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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ffit1e | why does smoking give you a dry mouth? or is it just a sensation? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ffit1e/eli5_why_does_smoking_give_you_a_dry_mouth_or_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjyr5bx"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"When you smoke, you coat your mouth and airways with a layer of tar and other combustion byproducts. Tar is hydrophobic, meaning it doesn't dissolve in your water based saliva, so the layer stays in your mouth for quite a while. It's like a thin layer of viscous wax, and it makes your mouth feel dry."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
a4e7ph | why can you sometimes feel cold drinks in your lungs or going down to your stomach when you drink an ice cold beverage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a4e7ph/eli5_why_can_you_sometimes_feel_cold_drinks_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebdpcmb",
"ebdv89c",
"ebe62ka"
],
"score": [
6,
37,
6
],
"text": [
"Same as why you feel hot or cold from the external environment. If you have a hot drink and let it sit there it will eventually match the surrounding temperature. What's happening is the drink is cooling the body for a sec but because we are the external environment for that liquid and maintain a curtain temperature we raise the temperature of the fluid. ",
"Because it's cold and your body feels temperature?",
"Also I want to ask. Why do drinks sometime hurt my back going down?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
a8u08w | why can we hear the wind howling when we are turned against it, but can't hear it when our ears point to it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8u08w/eli5_why_can_we_hear_the_wind_howling_when_we_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecdol1q"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Our ears are a bit streamlined and angled. Air flows across them front-to-back fairly smoothly. We can't really hear air when it's flowing smoothly, only when it becomes turbulent."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5f8605 | can someone explain to me who, or what show started this whole "fall finale", "mid season finale" nonsense? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f8605/eli5_can_someone_explain_to_me_who_or_what_show/ | {
"a_id": [
"dai7egk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Using market research, they find that many people are too busy during the holiday season to watch TV. They can't charge advertisers high rates for when people aren't watching as much TV, so they make it so the new programs air when the most amount of people are going to be watching them. That way they can charge a premium price for advertising. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
21mtnk | how come it takes a couple seconds to load an image from the internet, but it takes just a bit longer to load a short video (1000+ frames)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21mtnk/eli5_how_come_it_takes_a_couple_seconds_to_load/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgejzlx",
"cgek3lr",
"cgek4l5",
"cget1q6"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Because it can start to show you the short video before it's finished downloading.\n\nI don't need to know the exact route from Washington DC to LA before I can start driving west. ",
"Compression.\n\nA 1000-frame video isn't just a file packed with 1000 separate images. Because consecutive frames are usually similar to each other, the video file can just store one frame (called a \"key frame\") as a complete image, and then for the each next frame it only needs to store the changes from the previous frame. Because the difference is small, it takes relatively little space. A video can of course have several key frames (for example when two consecutive frames are very different, then the second frame will be a key frame).",
"The initial request takes about the same time, the difference is that the images is done when you see it but the video is just starting. \n\n\n\nThe initial frame of video is like a full image however each additional frame only contains the changes from the last, these are much smaller than the first frame. Every now and then the scean will completely change and a full image will be needed again.",
