no special need to change them.\n\n\\- Where do we go from here? There is much room for improvement in the digital-to-paper transfer that still constitutes the vast bulk of professional and commercial printing. Permanent legal documents may involve thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars, or other assets that are great in some way (huge tracts of land, for example), and therefore readability remains a very important goal. Yet a great deal of this important documentation is poorly printed and not as readable as it should be. There's a market there for someone who wants to research the path that a character takes from original conception to digital composition to final impression on different kinds, sizes, and formats of paper, to figure out which will work best and most reliably. (Not just glyphs, either, but the dicey DPI-to-LPI transition, relative image density, and more.) Newspapers and magazines made a huge investment in that in the past, because they would find out right away if there was a problem when complaints came in. Today's professionals don't have that immediate feedback, and so are not making the same effort, and that risks a growing number of situations where those who created some text might not be around to explain it when someone else can't read it down the road. Proactive research would help prevent that.",
"One thing thing that I can add to the answers here is a bit of history.\n\nJust prior to the invention of the printing press, there were two main formal styles of writing, [Humanist](_URL_0_) which uses the \"computer\" a and g, and [Italic](_URL_1_)(predating the modern \"slanted text\" meaning, it just means \"Italian\" here) which uses the \"normal\" a and g.\n\nHumanist was chosen for printing as the letters are upright and fit neatly into rectangles. Italic however wrote letters at a slant so they didn't fit into rectangles, but it was very rhythmic and fast making it easy to adapt into a cursive script for handwriting.\n\nAs handwriting developed, the Italic a and g stuck. Likewise, as typography developed, the Humanist a and g stuck.",
"The simple answer (which from my experience studying typography in several classes in school seems to be a decent explanation) is that when books were all hand-written manuscripts there weren’t exact standards for how letters should be written (there were generally accepted forms, but no hard rules) and those were some of the more common designs. The next piece is technology: the original printing presses didn’t always create the crispest, clearest images so they needed to use a shape that would be easily recognized if it were slightly smudged. As technology got better more shapes were usable",
"When we go back to old printing presses, the way \"a\" is written in hand looks a lot like an \"o.\" As the letters wore down, it would be hard to distinguish an \"a\" from and \"o\" and a \"g\" from a \"q\" depending on where the wear happens. I believe our current typefaces are anachronistic for this reason.",
"[The Atlantic wrote a funny article about this exact thing.](_URL_0_)\n\n\nRelevant excerpt: \n\n > The double-story “g”—what is now the common printed form—is the original form of the lowercase “g” (the OG ... ?), says Paul Shaw, a type designer who teaches at the New School. It originated in the eighth century among monks copying religious texts in Latin. The script they used became known as Carolingian script.\n\n > “In the Renaissance,” says Shaw, “there was an interest in Roman and Greek culture by scholars that led to a revival of the Carolingian script.” Like Gutenberg, later Renaissance type cutters also imitated local scripts, and the Carolingian double-story “g” eventually became popular in print all over Europe. But single-story “g” prevails in handwriting, probably due to how much easier and quicker it is to write."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futura_(typeface)?wprov=sfti1"
],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Book_of_Hours_Bentivoglio.jpg",
"http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/graphics/text/grabs/tewkesa.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/lowercase-g/557504/"
]
]
|
||
556lxq | i'm looking at a digital clock while chewing food; the lcd numbers are bouncing around, but not my entire fov, why? | Example of what I mean by LCD numbers: _URL_0_
When I actively chew, the numbers bounce independantly of the housing (seemingly). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/556lxq/eli5_im_looking_at_a_digital_clock_while_chewing/ | {
"a_id": [
"d882vep",
"d885l0g",
"d885zux",
"d88czt2",
"d88wg5n",
"d88wx74"
],
"score": [
63,
12,
6,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe this has to do with the design of the clock's electronics. The number segments are most likely multiplexed, meaning that only some of the segments are illuminated at a time, but the scan rate is so high that you cannot distinguish it normally. By disturbing your vision with unpredictable vibrations from chewing, your brain's ability to smooth out what you are seeing is limited, producing this effect.",
"I really hope this gets an answer because I have noticed this and I want to know why! So glad op described it so well because I don't think I could have.",
"[This has been asked and answered](_URL_0_)",
"I've noticed a similar effect when driving, if you look at any matrix signs in your rear view mirror, the text is vibrating like mad but everything else looks smooth",
"They are essentially stroking with their full intensity, so all the light from each panel hits your eye at one point in a second, but it is off for the rest of the second. The rest of the world has continuous light hitting you, so seems smooth. Try turning your head quickly, you'll see a strange effect where the world seems blurry but the numbers on the screen are distinctly less blurry and seem disconnected from the microwave itself. ",
"Try looking at at a LCD display while brushing your teeth with an electrical brush. It's the same effect but on steroids. Works best if you are wearing glasses as the glasses pick up even more vibrations relative to your eyes!"
]
} | []
| [
"https://lh6.ggpht.com/sRIOIPbxA1bVlCUhIB00boDU958xMQbn8wN07rzs33b043wmH4mES82kcb7oRBhYUA=h900"
]
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qwu9b/why_do_numbers_in_digital_clocks_dancejiggle_when/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3pbbtn | how the homeless survive in the winter in ny? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pbbtn/eli5_how_the_homeless_survive_in_the_winter_in_ny/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw4v1rj",
"cw4whju"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"For the lucky ones, shelters, or high-quality blankets. Creative people may find a clever solution, like that picture of the person who'd made a shelter under a warm vent that went viral recently.\n\nHowever, some of them aren't so lucky, and don't make it, which is a very sad reality.",
"Chicagoan here. The lucky ones will get into a shelter, but a lot of them will get creative. Making a barrier between themselves and the cold with whatever they can get their hands on. Boxes, tarps, blankets etc. Then also insulation around their body as well, jackets, another jacket, one or two more jackets. Multiple layers of everything, gloves, a hat, and maybe crumpled up newspaper stuffed in their shirt if they need more insulation. As you can imagine, sleeping like this is probably very uncomfortable so some alcohol is often used to help fall asleep. However it's the ones relying on alcohol that usually don't get back up after -25℉ in January. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1cwxvn | what are bdsm relationships? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cwxvn/eli5_what_are_bdsm_relationships/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9krg30",
"c9ktg86"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"There are several different kinds if BDSM relationships. The Dom is controlling and the sub is there to follow orders and please her/his dom. It always has to be consensual though, for obvious reasons. To name a few: Dom/sub, Master/slave, Daddy/little, Master/pet etc. Hope this helped! ",
"BDSM is a compound acronym. It stands for Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, Sadism and Masochism. \n\nOn the submissive end, you have people that gain satisfaction from being hurt, punished, being physically bound, and/or being ordered around. \n\nOn the dominant end, you have people that gain satisfaction from hurting, punishing, binding and giving orders. \n\nIt sounds all kind of abusive, but (done properly) in all honesty it's anything but. \n\nBasically, it's the emotional equivalent of Tyler Durden. \n\nTelling your nagging-nelly hindbrain and your delicate-flower sense of social mores to shut the fuck up, and laughing at their impotent outrage. \n\nAww, poor little hypothalamus. Diddums. Someone's hitting me? Yeah, no shit. Because I'm *letting* them hit me. It hurts? Well duh. I'm going to keep letting them, too, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You can't make me afraid, you can't put me in distress; I chose for this to happen, and you have no power. Neener fucking neener, asshole. \n\nThe sheer unadulterated *joy* that bubbles up when you realize you can just let go of fear and distress is downright amazing. It's like being on a pants-shittingly terrifying rollercoaster, and making that little internal mental jump that flips the entire experience into WOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOO! \n\nAnd on top of that, the emotional intimacy that follows catharsis and the dropping of all those barriers is without parallel. \n\nI can' tell you a lot about the Dom side, because I don't swing that way - but the general outlines aren't hard to sketch out. \n\nA BDSM relationship, then, is just one where both partners live (to whatever degree) a lifestyle that mutually scratches this itch. It can range from getting a bit rough in the bedroom, to agreeing to be led by the other partner, to flat-out living as a collared slave - there's a very wide spectrum, and it's different for everyone. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1p80ep | why are there so many people descended from ireland and italy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p80ep/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_people_descended_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccznyv5",
"cczo1dw",
"cczo5c0",
"cczq5pn",
"cczqy07",
"cczrsx7"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
11,
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because so many Irish fled the famines and broken economy for other parts of the Empire. Southern Italy also shipped a lot off to better opportunities elsewhere. As did Poland, for example. Or a small portion of Southern China, which is why so many American and Canadian citizens of Chinese descent speak Cantonese (only about 5 percent of China speaks it today) ",
