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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
55b2ko | how we can clearly detect the use of uv light, despite our eyes not being able to perceive it | Say for example I had one of those neat little consumer grade UV lamps that are sold for travel, so I can check a hotel room or whatever.
If i were to turn on the lamp in an otherwise dark room, it would blatantly illuminate the room in an eerie purple, like any other flashlight (sans the purple).
How is this possible if humans can't detect the UV spectrum?
*TL;DR: Why can we see light from UV lamps?* | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55b2ko/eli5_how_we_can_clearly_detect_the_use_of_uv/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8926ck",
"d8926z1",
"d8927az",
"d894j83"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"UV lamps don't *exclusively* emit light in the ultraviolet.\n\nMost UV lights will have some kind of filter that prevents most of the non-UV light from escaping the bulb, but even those usually end up with the light coming out as a kind of dark bluish purple.",
"It's called fluorescence. When UV light strikes something fluorescent, some of that light is absorbed, but some is emitted at a lower frequency/energy, and this is what you see. ",
"You can't see UV light. What you can see is the visible part of the emitted light from UV lamps (deep purple, which is has a frequency close to UV light), but that is just a fraction of the actual emitted radiation. UV light is more energetic than regular visible light. This enables it to excite certain materials - and excited materials will in turn emit visible light.\n\nSo you're never seeing the UV light directly. You're only seeing the visible light which has been triggered from UV light, as well as some purple light which is a side effect of the UV lamp mechanism.",
"The answer to your question is phosphorescence and fluorescence. This is simply a material that absorbs light at one frequency, and it re-emits it at a lower frequency/energy. In the case of ultraviolet light which is high energy, the light is absorbed and re-emitted at a lower energy level which equates to colors lower than UV in the spectrum (fluorescence). \n\nWhen you look at a tube type lamp like they use in many businesses and stores it is using mercury vapor to generate ultraviolet light, but that wouldn't do us much good because as you say we can't see it. So they coat the inside of the bulbs with a white phosphor which absorbs ultraviolet light and re-emits it as whiteish light. If you were to remove the white stuff (the phosphor) from inside the tube, it would be a black light. This is phosphorescence. Phosphors can also be stimulated to glow by electrons like in the case of old television sets and some night lights. \n\nThis is also how many bleaches work to make something appear whiter like white bed sheets. They both bleach it, but they also dope it with white phosphors so that the natural UV light in sunlight is re-emitted as white light, making them appear even whiter than they normally would. If you hold a white sheet or article of clothing under a black light, it should light up pretty bright. \n\nso the light you see from a black light is a very small amount of visible light, just because it doesn't perfectly emit UV light, some phosphorescence from the coating, and then the things it lights up brightly like a fuzzy black light poster, that's phosphors. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
bzk5tg | when an oled screen is cracked/dropped on a certain area, why do all the pixels in a column around or near the main cracking point change to one color? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bzk5tg/eli5_when_an_oled_screen_is_crackeddropped_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqtrdnt"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"OLED stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode. The \"organic\" part of that means carbon-containing molecules that are used to make the light instead of silicon chips. The particular molecules used in OLEDs tend to be air-sensitive, so when the screen cracks, they chemically react with the air and degrade until they don't work anymore."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1x9wxv | what is a lamp stack? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x9wxv/eli5what_is_a_lamp_stack/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf9ejpt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is a suite of software used to run a web server, its stands for:\n\n\nLinux - the operating system\n\nApache - the web server software\n\nMySQL - the database\n\nPHP = the programming language used to create websites"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
33fkrr | the armenian genocide. | This is a hot topic, feel free to post any questions here. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33fkrr/eli5_the_armenian_genocide/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqkffw5",
"cqkfhe4",
"cqkfj5p",
"cqkfuqm",
"cqkhtpj",
"cqkimmc",
"cqkjh11",
"cqkjveh",
"cqkk3sq",
"cqkk4o7",
"cqkkl42",
"cqkkm2d",
"cqkl0nu",
"cqkl8js",
"cqklsi2",
"cqklwe4",
"cqkmqjm",
"cqkmzit",
"cqknvfq",
"cqknzu3",
"cqko6g7",
"cqkok73",
"cqkoyyf",
"cqkp8gm",
"cqkpnc0",
"cqkpno1",
"cqkpo95",
"cqkpuvv",
"cqkq0zx",
"cqkq3wf",
"cqkq3wk",
"cqkq5hq",
"cqks8a5",
"cqksc8w",
"cqkt3yy",
"cqktkl0",
"cqktvpr",
"cqkuntb",
"cqkvqmq",
"cqkxpiu",
"cqkypsl",
"cqkz0b8",
"cqkzaka",
"cql04kr",
"cql0stq",
"cql10zv",
"cql1l5d",
"cql2nkm",
"cql7bak",
"cql7hwh",
"cql97ne",
"cqlba6w",
"cqlfixe",
"cqlfqoq",
"cqlhjlc",
"cqmrbfg",
"cqo2tnw"
],
"score": [
614,
45,
3511,
8,
76,
311,
4,
18,
39,
3,
33,
15,
344,
11,
8,
11,
15,
30,
23,
6,
6,
2,
8,
5,
3,
5,
37,
5,
2,
3,
5,
7,
5,
10,
21,
5,
3,
12,
8,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
4,
2,
71,
3,
4,
4,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"One of the most common things I hear about the Armenian Genocide is that it's not really acknowledged in places like Turkey. Could somebody please explain what exactly the controversy is? Is it a matter of denying that a genocide occurred or is it denying that their people played a role in it?",
"Why do some countries choose to recognize this event as a genocide, while others are not? Is there a difference that it makes? ",
"The Armenian Genocide was the systematic killing of approx. 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire. It occured in 2 stages. First all able-bodied men were either shot, forced into front line military service (remember 1915 was during WWI) or worked to death in forced labour camps. Second, women, children and the elderly were marched into the Syrian Desert and denied food and water until they died.\n\nTurkey don't recognise the genocide because when the Republic of Turkey was formed after the war they claimed to be the 'Continuing state of the Ottoman Empire' even though the Sultanate had been abolished. This essentially means that they take proxy responsibility for the actions of the Ottoman government during the war and so they would be admitting that the killed 1.5 million of their own people. This is obviously really embarrassing for them.",
"1915, Turkey/Ottoman empire kills about 1.5 million armenians, starting by killing men, then marching the children and women until they starved or dehydrated, also doing things like raping women and opening pregnant women and killing the babies. They also took over western armenia (including mount ararat).\n\nArmenians have constantly tried to get Turkey to recognize the genocide and asked for reparations but nothing has happened. Many big countries like the US don't official recognize it due to \"political reasons\" as to not upset Turkey. This year is the 100th year since the genocide occurred, and hopefully there will be some more recognition and justice-unlike other massacres such as the holocaust or native american genocide, the armenian one has yet to be fully recognized globally and have recieved zero reparations.",
"What happened in the last week that this became reddit's topic of upvotes? I went on vacation. When I left we were all about how false rape accusations and Ellen Pao were evil but now its genocide denial. Someone explain?",
"If people recognize the killings of Armenians as genocide my opinion is that a similar group of people should recognize the Native American genocide as well. Natives were killed and sterilized in this country for a good long while yet now they have their sovereign nations where they do their Native American stuff pretty much without the interference of the US government (not really but on paper right?). So the Armenians have Armenia where they do Armenian stuff without the interference of the old or new Ottoman Empire. If this is really so different please explain it to me. Not being facetious, honestly interested in a correction if someone has one.",
"It wasn't just an Armenian genocide either. It was a Christian genocide by muslims. At the same time, the ottomans were killing Chaldeans, and Assyrians and others. From what I remember reading, ww1 had triggered the genocides as the ottomans sided with Germany.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n100 years later and things haven't changed much, muslim groups such as isis are still targeting Christians.\n",
"As someone whose great grandparents were able to flee the country during the beginning of the genocide and lost all of their family due to it, I'm glad it's finally getting more recognition and will eventually be observed as a genocide by most nations. ",
"It should also be added there is a direct connection between this Genocide and what Hitler did a quarter century later. Hitler saw how history quickly forgot about what happened to the Armenians, and felt empowered after his killing of the Jews it would be forgotten as well.",
"Glad to see that the Armenian Genocide is getting some recognition.",
"So I just saw on the news that United States, as a whole, does not recognize this event as \"genocide.\" The president, and past presidents, will not refer to it as a genocide. However, 43 states, including my home state of California do recognize it as genocide. \n\nWhy is this? My mom is a secretary at a local Armenian church and she doesn't know why. I'd like to hear more about this. ",
"I have heard that the ADL usually sides with groups like Turkey. They advise against classifying certain events as genocide more often than not.\n\nWhy?\n\n^^^sorry ^^^im ^^^on ^^^mobile ^^^if ^^^my ^^^question ^^^needs ^^^elaboration",
"\"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?\"\n\nAdolf Hitler",
"Serj , with SOAD, also did an amazing collaboration with Wyclef Jean on the Carnival album. Really good. \n\nI am half Armenian, half Russian Jew, and needless to say I've gotten racism for both my whole life. \n\nDidn't understand when I was young but do now. \nI can tell you, from personal experience, that hate, towards Armenians, which some are still living in fear and hiding, is still taught and prominent among Turks today. \nEven today's generation is taught to hate Armenians. It's sad, makes no sense and true. \n\nI carry no racism, hate or bias and live my life trying to be kind and good to everyone and the nationality of my friends range from many differences. \nYou would assume I am just plain old \"white\" when you look at me but when you learn my name or my heritage or mothers maiden name, oh the hate I have endured for no reason other than a name. Treated me one way one second and then all the sudden I'm a piece of dirt. \nIt's ok though. Makes it easier for me to cut out trash. ",
"Hard to say it didn't happen when you have witnesses and proof showing that it did... The damage does not only come from the 1.5 million that passed away, it comes from the division of the race as a whole. Mass global immigration of the Armenian people traveling/settling all across the world caused division. At least, that's how I see the Armenian Genocide affect the Armenian people today.",
"The fact that i've been informed more about Kim Kardashian's sex life than the Armenian Genocide makes me sad.",
"Although Ottoman Empire was still big and had military might (They performed a lot better in WWI than Allies had anticipated) it was still a gunpowder empire. Compared to Western powers, they had little industrial production capacity. If you have free time, you can look for the actual numbers. You'll be surprised when you realize how small they are. And minorities owned almost all of the non-agricultural production facilities. Young Turks thought they had to take over these if they were to build a nation state. Their German advisors were pretty keen on this idea, too. Almost all of the Ottoman-made weapons were produced by Armenians back then. And Germans wanted to sell their own to Ottomans. Thus, they did everything they could to create an even-greater hatred towards Armenians in ranks of Young Turks. Of course, that doesn't shift to blame to them. It's just a fact.\nOne of the reasons why Turks deny genocide so vehemently is the fact that a large number of Turks and other Muslim people of the empire, Kurds for example, basically took over (or in many cases, downright plundered) what their exiled neighbours left behind. There are still Armenian families with Ottoman Empire issued deeds gathering dust somewhere. The problem here is not just ethical but also legal. And that's why a mutual understanding between the parties will never be reached.",
"Why does there seem to be so much emphasis on defining it as \"genocide\"? \nDoes Turkey reject completely that they killed 1.5 Million people, or do they know they did it, but just don't care to label it as genocide?",
"Its not just the Armenians. There were massacres of Assyrians and Orthodox Greeks too during that time by turkish authorites. Please don't let those people be forgotten.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n",
"One thing I REALLY hate about this push for the genocide recognition is they never mention the Assyrians and Greeks who were also butchered during that same exact genocide of the Armenians...",
"As a Turk, I would simply like to empathize and understand this situation with your fellow redditors. Of course the main reason why Turkish Government doesn't acknowledge these killings as a genocide because they don't want to pay **reparations**. The Ottoman Empire made a huge mistake of allying up with ze Germans at that time, therefore was in war with the British, French, Russians, Americans, Italians, Australians, Greeks and pretty much any country which mattered or were being used politically used against another country at that time, wars right? So imagine a country constantly losing territory in Africas, Balkans and in European region, dealing with revolts in Middle East and Arabian Peninsula hence The War. Meanwhile Kurdish and Greek minorities were armed by the British, Balkans by the Russians and Armenians by the French and these minorities were using these guns and being bandits all around, raiding villages, killing people, raping, stealing and all that crap. Since it was pretty fucking obvious that the Ottoman Empire was going to lose the war, they were pretty pissed off and took this out on the poor Armenians and nobody gave a fuck about this until 15 years, when AKP began to rule and now we have presidential system like the US, YAY DEMOCRACY! The End.",
"I understand why Turkey denies it, but what do the US have to gain from it's denial?",
"After centuries of having great power, the Ottoman Empire became outdated compared to the fast developing European nations. In efforts to prevent the Ottoman Empire from deteriorating even further, junior officers from the Turkish Army created a nationalist group known as the ‘Young Turks.’ In 1913, after a coupe, the Young Turks seized full control of the Ottoman Empire. The leaders of the coupe were three men, Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal. Their ambition was to expand eastward to Central Asia and create a new empire known as the Turkish Empire. They envisioned an empire unified through one language and one religion. (“Armenian Genocide.\" United Human Rights Council) \nEast of Turkey was Armenia. Armenia became the first nation to accept Christianity as their state religion. The Armenians, unlike the Turkish, valued education. The Ottoman Empire had placed little value on education. Through careful manipulation of the public, the Young Turks glorified the virtues of simple Turkish peasantry. The Young Turks successfully made the average Armenian a stranger amongst the Turks. (“Armenian Genocide.\" United Human Rights Council)\nWhen World War I broke out, the leaders of the Young Turk regime sided with the Central Powers. The Young Turks saw this as an opportunity to solve the problem of the Armenians. On April 24, 1915 the Young Turk’s issued a coded telegram to exterminate Armenians throughout Turkey. Roughly 300 Arminian affluent citizens, who resided in Turkey, were jailed and tortured then hung or shot. (“Armenian Genocide.\" United Human Rights Council) On May 27, 1915 the Tehcir Law was passed. This temporary law authorized the deportation of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population. (\"Tehcir Law.\" Tehcir Law. World Public Library Association) The Armenian’s were given little notice to pack their belongings and were assured they were going to be relocated to nonmilitary zones for their own safety. The men faced a grim reality; the men were rounded up and killed. The women and children were forced to march to their graves. Caravans consisting of thousands Armenians were forced to march southward toward the Sudan Desert. These caravans faced sexual abuse and rape of young women by the guards and Kurdish bandits. Those who stopped for rest would be shot dead. Food supplies quickly ran out. The Armenian’s were deprived of basic necessities and were forced to keep on marching. The Turkish countryside soon became littered with corpses. An estimated 75 percent of Armenian’s who were on these marches had perished. Those who managed to survive were herded to the desert where they were either thrown off cliffs, burned alive, or drowned in rivers. (“Armenian Genocide.\" United Human Rights Council) The University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies compiled figures by province and district that show there were 2,133,190 Armenians in the empire in 1914 and only about 387,800 by 1922. (Kifner, John. \"Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview.\" New York Times) \nDuring this time, nothing was done to prevent the massacre of the Armenians. The Allied Powers were aware of the situation and sent a telegram on May 29, 1915 stating:\nThe Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime-Porte that they will hold personally responsible [for] these crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres. (United States. Department of State. American Embassy. France, Great Britain and Russia Joint Declaration. American Embassy)\nShortly before the war ended, the Young Turk leaders, Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal, stepped down from their government posts and fled to Germany where they had been offered asylum. In the months that followed after the war had ended, Turkey ‘s new moderate government and the Allied powers demanded the Young Turks to be handed to Turkish authorities and face trial. Despite numerous attempts, Germany refused to cooperate with the demands of the Turkish government and Allied powers. (“Armenian Genocide.\" United Human Rights Council)\nBecause this was the first instance of a modern genocide, there was no agreement between nations to prosecute those who committed war crimes in nations outside their own. Because of this the Armenian’s were forced to enact their own justice through carried out assassinations against the Young Turk leaders. \n\n*Part of my paper I'm writing right now\n",
"I would love to see the Circassian genocide brought to light someday. and every other ethnic cleansing that happened that no one knows about. most people think humanity has a clean sheet when it comes to its past. but there is so much hidden under the carpet.",
"A woman I worked with talked about the genocide. Her grandmother or great grandmother was there during it.\n\nThe one story that stuck with me was one day, she was making dinner. She went to the pantry to get some more of something (I can't remember what) and When she came back to the table, her husband and son were dead. Throats cut wide open. She fled and found my friends great grandfather during their travels to flee.\n\nEvery Monday, we would work together and once a month or so, she'd tell me stories about it. About how Turkey doesn't recognize it. About the children being killed. About her family being murdered. It was brutal.",
"Why has this popped up all of a suddent?",
"One thing I can't understand is this (may be this should be it's own ELI5 post) - what do we attain by not apologizing for our past actions? Japan wouldn't apologize for its treatment of Chinese/Koreans during WW2, Russia wouldn't acknowledge it's mass rapes in Germany after allies victory in WW2...and so on. I'm sure there are dozens more we could find. I read somewhere that Japan doesn't even want it's younger generation to know about its role in the war.\n\nWhy can't we (by we, I mean every country that has a shitty past behavior - which is probably most countries on the planet) apologize? Wouldn't that help heal wounds? How hard would it be to say \"I acknowledge and recognize my past actions. I am sorry I put you through this. Let us work together now and make sure it doesn't happen again\" - how hard can that be?\n\n\nEdit: Not sure if I explained it well, but made a ELI5 question on this topic. _URL_0_ For some reason, this kinda behavior really really really bothers me",
"Hitler was correct when he stated, that no one would remember the Armenian Genocide. ",
"One of the reasons denial is so prevalent is because Armenia was incorporated into the USSR after brief attempt at being an independent country in 1922. The massive refugee crisis and impending invasion from Turkey meant they surrendered their country to the soviets. France USA and UK all desired to help the plight of the Armenians but after years of fighting they couldn't justify sending men and aid to resist another war with the newly formed Turkish state. \n\nFollowing on from this as the Cold War settled in Turkey became a prominent member of the anti soviet block and joined NATO, as this country controls the entrance to the Black Sea it is one of the most if not the most strategically placed country against Russia. The Armenians who had a strong diaspora across the globe couldn't out weigh the alliance with turkey and so powers like the USA and Britain allowed this horrible issue to be ignored in the name of geo politics. It's no coincidence that most of the countries that recognise the genocide did so after the end of the Cold War. ",
"Many of the responses paint a black and white picture. Please be wary of bias and propaganda.",
"Turkey killed a bunch of Armenians, they say it was justified because human beings have a hard time processing collective guilt, the end.",
"April 24th 1915, Talaat Pasha--a general in the Ottoman empire, declared the deportation of all Armenians. They asked us (the Armenians), their allies, to assist them in their war effort. We gave them our full support. They rounded up our troops and took them to battle, but instead of battle, they wiped out our military in one fell swoop. Then they went around to our homes, dragged us out, raped and murdered us. Took whoever they didn't feel like killing right there and put them on a death march. My grandfather was a young boy, maybe 12 years old. He saw this happen to his family, and was the only one placed on the march. 1.5 million Armenians, or half the Armenian population at the time, were murdered in cold blood. This was not a war, there were no battles. They were disarmed and slaughtered. It has been 100 years and the Turkish government denies it for fear of reparations. They built strong alliances on the power they usurped, developed agriculture and industry on the land they stole, founded a new nation on the blood stained graves of their victims. ",
"You can deny the Armenian genocide but you cannot deny the Holocaust. That right there says a lot about the current state of the world.",
"As a Turk from Istanbul, I do recognize the Armenian Genocide like many of the other Turks. I actually have many Armenian friends, whom i like a lot. I took place in some of their demonstrations and rallies too. What my ancestors conducted was immoral and unjustified and I do accept that. But what i don't like is the Armenian community trying to gain a political status from a historic event. A compensation is well enough but the fact that they try to benefit from this genocide is an act of impudence. Don't get me wrong,i have read books on the subject matter, which were written by Armenian authors. I get the idea of hating on the government for not accepting the fact but including the whole nation of Turkey is just a very stupid way of going about the topic. Oh hey lets just hate on all nazi soldiers and their offsprings for the next generations because they killed Jews. Oh lets hate on all Americans for killing the native Americans oh lets hate on Spaniards for killing off the whole Incan Civilization. Come on people, try to look at the bigger picture.",
"If you have an hour, this radio program explains it really well: _URL_0_\n\n**tl;dl version:** It's about the use of the word \"genocide,\" not whether or not there was a killing of Armenians.\n\n**Slightly longer tl;dl version:** Most Turkish people agree there was a terrible massacre, but disagree that it was a genocide because 1) it wasn't as organized as the Jewish Holocaust 2) unlike the Jews in WW2, Armenians as a group were politically active and fighting in separatist movement 3) it happened in a context of the Ottoman empire collapsing and in other parts of the empire, and many Muslims were slaughtered in the same time frame. However, these arguments don't really negate the facts that 1) it was still an attempted ethnic cleansing that 2) targeted the whole population, not just political agitators and 3) there are basically no Armenians left in Eastern Turkey, but the place is littered with abandoned Armenian churches.\n\n**ELI5 version:** Basically, there's a lot of, \"HEY! DON'T USE THAT WORD! WE WERE BAD, BUT WE WEREN'T AS BAD AS HITLER!!!\"",
"It's the reason the band \"System of a Down\" exists",
"I read somewhere that the Armenian Genocide was one of the most \"successful\" genocides in history because it killed such a huge percentage of the population (1.5m out of 2m Armenians), is that true? Also, weren't a lot of Greeks and Assyrians killed?",
"Thanks for asking this and to everyone reading and participating. I'm Armenian and I felt like this destructive tragedy is something only Armenians knew or cared about for a long time. Even though it's so terrible, the worst part is knowing all those people who died weren't even acknowledge; they had no one to remember them and tell of their lives, most just died and were forgotten in a desert. For today at least and through the week that will lessen and it feels good for my family and many others to know the truth is still being learned and supported by people around the world",
"I don't get why Reddit loves to take the Devils advocate side and try to justify what the \"unpopular opinion\" side did was okay. It happens all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years down the line there's people trying to justify Hitler. \n\nWhat the Turks did was absolutely genocide, along with what the Americans did to the Natives. \n\nIntent? You're telling me there isn't an intent to kill a specific group of people when you're asking men, women and children to go on foot for hundreds of miles with little to no food, water or supplies and no accommodations of special needs such as pregnancies and disabilities...? Not to mention soldier brutality along the way? \n\nYou're telling me you're not trying to erase a culture or history by telling them to relocate off a land they've lived on for 500 years? \n\nArmenians betrayed Turkey...? Okay, so you relocate THE ENTIRE POPULATION? This logic is equivalent to deporting all Muslims for 9/11.\n\nI personally blame the fact schools hardly touch on this as to why there's so much misinformation and uneducated answers going around, but the Turks absolutely committed genocide here. The fact they still openly deny it and have yet to offer any kind of reprocussion or apology is shocking. ",
"My question is; why is this only now beginning to gain traction? I'd never heard of any of this until a couple months ago when I started seeing billboards about the Armenian Genocide. What happened recently that prompted revisiting the issue? More importantly, why wasn't it addressed much sooner?",
"No one disagrees that the Turks didn't massacre Armenians.\n\nPeople disagree that the facts are not 100%. The numbers are skewed. The Armenians haven't even opened up their archives for the world to see, where Turkey has.\n\nWhat happened goes much deeper than a simple \"Turkey rounded up 1.5 million Armenians and just killed them for being Armenian.\"\n\nThere was real history behind it.\n\nI am not dismissing that it is not a genocide, but until you place a term like that onto something, you should have facts. And facts about the massacre are things we do not have. We have inflated numbers, where the victims are refusing the show the evidence of their claims. Until they open their archives to the world, this will stay a mystery.\n\nBut. The world will band against Turkey due to political reasons. Countries \"accepting\" this genocide are out to make a political statement, nothing more.",
"* 1) Armenians lived on the lands of their historic homeland of thousands of years, the [Armenian Highland](_URL_1_) (now eastern Anatolia). \n* 2) Turks invaded. \n* 3) Hundreds of years later, after living as second-class citizens, Armenians sought greater autonomy and [partnered with Young Turks](_URL_3_) who promised it. \n* 4) Young Turks had more insidious plans and under the cover of WWI, collected Armenian intellectuals and others on April 24, 1915, and killed them. \n* 5) [A general deportation order](_URL_2_) was issued where all Armenians were to be deported from their homes - into the Syrian desert. \n* 6) Up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed either in their homes or on the death marches. \n* 7) Successor of Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey, denies genocide for 100 years, [continues policy of cultural destruction.](_URL_0_)\n\n* **Best evidence for genocide:** pre-1915, millions of Armenians living in the Armenian Highland (eastern Anatolia) controlled by Turks; post-1915, 0 Armenians living in Armenian Highland controlled by Turks. ",
"I want to thank OP for starting this discussion. I'm half Armenian; my grandparents emigrated to the US in the 1920s, after fleeing Armenia. While I've been aware of the Armenian Genocide for many years (or at least the acts contained therein), I've never really understood why it would have occurred. Being able to place it within the context of the Balkan Wars, the concurrent conflict with Russia and the obvious religious division between the Armenian Orthodoxy and the Muslim government is very important to me.\n\nAll I ever really knew about the Genocide was the mass slayings and forced marches through the desert, and that my grandfather managed to escape when a Turkish soldier's pistol misfired during an attempted execution. I remember my grandmother going on about \"those damned Turks\" on occasion when I was much younger, but she spoke mostly Armenian and I didn't understand a lot of what she said. My parents didn't really help place it in context, I suppose because they had only really experienced one side of the issue. It honestly wasn't a topic that came up very often in our household, and naturally was never brought to my attention at school. For most of my life, the term \"genocide\" was synonymous with the Holocaust; it wasn't until much later that I learned the significance of what had happened to my ancestors, as well as the crimes perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge and others. And you can imagine my shock when I learned that more than half the world doesn't officially recognize what happened as a genocide, including the American federal government.\n\nI'm the kind of person who needs context to understand something, and reading about the historical events and complexities surrounding the Genocide really helps me here.\n\n**TL;DR - I'm half Armenian and this thread helps me make sense of some of this stuff, so thanks.**",
"Now we need the Japanese to admit to their horrorendous war crimes during WW2 and my faith in humanity will start to grow.",
"This is not a complex issue but it requires some history:\n\n\nEarly 1800s:\n\n After military losses to the Russians and Austrians in the late 18th century, the Ottomans would go on toy lose territory from within as well. The Serbians revolted successfully (1804-1815) and the Greeks followed in 1821.\n\nSecularization and military modernization (no more Janissaries) continued through the century. During this time, the Christian population pulled ahead of their Muslim peers economically. From the beginning of the Empire, each religious group had to fund its own schools and Christians would voluntarily impose taxes on themselves for schools. The number of Christian students vastly outnumbered Muslim ones. Armenians now had large voluntary roles in the Sultans government, serving as the Sultan’s goldsmiths, his architects, and secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Finance for example. In cities, Armenians worked as skilled laborers, bankers, and industrialists (an Armenian family controlled the entire ammunition industry of the empire). In the villages, Armenians were also prosperous. They would work in agriculture or as skilled laborers. The prosperity of Armenians created some resentment.\n\nThen again, the Empire was stressed from inside and out. Reforms in the country were expensive and The Crimean war (a 1853 game of power between France and Russia for control of the Ottoman lands by proxy) ended and pushed the Ottomans into debt. When France was occupied with the Prussians, the Russians declared war again in 1877 and liberated Bulgaria (partially) and Romania. In 1878, Austria Hungry occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina. Several years later, Britain took over Cyprus and Egypt.\n\nThe pressure on the Ottoman Empire grew and grew and it was going to release sooner or later.\n\nHamidian Massacres:\n\n In response to loss of territory and military status, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire reasserted Islam as a state ideology. At this time Armenians had seen the Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Serbians gain freedom and wanted better treatment themselves. Europe had added provisions in the Treaty of Berlin (1878, after Russo-Turkish war) to instruct the Sultan make reforms in the Armenian provinces (Eastern Ottoman Empire) which were not secure.\n\nThe Sultan tied all woes that the empire was facing to Christian Europe and the Armenians were seen to be an extension of this force. He responded to a reminder in 1881 to honor the Berlin Treaty reforms by doing the opposite. He gave semi-official status to Kurdish bandits (the reason the eastern was not secure for Armenians) along with weapons and permission to attack Armenians, steal their food, and drive off their livestock without repercussions. In response to the now armed Kurds, the Armenians formed militias of their own and battles between the bandits and militias occurred over several years.\n\nIn 1894, the Armenian militia attempted to fight off an organized front of the Ottoman Army and Kurdish bandits but failed. It was for this event that the Prime Minister of Great Britain called the Sultan “the Great Criminal” and “the Red Sultan”. The European powers demanded the execution of the Treaty of Berlin and European representatives were sent to examine the event. This event was followed by an incitement of anti-Armenian sentiment around the Ottoman Empire. Turks would be gathered into mosques and told that the Armenians were attacking Islam. Violence against Armenians spread throughout the entire Empire.\n\nEuropean powers again forced the Sultan to sign a reform package, but again, it wasn’t implemented. Armenians in Constantinople gathered to petition for reform to no avail. Upon receiving the reform package, the Sultan remarked “This business will end in blood”.\nIt did. This was the start of the Hamidian Massacres.\nThe protests were violently broken up and anti-Armenian passion flew through the empire as neighbors, soldiers, and Kurds mercilessly killed Armenians (and also Assyrians). This lasted throughout the year (1895-1896) as thousands and thousands of Armenians were killed across the Empire.\n\nThe French vice consul of Diyarbakir recounted that the Turks would refuse to attack people who defended themselves, instead concentrated on defenseless districts. He also wrote about the Ottoman troops burning down a Cathedral in which 3,000 Armenians had taken refuge and shooting anyone who tried to escape.\n\nThe violence lasted until 1897 when the Sultan relented.\n\nA German Pastor who collected data on the destruction estimated that 88,243 Armenians were killed, 546,000 were forced into poverty, 2,493 villages were destroyed, 456 villages were forcibly converted to Islam, and 693 Churches were destroyed or converted into Mosques. Other estimates of deaths range from 80,000 to 300,000 Armenians.\n25,000 Assyrians were also killed.\n\n",
"Why does Turkey deny the genocide? It happened 100 years ago so it's not like we can blame the current government or anyone else in the country for what happened ",
"I just have a quick supplemental point to make, as I don't see it stated in the thread yet.\n\nThe Assyrians were also victims of the genocide. A lot of people have forgotten about them, but the Assyrians suffered enormously during the Armenian genocide.",
"Why does Armenia care if turkey recognizes this even or not? \n\nI mean, will they get reparations or something?",
"My father (b. 1909) lost both his parents and was raised by his brother and sister.\n\nSomething interesting from when I was young.\nI asked my father, \"Should we hate the Turks?\" He got VERY upset and sat me down.\n\nHe explained:\n\n\"The killings happened a long time ago. The Turks who did this are ALL DEAD now. The living Turks are not to blame in any way, shape, or form for what happened to your grandparents. DO NOT HATE.\"\n\nInteresting perspective from a survivor - he ran away from the march and was taken in by Kurds who, being reasonable, figured a young boy deserved to be saved. :)\n\nAnd yes, it was Genocide. I'd ask my grandparents, but..... ",
"Between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians living in what is now called Turkey were either massacred or died in the course of death marches into the Syrian desert in the years of 1915-1923. Those people included many elderly and children. Most survivors ended up living in other countries, including Greece, Lebanon and the United States. There is a vast Armenian diaspora.\n\nTwenty-four countries, including France and Russia, and 43 states within the U.S., have recognized the combined massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians as a genocide. Turkey does not. \n\nThe Turkish argument contradicts itself. On the one hand, they will argue that it was not intentional; on the other hand, they will argue that Armenians revolted and the deportations were a defensive measure. You can't have it both ways. \n\nThe truth is that no country exterminates a million human beings spontaneously. It simply does not happen. That level of violence requires organization, and in fact, the Ottoman army was widely involved in both massacres and in escorting Armenians to the desert where they died of hunger, thirst and cholera. \n\nPlease see the wikipedia pages for more information:\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_",
"Thank you everyone, as an Armenian-American in his 20s I've seen the results of the Armenian-American experience develop from a mostly unwelcome ethnic group of immigrants seeking deliverance from a Hell on Earth genocide to a group of extremely integrated ethnic group in America. Most people I knew growing up had never heard of the Armenian people let alone knew details of the genocide. The elders in my family passed down stories of The Old Country and the murder and enslavement of their relatives. The genocide still strikes a chord with Armenian Americans growing up this very day and it seems to finally be striking a chord with mainstream American society. I firmly believe that if Turkey had admitted to the genocidal actions of a past tyrannical government the wounds would have probably healed a lot quicker, but because they chose to manipulate their own subjects facts and sense of reality since WW1 the wound stayed fresh in the minds of the Armenian offspring for over 100 years now. Yes war is awful, its the most awful thing humans do. But from what I've learned of the events that took place at that time in that region, what occurred was not a war in as much as there was no war between the Nazis and the Jews; one group in power wanted to evaporate the other culture from existence while at the same time pilaging and plundering the wealth of their murder victims.\nThen again, I may be biased.",
"Doesn't the entire 'genocide wasn't defined until the 50s' argument kind of weak sauce? Just because there isn't a word to define an event doesn't mean the event didn't occur until the word is created. We had gravity before the 'theory of gravity'. Creating words to define the past is one of the main goals of language. Maybe I'm being too simplistic but I really don't think so. Shit happens all the time and we don't have words for them. There were Islamofascists before 9-11. Hell, fascism as a form of law existed before the word fascism came to prominent usage in the early 20th century. \nAlso, as an American I want to hold my country responsible for its terrible actions against Native Americans and Africans. Anyone with enough self respect to understand that just because you live in a country doesn't mean you're responsible for the actions of the government in power 100 years before your birth. All peoples of all nations have spilled blood innocently at one time or another on purpose or on accident. This is not a problem inherent to governments and laws, it is a problem of the human race. To try to ignore the actions of cruel people in a cruel time is not as easy as it once was and will become a greater and greater embarrassment to those in denial as the human race progresses even further into and eventually beyond the digital age. I'm an American god damn it and I detest what those awful fucking racists who institutionalized black slavery in my country and those genocidal military men who systematically killed off the vast Native American/Indian nations, and whether it be from bullets, blankets, starvation, killing innocent non-combatants as women, children, the elderly, the injured and the surrendered in times of war, peace or detente is flat out murder. I might be biased because I live in a time and place in which I don't have to pick up a weapon and make those kinds of decisions just to survive another day. My relatively peaceful society has saved me from that kind of mad existence. The Americans of the past killed off Native American societies and enslaved blacks and Africans, the fact that Americans my age can accept that awful part of my nations past allows us to be a better crop of Americans in the future. The Nazis manipulated the German people into the holocaust and because Germans of this era can separate themselves ideologically from Germans of The Third Reich they assure themselves that they won't allow themselves to be manipulated into the barbarism that ended the lives of 7 million Jews in Europe. Because the Turkish government (and a great deal of their purposefully misinformed citizens) have avoided defining the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Armenians as 'genocide' they don't appear to show the same remorse and regret for the barbarism of their past the same way that Germans, Americans, Brits and other Western societies have for their barbaric past. Even the USSR in the Post-Stalinist era admitted to the government sanctioned starvation/murder of 50 million of their subjects in the decades following the death of Joseph Stalin and without being too glib, thats the USSR we're talking about. You've gotta accept the faults of humans past to ensure the lives of humans in the future, to do otherwise is not self sustaining.",
"According to the Oxford Dictionary, Genocide is defined as: The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. \n\nKilling 1.5mm Armenians and expelling a million more Armenians out of their land sounds like Genocide to me. ",
"[Katt Williams' point of view on this issue] (_URL_0_)",
"it was genocide. \n\nthe whole word genocide was invented to give definition to what the young turks did. \n\nThe concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, was based on the Armenian Genocide.\n\nthis is the wiki page of the man whom wrote the legislation, it gives an account of what he considers genocide. \n_URL_0_",
"The Armenian Genocide was a mass killing of around 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire (Now Turkey). On April 24th, 1915, stage one was initiated- Armenians who were high in society were taken and killed. Then, women and children were forced into the Syrian Desert with no food or water and starved to death. Turkey doesn't recognize the genocide and it is very controversial.",
"ELI5: What is there to gain from countries recognizing this genocide? Do all Armenians recieve pension or something?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33gsax/eli5_why_dont_countries_and_societies_acknowledge/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-04-14/a-new-chapter-in-the-century-old-debate-over-the-massacre-of-armenians"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328285.stm",
"https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35301/Armenian-Highland",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Law",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turk_Revolution"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_recognition",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvISld6gH7c"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5qhbrw | how come digg died but reddit thrived? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qhbrw/eli5_how_come_digg_died_but_reddit_thrived/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcz8z96",
"dcz9gp9",
"dczasnp"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Change of layout. Digg changed layout that people loved, into something that looked like news websites. People hated it, and somebody posted about reddit there. Thus, the exodus. I was there when it happened. And yes, I hated the new layout too",
"The real, honest answer is \"nobody knows\". Internet business is fickle. Digg made some fantastically unpopular design decisions that angered users. \n\nSo has Facebook. However, when Facebook makes an unpopular change they can usually tell their customers to deal with it and power through, expecting 90% of those that quit over the decision to come back and adapt to the change. \n\nDigg's management likely took the same philosophy. They doubled down on the changes, saying \"you'll get used to it\". Unlike facebook though, their users weren't nearly as addicted as their management thought. Users didn't come back. They left for other sites like Reddit and by the time Digg reversed some of their decisions, it was too late.",
"I came here from Digg when the collapse came. Before that day, Digg had a far superior look to it.. it was “Web 2.0” CSS – rounded buttons, soft edges. Reddit was a “Wall of text” and muddled with data. \nOn my normal day, I would open _URL_0_ and scroll through the first few pages of stories to see what I had missed over the night. Then I would head to the submitted articles section and see what was worth ‘suggesting’ to other people. Bury the story if it was stupid, or just spam or trying to sell stuff we didn’t want. \n\nBut Digg needed money. They couldn’t figure out how to turn the website into a cash cow, so they decided to have advertising websites (like Tech crunch or cnet) just automatically feed their articles into Digg like an RSS feed. You didn’t get any imaginary points for submitting it yourself! You couldn’t bury sponsored articles! Control and curation of content were no longer something users felt we controlled. (Perhaps you’d say we never had the control, but we had the PERCEPTION of it at the LEAST) We were being shown/told what to like by marketers. The exact opposite of the core system behind why people enjoyed Digg. \n\nReddit, the ugly step brother, still offered us control over content. So we submitted our content to Reddit, got all the content we wanted to see, then posted Reddit to Digg. One day the entire front page of links on Digg directed to Stories ON Reddit. ( < 3 ). \n\nSoon after, everyone just stayed on Reddit, and the crappy design of Reddit started to grow on you like Moss.. or shingles..\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"Digg.com"
]
]
|
||
4o1p0f | why did nicola's tesla theory of clean energy never got developed, did it lack scientific credibility? | I have been reading lately about this matter on the internet and different books I found, and from what I see it was a theory of huge potential, that never got scientifically rejected but simply died away with time and other methods were developed further.