"this is pretty simple and even applies to HD videos.\n\nconsider a picture of say 3MP. that is 3 million \"pixels\" making up the image.\n\nwhile even a 720p HD video is only 1MP\n\na standard def image of say 640x480 is less than 1/3 of 1 MP\n\nSO right off the bat you have a lot fewer pixels.\n\nnow there is more to it than that. you also have compression.\n\nHow much \"space\" a 1mp picture takes can vary quite a lot.\n\nhere is an example of some random pic from the net\n\n_URL_2_ this is \"low compression\"\n\n_URL_0_ this is \"high compression\"\n\nignore quality as it was a low quality source image but grab both of those and check the \"file size\" one is 4 times the size of the other in disc space even though they are the same pixel size.\n\nwith a still image there is a limit to how much you can compress it before it starts to \"look bad\"\n\nexample\n\n_URL_1_ (note file size 11kb! 1/20th the size of the low compression image)\n\nyou can clearly see the quality loss.\n\nCompression \"throws out\" some of the image data and \"guesses\" what was supposed to be their when you reload it. The more you throw out the worse it looks but the smaller it is.\n\nyou find a \"balance\" between the two.\n\nwith VIDEO the brain can \"fill in\" a lot more and \"tolerate\" a lot more compression without percieved quality loss.\n\nits running at say 30 frames per second so you could really compress each image but make certain parts of it higher quality in one frame but lower quality in the next frame and the codec (the software that decodes what your seeing) and your brain \"fill in\" the gaps and differences that would not work with a \"single frame\"\n\nthis allows you to use much higher \"compression\" per frame resulting in a much smaller file size \"per frame\" than if you displayed an equivalent perceived quality in a single frame image.\n\nHope that helps."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/8kgkAky.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/mDkdJX9.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/4DOm8sf.jpg"
]
]
|
||
1towc1 | why certain factions of israel's leadership believe that settlements are necessary for israeli safety. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1towc1/eli5_why_certain_factions_of_israels_leadership/ | {
"a_id": [
"cea6m7d",
"cea799s"
],
"score": [
2,
13
],
"text": [
"Israel's leadership sees Palestinians as a danger, and settlements push Palestinians away from Israel.\n\nOf course, Palestinians are motivated to be a danger to Israel because Israel keeps pushing them out, but certain factions of Israel really don't care about fact.",
"If you stand in parts of the settlements, known as Judea & Samaria, you can look over Israel completely and see the sea. If the Israelis don't have access to the settlements, then their enemies could easily fire down on the Israeli population. \n\nSo it's a security issue for many. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
6y4kif | why does it feel more comfortable to sleep on a particular side one moment, then less so the next? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y4kif/eli5_why_does_it_feel_more_comfortable_to_sleep/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmko5yj",
"dmkyoad",
"dmkyy8v"
],
"score": [
157,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Pressure. By sleeping on your back, gravity's force, and the stress of your weight, are distributed across a much broader surface, meaning less stress on any individual point. There's also more things absorbing that stress, i.e your spine, muscle tissue. Etc. When sleeping on your side, all the stress is on that particular area, which is much smaller, and more notably there's less assistance being given to your spine. This results in eventual discomfort, and it's worth noting that your nerves still send those signals of distress saying, \"Hey! Too much pressure!\" but since you're asleep, you don't \"feel\" it, meaning the pain is technically still there but you aren't conscious to actively decide to switch to a different position.",
"It might be anecdotal, but I recall reading that:\n\nWhen you're sleeping, your brain sends signals to your body telling you to move to see whether you're asleep or not. It's when you stop responding to these signals that your brain starts doing other things, like dreaming. But, if you're not asleep, those signals to move are interpreted as discomfort.",
"What about sleeping on your stomach? I don't like sleeping on my back and usually fall asleep on my stomach with my arm grabbing my pillow or around my head. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
38e3mm | my state (va) is in the process of possibly running a pipeline through it. why are so many people either for it or against it? | I understand that there is a risk of spills. But assuming things run smoothly, is there a lot to gain from it in terms of areas around it growing? I am talking about new businesses, job creation, that sort of thing. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38e3mm/eli5_my_state_va_is_in_the_process_of_possibly/ | {
"a_id": [
"crubhk2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is a short-term construction benefit to the job market, but no meaningful long term benefit. The risk of spills is a long-term risk, but a low one. Aesthetically pipes aren't much to look at, and having one near your property could hurt property values some. Some people feel that domestic oil production/distribution is important to keeping energy costs low and for foreign policy reasons.\n\nTo me, pipelines are significant investments in the technology of the past. The risks/benefits roughly cancelling each other out I think we're better off investing in renewable energy sources."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8u910t | why are the four parts of the uk defined as countries, but the fifty parts of the us are states within one country? what makes the two different when it comes to unified governing? | I’ve always found it difficult to understand what the difference was between the US and its states (or Canada and its provinces) and the UK and its kingdoms. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are all defined as countries, but make up parts of a larger entity, whereas the US is one country. Do the countries self-govern in worldwide matters, such as war, trade, diplomacy, etc. or do they have to come to a decision as a group? What are some of the major political/government differences between states/provinces in the US/Canada and the countries that make up the United Kingdom? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8u910t/eli5_why_are_the_four_parts_of_the_uk_defined_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1dgtmu",
"e1dgtq8",
"e1dheib",
"e1dhy1r",
"e1dmq9o",
"e1dskwk",
"e1dv0co",
"e1e013f",
"e1e2d5t",
"e1e75o1",
"e1e8sms",
"e1egdcq",
"e1ej4dv",
"e1exe0c",
"e1f23ft",
"e1f7s0y"
],
"score": [
1662,
78,
6,
34,
210,
2,
16,
45,
5,
2,
27,
3,
4,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In theory, US states and Canadian provinces are more independent than UK countries. This is because the US and Canada are federal states (power is shared between central and state/provincial governments) while the UK is a unitary state (all power is vested in the central government).\n\nFor example, the UK government dissolved the Northern Ireland government during the Troubles and ruled directly from London, which is legal under their system of government. Meanwhile, in the US, there is no legal way for the federal government to dissolve a state government. Not sure about Canada, but it’s probably the same.\n\nIn *practice*, however, the Home Countries of the UK (except for England) have a lot of power devolved to them by Parliament and they function much like American states or Canadian provinces. They’re called “countries” for historical reasons, it has nothing to do with how independent they are.",
"It's like the fact that the distinction between mountains and hills, or continents and islands are fuzzy. The use of the term \"country\" is inconsistent. While there are trends (e.g. countries are often sovereign entities), there isn't a larger, 100% consistent pattern for you to find (e.g. the countries that make the UK are not sovereign).\n\nIn fact, the UK itself is sometimes described as a country, even though it is comprised of countries. Likewise, Aruba can be considered a 'country' that is part of the Netherlands, and Greenland can be considered a country that is a component of Denmark, among others.\n\nBeyond that, they have vastly different government structuring. They can have low autonomy, or be almost entirely self-governing. \n\n\nIn short, Country is just a word we use to refer, generally, to a pretty distinct region. It often corresponds to sovereign nations, but doesn't, by itself, tell you much about governance. \n\nAlso, just to make it really confusing, we also refer to sovereign entities, and government, as *states.*\n\n",
"What name you use for part of a county and how it is governed in principle not connected globally. It might be differ in a county but you cant just compare between countries.\n\n\nSo what name is used depend on history in large part.\n\nScotland and England was independent kingdoms with there own parlament before 1707. So there was counties before the act of union and the usage _URL_0_ the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed. Later in Acts of Union 1800 Ireland that was a country with its own parlament but had the sam king was merged and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed.\n\nSo they are a relative late union of multiple countries that was more independent before that and so the term county stuck.\n\nWales is a bit more complex as it was back in 1535 and 1542 it become was annexed by England. They did not have a independent parlament but was sometimes described as a county back then. \n\n\n\nIt is not uncommon that kingdoms have multiple countries in them. the Kingdom of Denmark is make up three countries Greenland , Faroe Islands and Denmark. Kingdom of the Netherlands is made up of Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.\n",
"\"Country\" is just a word with a vague meaning.\n\nDespite being called \"countries\", the parts of the UK are not comparable to an independent country like the USA.\n\nUsually the word \"country\" means a sovereign state. Basically, a country which is a member of the UN (or at least could theoretically join).\n\nThe UK as a whole is one of those.\n\nBut the UK is made up of constituent parts, like how the USA is made of states and Canada is made of provinces. The UK informally decided to call those parts \"countries\". I say informally, because the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution which defines them as countries. It's just the word that is commonly used to describe them.\n\nThe way the UK works is very different from the USA though. The only similarity really is that it's made up of distinct parts which have at least some different laws.\n\nAll the countries of the UK except England have their own government. Exactly what those governments are responsible for is different in every case. And in theory, the UK government can overrule them.\n\nIn practice, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are like semi-autonomous regions of the UK. While England is the non-autonomous part (and also has over 80% of the population).",