"That's your first person view, based on where you live. There are far more Indians and Chinese. ",
"In America? Catholicism. No birth control.",
"In the spirit of this subreddit, [I'll let some five-year-olds explain.](_URL_0_)",
"Ireland was under the rule of Great Britain for 5 centuries.\n\nDuring most of that time Britain was protestant, Ireland Catholic, and the Irish got a less than great deal. Including English and Scots moving into Ireland. Add to that several famines, and then 'freedom of religion' in the US and well, guess what? The US seemed like a great place to go for the Irish - being catholic wasn't a capital crime, and there was food. \n\nThough there have, historically, been significant prejudices against catholics in the US, it was better being an american than being in a coffin.\n\nAfter Irish independence they remained relatively poor until about the 1990's. Even now Irish GDP is inflated somewhat by being a tax haven and some biotech companies that aren't really helping the average irish person officially collect revenue there. Much progress has been made, but only in the last 20 years or so. \n\nItaly is a bit different. Italy, well, wasn't a country until 1861, and they didn't get a couple of big chucks of territory until ww1. And they were - like ireland, relatively poor compared to the other powers in europe. They still are actually. Southern Italy particularly was not nearly as well off as northern italy. They're not poor in the starving on the streets sense, just poor in the not as well off sense. \n\nBetween the unification of Italy and WW1 there was a lot of internal trouble, so people packed up and left. Though most of them went to Brazil and Argentina rather than the US.\n\nThe largest contingent of immigrants to the US was actually german, but with the two world wars a lot of people abandoned speaking german and being outwardly germanic (so they Anglicized their names for example). ",
"Evolution favors superiority"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&t=1m13s"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
dg5xah | on yawning - what does the intake/outtake of breath have to do with being tired? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dg5xah/eli5_on_yawning_what_does_the_intakeouttake_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"f39zyjd",
"f3a3fqm"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it has to do with the need for quick delivery of oxygen to the brain. Yawning facilitates that. I'm really just here to comment and tell you that the title of your post made me yawn.",
"I was told that yawning is your body’s way of getting lots of oxygen to your brain—which usually translates to a boost in alertness when you’re tired, which is why you yawn more when tired. Also, it causes kind of a herd reaction in people. Something like “oh man, someone thinks we need to be more alert, and is therefore yawning, so I should yawn and become more alert as well for whatever is about to happen”, and that’s why you yawn when you see/hear others yawn."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2msitn | how could someone get to the conclusion that with certain ingredients an procedure they could create bread? | You can see the nature and do some things like tasting fruits, get things on fire... But how they realized that using things like yeast could make bread? How could they even know about microorganism like yeast? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2msitn/eli5_how_could_someone_get_to_the_conclusion_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm75suq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Trial and error. An unintentional side effect while trying to create something else."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3et4jn | why making comic books with characters from different universes require less right acquisitions than making similar movies? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3et4jn/eli5_why_making_comic_books_with_characters_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"cti45p5",
"cti4fkp"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I am not completely sure I understand what you are asking.\n\nIf it's why there can be more crossovers in comics than movies, it's because comics make far less money, and therefore the rights cost a lot less.",
"Movie rights were sold off when Marvel and DC had gone through rough patches. They still own character rights for comics, but not movie rights.\n\nFor this reason they'll not invent a new character for xmen to say the least, because marvel do not own the rights. It also took huge amounts of negotiations to allow spiderman into the MCU."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5mhega | how do charities manage to maintain the majority of contributions, and still be considered charities in the eye of the public? | Friend asked me today to donate to The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. After careful research on the actual charity, the majority of the money that they raised for the last year went straight to individuals working the charity and other expenses.
Last year they supposedly raised $281 million in revenue, but managed to use $277 million on "functional expenses." The net difference of around $4 million is assumed to have been given away to individuals of the charity.
So my ELI5 is how is this allowed?
The previous CEO was making $800k (taken from the contributions)! The current is making close to $500k!
Please help me understand the charity process as well as actual charities that function as they should in donating the majority of their raised money ( > 51%). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mhega/eli5_how_do_charities_manage_to_maintain_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc3mo1w",
"dc3nupx",
"dc3o80l",
"dc3tiez"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can look up their Form 990. \"Total expenses\" includes the money they give to fund research and other charitable purposes. For an organization that big, I wouldn't consider $500k to be excessive salary for a CEO, but they do seem to have high overall salary costs. Much of the $4MM you list was held back to offset investment losses.",
"Because you're reading it incorrectly. Functional expenses include three categories: fundraising, administrative, and program. Program expenses are directly in support of a charity mission; grant money paid for research is part of the $277M, not the $4M. In their most recent disclosure form, they spent $**205** million on program services out of the $277M spent in total; the $4M was not spent and is available for use in future years. Also, many of their program expenses were not grants to patients, because the charity also provides services to patients (setting up a support group isn't a grant but is an expense helping patients).",
"According to their [annual report](_URL_0_), they spend 73% on program services (this is money going to research, cover medical expenses of patients, etc.) and 26% on support services (these are salaries, marketing/fundraising expenses, office leases, etc.).",
"First, in the US, to be a non-profit charity, there is no strict standards beyond \"public good\" and follow the tax rules that non-charity non-profits follow.\n\nSecond, all organizations have overhead. If my charity has a free clinic downtown, I have to lease space, pay utilities and hire staff before I give dime one of services to the public. There is no magic reason why that overhead should be more or less than 50%.\n\nFinally, charities have paid employees, people who are doing it for a job and not a mission. Those people have to be paid a market value wage or they will go somewhere else. I'm an IT consultant, and I have worked for several charities, and you better believe I got paid...my charitable giving takes place outside of business hours. \n\nPeople like to dump on them, but a good CEO is a hard to find individual with a highly desirable skill set. $800K is *completely* reasonable for a CEO of a large organization, and can provide way more than that in value. The alternative is to pay less for someone less competent.\n\nWhat's more, a CEO usually get compensated in company equity on top of salary. Stocks, stock options, things that get more valuable if they to a good job. Non-profits by definition don't have stock, so the only compensation they can give is salary. You would expect a CEO of a charity to make *more* in salary, not less, than that one at a similarly sized corporation.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.lls.org/sites/default/files/National/USA/Pdf/LLS_SIT_AR_2016.pdf"
],
[]
]
|
|
8wcp2g | how has the rockefeller family’s wealth decreased from $400b (adjusted for inflation) to $10b since the time of john d. rockefeller? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wcp2g/eli5_how_has_the_rockefeller_familys_wealth/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1ufthc",
"e1ugtfr",
"e1uooxe"
],
"score": [
30,
20,
4
],
"text": [
"They spent a lot of it. They gave a lot of it away. Some business investments didn't work out.",
"With each generation, it keeps getting spread thinner and thinner so those with money spend more of it. They've also donated billions over the years to found and fund institutions like universities, museums, etc.",
"EDIT: Note that the Wikipedia article which mentions 400B also mentions various other amounts and adjusts them. I believe JDR was worth unadjusted 1B or so -- none of the adjustment in the article involves a 400:1 multiplier; the adjustment is around 20 or 30 to 1.\n\nI think JDR was both a rare individual in terms of ability and drive and also got lucky in a way few do: initially he sold kerosene to be used for lighting -- this was instead of whale oil which was expensive even by today's standards and for most people then meant that when it got dark you went to bed. JDR changed this although the electric light gradually (as electricity became more widespread) cut into his profits significantly. Then the internal combustion engine running on gasoline started to become widely used -- when he sold \"illuminating oil\" this usage was totally unforeseen.\n\nSo his riches came from a very unexpected source which he had a huge percentage of. Over time many more sources of oil have been found and again, not everyone is a JDR able to continue to maintain that kind of fortune.\n\nAlso, the 400b is not adjusted for inflation -- it is a metric that is controversial being based on things like share of GDP that his fortune represented. At no time in US history was a dollar worth in a real sense 400 dollars today. People working on the RR made between 1 and 3 bucks a day in the 1860s -- this was not the equivalent of 400-1200 dollars. When Washington was paid 25k per year as president, this was good money for sure, probably few people in the USA had that kind of income but it was not 10 million dollars in today's money, more like 2 million."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