Is it possible that we are ignoring something so valuable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o1p0f/eli5why_did_nicolas_tesla_theory_of_clean_energy/ | {
"a_id": [
"d48t44c",
"d48u48t",
"d48uttu"
],
"score": [
37,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Nikola Tesla had a lot of unusual ideas, some of which were more practical than others. For example, he did not believe in radio waves. Although he made some important advances in electrical engineering, a lot of his claims were never technically demonstrated or explained in a cohesive way. Without any known principles to be tested, those claims don't really have any use. What specific idea did you have in mind?",
"Any source on what specifically, you're talking about?\n\nI know there are some less than credible sites which claim that Tesla developed some mysterious sort of free energy or something, but I have found no credible source that that actually happened. As far as I know, Tesla never even claimed to have invented free energy. \n\nThen again, he might. To be frank, Tesla was eccentric, not to say insane. He did not believe in the existence of electrons, nor relativity, nor any of the world's more modern physics.\n\n Most of what he worked on in the last years of his live would not have worked in reality.",
"Tesla had a lot of ideas which would work, or which actually work. But quite often, these ideas were not really applicable on large scale.\n\nI don't know what exactly you are referencing, but as an example he proposed harnessing cosmic radiation. Which is possible - but its power is so low that it's basically not worth it.\n\nHis big project was wireless transmission, but that failed not just to a lack of funding, but also the fact that it would exchange land power lines for huge \"antennas\" sending and receiving power, in addition to being fairly inefficient. Basically, there wasn't really any advantage to it - why bother?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1dfvj7 | the distrust of communism and socialism in american culture | Other democratic countries such as in Europe have popular far left and far right political parties. Communist and socialist parties in the US have been considered un american and often banned. Why is the far left perceived as much more alien to the American way of life then the Far right. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dfvj7/eli5_the_distrust_of_communism_and_socialism_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9pwamf",
"c9pwgg6"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The short version is it's a hold-over from the Cold War; we were in a long, tense conflict with the Soviets, with a great deal of espionage and maneuvering and posturing going on. Because of this \"communist\" rapidly became \"enemy\" in the eyes of the public, helped in no small part by a combination of propaganda and witch-hunting. A man named McCarthy, and others in his style (before and after), made accusations of communistic thinking as a means of political attack as well. Just to make it clear, the paranoia was vast; artists (often liberal) were black-listed and rendered unable to get work, up and comers had their careers ruined due to distant associations with communist sympathizers, or were made to point the finger at other people (and so on). Not a pleasant situation.\n\nBecause of that, much of the US rhetoric became centered around our capitalism, and thus today, capitalism is considered good and communism bad. Socialistic measures and systems are often seen as a lesser form of communism, and get a bad reputation by association.\n\nIf you want a more detailed explanation of why people don't like these sorts of measures, go to /r/Libertarian and ask nicely - **very** nicely - and they'll give you a run-down on why our schools of thought tend to favor capitalism; the short version is we're largely (though not entirely) under the impression that communism doesn't work on the large-scale, and socialistic programs essentially take more from those that can produce or earn to give to those who have done nothing to deserve it (or something of that regard), or in a manner which fails to motivate those receiving the aid to change their state. Be warned, the folks over on that subreddit may be slightly zealous owing to the average Redditor being left-leaning; libertarians are rights-liberal (pro gay marriage, pro personal freedom, etc.) but fiscally conservative (prefer smaller government, less involvement, lower spending, lower taxes, etc.) - they have a reputation as being right-wing.\n\nI think that will do for a short version.",
"[Comes up a lot](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=communism+socialism&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all"
]
]
|
|
55hgdf | reddit's circle jerk against windows 10. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55hgdf/eli5_reddits_circle_jerk_against_windows_10/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8akxhf",
"d8al424"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"It's a big pain in the ass to stop them from forcibly rebooting your machine for updates, and a few of these forced updates have caused serious problems.",
"Reddit is full of young liberal tech loving people. These people are genuinely concerned about privacy and are aware that windows 10 compromises it.\n\n\n\n\nMost people also don't like their desktop computers personalised too much, people like it separate from their other devices unlike a mobile phone which is linked to everything. Windows 10 is full of its own pointless apps and often pushes to have your private information when it's unneeded."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
g2ma41 | why are people afraid of 5g towers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g2ma41/eli5_why_are_people_afraid_of_5g_towers/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnm8otp"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Because they’re idiots. It’s just another conspiracy theory that follows this mode: something is happening, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what is happening but due to my upbringing, political ideology and worldview, I refuse to accept those explanations because they’d require me to take responsibility for my actions, hence find something I don’t understand and blame it on that. In 1900s it was electricity - it was supposedly causing everything from infant deaths to suffocation to madness..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2iah0y | who designs the speacilized machines used in factories? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iah0y/eli5_who_designs_the_speacilized_machines_used_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl0czve"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Just as there are engineering companies that specialise in building cars, ships, or computers, there are engineering companies that specialise in producing factory machinery. Their company names may not be instantly-recognisable compared to Ford or Apple, but that's because they don't advertise to consumers as we're not the people buying their products."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
croazk | why do renewable energy sources store excess energy in batteries instead of converting water into hydrogen and storing it | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/croazk/eli5_why_do_renewable_energy_sources_store_excess/ | {
"a_id": [
"ex7ezcf",
"ex7fxf6",
"ex7ga09",
"ex7i6st"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Efficiency\n\nAt 100% efficiency, you'd need 40 kWh/kg of hydrogen produced but in practice it takes us 50 kWh/kg so that's only 80% efficiency. Then you have to run it through a fuel cell to get electricity back out of it and fuel cells are only getting up to about 60% efficient. That gives you a system efficiency of 48% which isn't good.\n\nA lithium ion battery is 99% efficient, that means if you spend 100W putting energy into it you can get about 99W back out later. There are inefficiencies in the charger and inverter but they're both in the 90% efficiency range. If we assume 90% for the charger and the inverter and 99% for the battery that gives you a system efficiency of 80%.\n\nFor real numbers here, if you have an extra Megawatt-hour to store and you store it in hydrogen then you only get 480 kWh back when you're done. If you store it in a battery you get 800 kWh back when you're done. The battery only wastes 40% as much power as the fuel cell",
"For one thing batteries are way simpler. You just generate electricity by the renewable source and feed it in. It is available for use whenever.\n\nBut generating hydrogen is much more difficult. You need to take the electricity and run it into electrical connections fed into a tank of water. This tank needs to separate the two gasses produced (otherwise there is risk of an explosion), releasing the pure oxygen (fire hazard) and somehow compressing the hydrogen for storage. So you need a water supply for this as well, plus a leak can mean electrocution for anyone unlucky enough to stumble into the puddle. You also need high pressure hydrogen storage (and compressing can get hot).\n\nThen to get energy out you need a hydrogen engine that generates electricity, meaning either you are boiling water for a steam turbine or using some sort of fuel cell with a catalyst.\n\nNow consider all the stuff that needs maintenance. Your tank, your anode and cathode which are eroding, your compressor, your high pressure gas system, your hydrogen generator (whatever it is), etc. Plus you need plumbing to the site as well!",
"There are chemical issues with producing and storing hydrogen like that.\n\nYou can't just force more energy into an electrolysis machine and make it work faster. So any given electrolysis machine will have a finite capacity which is largely size dependent. Relatedly you can't shrink it too much because mixing the output hydrogen and oxygen is an explosion risk so those need to be kept apart.\n\nSecond, any gas storage system will need to either liquefy or compress the gas as atmosphere-pressured hydrogen doesn't hold enough energy to just keep around. This process also takes a lot of energy to operate the machines that do the compressing which will bite into your efficiencies. \n\nI'm assuming you're talking about the scales of a house with solar panels on the roof. You don't want to hear the air compressor running intermittently throughout the day to fill the high pressure gas cylinder that stores your excess power. Batteries are way smaller, easier to handle and don't make noise.",
"Because the efficiency it lower. According to [_URL_1_](_URL_1_) the efficency today is 30-40% compared to over 90% for newer litium ion stogare system.\n\nIt looks like hydrogen might have the advantage because the energy storage capacity dependent on the tank size so for large capacity storage when for example underground caves can be used it can be useful.\n\nFor small home use the higher efficiency and and smaller size of batteries is a advantage.\n\nFor large storage system if you have access to a lot of water and difference in elevation [Pumped-storage\\_hydroelectricity](_URL_0_) is 70% to 85% efficient. The idea is to pump water up to a reservoir at higher elevation so store energy and let it down as in a hydroelectric power plant when you need energy. The size of the reservoir is independent of the amount of power you can deliver so you can store huge amount of water at relatively low cost. As long as you have a hill to build the reservoir at, water to pump up and not to high amount of evaporation is it the better way to store power with water.\n\nFor batteries the max power you can deliver depend on the number batteries and therefore the capacity. For hydrogen the amount of power it can make hydrogen and convert it back to electricity is independent of the storage size. So lets say the system has to provide 20 000W for a system that can deliver it for 10 hours battery might be cheaper but if it need to deliver it for 10 days the hydrogen system might be cheaper. The hydrogen system is still less efficient but that is not always the most important part"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity",
"http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/hydrogen-energy-storage"
]
]
|
||
cyhaz4 | what are neurotransmitters? and what exactly does acetylcholine and dopamine do? | A friend of mine is having some issues and I don't exactly understand what he is going through? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyhaz4/eli5_what_are_neurotransmitters_and_what_exactly/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyrzits"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Neurotransmitters are chemicals that nerves in our body use to \"talk\" to each other. The way this works, in simple terms, is that neurons (nerve cells) have three main parts:\n\nFirst, there's the \"listening\" end that branches out to try and capture chemical signals (in the form of neurotransmitters) sent by other neurons. \n\nSecond, the axon is the long, thin portion in the middle that carries an electrical pulse. \n\nThird, the \"transmitting\" end contains neurotransmitters and when the nerve fires, will release some of them to tell other neurons to fire, or calm down.\n\nDifferent neurotransmitters do different things. Some are 'excitatory,\" meaning that they tell other neurons to fire, and/or fire more quickly. Other are \"inhibitory,\" meaning that they tell other neurons to calm down, stop firing, or fire more slowly. Nerves that hang out together tend to fire together, and in complex networks like our brain this can give rise to things like our ability to think. \n\nOther neurons however, are dedicated to something like making our muscles move, both voluntary and involuntary muscle groups. There are neurons in a cluster in your heart that tell the heart how fast to beat for example. Acetylcholine (ACh) works at the junctions of nerves in our muscles, and tells them to contract; it's the signal sent by nerves telling muscles to do work.\n\nDopamine is really complicated in terms of what it does, because depending on where it is, it can be both excitatory and/or inhibitory.\n\nEdit: Just a bit more context, neurotransmitters such as dopamine also act as signalling molecules away from the nervous system, as part of the paracrine/endocrine system, i.e. your glands. In addition I realize that I described what ACh does, but not how it's modulated. \n\nWhen ACh is released from a neuron it floods the synaptic space (the space between closely gathered neurons). If it was allowed to stay there, your muscles would just keep firing and firing. Instead an enzyme called Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) is there to change the ACh so that it doesn't \"fit\" into the receptive parts of a nerve anymore. The result is that a signal sent to \"contract\" has a particular (short) lifespan. \n\nSomething like Sarin, the nerve agent, works by disrupting this system in such a way that AChE no longer works, and the nerves are overloaded, leading to paralysis."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6laxx1 | how do the firms in class action suits find members for settlement payments? | Today I received a whopping $9 check for the Sylvania Silverstar class action lawsuit. These were for bulbs purchased probably 15+ years ago in a different state. How do the firms that handle these kinds of suits long after the fact identify potential members and ensure that settlement payments are going to the right people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6laxx1/eli5_how_do_the_firms_in_class_action_suits_find/ | {
"a_id": [
"djsfp27",
"djshpc8"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They track purchases through databases, like the rewards cards provide, or if you had purchased with a credit card, that can be tracked. If you paid in cash, you'll have to provide a receipt to be part of the class action stuff. ",
"You can google cases that are soliciting clients. Fill out your info and it's ironically often an honor system.\n\nLaw firms solicit clients. In turn, the firm gets a lot of the settlement money and the rest goes to the clients. Divided between hundreds of thousands of people, it's not a huge payout for the clients. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2m320j | why aren't all tv channels available online? | I don't understand why we even need cable anymore, wouldn't it make more sense to repurpose all of that for internet. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m320j/eli5why_arent_all_tv_channels_available_online/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm0gywf",
"cm0gz49"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because they make a lot more money they way it is now. Not a little more, a LOT more.",
"Well whether it makes sense or not won't serve to change the minds of the companies that own all the rights.\n\nAdditionally, though, the internet isn't really the best place for something like TV. The internet doesn't really have a means to send a lot of people the same data at the same time. If I want to send 5 people a video I have to make each packet of the movie 5 times and push it out 5 times. For 100 people I need to make the packet 100 times and push it 100 times over.\n\nYou can hack away to optimize this, but that won't change the fact a satellite broadcast will blanket a huge portion of the Earth effectively, and it doesn't take any extra work for 100 000 people to receive the broadcast than it does for only 100.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
en98mf | when the dentist injects novocaine into your gums before a procedure, how does the numbing effect work? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en98mf/eli5_when_the_dentist_injects_novocaine_into_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdwliti"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Basically, it slows down the nerve impulses that sense pain.\n\nBasically when a nerve fires, positively charged sodium ions go into neurons, then they leave it again for the next time it fires. Novocaine works by blocking the mechanism that allows the ions to cross over the cell membrane, which means that the pain signals never get to the brain."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1pimgw | how do sandbox games work? | I've played games my entire life and I've never really though about this until recently when I was watching some GTAV videos. When the game takes place in a massive world like that, does the world exist when the player is not interacting with it or in at least the general area? When structures such as mountains, tall buildings, trees, etc... "snap" into the game suddenly, does that mean they essentially didn't exist before the player was able to "see" them?
How does this event scripted or random events? If X event is supposed to happen at Y time, but the player is not there, does it still happen? Do the random citizens that wander about games still exist if you're not in their neighborhood? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pimgw/eli5_how_do_sandbox_games_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd2op7y",
"cd2send"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > does the world exist when the player is not interacting with it or in at least the general area?\n\nTypically the areas are not loaded into memory, so no.\n\n > If X event is supposed to happen at Y time, but the player is not there, does it still happen?\n\nWell, what do you mean by \"happen\"? A switch can be flipped to say whatever occurred, but the character models need not be loaded and the animations played to make that happen.\n\n > Do the random citizens that wander about games still exist if you're not in their neighborhood?\n\nTheir models wouldn't be loaded into active memory, if that is what you mean by \"exist\".",
"The game makes things happen in the loaded areas. Take, for example, Minecraft. Minecraft's worlds are divided in chunks of blocks: if you have a wheat farm in one of these chunks, the crops will grow as long you're keeping the chunk loaded. When you go far away from the chunk, the crops will stop growing, and all the normal functions will shut down."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
65wp08 | what does the police do with disturbing evidence after a case is done? | Talking about murder weapons, drugs, child porn etc.
What is the procedure for police to discard the evidence (I assume they cannot be keeping it all forever) and how is it done?
Also, what happens if a case is reopened years later? The evidence would surely have been destroyed by then? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65wp08/eli5_what_does_the_police_do_with_disturbing/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgdr610"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"After a case is closed, then there is a hold over time so the evidence is kept past the date. Guns are broken/melted down. Drugs are disposed of properly by qualified companies (usually incinerated). Digital images might be kept, but sealed away on flash drives. \n\nIf I have heard right (cause I am not a lawyer) that you need the original evidence for a case then it is kept, except for cases of theft where items are returned after being thoroughly documented and the original case is solved. \n\nI am certain that there are procedures for cases of all types based on the sentencing period. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
25j0la | smallpox | I was watching an episode of House yesterday, S7ep7, and I realised that I knew very little about smallpox and would like to learn.
When/how did it become an epidemic? What does it do and how is it treated? How did it become completely eradicated and what is its current status in terms of samples of the disease in labs?
Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25j0la/eli5_smallpox/ | {
"a_id": [
"chho3e7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Firstly, can I recommend the book 'The Demon in the Freezer\" by Richard Preston. It's provides a fantastic account of the entire Smallpox situation from discovery to eradication. All the details you want to know are in there, so the rest of my comment will be missing lots of details like dates and names etc that I can't rememeber (read it about 4 years ago)\n\nOn to your questions!\n\nHow is it an epidemic:\n\nIt became an epidemic because it is outrageously contagious, probably the most contagious microbe in existence beside maybe ebola.\nThe first reported case was in a hospital (in switzerland I think, remember I'm short of a few details). The second reported case was in the same hospital, a few floors down. The smallpox had got into a ventilation system and found its way to another patient in another part of the hospital. So yes, pretty damn contagious. Bare in mind this was a long while ago when infection control didn't really exist.\n\nWhat does it do? how is it treated?\n\nThe symptoms of smallpox are pretty harrowing (a quick google image search for smallpox will prove that on their own). \nThe main symptom is skin legions all over the body, these develop into pustules for of well puss, as well as a loads of newly produced virus. These pustules get worse and worse. There are other symptoms which compound the problem, usually resulting in death.\nHaemorragic smallpox is by far the most extreme response to the virus. The skin legions and pustules are much worse and there is severe bleeding into the skin, mucus membranes etc. also resulting in a horrible death.\nAs for treatment, there isn't any really. Vaccination within a few days of exposure should save you from it as the virus has a 12 day incubation period, but other than that you're pretty much screwed. Once the symptoms start, only treatment of the symptoms themselves is possible, which would only prolong your life a bit (who'd want to be alive in that state anyway).\n\nEradication:\n\nThe WHO (world health organisation, not one of the greatest rock bands ever) conducted global, extremely rigorous vaccination. They'd hear of a recorded case and vaccinate a ring of people around the recorded incident, to sort of pen the virus in. Then they'd vaccinate everyone inside the ring.\n\nThere is no shall we say 'wild' smallpox anywhere as far as we know. However there are still lab samples in WHO labs that are used fro testing.\n\nI'd like to end with 2 very interesting nuggets from the book I mentioned above.\n\n1. It was noted that the virus sort of burned out and went relatively dormant once the local population dropped significantly. When the population rose again, smallpox came calling again. \nIt's possible to think of smallpox (among other viruses) as mother natures form of population control (she seems quite callous). If the population gets too high, smallpox wipes out most of the population, while leaving a few so that the species can continue. Once their numbers start to get to big, smallpox responds.\n\n2. When looking at the genetic code of a form of pox found in mice, it was found that changing only one part of the virus RNA COMPLETELY nullified the effect of the vaccine. This is particularly worrying because it sounds like it wouldn't take much to do the same with smallpox.\n\nHope you got the jist of all that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2r6gor | why do playoffs pit #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3. why not 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r6gor/eli5_why_do_playoffs_pit_1_vs_4_and_2_vs_3_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cncwsp7",
"cncwtcj",
"cncx7ck"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This gives the top team the advantage of playing the last place (and in theory, worst team). If 2 played 4, and 1 played 3, it would be beneficial to place 2nd and play the 4th best team. ",
"Seedings are set up to where the best team gets the easiest game (according to rankings). With a 4 team bracket #1 gets the weaker #4. Same way if its a 16 team bracket except #1plays #16, #2 plays #15 and so on. The better you do the easier game you will have to get to the championship. Hope this helps!",
"In theory, you want to have the 1st and 2nd best teams in the final. Seeding the top against the bottom gives the top teams a better chance of advancing to the final"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5hkrm6 | why does the toilet bowl crack when you put a lit firecracker in it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hkrm6/eli5_why_does_the_toilet_bowl_crack_when_you_put/ | {
"a_id": [
"db0w2oi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When a firecracker goes off in air, the energy is transferred to the air around it, making a relatively large explosion in comparison to water, but since air is so thin and lacking in density, the explosion doesn't do much real damage. In water, however, the explosion will be smaller because it takes more energy to move water than air, but because the water is much denser than air it has more destructive force. Think of it as the difference between getting hit by 40 mph wind and 40 mph water. The wind has no way of knocking you over or harming you at that speed, but the water could do some damage. This is why the firecracker in the water of the toilet shattered the toilet."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
16u2ex | why does 'ingenious' mean almost the same as 'genius'. shouldn't it be the exact opposite? who comes up with this stuff? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16u2ex/eli5_why_does_ingenious_mean_almost_the_same_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7zduyi"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It's just a coincidence actually. Ingenious is from french (ingénieux = clever). Of course, it started in Latin, but then as ingenium. Ingenium means a inborn trait or ability. (in is not. Genium means something that's made. So it's something you that you are born with, and that's not made). Ingenium also lead to engineer and engine. \n\nGenius is once again from Latin (genius = prophetic skill or a ability to create. It comes from gignere, which is another form of genium, but now it means creating).\n\nSo the words started as two different (but sort of similar) things, and grew to have the same meaning. It happens. \n\nTL;DR: Both comes from Latin. Ingenious began is not made, e.g. something you are born with - > inborn talent. Genious was ability to create. Then the meanings morphed til they meant the same thing. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
31p7wb | how do hollywood auditions really work? do movie producers and directors still give big name actors and actresses auditions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31p7wb/eli5_how_do_hollywood_auditions_really_work_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq3sco5",
"cq3soc1"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"For leads in big-budget films, a round of offers is usually sent out to top-tier talent. If the top choice or choices passes, then offers may get sent out to several actors the next tier down to screen test opposite other leads. ",
"All depends on funding\n\nIf I approach investors and say \"I've got this movie, directed by holomntn, written by holomntn, produced by holomntn, starring holomntn, I need $100 million\" they will tell me to go away.\n\nBut if I get Tom Cruise to star, they know the money pull of Tom Cruise. If I get James Cameron to direct, they know his money pull. These people end up being brought in just to get the movie funded, these people are typically not auditioned.\n\nIt is also possible to get funding based on story. \n\nThis happened with hunger games. Hunger games actually auditioned widely. Some very large names were considered for several of the parts. Almost none of them got the part, almost entirely because of money, the extra draw for that talent would have been less than their extra fee.\n\nStill other times you get what Tarantino did with Kill Bill and Lucy Liu. Tarantino had the funding without her, but that part was written specifically for her and he felt no one else would do the part justice. She did not audition. She was provided with the script, and as Tarantino said in one interview, he gave her the ring but forgot to pop the question.\n\nAs yet another option, sometimes the investor will say something like \"I like it but I really only see Billy Badass as Tom Hardy, so get him and I'll invest\" there is no audition for that either.\n\nPick a weird twisted pathway to get there and I can probably point out a part or movie that is exactly that way.\n\nSo it varies widely."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
178u6c | why do my speakers make this loud, buzzing noise when i unplug the cable? | I read about this somewhere on wikipedia but I forget the name of the phenomena.