"The idea that \"states\" are lesser political units than \"countries\" is actually are relatively recent development. Any government can be thought of as a \"state\". When the \"United States\" was formed, it was originally formed to be exactly that: a union of independent states. In this sense, the 13 states were basically their own \"countries\" just united together under a common goal/ideal.\n\nWhen that didn't work out, they had to develop a stronger, central Federal government to fix some of the flaws. In doing so, those states had to give up some of their independence and autonomy but it was still believed that States had ultimate authority within their own borders and that the Federal government's power only really came to things that involved the country as a whole.\n\nThen the civil war happened, which basically solidified the Federal government's supremacy over the States. Over time, the Federal government has grown and accumulated more and more power at the expense of the States' autonomy and sovereignty.",
"So actually there's one small sense in which American government is a little more like British law and Canadian law is a little different:\n\nIn the US and UK, both the nation and its component states/countries have their own books of criminal law, whereas in Canada, criminal law is purely federal.",
"The UK is a union of 4 separate countries(3 kingdoms and a principality). \n\nEdit: Correctly I should say \"Wales\" not wales here, (wales are something else), that wasn't deliberate, my phone recognised both. But since it's really making some Welsh nationalists angry I'm going to leave it as is. My post isn't a legal document, if you can't learn to cope with typo's and misspellings on reddit comments you deserve to be angry. \n\nEngland and wales were separate countries (England a kingdom, wales a principality), England conquered wales in the 1200s and made it part of the kingdom of England, in the 1540s. From that point on wales was never considered a separate legal entity. \n\nIn 1542 the Parliament of Ireland made the King of England (and wales) king of Ireland too, but with a a separate government in Ireland. \n\nIn 1606 the King of Scotland inherited the Crown of England, the two countries had one monarch but two separate parliaments and governments until 1707. (this is the same as the UK and Canada and Australia and new Zealand and others today. One monarch but separate countries). In 1707 the parliaments of Scotland and England merged and the UK came into being. \n\nIn 1800 the Irish and UK Parliaments dissolved and merged into the UK with Ireland. In the 1910s and 1920s southern Ireland got back its own Parliament.\n\nThe distinction is largely historical then, the UK is a union of what were countries. The modern devolved parliaments of Scotland and northern Ireland and wales are in practice almost like counties in the US or Canada, but there isn't a direct comparison. They have parliaments and budgets like states/provinces, but can have their parliaments and existence revoked in a whim of the federal parliament (officially, in practice that would be a huge mess).\n\nIn Canada and the US we enshrine rights and legal authority of sub national entities in law. For the US in particular states that were admitted after 1776 have their own unique rules of how they were admitted and what they can or cannot do to break into smaller states etc. None of the UK, Canada or the US permit the sub national entities to leave the country without consent of the federal government. \n\nThe modern US states and Canadian Provinces were mostly not full countries. Hawaii, Texas, and Newfoundland and Labrador being the obvious exceptions. Even then, they were never merged as equal countries, they were added in as subnational entities, functionally like they were conquered.\n\nThe first Nations countries in North America never really factored in, they were dissolved upon conquest, if anyone bothered to regard them as contracting powers needing to be dissolved at all. ",
"Wales and Scotland have their own laws and Parliaments. They have certain powers to change UK law. For example persecutions for medicines are free in Wales, I believe England pays somewhere around £10ish.\n\nTheres a lot if examples of such laws, Scotland also had a vote a few years ago to leave the UK, they voted to stay.\n\n",
"None of the US states were really countries before we federated.\n\nMaybe texas, for a minute. But that was over before they became a state.\n\nSo in the US we have states that joined up into a federation, and in the UK you have several kingdoms/countries that were united under a monarchy.",