a3m04c | how do people develop stage 4 cancer without noticing until it’s too late? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3m04c/eli5_how_do_people_develop_stage_4_cancer_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb78xbs",
"eb7dqmt",
"eb8c7vb",
"eb9fmg9"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of the symptoms can be masked by other things. One guy I knew didn't find out he had lung cancer until it had metastasized to his ribs. \n\nHe coughed and ached all the time for years, but he just wrote it off as a result of his constant smoking and age.\n\nIt wasn't until he went to the ER to get an xray of a 'cracked rib' that 'just wasn't getting better' that he found out at all.",
"Not all cancers actually cause symptoms until they are quite advanced. Notorious for this are gall bladder, oesophageal, lung and pancreatic cancer. By the time people even have any symptoms, and then wait a period to see if they will resolve before seeking help, the cancer is already advanced. \n\nOther cancers do cause symptoms much earlier, but people ignore them. I quite often come across people who have known something is wrong, but haven’t come to the doctor because they don’t want to be told that they have cancer. Ignorance is bliss. It’s a strange but common quirk of human psychology. ",
"1) no symptoms until late\n2) ignore symptoms\n3) very little time passing from stage 1 to stage 4 in some cases. Others have explained #1 and #2 so I’ll address #3. There’s no orderly progression from stage 1 to 4. Sometimes a tumor can go from small to *everywhere* in very little time. So there was just no way to know, earlier. In most cases, there is a slow progression from stage 1 to stage 4, but not always. I know someone who had some abdominal issues and they did an exploratory of her abdomen and saw nothing out of the ordinary. One month later they looked again and she had ovarian cancer *everywhere*. ",
"A doctor told me that many organs can be functioning at only 10% before we get sick, there’s that much redundancy built in. So that’s a good thing, but it also means when the shit hits the fan, things are pretty bad. Look at cases like the man with almost not brain who was a university student, or all the alcoholics we know who are near death one day, quit drinking and look great a few weeks later. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5jv724 | why do people say "fly low so the radar won't see you"? do radar detectors only work at high altitudes? | Edit: sorry for no flair, I'm on mobile and can't. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jv724/eli5_why_do_people_say_fly_low_so_the_radar_wont/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbj8lj1",
"dbj8vem",
"dbjdagf",
"dbjhd3t",
"dbjkmjb",
"dbjobe4",
"dbjqk73",
"dbjthrv"
],
"score": [
74,
43,
15,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Radar can't see through hills. If you are close to the ground, the buildings and hills will mask your position from a radar at the target.",
"The phrase is, \"to fly under the radar.\" \n\nRadar works on line of sight. That means that if you can draw a straight line between you and the radar, it can see you. To hide from it, you need to get something else in between you and the radar. There is nothing else in the sky to hide behind, but if you keep low to the ground, you can get hills and the earth in front of you. The earth is round and radio waves don't bend around the curvature of the earth. This is why FM radio has a limited range too. \n\nKeeping low you can hide behind the earth it self, and when you get closer, you can hide behind hills and mountains if they are there.",
"As others have said, radar needs line of sight, but there is also the issue that th ground will be \"noisy\" on the radar, and give off a lot of echoes. So, even if the radar can see you, chances are that a human operator might not notice you, and a computer (such as in a missile) will have trouble locking on to the correct echo. Basically, you get blips all over the place.",
"Lookup \"radar horizon\". The explanation of that term, and how it's calculated will answer your question. ",
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't radars also aimed at a certain altitude to avoid false positives like flocks of birds that fly at lower altitudes?",
"Radar is a single point transmission of specific radio frequency out and then a receiver for that signal. More or less the signal gets sent out, bounces off the object, returns to receiver. Take time and divide by 2 and you get the distance. take direction of receiver and you get relative bearing.\n\nFor any given radar installation you have the curve of the Earth that will cut off signal below a certain horizon. So first at some distance away you can not be seen by radar since you are below its horizon.\n\nSecond once you hit that horizon point which is defined by how high the radar is installed you also have ground trash. Those radio signals are bouncing off towers, hills, trees, buildings, flocks of birds, etc. At those low altitudes there is a lot of false returns and slop that gets filtered out to give clean signal and remove \"false positive\". \n\nSo if the area you are approaching is hilly or forested, or heavily built up, you get a second horizon that is due to that \"noise\".\n\nThe two together can get you pretty close to a radar installation before they know you are there. Or conversely you can skirt radar sites by flying the gaps between them. Realize that a ship with a 100 foot tall mast with radar on it has a horizon of about 12-13 miles. So a plane could get within say 15 miles easily before having a chance of detection. A modern combat strike fighter has a speed of somewhere north of 700 mph. So realistically the plane could pop onto radar and then pass over the ship within a 2 second period. If it is a bad guy........not much warning. ",
"Typically they calibrate radar to not look below a certain height because there is a lot of activity that isn't what they are looking for and would trigger all kinds of false readings.",
"If a radar system scans the ground as well as the sky you will see nothing but ground clutter on your display. Admittedly modern digital signal processing can clear that up, but early radars didn't have that, and the compromise solution of not scanning the ground by 'tilting' the scanning radar beam upwards, making it possible 'to fly under the radar'. Source: Spent first 11 years of my adult life as a British Army Radar Technician in the 70s and 80s."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1s2wjd | what's so special about fossil fuels? | Why out of all liquids gas seems to be the only one that can power cars and things? Why can't regular water be pumped in a car or any other liquid? Is there something special about gas? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s2wjd/eli5_whats_so_special_about_fossil_fuels/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdtcgxc",
"cdtcnao"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > Why can't regular water be pumped in a car\n\nBecause you can't burn water.\n\nGasoline is useful because it's very energy-dense. That is, it can produce a large amount of energy for its weight.",
"The oil companies have been lying to you all this time! You can fill your car with water and it'll run better than before."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
379swi | 2016 presidential candidates platforms and plans for their term? | Can someone explain to me who is running for president in 2016, and what they plan to do if they get elected/their stances on major issues such as green energy, abortion, gay marriage, ect. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/379swi/eli5_2016_presidential_candidates_platforms_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"crkvmt9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No official party candidates have been selected yet. I don't think the primaries have even started yet, but I could be wrong."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
33a80j | what is itil and how does it benefit a company? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33a80j/eli5_what_is_itil_and_how_does_it_benefit_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqj104c",
"cqjekht"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"ITIL is basically a bunch of suggested best practices for doing different things in IT. Everything from how to track issues to how to make changes is covered. Not all of the practices are useful in all businesses so they are just suggestions. ",
"It's a framework for running the support side of an IT department.\nThe benefits can be achieved by implementing new processes that are considered \"best practices\"\n\nE.g. a company with a very ad-hoc method of tracking assets. Maybe just an excel spreadsheet on someone's laptop. \n\nITIL recommends creating an Asset Register - which details all the details (lol) of the assets and a process by which this information is added and updated.\nYour process may be \"steve orders a new laptop when he gets told someone new is starting and writes down the S/N sometimes\"\nITIL has a long winded process on what is the \"best\" way for this to occur.\n\nNot everything is best, pick and choose what parts are good for you. Smaller companies will not need everything"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
48faay | why do we think violence is funny? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48faay/eli5_why_do_we_think_violence_is_funny/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0j62js",
"d0j6962"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because that violence isn't \"real\" and we know it. If you saw someone get shanked up close and personal in real life, I can guarantee you wouldn't be laughing ",
"Robert Heinlein, in *Stranger in a Strange Land,* commented that we laugh not necessarily because we feel joy, but as a response to a \"wrongness.\"\n\nMore recently, I saw a study that categorised various forms of humor as various levels of \"transgressions.\" Such a transgression may be entirely benign, such as a pun, but it it something unexpected. Violence is a somewhat more severe transgression, but we all know that people laugh at guys getting hit in the testicles, or a stupid stunt gone wrong. It is unexpected, it is a \"transgression,\" and it is a \"wrongness.\"\n\nYet it is below the threshold of morbidity. We don't laugh at extreme violence. In this sense, I would say that humor is a social exercise in empathy and in our own methods of coping with varying degrees of unexpectedness, unfamiliarity, and uncertainty, if/when not just flat out discomfort and pain. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
mso6n | how do i pick up on the beat of a song? | I'm hardly musical, but I have some sense of rhythm. I guess what confuses me is how I "know" what to tap to? Within the beat of a song, aren't there also quarter notes, half notes, etc.?