Edit: Also, why does this happen to different types of audio systems? I have an old Kenwood that does the loud buzz thing which is so loud that it scared the shit out of me but my Altec Lansings don't produce much at all. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/178u6c/eli5_why_do_my_speakers_make_this_loud_buzzing/ | {
"a_id": [
"c83blub",
"c83ea0k"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Do you mean the soft buzz when it's unplugged? Or that cracking noise while you're removing the plug?\n\nIn general, the sound of the speaker is generated by a voltage signal on the electromagnetic coil. That coil moves the diaphragm up and down to create the sound.\n\nWhen the cable is unplugged, it usually picks up the tiny electrostatic charges floating around us (even more so when it's connected to an amp).\n\nThe loud crackling noise, when the cable is removed, comes from the coil's sudden drop/rise in voltage. The contact on the tip of the jack has to slide past the opposite pole's contact inside the device. this creates what is called a 'back emf' where the polarity on the coil is suddenly reversed. This creates an inrush current in the opposite direction causing a spike in the sound.\n\nNot sure what the phenomenon is called, but I hope this helps.",
"With normal speakers, if you disconnect them there won't be any sound. \n \nWith powered speakers (speakers that get power, and usually have an amplifier built-in) you can. If the input is \"floating\" (not connected) then there are a few different things that can happen. \n \nOne is that the input becomes \"self biased\" by its own circuit, and it oscillates a little bit. The amplifier then magnifies this effect and you hear a hum or buzz out of the speaker. \n \nOr, you can get a \"ground loop\". If the different stages of the internal amplifier don't settle to the same value of ground, there's an oscillation effect that can happen, which gets amplified and sent to the speakers. This is similar to the self-biasing. \n \nAnother thing that can happen is that the wiring can act like an antenna and pick up electromagnetic \"noise\" from the environment, mostly \"harmonics\" (multiples) of the 60 Hz house wiring. This then gets amplified and output to the speakers. \n \nThere may be other things that can happen that are not occurring to me right now. The simple way to prevent this problem is to power down the speakers.\n "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4hmqwk | why can't an ectopic pregnancy be transferred to the uterus instead of being terminated? | Could ectopic pregnancies ever be saved and transferred to the uterus to become a viable pregnancy? Like how a fertilized embryo is implanted into a surrogate. I just lost a baby recently due to it being ectopic and asked my doctor this and she didn't seem to know why it wasn't possible since embryos can be implanted for surrogacy. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hmqwk/eli5_why_cant_an_ectopic_pregnancy_be_transferred/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2qvqbl",
"d2qvs0n",
"d2qvtia",
"d2reu0n",
"d2rijuu"
],
"score": [
11,
13,
61,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"By the time that an ectopic is discovered, the placenta will have begun invading into whatever structure it has attached to (most commonly the Fallopian tubes). Not only would it be near impossible to remove it from its implantation site and place it in the uterine wall, it would be dangerous for the patient as well. Ectopic pregnancy can be a life-threatening condition and therefore surgically removing the ectopic or ablating it with drugs like methotrexate is the best course of action.",
"First off, I'm sorry for your loss.\n\nAn ectopic pregnancy has already implanted into the fallopian tube. A surrogate embryo hasn't been implanted when it's put into place.",
"First of all, I'm sorry for what you experienced.\n\nOne big difference is the developmental stage, which is what makes it so hard to save an ectopic pregnancy.\n\nWhen we use IVF and implant an embryo, this is very very very early into the development. Before the point even that the embryo attaches to the mother and starts needing resources from the mother's body to continue growing and developing. \n\nWith an ectopic pregnancy, you are dealing with an embryo that has already implanted. It has already formed a connection to the mother and is depending on her body to keep growing and developing. It is still incredibly fragile and it cannot survive the process of cutting it away from wherever it has implanted.",
"An early embryo is like a seed. You can \"plant it\" anywhere there's \"soil\" (hospitable environment) ... usually this is the uterus, but sometimes it settles in etopic sites like the fallopian tube. Once the embryo implants, like a seed it starts growing \"roots\": the placenta starts to grow into the mom's tissues and form connections with the mom's blood supply. After this implantation has occurred, the embryo can't be separated from its home and placed in a different location because its roots can't \"let go\". To make the situation worse, ectopic sites like the fallopian tube have very \"shallow soil\" and can only support the embryo for a little while. So there's no chance for the embryo to grow into a baby. The real danger of an ectopic pregnancy is if it outgrows the size of the fallopian tube and causes it to burst, not only is the pregnancy lost but the mom could also bleed to death (because the placenta has grown into the mom's blood supply).",
"First, I am sorry to hear about your experience. It's never an easy thing to go through. \n\nTwo things: First, with IVF, a fertilized embryo is implanted into the uterus. With an ectopic pregnancy, the implantation has already taken place. At this stage, the embryo is extremely fragile. To remove the implantation would terminate the pregnancy. I don't know why your doctor wouldn't know this. \n\nAlso, by the time an ectopic pregnancy is discovered, It is well past the implantation stage; it's already begun to develop. The placenta and embryo can't just be put in the uterus and be expected to \"take root\". It isn't like plant cuttings.\n\nAnd there is also the fact that most ectopic pregnancies aren't known to *be* ectopic until they've developed enough to cause problems, such as bleeding, pain, rupturing. \n\nThere are a slew of sites claiming that handling an ectopic pregnancy is equal to an abortion, and urging women to risk their life to carry an ectopic pregnancy \"to term\". First, this is so dangerous that it is unconscionable to even suggest it. Second, an ectopic pregnancy will nearly always self-terminate, but doctors usually don't wish to wait for that to happen because of how dangerous it is, particularly in tubal pregnancies. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
65fwtm | how did the business suit become standard fashion for men in a diverse number of cultures around the world? | I saw a picture recently of the leader of an Asian country wearing a business suit, and I found myself wondering how western fashion made its way to Eastern cultures and cultures all over the world. How did this happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65fwtm/eli5_how_did_the_business_suit_become_standard/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg9xt95",
"dg9zwqt",
"dga9q7s",
"dgaatqb",
"dgab8tz",
"dgacha0",
"dgadwdk",
"dgae59d",
"dgaf32n",
"dgaf7bi",
"dgafvk4",
"dgahap8",
"dgahia8",
"dgaix8a",
"dgak0o4",
"dgak0uu",
"dgalaqy",
"dgama0h",
"dgar5nf",
"dgarfeb",
"dgati7b",
"dgaxbwd",
"dgb1y4l"
],
"score": [
9266,
314,
58,
245,
183,
658,
104,
7,
464,
5,
24,
8,
4,
2,
6,
135,
2,
310,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The fact that Europe colonised almost the entire world about 150 years ago and spread their culture all over their colonies made it happen.",
"The original purpose of a business suit was to set management and ownership apart from labor. A suit says, \"I can wear expensive, delicate, hard to clean fabrics because I am so important I don't have to get dirty and sweaty anymore.\"\n\nAbout the same time, industrialization was in full swing and European colonization was at its peak. Even in countries that resisted colonization, like Japan, were trying to imitate Europe so they wouldn't fall further behind. This lead to European style business practices being spread around the globe. In those places, the message was even stronger, the suit said you were part of the future.",
"The most apparent answer is the history of British colonialism, and the rise of English global domination (USA and UK as amongst economic powerhouses, leading to a spread of Western culture, language (English), and standards). You may argue otherwise, but the colonial effects are still alive in many regions, such as Southeast Asia, where I am from. Even beauty standard still pathetically look up to Western one; there are many skin bleaching products for example, marketed not only to women but even to men, as dark skins in this region are deemed 'lower class'/'inferior'/'not beautiful'. It's a hard truth to swallow, but a truth nonetheless. (sorry I digress a bit)",
"Two /r/askhistorians threads about this:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"You should ask this question over on /r/AskHistorians if you want an answer that isn't pulled out of someone's ass.",
"Follow up ELI5: Why isn't there a summer version of a man's suit?",
"Ha, in Oman the standard (for Omani guys only) is a white Dishdasha, a long white robe and head covered with Kuma or turban if you work in government position. It's very cute actually. Every Omani wears it at work. And it absolutely has to be white. After work you can wear whatever color you. Want, and I have seen some very colorful Dishdashas in my life.\nI lived in Muscat for 7 years, only just moved back to Europe this month and do miss the look of Omanis in their spotless, crisp white Dishdashas. They are very noble. [Check out this blog post](_URL_0_) ",
"The \"it's colonization, bro!\" seems to suggest Asian countries were forced to wear suits. This hypothesis does not make sense because they would have got rid of suits after independence. Colonization put these countries into contact with the West, but it was the prestige of Western culture that was attractive to these countries. They felt suits looked modern, efficient, professional and this is why suits have been adopted in the entire world, not because westerners forced them but because they wanted to look like westerners. You can check each single example in history and it is always like this _URL_0_",
"Other cultures didn't see it as \"copying the West.\" They saw it as \"This is how rich people in rich countries dress.\"\n\nIt's like how the preppiest preppies started popping their collars in the '80s, so it spread because anyone who wanted to consider themselves a preppie started popping their collars, too.\n\nExcept on a global scale.",
"The western suit is descended from military clothing. They make fit-ish blokes look fitter, stronger, more organised, etc. Most traditional clothing is more about either basic practicality or showing off wealth so the suit is an extra type of costume men can add to their culture rather than replacing something they already have.",
"The suit is typically British in origin, and when the suit was becoming popular in Britain, Britain ruled most of the world, so it spread.",
"The \"business suit\" as we know it stabilized its current form in the late 19^th in Europe, which was then the center of the universe while being unbashedly engaged in world-wide colonialism. The later allowed some rare occurences of gifted natives being sent off to the best European universites then accessing high ranking posts in the colonial machinery.\n\nThis contributed to the worldwide acceptance of *the suit* as the uniform of the trustworthy businessman.\n\nSome colonies acceded independance through brutal wars, and some of the newly formed nations struggled with dictatorships, civil wars and foreign influences in full Cold-War mode, which led to some brutal de-europeanisation campaigns.\n\nAt some point, in Cambodia, wearing a suit would have been reason enough for the revolutionary police to shoot on sight, as would have done the Red Guard in Mao's China. \n\nBy the last decade of the 20^th century, the concept of violent revolution was becoming unfashionable while international commerce soared, reviving the need for buisnessmen across the globe to speak a common language, including sartorial language.",
"I always thought a standard business suit would be the best outfit for time travel if you had no idea what period you would end up in. ",
"I think it's less to do with colonialism and more to do with dominant economies. The UK was the dominant economy (certainly dominant trading nation) for the nineteenth century. The US - in many ways the \"child\" of the UK - succeeded it in the inter war period and rose into the ascendency categorically post WW2.\n\nA lot of business boils down to perception; people want to trade with others they feel \"understand\" them and that they can trust. You wear a suit because you want an Englishman or an American to trust you. In the same way, English became the lingua Franca of business. \n\nNow, of course, these fashions just have incumbency. They've become the go to for globalised business; it's easy for men to find appropriate suits. English is almost everyone's second language. ",
"Recently, the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association refused entry to a High Court judge because he was wearing a dhoti, a loose sarong-like garment that is perfect for tropical India.\nDhotis, also called veshtis, have largely slipped out of fashion as more and more men turn to Western outfits such as tailored trousers, which they consider more comfortable and professional. The same Indian men wear dhotis at home or for religious ceremonies.\nThe issue gained heat when Jayalalithaa Jayaram, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, threatened to take away the licences of clubs that denied entry to men who wear Indian outfits. She called it “sartorial despotism” and an insult to local pride. Ms Jayalalithaa has vowed to introduce a new law that will prevent clubs from enforcing their existing dress codes.\nThe objects of the chief minister’s ire include the Madras Boat Club, Madras Gymkhana Club and the aforementioned Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, all of whom frown upon men entering their premises wearing Indian attire. Women aren’t accorded the same level of indignity. They can sail through wearing a sari or salwar kameez.",
"Everyone is grouping up China and Japan into the same \"Eastern wears Western\" status, but the way western suits are worn in Japan and China are entirely different. In Japan it is a very formal symbol of being a Business person. But in China only businesses which are partly foreign owned and make most of their money dealing with foreign clients require this. Most regular business (at least in Beijing) dress smart casual to the office and the formal places would just require a dress shirt and dress pants. Actually it is a joke in China that if you wear a suit, people will think you are an apartment rental agent (real estate) because that is the only job that really requires all their workers to wear suits.\nYou will be surprised to know that Chinese people don't wear suits to formal occasions - if you go watch an opera or to an orchestra performance or go to a nice club you will rarely see any guy in a western suit. Most regular middle class Chinese men don't have a formal suit in their closet.\n\nEdit: Also why is no one talking about Thailand. They have their own business suit that is pretty common.",
"I am just going to leave this poem here: [Ode on the Lungi] (_URL_0_)",
"I see a lot of different answers with different aspects of this but none that really line up to the perspective that I read about when I studied historical fashion!\n\nThe suit became fashionable at the fall of the aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeoisie.\n\nWhen people, men, started gaining power and influence because of their accomplishments, which is tied to the industrial revolution, and it was no longer something that was strictly inherited the philosophy and society changed and the view of the nobility was that they were lazy, gaudish, extravagant, decadent, wasteful and just terrible overall.\n\nSo the old power fashion with extravagant and overdone clothing became the symbol for something bad. Like this: _URL_0_\n\nAlso, look at the legs, and heels on the shoes. Those kind of things became very feminine and the anti-thesis of men. Men where supposed to be rational and strict and those kind of expressions where for women who are more emotional etc. The view on sexuality also changed a lot at the same time, especially female sexuality. Sexuality was seen as something irrational and the purity of women and romance of love became more prevalent as well.\n\nSo the suit became the fashion for men with power. But how do you differentiate a bad suit from a good suit from a great suit? You really need to understand the details to actually tell the difference and that played into the idea of your own accomplishments etc. In many ways the fashion became so much more elitist. With the old fashion it was pretty much bigger was better, the one with the biggest and most extravagant clothing had the most power. Everyone could tell, from the poorest farmer to the king himself. But with the new fashion of the suit only the people in the know could tell. A poor farmer could impossibly tell the difference from what was considered a great suit from a simply good suit. So by simply knowing that it gave someone power.\n\nMy favorite example of this is the male fashion of watches that is still big today, unless you actually know you can't tell the difference from a superexpensive watch and a regular watch. Most of what makes the expensive watch so expensive is on the inside, it is the engineering and craftmanship that makes the watch special more than its gold and diamonds etc.\n\nThis also plays into the ideal of men as being rational and logical, there is a certain worth in craftmanship, jewelery is just pretty and doesn't have an inherent worth. Things that are just pretty are for women to appreciate, men appreciate things with absolute worth, or that is the idea anyway. \n\nAnd you can see this ideal and philosophy in a lot of things, it plays into why men care so much about sports, because it is seen as having an absolute worth, it is something you can measure. So it is seen as more important than other things.\n\nAnd of course, Europe where this all started have been the powercenter of the world and been seen as the ideal for most of the world in many ways so other cultures adopted this as they were dealing with Europe in different ways. Or you know, the whole imperialism as well where we pushed our ideals on other cultures.",
"It's worth noting that western attire is very much a melting pot mixture of the evolution of western clothes + the adoption of imported materials. You can trace back the modern business/lounge suit through western men's clothes like frock coats back through the clothes you picture on George Washington etc, all the way back through history getting less and less recognizable all the time.\n\nOne major example is the cummerbund. This doesn't apply to business suits but it applies to formal wear. It's just a self-tied sash taken from India in place of a waistcoat.\n\nSo basically western culture evolved into the modern lounge suit (around the mid-1800s it all became recognizably modern but the lounge suit took a few more decades to become the standard daywear as it is now, sometime in the 1900s..by modern I mean that it looks familiar but of course 1800s clothes will still look dated and old fashioned for the most part) and also the world at the time became increasingly westernized due to colonialism and globalism.\n\nThings like silks are eastern and incorporated into menswear but the toning down of men's clothing occurred mid 1800s due to a few factors...the most \"fun\" being a socialite named Beau Brummel singlehandedly convincing people to stop dressing in a style of extravagance similar to the stereotype of French courts and in a more somber yet elegant pallet which is the basis for men's clothes being charcoal and gray anf navy and in the case of formalwear, black. Of course that's probably more of an exaggeration to make him the only reason, but it's a well known factor. And since this all corresponded with the globalism and imperialism of the time it locked itself in as the business and formal wear of the dawning global age.\n\nEdit: regarding Brummell, here is a Wikipedia quote\n\n > when asked how much it would cost to keep a single man in clothes, he was said to have replied: \"Why, with tolerable economy, I think it might be done with £800.\" [13] That amount is approximately £103,000 ($160,000) in 2012 currency; the average wage for a craftsman at that time was £52 a year.\n\nBrummel was not an aristocrat by birth but he joined their society. As much as I like menswear he sort of represents the pit of modern consumerism. He lived beyond his means and sadly died in a syphilis asylum. Someone else mentioned that part of this is due to how the rise of capitalist societies leading to civilians gaining wealth and power had its role and I guess that too is part of it. Now people can and want to buy their way into royalty status. Perhaps it's better that one can versus how it used to be just luck with who your mother was, but the dark side of it is the consumerist desire to always have more and keep up with the people richer than you. And a symptom is always knowing people richer than you because you're goal is to always move vertically.",
"The British Empire once governed ~1/4th of the world's land and about a quarter of its people. However, they were *primarily* a Mercantile Culture which desired to have everyone else dependent on their goods and products. *They were fairly successful.*\n\nThe English held a fairly dominant position over the world for a time. This meant that those who were involved in trade, and some rulers, became interested in better relations with the English. They began to adopt some English customs for the purposes of negotiation, and the Western Business Suit is one of them.\n\nThose under direct English Rule picked up on the Business Suit due to all these tea-drinking bullies that stare disapprovingly at you from over their teacups when you don't obey the customs of their culture. They started wearing them to fit in with their conquerors.\n\nA lot of other countries picked up on the Business Suit from *other* Colonial Powers. However, the English version is the one that wound up the most wide-spread.\n\nThe Business Suit remains prevalent due to a combination of inertia and American Economic Dominance. Eveyone already has Business Suits, and they mean the same thing across cultural lines, so the convention has become self-reinforcing. Also: When the British Empire went into decline, their rebellious teenager went and took over their role as the Global Trade Power. Americans like a man in a suit at the negotiating table, which reinforces this state of being.",
"We are America. Lower your import barriers and surrender your identity. Your technological and cultural distinctiveness will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.",
"It's the worship garb for the religion of economics. The only unifying worldwide institution. ",
"When George Washington won the Revolutionary War against England he did something that no other conquering General had done in history - He went home. Turning the power of a new country over to the Founding Fathers. Instead of taking Power himself as a Emperor (Napoleon), Monarch or Dictator.\n\nWhen he did come to the new Capital to be President he wore a suit. The second thing that was never done in history. Until then Leaders around around the world either wore their Military Dress uniform or dressed like a King / Queen.\n\nWashington changed all of that. And the suit became a symbol of Democracy. Anyone can wear a suit and be afforded the same respect - President, business leader, Prime Minister etc. As Democracy spread throughout the world the Suit followed.\n\nIt is why I believe that Washington is a even greater President than most realize. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c9eew/how_did_the_suit_as_we_know_it_become_the_defacto/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13fp9o/when_did_the_suit_button_down_shirt_tie_and/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://omancoast.blogspot.com.es/2011/11/omani-gentlemans-attire.html?m=1"
],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_clothing"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-2081"
],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/raFyUij.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6yrwzb | why can two companies, for example apple and samsung, specifically target each other in their commercials? isn't this considered defamation of a brand? | I've seen both companies talk doo-doo about each other in multiple commercials. Isn't this defamation of another brand? Why and how can they do this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yrwzb/eli5_why_can_two_companies_for_example_apple_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmpov2l",
"dmppo1z",
"dmpq9xe",
"dmprhd2",
"dmq94i1"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
17,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's no law against making statements that reasonably could be true about someone else's product--and this includes non-factual claims, like simply calling the product \"bad.\" Apple and Samsung can't make outright false statements, but they can openly argue about their respective products all day long.\n\nStill, someone who is the subject of negative claims may try to intimidate the speaker or even file a lawsuit. Defending against such claims may be expensive even if you win. There is also research that shows simply mentioning competing brands, even in a negative context, can make advertising less effective. For these reasons, some companies are careful not to identify their competitors and refer to \"Product X\" and \"the leading brand\" and so on.",
"In the UK, most of the use of competitor’s registered trademark in a comparative advertisement was an infringement of the registration up till the end of 1994. However, the laws on comparative advertising were harmonized in 2000. The current rules on comparative advertising are regulated by a series of EU Directives. The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 implements provisions of Directive (EC) 2006/114 in the UK.\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"If you mention another brand, even with a negative connotation, your essentially marketing your competitor in your own commercial. ",
"Defamation and libel must be false.\n\nIf this weren't true, you couldn't have things like the better business bureau, or more relevant to modern times, negative reviews.\n\nIt's not done as much because commercials aren't typically designed to convince you the product is good, but to make sure it's on your mind. In that vein, mentioning your competitor is a bad idea - you're making them remember them too!\n\nSometimes companies get into sparring matches like you mentioned, they don't mind terribly because while you're seeing them argue, what's really happening is they're both making sure you think of those two when thinking about a product. It ends up helping both, not hurting as much.\n\nHell, you just made a Reddit post about it, so clearly it's working it for both of them.",
"That depends on the country. In my country (Brazil) it's illegal to make clear references to the company's rivals in their commercials (which means saying their name). That's why most commercials leave subtle hints about their rivals. An example would be the companies Amanco, Tigre and Krona, all of which manufacture sanitary materials for constructions (like pipes and etc). Each of these companies has their own colour (Amanco is mostly green, Tigre is blue and Krona is red). In one of Krona's commercials, there were three guys.m, each one wearing a green, a blue and a red tshirt, and obviously the one with the red shirt was making fun of the other two and at the end successfully \"convinced\" the consumer that their pipes were different and etc. I can send the link here if you want to."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3ziloo | why are facebook pages able to get away with constantly ripping content from reddit and other sources? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ziloo/eli5why_are_facebook_pages_able_to_get_away_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cymgg7n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In the case of stolen videos, this is known as \"freebooting,\" and Facebook is well aware of it. The reason Facebook doesn't crack down on this is because they make a lot of money in ad revenue from the stolen content.\n\nThere are a few great videos that explain this in more detail:\n\n[How Facebook is Stealing Billions of Views - In a Nutshell](_URL_0_)\n\n[Facebook Freebooting - Smarter Every Day 128](_URL_1_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA"
]
]
|
||
6gc29e | why we i get the compelling urge to do seriously inappropriate things like jumping off a platform edge even though i'm not suicidal | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gc29e/eli5_why_we_i_get_the_compelling_urge_to_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dip3bqi",
"dip3yig"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's standard for most humans to have random thoughts about harmful things we could do but won't. This is part of your brain working out possible dangers, their dramatic consequences, and then how to prevent them.",
"It's called [\"L'appel du vide\"](_URL_0_) (\"Call of the void\" in french),\nand it's fairly common. \n\nIt may be produced by contradictory signal from different systems in the brain: When you are experiencing an instinctive fear, but your reasoning tells you that there is no real reason for you to get hurt. \n\n[edit] [article about it](_URL_1_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27appel_du_vide",
"https://braindecoder.com/post/whats-behind-call-of-the-void-and-the-urge-to-jump-1299814876"
]
]
|
||
2ylhln | what defines something as edible or inedible? how is this determined? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ylhln/eli5_what_defines_something_as_edible_or_inedible/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpamwef"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Can you eat it and not die, get sick, or gain some nutritional or functional benefit? Then it's edible. \n\nPlastic isn't edible because you can't absorb nutrients from it or use it as food for long.\n\nmercury isn't edible because you'd die pretty quickly from mercury poisoning. \n\nBread is edible because you can sustain yourself on it\n\nPoison ivy isn't technically edible because, well, it's slightly poisonous.\n\n\n.\n\nBasically, something is edible if it is fit to be eaten without negatively affecting you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
363451 | what are truck weigh in stations for amd why do some trucks drive right passed them? isn't that illegal? | obviously they're used to weigh the truck but are they weighing to make sure the cargo is all there or is there more to it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/363451/eli5_what_are_truck_weigh_in_stations_for_amd_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cra93wl",
"craer6b"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Truck weigh stations not only weigh the trucks but serve as inspection areas to make sure the truck is well maintained enough to legally be on the road. Drivers and companies with good records for maintenance and safety can add a system called PrePass (or NorPass in some areas) that radios open weigh stations to tell them what truck it is. A computer will clear or call in the truck, giving a green or red dash indicator. If the truck gets a green light they don't have to stop.\n\nSource: 10 years OTR driver",
"Truck loads are loaded very specifically. Certain areas of the truck can only have so much weight on them. The axles have the least, while the center of the trailer contains the majority of it. Move that center of gravity too far forward or back, and you have an unstable trailer. The scales make sure that won't happen.\n\nSource: Wrigley Distribution Center manager, 5 years."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1pzmry | why do numbers come first in alphanumerical order? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pzmry/eli5_why_do_numbers_come_first_in_alphanumerical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd7o8bj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because they are traditionally sorted by the ACSII code and special characters and numbers have lower values than letters. _URL_0_\n\n\n\nSome systems may sort by different rules."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.asciitable.com"
]
]
|
||
yod7t | why do people hate nickelback so much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yod7t/eli5_why_do_people_hate_nickelback_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5xdkv1",
"c5xdoot",
"c5xdrwj",
"c5xdvpe",
"c5xefum",
"c5xenmr",
"c5xeq10",
"c5xex8d",
"c5xexfh",
"c5xf3ly",
"c5xfdpo",
"c5xfe0h",
"c5xff1z",
"c5xfm3m",
"c5xfn2u",
"c5xfqvo",
"c5xft17",
"c5xfupo",
"c5xfwyv",
"c5xg3xo",
"c5xg4ze",
"c5xg6qd",
"c5xg7qd",
"c5xg7t4",
"c5xg8jc",
"c5xg9he",
"c5xgczp",
"c5xgfzw",
"c5xgh3m",
"c5xgitp",
"c5xgl5v",
"c5xgp2c",
"c5xgs4h",
"c5xgwyu",
"c5xh93p",
"c5xhmoy",
"c5xhnrc",
"c5xi05n",
"c5xi1kf",
"c5xihcb",
"c5xilh0",
"c5xirty",
"c5xiryq",
"c5xixe3",
"c5xj4b9",
"c5xjdfm",
"c5xjhdt",
"c5xjoog",
"c5xjtiu",
"c5xjzn8",
"c5xk49i",
"c5xkfv4",
"c5xkj9p",
"c5xkw51",
"c5xl1ee",
"c5xl8zq",
"c5xlqno",
"c5xm1qi",
"c5xm9ed",
"c5xmdzc",
"c5xmzvo",
"c5xntt5",
"c5xnvay",
"c5xnyls",
"c5xp2la",
"c5xpb4q",
"c5xporh",
"c5xqorx",
"c5xr13f",
"c5xrhfk",
"c5xri4t",
"c5xsbrp"
],
"score": [
49,
9,
68,
248,
259,
11,
9,
2049,
40,
82,
5,
95,
31,
6,
13,
24,
15,
5,
4,
8,
27,
3,
2,
6,
15,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
13,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I would think it's just because their genre of music doesn't appeal to a lot of people. That. and the fact that it's just become cool to dislike them.",
"Well, I disliked them before it was cool. But seriously, there music sucks. They only have one melody in all their songs, the lead singer's voice sounds stupid, and their lyrics are meaningless. They have way oversized egos and bank accounts for a group with no talent.",
"In my opinion as a Canadian, we don't have many Canadian bands who are known internationally. Nickelback isn't the worst band ever, but neither is it the best, and we hate to see Nickelback representing Canadian music on the world stage while our favourite bands never seem to be in the spotlight.",
"Nickelback gets accused of having \"country\" vocals which a lot of people dislike. Bands like Creed, Theory of a Deadman, Default, and Puddle of Mudd get hated on for the same reason. With Nickelback, for whatever reason, hating them turned into a meme... I don't think many people actually hate Nickelback, it's just popular and people want to fit in.\n\nPersonally I'll admit I do like [some](_URL_0_) of their [songs](_URL_2_), but their songs can also be formulaic... [VERY formulaic](_URL_3_). You could make the case that they're unoriginal but there's really nothing that makes Nickelback stand out as being exceptionally bad vs 90% of mainstream music.\n\n**Late edit but I think it's important:** In the early 2000's the \"in\" band to hate was Creed, so much so that Guitar World magazine named them the [second worst band of 2003] (_URL_1_) even though *they took that year off*. The only way to explain that is people hate them for the sake of hating them. When Creed broke up in 2004 all those people had to find a new band to hate, and who better than Mr. \"Canada's answer to Creed\" - Nickelback. ",
"Their songs are repetitive and formulaic, in terms of lyrics and instruments. So basically, they're the Justin Bieber of rock. Also, their songs usually have country vocals, which is unpopular in today's society. ",
"Have you ever listened to them?",
"Another reason would be, some people don't exceptionally find any qualities in it's cerebral content. The majority of their lyrics are simple, catchy phrases everyone can relate to their life in some way or another and pretend to feel 'deep emotions' to the song. The chorus of the song is always so vague and can persuade anyone in finding the value of the song. There's a often a good amount of simple notes tapped and strummed, and not too much creative freedom or substance involved. ",
"They seem to have maximized the combination of most airplay with the least amount of popularity. Whenever someone is faced with a choice of which music to play to a broad audience--be it radio or TV or sports arena or whatever--Nickelback seems like a good choice because they have the right mix of elements. They're rock but not so heavy as to disturb people, but still edgy enough not to seem like a corporate contrivance. They're modern enough not to seem like a nostalgia thing while being old enough not to seem like the latest teenybopper group. \n\nThe result is that people tend to hear a lot of Nickelback despite very few people being really passionate about them. So, we think, \"why the fuck do I keep hearing this stuff? These guys suck.\" \n\nI may actually dislike certain modern country or southern rap or death metal much more than I dislike Nickelback, but it's easy to see that those other genres have dedicated fans and a real culture behind it. Nickelback is easy to hate because I don't associate them with real people.\n\nEDIT: A lot of people object on the basis that Nickelback sells a lot of albums and fills up live venues. It tried to address that [here](_URL_0_). TL;DR: a lot of people buy Nickelback stuff, but those people don't tend to have much influence on people who talk a lot about music (critics, hipsters, genre-specific fans, etc).",
"Am I the only person who actually likes Nickelback?",
"It's generic. Bland. Cheesy. Overdone. But mostly, it's a trend to hate them. Their music isn't terrible. It's mediocre. ",
"Sure, some people hate them because It's popular, but many people don't like them be cause they are the epitome of jock radio rock. It's the kind of music you get from former high school quarter backs who learned music can only be good if it's played on the radio. I'm a fan of most genres of music for varying reasons, including generic pop music, but there's something completely off-putting to me about bands like Nickleback. They're boring to listen to because they're so predictable and unoriginal. They're easy to hate because they're rich from it. \n\ntl;dr -They're hated so widely because they are the poster boys for cock rock. (see Creed, Puddle of Mudd, Seether, Stained, etc.)",
"Lowest common denominator radio rock.\n\nEdit* By that I mean that musically, there is very little separating Nickelback (and really most modern rock) from regular ol' pop music other than choice of instrument. Live drums, distorted guitars and gruff male vocals replace synthesizers and drum machines.",
"EVERY. SONG. IS. THE. SAME.",
"They're the broccoli of bands, youngster.",
"the misogyny of their lyrics is what makes me really dislike them. ",
"For me, every component of Nickelback is generic, predictable, and bland. You have a pretty good idea of how the entire song will sound after listening to the first 25 seconds of it...and every one of their songs sounds like that. It takes courage to make interesting music, almost like taking a stand....creatively.\n\nSource: semi-professional musician for the last 15 years.\n\nTL;DR Nickelback lacks creative balls.",
"The answer you seek lies in the lyrics to \"Something in your Mouth\". ",
"Went to a concert once 'cause tickets were cheap and the venue is fun. Conclusion: it's far from musical genius, but nothing about them is way less tolerable than a lot of stuff that's widely liked. Not even j-biebs, but music that's actually considered decent. Their lyrics aren't *exceptionally* dumb and their songs aren't *exceptionally* redundant. Like others have said, hating them is a meme. Chad Kroeger is a complete tool, but in a kind of endearing way. ",
"They are successful without impressing people. And people generally seem to get pissed off when someone who supposedly is no more talented than they are does better at life than they do.",
"If they didn't hate them enough, Reddit is surely gonna hate them now that the lead singer got engaged to Avril Lavigne.",
"People enjoy proudly, loudly and frequently expressing their disdain for popular culture that might be perceived as commercial, overly popular or uncool because it provides a valuable opportunity to demonstrate their immensely superior taste and cultural sophistication. The [\"I listen to bands that don't even exist yet\"](_URL_0_) phenomenon.",
"They don't. The loudest do. \n\nI loved \"How You Remind Me\" and even \"Hero\" from the first Spiderman soundtrack. What I noticed was that they all Sounded the same to me so I stopped listening. What happens on the internet, is everyone is looking for digital friends, so they are loud and proud about Nickleback hate. \n\nIf people really hated Nickleback, they wouldn't still be getting record deals. Reedit hates them because they have read that they are bad and have converted it into a meme. The rest of the world still likes them and they keep making more money than I'll ever see.",
"This is an interesting question if you studied how big of an impact the Internet has had on pop culture and memes in the 2000's vs the 1990's. I'd bet my karma that a lot of posters on here can't name their last few singles or albums (I can't), and likely haven't even heard them and yet they have the knee-jerk reaction to bash them. It's definitely a circlejerk on reddit but seems to be pretty prevalent in real life too or at least in my peer group (college students in their 20's). It would be interesting to know the distinctions between unpopular or frequently bashed artists, movies, celebrities, politicians etc. and how much published bashing people need to be exposed to before it becomes like a self-sustaining meme. It's all very subjective though and reddit is only one lens out of millions of ways to view them and their reputation. ",
"sorry if repost.. don't have time to read everything.\n\nplease please please.. listen to this ! \n\n_URL_0_\n\nit's 2 of theyre songs running at the same time ...one song on each side. (listen to it with headphones) ... it will reaveal to you how they are built on the same 'frame' and structure. ..... so similar it's really funny ..they match each other vers, ref, bridge, etc ...at the same time. \n\ni jumped on the nickelback suck wagon the day i heard that.",
"The entire genre of [Post Grunge](_URL_0_) is despised. Nickelback is just the biggest of the PG acts and therefore the most targeted.",
"Why Nickelback Sucks…As Explained by an 80 Year Old Dude\n\n_URL_0_",
"Because enough people do it so it becomes a fun and cool thing to do.",
"People hate them because so many other people love them.\n\nThere's always a massive backlash to successful bands that make bland music.",
"Every song of theirs sounds the same [to the point where you can play two simultaneously and they'll match up in terms of structure](_URL_0_).",
"_URL_0_\n\nThis question has been asked over ten times. The search function has its purpose (sometimes it really does work!).",
"I am totally plagiarizing this, but it is worth including in this conversation:\n\n**why nickelback sucks and why coldplay is alright**\n\nNickelback is justifiably hated because every single song they produce has the exact same chord progression, nearly the same riffs, same drum beats, similar melodies. Every song they make is verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus or similar. They had two charting hits that could be played side by side and were recognizably the same song. \nWhile I agree that the lead singer's voice is kind of cool, they don't really try to produce interesting music. In other words, people don't like them because they genuinely suck.\n\nColdplay, on the other hand, in my personal opinion, makes interesting music. They vary time signatures, even using \nasynchronous ones like 7/8 in pieces of music. They pay specific attention to rhythm and come up with interesting percussion \non each song. They use more sophisticated chord progressions -- not constantly -- but enough to keep you listening. They \nprobe slightly more mature themes with their music (last album was about death).\n\nHowever, their music's production values are smooth and glossy -- designed to be easy on the ears. Each album has 2-3 \nsongs designed to be singles that are dumbed down to have broader appeal. Their lead singer is married to a movie star. And \nthey are one of the biggest bands in the world right now.\n\nIn other words, the hate against Coldplay is more of a populist, elitist hate, rather than a musically justifiably one. \nPeople don't like them because when you bash the most popular music in the world, it makes you sound smarter and others think \nyou have more refined taste. I find that most people who bash them have not actually spent quality time with their albums in \ntheir entirety.",
"Chad Kroeger sounds like he was receiving a prostate exam during the recording of every song they've done.",
"Because Nickelback is a bunch of [racist assholes!!!!](_URL_0_)",
"I hate the band the Feelers for the exact same reason I hate Nickleback. \n\nDull formulaic soft rock. ",
"They look like a boyband and they were played too much on the radio. ",
"Nickelback is the elevator music of the past ten years. I've actually heard them played as waiting music in a phone queue.\n\nThat's what people I know dislike: It's too generic and in an attempt to please everyone, they end up annoying and bland.",
"classic rock is dead and chad kroger cant sing",
"They're just a very safe band. They don't do anything new, they're incredibly generic, and it's just kinda boring. I guess I'm a little biased because I'm into some crazy experimental stuff like the Mars Volta, and I also like symphonic metal and 80s prog rock, but those are my feelings toward them.",
"They are successful.",
"Because Reddit told us to.",
"Their songs all sound the same and they're overplayed.\n\nBut mostly because hating them is the hip new trend.",
"This is the true story, the story THEY don't want you to hear...\nNickelback was a shit band from the start. Thing is, the masses fell in love with them early on. These idiots called in to radio stations and requested to hear X or Y or Z song by Nickelback, all of which sounded the same. The \"cool kids\" never liked Nickelback, but as with most things cool and uncool, it took the masses a while to catch on to what the \"cool kids' thought. So, after a couple of years of Nickelback on nearly every radio station, the \"uncool kids\" (who so desperately want to be cool) caught on and instantly decided to hate the band. No one really remembers any of this, and everyone claims to have hated Nickelback from the start, but this is untrue. I remember. I know. And one day, after hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on therapists, they, \"the uncool kids\", will remember as well.\n\n\nEdit: For the record, I am neither a cool or uncool kid. I am just a keen observer. [Pic of me](_URL_0_)",
"Basically it's because it's popular on reddit to hate the same thing as the hive mind. On a pure music note, people on reddit will hate Nickelback, but not Chris Brown's super auto-tuned pieces of shit.\n\nIt's all about fitting in with the cool kids. And by cool kids I mean redditors.",
"They tour with 39 marshall stack amps, that NEVER GET PLUGGED IN! They just sit on the stage while they use the house PA and pretend like they are rock stars when in reality they are just a prepackaged group of posers grown in a focus group to sell sports drinks to the uneducated, uninterested and musically lazy. \n\nAs a Canadian I apologize to the rest of the world for unleashing this pablum upon you",
"Personally, I hate Nickelback because I went to one of their concerts. They left the stage after 70 minutes. No encores. That's a rip off for a $45 admission.",
"The internet hates Nickelback. Nickelback is aware of this and plays into it:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe first minute or two kind of make it clear that they are well aware of their image. The rest of that video is good because reasons.\n\nEvery member of that band is near godlike in their abilities on their instruments and they write songs about drinking and fucking just like many critically acclaimed and extremely popular bands from before. If you play Nickelback covers in a band, girls go apeshit for it.\n\nThey are an easy band to like and this bothers internet people because liking them means omg you have something in common with the rest of the world.",
"I honestly like their song \"If everyone cared\".\n\nThe only other song of theirs that I even know is the one about how great it is to be a rock star, which I find kind of annoying.",
"The first album was great. The second album was basically the same as the first album, and by the third album you realize that you've just bought the same album three times in a row.\n\nThat's when you stop.",
"To me, as a musician, they represent what music has descended to. They don't really demonstrate any musical complexity or display any extreme example of talent, yet they are typically well received and do fairly well for themselves. Any of their songs could be played by most musicians of any experience level, and even to write or compose any of the lyrics or music takes little experience. And for those that argue that not all music needs to be complex I would agree. But there is a certain way to go about that style of simplistic writing approach.\n\nBasically it comes to this: Nickelback could've been any set of guitarists, bassist, drummer, and singer putting out mundane and garble that is Nickelback. People hate them because they think \"hey I could've just put 4 chords together with some terrible lyrics and people would eat that shit up.\"",