"Historically England, Scotland and Wales were separate countries so they had their own kings and queens, in 1284 Wales joined England and in 1601 Scotland joined England and Wales then Northern Ireland separated from the republic of Ireland and Joined the Uk in 1922. However the four home countries have separate government especially N.Ireland and Scotland. Also Scotland and N.Ireland wanted to leave the UK but failed however US states can't leave the USA \n\nin simple terms Scotland, Wales N.Ireland and England have been around for a long time and can leave the UK if they want but none of states can leave the USA",
"It's a matter of terminology and the ways words have changed over time. The word country referred to just a geographical region originally, it still gets used occasionally in this sense but over time also became a synonym for a sovereign state. \n\nState is a political entity which is used for a lot of things as well such as a sovereign state which is what the United States, the UK, France, Russia, China, Brazil etc etc all are. The word is also used to describe the sub divisions of the United States, obviously, and I believe (I could be wrong) that this comes from the revolution when the 13 colonies declared their independence as sovereign states under a very loose confederation and the name stuck even when the federal government became a hell of a lot more powerful and the 'states' basically stopped being sovereign.\n\nThere's also the word 'nation' which is unrelated to your question but it also has changed its meaning over time to become yet another synonym for a sovereign state as well as meaning a people.\n\nAs for the constituent countries of the UK; I guess it's a historical thing really and relating to the confusing different meanings of the word 'country'. Like Scotland is the land of Scots obviously, so it's the country where the Scots live in the geographical sense. There was the Kingdom of Scotland which was the state and that merged with the Kingdom of England in 1707, so whilst these two separate sovereign states were unified into one, the Kingdom of Great Britian, with a single government and parliament for both there was still a sense that they were kinda separate owing to their history and differences in culture and dialects etc, so they were seen as separate countries in the sense they were different lands although they were politically unified.\n\nBefore the English/Norman conquests Wales was basically a geographical term as the area was rarely ever unified under a single King, there was a bunch of smaller kingdoms that rose and fell, unified and divided over the centuries but the entire region is and was Wales (or Cymru in Welsh). The Welsh kingdoms were slowly gobbled up by the English and then the Normans over a few centuries and after a while the area was directly annexed into the Kingdom of England, but like with the Scots later on they were still seen as being separate historically, culturally and linguistically, so whilst there was a single political state, the Kingdom of England, the idea of Wales as a separate land and country stuck around.\n\nNorthern Ireland's more complicated involving Norman invasions, settlement by English and Scots, religious conflict etc etc but basically the same kind of thing. Ireland was administered as a separate Kingdom from England (and later Great Britain), in the early 1800s the Kingdom of Ireland was merged into the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, yet like before differences in history, culture, religion, language, and the physical separation by sea meant Ireland still being considered a its own land and country whilst being politically part of the British state. Then of course later, after various uprisings and political stuff, the Republic of Ireland became independent and for various reasons the northern counties remained a part of the UK.\n\nAnyway, all these regions retained their separate identities as their own lands or countries even though they were all under a single political entity known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was a single parliament and government that administered all this but during the 20th century there were various nationalist groups that rose up in Scotland and Wales that wanted independence or autonomy. \n\nIn the late 90s Wales and Scotland got their own political assemblies with various powers given to them (Northern Ireland had its own Parliament before but it was suspended for ages I think and I don't really know much about it so I'm kinda skipping it). So the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament had some control over these old geographical, historical and cultural countries and we call them (along with the Northern Irish which I'm still kinda skipping over because I dont know that much lol), along with England, the constituent countries or home nations (see earlier where the word nation has different meanings). \n\nNorthern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have a degree of autonomy and can self manage some of their own affairs through their political assemblies and can be seen as being somewhat similar to the US States or Canadian provinces, but I don't think they have as much power as the US States, and the central UK Parliament retains a lot more power (note that England doesn't have it's own national/regional assembly).\n\nI probably haven't made much sense here and overcomplicated things but tl;dr is that it's basically just a matter of terminology and various words that have changed meanings over time confusing matters and the pedant in me really dislikes how state, nation and country all have original different meanings but can now all just be used to describe the same thing now! Bah.",