It's hard to discuss without knowing the correct terminology - apologies! - but what makes a song the beat that it is, and not, say, whatever beat all of the "partial" notes run at? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mso6n/eli5_how_do_i_pick_up_on_the_beat_of_a_song/ | {
"a_id": [
"c33jjav",
"c33jjav"
],
"score": [
11,
11
],
"text": [
"I'll take a stab at this one since I'm a drummer and drums are the primary head-bobbing, finger tapping instrument (bass guitar helps too). This is a hard one to explain like you're five, but I'll try to simplify it as best as I can.\n\nFirstly, all songs have a [tempo](_URL_5_), which is typically measured in beats per minute. This determines how fast or slow the song is and how fast or slow you will clap along or bob your head.\n\nSecondly, every song uses something called a [time signature](_URL_6_) to keep track of how many beats are played per measure. Time signatures can be confusing, so I'll demonstrate it using [We Will Rock You by Queen](_URL_0_).\n\nEveryone knows this beat, right? BOOM BOOM CLAP .... BOOM BOOM CLAP .... If you pay attention to the beat you'll hear that it's 4 notes long. 2 booms, 1 clap, and 1 rest (the noticeable pause before the beat starts again). So there are 4 quarter notes per measure; 4/4 is the most common time signature and you'll hear it in nearly every song you hear on the radio.\n\nPersonally if I were tapping to this (say, on my desk or something) to understand the timing of the song, I would tap for each beat and the rest (4 taps per measure). If I were bobbing my head, I would bob down on the first beat and the clap and I would bob up on the second beat and the rest. I generally do this because lots of popular songs have the [snare drum](_URL_4_) or clap sound on the 3rd note (for instance that Queen song we just listened to). I will point out, though, that I've seen people do this the opposite way and I think some of it could just be preference.\n\nNow if you listen to the drums in another song, like [Say It Ain't So by Weezer](_URL_3_), you might notice that the rhythm is somewhat similar. That's because the drum beat is very similar (the snare is on the 3rd beat) and the time signature of this song is also 4/4, just like the song by Queen. The only difference is the speed of the song and even that isn't very different at all.\n\nSo by now you might be thinking, \"cool, I learned something about music, but what does this have to do with finding the beat?\" And you're right, I've explained some music concepts at a basic level, but you might not be very impressed.\n\nSo here's how you know it makes a difference: try bobbing your head to [Schism by Tool](_URL_2_). If you've never heard that song (or possibly even if you have), you'll find it very difficult to follow the beat and bob your head or tap along. Why is that? Because Schism is [renowned for its use of uncommon time signatures](_URL_1_); one analysis of the song said that it changed time signatures 47 times! If the song keeps changing time signatures, it makes it difficult to bob your head, tap, or hum along.\n\nSo maybe I don't know why you can pick up on this stuff from a scientific perspective, but I do know the drums and bass have a lot to do with it and the tempo and time signature makes it easier or harder to follow along. Hope that helps! :)\n\n**TL;DR and summary: Song tempo and time signatures are the main reason people can follow a beat easily. There are common and uncommon time signatures, and the common ones are easier to follow since you hear them all the time. Generally your ears will follow the bass drum and snare drum to determine the time signature. Read the above for examples.**",
"I'll take a stab at this one since I'm a drummer and drums are the primary head-bobbing, finger tapping instrument (bass guitar helps too). This is a hard one to explain like you're five, but I'll try to simplify it as best as I can.\n\nFirstly, all songs have a [tempo](_URL_5_), which is typically measured in beats per minute. This determines how fast or slow the song is and how fast or slow you will clap along or bob your head.\n\nSecondly, every song uses something called a [time signature](_URL_6_) to keep track of how many beats are played per measure. Time signatures can be confusing, so I'll demonstrate it using [We Will Rock You by Queen](_URL_0_).\n\nEveryone knows this beat, right? BOOM BOOM CLAP .... BOOM BOOM CLAP .... If you pay attention to the beat you'll hear that it's 4 notes long. 2 booms, 1 clap, and 1 rest (the noticeable pause before the beat starts again). So there are 4 quarter notes per measure; 4/4 is the most common time signature and you'll hear it in nearly every song you hear on the radio.\n\nPersonally if I were tapping to this (say, on my desk or something) to understand the timing of the song, I would tap for each beat and the rest (4 taps per measure). If I were bobbing my head, I would bob down on the first beat and the clap and I would bob up on the second beat and the rest. I generally do this because lots of popular songs have the [snare drum](_URL_4_) or clap sound on the 3rd note (for instance that Queen song we just listened to). I will point out, though, that I've seen people do this the opposite way and I think some of it could just be preference.\n\nNow if you listen to the drums in another song, like [Say It Ain't So by Weezer](_URL_3_), you might notice that the rhythm is somewhat similar. That's because the drum beat is very similar (the snare is on the 3rd beat) and the time signature of this song is also 4/4, just like the song by Queen. The only difference is the speed of the song and even that isn't very different at all.\n\nSo by now you might be thinking, \"cool, I learned something about music, but what does this have to do with finding the beat?\" And you're right, I've explained some music concepts at a basic level, but you might not be very impressed.\n\nSo here's how you know it makes a difference: try bobbing your head to [Schism by Tool](_URL_2_). If you've never heard that song (or possibly even if you have), you'll find it very difficult to follow the beat and bob your head or tap along. Why is that? Because Schism is [renowned for its use of uncommon time signatures](_URL_1_); one analysis of the song said that it changed time signatures 47 times! If the song keeps changing time signatures, it makes it difficult to bob your head, tap, or hum along.\n\nSo maybe I don't know why you can pick up on this stuff from a scientific perspective, but I do know the drums and bass have a lot to do with it and the tempo and time signature makes it easier or harder to follow along. Hope that helps! :)\n\n**TL;DR and summary: Song tempo and time signatures are the main reason people can follow a beat easily. There are common and uncommon time signatures, and the common ones are easier to follow since you hear them all the time. Generally your ears will follow the bass drum and snare drum to determine the time signature. Read the above for examples.**"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMLiqEqMQyQ",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_\\(song\\)#Time_signature",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjG47gtMCo",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENXvZ9YRjbo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snare_drum",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMLiqEqMQyQ",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_\\(song\\)#Time_signature",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjG47gtMCo",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENXvZ9YRjbo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snare_drum",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature"
]
]
|
|
4i5732 | how does one actually make a musical composition? | As in, songs, orchestral pieces, the usual.
How exactly does one come up with the song idea, and assign the right tune? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i5732/eli5_how_does_one_actually_make_a_musical/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2v4o9a",
"d2v4z0b",
"d2vabu6"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it just comes, like, some people can easily come up with great melodies without breaking their heads, it's like a talent, but that doesn't mean that it's hard to do, maybe It'd take longer, but I think anyone with a bit of musical perception can come up with a good idea. And then, it's even harder to continue that idea.",
"Composer here. \n\nIt's similar to writing a book or making a painting. You find a reason to write and a message to convey, then use your knowledge of music, theory, and instrumentation to tell your story. \n\nTo create melody, some composers may improvise on an instrument until they hear something they like. I personally just try to \"imagine\" a melody, something like improvising in my mind, then write it down. Harmony works the same way.",
"For me, it comes naturally for chord patterns and progression. There's probably an unspoken way of doing it because we mostly try what sounds good, not really any mathematics involved. Typically, I just compose on the piano on the spot, go over to my computer, and put it down on FL Studio. Other artists who use FL Studio will usually just put in a note, and another, and another, and keep making adjustments on the piano roll until it sounds good. That's how you can lazily create a good sounding melody - and again, this method is mainly unspoken because there really is no conscious science of it, it mostly just comes to you naturally.\n\nYou could, of course, look up some little tricks for chord progression, like something some guy called the **4, 3 method**, where you pick a top note of a chord, go down 4 notes in the major/minor chord (so a C in C Major would go down to E) and then go down 3 from that note (C to E to A) - at least, I think that's how it works. I'm on mobile so I can't link you to it, just look it up.\n\nFeel free to tell me if I'm wrong on anything, I just compose music this way because it's easiest to me."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3fhjtb | if conservatives and right wing politicians like small government and free market, why are they generally for the criminalization of drugs, for the bulk collection of metadata, for bailouts to big banks, and hold views on various other issues that are against small government? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fhjtb/eli5if_conservatives_and_right_wing_politicians/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctonwuv",
"ctoo58c",
"ctoogk5",
"ctoojfp"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
34
],
"text": [
"It mostly boils down to the American two-party system. Because America uses a first-past-the-post voting system we are forever destined to have only two serious parties. The problem with this system is that there are more than two points of view. You have just identified two different, competing philosophies that all get lumped under the heading of \"right wing\". The truth is that individual politicians have different beliefs about big vs. small government and the government's role in drug enforcement, national security and bank regulation. But, since there are only two parties they all call themselves Republicans.",
"I think you are trying to categorize the spectrum a little too much. \n\nEven if someone is far right or far left, they can still have differing views on policies. The representatives do themselves, just what they say to the general public is as general as possible. They will say something like, \"I want to reform the banks\" but they never really present what those reforms are. They try to cast a net to catch as many voters as possible.",
"Which side wants what becomes more clear when you look at politics not as a one-dimensional spectrum, but with two dimensions. [This](_URL_1_) is a Nolan chart, and the conventional political spectrum is a horizontal line running from the left corner to the right corner. The left of the conventional 2D political spectrum corresponds to the part of the chart that more greatly values personal freedom, but less so economic freedom, while the right of the chart is the opposite.\n\nThis has some limitations. For example, TARP and the bailouts could hardly be considered to be an expression of \"economic freedom\" and it did take place under the auspices of Bush, the orthodox view is in favor of the bailouts (the orthodox is wrong, imho) and they were passed with [bipartisan support](_URL_0_).\n\nAnyway, there is a libertarian-leaning element that has allied itself for political expediency with the right (I would not consider them to be real libertarians), and the \"small government\" rhetoric is nothing but rhetoric to keep them happy. Libertarians would probably just as easily ally with the left were it not for the left's overall hostility toward them.",