"It's a way of signaling that you are cooler than many other people in a certain target demographic (youngish, white, male), among whom the band is reasonably popular.\n\n Making fun of something clearly uncool, like say Bieber, does not distinguish you at all from the critical herd (what 20 year old male likes him)\n\nBut this band is cool enough that some of these people *do* like them , making it extra cool to say, \"you listen to that shit?\"\n",
"The better question would be: why do people hate? I've never really understood haters of anything. I don't particularly like Nickelback, but that doesn't mean I have to hate them, I can simply not care... Furthermore, the people who spend time hating or being anti-something, would be a lot more constructive if they actually gave the world more of what they actually like and are talented at. Focusing on what we don't like is extremely unproductive.",
"**\"Photograph\"** by **Nickelback, Chad Kroeger** (opening verses)\n\n*Look at this photograph\nEvery time I do it makes me laugh\nHow did our eyes get so red?\nAnd what the hell is on Joey's head?\n\nAnd this is where I grew up\nI think the present owner fixed it up\nI never knew we'd ever went without\nThe second floor is hard for sneaking out\n\nAnd this is where I went to school\nMost of the time had better things to do\nCriminal record says I've broke in twice\nI must have done it half a dozen times*\n\n**This song has been downloaded 1,815,798 times, in the U.S., as of January 12, 2008.**",
"Seriously though nickelback Is the greatest band ever.",
"[Chuck Klosterman took on this very question and has some interesting thoughts.](_URL_0_)",
"Just listen to them and you will understand. The guy sounds like he has to shit after 4 packs of cigarettes and they are altogether untalented. If Walmart put together a band this would be it.",
"I never made it as a wise man an I couldn't cut I as a poor man stealing. ",
"Nice try nickelback",
"\"ALL ABOARD THE BANDWAGON!\"",
"1. Their subject matter consists of sex, sex, a little partying, and more sex. Insert a ballad to help them get sex here and there. \n2. Chad Kroeger comes across as a tool in most interviews. \n3. Very little variation in song structure and melody. \n4. Chad is now marrying Avril Lavigne, my ex future wife. ",
"It's popular to hate Nickelback, there are bands as bad (or as good) as Nickelback. The only reason people seem to want to hate Nickelback these days is because it's popular to Nickelback hate. \n\nI can think of worst artists. ",
"i like their songs.. ",
"Once upon a time, there was a singer named Kurt Cobain who had a band (that's a group of musicians) called Nirvana. He popularized a style of music called \"grunge.\" Grunge music was largely defined by vocalists that sound kind of raspy like they smoked too much, guitars that sound crunchy, and lots of flannel shirts. This happened around twenty years ago in the 1990s, and was basically popular because it didn't sound like the things people got tired of from the 1980s.\n\nNickleback is trying as hard as they can to sound like a grunge band from the 1990s, even though everybody was tired of grunge at the beginning of the 2000s. A lot of people think all of their songs sound the same, and you hear their music everywhere, whether you like it or not, to the point where even if you did like it you'd start to get tired of it, like watching nothing but Spongebob for an entire month.\n\nSo people really hate Nickleback because all of their songs sound basically the same, and that sounds like music people were tired of ten years ago, and you can't go anywhere without hearing it.",
"Although not the greatest band, Nickelback can rock you socks off and put on a good show. Being from south central Alberta I guess I'm bias.",
"They make terrible corporate rock, most real music fans hated them from the start, then it became popular to hate them. ",
"Because of what this guy said - \n\nsupashurume 50 points 8 months ago\n\n\n\"Sometimes in your life, you see people who are doing things you could do. Maybe not just this instant, but certainly with a single day's worth of training. Except they're making millions and millions of dollars for doing it, and enjoying the adoration of as many people. But if you did the same thing, nobody would notice or give you money.\nOther times in your life, you see people who are doing things very very badly. Things you spent a large part of your life perfecting. And you know, by any objective standard, you are better in every respect than them (at that talent), and have been for a very long time. And yet still, they are the ones making millions and millions of dollars, and you are working at McDonald's, eating ramen and dumpster diving to get by.\nYou see these people doing this thing so poorly, and you hate them. It doesn't make sense at first, so you say it's because they make bad music. But that doesn't really make sense. So what if they make bad music? So you make some references to some movie about how everyone's an idiot in the future, and claim that these people are somehow the catalyst of this highly suspect scenario.\nBut really the reason you'll hate them is because deep down you know you'd trade your \"integrity\" and your \"principles\" in a nanosecond if it meant you got to live the life that they drunkenly stumbled onto. But you will almost certainly never have that chance. It's not Nickelback you'll hate, not really. It's the cruel wheel of fate that determines all of our destinies at random, giving millions and millions of dollars to idiots who then tell you \"WORK HARD AND YOU'LL MAKE IT!\" But you know that's not true. You know the best you'll ever experience is a middle class retirement during which you'll be far too debilitated by age, the years of stress, and the toll they take to enjoy it.\nBut nobody wants to think about this. So they made a shorthand for all of it, something quick so they could vent it all out without going down that road every time they're reminded of someone's unfathomable success at being so incredibly mediocre and the implications it entails. \"Fuck them. Those guys suck.\"\nAnd someday, you'll do it too, son. Someday, you'll do it too.\"",
"LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH...",
".. I like Nickelback!",
"Because they're awful.",
"As a musician, I respect music enough that I'm disgusted when people are too lazy to move past bands like Nickelback that don't offer anything innovative in their music or any sort of substance in their lyrics.\nAll their songs are about getting wasted and having sex. All their riffs are cheesy arena rock drop d scales.\n\nI guess I'm a snob.",
"I think that they're more akin to gingers, there's nothing really wrong, they're just abominations for reasons unexplainable ",
"i think i might be the only one who likes nickleback, saw them live thought they were awesome, haters stop hating",
"Simply put: because everyone else does. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCSCLB7fYNI",
"http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/01/sprj.yir03.music.poll.reut/index.html",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAJSsfOW2AI",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvujgcbaCF8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yod7t/eli5_why_do_people_hate_nickelback_so_much/c5xjv7q"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/q71Hc.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.riserock.com/xmas/nickelbacksucks.mp3"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-grunge_bands"
],
[
"http://lefthandhorror.com/2012/04/10/why-nickelback-sucks-as-explained-by-an-80-year-old-dude/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2pXfAK8r1k"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=nickelback&restrict_sr=on"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://nickelbackracist.ytmnd.com/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.myecdysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/sauron.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrwjnqEP66U"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7846322/taking-concert-doubleheader-creed-nickelback-world-most-hated-bands"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7tsz62 | why do urban areas in usa consist of multiple cities and towns while european cities usually create a single urban area? | Like you have for example Salt Lake City and there are several cities around it, some of the almost as big as SLC itself, and their borders seem to be rather random, while for example Vienna, Austria or Prague, Czech Republic are just one single city. I was surprised that the biggest and best known cities from US aglomerations can contain as little as 10 % of the population of the area. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7tsz62/eli5_why_do_urban_areas_in_usa_consist_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtex2n8",
"dtexf8m",
"dtexkck"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"In Europe, large cities grew up from towns that grew over a large period of time and either annexed or merged with other nearby communities naturally. In the U.S., towns were formed and grew quickly under a modern legal architecture where they remained separate governing entities.\n\nNote though that even in Europe large cities were made up of multiple smaller entities: _URL_0_ that got annexed together relatively recently in historical terms. Other cities like London are still legally many separate entities, with only the core part of the city being the \"London\" of historical times.",
"Your premise is mostly flawed. Most major cities in Europe (and the world) have similar large metropolitan areas around their core cities. London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Athens, Istanbul... these are just a few major European cities that have sprawling metropolitan or urban areas around the city proper that are considered part of the city but have their own separate local governments. Obviously the nature of how the municipalities are governed and the relation they have to their core cities depends entirely on the country. Even the specific cities you mentioned like Prague and Vienna have large urban areas outside of the city proper that still effectively are part of the city itself.",
"I think this might be more your perception rather than reality. \n\nIf you take London for example. Its huge and sprawling, and actually consists of different cities itself. Atleast half of what you woukd recognise as \"London\" is actually the city of Westminster. \n\nWhat you recognise as Paris is actually made up of several numbered arrondissements(?). To the local population these are important and used daily for navigating and understanding where things are, distances, travel times, train lines, etc. \n\nEuropean cities are lots of smaller cities whose borders smush into each other so much that its hard to tell where one ends and another begins."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Vienna"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7d8rat | how does the american system of dating someone work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7d8rat/eli5_how_does_the_american_system_of_dating/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpvwd6t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You ask someone out on a date.\n\nThey say yes.\n\nYou set up a time.\n\nThings go well.\n\nRepeat 3x.\n\nYou get laid. \n\nThey never call you again, or, you get married, live together for a number of years driving each other crazy, then they take half your stuff.\n\nIts pretty straight forward."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3rrs3y | recently there have been articles saying that scientists have found evidence of a parallel universe. how is this possible? | What was the experiment more like it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rrs3y/eli5_recently_there_have_been_articles_saying/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwqpgd1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Which articles? There is a study underway at the lhc to determine if there are more *dimensions* than those we know of, I don't know about 'parallel universes'. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4pim95 | why did some low scoring applicants who were white get admitted to ut while abigail fisher didn't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pim95/eli5_why_did_some_low_scoring_applicants_who_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4l80ur",
"d4lah5s"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because grades and scores aren't the only thing college's looked at.\n\nIf that were the case a computer could do it.\n\nEssays, tone, extra curriculurs, clubs, volunteer work, activism, skills etc are all looked at.\n\nHomegirl just wasn't good enough and now she's playing the race card (ironically enough)",
"If you read up more on college admissions, who gets accepted is defined a lot by the philosophy of the recruiting department as it works to fill a class. Some of that philosophy grows from academic views of the people within the department, some of it comes from the school mission statements and direction from leadership, and some of it is informed by how they view class makeup working out in years before. Some recruiting results in one year are a result of trying to get more or less of something from the year before.\n\nWhile a level of achievement in grades and standardized test scores makes up a portion of the decisions and also determines some thresholds, it's not the whole picture. It gets easier to understand this when you consider having 50 applications of kids who all had a 3.5, did the same number of extracurriculars, all play an instrument, etc. When you have that number nearly identical on paper, how do you start to decide.\n\nFrom there, you might go to essays and see if the perspective in the applicant's essay matches what you're trying to produce at the school. You also might want to find kids that go off script better as there is a growing reluctance to just automatically enroll kids who parrot back what they think they're supposed to say and will just proceed through your university doing the required work without adding to any of the thinking or discussion. Independent thinkers are always a hot commodity as it can be rare and even rarer at a young age.\n\nOther things that can make a big difference are talents that fill a spot your school doesn't have. In this situation, Fisher played cello, which is a very popular instrument. The more popular your instrument talent, the more competition you can get on that aspect. They might have too many cellists already. Show up being a master of the piccolo though and you might get in easier without having the same GPA. The same holds for rarer athletic specialties. Are you one of the best water polo players in a landlocked state? You might get greenlit quickly compared to a good soccer player if they need those for their sports team. Did you help a homeless shelter over the summer, well they might have a ton of those. However, if you ran a volunteer group at a senior facility, you might be a shoe in the year the school is building up a senior nursing program.\n\nOne final thought on just a line in the article that shows that our concept of affirmative action is likely too simplistic compared to how it works in practice. Fisher said there shouldn't even be checkboxes for race or gender. For one, those are mainly there for reporting to both state and federal regulation to just show that you're considering applicants of different backgrounds and the reason there's a check for that is because we've had problems in the past and aren't quite sure how to make sure we're checking whether there's and racial funny business going on. Also, accrediting bodies value student diversity as an aspect of the old school definition of liberal arts and just something that adds to the marketplace of ideas. So, any accrediting body will want numbers. They usually don't set quotas. They just want to know that the school measures it and reflects on it. They won't be bothered if you're a 90% white faculty in a 90% white community, but if you were in a community that was 40% Asian and you still had 90% white faculty, they'd encourage you to work to match the community you serve for your next review.\n\nThe other big aspect of those checkboxes is that affirmative action is handled differently in different places. The big misconception many have is that of an acceptance quota. However, the original idea of affirmative action programs was an applicant pool quota. So, if you're in a state that's 10% latino, you'd work to ensure that your pool of applicants included 10% latinos at least. From there, you go by merit and the ideas above, but the idea is that you ensure you're including people's applications as there have been eras and institutions where applications were dumped in the trash based on race and gender. This is practiced differently in different places, but it's important to note that affirmative action doesn't just mean acceptance quotas, like many think."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
32trpv | how do computers ensure that the results of a monte carlo simulation match a certain probability distribution? | I work in the financial sector, and I run a lot of Monte Carlo simulations for risk management and what-not. My question is, when I specify the mean/variance/skewness/kurtosis for the simulation, how does the computer pick random numbers and still ensure the probability distribution remains the same at the end of the simulation? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32trpv/eli5_how_do_computers_ensure_that_the_results_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqek0y6",
"cqeoaxi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It generates a uniformly distributed random number, and then applies a mathematical function that transforms a uniform distribution to the distribution you want.",
"What the computer does is generating a sequence of pseudo-random numbers, i.e. a sequence of deterministic numbers that fulfills certain statistical characteristics, basically they \"seem\" to be from the same are identical and independent distributed. If you make a statistical test like goodness of fitness those numbers will \"pass2 the test (i.e. there's enough statistical evidence to say that those numbers are random).\n\nI make an emphasis in \"seem\" because they're not really random, since if you know the first number (the \"seed\") and the algorithm (which is recursive) you can know what the following numbers will be. This is important because if someone wants to replicate your work he would be able to do so if he uses the same seed and the same algorithm.\n\nNow, there's infinite kinds of probability distributions so we would need a different algorithm to generate RVs from each distribution. however there's a theorem that says that if X is a random variable distributed as a standard uniform (i.e. a uniform distribution btwn 0 and 1), and Y is another random variable with cumulative distribution F, then the inverse function F^-1 (lets call it Finv) evaluated in X is a random variable distributed as Y, that is\n\nFinv(X) = Y\n\nThis means that if you want to generate random numbers from an arbitrary probability distribution you only need to generate a sequence of random numbers from a standard uniform distribution and then transform it whit the inverse cumulative probability function and voila! You got your desired random numbers."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3dvplf | why is it so satisfying to "people-watch"? | I don't understand why I feel so compelled to people watch, I just always have felt compelled to watch how people behave and I'm curious why. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dvplf/eli5_why_is_it_so_satisfying_to_peoplewatch/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct93hmx",
"ct94725",
"ct95q2x",
"ct97vuj",
"ct98v2a",
"ct9aimd",
"ct9bfpc",
"ct9cssj",
"ct9jypm",
"ct9knw4"
],
"score": [
7,
46,
3,
6,
2,
5,
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Haven't you answered your question?\n\nYou're curious how and why people behave. You then observe and you see how and why people behave.",
"I don't think it's universal that everyone gets satisfaction out of people watching. You'd probably have to tell us.\n\nPersonally, I was very self-conscious for a long time. I think it's theraputic/cathartic to see someone do something goofy and not care about it.\n\nIt's also interesting to listen-in on other people's lives. That is the fascination with reality tv, right?\n\nAnother idea: you probably feel good judging others to be in a less-good position as you. Social comparison is a universal human need. Without Others, we don't know how we are doing.",
"I think it has to do with empathy. The more we can relate with other people, the more we can learn from them. We have evolved to watch other people for safety and learning reasons. \n\nIs that person upset? Maybe I should look for danger. That person is so relaxed, everything must be fine. Look how easily that guy opened that clam shell! Maybe I should do that too! \n\nAs to why some do and some don't, all I can say is that people are different, with different skills and personalities. Some evolved to be the protectors, some evolved as thinkers and problem solvers, with every variation in between.",
"Every person you are viewing has their own agenda, meaning they are en route to or from some other place; Although you might catch them mid action (eating lunch, buying something, etc.). \n\nYou may be viewing these interactions as animal documentaries on the tele - social anthropology as it were. \n\nThere is also a term in Sociology called Participant Observation, wherein you observe (to certain extents) how different groups of people interact with each other and the world at large. \n\nIf you are interested in the study of people and their interactions, please refer to \"The Division of Labour in Society\" by Émile Durkheim.\n\n\n\n\n ",
"It's because people do some weird ass shout when they don't think others are watching them.\n\nEver catch someone doing something that makes you go \"dafaq\"? Idk about you, but that shit is entertaining.",
"My boyfriend and I love to go people watching together. People can be so kind, bizarre, and often hilarious. I don't think it's a judgmental thing either. Humans are fascinating.",
"Personally I think it's fun to just make up a story about someone's life without having any knowledge other than their appearance. Maybe they're a spy who's talking to someone of importance on that phone and they're about to see some shit. That lady jogging in yoga pants with her hair up in a ponytail could be one of the dirtiest strippers you've ever seen. Just people watch and let your imagination run wild",
"Every time you watch somebody do something there is a part of your brain that thinks you are the one doing it",
"Richard Dawkins explained this along the lines of\n\n > What is the natural environment for fish? Water.\n > What is the natural environment for birds? Air\n > What is the natural environment for humans? Land? Not really, as we can with technology live elsewhere (space, under water etc)\n > The natural environment for humans is other humans, other people are the sea in which we swim, the air in which we fly. Our sociability is what really differentiates us from most (but not all) species. No Hermit, Great Outdoorsman or survivalist could last more than two weeks if they were not equipped with the equipment or knowledge garnered and accumulated through generations, sometimes thousands of generations of trail and error by other humans. \n\nIt's by watching each other that we learn everything about ourselves, our existence and our place in the Universe. Every book is a form of people watching - you're just watching the inside of someone else's brain at work. \nEvery TV Film and video game is just a type of indoor people watching. Even as you read this reply and all the others in this thread you are still people watching just in a micro form.\n\nAs Bucky Fuller was want to say; \"..in everything doing something for the first time is the really hard part, after that it's just a matter of repeat and refine as necessary.\" \n\nThat phrase 'we stand on the shoulders of giants' is just a way of saying we watched other people do the hard graft and then we added our bit on top of it.\n\nTLDR: You people watch because watching people is what makes people people.",
"I like people watching because I feel like the only time people in general are truly honest is when they think no one is looking or listening to them. It's an interesting view of human interaction. I tend to pay more attention to the small details when I'm sitting at a cafe or at the boardwalk with no where to be and no one to see I have a clear mind that open to all the micro expressions that people convey during basin contact with other people. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7mrfm1 | how would a country’s currency lose its value (partially or entirely)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mrfm1/eli5_how_would_a_countrys_currency_lose_its_value/ | {
"a_id": [
"drw50mk"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"People lose faith that the issuing government is good for it.\n\nPretty much every currency you might handle is based on the shared idea that it has value. Some percentage of total currency in use is backed up with holding of other foreign currency or precious metals, but it is not 100% and often not even 10%. Unlike say 100 years ago, any particular note you may have in your wallet or in your bank account does not entitle you to trade it in for a set weight of gold or silver (or a set number of Dollars/Euros/Yen). It is not a \"Gold Certificate\" or \"Silver Certificate\", but a trade instrument based on faith and confidence in the particular currency issuer.\n\nAs long as everyone has faith in the currency and goes about their day, everything is fine. That is, you assume your national government is a stable and reliable issuer and your currency will be worth about the same next week as it is today.\n\nHowever, if a large enough group of people no longer feel that the currency is good or going to be good in the near future, there will be a large scale attempt to transfer their currency into a different country's currency, move into precious metals, durable goods or otherwise abandon a particular currency and devaluation begins to occur. People worry that their national currency isn't going to be worth anything next week, so they start selling it on the cheap this week in the hope of getting some value before the system becomes further devalued. If the national bank can't check this in time and restore confidence/value, volatility can spread through the system and runaway inflation can occur, driving the value of any particular denomination of currency down dramatically. If many/most/all people feel a currency is unreliable due to high volatility, it essentially becomes worth nothing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
66bx15 | why do animals such as rodents have droppings that are generally the same shape and size whereas humans don't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66bx15/eli5_why_do_animals_such_as_rodents_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgh8ggh",
"dgh95kr"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"Might be scale? It's easier to tell the difference when it's (roughly) the size of a banana as opposed to a few millimeters or centimeters.",
"Consistent diet and exercise. Rodents essentially eat the exact same stuff and had the same amount of physical activity every day.\n\nIf you were to control your diet so that you ate the exact same food everyday, your poops would because very uniform. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
9znd4t | why is food done faster in a pressure cooker? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9znd4t/eli5_why_is_food_done_faster_in_a_pressure_cooker/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaalsw0",
"eaamc90",
"eaaox57"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"The boiling point of water increases at higher pressure, and decreases at lower pressure. That’s why when you put water in a vacuum, it boils instantly.\n\nThe pressure cooker does the opposite of a vacuum, it forces water to remain liquid way above 100degrees celcius. Since food is mostly water, this means that the food can reach higher temperatures without drying out.\n\nHigher temperatures means the chemical reactions for cooking food happen twice as fast, so the food is cooked much faster at 110 degrees vs 100 degrees.",
"Things are cooked with heat, the higher the temperature, the faster it will cook.\n\nThe things that are cooked in a pressure cooker are typically done in water or steam, like soups, stews, etc. If you have let's say 2 liters of water, and you heat it, its temperature rise, UNTIL it starts boiling at 100°C. Once it reaches that point, even if you keep adding energy (i.e. heating it), the temperature will remain at 100°C, all the energy that you are adding is used in evaporating the water (the more energy, the faster). That means, that the highest temperature that you can use to cook is 100°C, so it will take what it needs.\n\nHowever, the boiling point of water (and everything) is not constant, it depends on other things like pressure. It is 100°C at 1 atmosphere of pressure, but it will be higher with higher pressures, and vice versa. A pressure cooker increases the pressure inside it where you are cooking stuff, so the water and steam will be at 120°C or something instead, thus cooking much faster. Apparently each 10°C increase in temperature doubles the rate of cooking, so at 120°C it will cook 4 times faster.\n\nThe way it increases the pressure is by simply by sealing the lid to avoid the steam to go away. Since the steam is less dense than water, i.e. a liter of steam will occupy a bigger space than a liter of water, the pressure inside will increase. These cookers have a lot of safety valves and things, because if you keep heating it, the pressure inside could become so high that it would explode.",
"There's the increase in boiling temperature which has been mentioned, but this only explains the case when the food is in the (liquid) water.\n\nNow if you're using the steam to cook your food, higher pressure also produces an increase in thermal conductivity of steam, meaning you transfer more heat to the food at a given time.\n\nYou can see it in this graph (though we can't find the values for our pressure cooker case): _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://thermopedia.com/content/5571/STEAM_TABLES_FIG2.gif"
]
]
|
||
7ycsvv | what is a picture plane? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ycsvv/eli5what_is_a_picture_plane/ | {
"a_id": [
"dufda96"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's an imaginary surface located where the paper (or screen or canvas) of the image is. Imagine your monitor is a window -- you're on one side of it, the thing you're looking at is on the other side, and the monitor's glass is the picture plane."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7ytqs0 | what is it about the dark and dark colors that makes people fearful or gloomy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ytqs0/eli5_what_is_it_about_the_dark_and_dark_colors/ | {
"a_id": [
"duj4jrt",
"duj70ap"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Many humans have a built-in hormonal feature that makes us relaxed or even depressed when it's dark for a long time. This helped our ancestors to conserve energy during the long winters or long rainy periods, when there was nothing to do and less food supply.",
"The fear of unknown what might be in the darkness. Evolutionary gift which came from our ancestors."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
260igb | how large multinational companies can transfer huge amounts of "un-taxed" profits out of countries without paying tax. | So like this instance in Australia.
_URL_0_
It explains that they took the money out of the country. Why does the country allow this? If I own a business in a country and make a certain profit, I took the profits and went to a different country, then surely I would still be liable to pay the tax for the profits I made in that country?
I guess I am asking why do countries not hold them liable for the billions they take from the country? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/260igb/eli5how_large_multinational_companies_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"chmrtje"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In broad strokes, companies are only taxed on their profit, not their gross income. This isn't strictly true, but it's close enough for ELI5. If I make $100 but my expenses are $90, I only owe taxes on $10.\n\nSo here's the rub: How does one define \"expenses\"?\n\nMy last business had a major supplier in Canada. I was in the US. My margin was around 5%. It's not really \"right\" for the state or IRS to tax me on money that I'm not keeping and, at 5%, that'd be _most_ of my sales. On an $1800 sale, I might manage to keep $100. If they taxed me on the $1800 sale en toto, I'm losing money and what incentive do I have to stay in business? Instead, they just tax me on the $100 that I pocket.\n\nNow then... this won't work for Canada-US transactions because Canada has reasonable reporting regulations and tax rates. But let's say my supplier is in the Cayman Islands. And let's say that I happen to own the company in the Cayman Islands, too.\n\nSo, my US business in this case is taking in $1800, reporting $100 in profit, and paying $1700 in \"costs\" to a company in the Cayman Islands. The Caymans won't tax me anywhere _near_ as much as the US would, so I'm paying full US taxes on my $100 in domestic \"profit\" and next to nothing in taxes on my money in the Cayman Islands company.\n\nIt becomes a little more difficult once you want to try to get that money back into the US so you can spend it, and the methods for doing so change all the time as Congress tries to crack down on this with varying levels of success. I don't know how folks do it anymore, but it used to be that you would declare a dividend or similar in the Cayman Islands and pay yourself directly. Since it was a dividend payment, the IRS then taxed you at the more favorable Capital Gains rate. You're getting taxed again, but between the laughably low to zero-percent Cayman Islands rate and the capital gains rate, you're possibly still saving yourself 10-20% in taxes for the effort."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-how-apple-pays-hardly-any-tax-in-australia-2014-3"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
3r6720 | why are mirrors needed in telescopes, rather than just lenses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3r6720/eli5_why_are_mirrors_needed_in_telescopes_rather/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwl9oba",
"cwl9qsm",
"cwlag1b",
"cwld6dn",
"cwlgq0w"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"To see things very far away, you need a very big telescope. However, the gravity on Earth is such that telescopes can only ever be made so big before they break; same deal with lenses. So, when we needed telescopes bigger than physics on Earth would allow, we figured out that if you bounce light back and forth between some mirrors, it artificially lengthens your telescope without actually needing to make it longer.\n\nSo the light goes through the lens, reflects off of one or more mirrors until the image is appropriately magnified, and then the scientist can look through and see what he/she is looking at. It's a pretty neat trick of nature!",
"You can theoretically make a telescope without mirrors and just with lenses as powerful as any modern telescope. However, the magnification of a lens only telescope is dependent on the distance between lenses. So, you would have to constantly make a longer and longer telescope, which requires stronger materials for the whole thing not to bend and a rig to make sure the telescope doesn't accidentally vibrate even slightly (pushing whatever you were looking at wildly out of frame).\n\nIt's far cheaper and easier to make a compact mirror based telescope. ",
"In addition to the other good replies, mirrors reflect a wider range of wavelengths than can lenses can transmit (e.g., infrared), and lenses don't focus all wavelengths at precisely the same focal point, resulting in a color-specific blurring known as [chromatic aberration](_URL_1_).\n\n[Some further reading is here](_URL_0_).",
"Optically speaking, just about anything you can do with a lens you can also do with a mirror. For telescopes, especially large ones, mirrors are more practical because:\n\n* they are easier to make, you only have to shape one surface, not two\n* they are more stable, you can support a mirror from the back, while lens have to be supported by their edges\n* you can \"fold\" the incoming light and get by with a shorter telescope...a telescope with a mirror is half as long as one with lens, and one with multiple mirrors can be the fraction of that length\n* with mirrors, the location of the eyepiece is more flexible...with lenses, everything has to be in a straight line\n\nIn addition, lens function as prisms, and will not focus different colors at the same time, resulting in distortion. Mirrors do not suffer from this problem.\n\nFor some applications, lenses are superior. A good mirror will only reflect 90-95% of the light that hits it...a good lens will transmit over 99%.",
"- Everything /u/kouhoutek said is spot on. Read their post first. (Actually, all the posts here before mine, are good. I'm just adding a few things no-one else has said.)\n\n- They said you can support a mirror from the back, instead of by the edges: that's also good because the heaviest bit of the telescope is at the back, which is nearest the ground. If you make a gigantic (10m across) lens based telescope, that 10m wide lens would have to be supported high up. Putting a 10m mirror on the ground is much easier.\n\n- Mirrors are easier to build. To make a 10m diameter mirror, you can [trivially make lots of small mirrors and then tile them together](_URL_1_). I don't know if this is possible with lenses, but it's certainly not trivial if it is possible.\n\n- Mirrors are easier to maintain. It's much easier to clean / replace a mirror on the ground (especially if those mirrors are in small tiles), than it is a lens. One of my university teachers told us about a disgruntled astronomer, who went and took a shotgun to the mirror of the telescope they were using. Once they'd put a bit of tape over the holes it left, it still worked at 99.4% (they did the maths...) efficiency. Good luck getting that out of a lens!\n\n- Another bonus to using tiled mirrors is that the mechanisms you need for [adaptive optics](_URL_0_) (which are optics that correct for distortion in the atmosphere) are much easier to fit, since each mirror can (in principle) be independently controlled."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=18335",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics#Tip.E2.80.93tilt_correction",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_mirror"
]
]
|
||
99ikda | what do movie directors do? if they’re not writing, designing sets/costumes, or casting, why do they get a lot of the credit for the production of the movie for facilitating and “directing”? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99ikda/eli5_what_do_movie_directors_do_if_theyre_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4ny9lw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Think of it like a teacher in a class room. They (teachers) don't write the text books. They don't do any of the learning. They don't build the school or buy the desks. They don't set the schedule or finance the operation. What the teacher (director) does is make sure that all those things come together to ensure that the students (audience/studio) get the education (entertainment/product) that they are expecting (paying for/investing in). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ca48ao | why do wounds hurt more when they get wet? | When you have a wound, and add water it "hurt" instantly, why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ca48ao/eli5_why_do_wounds_hurt_more_when_they_get_wet/ | {
"a_id": [
"et5xpw8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Guessing as well but I thought it because of two reasons.\n\nOne being is that your nerves are exposed on a wounded skin and react to stimuli much stronger.\n\nAnd reason 2 is that water washes away protective layer of blood and once again exposes nerves."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2z5tvv | why we aren't fighting against zero tolerance policies in schools? | I hardly hear anyone advocate for Zero Tolerance, the way they currently are being used anyways.
How can we fix this? Kids getting suspended that never even fought back or kids getting suspended for a year even though the drugs they supposedly had were tested negative. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z5tvv/eli5_why_we_arent_fighting_against_zero_tolerance/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpfxifs",
"cpfzjpp",
"cpg6i1s"
],
"score": [
16,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Because Zero Tolerance is both seductive in it's call (otherwise it never would have become popular in the first place), and it's super-easy to implement. Every time a judgement call is made, there will be people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. The main benefit (to administrators) to Zero Tolerance is that there are no judgement calls to be made.",
"Not drawing from any sources here, but I imagine there are 2 main reasons:\nParents with children at the school expect the school to conveniently administer discipline, never expecting their children to be involved. So the base of \"adults\" who would be vocal are in this small group of having innocent children which is really small in comparison. \n\nAnd the legal system, at least in the US, provides no real means for a fight against this to happen. Public school organization is just a mess frankly. Any kind of reform, be it policy or curriculum, is really hard to affect, bringing in my point above that there isnt a big enough group to make a difference. Bleak, but true.",
"There are many definitions for \"zero tolerance\". The one year suspension you are referencing has nothing much to do with that policy; rather, it has to do with an abuse of process.\n\nZero tolerance is better enunciated as \"zero tolerance for not investigating\" whatever the alleged offence is. In the past, schools could just say, fuck it, this is too much work. \n\nNow, most are legally required to investigate each and every allegation. That, of course, does not mean all do.\n\nWhat you are asking about has more to do with incompetent school officials and whomever else just doing a totally shitty job. When a factory worker does a shitty job, a shirt might have a crooked seam. In this instance, a kid's life was ruined.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
571lr6 | how do hormonal iuds release a reliable, steady stream of hormones for years? and do they taper off or just stop releasing hormones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/571lr6/eli5_how_do_hormonal_iuds_release_a_reliable/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8ocdnq",
"d8oo3vt"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Regarding how the hormones are released reliably over such a long time, I don't know and couldn't find the answer for sure, but I know some of the slow release methods used for other drugs.\n\nSometimes oral drugs are put into a matrix with thousands of tiny pores that hold the drugs. Ths physically limits the amount of drug that comes in contact with the parts of the body that can break it down and absorb it. This matrix is then pooped out.\n\nSometimes, the filler material that carries the drug is conditioned in such a way that the outside of the pill dissolves slower than than inside, which makes for a more uniform release of drug over time.\n\nI suspect that the uterus has a predictable surface chemistry that can be used to model a material for the IUD and the carrier material for the hormone such that it dissolves over many years. \n\nThe mechanism of how an IUD works is pretty well understood. The mechanical component increases mucus production in the cervix, which impedes the travel of the swimmies. This mechanically separates the sperm from the egg. The hormone prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg.",
"Yes, they do taper off over the years, and do need to be replaced after 2, 3, or 5 years, depending on the type inserted. The amount of hormones should never fall below safe levels, though. The FDA is now looking at the efficacy of Mirena in particular, examining whether or not it can be in place for an additional two years, extending it out to 7 years of use. \n\nUnlike oral contraceptive methods, there is no spike of hormones throughout the day, as the hormones are constantly being released straight into the uterus instead of circulating through your bloodstream. After 1 year, the hormone levels from an IUD are nearly undetectable in a blood test.\n\nAlso, a hormonal IUD does NOT always prevent ovulation or fertilization in every user. In an IUD, the active hormone (levonorgestrel) works to create more cervical mucus, which helps trap sperm before they can make their way into the uterus. Levonorgestrel also helps prevent the thickening of your uterine tissue, therefore creating an unfavorable environment for a fertilized egg by inhibiting it's ability to attach to the normally blood rich uterine wall. \n\nEdit: have IUD and researched the fuck out of it.\n\nLooking at the full prescribing information, levonorgestrel is mixed with silicone and shaped into a tube. This tube is then coated in the same silicone (sans hormones) and placed on the stalk of the IUD. From what I can tell, the hormones are released from the silicone at body temperature and the second layer of silicone probably acts as a barrier to prevent too much of the active ingredient from being released at one time. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
93fqqb | besides natural disasters, does extinction occur naturally? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/93fqqb/eli5_besides_natural_disasters_does_extinction/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3cvgdt",
"e3cvmoo"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Sure they do, outside of natural disasters and human interference. Animals drive *each other* to extinction all the time. Let's say that I'm a species of bird that hunts for mice - it's all I know, and it's all that my family and I are good at. We live in this valley and we clean up the mice. Now imagine that outside of the valley, the mice supplies have been running low, and another species of bird has started migrating into my valley, one that also hunts mice. But here's the catch: this new intruder is *way better* at mouse hunting than me. They're like mouse-seeking missiles. And they're bigger and stronger than my species, so I'm not going to start a fight over the food.\n\nWhat's going to happen to me? Well, I'm going to have a tough time getting any food. Which is going to lead to a few possibilities. Either I'll have to leave the valley to find more food, I'm going to have to adapt to a new food source, or else we're going to die out. Plenty of animals in the past have been unable to move to a new environment and unable to subsist on another food source, and have simply died out.\n\nOthers have had pressure put on them to evolve - maybe my son with the weird, long beak discovers that he can eat bug larvae out of trees, so he and his kids aren't fighting for mice. I and the rest of my family might starve out over time, but his kids may develop longer and more specialized beaks to handle their new food source. Over a few hundred or few thousand years, they might even become a new species of bird, while the \"parent\" species, mine, has fully died out and become extinct. There are lots of ways for extinction to occur.",
"Yes, most species to ever have existed are extinct (approximately 99%). That happens through natural selection. For example: overtime, species competing over a certain limited resource can result in one species surviving and the other migrating or perishing. This way the fittest species will continue existing, being \"naturally selected\". For one species to survive through time pursuing a a certain niche or lifestyle, many others species perish trying to.\n\n\nEdit > some more info:\n\nMost species follow a pattern of lifespan, meaning they generally exist for a couple million years. It's important to notice that the Earth went through 5 mass extinctions, and those were all natural processes. For example, when photosynthetic lifeforms started producing oxygen, it became a toxic substance to various other lifeforms, killing them and leaving new niches open for colonization, so organisms that tolerated oxygen thrived, and that's how we came to be. These events are normal and part of the way nature is. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
7fp7ku | why do laptop and pc manufacturers install all of this useless software that slows the computer down so much? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fp7ku/eli5_why_do_laptop_and_pc_manufacturers_install/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqddoru"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"$$$\n\nYou'll notice that a lot of the software has a premium version and it tries to get you to upgrade after the trial period is over. These software companies pay the OEMs to load the trials onto the prebuilt machines in hopes that a small percentage of those who buy them will buy the premium version when the trial runs out.\n\nHP, Dell, and other OEMs load the software on the machine because it lets them charge less for the machine while still making the same amount of money and lets them move more machines that way."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
135zwy | why i(or anyone) should care who general petraeus is sleeping with | I really don't get this one. If the world could magically conjure up a list of every military leader throughout history who's had an affair the list would reach the moon and back. Is this seriously something I should care about or is it just the main stream media finding something to talk about this week?