"What you've detected is actually a split in the three pillars of the Republican Party: Big Business, Libertarians and Social Conservatives.\n\nThe \"small government, free market\" talking point is one that Big Business and Libertarians can agree upon so they use is all the time. The problem is only the Libertarians really believe it. Big Business doesn't want regulations that limit it, but loves huge government handouts, bailouts and regulations that limit their competition. Social Conservatives dig big government getting all up in your body to make sure you don't use drugs or have sex and spy on you to make sure you're not a terrorist. \n\nReally there is a lot the three groups do NOT agree on. So please don't point this out or they might become aggravated with each other. :("
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22talkshow.html",
"http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0312/030512nolanchart.gif"
],
[]
]
|
||
4zmtg7 | why are the death rates of some first world countries (usa, canada, uk, etc.) significantly higher than the world average? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zmtg7/eli5_why_are_the_death_rates_of_some_first_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6x470o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Countries like France and Norway have an age distribution far more heavily weighed toward older people than countries like India. Old people are far more likely to die than younger people. If you have a population curve skewed toward older people, you can have a higher life expectancy but still have a higher mortality rate."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2m3nmh | how does open sourcing .net help microsoft? | I fail to see how Microsoft would benefit from this... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m3nmh/eli5_how_does_open_sourcing_net_help_microsoft/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm0ndhl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"1. Microsoft has by far the best tools for .NET. Those tools are free for individual users, open source developers, and academics, but rather expensive for businesses. The cheapest version is $500 a copy. The expensive version is $13,000. \n\n2. If people write Android apps in Java or iOS apps in Objective-C, they have to rewrite everything to get the apps to run on Windows and Windows Phone. Open sourcing .NET makes it more likely that people will write apps using the first-class language of Windows devices, which makes it easier for people writing apps to get their apps into Microsoft's ecosystem too. \n\n3. Microsoft was giving out .NET for free anyway. They weren't making any money off of that, just the Windows licenses they were selling because of it. By open sourcing it, they're not essentially getting free development and testing work from the community. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4xw96e | why is it that stretching every other muscle feels good but stretching hamstrings is painful? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xw96e/eli5why_is_it_that_stretching_every_other_muscle/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6ixtcd",
"d6ji9cy"
],
"score": [
14,
5
],
"text": [
"You would be surprised how little you use your hamstring compared to your quadriceps, another muscle in your leg that you likely use and exercise much more often. Look up ways to stretch and work out your quadriceps compared to your hamstring and attempt them, and you will likely discover that the quad stretches the lifts are much easier for you, and the stretches and lifts that work the hamstring feel unnatural, or feel like you don't often do that kind of movement. It is harder to stretch your hamstring because you likely use it less than the other muscles in your arms and legs.",
"The hamstrings are made up of multiple muscles so they should be classified as a muscle group. Many muscle groups only cross one joint while some cross multiple. The hamstrings and the quadriceps cross both the hip and the knee. There are muscles that do this in the upper extremity but they bear significantly less weight so there is less tension usually. So that leaves the quadriceps and the hamstrings as the large muscle groups that cross multiple joints. The quadriceps flex the hip and extend the knee while the hamstrings extend the hip and flex the knee. Most people sit for a significant portion of their lives. This position puts an excessive amount of weight on the pelvis/hip region. Being in this position too long causes the tissues around the hip to adapt to this flexed position. When these tissues are like this the hips will be slightly flexed even when standing, walking, running, or doing anything athletic. What happens is the hamstrings are being stretched at both the hip (flexed hip) and at the knee (extended knee) constantly. Spending your entire day in this position will eventually make the hamstings cranky because theyre not anatomically deigned to be in this position for a long time. Since the hamstring is already being stretched, doing static hamstring stretches will be painful because the body is trying to protect itself. The hamstrings are already in a stretched position so when you purposely stretch them even more, you're brain senses that and sends pain signals to discourage you from doing that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3kbkxy | why can't the un intervine in whats happening between palestine and israel? | They were the ones who split Plaestine in the first place. Why don't they take away the lands Israel is taking away and give them back to Palestine. Or just stop Israel from moving forward anymore? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kbkxy/eli5_why_cant_the_un_intervine_in_whats_happening/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuw8eo3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The UN doesn't have the kind of military force necessary to invade Israel - even if they managed to pass such a vote (exceedingly unlikely).\n\nMoreover, what would that accomplish? The Palestinians do not have a functional economy or government. They're almost entirely dependent on Israel for all of their infrastructure. I suspect Israel's desire to continue providing that support would be diminished by an invasion.\n\nYou also have to consider the fact that what you're suggesting is that foreign powers expel the people living on those lands - who have been living on those lands for generations - in favor of what is essentially an invading force. It would be akin to the UN invading the U.S. to hand California over to Mexico."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2pgu9d | what do deer and typically unsheltered animals do when it rains? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pgu9d/eli5_what_do_deer_and_typically_unsheltered/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmwiqnl"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They hunker under trees and bushes, while getting pretty wet. They also have fur which helps keep their skin dry."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7zbd5e | why cleft palates are more prevalent in 3rd world countries | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zbd5e/eli5_why_cleft_palates_are_more_prevalent_in_3rd/ | {
"a_id": [
"dumqzte",
"dumr500",
"dumyhbu"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"They're not more prevalent in the developing world - though they are more prevalent among people of certain races (most common in Native Americans, least common in black people). They *seem* more prevalent because they are less likely to be treated in poorer countries because the surgery to fix it can be expensive. In the US and other rich countries, it's likely to be fixed within a few months of birth, and with good plastic surgery, you won't even notice the scar.",
"Cleft palate repair is a very common and simple surgery in developed countries. Countries with less developed medical infrastructure, or where many people do not have access to hospitals, cannot repair a cleft palate so easily.",
"Cleft palate is caused by a folic acid deficiency. 1st world countries have better access to prenatal vitamins."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
17t55f | why we stare into space or get "tunnel vision" when we are really deep in thought? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17t55f/eli5_why_we_stare_into_space_or_get_tunnel_vision/ | {
"a_id": [
"c88l92h",
"c88lcog"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's like you have 5 lightbulbs on the same wire, all pulling energy from a weak, small battery. Each bulb represents a part of your brain that does something specific to help you navigate reality. Things like vision, sound, math (patterns), memory recall and storage, and let's just make the last one \"imagination\", where all the other bulbs can send their final answers or thoughts and thar bulb gets to shine those answers out with its own spin on it. The cool thing about the brain is it's ability to more or less unscrew bulbs that arent needed at the moment so that the bulb or bulbs you want shining (thinking) have access to all the energy in that small battery, instead of sharing it with the rest. So when you stop \"hearing\" outside sounds, or \"seeing\" peripherally well (you get tunnel vision and a sense of time loss), your brain is turning off parts that it doesnt need to get power to the parts that you do need for those thoughts.",
"Because optical nerves get used to the image and \"turn off\". It's called [\"neural adaptation\"](_URL_0_) and what you are referring to is called [Troxler's fading.](_URL_2_)\n\nHere's a video explaining how eyes work, including explanation of blind spots and a cool trick that allows you to see blood vessels inside your eyes: [link](_URL_1_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation#Visual",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_W-IXqoxHA",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading"
]
]
|
||
5x4nhk | . why do they call it the "tampon tax" when other personal hygiene products like toilet paper are also taxed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x4nhk/eli5_why_do_they_call_it_the_tampon_tax_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"def6n2l",
"def821e"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The cost women have to pay for feminine hygiene products is not one that men have to pay because there is no similar product that men must buy. That these products are then taxed means that women have even higher expenses simply for the fact of being women who need certain products. Some people don't think that's fair. A link:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Because appealing to emotions, which is what this is doing by tacitly assuming women to be victims, is a successful propaganda tactic. Now I'm not saying tampons should be taxed. Frankly I'm happy to let women dealing with that nonsense have their products duty free. That's not the point. The point is the language used is inherently manipulative and honestly victimizes women by assuming they are victims by default. Twisted little webs we weave, huh?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/the-tampon-tax-explained/"
],
[]
]
|
||
1poc1u | why is it after a person is saved from a fire, they are wrapped in a blanket afterwards? | Like in a typical movie where a women is saved from a fire at the top of her high rise apartment. Why is she wrapped in a blanket afterwards by some sort of authority figure? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1poc1u/eli5why_is_it_after_a_person_is_saved_from_a_fire/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd4bav7",
"cd4bctf",
"cd4bjwo",
"cd4cjm6",
"cd4fu5t",
"cd4kwkj"
],
"score": [
128,
27,
25,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"generally I think it is a thermal blanket which helps against shock.",
"Truth is: Its likely you're not prepared for the elements outside. Your house is on fire and you need to get out. Oops, better stop to get that sweater, there is a chill in the air... said no one ever.\n\nBeyond that (even if its 110 degrees outside) you're likely about to start coming down off a pretty serious adrenaline rush. You're gonna crash hard. Beyond that, your peripheral blood vessels have all constricted so you're gonna be very cold and clammy until you get back in order. The blanket keeps you comfortable.\n\n",