Note: I'm assuming the extra blowjobs/affair weren't hindering his job performance | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/135zwy/eli5_why_ior_anyone_should_care_who_general/ | {
"a_id": [
"c713bue",
"c713diw",
"c713r8a",
"c7147yn",
"c715blt"
],
"score": [
9,
13,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The simple matter is that the affair paints him as untrustworthy, and do we want an untrustworthy person running the CIA?\n\nRegardless to if it does or not the simple issue is that this is a public perception issue. ",
"I think its a little silly but here is the logic.\n\nMany female spies through out the years have used sex to gain information from high ranking officials (example: _URL_0_). So there is some question if his proclivaties would have opened him up as a possible security risk. Also there is the idea that you want officials to be ethical, and being an adulterer in our society is a breach of ethics, and thus makes him a less than ideal official in the government (see also lol Newt Gingrich).",
"The affair came to light because the woman he was having an affair with, who was also his biographer, (apparently) sent many harassing and threatening emails to a female friend of his, triggering a complaint to the FBI about possible cyberstalking, and an investigation.\n\nOh, and the biographer just happened to have some classified documents on her computer that both she and Mr Petraeus say didn't come from him.",
"The man who is the head of spies shouldnt get caught.",
"Imagine, say, a foreign agent found out about the affair before anyone else did.. blackmail!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Hari"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1ord7z | medical insurance in america for british citizens | If you live in a country with universal health insurance, what happens if you need medical care in a country like the US which doesn't have universal care? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ord7z/eli5_medical_insurance_in_america_for_british/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccut8wn",
"ccutaqi",
"ccuw20y"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You buy insurance before you go, unless you're an idiot. ",
"You must buy travel insurance yhat includes medical care",
"The UK's National Health Service covers British residents for (almost) all medical treatment in the UK, or for essential/emergency treatment when in other EU countries. It's [made very clear to Britons [UK government factsheet, PDF]](_URL_1_) that their medical costs aren't covered if they travel outside this region, and so we are very strongly recommended to take out private medical travel insurance.\n\nTravel insurance companies [are](_URL_3_) [very](_URL_0_) [common](_URL_2_) in the UK."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.direct-travel.co.uk/",
"https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206692/Insurance_Infographic_v5.pdf",
"http://www.columbusdirect.com/travel-insurance/",
"http://www.atlasdirect.co.uk/travel-insurance.asp"
]
]
|
|
1k3w9p | why/ how is japan a very conservative country, but kind of weird also? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k3w9p/eli5_why_how_is_japan_a_very_conservative_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbl3o10",
"cbl4uop",
"cblalsf"
],
"score": [
13,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"That a society is conservative merely means that it tends that way when viewed as a whole. The USA is also very much a conservative society, especially when viewed from outside. And yet it still manages to generate much of the western world's supply of weirdness, radical thought, etc. No society is monolithic, after all. ",
"By 'conservative' I assume you are refering to the Japanese culture of hard work and long hours living in a society of very rigid and strict social norms. Think about it, for the majority of your day, and indeed the majority of your life in Japan you are expected to be a sort of corporate robot. They need some release, a break from the constraining concrete prison that is the reality for many Japanese people, more release then most people living in an American or European culture. Japanese people perhaps need a real escape from reality when they can for the purpose of their sanity. Perhaps this is why Japanese media is so notoriously weird. They want novelty that they just aren't getting in other parts of their life so they look for it in their entertainment.",
"Utah has the highest porn subscription rates, so I hear."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
17zfij | why do x-rays cost so much? they take the picture and it pops up on the screen. where do the high costs come form? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17zfij/eli5_why_do_xrays_cost_so_much_they_take_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8a7up3",
"c8a8fw0",
"c8a9yyq",
"c8aa2o7"
],
"score": [
61,
6,
4,
17
],
"text": [
"The x-ray machines themselves are very expensive. So, the doctors have to pay back the initial cost of the machine. Also, the skill to read and understand the x-ray is not common or cheap. Part of what you're paying for is your doctor's expert analysis of the x-ray.",
"Maintaining a machine also is expensive. There are regulations on the production of x-rays that must always be in spec.",
"Because barriers to entry. I can't be a regular schmo running an x-ray machine and diagnosing scans. I wouldn't be credible.",
"Everyone seems to be basing their reasons here mostly on the costs of the machines. I would assert that the biggest chunk of the money goes to the radiologists who read and interpret the images. The machines do cost a lot and have a fairly limited use but it's no where near the cost of staffing. \n\nCT and MRI machines - ~$300,000 - $2,000,000+ (MRI on the higher end, CT on the lower end but there will be cross over) \n\nUltrasound machines - ~$200,000\n\nX-ray machines - ~$50,000 - $150,000+\n\nPlus the cost of setting up the premises. There are very specific standards that must be followed with respect to radiation shielding in different rooms. The amount of radiation transmitted through the walls must be measured at several points to ensure that people outside the room aren't unknowingly being irradiated as they are walking by. MRI machines require very expensive setups with shielding from radio waves (faraday cages? I don't know a lot about this but I've been told they're quite costly).\n\nThen there is the upkeep on all the machines. It is mostly in the form of service contracts from the vendors but even those are very costly. Machines must be replaced at certain intervals. Where I live, a CT machine cannot be older than 10 years so that needs to be factored into the costing.\n\nThe cost of implementing a PACS system so that images can be archived and transmitted electronically is also expensive. The programs associated with radiology are quite expensive as is the viewing equipment and printing equipment because of the exact standards required. \n\nBut as I mentioned that all pales when compared to the cost of radiologists. Where I live a consultant radiologist can expect to earn at least $500,000 a year. I know of quite a few that are earning well over the $1 million mark without owning their own practice or anything special. They also get very good benefits (10 weeks annual leave, 2 weeks conference leave, education expenses etc) in exchange for the huge amount of training they undergo. It is at a minimum 12 years of study and work before you can be a radiologist. There are also expenses from your education as well as the normal doctor expenses once you get there. Still I think most people would be pretty happy to have the job. \n\nAlso, it's not just one doctor that you need to have. Depending on size you have several radiologists. The company I work for has 50+ radiologists, and about 900 other staff. The cost of staffing these other people to take the images (radiographers, sonographers etc who are all at least degree qualified themselves), administration staff, nurses etc is not insignificant.\n\nPeople have mentioned a lot about outsourcing the reporting to overseas which is definitely done in some cases, however there is a lot of concern over how to ensure the standard of care is maintained. I don't know a lot about it other than to say it does happen but it's not as widely used as might be thought, and even when it is its more often to cover night time patients or holidays.\n\nAfter having painted radiology clinics as barely making ends meet, I can also say that they are very profitable businesses even with the amount they pay their doctors. And this is all coming from an Australian perspective where we charge a fraction of what the US charges. Last year I saw a receipt someone posted where they were charged $7,800 for a CT abdomen from a US emergency department. That is just off the charts fucking crazy. We would charge between $220 and $450 for the same scan, reported and with a set of printed films and a DVD of the images. (different people pay different amounts. Government funded healthcare pays less than a private insurance company) So if we can charge < 10% of what they charge and still make a healthy profit, someone in the US is lining their pockets and should be stopped. Also, I'm fairly sure radiologists in the US don't earn as much as I quoted ours getting paid so thats even less reason to be charging like that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3dn4v2 | what is and isn't real from homer's stories? | So many conflicting stories. Obviously anything to do with the gods wasn't real.. but the wars described, the people mentioned, Homer himself. Were any of these real. I have been told both that all these wars and people existed and I've been told they haven't, and that Homer is actually multiple people. What is it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dn4v2/eli5_what_is_and_isnt_real_from_homers_stories/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct6ql70",
"ct6qrtv"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Cyclops - totally real\n\nWife remaining faithful when husband doesn't return home from war for 20 years - totally fake.",
"There was a place called Sparta. There is a place in Anatolia (modern Turkey) matching the description of Troy. We're pretty sure we know where Troy was and we know for certain where Sparta was/is.\n\nThe ruins of Troy show that the city was sacked several times so we know that it was the site of sieges and battles and that the Trojans didn't win every time they fought.\n\nEverything else is of unknown provenance.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
20uxpg | how do water filters like brita and pur work? and how do they go "bad"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20uxpg/eli5_how_do_water_filters_like_brita_and_pur_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg6yj55",
"cg6yjtf"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They use activated charcoal to capture impurities in the water. They go \"bad\" because they become saturated with crap and can't absorb any more.",
"They're basically [activated carbon](_URL_0_), which grabs particular molecules out of the water. Eventually the activated carbon is saturated with things it's grabbed (like a full sponge) and can't absorb any more."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon"
]
]
|
||
esurig | how are mobile deposit checks verified? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/esurig/eli5_how_are_mobile_deposit_checks_verified/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffc95co"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Check has routing number and account number that were printed with special ink to help identify it's a real check. You're right that you can literally write that information on a piece if napkin, but it would raise a red flag and get forwarded to fraud prevention for further verification. You don't normally have access to all the fund before it's verified."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
cb39m8 | why do stones thrown at sufficient speed and low angle bounce off the water surface a few times before sinking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cb39m8/eli5_why_do_stones_thrown_at_sufficient_speed_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"etcqygr"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"When a stone hits the water it has to push water out of the way to make a splash, but the water pushes back. At a shallow enough angle the rock isn't able to push enough water out of the way and the water pushing back stops it's decent. Because the rock is has so mush forward momentum it jumps off the little bump of water it forms in front of it. This is why flat rocks skip better. They have more surface area hitting the water so the water can push back with more force. The spin you impart to the rock keeps it from tumbling, which would cause it to dig in and loose that forward speed quickly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4ffd4r | cells living independently from their normal host? | From what I've grasped about cells in the human body, essentially everything in the body is a bunch of chemical reactions working to form a system. Cells are made of chemicals that cause systematic reactions and with all these different components 'come together' to form humans.
Would it be possible to have one group of cells (let's say a finger) to be hooked to machines that supply it with the proper 'chemicals' (blood and such) to 'survive' completely on its own? If so then would this finger creature ever die so long as it had the proper 'chemicals'?
From what I can gather the finger will be preserved there indefinitely. Scale it up and you have a very long life. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ffd4r/eli5_cells_living_independently_from_their_normal/ | {
"a_id": [
"d28lkq2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Principally yes and we already do this in the medical research field. Despite all the cells working together a large amount of the human body is \"modular\" in the sense that those parts don't need the rest of them there to do anything. In fact no part of the human body needs the others as long as you can supply the blood and such separately.\n\nKeep in mind when you do this though you would have to regulate the blood and such and the contents and concentrations of the blood and such and so on to mimic the organs that would normally do that. The finger doesn't care where it gets its blood and such from, as long as its all good. The machines just act as a surrogate rest of the body.\n\nThe finger would still age however. the individual cells still multiply and die over and over, aging the finger in the process like it would if attached. It can even get cancer and skin disease and all that. Even if nothing else the finger would age into retirement until it dies of old age. You can tweak the blood and such to help but it will succumb to old age eventually. At this point the toe can collect on the fingers life insurance policy."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
my6ga | why keyboard/mouse is considered to be superior to dual-joystick controllers for first person shooters. | Thank you in advance | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/my6ga/eli5_why_keyboardmouse_is_considered_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"c34sb3k",
"c34sd7g",
"c34sgeu",
"c34u0ly",
"c34sb3k",
"c34sd7g",
"c34sgeu",
"c34u0ly"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In simplest terms, with a joystick, you're telling the game 'move the camera this direction *until I let go*', with a mouse you're saying 'move the camera as far as, and in the direction that I moved my mouse'.\n\nJoystick proponents will say that is faster to aim, as you're moving only your thumb, whereas mouse advocates prefer the precision and direct connection to camera movement a mouse gives.\n\n",
"In addition to many years of kb/mouse play (starting with the original Quake), I've also spent the last two years or so playing L4D/L4D2 on 360. So I'm very familiar with both kb/mouse and controller.\n\nIn my experience, there are two factors that make mouse much better than joystick: precision of movement, and speed.\n\nPrecision of movement means that I have an intuitive feel for how much a mouse movement will move my character. For instance, when I'm aiming, and I hear something behind me, I know exactly how far to move my house to get turned around to where the sound is. This skill is the result of years of practice, but it is not unique to me - most good kb/mouse players develop it. With a joystick as your means of looking around, you have to whack the joystick all the way to max travel, wait until your character turns around, and then release the joystick at exactly the right time to leave your crosshair centered on the correct spot. It's less exact. I almost always overshoot or undershoot, and then have to correct my point of aim.\n\nAlso, the joystick method mentioned above is noticeably slower. Muscle memory means that I can twitch or snap my hand to a certain position very quickly - almost at reaction speed. With a joystick setup you have to whack the joystick all the way over to max and then mentally compare your current rate of turn with where you want the crosshair to go, and estimating the future time that you need to let go of the joystick to land the crosshair on target. Muscle memory is just much faster than this \"consciously estimating time to target.\" Of course, you can crank up the speed that you turn when you whack the joystick full left/right... but that decreases your precision. You overshoot/undershoot more (and more often), and end up wasting time correcting again.\n\nSo, like I said, mouse is both more accurate and faster. For whatever reason, the human nervous system and brain is just way better at using muscle memory and position to do things quickly. Using velocity estimation and calculating \"time to correct position\" is just much harder and more error prone and slower.",
"There have been simple tests about this that game companies have done.\n\nLet similar skilled players play each other. 50% on console, 50% on PC, and the PC players will generally have much better results on a shooter. Reverse the players, and suddenly the other group is doing much better. It's a serious advantage that's been measured through testing.",
"The mouse is a **positional** controller, the joystick is a **velocity** controller.\n\nI can control the position, velocity, and acceleration of my crosshairs using my mouse.\n\nWith a joystick I can control velocity and acceleration, **but** crosshair position is limited by the code of the game to take some amount of time.",
"In simplest terms, with a joystick, you're telling the game 'move the camera this direction *until I let go*', with a mouse you're saying 'move the camera as far as, and in the direction that I moved my mouse'.\n\nJoystick proponents will say that is faster to aim, as you're moving only your thumb, whereas mouse advocates prefer the precision and direct connection to camera movement a mouse gives.\n\n",
"In addition to many years of kb/mouse play (starting with the original Quake), I've also spent the last two years or so playing L4D/L4D2 on 360. So I'm very familiar with both kb/mouse and controller.\n\nIn my experience, there are two factors that make mouse much better than joystick: precision of movement, and speed.\n\nPrecision of movement means that I have an intuitive feel for how much a mouse movement will move my character. For instance, when I'm aiming, and I hear something behind me, I know exactly how far to move my house to get turned around to where the sound is. This skill is the result of years of practice, but it is not unique to me - most good kb/mouse players develop it. With a joystick as your means of looking around, you have to whack the joystick all the way to max travel, wait until your character turns around, and then release the joystick at exactly the right time to leave your crosshair centered on the correct spot. It's less exact. I almost always overshoot or undershoot, and then have to correct my point of aim.\n\nAlso, the joystick method mentioned above is noticeably slower. Muscle memory means that I can twitch or snap my hand to a certain position very quickly - almost at reaction speed. With a joystick setup you have to whack the joystick all the way over to max and then mentally compare your current rate of turn with where you want the crosshair to go, and estimating the future time that you need to let go of the joystick to land the crosshair on target. Muscle memory is just much faster than this \"consciously estimating time to target.\" Of course, you can crank up the speed that you turn when you whack the joystick full left/right... but that decreases your precision. You overshoot/undershoot more (and more often), and end up wasting time correcting again.\n\nSo, like I said, mouse is both more accurate and faster. For whatever reason, the human nervous system and brain is just way better at using muscle memory and position to do things quickly. Using velocity estimation and calculating \"time to correct position\" is just much harder and more error prone and slower.",
"There have been simple tests about this that game companies have done.\n\nLet similar skilled players play each other. 50% on console, 50% on PC, and the PC players will generally have much better results on a shooter. Reverse the players, and suddenly the other group is doing much better. It's a serious advantage that's been measured through testing.",
"The mouse is a **positional** controller, the joystick is a **velocity** controller.\n\nI can control the position, velocity, and acceleration of my crosshairs using my mouse.\n\nWith a joystick I can control velocity and acceleration, **but** crosshair position is limited by the code of the game to take some amount of time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3qzbzn | why are we not allowed to put forks and spoons into a microwave? | Or other things, like aluminum foil and steele plates. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qzbzn/eli5why_are_we_not_allowed_to_put_forks_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwjkpk8",
"cwjkvq7"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Buy your own. Do anything you want with it. Experiment. Watch the sparks fly.\n\nThere is no law. I just will not let you use mine for this because you might blow up the magnetron which means, replacement time. Buy your own. Do anything you want.",
"1) The metal is pretty good at deflecting the microwaves, which means that your food won't heat up as well. The microwaves reflect around the inside of the oven in a designated way, and having metal in the oven will screw that up so they bounce around randomly, possibly damaging the oven.\n2) The microwaves can cause sparks along any sharp edge of the metal, and the arcing electricity can damage your microwave. \n\nA steel plate actually wouldn't be that bad if you position it correctly. It'll just deflect the microwaves like the metal walls of the oven do. If you put something with lots of sharp edges, say a fork or a crumpled piece of aluminum foil, you'll get something like [this](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhpndQJkNk0"
]
]
|
|
ar90d1 | why do people with downs syndrome seem to be far more functional in society than they were a few decades ago? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ar90d1/eli5_why_do_people_with_downs_syndrome_seem_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"eglip6y",
"egljhmc",
"eglkj6z",
"eglksyp",
"eglnp0a",
"eglnts0",
"eglol3n",
"eglpg1b",
"eglpi20",
"eglpk8k",
"eglpxbw",
"eglqn2k",
"eglqt0d",
"eglr0zh",
"eglr1c5",
"eglr2fj",
"eglrb39",
"eglrp6u",
"eglrxfr",
"eglryhe",
"egls49q",
"eglsaix",
"eglsf6r",
"eglsm9o",
"eglso9i",
"eglss6n",
"eglt151",
"eglt38e",
"egltdvd",
"egltgwr",
"egltj0t",
"eglu7g8",
"egluh1r",
"egluizx",
"eglvc2j",
"eglydgm",
"eglytrk",
"egm58v2",
"egm70ds",
"egm7s48",
"egmaath",
"egmdk39",
"egmdr0f",
"egmdrja",
"egmebxv",
"egmellk",
"egmen61",
"egmezp9",
"egmf5cm",
"egmf5tv",
"egmfe8b",
"egmft2s",
"egmft9f",
"egmfx9k",
"egmg4dv",
"egmgcor",
"egmgxdz",
"egmh6x2",
"egmhf6h",
"egmhh46",
"egmi8lq",
"egmiwqx",
"egmkyau"
],
"score": [
101,
10377,
11,
657,
6,
3662,
145,
4,
80,
7,
39,
12,
4,
10,
5,
10,
2,
2,
2,
32,
35,
3,
5,
5,
4,
3,
209,
11,
2,
3,
21,
4,
2,
27,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"People with Down's syndrome are capable of being educated, a few decades ago this wasn't thought to be the case so they were mainly left out of the educational system and no real attempt was made to assist them in functioning in society.",
"My eldest daughter has DS and turns 19 next month so I feel i can give my opinion. A few decades ago mothers were told to give the baby up to an institution, forget about it, go home and have anther baby. \nNowadays society is a lot more accepting of those that are not \"normal\". My then wife and I were advised to do the best we could for our daughter. No one will ever reach their full potential if they are kept in a corner for their whole lives.\nMy daughter finished high school last year, she has a job one day a week, she has a full social life, goes to the pool a couple of times a week, goes to the library, buys her own lunch, loves books, movies and music.\nShe's as best a person as I've tried to help her be. If she was born a few decades ago she may already have died from lack of care. ",
"My input/opinion is that part of it definitely has to do with the push for inclusive general education classrooms. I know a lot of schools here (Connecticut) are trying for 50/50. It’s beneficial to all children, especially with universal design being implemented.\n\nEdit: it’s very sad to see so many people scared of inclusion on here.",
"Son is 3 1/2 and has DS. \nI’m honestly not sure if people with DS are more functional but they are being given more of a chance these days as opposed to simply sending them off to a mental institution. \n\nAlso, social media allows you to share the best sides of these little bundles of joy.\n\nWorld Down syndrome day is on the 21st of March by the way. Please wear odd socks to support this day, it’s fun and silly, just like our loved ones. \n\nWhy 21/3? There are 3 copies of the 21st chromosome. \nWhy socks? Chromosomes look like socks on medical charts!",
"I'm assuming it's because more people accept and understand those with disabilities. I mean women were once put in mental institutions for their monthly, migraines etc. People with any mental disabilities were locked away as not embarrass the families . But considering now, people with disabilities are understood and accepted in society and are not considered embarrassing. People know now that just because they have ds , it doesn't make them any different. Years ago they didn't know what caused It, and humans generally fear the unknown ",
"One of my friends has a younger sister with DS and is a special education teacher who works with preschool aged kids.\n\nPart of the answer is that we now do what's called \"early intervention\" for kids with various disabilities. So this includes stuff like speech therapy, finding out if the kid has hearing problems, occupational therapy to work on fine and gross motor skills, all sorts of stuff. In years past this was not a thing, and not terribly long ago people with DS were just warehoused.\n\nEarly intervention is important because it helps kids get on a good track, and because stuff like DS isn't just a cognitive impairment, it's a whole syndrome. So occupational therapy helps with the tendency for low muscle tone, and speech therapy helps with communication that can be complicated by the tendency for hearing loss and enlarged tongue, and all that sort of stuff. When the kids and their families are given tools early on, they start off on more solid ground, and they aren't left behind the kid's peers. So when the kid gets to school they are more able to engage in and benefit from stuff like spending more time in regular lessons with non-impaired students.",
"Prenatal testing. These days (and for the past few decades) if you have a child with DS it's almost always intentional. You knew the fetus had this defect and you were okay with that. Previously, the disability was unexpected and so the parents would sometimes abandon the child, sometimes raise it themselves but poorly.\n\nIn short, the DS kids/young adults around these days have parents who almost exclusively are okay with them having DS. This plus society in general being less shitty to minorities goes a long way I think.",
"They have been always functional, but they're getting more opportunities now, my cousin got his first job 4 years ago, he's 37.",
"There are also a lot more resources and knowledge. We know now that people with DS vary tremendously in their abilities and health. It is largely a spectrum with how people with DS are affected by it. Because of this, we are able to tailor their education and/or training. My mom was a case manager for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Some of them are able to hold down jobs, live largely independently, etc. Some need more round the clock care. But treating them as individuals and having the financial and social resources to do so allows them to thrive in whatever makes the most sense for them. Not too long ago many people with intellectual disabilities were just institutionalized and not able to live to their full potential. And they were marginalized and hidden from society. This is still an ongoing problem, but now many in this population are in \"regular\" schools, have jobs in the public, etc, so society is becoming more accepting. ",
"To add on what others have said, there has also been a huge push by parents and family advocacy groups in education to recognise and better treat people with Downs syndrome and other disabilities. One of my special education mentors entered the field because of an uncle she loved who has Downs. There have also been a lot of changes to education and civil laws regarding the treatment of people with disabilities since the 1970s. ",
"I met my wife when her DS daughter was 3. She told me a story about her son - who actually was 5 at the time - asked her what it meant to have Down's. Her answer was that his sister will be able to do anything he can, it will just take her longer to learn how to do it. That was 25 years ago.\n\nWhat does that mean? As other posters have pointed out, there has been a 180 degree shift in philosophy with respect to people with special needs. Inclusion, therapy, tolerance, acceptance, empathy, education, awareness, and understanding are just a few reasons people with Down Syndrome are more functional in today's society. Their potential was always there. Now it's being encouraged and fostered.",
"I think that there is a change in perception occurring around disabilities in general. Disability has been defined for such a long time by the Medical Model as being an issue within the individual. This is now being replaced by the Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model of disability that includes that disability is the result of societal/environtmental barriers e.g. attitudes, beliefs, physical accessibility. While it is arguably important to view disability from a medical perspective, especially when considering access to early intervention and ongoing treatment, by viewing it through a BPS lens, we can educate society and make the necessary changes so that people with any disability, whether physical, developmental, or mental health related, can lead meaningful lives and contribute to society.\n\nI have worked as an Employment Specialist for some time in Vancouver, Canada and my clients are those living with developmental disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. They have a plethora of skills and abilities to offer the workforce, and employers are really starting to see the benefits. It is noteworthy to mention that the employment we support them with finding is competitive and pays at least minimum wage. \n\nEveryone has the right to have meaningful experiences and contribute to society regardless of level of ability.",
"People are actually trying and not tossing them away as damaged goods, which I think was probably because it was so visually apparent that they have DS. Any human being would develop badly if treated like they were. Par example, our prisons lock people up and expect them to be normal after release, without any treatment, education or attempt to detect the source of the issue and find a way around it. With DS kids, we are now working to work around it and do the best, hence, better results. Now if we applied that to other places where we throw people away to rot. .... also I do understand that not everyone can be helped. So let's not even go there. ",
"Early Intervention plays a huge part in the progress people with Downs have made. In earlier decades, families were strongly encouraged to give the child up to an institution so they wouldnt \"Ruin\" the families life by being a \"Burden\", but now, in somewhat more enlightened times, families are encouraged to treat the child like a normal child and they are supported with a variety of services designed to help the child be successful.\n\nWhen my son was born(after all tests had been negative), we were met at the hospital by a social worker who provided a wealth of information and referrals, and who hooked us up with a public health nurse who then helped to get my son enrolled in speech therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. We also found a pediatrician who had a sister with Downs and extensive experience in Downs healthcare. \n\nWe took our son home and never treated him any different from our other kids. He is immensely popular in our community and very popular in school. He is set to graduate this year and he already has a job making above minimum wage. He is funny, athletic and does really well getting along with society. \n\nTreating people like humans makes a big difference. ",
"Schools will accommodate children up to age 21 in the US. I work at the library and I usually have at least one student who has an independent life skills class with me. \n\nThey learn to reshelve, scan, and do basic library work. When they graduate their skills can empower them to get jobs at public libraries or stores as most of the skills are transferable. Many special areas in the school can help with life skills classes which I think makes a huge difference.",
"The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides free and appropriate education for students with a disability. We started creating Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and set the students up to be successful in progressing through academia in a way that is tailored to their pacing and needs. In short, instead of putting them in an institution, we began to value them as citizens.",
"I've noticed a marked difference in how the average person treats them which is bound to effect how you function ",
"They had some rights movements a few decades ago. Basically what you hear about self advocacy from \"high functioning\" autistic people now (who are the told they are too smart to speak up for support and against discrimination because what about the ones who aren't smart enough to speak for themselves) is all just plagerised from intellectually disabled activists. ",
"The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This requires public schools to educate students with Down Syndrome (not Downs, btw), and any other recognized area of disability.",
"This is going to be a really unpopular post but they aren't higher functioning than they were. I teach and one of the DS kids got caught using this girl's really long hair to masturbate today. Like had her hair wrapped around his dick in class. We are just more accommodating and understanding of their disability these days.",
"\"We don't suffer from anything other than the way society treats us\" -Something I heard during a podcast; interviewing someone with dwarfism. \n\nI think the only reason we undervalue people with disabilities is because society hasn't even attempted to see their value to begin with. \n\nIn a universe of limitless possibility, it seems that life is very rare; maybe even entirely unique to our planet. \n\nIt would be a colossal waste and tragedy to limit our experiences in such a way that we only value a specific type of person. \n\nTo the universe, there is very little difference between myself and someone born with downs syndrome. A few chromosomes is nothing.\n\nSo we should stop looking at things in such a limited frame of reference. Think of *all human beings* as equal counterparts and look for value in the individual. \n\n",
"I always thought it was a simple as we now actually try to teach them now instead of just tossing them to the side as \"broken\". They were always capable, we just didn't try.",
"My mom has worked with people with developmental disabilities my whole life. She is now working at a non profit that has group homes and a day program. I sent her a link to Welcome to Holland and this is what she said:\n\n\n\"We have noticed, even over the past year, that we are no longer getting applications for service for 35 year old people with down syndrome. Now it's mainly severe autism dual diagnose with aggressive behavior. So I suspect that this generation of people with down syndrome or people with similar deficits are just living life in the community like they always should have. :) \"",
"Perhaps part of the issue is that there's a range of ability for those affected by DS and schools will do their best to keep everyone together for as long as possible. And the folks with DS who are out and about as adults are doing so because they're the ones who can.\n\nEdit: Just to be clear, this is pure speculation on my part. I know this is Reddit, so it's redundant to invite it, but please correct me if I'm off base.",
"I worked with a down syndrome guy one time years ago. He basically did everything the same and as well as everyone else who worked there.",
"I work in special education and I also think we as a society have come to realize (thank god) that kids with a variety of intellectual disabilities are teachable. We teach basic math and reading to a point and then also practice functional skills. We have life skills classes and vocational programs too. In essence, we expect more out of them now. ",
"Education, acceptance, and intervention. Down syndrome is having 3 of the 21st chromosome, where as a person without DS only has 2. It causes learning difficulties, social difficulties, trouble with speech, ect. It also makes the person more prone to certain heart abnormalities, ear and throat issues, hearing problems, etc. \n\nA few decades ago when an infant was diagnosed they would be put in a home. \n\nNow, we understand DS and what to do for treatments. Speech therapy, medication, personal aides are all beneficial and are luckily now available to patients with DS. \n\nKids with DS just need a little extra help, in all aspects. There's are also different degrees of DS. \n\nAs another commenter mentioned, his daughter is 19 with a job, social life, and has graduated highschool. She is speaking, using the restroom on her own, and functional. \n\nMy brother, on the other hand, is 15 and still in Pampers, non-verbal, and has an array of the health issues I mentioned above. He has a mental age of around 3-4 years old. He will never live on his own, he will never be functional, but with my family's support, his wonderful school and aides, and modern medicine he is a happy and healthy young man who loves music, puzzles, and his little sister (His mental age is very close to her physical age) \n\nI also want to say that this ok. Even though he is very low functioning doesn't mean his treatment plan isn't working, it just means that he needs more help than a higher functioning person with DS would need. \n\n\nEdit to add: There are also tests during prenatal that can detect DS, but they are not required and up to the family. I personally decided not to test my fetus because the results would not have made a difference to me. \n\nWomen who's fetus does test positive have the option to abort, of course, but knowing ahead of time also helps plan because they can deliver at a hospital with a large NICU, they can find programs and assistance, and buy more disability friendly baby gear! \n\nChoosing to abort a fetus with DS does not and never will make you a bad person. DS is hard, and no one should be expected to continue a pregnancy and raise a child with DS if it's not something they want to do and feel they can do. \n",
"ADA(American with Disabilities act) helped mainstream children-gave parents the tools to get early intervention- and continued support they need to reach full potential.\n",
"Well, for a start, we started treating them like the human beings they are, rather than just dumping them into an institution.\n\nSociety has also started making reasonable adjustments for disabled people. By that I mean, through adjustments to education, work etc, society has become far more inclusive and barriers are being removed for those with a disability or additional needs. Many disabled people who at one point would have been shunned by society can now take an active role within it.\n\nThere's still a long way to go, and society hasn't yet really adopted the social model of disability, but a lot of progress has been made.",
"There’s simply just more acceptance and better opportunities. My best friends little sister had DS. The community that she’s involved with is incredible. They are all sibling and parent led. Have had 12 years of music theater production, does gymnastics, has a bowling league, works at the local YMCA, library and beyond. Has a weekly walking/running club. After highschool, our district has an adult program that teaches the student with disabilities how to pay rent, make good real world choices, go grocery shopping etc and they have to have a job 2 days out of the week. \n\nInclusion is so important. ",
"Why do they all look the same? Also not trying to be a dick",
"I’m in college for Special Education and there is a HUGE push for helping students become independent and helping them transition to life outside of school (transition planning starts at age 14). Also, students with exceptionalities are required to be in the general education classroom as much as is appropriate. Giving students a more active learning environment produces better outcomes!!",
"As an occupational therapist: I work with individuals with DS who function at very different levels... but with a variety of interventions (speech therapy, OT, and sometimes PT), they have make huuuuge progress. With OT, we help people be as independent as possible in their daily lives and find meaning -- so people with DS can learn to cook, navigate public transportation, increase fine motor skills, practice social skills, self-care, increase independence and participation in things they enjoy, and find jobs/volunteer opportunities doing something meaningful for them, to name a few. There are obviously complicating factors (varying cognitive abilities, additional diagnoses like autism, etc.) but we work to 'grade' tasks to meet the person where he/she is at. Instead of seeing the person as a diagnosis and immediately placing him/her in a facility, we can work with the person (and the family) to provide supports in whatever areas necessary.",
"I think abortions and screening for down syndrome have indirectly contributed. Since the option is available for abortion, that means most of the children carried to term with down syndrome, are born into families that chose to keep a child with down syndrome. Those families are probably going to be much more nurturing and supportive compared with families in the past, who had no choice in the matter and may have been devastated or grown to resent the child.\n\n",
"Because things have changed and the way we try to integrate them isn't a token gesture any more.\n\nI work for an organisation that gives please withDS real jobs and skills, working in a wholefood shop and a pop up cafe. They're more than capable of doing it, and hopefully the world is becoming more patient\n\nGive me an employee with DS over a lazy waste of space who expects a job to be given to him any day",
"Possibly because we give them the chance and the means to be part of society rather than writing them off as unable to do so.",
"I’m from Washington and I went to the elementary school with apparently the best special education program in the state. Growing up every general ed class was involved with the special needs students, so I think exposure for general ed kids also helps the view of those with special needs. In high school a lot of occupational therapy was done in special needs classrooms, they’re given responsibilities like delivering notes to classes, assisting teachers in tasks, coming around to help collect recycling all while being assisted by a general ed student. I think this goes a long way for both special needs students and general ed. I went on to work with special needs students after school by volunteering and learning ASL so it is easier to communicate with those that have a hard time or just do not speak. A lot of special needs students I’ve known have gone on to work many jobs at places like Costco, Safeway and my mom hires them at her restaurant a couple days a week to help role silverware and other tasks. ",
"Isn’t it Down Syndrome?",
"Inclusion has been a factor in this. When I became a teacher I was flabbergasted by the amazing mainstreaming efforts that existed. Classes, clubs, support staff, all working to teach cognitively delayed students life skills. At the high school I work at the “Partner’s Club” is awesome and active in the school and community. We didn’t have that sort of thing when I was a kid. This exposure has led to a de-stigmatization of it as well. Life skills classes in regular high schools deserve oodles of praise.",
"because they are getting more of the proper support and care they need at a young age, leading them to learning the proper skills to cope and live with their disabilities. and in may cases excel in life beyond what was previously believed to be possible.",
"There is a range of Down's Syndrome just like any other mental disorder. Some of the more higher-functioning people can carry jobs, learn to read or write. Others are all other ranges of regression. My cousin is 32 and has DS. She cannot feel hot/cold, needs help with bathing. She cannot microwave food. She cannot make a sandwich. She can't read or write or even recite her ABCs. She does speak constantly about television and music and other odd perceptions of realities she experiences. She can watch television and go out to restaurants. She craves and is obsessed with pizza/hamburgers everyday, speaks of it nonstop, and if she doesn't get it, she throws a 'tantrum' and cries for hours or even days. My aunt tries to work within her limitations. She only takes my cousin to restaurants she likes and the rest of the time, my cousin stays at home. So, in public, she looks well. In public, she is rather quiet and smiley and happy. But she is very regressed. Many caregivers bring these people to places where they are adjusted, but I'd say, there isn't much that can improve a person's cognitive abilities these days. If you are born unable to feel hot/cold, you can't learn that. To the people who are extremely high-functioning DS, yes, they can learn to have simple jobs, even some can recite lines as movie stars. (like the girl in Glee). But it's very few people in the world. They get a lot of publicity, but they aren't representative of all people with DS. People like my cousin institutionalize themselves with rigid schedules, which make them feel safe. Any change in her daily activities and my cousin freaks out. And she lives at home with my aunt as her caregiver. So, while people said the institutional life was awful, some of these people with Down's (like my cousin), need a structure or they collapse. The range is large, can't lump any one of them in a generalization. \nYes, media only highlights the positives of this. They aren't interviewing people like my cousin. They could try, but they'd be lucky if she answered any of their questions. She'd probably respond days later about something, if ever. Her brain is like an echo, things get lost, misunderstood, redirected. Telling her, \"let's get dinner\", can take 2 hours to get her out the door. It's like an echo that just goes and goes and goes.",
"Hi, I work at a day program for adults with intellectual disabilities. What a great question! I think day programs like the one I work at have expanded in the last 20 years. Programs like mine assist adults with disabilities with integrating into the community and also assists them with vocational skills. Someone who attends our program will have a plan of objectives that they want to meet/achieve over a year. Depending on their functionality level, goals can range from something really simple like learning to write their name or work skills for higher functioning clients. We try to spend a lot of time in the community with the clients: taking them out to make purchases, have lunch, work in Walmart’s, stores, etc. I think there are more n more of these programs around and instead of these adults being stuck in their homes, they have a way to be a part of the community. ",
"Here a short version, has time has advanced we've delevouped better techonogly and methods to both diagnose and help those with not just down syndrome, but every learning disability. A few decades ago the down syndrome had to be more severe to actually know it's even there. A comment often made about autism is that \"we need stop the growth rate, it'll be 50% soon\" but experts say that it was likely always that much, and we know about it more.",
"All of the long detailed replies here are great, but it can be tl;dr in two basic bullet points:\n\n* Better education tailored for their disability\n* They're given a chance and treated as human beings",
"Are you serious? It's because people are more tolerant. 30 years ago, people still thought you could catch retardation or mentally handicapped people would rape your kids more than the background population. See also: the age of the Internet and democratization of information.",
"It's all about improved understanding of what Downs is, and how to cope with learning disabilities. The line of thought used to be that they were incapable of learning more than basic stuff, so there's was no effort to try and teach them. \n\nThese days, there's a lot more attention given at a young age, and programs for individuals with learning disabilities that emphasize lifelong learning. \n\nIt's also important to keep in mind that there are differing levels of severity with diagnoses such as Downs. There are different scales of functioning, which means you could have grown up around someone with a more profound developmental delay. But then, later in life, you might have met someone else with a much higher level of functioning. ",