"Shock makes the body susceptible to hypothermia. If you ever see a person with an injury acting way too calm or someone after a traumatic event that is behaving strangely or with a blank expression, get them a blanket.",
"The number 1 killer in burn victims is fluid loss leading to shock. Shock is a condition where your organs and tissues are generally not getting enough oxygen/blood delivered to them. Without proper oxygenation your cells can't produce energy/heat properly, thus leading to cold. Also, a burn patient may have nerves exposed which are sensitive to the cold (and everything else for that matter) if their top layer of skin and fat is destroyed.That is why burn patients must be shielded and have a large amount of fluid pushed into them via IV. \n\nEDIT: fixed typo",
"* while there is a fire, you get out of your house without worrying about warm clothing, and there is a good chance you will be standing around for a while\n* warming someone up is a good treatment for shock, and blankets are comforting in general\n* in a movie, it is a way to emphasize someone was in danger, but now are safe",
"When you are severly burned you lose your thermoregulatory skin and therefore can go into hyperthermia at a higher temperature. This is why a burn operating room is kept at ~90 degrees F. \n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nHowever, in that case it seems like it was likely to prevent shock and comfort her. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Trauma-My-Life-Emergency-Surgeon/dp/B00A1A1UI0"
]
]
|
|
tntvj | nails on chalkboard | Why is it that the sound of nails on a chalkboard is so much more bothersome than other sounds? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tntvj/eli5_nails_on_chalkboard/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4o7xn7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a high pitched, loud, oscillating, irregular noise. Sound travels in waves, which can irritate the cochlea and rupture the tiny, hair-like cells inside. Generally, sounds over 85 decibels can hurt your ears. \n\nWhy specifically does the sound nails on a chalkboard bother you more? My guess is it's partly anticipatory. You've heard it before and don't like it, so it makes you uneasy to even think about it. I can barely read \"nails on a chalkboard\" without shuddering. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
42hbyx | why is it sometimes a video that is on the frontpage here, only says it has a few hundred views according to youtube? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42hbyx/eli5_why_is_it_sometimes_a_video_that_is_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"czaarb0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"(Youtuber for 8 years here)\n\nSo back in the olden days, YouTube had an algorithm to determine what was real/fake views. When the view count got to 301, YouTube would kinda do their own gig to verify the views. Here is a link to YouTube's explanation. 301 was an arbitrary number and they don't really know why its that specific number.\n\nThe view-count now adays doesn't do the 301+ or 301 view pause anymore. Instead, every couple of hours the view count updates. It's not in \"real-time\". However, the uploader can see a live count of the views in the Video Manager section of his account :) \n\nLink To YouTube 301 vid: _URL_0_\n\n-Doky"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLxGHwZWKnI"
]
]
|
||
asqru4 | why can we not instantly cook food? | Why does cooking food require time and heat, why can't the heat be supplied more intensely for a shorter period of time for the same results? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/asqru4/eli5_why_can_we_not_instantly_cook_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"egw09pn",
"egw0h50",
"egw0wlf"
],
"score": [
4,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"The outside heats up faster than the inside because it's exposed. If you were to try to cook it too fast, the outside would burn before the inside was fully cooked.",
"Heat must physically move from the outside surface into the interior of the food. The rate that this happens depends on the composition and density of the food and can be quite slow.\n\nIf you took a frozen turkey out of the freezer and lit it up with a flamethrower, the outside would burn to dust before the inside even thaws.",
"Cooking involves two main types of reactions which make it taste pleasurable. The first is chemical recations, the second is physical. \n\nWhen you bake bread (or cake, or anything really) you are allowing certain chemicals in the bread to chemically react with other chemicals. Kind of like the volcano experiment with baking soda and vinegar. Some types of reactions happen instantly, while others take time. Heat is what ignites certain reactions to happen in the first place, although it play more of a role in the physical reactions.\n\nPhysically, the heat breaks down the differen parts of he food so that it is easier to digest, or safer, and oftentimes it is both. Raw vegetables are perfectly healthy, but by heating them and mixing them with others, they mix flavours through the liquids in them, and that takes time to happen because of the cellular structure of the vegetables. Remember, food used to he alive at some point, its just been transformed into food by all sorts of methods.\n\nThe quickest way to “cook” food that tastes as you would expect good food to taste is by reheating already made food.\n\nThe easiest way is to buy premade food, although not everybody has this luxury.\n\nThe hardest way, is to find the seeds for whatever you want to grown, then to harvest and cultivate, process in whichever way is necessary to make it taste better, and cook if need be.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
29xsss | is fear something one can be conditioned to? | I just watched insidious and insidious 2 and was putting my self in the further for long periods of time. The further is a place where you see all kinds of ghosts and evil shit. So my question is if I was stuck constantly seeing really terrifying things would I eventually get used to it? would it just be normal life after a while? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29xsss/eli5_is_fear_something_one_can_be_conditioned_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cipj4s6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Actually, the only real treatment to specific phobias is exposure therapy. So, fear conditioning is not only possible, but also the only confirmed treatment to phobias. And the earlier you start the conditioning, the higher will be the probability of achieving the cure.\n\nNo amount of drugs can help you with fear. Phobias are anxiety disorders and anxiolytics can help you cope with some crisis, but that's all they do, you won't be treated.\n\nTL;DR: Yes."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2eawh2 | actual scientific proven evidence that chicken soup is good for you? | Whenever I'm sick, my mum would always used to make me her Chinese chicken soup.
Which would usually consist of just a lot of ginger, bunch of chicken and some rice wine.
I was wondering if there are actual benefits to having chicken soup?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eawh2/eli5_actual_scientific_proven_evidence_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjxpas8",
"cjxpbsl",
"cjxpcu9"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It warms up your body, it's full of protein from meat, vitamins and fiber from veggies, sodium and water. \n\nWhen you're sick, it's often hard to keep food down, but easier to drink. Soup lets you drink the nutrition that you need, get some fluids and sodium into your body that you're losing through sweat, and warms you up a bit, like a fever does, which helps fight off viruses.",
"_URL_0_\n\nApparently yes it is. The evidence shows it has an anti inflammatory affect and slow down migration of key white blood cells important in many symptoms of coughs and colds (cough, runny nose etc are caused my mucous release triggered by these cells… slowing the cells down in theory reduces these symptoms). ",
"1. There is a lot of evidence that drinking fluids is really good for you when you have many types of illness. Soup is fluid.\n\n2. There is evidence that ginger reduces nausea in pregnant people, and mixed research on it's benefits for nausea generally.\n\n3. there is mixed evidence on ginger's impact on the symptoms of arthritis and joint \"ache\".\n\n4. Chicken soup (ginger or not) has been shown to very mildly reduce inflammation, and there is at least one interesting study showing an impact of [chicken soup on congestion levels](_URL_0_) (symptom of illness)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001018075252.htm"
],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117888"
]
]
|
|
6pr54b | if video takes up so much memory how does the u.k. store all of their cctv footage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pr54b/eli5_if_video_takes_up_so_much_memory_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkriyss",
"dkrkxnb",
"dkrpa21"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You seem to underestimate how much space the gov't can get for storage. I work for a private company and our lone office server has 500TB worth on it, that doesn't include the network connection to corporate. We have a warehouse that is all server banks. ",
"Couple of things to know about CCTV:\n\nThe frame rate varies with what is going on - if there is no alarms or events it stores very little. \n\nAlso a lot of cctv is limited and disposes of data after a set period \"first in, first out\" so not all of it is stored. So if you want footage from 5 years ago it may not exist, part of the reason why after an event it's important to get the footage straight away.\n\nAs above data storage is very cheap.\n\nSource: look after cctv on trains, we actually had the police in yesterday picking up hard drives for evidence.",
"It's not stored for very long and the storage is reused, copies well be made for evidence purposes but only relevant bits. IIRC most CCTV is kept for a week in retail and possibly a bit longer by the council's CCTV. You don't think we store everything for ever did you?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1tn60o | in windows, why can't you use certain symbols when you create a folder name? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tn60o/eli5_in_windows_why_cant_you_use_certain_symbols/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce9l52w",
"ce9m2nu",
"ce9qzua"
],
"score": [
140,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Some characters are reserved so complete path names (e.g. c:\\windows\\system32\\cmd.exe) can be parsed into their drive letter and path components. Colons are reserved because they are used to denote drive letters and alternate data streams. Backslashes and slashes are reserved because they denote the end of a folder name. Double quotation marks (\") are reserved because they are used in some contexts to enclose filenames that contain spaces.\n\nAll other reserved symbols (? < > * | and others) are reserved for historical reasons.",
"The parser (that analyses and breaks out the different components of the file part and name) uses certain characters to know when one part stops and another starts. Since these \"delimiters\" identify where the parts are, they can't be part of the name itself.\n\nAlso, the special characters you listed are for Windows. Other operating systems, like Linux, have the same thing, but it's a different set of reserved characters. Thus, you can have a file name that is legal in one OS but illegal in another.\n",
"Another fun fact: Try and make a folder called \"con\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2pjp25 | what's the difference between resisting arrest and obstruction of a police officer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pjp25/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_resisting/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmxbcu5"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"If you resist your own arrest that's resisting. If you obstruct them from arresting your friend that's obstruction."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
aeshfz | the divisible by 3 trick | So, there's a trick where you can add all numbers in a given integer, and if the sum is divisible by 3, then the original number is divisible by three. For instance:
168 -- > 1 + 6 + 8 = 15, which is divisible by three, so therefore 168 is divisible by three (3 x 56 = 168).
160 -- > 1 + 6 + 0 = 7, which is not divisible by three, so therefore, 160 is not divisible by three.
You can then apply this trick to multiples of three. For instance, if the sum is divisible by 9, then the original is divisible by 9. Or if the sum is divisible by three, and the original is even, then the original is divisible by 6.
So, the thing I need ELI5'd is: why does this trick only work with 3, and multiples of 3?
Edit: Also, why does it work in general? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aeshfz/eli5_the_divisible_by_3_trick/ | {
"a_id": [
"eds797s",
"edsbwta",
"edsei87",
"edsenrk",
"edt4fhr"
],
"score": [
167,
6,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Replace 168 with abc. Now a is the hundred unit, b is the 10 unit etc... I can re write abc as a(100) + b(10) + c(1) and further more as a(99 +1) + b(9 +1) + c(1) . Multiply out the brackets and group gives you (99a +9b) + a +b+c. As you can see the first 2 terms are divisible by 3 so for any number you can assume this is true which means you only have to check the sum of the digits to determine divisibility.",
"Look at what happens to the digital sum of a number when you increase it by one:\n\nLets start with any number that is divisible by 9, e.g. 198. Ist digiral sum is 18, so we know it is divisible by 9.\n\nIf we add one to this number nine times in a row, we finally get 207, which has a digital sum of 9, so ist also divisible by 9.\n\nAnd if you do that one by one, you can easily see why that is:\n198 - > 199 - > Sum increased by 1\n199 - > 200 - > Sum decreased by 17\n200 - > 201 - > Sum increased by 1\n201 - > 202 - > Sum increased by 1\netc.\n\nAs you can see, every time you increase a number by one, one of the digits increases by one, and sometimes, in addition to that, one or more digits Switch from 9 to Zero, meaning they decrease by 9.\n\nSo, by doing this nine times in a row, you increase the sum by 9 (for the nine +1s) and possibly decrease it by 9 one or more times. You only ever change the sum in multiples of nine. Therefore, for every number whose digital sum is divisible by nine, the ditital sum of that number plus nine is also divisible by nine.\n\nThe reason this works for the nine is simply that this is one less than the ten digits we use.",
" > 160 -- > 1 + 6 + 0 = 7, which is not divisible by three, so therefore, 160 is not divisible by three. \n\nMoreover, since 7 is one more than a multiple of three (3×2 + 1), you know that 160 is one more than a multiple of three (3×53 + 1).\n\n",
"The trick with the 9 is a by product of us counting in decimal (base 10).\n\nIt works the same way in other bases with the highest single digit.\n\nFor example in octal where you count from 0 to 7 and 10 means 8 in our decimal system you can use the same trick to figure out of a number in octal is divisible by 7.\n\nThe multiplication table for 7 in octal reads like this.\n\n\n\nmultiplicator (dec)|decimal | octal | sum (oct)\n---:|---:|---:|---:\n1| 7 | 7|7\n2|14| 16|7\n3|21| 25|7\n4|28| 34|7\n5|35| 43|7\n6|42| 52|7\n7|49| 61|7\n8|56| 70|7\n9|63| 77|16\n10|70|106|7\n11|77|115|7\n\nYou can see how it works just like with the 9 in decimal.\n\nOf course 7 is a prime number and has no divisors other than 1 and itself so there is no equivalent of the trick for checking for divisibility by 3 in octal.\n\nHowever in hexadecimal ( base 16) the single highest digit is F (15 in decimal) and that is divisible by both 3 and 5.\n\nYou can add the digits of any hex number (in hexadecimal) to see if the number is divisible by 3 or 5 or 15. It works just like checking for divisibility by 3 or 9 in decimal.\n\nIn general the summing of digits trick works for any number that is a divisor of the single largest digit in base you are working in. it just happens to be that we generally use base 10 and 9 only is divisible by 1, 3 and itself.\n\nOther tricks to check for divisibility in our system like anything that ends on 0 and 5 being divisible by 5 and anything that ends on 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0 being divisible by 2 also work in other bases for any divisor of the base. For example any number in octal than ends on 0 or 4 is divisible by 4.\n\nIn order to be able to check divisibility of a number at a glance you just need to choose the right base to write numbers in.\n\nOur system is good for seeing divisibility by 2, 5 and 10 at a glance and being able to use the summing of digits trick to check for 3 and 9. It sucks for checking from numbers like 7.\n\nYou can't have everything.",
"Simple answer? It is an intrinsic property of counting in base ten math. There are different rules for binary or hexadecimal. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAdding digits together is similar to doing math based around ten because that's what a new digit is. Change the base, change the rules. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6gmzt8 | why do people get sucked out of a plane if there is a hole in it? is it just hollywood? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gmzt8/eli5_why_do_people_get_sucked_out_of_a_plane_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"dirhloc",
"dirhnj2"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's Hollywood exaggeration. Most airplanes *already* have a hole in the back to throw out stale air, and this hole is about half as big as an airplane window. No one gets sucked out, and the plane doesn't decompress (lose air pressure).\n\nHowever, if a *big* hole suddenly forms, you'll have two problems: (1) a sudden gush of pressurized air rushing out the hole (because the atmosphere high up is thinner), and (2) extremely fast winds rushing past the plane, much more than what you get when you open a car window.",
"Jet air liners have a pressurized cabin because the air is thin at 35,000 feet altitude. You could not really breathe in air that thin. In \"explosive decompression\" caused by an explosion or structural failure the air in the cabin rushes out quickly carrying anything not fastened down. This is why its a good idea to keep your seat belt fastened during flight. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
c4n0xr | how do anti-tank weapons kill tank crews after penetrating armor? | So I've read a lot of explanations on how different anti-tank weapons work and how they penetrate armor, but I was wondering how the crews are affected by them. Are they killed by shrapnel, pressure or heat? Is there a high survival rate for struck tanks? Thanks in advance. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c4n0xr/eli5_how_do_antitank_weapons_kill_tank_crews/ | {
"a_id": [
"erxcage",
"erxcuk8",
"erxdnkr",
"erxhfvi",
"erxk4ke",
"erzeci9"
],
"score": [
3,
20,
13,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on the round type. Some bounce around inside, some release an explosive. Also, shockwave/ shrapnel is an issue because humans are quite squishy and don't do well in those situations. There are a range of very good YouTube videos and documentary on the subject but I'm on my phone and as a five year old that can post on Reddit you can look up a video for yourself as well. I believe in you!",
"Anti-armor explosives have shaped charges that use explosives to force a concave piece of metal (like copper) into a molten jet of metal that pierces the armor. Once through, it is still molten and moving supersonically, introducing hot metal, plasma and a concussive, expanding shockwave to the interior. Soft, squishy humans react poorly to those sorts of things. As well, some anti-armor rounds cause large scabs of interior metal to fly around at high rates of speed.",
"Tank crew member in the early to mid 90s here M1, M1A1, and M1A2. Several ways to be killed inside a tank. If the armor is penetrated with a sabot the shrapnel from what was once the armor plating is just a fine mist and catches fire burning and shredding you all at the same time. ( a main gun round has phosphor on it and burns for tracing ) If the armor is not breached then all the equipment bolted to the inside ( gun sights, radio, ammo storage, safety shields, target computer ect...) has a chance to break free and either crush you or shead you. The concussive force is also real bad for your health. ( think blast lung/ gut) Some rounds are designed to breach the armor and set off a shaped explosion inside the crew compartment.",
"APHE(Armor piercing high explosive) rounds were common previously and would penetrate armor then detonate inside the tank doing severe damage to the equipment and killing the crew\n\nComposite and Sabot rounds punch a hole through the armor and send bits of the armor into the passenger compartment as a shotgun blast. These can disable the tank without killing all of the crew\n\nHESH(high explosive squash head) rounds are designed to hit the side of the tank, squish and spread their explosive across it, then detonate which sends the inside layer of the armor shooting into the tank(spalling). They don't penetrate the armor but can kill the crew.\n\nHEAT (high explosive anti tank) rounds often have a shape charge head. They detonate carefully laid out explosives behind a sheet of copper to create a high temperature, high speed jet of metal that cuts through the armor. If it makes it through you now have hot molten metal spewing around inside the tank. This is bad for the crew",
"Tankers die from spalling(shrapnel from the round or the tank armor) and/or heat.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf the tank is hit anywhere in the crew compartment, survivability of the crew is essentially zero.",
"At least for WW2, survivability was largely a function of being able to get out before the stored ammunition caught fire. Fuel fires were kind of whatever, you have extinguisher systems and it's also mostly on the other side of a bulkhead from the crew. But ammo was generally stored in the open with the crew. And it burns extremely hot and very fast.\n\nFor a typical five crew tank, you're probably looking at 1-2 casualties per KOed tank, about 75% of which are wounded and the rest dead. \n\nIf you have enough well designed hatches and the ammo doesn't ignite, you're on the low end, and it's basically whoever's closest to the hit being hurt or killed and everyone else getting out. Assuming you get hit where the crew are, i.e. a hit through the side to the engine probably leaves the crew intact. At least, for that one shot. They don't get a kill announcement like an FPS, they'll shoot until your tank catches fire or changes shape (aka explodes). \n\nThere's a famous piece of footage of an American M26 Pershing killing a Panther near the Cologne Cathedral, which shows most of this, including how quickly the ammo can ignite. \n\nModern tanks *generally* have the ammo stored more separate from the crew. Example, current US Abrams stores it in the turret rear behind armored doors, while the roof is designed to blow off if it catches fire."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2mv06o | why do we allow pharmaceutical company's to control what we use to treat or cure illnesses??? | Canadian scientist just announced they have the found a better way to treat and cure cancer but not much research will likely ever take
place because the treatment is not patentable therefore not profitable?