"Unpopular opinion here. It was due to the show \"Life goes on\" teaching most people that people with downs are also people. Yes we've had advancements in medical and social fronts but that show made it \"ok\" to have downs.",
"Has to be improved education and improved social acceptance. I’m not expert but those changes seem obvious.",
"I used to work in a school for students with disabilities and the more severe students end up staying home or move into a home after school. You never see the more severe ones out and about. This goes for a lot of disorders. Early intervention, on going therapy, and better identification help a lot too. ",
"I think a lot of it has to do with the ability to diagnose the condition early on in the pregnancy. I don’t know the statistics but I know when we were going through those tests with my daughter it was something like 80%+ diagnosed with DS were aborted. In the past, the parents who would abort these children now were surprised by them then and may ultimately neglect them or at least not put in full effort. Nowadays, if a family decides to keep a baby diagnosed with DS they are likely the kind of people who will do absolutely anything for these children. This is just my opinion and is not based on any experience or evidence that I know of.",
"From reading The Memory Keepers Daughter, I learned that children with mental disabilities like Downs Syndrom didn't used to be allowed to go to school. They were shunned from soceity basically. Hard to function in society when you can't get an education and no one will hire you.",
"I'm pretty sure way back in the day parents could just dump their children at an asylum. ):",
"Probably because society is starting to take disabilities more seriously and medicine and science have come a long way now. Also, the legalization of medicinal marijuana has helped some cases. Basically, there are a lot more solutions and ways to alleviate the symptoms of the disability nowadays. ",
"One aspect I believe is that Downs folk are living MUCH longer, so more are reaching an age where they can participate in workforces (shout out to McDonalds in my area for employing some great staff with Downs).\n\nMy ex-SIL has Downs and she absolutely destroyed her life expectancy and is still going strong. I’m guessing being born from about 1970 onwards has seen a dramatic increase in life expectancy largely due to drug development and awareness of infections that led to life threatening situations.",
"There are faaar more inclusion in the last decade.\n\n Also theres a lot of differente degrees on the down syndrome. Add that up to media coverage and yeah, you may find its kind of an illusion in some way. Some are, some arent. We know how to deal with them better than 30 years ago thats for sure\n\nps: one of my uncles have a down kid",
"\"What changed?\" \nThe internet happened. You get way more and faster information than you normally would years ago. Just like when people say school shootings are new and happening more frequently. No, statistically they aren't anymore frequent, you just hear about them more because the information is instantly in front of you.\n\n",
"Without reading through many of the comments, I have to believe at least part of the answer is they were mostly as functional in the past but the people around them are better educated about it today (and more accepting) so the same limitations aren't placed on them as a result of personal biases. \n \nOne of the best things I ever learned when I was younger is that many people don't know they can't do something until someone tells them they can't do it. Maybe we've gotten slightly better at not placing limits on them just because they have Down syndrome.",
"American schools now a days are shifting to a co-taught inclusive classroom. Basically special education and general education is in the process of being combined to be viewed as the mainstream education. Source: inclusive teaching student ",
"I(21f) was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome when I was 5 years old. While it’s not the same as DS, I can confidently say in my case early intervention was a big part in why I can function completely normally within society. It honestly helps so much bc professionals are able to pinpoint exactly what sensory problems u may have, social and/or facial cues u don’t understand and work w/ u on them. In my case, it was life changing. I’m currently a college student and no one from my high school or college have any idea I have AS (besides bf). I shudder at the thought of what I would have turned out like without that early intervention. I honestly don’t think I would be going to parties, in a 3 yr relationship or just living like a normal college kid without it",
"Down's syndrome is a spectrum, another reason may be that a lot of DS patients are mosaics. I.e. genetically speaking only half of their cells express the condition. This being said, I agree with much of the other discussion about early intervention etc.",
"Down syndrome is a spectrum. Ignoring all the other health defects and focusing on social skills because that's what you asked.\nThose patients who are severe still exist - non verbal, aggressive , significantly lower IQ. Not that much has changed for these as there is very little that can be done at present. Most people don't see/interact with many of these as they don't spend significant time in public.\nThe really high functioning ones are still doing well, but there are more services/agencies helping them live a more normal life, find employment, relationships etc. Which is all wonderful but not really responsible for the shift you've noted. \nThe biggest gains are in the in between. Previously they might have been ignored at trended the way of severe without the assistance they need. But special teaching, behavioural intervention, equipment and services have allowed them to develop their skills so they present in society as affected but functional, rather than be largely dysfunctional ",
"As father to a 32 year old daughter with Down syndrome I can give you a two word answer:\n\nEarly Intervention.\n\nWe enrolled her in a monthly program that followed her until she started walking.\n\nOur state was very cooperative getting her an individual education plan until she turned 22 and aged out of public schools.\n\nShe can read and write. \n\nShe still has a care plan that is updated annually. She works enough hours that she gets practically nothing from SSDI every month (benefits are reduced as income increases)\n\nTime was that people like her were shoved into state hospitals as soon as they were born and warehoused until they died.\n\nNow much more is expected of them, and they've risen to the occasion.\n\nShe will get Alzhiemers at some point and her life expectancy is shortened, but right now she is an asset to society and enjoys a nice life.",
"It used to be thought that the severity of downs syndrome was caused by the type of chromosomal abnormality they had, so broadly if they had a small section of extra chromosome the condition would be mild but those with a whole extra chromosome would be the worse. However research showed that actually it was the mother's immune system attacking the foetus which made the condition worse. This can now be accounted for during pregnancy when a mother knows she is having a downs syndrome kid so the most disabling forms of the syndrome are much rarer. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6xrglp | what determines which ball hangs lower and is it related to the dominant hand? | I'm afab and I had a shitty sex Ed. Can someone please explain to me - why one ball hangs lower? why that is the ball that hangs lower? And finally, does it have to do with dominent hand? If not, why are most right balls lower and most people right handed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6xrglp/eli5_what_determines_which_ball_hangs_lower_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmhyai9"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Sperm need to function well outside the surface of the body (inside a vagina/cervix/uterus but that's still strictly/topologically an outside surface) so they are kept at a lower temperature. That's why the testicles are outside the body at all.\n\nThe left testicle usually hangs lower because of an anatomical accident - it has a slightly better blood supply, gets more heat from the body, and so need more cooling. Thus, it's kept further away from the body. Keeping them separate at different heights also, by itself, helps cool both of them a bit better. (They're also less likely to get squished together, which you may know as a problem if you're male).\n\nNot sure about the left/right handed thing, sounds like a single small study."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
d91s7e | what is ebitda and why is it so important to executives? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d91s7e/eli5_what_is_ebitda_and_why_is_it_so_important_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1e3lz0",
"f1e3nw1",
"f1e3q4x",
"f1e6o92",
"f1e7hpe",
"f1e7oht",
"f1e8ssv",
"f1emlcx",
"f1eukth",
"f1fn5cn"
],
"score": [
14,
64,
7,
2,
5,
3,
8,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"\"EBITDA\" stands for Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization\n\n\nRunning a business means there are some costs you can't control. If taxes are 10%, you pay them no matter how much you make, be that $1 or $1,000,000. \n\nSince executives can't control that, they like their business success to be judged based on what they CAN control.\n\nDepreciation and Amortization are similar in that they're almost an \"imaginary\" cost. Think of them like saving to replace something that you know will wear out.\n\nTake all those things, and talk about them a lot, and eventually you'll make up an acronym for it :)\n\nEdit: acronyms are hard :(",
"Ebitda is effectively a term used to demonstrate the earning ability of a company\n\nIt stands for Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization. So what does that mean? Those 4 expenses listed are things that are going to happen regardless of the business function of the company, they have nothing to do with how the company is run (for example, everybody has to pay taxes, all physical assets will depreciate over time, etc). As such, if you want to make an apples to apples comparison across companies, you can strip those out and see how much the company is actually earning, regardless of the so called costs of doing business that have nothing to do with the actual running of the company\n\nAlternatively, it’s just a fancy accounting term to make companies look better than their actual bottom line",
"Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, or Amortization. \n\nIt's basically a measure of how much a company has made from its operations, before other (non operational) income and expense.",
"It basically tells you how profitable you are in terms of normal work. Things like depreciation and taxes matter, but are beyond the scope of a normal work day.\n\nSo, EBITDA will tell you how sales, marketing, manufacturing/procurement are doing. Below that is large cap ex decisions and finance / accouting's playpen.",
"Say you have two companies in two different states in the same type of business you are thinking of investing in. One is in California and one is in Florida. They have similar Revenues and Net Income. How do you compare them? Florida has no State income tax while California does. They both have outstanding loans with one company paying on average 3.25% interest and the other paying 3.75%. One is Depreciating the cost of their equipment over 5 years and the other is doing so over 7 years. They both have mortgage payments (Amortization) and one has 20 year terms and the other 30 years. The line item expenses reported on the Income Statement for both companies will be different based on the different scenarios. So by stripping out these expenses, ITDA, you get a better sense of the ‘controllable’ expenses and can better compare how the two companies are operated.",
"To ELI5, it’s along the lines of the difference between your gross and net pay. That’s oversimplified but it gives you the idea. \n\nWhen working with EBITDA at the company I worked for we had beginning numbers that showed all gross profit. Then as you worked your way down the spread sheet it showed where you were compared to budget for a final number that was your profit before taxes and all the good jazz taken away by the government. \n\nWhen you look at your paycheck if you have insurance, 401K and a few others that are taken out before taxes that’s what EBITDA is for you.",
"As others have said, \"Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization.\" \n\nInterest is things like borrowed money: debt in its various forms, and one has to pay interest on those things, so that will be some cost to the company. \n\nTaxes should be self-explanatory, but there are lots of different kinds of taxes, and the rules for taxes are complex and so how much a company pays each year can vary. It is a \"cost\" but everybody has to pay them and they are mostly independent of how the business is run.\n\nDepreciation is a bit of a wonky accounting term, but it's not super difficult to understand: if you buy a car for $100 and expect it to last you, say, 5 years, what you do is record that you spent $100 in cash on the car, but then you also *gained* $100 in \"car\" -- does that part make sense? In accounting we didn't just \"spend $100\", we *traded* $100 in cash for $100 worth of car. That's important, because now we can use the car for driving employees or whatever, and it helps us run the business - it is an asset. So next what happens is, at the end of the accounting year, we say the car \"depreciated\" by $20, because we expect the car to last 5 years so we effectively spread this cost out over 5 years. This continues until the asset depreciates to $0, so in this case 5 years. To accountants and business people, this paints a better picture of the business than just writing \"bought car for $100.\" So depreciation is a \"cost\" because the value of the asset is being \"depreciated\" or decreased (cars break down over time, so this sort of makes sense) but we already paid cash for the car, so we're not spending more money. Depreciation is a \"cost\" but it isn't cash, it isn't money, so we need to understand this and this is one of the reasons why depreciation is lumped in this EBITDA category.\n\nFinally, amortization is a really similar concept to depreciation, but it specifically refers to real property, like land and buildings, as opposed to equipment.\n\nSo hopefully you can see why these categories are special in terms of business costs. They are, as we see with amortization and depreciation, specifically \"accounting\" costs, so they don't actually cost the business money, and interest is similar in that is usually lasts a long time and doesn't tell us how well the company operates in a year. Say a company sells 10 Million TVs in a year when they normally sell 7 Million, but they also just bought a new factory. They will have some amortization and interest expenses from buying that factory but they sold way more TVs, presumably for a good profit, so we might want to look at how well the company performed without taking into account these other distracting numbers. If you look at all expenses and costs, the company might have taken on a lot of new expenses, but in terms of what they do, sell TVs for profit, they actually improved quite a bit this year. That is the value in looking at these numbers. \n\nThis might be more like ELI10 or ELI13 but accounting can mess with some people's heads, wanted to be thorough.",
"It stands for Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization, so it's a gauge of performance of the actual business performance -- selling goods/services for more than it costs to provide those goods/services -- before factoring in financial/accounting aspects that aren't directly tied to the business operations.",
"EBITDA is Earnings, Before, Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (which is like depreciation for non-physical property). \n\nIt's important to executives for two primary reasons:\n\n* First, it's a good measure of how much cash the company has to service debts. Most banks will loan some multiple of EBITDA. Debt to EBITDA is a little like the 41% upper limit of the ratio of loan payments to income that most mortgage companies want to see from borrowers. If a business man wants to merge companies, or change a company's strategy, having more EBITDA gives them more options to finance the changes.\n* Second, it's a measure of margins that's independent of how the business is financed or operates. A company that relies on leased assets and stock financing may have more profit, but often has less EBITDA than a company that owns more assets and uses debt, but the second company often produces more cash that can be used by the owners to further expand, or invest in other businesses. Countries and states have different taxes levied, so EBITDA backs out those differences. Using EBITDA makes it easier for investors and executives to compare cash generation rather than profits.",
"How does this differ from NIBT (aside from the obvious)? My company just recently starting using the NIBT term when discussing financial results and I’m not sure what advantage that term has over EBITDA since as the previous response stated, those thing are inevitable."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5u75ut | are the leaks coming out of the white house illegal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u75ut/eli5_are_the_leaks_coming_out_of_the_white_house/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddruo2f"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Some may be, some are not. But due to the nature of their content the current leaks are protected by Whistleblower laws so even if they are technically illegal they are not actually illegal. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
15kj23 | can someone explain in very simple terms why it is plausible that we are all living in a computer simulation? | I was linked to [this](_URL_0_) scientific paper today and I have only skimmed it briefly. What I am wanting to know is, how is it plausible that we are all living in a computer simulation and, more importantly, is this actually a plausible scientific idea? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15kj23/eli5_can_someone_explain_in_very_simple_terms_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7n9hi7",
"c7n9hje",
"c7n9ih9",
"c7n9t1m",
"c7nan2g",
"c7nbm37",
"c7nbpqh",
"c7nbrkd",
"c7nbzq0",
"c7ncvmu",
"c7ndiq3",
"c7ndnu2",
"c7nfxcq",
"c7nibqj",
"c7nir3q",
"c7nlz7q"
],
"score": [
4,
93,
4,
3,
14,
3,
4,
26,
8,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Ok well watch this documentary _URL_0_\n\nBasically all of our actions and our friends could be simple computer code simulated for us. When we eat food or feel an emotion it can simply be a piece of computer code fed to us to make us feel that way.\n\nIt is a very interesting hypothesis and is a very realistic possibility. Again watch that documentary and it will make you think about this possibility.",
"If it's possible to simulate a universe, then there could be a potentially infinite number of simulated universes within any real universe. That could include simulations being directly in the real universe, and also possibly simulations within simulations within simulations. Just *statistically*, the odds that you would find yourself in the one real universe instead of one of the simulations would be, if you'll excuse the pun, virtually nonexistent.\n\nSo if you accept the possibility of such simulations ever existing, then there's basically no reason to think we aren't in one, since it's by far the more likely proposition if they can exist.",
"Can you prove that we are *not* living in the matrix? No? Then it is plausible. No reasob to assume it is the case though, see _URL_0_",
"Remove the word computer from the question. \n\nIs it possible we're living in a simulation? Consider that there are very specific rules that govern everything we do, and that we can watch these rules carried out on a molecular scale, in a living human body. For example, comedy is based on pattern recognition (rule of 3, limericks, observational humor) breaking patterns (Amish internet porn) and empathic response...or a complete lack of one, you twisted evil fuck. \n\nNot that I'm actually funny. Quite the opposite - the trouble with dissecting comedy is that the patient seldom survives. Still, there are people who are paid a great deal of money to be funnier than me, and they are mostly predictable in all the ways in which they are unpredictable. \n\nSo why do we pretend that we're all exceptions to the rules?\n\nDo you really think a single one of your neurons behaves unlike any other neuron? \n\nAnd if not, then how much agency do you actually have, when you make a decision? What if the decision was made before you were even aware of it? Even if you tried to prove that you could be someone completely different than who you've been your entire life, you wouldn't surprise anyone. \n\nSo, then if we consider all that we are, and all that we do on a small scale level...\n\nAre we just a simulation that the universe is carrying out?\n\nAre we just the actions of the universe observing itself? \n\nOnce you accept that much, why not bring the word computer back into the question? \n\nCan you prove that we're not in an advanced computer simulation? \n\nFor some people, \"an advanced computer simulation\" is easier to accept than words like \"omnipotent creator of all that exists.\"",
"Because basically our substance tends to 'pixelate' because even the smaller things tend to not get smaller until a certain point.\nIf we, as a simple and young civilization with relatively small computing power, are already doing simulations about EVERYTHING, from social to geothermic/climate simulations, including creating entire galaxies within superclusters of computers, then it's not as wild as a theory, and I really see it as a plausible one.",
"There's no way to prove we are not.\n\nBut I prefer to be more optimistic in how I view life. We are an arrangement of trillions of atoms; atoms that mostly came from exploded star dust in this neck of the galaxy. Gravity collected your atoms on Earth, and now they have bonded together to form you, this walking, talking, thinking you. There never will be another you, and when you die your atoms will go on to become other things.\n\nThis Matrix junk just takes all the magic out of the story. It's possible, but a bit nihilistic, so it's not what I choose to believe.",
"Imagine an enormously complicated computer and computer program (sort of like The Sims and Sim City but MUCH more detailed). I'm talking, so detailed that it can simulate over 6 billion people's thoughts along with all of the workings of the visible universe. There would be little to show that it was a simulation to the people inside of it.\n\n**tl;dr Watch \"The Matrix\".**",
"The first thing you have to buy is some variation of the philosophical view called Physicalism. This is currently the dominant view amongst philosophers, and in simple terms it means that nothing other than the laws of physics (not necessarily the ones we have now, but whatever the fully worked out laws turn out to be) determine the way that the universe is. This includes conscious awareness - this is the important bit. The idea is that if we were to run a simulation of the complete laws of physics, then self-awareness would eventually emerge within this simulation, just as it has in our universe.\n\nNext, ask yourself the following questions: do you believe that at some point in the future (no matter how far), the human race will attain \n\n(a) a full understanding of the laws of physics? \n\nand \n\n(b) sufficient computing power to run simulations which model them in full? \n\nIf you accept physicalism, and you believe the human race will survive/advance for long enough to achieve (a) and (b), then it is more reasonable to believe (probability-wise) that your conscious awareness is occurring within a computer simulation than at 'base-level' reality. \n\nWhy? Because if we can run one simulation, it is reasonable to assume we will - not too long after - be able to run as many as we like. If there's one actual (non-simulated) world, then as soon as you have two simulations running which give rise to self-awareness, it's twice as likely that any individual instance of self-awareness is occurring within a simulation rather than at base-level reality.\n\nSo, *given* that you accept the premises, it is more reasonable to believe that you are currently just a self-aware software script living in a simulated universe. \n\nI know this isn't very LY5, but I can't think of how to explain it more simply than this. If there are any bits you want clarified let me know and I'll give it a shot. ",
"ELI5: You know how you like to play the sims? Think of the world like that, only set to auto play so that the computer runs the game and not you. As a sim, you have no way of knowing that you are a sim and since there is no player to randomly break the rules of the game (i.e. mod, hack or intervene) there never will be a way for you to know.",
"This explains nothing, and it is definitely not meant for 5 year olds, but here's my favorite Isaac Asimov short story, which does a really good job of addressing this question. It begins like this, [\"The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061...\"](_URL_0_)",
"You ever walked into a room and forget why you went in there..? That's God playing Sims, he just cancelled your action.",
"I know it might seem cool to think about, but what difference does it actually make whether you have to operate by the rules of a natural universe or by the rules of a simulation.",
"First accept the notion that one day it will be possible to create Artificial Intelligence. Then accept the idea that one day we may program an artificial environment that is exactly identical to our \"reality\". Now because it is exactly identical to our world, we have to allow the possibility that this AI could one day develop AI. Therefore based on this logic we have to allow for the possibility that we ourselves are a computer simulation, created by higher beings who have better technology than us, and they may also be AI created by higher beings, etc etc...",
"There's an objective world and a subjective world. The objective world is nothing like we experience it, as we can only sense it indirectly. It is patterns and logic and thus you could say it could easily be a computer simulation",
"There's no compelling evidence that we are or not.\n\nKeep this in mind, however. When clocks were the most complicated machine, people tried to describe the universe as if it was a clock. Now that computers are arguably our most intricate machines, they try and explain the universe on those terms. Once we have better machines, people will inevitably try and explain the universe in those terms instead.",
"The only thing you know is fact is that you exist.\n\nYou think therefore you are.\n\nHence, any explanation of 'reality' outside your own consciousness is plausible.\n\n\n\n\nThis has been iterated all throughout Human History in various forms: We are all a dream, we are all characters in a book, we are all characters in a movie, and now we are all in a computer simulation. It's all the same hack story over and over. It was good the first time someone told it (we are all part of a dream) but since then the production value has increased while the writing and character development has become abysmal."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html"
]
| [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSEt2BCcRs"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7scfaq | how did they edit people out of really old photos like stalin did? | [Example I was referencing]
(_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7scfaq/eli5how_did_they_edit_people_out_of_really_old/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt3v2s3",
"dt3zn48"
],
"score": [
54,
9
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThe top comment explains it really well:\n\n > In the old school Stalin era you are asking about, a typical method was to take the original negative and then print the photograph in large format. Then, an artist could use a scalpel to carefully cut out the specific offending individual (or inanimate object, such as a billboard or sign) that they wished to be removed from the original scene. This method was a lot easier than trying to do this same technique on the much smaller original negative.\n\n\n > Then, they could either insert another cutout of a similar scaled and lit person or object to fill the void from the original cutout, splicing that new subject/object into the picture. Alternatively, or even in addition to, they would use airbrush and painting techniques to cover up the person by painting in a new background.\n\n\n > Once the artist was comfortable with the appearance of the coverup in the now-censored full size airbrushed photograph, they would then take another camera and carefully frame and take a new picture of the old doctored photograph - basically, taking a picture of a picture. This was an important step because not only would this act of taking a picture of the doctored photograph help hide any small blemishes or imperfections from the censoring job (allowing them to blur the focus slightly during the reshoot for example, or use different grained film to help with the blending), but this act would also produce a brand new \"clean\" negative of the original photo that could be used to replace the old \"evil\" negative in the archives.\n\n\nCredit /u/Falcon109",
"Many of the tools in Photoshop have a real world analouge, like cut, copy (but not the clone tool), smudge, airbrush etc."
]
} | []
| [
"http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/soviet-censorship-naval-commissar-vanishes.jpg"
]
| [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3asezh/eli5_how_did_stalin_remove_people_from_pictures/"
],
[]
]
|
|
1udvso | why do i always need something to drink while i eat? | I know it's not true for everyone, and I know it's not good for you to drink and eat at the same time, but for as long as I can remember I couldn't enjoy my food unless I had something to drink in between bites. When I don't have anything to drink, I just get pretty much instantly thirsty when I start eating, and it makes me not want to eat. I need a lot too, a normal glass of water doesn't cut it for me because I down it before I'm finished my meal. I prefer a big beer mug.
So I guess my question is, why does eating make me so thirsty, so fast? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1udvso/eli5_why_do_i_always_need_something_to_drink/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceh263b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's just personal/cultural preference. In some places (such as in certain regions of India) you don't drink anything until you've finished your entire meal.\n\nPerhaps you eat a lot of salty foods?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
393ph8 | what makes a song sound like it's from the 60s? | For example, Oasis is often described as sounding like the Beatles / from the 60s. Or in the 1996 Tom Hanks movie "That Thing You Do", which is set in the 60s about a one-hit wonder band, the song they play -- even though written for the movie in 1996 -- sounds very "60s". Even when hearing an unknown song from that decade, we can usually correctly identify it as being from the 60s.
But what is it about these songs that make them sound distinctively 60s? Is it the equipment played or the recording equipment? Is it the chords used? I don't know much about music theory so I really have no idea. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/393ph8/eli5what_makes_a_song_sound_like_its_from_the_60s/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs0anbf",
"cs0bcdi",
"cs0e4j2"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Being a musician and 60s music lover, I guess the easiest way to explain it would be that a certain series of chords making up a song was more popular at that time, and also the equipment used to record. For example having guitars and amplifiers that were from that era that people don't have today, different microphones that were used, and recording things live to tape instead of seperate or digital. Similarly to how you can recognise a recording from the 80s for example. ",
"It's a combination of things, as most things are. However, I can count out chord progressions, at least in post-classical music. The main chord progressions have stayed consistent over time.\n\nThere is, in my opinion (and please note that it's just my opinion) one main distinction of era: instrumentation.\n\nEarly on, just moving out of classical, the instruments were the same, but a few were used rather differently than the original use: the most obvious examples are the introduction of drum sets and the newly exclusive technique of plucking the strings of a bass instead of using the bow.\n\nAs electric amplification came to be, the use of quieter instruments became a viable option- and so guitars really entered the scene. Then came the ability to modify sounds with technology, bringing new, unique sounds to the scene: synthesizers and electric guitars are easy examples. From this point on, it was primarily the manufacture of new sounds and processing that marked the passage of time.\n\nBut most songs are just sung! There's no difference in the singing, is there? Well- no. When you remember a song, you remember the words, the melody, the counter melody, perhaps even the harmonies. You remember the little bits of syncopation that make it different, the spot where all the instruments stop and then one by one pick up again.\n\nWhat you don't think about is the underlying backbone of the music, normally the background rhythm and chords, what's played by guitar, keyboard, bass, drums- or synthesized, more recently. You can recognize a song by these, even mistake one song for another, but they aren't necessarily what you remember. These are the subtle 'sound' you couldn't seem to identify, because it's not the part of the song you pay attention to. However, it's really just difference in instrumentation at play once again, just in a way you don't immediately notice.\n\nTo take a specific example, look at the evolution of hip hop. If you listen to popular songs in chronological order over ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years now, you'll be able to hear the evolution of the instruments used for the beat and the different beats used. (It's easier to hear this evolution in hip hop because of the lesser amount of other melody, counter melody, chords, etc. It's a very minimalistic music style.)\n\n\nTL;DR: Instrumentation is the difference, specifically the underlying sound of the support of the songs (drums, chords, and bass, though these are often synthesized now) being the 'distinctive' sound you couldn't put your finger on. The reason you couldn't put your finger on it is because it's not the part of the music you remember when thinking of a song- what you remember is the melody, counter melody, and the little things that make the song unique.",
"The specific instruments, microphones, amplifiers used. The kinds of backing vocals used. The types of drum beats. Certain effects. The type of reverb alone could mark a song's decade to those of us who know the difference. Ideally, record on no more than 4 tracks (of tape of course) with minimal overdubbing. \n\nIt takes a mix of music theory and recording theory to really know how to do it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1rkiyu | under what conditions did people lose their insurance under affordable health care act for america? | Given the current controversy around some people losing their insurance after Obama's claim that they wouldn't... what in the act caused them to lose it?
EDIT: Thanks for the answers everyone. Very informative.
Opinions vary, but the base consensus is "There were minimum provisions in the ACA for an insurance plan to be eligible / viable. Plan that did not meet these provisions were eliminated or expired." Opinions range from 1) They were crappy plans anyway, and this is a result of protecting the consumer. 2) This is an example of govt. overreach - regulation limiting businesses' flexibility to serve the consumer. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rkiyu/eli5under_what_conditions_did_people_lose_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdo5ftm",
"cdo5fva",
"cdo6i75",
"cdo8b9u",
"cdoaudp"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Plans were required to meet a minimum amount of coverage. The act says you must cover at least XYZ. If your current plan only covered XY, there were no guidelines put in place as for how to handle it. Insurance companies simply let these plans expire and forced people to sign up all over again.",
" > what in the act caused them to lose it?\n\nThe ACA requires insurance plans to meet minimum requirements for what they cover. The plans being cancelled are ones that don't meet those minimum requirements. In other words that are, depending on your personal viewpoint, either \"crappy\" or \"bargain\" plans.",
"Insurance companies make plan changes every year. \n \nChanges include coverage increases or decrease (premiums, copays, deductibles, and limits) as well as changes to the provider network (who accepts your plan)\n\nChanges are based on market profitability, competition in said market, and changes required by the government. \n\nUltimately the decision to keep, change, or remove a plan type or plan in general are completely up to the insurance company. \n\n\nSo. People who lost their current plan may have done so regardless of the ACA, however the ACA did make it less profitable for insurance companies to continuing to offer certain plans in certain areas or at all.",
"It's not always \"crappy\" or \"bargain\" plans. Often times it's as simple as a single man or elderly people who's insurance is now REQUIRED to provide them with medical coverage for things that don't apply to them. For instance, a single 50 year old man with no significant other, must change plans since his old plan didn't have pregnancy, or birth control coverage. As with most government overreach, it' fitting square pegs in a round hole because \"they know what's best for you\".",
"Not only did people flat out lose it, many people couldn't afford the new premiums that the insurance company offered for their current plan. My grandpa and grandma live in Alabama and paid approx 2000$ a year in premiums, but after the ACA was passed it went up to 5000$ a year. Which doesn't even include copays, etc. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1qf9f7 | (american) football formations and their uses | In the past few years I've taken a great liking towards watching the NFL. At this point I believe I understand all the rules (barring the most obscure), and basic strategy, but one thing that I do not know much at all about are the various formations that an offense/defense use. I'm curious what the strengths and weaknesses of different formations are, and how a coach chooses what situations to use a certain formation in. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qf9f7/eli5_american_football_formations_and_their_uses/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdc7ohv",
"cdc8tcn",
"cdc8yxg"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"A lot of it has to do with personnel. If you want to run the ball, you will (usually) want heavier players on the field. I.e. Fullbacks and tight ends. If you want to pass, you'll want more skill positions (receiver, running back). This is obviously in the defense's mind, so coaches will try to run when it looks like a pass and vice versa. \n\nAnother factor is spacing. You want to space out the field to use it to your advantage. For example, two receivers on one side of the ball are harder to cover than one receiver. Two running backs in the backfield allow you to run the ball to the left or right and still have a lead blocker. \n\nBasically it's all a chess match to outwit the defense. ",
"***Offense***\n\n**I Formation** - Two running backs lined up directly behind the quarterback, usually with two wide receivers and 1 tight end: This is a traditional run first formation. Strengths: Strong line, lead back when running, running in between the tackles high success rate. Weaknesses: Pass blocking is hard to get to due to location of backs, passing routes are limited\n\n**Shotgun** - Quarterback is not under center (5 yards off the line): Very versatile for passing plays as you have multiple personnel sets possible (4 WR 1 RB - 3WR 2 RB - 2WR 2RB 2TE - etc) Strengths: QB gets the ball quickly in a position where he can pass from, Personel is generally more spread to create more space (note this is not always true, some shotgun sets aim for quick short patterns). Weaknesses: Run plays are slow to develop.\n\n**Single Set** - QB under center, a single back in the back field. usually with 1 TE and 3 WR: Versatile Play action formation. Strengths: Play action especially when tailback has been playing well, sweeps and screens. Extra blocker for blitzes, misdirection Weaknesses: Inside Running game is underwhelming.\n\n**Pro Formation** - QB under center, one back to the right, one back to the left: Most versatile of the basic formations. Strengths: Running backs can quickly get into either their route or blitz pickups, Qb can make directional decisions after reading the defense. Weakness: Biggest one I can think of is the possibility for miscommunication.\n\nNow after this, there are tons of variation and lesser used formations that bring various different options to them. but this is eli5, so going any further than this goes outside the scope. \n\n***Defense:***\n\n\n**4-3** - 4 down linemen, 3 linebackers: This defense is usually stronger at stopping the run at the line with the bigger bodies covering up so much space and the 3 linebackers plugging the holes that the d-line cant get. It tends to be a little weaker in the short-intermediate passing game since you are generally giving up an additional more mobile mid-range player in the linebackers. It's also more easy to counter as its easier to read what the defenders responibilities are going to be.\n\n**3-4** - 3 down linemen, 4 linebackers: Tends to be more flexible, but requires certain needs, a Very strong dominant Nose Tackle, faster defensive ends, and outside linebackers that can act as defensive tackles when necessary. The versatility that is offered once these requirements are met means that the 3-4 is harder to read, and can possibly be ready for a more varied set of options. \n\n**Man coverage** is usually best when a defensive has good matchups (or help over the top from a safety) but can cause defenders to be out of position in the case of a run play. For instance, If I want to run a sweep play to the right, I can send my right side wide receiver straight down the field full speed, effectively pulling that defender with him (at least for a moment)\n\n**Zone coverage**, since the defense is responsible for specific areas of the field, the run game is better protected as the defenders are seldomly turned around. but this comes with giving up certain areas in the passing game.\n\nLike with Offense there are a lot of variations and other sets (nickle you get a fifth defensive back, dime a 6th) most of these variations are done because you highly suspect a pass (nickle, dime) or are protecting the short gains (6-2)\n\n*edits* to combine both Defense and Offense and formatting for ease of read.",
"This is a mouthful, and i'm just an amateur football fan but i'll give it my best shot:\nSome things to look for on offense: Preface: there are 11 players on offense, 5 O linemen, 1 Quartback, and any combination of 5 WRs/TE. The linemen must be there, and there movement is limited, so I'll limit this to QBs, backs, then WR/TEs positions.\n\nWhere's the quarterback? Under center, shotgun (5 yards back) or pistol formation (3 yards back with a running back behind him). \n\nUnder center, he's closer to the line of scrimmage, better for handing the ball to the running back, who will receive the ball closer to the line of scrimmage closer and with more momentum, or setting up the play action pass. Disadvantage, closer to the line of scrimmage means he has less time to release the ball if its a pass play.\n\nShotgun: the QB is farther behind the line of scrimmage, hes in a better position to throw because he'll have more time, but if he decides to hand off, his running back will have receive the ball from a dead stop 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, (delay or draw play, hoping the blocks develop in front of him. and the RB can find a hole).\n \nPistol, not very common, offenses with guys like RGIII use this, where he might run, hand off or pass on any given play.\n\nNext: the backfield: i formation QB undercenter, full back,then tailback. Single tailback, 3 men (less common), or empty backfield.\nI formation is usually for run plays, the QB is expected to hand off to the last guy, the guy in the middle is supposed to set a block for him. advantage, good running formation on short yardage situations (3rd and 1) the bad thing is that the defense knows what you are doing, and pass plays are limited in this formation. for deception, some times they hand the ball off to the fullback (the first guy in the line) to try to take the defense by surprise. \n\nSingle tailback, probably the most common, depending on the style of offense the team runs. (this is common with the QB under center, or in the shotgun) The QB can hand off the ball, throw the ball, or fake the handoff to deceive the defense. the running back can stay in the backfield and block, or run a passing route (sometimes as an outlet if nobody else is open downfield, other times as a designed screenplay, where is catches a short pass with hopefully lots of room to run in front).\n\nnext, 3 in the backfield. usually a power formation for running short distances. this can be in a long I formation, or in a \"full house\" formation, this BTW, like the pistol, is kind of new to the NFL. Lots of blockers for running plays, also, the defense doesn't know who's going to take it. these power formations can set up a surprise pass play, but with so many guys in the backfield, there will only be one or 2 receivers running routes, so they HAVE to get open for these to work.\n\nFinally, empty backfield. This is when the quarterback is alone, its usually an aggressive play. advantage, more receivers running routes, so more opportunities for guys downfield. disadvantage, no deception, no help blocking. if one of the o linemen gets beat, or if they bring a blitz you're not ready for, there is nobody to help out back there, and no safety outlet. \n\nBONUS: Wildcat, no quarterback, just runninlg backs. this became popular a few years back. its a designed run play with a direct snap to a running back. advantage: you basically get an extra blocker, as the QB isn't running away from the line of scrimmage like in a normal handoff. disadvantage, no deception. this was a very old school football formation, that became popular a few years ago when miami ran it successfully because no defenses had really seen it before.\n\nFinally on offense, Wide receivers/tight ends. This isn't as specific, but more conceptual. WRs are speed guys on the outside, they are usually used for running routes and catching passes or at least keeping the defense honest on run plays. they don't block much, except for on specifically designed plays like screens or blocking downfield if the runner/receiver gets that far. More WRs = more aggressive playcalling. You can have anywhere from 0 to 5 WRs on a play, but its usually 2 or 3. (you'll really only see 5 WR sets on hail mary plays, but not all the time.) TEs are versatile, some guys are receiving tight ends, other guys are blocking tight ends, some offer a bit of both. More TEs= more conservative playcalling. 2-3 TE sets are used for power formations for running the ball, 1 and 2 TE sets are used for passing plays (2 TEs is pretty conservative, unless at least one of them is a good receiving tight end.)\n\nSo, that kind of covers the offense.\n\nNow defense:\nDefenses tend to be less varied because they need to be more versatile to adjust to the different looks the offense gives. Its generally either a 3-4 defense (3 linebackers, 4 D linemen, and 4 Defensive backs) or 4-3 defense (4 linebackers, 3 D-linemen and 4 defensive backs). Most teams run a 3-4 e defense, im guessing its because they have more guys on the line of scrimmage, so its harder to open up running lanes. THese are both standard Defensive formations. There are some variations to this, like goalline/short yardage, where they bring in more linemen to stop the run in exchange for defensive backs to defend the pass, and bringing in more Dback variations like the nickel, dime and quarter defenses. Nickel: 5 DBs, 4 linmen, and 2 LBs. THis is used for passing situations where you want all the fast WRs covered by fast DBs and not slower LBs, something like 3rd and 8, where its a pretty clear passing down, but you don't want to give anything too easy down the middle. A dime has 6 DBs 1 LB and 4 D-linemen. Again, for obvious passing situations, like 3rd and 20, you don't mind the 10 yard pass play as much, but you want to avoid that home run. Finally, the quarter formation, which as 7 DBs, 3 dlinemen, and 1 LB. This is really only used to defend the last second hail mary play. \n\nThere's also a zone defense and man to man. i honestly don't know the strengths and weaknesses of the schemes. i'm guessing it depends on the skills your players have. if you have 4 clones of derell revis in your backfield, you would go man to man, otherwise, the zone prevents players from getting beat too badly individually, but leaves you more vulnerable to shorter pas plays and \"holes\" in the zone.\n\nTL:DR, Football is a complicated game\n\nSorry for the long post."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
406maf | why don't college football programs use a pro style offense if that's what is deemed as necessary to succeed in the nfl? | Basically the question.