Same with C-diff disease, in which as gross as it might be taking a
healthy persons feces in pill capsule virtually eliminates the problem
But of course all the treatments get buried in the media because the rich only want to get richer.
When will people learn?
By the time you have read this someone has died because they did not have access to this information because the same company that was treating there problem!
_URL_0_
_URL_1_
edit: i know it takes time and money but when the proof is in the pudding, pun intended on fecal transplants, why do we waste time when uninformed people die because the treatments may be "unsafe"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mv06o/eli5_why_do_we_allow_pharmaceutical_companys_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm7u0p7",
"cm7u5hu"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"At the end of the day somebody has to pay for research, trials and production of a treatment. For a company to invest in a product (that may never be approved) they have to see the ability to make money. Any company that has just spent money on unprofitable medical research just isn't around to do these large tests. It's not some big conspiracy, it's just business.\n\nAs of yet, there is no cure for cancer. Any scientist that cured cancer would be world renowned, it would be bigger than noble prize worthy. If cancer was actually cured everyone would know about it, people are working on potential cures all over the world, all of the time. The money and fame that would come from curing cancer is unfathomable. \n\nAs for the 'poop pill', they are researching them and they are becoming a thing. They're a relatively new idea so give it some time.\n\nEdit: btw the cancer article you linked is from May 2011, I don't think \"Canadian scientist just announced they have the found a better way to treat and cure cancer\" was an accurate description.\n\nEdit 2: \"When will people learn?\" What would you have the public do?",
"Within the next 15 years, poop pills and fecal transplants will be common. It takes a long time for new treatments to reach people. Like a really long time. But gut microbiome stuff is really starting to take off with lots of promising research so it's something we can expect in the future. \n\nAlso, I can tell you without even looking that the cancer article you linked is bogus. It implies there is a universal way to treat or cure cancer as if cancer is a singular disease. This is not the reality nor will it ever be. \n\nEdit: Since the cancer article had some pretty obvious red flags that deem it illegitimate, I'm going to plug /r/skeptic. Now, go there and start being smarter and happier. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://nutritiondietnews.com/853757/",
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/11/355126926/frozen-poop-pills-fight-life-threatening-infections"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
fjdgui | when lakes/ponds freeze, how come only the top layer is frozen and there is still water underneath? yet when you put a bowl of water in the freezer, the whole thing is one solid block of ice. | This probably has an obvious answer and something is just not clicking for me. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fjdgui/eli5_when_lakesponds_freeze_how_come_only_the_top/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkmcy7w",
"fkmdash"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The freezer has a lot more heat removing capability than the weather. It circulates air all around the bowl, pulling out all the heat.\n\nOn a lake, once the ice forms, the cold air can't really get at any of the other water. The Earth itself doesn't freeze, even in the arctic, down to the depth of many lakes. Outside Siberia, permafrost isn't even 200m thick. A thin layer of air forms above the water's surface, caused by the expansion of the ice and air dissolved in the water, which further insulates the water. Finally, the pressure grows very quickly as you go down into a lake, about 1 atmosphere worth of pressure every 10m. At high pressure, water is harder to freeze because it has to expand to freeze and that is harder to do at high pressure.",
"Ice is actually quite a good insulator, meaning it's bad at conducting heat. It takes a realllllly long time for ice to conduct heat from the water underneath it to the cold air on top. \n\nIn a freezer, you only have a small amount of water. It's easy for the freezer to efficiently and continuously remove the heat from the water until it all turns into ice. Some lakes and ponds *do* freeze all the way, but if there's enough water, there's so much heat that the cold air just can't remove it all through the layer of insulating ice before the spring thaw comes."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1sx65m | the hot sensation that runs through my body when i sneeze. | Most times when I have an unexpected sneeze (not the snivel-y cold symptom kind, but more a "oh no, gotta get some dust out" kind) I get a rush of heat that goes through my body and down to my toes. Is this adrenaline, or what? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sx65m/eli5_the_hot_sensation_that_runs_through_my_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce24dhx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Honestly dude I have no idea I've never even really noticed it? I doubt it would be adrenaline I think maybe your bodies reaction to pushing so much air out at once. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3l1cgk | how freezing meat effects the expiration date. | If I buy a package of chicken breast with an expiration date 5 days from now, put it in the freezer for 4 days then thaw it out.
What is the "new expiration date"?
Edit: assuming that the expiration date is the date that it will be spoiled (which in reality is only a guideline). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l1cgk/eli5_how_freezing_meat_effects_the_expiration_date/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv29x6e",
"cv2a1zf",
"cv2a6dt",
"cv2b06c"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably a little less then 5 days.\n\nThe biggest effect the freezer has is that it destroys the cell walls. \nWater in the cells freezes and expands causing cell walls to rupture. \nThis exposes the juicy cell contents allowing bacteria to have much easier access so they'll multiply faster and create more toxins.",
"Expiration date is more of a guideline than actual definitive time when food will spoil.\n\nFreezing slows down most bacteria and fungi that are constantly present everywhere. On the other hand, freezing cells makes them explode. \n\nExploded cells are easy food for bacteria, so meat will spoil faster.",
"After thawing, you want to cook as soon as possible. The freezing process has compromised the meat and it will spoil faster than if it wasn't frozen.\n\nYou can keep meat a very long time in a freezer with no ill effect, but once it's thawed, it can go bad quickly.",
"There are two things that make meat go bad: bacteria, and the toxins created by bacteria. If you eat meat that has live bacteria in it, or has too much of the toxins, you may get sick.\n\nWhen you cook meat, the bacteria die, and they stop producing toxins. But the toxins they've already made generally stay in the meat, rather than being broken down.\n\nWhen you refrigerate meat, you slow down the bacteria, but they do keep producing toxins. (The grocery store will assume you're keeping your chicken in the fridge, so this \"slow\" rate is reflected on the packaging.) When you freeze meat, you stop the bacteria from making toxins, but you don't kill them. (Depending on the exact temperature, they may keep going, just at a very very slow rate.) When the meat thaws, they get right back to work.\n\nBut remember, the toxins made before the meat froze stay there, and meat takes some time to totally freeze and thaw. When you put the chicken in the freezer, the bacteria will stay \"active\" for a while, until they're totally frozen. And they'll start going again before the chicken is totally thawed.\n\nSo, as a short answer to your actual question, you should probably cook the chicken within about 4 days of pulling it out of the freezer. And lastly, remember that food just tastes better when you cook it fresh. If you pulled the chicken out last night, it'll taste better today than it will tomorrow!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.