Draft choices for the NFL depend a fair bit upon what kind of offense the college program used. Jameis Winston, despite his character flaws, was loved by NFL scouts due to his participation in a pro-style offense at the college level. How come most schools can't run this kind of offense, thereby increasing the desire for the players at their schools?
Is there a financial reason or is it a 'they're only here 4 years, not enough time to pick up all the nuances' kind of deal? If some can run it, why not others?
Thanks everyone for any help you can give me with this! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/406maf/eli5_why_dont_college_football_programs_use_a_pro/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyrtywq",
"cyru9mt",
"cyruqm5"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because College coaches aren't getting paid to create NFL quarterbacks, they're getting paid to make the boosters happy, which means winning college games, which doesn't necessarily mean running a pro style offense.",
"Pro-style offenses are more complex and require a better balance of players across all positions. Part of the reason it's rare at the college level is because of the complexity, and part of it is that there just aren't enough players available to fill every team with people that can be that flexible, especially (as you eluded to) in a short period of time.",
"The two major distinctions are running speed and risk.\n\nAt the college level, you'll normally see offensive players being faster than defensive players - and, for most of the games, the disparity between teams means that they'll be a *lot* faster. So tactics like rushing the quarterback or simply relying on a pure speed advantage can work pretty well. At the pro level, everyone is really, really fast - even on the bad teams. You can't simply depend on your offensive players being better athletes than the linebackers and defensive backs so you need to be more tactically savvy.\n\nThe other issue is that the risk calculus changes dramatically. In college, losing a quarterback isn't that big a deal because you were probably only planning on having them start for 2-3 years anyway. In the pros, it takes 2-3 years for the quarterback to even learn the offense and you expect them to stick around for a decade or so. In contrast, your running backs and wide receivers are disposable. They have the easiest job of any players on the field, so you can slot in almost anyone with the requisite physical skills and they can get up to speed on the offense in no time. This means that pro teams tend to spend enormous effort protecting quarterbacks while throwing running backs/wide receivers to the wolves - but college teams value them about equally."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2fewyv | how does google maps (mobile) calculate the eta of various routes so accurately, even during rush hour? | I have a long, shitty commute to work every day. I use Google maps with the GPS on my phone and it will suggest alternate routes that save me 2, 5, 10 sometimes 15 minutes. Sometimes it will "nevermind" and reroute me to a faster route. I usually follow the suggestion and most of the time, it is right on the money.
So,how does it get the traffic data so intelligently?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fewyv/eli5_how_does_google_maps_mobile_calculate_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck8kwcl",
"ck8la1y",
"ck8msyz"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Google receives location data from a *lot* of phones. Some of them have probably followed the same route as you, while others have gone a different way.\n\nThey've collected enough of that data by now that they can probably guess with some accuracy.",
"They also utilize realtime traffic data from INRIX - a company that collects and processes speed data from mobile devices. Acquision of Waze has also helped, especially in the sense that INRIX only gives speed whereas Waze gives a potential reason for a reduction in speed, allowing Google to suggest an alternate route in the event of a crash, for example, and maybe not if people are just slowing down for a cop on the side of the road checking speed with radar.\n\n_URL_0_",
"In addition to third-party services such as Waze and DOT sites, Google collects anonymous location data from Android users via GPS, cell towers, etc. You can opt out, but the vast majority don't. This is what allows Google maps to do things like show slower traffic at intersections with traffic lights. It also allows Maps to make real-time adjustments to your route to make it faster."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/26/google-taps-kleiner-backed-inrix-to-provide-real-time-traffic-data-for-maps-and-navigation-apps/"
],
[]
]
|
|
42uysh | how can tampon and wet wipes be advetised as flushable when they still clog the pipes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42uysh/eli5how_can_tampon_and_wet_wipes_be_advetised_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"czdb6iz",
"czdcatl",
"czddiz4",
"czdhxkg",
"czdk41l",
"czdl91q",
"czdm0hs",
"czdnokb",
"czdo3cy",
"czdtcyq"
],
"score": [
69,
8,
9,
4,
2,
4,
9,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Much to the dismay of sanitation workers, there is no law determining how the word \"flushable\" should be used in advertising, no certification process, or even a legal definition of what makes something \"flushable\".",
"because that only means it will not immediately clog, at your toilet. toilets have a 3\" trap so yeah... what clogs that? not most things....",
"False advertising generally only refers to pricing.\nCorporations are free to make pretty much any claim.",
"I can flush just about anything, that makes it flushable. Whether or not it goes where I want it to from there - very questionable.",
"Well, they are flushable in the sense that you can flush them down a toilet. The problems usually occur futher down the lines when many lines of sewage join together so many of these wipes, which (by-design) do not break down just because they're moist, get clogged, especially in equipment designed to filter out debris.",
"Our plumbing got backed up because of flushable wipes. It was so gross because it backed up into our tubs as well as our toilets. Basically the plumber told me that the only thing that should be flushed is toilet paper. No matter what they say is flushable toilet paper is the only thing that will break down. Anything else can clog the pipes. ",
"TIL there are tampons being advertised as flushable. WTF? Not here in germany, every girl/woman knows that you shouldn't flush them.",
"It all has to do with the legal definition of \"flushable\". For most areas of the US it's considered \"flushable\" if it will break up after 30 minutes in agitated water. The idea is that going through the sewer pipes will cause the agitation. The problem is that there is no legal definition of how much agitation is allowed and they don't consider sewer grates or pipe constrictions. If you put a wet wipe in a stand mixer for 30 minutes it will fall apart, that was 30 minutes in agitated water. But sewers don't agitate that much, so \"flushable\" products get caught up in constrictive area's like gates.\n\nCheck out the Adam Ruins Everything segment on it. They explain it pretty well. _URL_0_",
"They probably view flushable as it being able to pass thru the toilet. After that it's in the sewer and already flushed, it's not their business that it clogged up the rest of the pipes.",
"Tampon companies, if saying a tampon is \"flushable,\" are required by their own regulations to pass the \"Brunelle Flushability Test\" involving a tampon clearing the U-bend of a lab toilet. This test doesn't consider older toilets or the rest of the pipe system after that.\n\nNot sure if it's the same for wipes.\n\nAdd to that some tampon manufacturer instructions saying it's fine to flush them, and additionally making a sales point of the fact that the cardboard applicators are flushable (versus plastic ones, which everyone knows aren't) and you have a bunch of people flushing.\n\nEdit to add: if you ever have female houseguests (or babies) a small trash bin in the bathroom is much appreciated. If you have inquisitive pets, a trash bin with a lid is even better."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgHVO-RZ8c4"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7i2g2u | what is that 'mini heart attack' that you experience when you do or see something potentially stressful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i2g2u/eli5what_is_that_mini_heart_attack_that_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqvnt7s",
"dqvwxdp"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It’s usually a jolt of epinephrine (adrenaline to the layperson). It primes you for fight or flight.",
"\"A palpitation describes the sensation that occurs when a patient feels an abnormality in the normal beat of the heart. Abnormalities in the electrical conducting system may cause the heart to beat too quickly, too slowly, or irregularly. Sometimes a palpitation may be a normal variant but it may also be caused by a significant problem that could be life threatening. A palpitation may be an isolated extra heartbeat or it may describe a run of many extra beats that run together for a prolonged period of time. Sometimes a missed beat or a pause can be felt. \" - Dr. Wedro\n\nStress is a common cause of heart palpitations. In the symptoms you described it's because the shock causes your heart to miss a beat."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3869f1 | 'that reality doesn't exist until we measure it' how could this be? and what does this prove? | short description in common-tongue, not all sciency wiency please | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3869f1/eli5_that_reality_doesnt_exist_until_we_measure/ | {
"a_id": [
"crsmx6z",
"crsmxod",
"crsqnu5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Reality is only real as you perceive it to be. Unless you observe it, then its as real as any thought you have in your head.\n\nWhat it is, is a very simple version of the Multiverse Theory.",
"What it basically means is that we still in the processes of finding out how much we dont know. Basically like whenever we get an answer, it gives us 10 more questions to ask... Look up the double slit light experiment.. The same experiment yeilds different results if we measure it or not... ",
"If you send a photon at a pair of slits, it makes a diffraction pattern behind it. This requires the photon to go through both slits. It doesn't have a single position until it hits the detectors behind the slits. Even then, the Many Worlds Interpretation says that the detectors just get entangled into the system and in the end you have every possible universe existing but some exist more than others (whatever that means).\n\nSome people claim that a system isn't real until we measure it and it collapses into a discrete state. That is at best an exaggeration, and at worst meaningless. I'd say all of the paths a photon takes are real. It's a wave that follows The Schrödinger equation, not a particle that follows Newtonian physics. It's making things happen. If that doesn't make it real, what does? You can make decisions based on imagined ideas, but only insomuch as the ideas are physically manifested by the state of your brain."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3d20gy | why don't they make cars with pop up lights anymore? | I own a 1991 Eunos Roadster aka Mazda MX5 aka Mazda Miata.
I recently made a little video with my kids (7 & 5) playing with the lights - _URL_0_
During which they asked me why don't cars have them anymore. I said because I thought they are banned for safety reasons, but not sure if it's a EU thing, USA thing or a voluntary thing. Can any anyone give me a definitive answer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d20gy/eli5_why_dont_they_make_cars_with_pop_up_lights/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct126jk",
"ct126lu",
"ct14wjm",
"ct17sp4",
"ct1kyub"
],
"score": [
8,
12,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"One less part to break, if the mechanism that brings it up doesn't work, that's dangerous and illegal to drive with it, driver's don't want to get ticketed for something they can't control. Also, aesthetics, I personally find that style ugly and cheap. The headlights on expensive cars like BMW's and even Tesla, and even on sporty cars, they are really cool and sleek looking.",
"Pop up lights were popular when cars had modular sealed beam lights, such as the rectangular 5x7\" or the 4x6\" size, Or some of the round/oval sealed beams.\n\nToday most automakers have moved away from those, and either use a reflector with a form fitting acrylic shield with a small replicable bulb. A HID bulb and projector or LED.\nb\nFor example look at Nissan Z370. \n_URL_0_\n\nInstead of a pop-up housing, the housing is a clear acrylic dome that fits the car's body lines. No need for a pop-up, it's the same shape, lights on or off.\n\nLooks better, and consistent aerodynamics \n",
"Mechanical items have a 100% more chance of breaking compared to things that don't move. Similar to HDDs and SSDs. SSDs are much more resistant to damage from movement, shock, etc. The military actually designed it because the HDD couldn't be used due to the movements of the vehicles. ",
"It was something that could break. And breakage was a safety hazard. Cheaper and safer to avoid pop-ups. ",
"I also read recently that the motors which power pop up lights are relatively heavy. Weight, and fuel economy are more important to manufacturers these days than the immense satisfaction the driver gets when he turns on the lights and sees them appear."
]
} | []
| [
"https://instagram.com/p/4ZP07AmCGO/"
]
| [
[],
[
"http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/277/622/6/S2776226/slug/l/01-2015-nissan-370z-nismo-qs-1.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1yqpih | can aspirin really 'expire'? what would be the effects of taking aspiring 1y after expiration date? 5y? 10y? 50y? | I've got 9 stitches as a result of a motorcycle accident and I didn't get any painkillers prescribed by the ER doc. Until I see my regular doc, I'm stuck with over the counter. I just found aspirin that expired on 04/2011 ...
Help me ELI5, you're my only hope!
Bonus: What about Acetaminophen? Ibuprofen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yqpih/eli5_can_aspirin_really_expire_what_would_be_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfmw5xv",
"cfmy6vk"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Hey there! Nursing student here...\n\nA law passed in 1979 required all medications to have an expiration date stamped on their products. This is the date that the manufacturer can guarantee the full potency and safety of the drug, and does not represent a magical date that turns the medication into cyanide, but rather expired medication may not be as effective. \n\nMost of what the FDA knows about drug expiration dates comes from research performed for the military, who has a large and expensive stockpile of drugs. A study conducted by the FDA showed that 90% of both prescription and over the counter drugs were perfectly safe to use even 15 years after the expiration date.",
"A drug product's expiration date is linked to the degradation period (think half-life). After that date the content of the active drug is below pharmaceutical industrial standards (you'll see this referred to as in testing guides as things like 95-105% purity). Because of this, the manufacturer cannot guarantee that the pill you're taking has the required amount of drug to acheive a therapeutic effect (e.g. the pill should have 10mg = effect but now has 9.5mg = no effect). Drugs have a minimum therapeutic threshold meaning that doses below this will have no clinically positive effects. But yes, aspirin etc can expire - it starts to smell like vinegar. Although, taking expired aspirin is unlikely to do anything other than taste horrid. For other drugs, it depends! Then you're getting into things like chemical structure (chirality changes), storage conditions (light/heat stabilities), microbial content/contamination, etc....."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2owpdc | as a right handed person, why can't i do even the most simple things with my left hand or foot | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2owpdc/eli5_as_a_right_handed_person_why_cant_i_do_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmr78p7",
"cmr96cq",
"cmrc3nb"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you haven't practiced. You can learn to do virtually anything with anything on the non-dominant side of your body with enough practice. For quite a long time, left-handed people were forced to learn to write with their right hands to conform.\n\nYou can practice little things to learn and quite a few people intentionally do as much as they can with their offhand in order to practice. ",
"In addition to what the others said:\n\nUsing your left hand you see things from a mirrored perspective. If you eat something with your right hand, you will most likely tilt your head a bit to the left. Eating with the left hand will make you tilt your head to the right. Since you aren't accustomed to this point of view, you will very likely mess up basic movements you can do with the other hand just fine.\n\nAlso think of this: moving your hands in sync is much easier than doing it mirrored. So your brain wants your left hand to do what your right hand would do, but it doesn't want it to do it mirrored and forcing it will result in confusion for the brain.",
"I have trained my left hand to play all the super fast guitar solos and fancy chord fingerings becuase this is the hand you are _supposed to_ to use for this. Apart from that, it cannot even hold a fork."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1lm4fp | why do instruments such as the violin get better (e.g sound quality) as they age? | The older it is, the better it gets. Why so? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lm4fp/eli5_why_do_instruments_such_as_the_violin_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc0l7qp"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"In part, this is just a myth.\n\nSmall studies seem to indicate that people actually *can't* tell the difference between old/new instruments when blindfolded, or listening to a digital recording. People just made their judgement based on what they *thought* they should be expecting (e.g.: they listened to a recording on a *new* violin, but were told it was a very *old* one, so they said it sounded better than a true, old Stradivarius).\n\nBut there are some possible 'real reasons', too.\n\nAs technology improves, some manufacturers started using slightly different materials in production, because they last longer. This improves the longevity of the device, but also changes its sound quality.\n\nA good example can be found in Pianos. Originally, they used wooden soundboards, which produced a warm/robust tone. But they would warp horribly in cold/warm/wet conditions, and so manufacturers started replacing them with metal soundboards. They no longer warp, but it gives a slightly 'tinnier' sound. Most people wouldn't really tell the difference, but it's there.\n\nAlso, consider that the only people who really get to touch the most delicate instruments are *professional* players. So of course it will sound amazing, because it's being played by an expert."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6lbszh | how can people do several different voices? | As in imitate famous people
#Bonus:
Is it possible for anyone to learn to speak/sing almost exactly as people w/ different types of voices? If so, how? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lbszh/eli5_how_can_people_do_several_different_voices/ | {
"a_id": [
"djsmufu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your voice is the product of the size and shape of your vocal folds, throat, skull and other things that transmit vibrations. If you can do impressions, you learn to manipulate your own instrument (voice) to sound different. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6onhoe | why is it that the orange juice i buy that contains "over 22 whole oranges" costs $1.89, yet i'd pay nearly 5x that to buy 22 whole oranges? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6onhoe/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_orange_juice_i_buy_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkinwpc",
"dkinyr5",
"dkinzi6",
"dkiodsw",
"dkioedq",
"dkizgj6",
"dkj2p97",
"dkj54a8",
"dkj58x8",
"dkj5kt9",
"dkj6cuv",
"dkj6i34",
"dkj6q6v",
"dkj6u3c",
"dkj70g2",
"dkj74i3",
"dkj74kc",
"dkj7gh1",
"dkj7pbi",
"dkj7vye",
"dkj81qi",
"dkj869w",
"dkj878z",
"dkj8wed",
"dkj8y1w",
"dkj8zcl",
"dkj90ep",
"dkj9c8m",
"dkj9go5",
"dkj9hxn",
"dkj9k3b",
"dkj9mqi",
"dkj9o4x",
"dkj9odc",
"dkj9trk",
"dkja1im",
"dkjaa9h",
"dkjaetx",
"dkjafc7",
"dkjafy3",
"dkjaivx",
"dkjajyi",
"dkjaoag",
"dkjaol5",
"dkjaq6t",
"dkjauzj",
"dkjb29z",
"dkjb7uj",
"dkjcome",
"dkjdyg6",
"dkjeapi",
"dkjec4e",
"dkjf1tr",
"dkjf8zu",
"dkjfh9m",
"dkjfs29",
"dkjfwrf",
"dkjo0fn",
"dkjpc03",
"dkjrhll",
"dkjriud",
"dkjsw63",
"dkjt3dl",
"dkjtg5r",
"dkjv9ap",
"dkk2bk1",
"dkk2zuf",
"dkk4cjo",
"dkk5njj",
"dkk6h4n",
"dkk7eun",
"dkk9mev",
"dkkxb7s",
"dkmc6gc",
"dko1fak",
"dkokt67",
"dkt0p0o"
],
"score": [
108,
428,
1271,
44,
6116,
133,
2,
3,
18,
2,
13,
2,
9,
2,
3,
2,
17,
4554,
3,
17,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
5,
2,
8,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
76,
2,
2,
9,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
629,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
6,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you were to go to an orange plantation and by oranges in bulk then they would cost a lot less then $1.89 for 22 oranges. You would likely be closer to $.89. However when you try to package, ship and store them you find out that oranges are heavy and cost a lot of money to bring home. But if you were to juice them and make concentrate then it is much lighter and easier to ship.",
"Transport, handling and spoilage costs of fresh fruit. There is a relatively short time window for fresh produce. Your juice has probably been concentrated at source for cheaper transport and is much easier to handle and package as a liquid with pumps etc.",
"The oranges sent to the juicer are usually smaller, uglier, thin-skinned varieties grown for that purpose. Because you never see what they look like it doesn't matter if the color or shape is irregular of if they get bludgeoned during shipping. The waste (and cost) here is a lot lower.\n\nThe oranges that hit the produce section need to be babied a lot more and shipped carefully and rapidly, which significantly increases the cost.",
"Oh, b/c it's not what you think of as orange juice at all.\n\nIt's a huge industrial process, so they buy fruit at huge volume discounts, and then they process the juice in such a way that it's stored as clear viscous sludge for as long as a year, and then they add what the industry calls \"flavor packets\" just before bottling to give color and flavor back (the flavor packets are technically derived from oranges, so they get to call the whole thing orange juice on the label).",
"Used to work in an orange packing shed. The juicing oranges were usually the lumpy, weird shaped ones that can't be sold loose, and don't fit nicely into the packing boxes. They all get lumped together in a bin, so would be much cheaper to transport. There's also more of them than the nice \"Grade A\" ones that get sold loose. \n\nThere were also \"Grade B\" oranges which were perfectly fine to eat but couldn't be sold in America because they were \"ugly\". I.e. Have slight marks or be differently coloured. These usually went to less economically developed countries. \n\nRemember the produce you buy in shops is the most aesthetically pleasing pick of the crop :) ",
"The oranges you buy as oranges are the biggest, prettiest oranges possible, and had to be transported quickly and carefully to prevent spoilage before you buy them. The orange juice is made from the small or ugly or excess oranges, and they are turned into a concentrate that is easier to preserve ASAP and then stored up to a year before being sold if necessary. Most of the cost of an orange is in preserving and transporting it, not growing it.",
"Quality. I'm assuming the oranges they use for juicing aren't as plump and beautiful as supermarket oranges.",
"i imagine it's like when I'm driving through the countryside and there's add for \"5 avocados for a dollar\" or something ... and then you see these avacados and they're the size of apricots.",
"Orange juice lasts longer.\n\nYou can store it longer.\n\nYou can ship it farther.\n\nThat means there is less lost to spoilage which drops the price.\n\nFresh oranges get damaged when shipped. They spoil.\n\nThe cost of lost oranges is added into the price of oranges sold.",
"They buy the oranges at harvest time, in bulk, they are a different kind of orange than is eaten out of hand, and appearance doesn't matter.\n",
"Is this a viral marketing campaign for Aldi's?",
"They sell the other bits?",
"Economies of scale.\n\nI worked in a potato chip plant and a hundred pounds of potatoes would usually cost us less than $9.00",
"Because they're probably reject oranges that they wouldn't sell in the supermarket, knowing the American food industry. ",
"Because they have to ship a bunch of bulky heavy oranges to you before they go bad. Oj they juice them right away, make a concentrate and it's way cheaper to get to you and ensure it's still good.",
"Because the orange juice you buy 'fresh' really isn't orange juice anymore. All the low grade. not for eating oranges, are processed and separated into the components, sugar water, pulp, oils, flavorings, for storage. They then blend the oils and flavorings for the desired brand flavor, and reconstitute it with the sugar water and preferred pulp quantity. The result is 'fresh' orange juice.",
"The cost of agricultural goods is often mostly based on transportation and storage. The easier those things are (squeezing and packaging OJ close to the source), the cheaper each step of the distribution chain becomes.\n\nHypothetical:\n\n* An orange can be purchased from a grower at $0.05/orange in bulk.\n* Whole oranges cost $0.10/orange at each distribution leg.\n* OJ costs $0.02/orange per leg.\n\nIf there are 10 legs of distribution between grower and consumer, at cost whole oranges are $1.05/orange while OJ would be $0.15/orange. That's an order of magnitude difference per orange whole vs juice.",
"Imagine putting 22 oranges into your cart, then put orange juice next to that. Notice how much space each takes up? If you weighed them, the oranges would weigh more (because of skin and other things that are removed when juicing). The same thing goes for shipping! That's why \"flat packed furniture,\" like what's sold at Walmart and Ikea, is so much cheaper than pre-built furniture stores. It's also why a package of dehydrated or condensced food costs much less. Like dry beans vs canned beans. Or Gatorade powder vs Gatorade Bottles. \n\nWhen shipping, 2 things matter: Size and Weight. Decrease either of these, and the costs go down. If you imagine a semi-truck, one full of packing peanuts and one full of bricks, which costs less gas to move? The one full of packing peanuts. However, it still costs money to move the semi truck full of packing peanuts. \n\nThe other thing to know is that not all Produce is created equal. The produce that shows up at the grocery store is often larger and is *much better looking* than the produce used to make refined goods like juice. This means that if you used pretty, large oranges, you might use less than the 22 needed, and they'd all look pretty, but only the juice-maker knows that. \n\nIf you can find a local place that sells \"ugly\" produce (that tastes the same), you will save a lot of money. The reason for this is that you essentially pay for all the ugly food that is thrown away. [John Oliver did a piece on it.](_URL_0_) The link takes you to the part showing a field after they've gone through and picked everything. This is also why baby carrots are a thing... baby carrots are the ugliest carrots trimmed into the \"baby\" shape! ",
"The same way carrots for juicing are much cheaper than a normal bag of carrots. They are not as pretty or of high enough quality for \"regular\" consumption.",
"Because the oranges you buy are the prettiest oranges, the roundest and orangest. They bring in the highest price. \n\nThe oranges used for juice are on the opposite end of the scale, how they look doesn't matter at all. They're shaped funny, blemished or discolored. Nobody wants to buy ugly fruit, but it makes pretty juice.",
"Oranges visually appealing and proper size are sent to store for individual sale. Oranges with blemishes, undersized, oversized and not considered sellable are sent for juicing. Only a small percentage of oranges are considered suitable for store sale.",
"Late to the party BUT orange juice in a box is all the \"ugly\" oranges from the groves. I buy Fresh Squeezed (my vice in Md since moving from FL) from Whole Foods for $12 a half gallon. ",
"I mean I don't know where you can buy actual orange juice in Poland, all I've ever seen in shops is drinks made from Orange concentrate, water, and high amounts of sugar. And yet people would still drink this or coca cola over eating a fresh non gmo fruit of any kind. People just want to eat/drink unhealthy.",
"Orange juice companies buy oranges in extremely large quantities. They contract with farmers years in advance, giving farmers a level of assurance that they will have someone to sell their product to. This allows them to sell at very low prices.\n\nThey are also shipped in large quantities, saving on shipping costs. And the storage only needs to be good enough to maintain the quality of the juice inside, not the appearance of the oranges.\n\nThe orange juice is made in large factories that run 24/7 (until they are cleaned for a day or two every so often), meaning that the equipment is always productive - so there's no wasted capacity.\n\nOn the other hand, fruit on a shelf needs to be sorted for appearance (costly), shipped to a distribution center, broken into smaller shipments, then shipped again to stores (costly, costly, costly), then shelved knowing full well that not all of them will be sold, so a small number need to pay for all the costs of delivering an entire batch to the store.",
"Three things. Volume, the fact that eating oranges and juice oranges are two different varieties and the demand that the oranges that people buy are pretty.",
"It's easier to ship juice than actual oranges. Juice takes up less space and can't be bruised.",
"As a lot of people have mentioned, juice is made out of smaller, uglier breeds of oranges. But it's also made out of unpresentable/unpalatable oranges of varieties usually sold in stores, especially ones that are nearly rotten (and too sweet) or small and bitter (not sweet enough). These flavour profiles tend to cancel each other out. Then, the juice can be stored, either in concentrated or non-concentrated form, in metal tanks for months or years. The non-concentrated stuff -- the stuff you think is fancy -- has all the bioflavinoids and other volatile components removed in the meantime so it remains stable, at which point it's basically sugar water. These things are added back to the juice when it's packaged. So the cheapness of the ingredients (reject oranges of all kinds) and our ability to store the juice cheaply for long periods make it an inexpensive product relative to fresh oranges. ",
"Same way it says \"100% Real Fruit Juice\" on the front but if you look at the ingredients its really \"100% real fruit juice was PART of the ingredients\" \n\netc",
"Get some oranges and squeeze them and see how much juice you get. It can take 5 or 6 oranges to make one large glass of juice.\n\nNow figure out, how easy and cheap it is to ship orange juice in a square container, a dozen in a carton. Compared to how few oranges you could ship in the same carton.\n\nAs others have pointed out, orange juice is made from imperfect oranges that are cheaper than the real nice looking ones, plus there is the savings in not having to pack and ship the rinds. It is quite possible that a whole carton of oranges would make only one container of juice, yet they can ship a dozen containers in one carton. This must save a lot of money in shipping and handling.",
"It's because that OJ vendor can get you the juice of 22 oranges for five times less money than the produce man can get you 22 oranges for....it's very simple really.",
"Florida specializes in growing juice oranges while California specializes in eating oranges. The two principal varieties are Valencia for juice and Navel for eating. Both states do grow both varieties, but Florida's juice industry manufactures over 60% of all juice consumed in the US.",
"As others have mentioned - oranges used for juice are not the same. Another issue is the cost of shipping - 22 oranges weigh much more than a jug of OJ, so it costs more to transport them. Oranges also have a much shorter shelf life than packed OJ, which accounts for their higher price.",
"Lol, what orange juice are you buying where it costs $1.89? That must be some watery orange juice.",
"You should have searched for this before, not being snarky here, but you are missing an [Incredible answer](_URL_0_) already made! Literally the top comment.",
"Most juice oranges come from Florida. The look of these fruits do not matter so there is much less overall waste.\n\nThe variety of oranges typically grown for edible consumption mostly come from California. These must look presentable without any brown spots, etc. This costs a lot more than the above.\n\n",
"The $1.89 \"orange juice\" that you purchase is high fructose corn syrup, water, other processed sugars, dye, and preservatives. Your not buying fresh fruit. You're hardly buying a commodity that resembles fruit.",
"Econ geek in my spare time. I'll try answering this. \n\nOranges you buy in the store have be handpicked: we (humans) like fruit a certain colour, a certain ripeness, and blemish free. There's a finite number of oranges humans can pick in any one day (two hands and all), so the labour cost of supplying so many oranges is high. \n\nOranges for orange juice however, can be harvested. Irregularities are irrelevant since it's all being squashed anyway. Mechanical harvesting allows you to gather far more oranges in far less time. The few machines needed are far more cost effective than the hundreds of workers needed to otherwise pick them. \n\nThe machines are extremely economical, and even the rind can be used as fertiliser. They're extremely efficient. \n\nThen comes transportation. \n\nStore oranges have to be shipped carefully to keep them looking all pretty. Their round nature also makes fitting them in boxes pretty awkward: you're always going to waste space. \n\nOrange juice fits pretty well in boxes, and leaves effectively no space. You can ship far more quantities in far fewer trips: bringing down the overall cost again. \n\nTL;DR oranges hand picked, juice machine picked. Machines cheaper than humans ",
"You wouldn't buy the oranges they squeeze for OJ. They are banged up and ugly, miscolored etc.",
"Has anyone actually answer this question?",
"Everyone mentions here that \"juice oranges\" are cheaper, but I'll tell you the truth - it doesn't contain \"Over 22 whole oranges\" it's marketing bullshit",
"Alot of crops are judged by their looks. If it doesn't look good, it's made into juice or other uses. They only sell the ones that look the best.",
"It could be because the Orange Juice company buys oranges in mass bulk. They're buying thousands or oranges at a time so they get a discount. When shopping at a grocery store the price for oranges will be inflated since people are only buying a few at a time. ",
"Cause if you saw the 22 oranges they squeeze to make your OJ, you'd wretch. Commercially attractive fruit is much more expensive than the drops, half rotten and otherwise unattractive stuff they pulp for OJ.",
"A lot of people are mentioning the ugly juicing oranges and transport costs of juice vs. whole oranges. This is true, but there are also different qualities of juice. Your juice may be from frozen concentrate. Aside from being less desirable in the market, it's also possible for companies to lock in lower prices for frozen juice. It's traded as a commodity, and this was actually featured in the movie Trading Places. OTOH, they probably can't lock in long term prices on fresh whole oranges. I don't even know if there's anything comparable to the commodity exchange for fresh ones.\n\nAlso, the grocery store will have to toss out the fresh ones if they don't sell in time. It's easier to keep juice in the cooler for a while. It's usually pasteurized.",
"Uhm economies of scale. The orange juice manufacturer has way more power to negotiate prices when they buy millions of dollars of oranges each year.",
"You think what you're drinking is OJ????",
"I thought I'd seen an answer to this in this sub before. [Here.](_URL_0_)",
"Liquid is easier and cheaper to transport, package, store and stock. Furthermore, oranges that are superficially damaged or otherwise not \"pretty\" enough to sell as whole oranges are much cheaper at wholesale and thus used for OJ more often than store \"quality\" oranges are.",
"the orange juice you drink is not freshly squeezed. they take oranges, squeeze them, store them in tanks for months (they do this to even out price fluctuations, and because oranges is a seasonal crop--you want orange juice year round, right?), then when it comes time to make orange juice, they take the stored juice and mix it with flavoring chemicals (because when you store orange juice for a long time, it loses flavor). minute maid orange juice tastes candy-ish because they like to add sweet flavors to it. tropicana has it's own flavor profile. \n\nhere's a tropicana \"pure premium\" orange juice tank farm. each tank holds one million gallons.\n_URL_1_\n\nnot freshly squeezed, right? nope. pure premium, and other \"not from concentrate\" is a marketing ~~gimmick~~ scheme designed to get consumers to pay higher prices for possibly not so good juice. \n\n[source]\n_URL_2_\n\n\nedit: if you want fresh orange juice, look for a higher end market, and see their selection. the best ones will be hpp, high pressure processed to kill germs, and preserve fresh flavor. the second best ones will be pasteurized, but pasteurization involves heat, and that will cook the orange juice (Trader Joes is pasteurized). cost maybe $7/half gallon to $9 in major american cities. \n\nedit: still interested in orange juice, but can't afford the more expensive fresh squeezed juice, yet don't want flavor packets in your orange juice? here's a list of brands that use/don't use them _URL_0_",
"Because it's marketing bullshit. It contains the juice of 22 oranges. Not 22 whole oranges. If that was the case it would just be a box of fucking oranges. ",
"The 22 oranges in your O.J. are *ugly oranges*. People don't like those and don't buy them at grocers. The oranges you purchase at your grocer are *pretty oranges*.",
"We've done this ELI5 already this year but the gist is show oranges vs shit oranges, bulk buying, and juicing in cheap areas then easy transporting vs transporting and protecting damagable items.\n\nEdit: [it was last year sorry, but still good answers. Also machinery that grinds oranges down to nothing extracting every list drop](_URL_0_)",
"Cost of transportation. It costs more to transport a heavy bag of oranges versus a tiny bottle. ",
"I would assume this has a lot to do with the extended shelf life of OJ, and it's transportation weight. Also there is plenty of produce that's not pretty enough to sell straight up but is totally fine for consumption.",
"Fun!\n\nOranges are dirt cheap where they are grown, but expensive due to transportation costs. They also spoil fast.\n\nThey squeeze the dirt cheap oranges into juice, they then evaporate the water and turn it into a concentrate. So instead of transporting a cistern full of juice, you transport a barrel of concentrate and then add water closer to the destination. Concentrate doesn't spoil easily either.\n\nSo instead of using 100 ship containers to transport the oranges to the stores you can juice, they simply fill ONE of the containers with barrels of orange juice concentrate and then add water somewhere near your grocery store at a bottling/packaging factory.\n\nSo the TL;DR answer is that they save a huge amount of money by not transporting the water.",
"1) You can juice an orange that doesn't look great and no one cares. If you try to sell the same orange, it's likely to sit on the shelf until it rots because people want to buy a perfect looking orange even if it tastes the same as an ugly one.\n\n2) Buying 22 oranges individually costs quite a bit. Buying a bag of 22 oranges costs a bit less per orange. Buying 22 million oranges in bulk costs even less per orange.\n\n3) 22 Oranges take up a lot more space than a bottle of orange juice and therefore cost less to ship.\n\n4) Concentrated orange juice (with some of the water removed and then added at a bottling plant closer to where you buy it) takes even less space and can be shipped by tanker truck en mass costing even less than a bottle of orange juice.",
"Because its stored in a giant metal vat for over years and then scented with perfume. Search it up. Mega thread a while ago. Forget where tho. ",
"There are eating oranges (California) and juicing oranges (Florida) . . . . eating are large and pretty, juicing are small and less aesthetically pleasing. It is like comparing apples to oranges except for that they are both oranges. ",
"[Ripe oranges are green,] (_URL_0_) and people won't buy green oranges. ",
"Market prices and intrinsic prices aren't the same thing. the market for orange juice and the market for oranges are completely seperate and price is determined by different factors. oranges compete with other fruit; orange juice competes with other fruit drinks. ",
"multiple reasons really.\nEconomies of scale: Juice companies (we'll call them \"Big Juice\") aren't paying what you pay for oranges. Also the produce you buy in a store is considered the \"cream of the crop\" from a visual standpoint. How often do you see misshapen vegetables in the store? Big Juice is buying all the remnants that the farmer would have otherwise literally thrown away so they get an even better price. Basically they're buying generic brand oranges and buying a metric fuckton of them. \n\nI'm sure there are other reasons in addition to this but this is a big part.",
"Cause the oranges in orange juice are the oranges that weren't good enough to sell in the stores. ",
"Hi! Friendly turkey enthusiast here and though im not an expert on citrus my parent company spent about 25 years making OJ and concentrate in florida and brazil before divesting that business. The answer comes down to breeding, astetics, and size. The oranges you buy in the store are bred to be juicy and beautiful. Everything about that supply chain is meant to deliver you a perfectly colored and shaped orange...from the seed to the location of the orchard in california or florida, to the refrigerated truck that drove it across the country to the packaging it was displayed in preventing bruising or damage. This process creates a lot of rejected, imperfect fruit as well a incurs cost for transporting the waste of the peel and the water. Juiced oranges have lots of cost advantages and hence can be cheaper. The orange can be ugly or blemished, it can be picked before or after prime, its peel and membranes are removed and sold for other things (you throw them away) and most of the water is removed ĺeaving very concentrated sugars and flavors. This is shipped in bulk IBC totes for maximum efficiency to bottling plants near cities. The peels are actually processed into orange oil...which i have understood to be nearly as valuable as the juice. Its used in candies and foods as well as perfumes and cleaning products. In short, the most expensive fruit is the one that has to be delivered to your store/door in perfect condition. Any orange can go into juice (this is a generalization...juice oranges are bred differently in real life) and by processing them near the source huge cost efficiencies are created not shipping water/peels/membranes. ",
"Shipping bottled OJ is easier. Less refrigeration. Less hurry to prevent rot. Less worry about bruising when loading/unloading. Easier for the grocer to store and shelve.\n\nPlus when they are juiced by machine they get to use all the small and ugly ones. And the waste that you would throw away when buying and eating whole oranges? They can retrieve orange oils from the skin and sell that. Then they take the shredded skin fiber and do something else like add it to animal feed or even just industrial composting which will get a tiny profit that leads to more competitive pricing of the OJ in the plastic bottle at your Aldi.",
"Juiced oranges are ugly. They fail the shopfront display test and dont look as appealing.\n\nThey are often juiced on-site or very nearby.",
"Something to do with economies of scale? The orange juice company isn't buying 22 oranges at a time, they're either buying millions or growing them themselves. In short, it's not a huge discount on OJ, it's a huge markup on oranges.",
"A; You buy expensive, pretty oranges.\nB: Orange juice makers do not.\nC: Many orange juice makers grow their own oranges, and don't need a middle man or 3rd party transportation.\n\nMix and match as you please.",
"I live on a farm and the really shit fruit that is not good enough basically gets send down to \"Juice\", which the company buys for a fraction of the cost of a proper one.",
"You want to buy a few pretty oranges, juice comes from less pretty oranges in bulk at wholesale rates. ",
"Perhaps the juice uses all the wonky looking ones that are too ugly to sell in stores, so the supplier sells them for cheaper?",
"You would never buy the oranges that go into orange juice. They are not attractive to look at.",
"When you get your orange juice manufacturer has way more power to negotiate prices when they are until certain point the better.",
"apples?? they use the less than desirable to the uniform package size and is bad for the pampered American.",
"Orange juice lasts way longer than regular oranges because it's part of the fruit industry a lot of people have mentioned, juice is technically pure squeezed orange juice, and it costs > 3x cost to ship in a refrigerator, possibly with nitrogen to prevent spoilage before you buy at the store.",
"Store Oranges are certainly less dense than orange juice, and yet you're willing to pay off.",
"Part of the good oranges for juice are picked usually ripe, sent directly to be used as fertiliser.",
"and then stored up to oranges that they are bottled and some don't even make money on concentrate fruits they just do it on purpose."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/i8xwLWb0lLY?t=470"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iarsy/eli5_how_is_orange_juice_economically_viable_when/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30w3u1/eli5_why_is_orange_juice_much_cheaper_than_oranges/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.toxinless.com/orange-juice",
"http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/47/OrangeJuiceStorageBins.jpg",
"http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/ask-an-academic-orange-juice"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iarsy/eli5_how_is_orange_juice_economically_viable_when?sort=top"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://io9.gizmodo.com/everything-you-know-is-wrong-oranges-aren-t-orange-1097312640"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4vcx1t | where does spacex get the funding to constantly launch ship after ship? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vcx1t/eli5_where_does_spacex_get_the_funding_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5xbszk",
"d5xd4rr"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They've carried a number of payloads for paying customers, which is their intended long-term funding source.\n\nThey're still a young enough company that they're able to survive off of investors' money for the time being, though. In short: people gave them money to get started, in exchange for a cut of the profits when they're established. That's enough money to fly quite a few rockets for a loss while they carve out a section of the market for themselves.\n\nThe company is still privately held, so figures on exactly how much money they have aren't released. However, there are claims that the paying customers are bringing enough money that the company is profitable now. ",
"They did 7 rounds of private funding for a total of $1.25b starting with an initial seed investment of $100m by its founder. During that time they have also been paid to do numerous supply runs to ISS on behalf of various governments. There's a lot of test launches going on, but there are also many paid missions happening as well."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1z0pg8 | how does it cost verizon more money when i use more bandwidth? | With things like no more unlimited plans and Verizon wanting to throttle(maybe?) Netflix and now [this](_URL_0_), I have been wondering. Does using more bandwidth actually cost them more money? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z0pg8/how_does_it_cost_verizon_more_money_when_i_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfpfp66"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When I worked for a telecom (not Verizon), one of the things they drilled into us was that the company sold the most precious thing in the world -- time on a network. And unsold/unused time was gone forever, and couldn't ever be resold.\n\nThe more bandwidth that you (and everyone else) use, the more infrastructure they have to have to handle that capacity. More fiber optic lines, more peering charges.\n\nSo, it doesn't cost them more money until they hit max capacity -- but then it costs a LOT more to add capacity."
]
} | []
| [
"http://bgr.com/2014/02/26/internet-service-cost-heavy-users-verizon/"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
43jqos | sumerian literature. | I'm very interested in this type of work. I've been trying to wash through all this speculation and down right false translations and it is doing a number on my brain. So can anyone/place online help explain it to me. I've been looking at stuff online such as the "The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford" but it is extremely complicated.
Here is a link to the above mentioned...
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43jqos/eli5_sumerian_literature/ | {
"a_id": [
"cziphkl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sumerian literature as we know it mostly surrounds the Epic of Gilgamesh, because (iirc) most Sumerian records are about business transactions and other miscellaneous records kept on those clay cylinders. There is a [book](_URL_0_) by Samuel Noah Kramer (widely considered one of the best Sumerian scholars and translators) that explains their mythological stories with great commentary about the organizational strategy of Sumerian poetry/literature. I loved the book and used it as one of my sources for a graduate level course in Religious Studies at my university."
]
} | []
| [
"http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/#"
]
| [
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Sumerian-Mythology-Samuel-Noah-Kramer/dp/0812210476"
]
]
|
|
2vpxy5 | how does gravel on a flat roof help with drainage? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vpxy5/eli5_how_does_gravel_on_a_flat_roof_help_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cojvqd1",
"cojvr8v"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It is there to protect the substrate under it. Not to help drainage.",
"The gravel is a balast that prevents the wind from lifting the roof or tearing off the insulation / sealants. \n\nIt may also affect drainage, someone else can answer that. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3sz4je | detergent pods - they dissolve in water.. why doesn't the liquid inside dissolve them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sz4je/eli5_detergent_pods_they_dissolve_in_water_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx1pp4x",
"cx1rbq1",
"cx1vvrk",
"cx1vwe0",
"cx1yni5",
"cx210js"
],
"score": [
21,
37,
25,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Water is not the only liquid, even cooking oil has zero water in it, it’s like no big deal at all. Water is simply one type of liquid.",
"from a chemistry standpoint, polar chemicals dissolve polar chemicals.\n\nIf the detergent in the pod is not polar, or simply not polar enough, then it won't be able to dissolve the pod.",
"The exterior of the pods are made of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH)-based film. PVOH is water soluble. However, prior to dissolving, PVOH must become saturated by water. Although the detergents inside of the films are dissolved in water, they are very concentrated and the moisture content is not sufficient to saturate and dissolve the PVOH. However, detergents dent to dissolve the same types of things that water can. \n\nCounterintuitively, some detergents , such as those found in laundry detergents, can actually stabilize PVOH polymers based on how they behave at a particular pH. The detergent inside of the pouches is buffered at a specific pH, allowing the polar detergent molecules to cooperate with the alcohol groups of the PVOH to resist water's dissolving effect. When they get wet in the washing machine, the water hitting them is at a different pH and is able to compromise the outside of the package.\n\nOn the other hand, the detergents are sometimes instead made up in non-aqueous solvents to which PVOH is resistant, simplifying the film chemistry (but maybe making things more complicated on the detergent-design side).\n\nThere are obviously more detailed nuances to the chemistry that I did not describe but this is the general principle. The company MonoSol holds 90% of the market share on these films and is known to be very secretive about their processes and design.\n\nEdit: more clarification",
"Your question is a better one than some are giving you credit for.\n\nIt is true, as others say, that the \"dissolving ability\" of liquids is not a linear scale, with a detergent being stronger than water in your conception. Rather, solubility works more in a \"like dissolves like\" manner. For example, paraffin wax will dissolve in gasoline, because both of them are oil-like in their chemical properties (nonpolar and \"hydrophobic\"). Sugar and table salt (NaCl) will both dissolve in water, because they are polar and \"hydrophilic\". But wax doesn't dissolve in water, and neither sugar nor salt will dissolve in gasoline (contrary to what you might have heard about the damage when you put sugar in someone's gas tank, it will just settle to the bottom as a solid and probably clog the fuel filter).\n\nSo there is *sort of* a linear scale, but it's not from stronger solvents to weaker solvents, but from polar (and hydrophilic) to nonpolar (and hydrophobic) ones, with each better at dissolving materials with similar polarity. And here is the magic of soaps and detergents: they contain both polar and nonpolar parts on the same molecule. And they can therefore allow oil to \"dissolve\" in water (look up micelles if you are interested in that). That's really what soap is all about.\n\nAnyway, the liner of those detergent pods is [apparently](_URL_0_) made of [polyvinyl alcohol](_URL_1_). Polyvinyl alcohol is soluble in water. However, it's not obvious to me that it wouldn't also be soluble in the very concentrated aqueous solution of detergent in the pod. But apparently that's the case.",
"The water inside the pod is not the same as the water outside the pod.\n\nOn a side note: don't let any water get in the bag of pods or you're gonna be in for a bad time.",
"Short answer: Some liquids dissolve some substances, other liquids dissolve other substances.\n\nAs a side note, that's also why oil and water don't mix."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/269wfn/what_is_the_plastic_wrap_on_dishwasher_detergent/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_alcohol"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9xfd79 | how is it recounts of even modern elections always give slightly different results? | I know it seems straightforward - because they counted wrong - but how does a mistake like that happen? Do computers make mistakes, or does a person counting hand ballots tick the wrong box? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9xfd79/eli5_how_is_it_recounts_of_even_modern_elections/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9ru7ee",
"e9s1acu",
"e9s3gx2"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"when they recount they throw out certain votes for various reasons, also they often \"find\" ballots that were not counted the first go round and all other manner of nonsense ",
"With manual counts it's simply human error, and differences in judgement. When you're counting tens of thousands of ballots there will always be a proportion that are counted wrong, missed, etc.. There will also be some judgement calls. Is that a second mark and thus a spoiled ballot, or is it just a smudge?\n\nEach time you count, these random errors will come out different. You could keep recounting forever and you'll keep getting slightly different results. (But if you average them out, you should get closer to the real result!)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be much research on the measurement error in counting ballots - one study suggests it's between 0.5% and 2%, depending on the method used.",
"Ballots that are spoiled, unreadable, and etc. are set aside to be sorted out; generally they are not really relevant to the outcome of elections and so can simply be totaled up at some later date. A verity close election makes such ballots immediately relevant, whereas normally they’d just be added to the final count at some later time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5pjc9z | how did nafta cause job -loss in the u.s.? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pjc9z/eli5_how_did_nafta_cause_job_loss_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcrkt10"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to quantify how free trade affects net job gain or loss, since importing things from other countries also means jobs, but here is the premise:\n\nBob is a US worker. Bob works in a factory and makes shoes. Bob makes pretty decent shoes. He gets paid about $10 / hr to make pretty decent shoes. In Mexico, there's a fellow called Carlos. Carlos also makes shoes. Carlos, like Bob, makes pretty decent shoes. \n\nThe difference between Carlos and Bob is really just that stuff in Mexico is cheaper, because people in Mexico tend to have less money than people in America. Since Carlos only needs to spend a fraction of the money on rent and food that Bob needs to spend, a big company like Nike or Adidas can pay Carlos less money than Bob, and still get a pretty decent shoe. \n\nHistorically, this was often offset using tariffs. Basically, the US government would say 'Oh man, if the big companies keep making their shoes in Mexico, Bob and his friends aren't going to have jobs, and if they don't have jobs, we can't tax them.\" So, the government says \"Let's charge an extra amount for the shoes made by Carlos in Mexico. That way, big companies will want to make the shoes they want to sell in America here, as opposed to making them in Mexico and shipping them here.\" This way, since there's an extra charge for Carlos' shoes in the US, Bob can keep his job because it's cheaper for big companies to make their shoes in the US and sell them there than it is to charge customers for the tariff. \n\nNow, NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), got rid of tariffs between the US, Canada and Mexico. That means that the government can't put tariffs on Carlos' shoes, so Bob is going to lose his job. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1o9eu1 | how can charities, like cancer fund of america and kids wish network, give less than 5% and still call themselves a charity? | [Source](_URL_0_)
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o9eu1/eli5_how_can_charities_like_cancer_fund_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccpyw53",
"ccqc771"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't \"keep\" any of the money, but they sure do have a lot of expenses to pay out. That CEO for example works really hard at collecting donations, and it costs a lot of money to rent space in his posh home. So most of the money goes to \"admin\" expenses.\n\nMany celebrities have this same problem. At one point Kanye's charity had zero in charitable donations.",
"In the US, non-profit status is less about being a charity, and more about *not* being a corporation. So long as your revenue doesn't directly go into owners' pockets, you can be a non-profit and enjoy the tax benefits.\n\nSo from a legal perspective, there is little difference between a soup kitchen and a bowling league. These charities are allowed to *waste* donations, they just can't pass them along to their owners. They also can't lie about what the intend to do with the money."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2g6qob | baseball players who defect from cuba, like yasiel puig, are technically illegal immigrants working in the united states, so how are they allowed to play baseball in the u.s. while other illegal immigrants get deported? | Puig's case is especially interesting considering the man who smuggled him into the country was recently arrested by Homeland Security and charged with human smuggling. How does that man get charged with a crime and yet Puig gets away scot-free? It seems quite hypocritical. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g6qob/eli5_baseball_players_who_defect_from_cuba_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckg5j94"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I heard somewhere now correct me if I'm wrong but we have a safe haven agreement with regards to Cuba. This means that if you manage to get here to escape communism you become a citizen. The catch? If your found in transit your returned to Cuba. Make it to land your safe. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nMeaning smuggling is illegal but getting here is semi not"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy"
]
]
|
|
19l3ds | what does each company associated with a credit card do? for instance, i have an amazon chase visa. what do each of these companies do that relates to my credit card account? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19l3ds/what_does_each_company_associated_with_a_credit/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8p084g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Chase is who is giving you the credit. They loan you money, you pay them back.\n\nAmazon sponsor your credit card. They get their logo printed on it. They may give you some kind of loyalty points for using it. But this is basically a marketing/sponsorship agreement between Amazon and Chase that helps Chase by increasing the number of credit cards they can sell, and helps Amazon by getting you to use their website to spend loyalty points as well as giving them advertising space on your credit card. There may be some financial arrangement between Amazon and Chase to enable this to happen.\n\nVisa run the credit card system. Visa is a company which is jointly owned by all the major banks in the world, and their purpose is to process credit card transactions, and basically ensure that shops all around the world can take your credit card and allow you to spend money on it, then pass these details to your bank (Chase, in your case) so they can collect the money from you.\n\nSource: a friend of mine used to work for Visa."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6tvavu | why do retroviruses mutate so often? what causes this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6tvavu/eli5why_do_retroviruses_mutate_so_often_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlnsixd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Reverse transcriptase is sloppy and error-prone. It introduces more mutations than most other polymerases."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
43g5mr | why isn't everyone an organ donor after they die? | Lots of people are dying unnecessarily all the time, but also a lot of people are dying normally. So why aren't their organs being used? Surely that just means less death, and is a really nice thing to do. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43g5mr/eli5_why_isnt_everyone_an_organ_donor_after_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"czhxzzd",
"czhyqyr",
"czhyy1u",
"czhzce6",
"czhzo72",
"czhzqye",
"czhzvaw",
"czi056j",
"czi09d9",
"czi0b6e",
"czi0wny",
"czi0y3o",
"czi10an",
"czi240v",
"czi4wrx",
"czi7b0o",
"czi8sgi",
"czib76f",
"czib7rt",
"czic3zu"
],
"score": [
38,
22,
6,
3,
56,
8,
5,
2,
4,
6,
8,
6,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Could be a myriad of reasons including religious and that you cannot enter the afterlife without being \"whole\".\n ",
"also realistically, to plan a successful harvest surgery, you need a (preferably healthy, young) patient who is brain dead but still has the circulation going. which doesn't apply to most deaths.",
"My girlfriend was killed in a car accident at 17. Her parents agreed to donate her organs. What was left of her body was cremated. For reasons unknown to me, her harvested organs were deemed \"unusable\". Without having a grave to visit, and knowing that parts of her had ended up in a lanfill somewhere, I had no closure when it came to grieving her death. It all seemed so disrespectful to her memory. This is why I choose to not donate. I like the thought of helping others, but I don't want the people I love to suffer the emotional pain I did. Yes, I'm aware this makes me look like an asshole. Sorry, but you cannot have that asshole when I die. ",
"Because some people don't want to, religious reasons, some people want to visit a grave of their dead. Why does it matter. ",
"The fact that opt-out organ donation systems have much higher rates of organ donors than opt-in systems leads me believe religious reasons may not be a very major reason. Lots of people itt seem to think its a big one.\n\n\n\"Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%.\"\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"Only 1% of the organ doner population is even able to give their organs, depending on how they died or lived. A 23 year old type O healthy male who gets decapitated, absolutely no internal damage or infection, autopsied, cleaned up, cut up frozen and stored in less than a day or two is a great example...which would rarely happen.",
"Some people believe that organ donation status may increase their risk of not being saved in the event they are disfigured and near death in a hospital. Normally, I would just say this is a myth, but reality is not so cut and dry. First of all, it can be argued (not by me!) that sacrificing a person to save 3 is morally justified, so a doctor could speed along the process of death to harvest organs. Something like this would not be a surprise, given that fraud, bribery, and medical malpractice is well known in the United States (not sure about other countries). \n\n[The **3rd** leading cause of death in the U.S. is by Medical mistakes and malpractice, coming in at over 200,000 deaths per year](_URL_5_)\n\n\n\n[The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting to bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children.](_URL_4_)\n\n[An analysis of 2013 IMS Data, found that over 274,000 infants **(0-1 year olds)** and some 370,000 toddlers (1-3 years age) in the U.S. were on antianxiety (e.g. Xanax) and antidepressant (e.g. Prozac) drugs.](_URL_0_)\n\n[Michigan oncologist Dr Farrid Fata was administering chemotherapy to patients who didn’t need it. Fata, 50, was sentenced to 45 years in federal prison in 2015 after pleading guilty to fraud, money laundering and conspiracy charges. At least 553 victims had been identified.](_URL_2_)\n\n[Following a five-year investigation, prosecutors say they uncovered a vast conspiracy in which attorneys and others illegally referred patients to Uwaydah's clinics in exchange for up to $10,000 a month. At the doctor's clinics, a physician documented medical evaluations that never occurred and staff falsified MRI and other records to justify surgeries, some of which were unnecessary, prosecutors alleged.](_URL_1_)\n\n[Patient sues, and wins, after recording doctor's conversation in surgery](_URL_3_)\n\nIs it possible that some people have been sacrificed to save others? Yes. Likely? I would say that given the size of the US and the amount of fraud, it almost certainly has happened. How often? We don't know yet and may never get that answer. \n ",
"Because some countries make it opt-in instead of opt-out on your driver's license. The countries that make it opt-out, have a much higher rate of organ donors than those that make it opt-in.",
"A majority of the time the organs are not viable.\n\nIf someone has wasted away from cancer or some other disease, their organs have likely failed and are not fit for transplant.\n\nSimilarly, geriatrics with old organs have little or no value for transplant. \n\nAnd then there's a large % that just don't like the idea, either for religious reasons or because it just creeps them out. :/",
"I, for example, lived overseas during the whole mad cow scare. I neither donate blood, tissue, nor organs because someone else may get mad cow from my stuff\n\nEdit: downvotes? I legally am not allowed to donate tissue or blood. Does that not answer why not everyone is allowed to donate? Yes, therefore reddit is stupid ",
"Some people have had bad experiences with organ collectors of loved ones.\n\nMany times organs need to be harvested immediately after death to be of any use. Having doctors pestering you to sign a form authorizing them to proceed with harvesting is not exactly what you're interested in doing the moment a family member dies. Plus, they can sometimes seem a little aggressive because of the timeliness required. It can be a bad enough experience for some that they decide they don't want to inflict that same experience on those close to them when they pass.\n\nI've decided to donate my organs after death, but I still believe it's everyone's right to decide for themselves. No one should feel obligated to donate their organs, particularly since there are reasonable concerns about how it might effect doctor care and your family's experience as your death nears.",
"If we're being honest here.... Some people, when presented with the decision, can't wrap their head around the fact that they will be dead, and no longer with their body... and can't get past the natural repulsion to the idea of someone cutting out their insides. It sounds ridiculous, but I see it a lot in conversations about being an organ doner.",
"Not everyone has an organ. I had an upright piano once, but there didn't seem to be much interest in receiving it as a donation.....",
"Probably not a significant reason, but some people worry about being in a database and being targeted (someone kills you to get your organs). [Here](_URL_1_) is the Wiki on organ trade. They did an organ harvesting side-plot in [Nip/Tuck](_URL_0_)",
"I wish they were...unfortunately there is a myriad of reasons why people cannot donate. This is what happened to us:\n\nI have an autoimmune disorder that causes me to miscarry when I'm pregnant. After I was diagnosed, I was treated with baby aspirin and heparin to prevent blood clotting and protect my pregnancy. The treatment is pretty basic but also has its problems such as placental abruption, maternal fetal hemmorhage amongst them. I experienced a placental abruption with our first daughter and she and I both nearly bled to death. During my subsequent pregnancy my doctor put me on a new form of injected blood thinner and I found out I was pregnant with twins. One of the warnings on the medication was that it could cause congenital heart defects and when I broached the subject with my doctor, was assured that the drug manufacturers only put the warning on the package because there had been a couple of heart defects in the human trials but they were on par with regular statistics and couldn't be proven they happened because of the medication.\n\nAt twenty weeks we found out we were having a boy and a girl and that our boy had a serious congenital heart defect. We were told to move to the city that had a Children's Hospital and neonatal centre to prepare for their births and that our son would need open heart surgery after his birth. \n\nMy son had surgery three days after his birth and when the doctors tried to restart his heart, the muscle was too bruised and swollen to beat properly and he was placed on life support to let his heart heal a bit before they tried to restart it. Three days in, due to the heparin in the machines to prevent clotting, he suffered a catastrophic brain bleed and we were told he wouldn't survive. I was devastated beyond words and asked if we could donate his organs. There were three reasons why we couldn't. \n\n1. His chest was left open after his surgery because of the swelling and therefore exposed him to infection.\n\n2. The blood thinners in his system.\n\n3. The size of his organs. Apparently baby organs aren't in high demand and while they possibly could have used his corneas, they were too small. \n\nAs a mother about to lose my only son, the fact that his organs couldn't live on in another child and possibly save their life was disappointing. Unfortunately, organ donation isn't as easy as you'd think it would be, and the restrictions used to filter out blood donations are tighter with organs. I would have given him my own heart if it meant he would live but besides it being too big, you can't donate your own organs if it means you'll lose your life in the process.\n",
" > Lots of people are dying unnecessarily all the time, but also a lot of people are dying normally.\n\nThe 'normal' way of dying is to live enough to wear out your organs, then go to sleep while watching reruns of the Andy Griffith show and not wake up. The organs of people who died the normal way are not suitable for use in transplantation, whether they signed up or not.",
"Most people who wind up being actual donors are declared brain dead due to head trauma accidents. But even though you are officially brain dead, you are still breathing and your heart is still pumping. Brain dead donors who do not receive anesthesia during an organ harvest react to the operation with increased blood pressure and heart rates. Doctors say these are simply reflexes, but some people think these donors might actually be feeling great pain during the process. This is very much a minority opinion though.",
"Personally, I watched someone's presentation about the dark side of organ donation in one of my college classes. Spooked the hell out of me. And it wasn't just some conspiracy theorist, either; it was a solid, well-argued and well-sourced presentation in an honors class.",
"For some it's a fear that, if doctors know you're a donor, they won't do all they can to save you. Not saying this is actually true in practice but it's an anti-organ donation argument I've heard others make before.",
"When I was 16 and signing up for my drivers license, my mom told me to put no because she didn't want someone else having control over my body if I died. I just haven't gotten around to changing it yet. So there's my reason."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation#Opt-in_versus_opt-out"
],
[],
[
"http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/02/19/why-are-so-many-toddlers-taking-psychiatric-drugs/",
"http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-indictment-doctor-lawyer-massive-medical-fraud-20150915-story.html",
"http://abcnews.go.com/Health/whistle-blower-helped-expose-michigan-cancer-doctor-mistreated/story?id=32369291",
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/anesthesiologist-trashes-sedated-patient-jury-orders-her-to-pay-500000/2015/06/23/cae05c00-18f3-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html",
"http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals",
"http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHK_fUggaHI",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_trade"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
218tgn | with our admirable degree of scientific progression and myriad studies on the subject, how is it possible we haven't come to a conclusive decision about what is the healthiest method of eating: vegan, vegetarian, or a highly carnivorous diet? | Through logical premises and reasonable inference we should be able to agree on the best things to eat
Edit: I thank /u/randomjerk123 and /u/AintNoFortunateSon have adequately answered this so I'm going to Mark Explained. I'm not 100% confident on nutrition/long term effects/best diet, but have a much better understanding. Thanks all | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/218tgn/eli5_with_our_admirable_degree_of_scientific/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgap4gb",
"cgap60c",
"cgapgr6",
"cgaq2d3",
"cgareib",
"cgauhzd",
"cgaxop9"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3,
28,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This implies that the dietary needs of all people are identical, disregarding their body makeup, ancestry, and activity level. That seem unwarranted.",
"There isn't a \"best\" thing to eat because there isn't a \"best\" way to live. Certain diets are better for certain objectives. Depending on your objectives you'll have different ideal diets. Also, depending on your body you'll have somewhat different needs. Since there isn't a consistent best way to be, there isn't an obvious best way of getting there. If you look in certain groups though you'll see that there is some progress, for example you're not going to be very successful at being a weightlifter if you don't have plenty of protein, but you can be perfectly healthy with less if you have other objectives. But neither is \"best\".\n\nThis completely ignores the **other** reasons people choose to eat things, such as cultural implications, or moral beliefs, or even just feeling. If I find it morally objectionable to eat factory-farmed chicken, is it really \"best\" for me to eat that even if it happens to have better nutritional value? \n\nThis all really boils down to one point though. There isn't really a \"best way\", there is a \"best way to achieve a specific goal\". If your goal is reducing harm to animals, than vegan might be the best way to do that. If your goal is growing muscles as efficiently as possible while spending as little money as possible, vegan is probably not the best way to do that.",
"because medical science is hard to do, especially under ethical constraints. \"Logical premises and reasonable inference\" wont get you very far in the absence of controlled experimentation and accurate observation.",
"The human body is complex. Like, really really *really* complex. More complex than you could possibly imagine. Combine that with the fact that everyone has different genes, and suddenly you have an incredibly complex machine you're trying to study, but also the realization that every single machine is different (and sometimes wildly so). \n\nNow, knowing all of that, try to perform a nutritional study considering real-world ethical and practical constraints. You can't force everyone to eat the exact same thing all the time because people will refuse to eat the exact same thing all the time, at least not on a long enough timeline for a study to gather relevant data (which can often be decades for stuff like cancer incidence). You can't even be sure that they're eating what they say they are, and reporting everything that they're eating, since you would have to keep them under monitoring 24/7 which is usually impractical. And even if you could monitor all your patients constantly, and be sure that they're eating exactly what they say, and they're all eating the exact same thing all the time, you still have to try and control for an infinite number of known (and unknown) environmental factors. Some people may be smokers. Some may live near the ocean. Some will live in dense cities. Some may exercise daily. Some will have very high stress jobs. Etc...\n\nHeck, even in laboratory conditions, using genetically identical mice fed the exact same diet constantly, we sometimes don't get the same results.\n\nThis is one reason why [Meta-analysis studies](_URL_0_) are popular in nutrition science.",
"I asked my mother this question, she's got a PhD in human physiology and is a professor of nutrition. Her answer is thus, it's not the food that matters it's the nutrition. Your body doesn't care where that nutrition comes from so long as it comes. Fats, proteins, carbohydrates, vitamines, minerals and essential aminoacids are what the body needs to survive wheather they come from plants, animals, or synthesized in a lab, it makes NO difference. In otherwords, your body is food agnostic so long as it gets the nutrition it requires. ",
"Imo, humans are omnivores and should act as such.",
"Because there isn't a one-size-fits-all diet that would be healthiest for everyone."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
34e2qn | united kingdoms political system. england, scotland, wales, n. ireland: who has political power over who? | I am clueless. It is my understanding they are all seperate countries but have one political system? Do England have power of Scotland and vice versa...? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34e2qn/eli5_united_kingdoms_political_system_england/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqtqv42",
"cqtr0jg",
"cqtr89q"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They're not separate countries exactly. The entire UK is one sovereign state, with a parliament for the entire thing. It's the UK as a whole which the rest of the world deals with (in terms of politics). For example the UK as a whole is a member of the UN.\n\nEvery UK citizen living in the UK gets a more or less equal vote for the UK Parliament. However, over 80% of the UK population lives in England.\n\nScotland, Northern Ireland and Wales also have their own governments. The UK parliament has \"devolved\" certain powers to them, but remains the ultimate authority over the entire UK. These governments are fairly new, they have existed less than 20 years.\n\nThe exact powers each of these has is different in each case. The Scottish government has considerably more powers than the Welsh one.\n\nEngland does not have a separate government. It's ruled directly by the UK government.",
"In addition to what's been said already should also be noted that Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs vote in the House of Commons on issues that affect England, even when it won't effect their own country because it's something that will be dealt with by their devolved authority. So, far from England having power over Scotland, it could be argued that Scottish MPs have power over England in a way that English MPs don't over Scotland.\n\nThis is known as The West Lothian Question\n\n_URL_0_",
"Whether or not they are seperate countries depends on your definition of country. Basically, people inside the UK tend to say they are separate countries, but one nation. Few people outside the UK make those distinctions, and consider them all one country.\n\nAs far as who has power, all of the \"countries\" have representation in Parliament. England has over 80% of the entire population of the UK, so it has the lion's share of the seats and, therefore, the most power."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question"
],
[]
]
|
|
ctiwd6 | why do spinning objects seem like they suddenly 'slow down' as they accelerate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ctiwd6/eli5_why_do_spinning_objects_seem_like_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"exl1wbk"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It’s an optical illusion. \n\nYour brain can only process images so fast. At certain speeds, the objects can appears to rotate more slowly (or even backwards!)\n\nEDIT: Sorry, forgot to explain. \n\nLet’s say your brain can process one image a second (really slow, but it’ll get the point across). If the tire is spinning to it goes one rotation a second, your brain will see the tire like it’s not moving. After one second, the tire is in the same spot as it was the last second. So it looks like it’s not moving. \n\nIf the tire was spinning just a little faster, after one second, the tire just rotated a little bit further. And then another second, another little bit.\n\nSo right around 1 revolution per second, the tire starts doing those crazy things like looking like it’s turning slowly or turning backwards. It also occurs right around 2 revolutions per second, 3 revolutions per second, and so on.\n\nNow in reality, your brain processes it a lot faster (1/24 of a second, I think, but I don’t remember right now.) The underlying mechanism is still the same, though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3zadzv | why does all dog food taste horrible? | I consider myself a connoisseur but no matter what dog food I try it just tastes awful. I mean it says "real chicken and beef in gravy" but tastes like a turd and mud mix. Why is it not so simple? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zadzv/eli5_why_does_all_dog_food_taste_horrible/ | {
"a_id": [
"cykguba",
"cykhmm9",
"cykht48",
"cykofnc",
"cykpb6p",
"cykqkc5",
"cylidml"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
29,
4,
18,
27,
2
],
"text": [
"Most pets don't worry all too much about taste. Pet food just adds all the nutrients and enough to keep the pet healthy.",
"Seasoning. Dog food is mostly bland, but add some salt and suddenly, it tastes like beef stew!!",
"Dogs love the taste of fat, and dry dog food is usually sprayed with a 'flavor enhancing' coating of fat that dogs apparently enjoy. To people, the only flavor it enhances is that of rancid fat.\n\nAlso, check the ingredients. Meats not suitable for human consumption are used as pet food ingredients, and that 'cellulose fiber'? It's sawdust.",
"it is real chicken and beef, just the lowest quality of it, also its not seasoned like you would have at home with peppers, salt, seasoning etc, also dogs love the taste of fat, so its usualy a lot of fat that we usualy dont consume and it goes to dog food.",
"OP, this isnt the right sub. I cross posted this for you in r/ELImdog and r/askdogs. \n\nSo far the consensus seems to be \"woof woof.\" Take that for what you will. ",
"I think the more important question is why do you keep sampling it?",
"Have you ever tried cat food? It honestly tastes much better than dog food. I encourage you to check it out, particularly the Friskies brand Gravy Sensations."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3ayqpg | you walk up to a working class person in one of the earth's poorest countries (e.g. ethiopia, cambodia, pakistan, etc) and give them $5,000 cash. how much can they buy with this money? | a | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ayqpg/eli5_you_walk_up_to_a_working_class_person_in_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"csh6dfk",
"csh7gzg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Couldn't find it for the first two, but in Pakistan, minimum wage is 13,000 rupees/month. $5,000 USD is ~510,000 Pakistani rupees (39 months worth of minimum wage). So, that would be like giving an American who works full time for $7.25/hr (~$1,257/mo before tax) $50,000, so a good amount, especially because it's tax free.",
"It is hard to make a direct comparison.\n\nA typical person living on $2/day might be a subsistence farmer growing barely enough to feed their family. That income represents what they can make selling the occasional surplus. But since they are feeding themselves for \"free\", living on $2/day isn't very different than $0/day. If they wanted to continued to live in abject poverty and toil dawn till dusk, that $5000 would indeed last them years.\n\nHowever, if they wanted to improve their lifestyle, live somewhere nicer and pay for their food, it would not last nearly as long.\n\nAlso, be aware that kind of poverty is caused largely by corruption and political instability. An enterprising farm might want to take that money and invest it in more land, livestock, and better equipment. However, they might be loathe to do so if they new found prosperity would attract the attention of someone who can take it away."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.