"It's not just the UK with this kind of arrangement.\n\nThe Kingdom of the Netherlands is comprised of the following countries:\n\n* Netherlands\n* Aruba\n* Curaçao\n* Sint Maarten",
"Technically between England and Scotland it's a political union. They have separate laws and tax arrangements. It started as a union of royal households then after Scotland went bankrupt a political union. Wales is a principality and N Ireland is way too complicated ",
"Because they‘re historic nations with their own distinct populations. Scotland is full of the Scottish, who had their own kingdom long before it united with England under James IV (Scotland) and I (England). Wales is full of Welsh, who were the original inhabitants of southern England, but were slowly confined to the mountainous areas of Wales over the generations by the Anglo Saxons.\n\nSo remember, England ain’t Great Britain, nor are all citizens of the United Kingdom English. Neither are Great Britain and the UK the same. And the British Isles aren‘t only Great Britain. ",
"UEFA and FIFA both recognise England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as national teams representing distinct countries but don’t recognise Texas, Massachusetts etc etc. ",
"The term 'state' is, or at least was, synonymous with 'country' and in fact before the American Civil War (after which the federal government exercised a lot more power over the states) the US was referred to as \"These United States\" instead of \"The United States\". In the MOST theoretical sense the US is just a bunch countries brought together by the power of friendship. And by \"friendship\" I mean a constitutional, federal government."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"stuck.So"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
15epd0 | how does a bird know to not sit on its unfertilized eggs? | And what's happening to all these unfertilized eggs in the wild? Do they just rot? I'm haunted by nightmares of a lonely hen sitting on eggs that will never hatch. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15epd0/eli5_how_does_a_bird_know_to_not_sit_on_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7m0az9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" They don't...They will sit on plastic eggs. The hen eventually gives up and deserts the nest and will try again...Yeah,the eggs rot if something like a squirrel, or another bird does not eat them before they go bad.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.theeggshop.com/"
]
]
|
|
dxeudb | how trading in a car works when you're still paying it off | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dxeudb/eli5_how_trading_in_a_car_works_when_youre_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7pf9y9",
"f7pgfd8",
"f7pixls",
"f7pj7k1",
"f7pox4q"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They will give you trade in value for it. If it's more than you owe the money will go towards your new vehicle. If they give you less than you owe they will roll the balance into your new car loan. Example: you owe 10,000 on your car but they will give you 8,000 so if you buy a car for 15,000 your loan will be for 17,000",
"I work at a dealership as a car salesman. It's pretty easy to trade in your car that you still owe. Basically what will happen is the dealer will appraise your to see what its worth and give you an offer. If you owe less then what they offer you are in a position of positive equatity. For example, the dealer offers $10,000 but you owe $5,000. You have $5,000 of positive equatity. You can take that money and run or use it as a down payment for your next car. It can also work backwards. If you owe $10,000 but your car is only worth $5,000 you now have negative equatity. The dealer will take the $5,000 and apply it in your next loan. So instead of financing a $15,000 car loan you would be financing a $20,000 car loan. Typically if you have negative equatity banks will require a down payment. You can look at new cars with rebates to help clear negative equatity. Use Edmunds for seeing what your car is worth. Be sure to shop other dealers that way you can see who is going to give you the better offer.",
"Don’t think of it as a trade. \n\nYou’re selling your old car and, theoretically, you’ll be using the cash from the sale as down payment for the new car. \n\nBut if you owe more on the old loan than the old car is worth, then you have no cash coming to you from the sale, and you’ll have to pay off the rest of the loan with cash in order to sell it. Which will leave you with no profit to use for down payment, so that will have to come out of your pocket too.\n\nNinja edit: a word",
"Hijacking OP a little bit here. \n\nSay I have a vehicle that I owe $10k on. I can sell said vehicle on the secondary market for say $12,500. How do you sell someone a car when you don't have the title in hand? Do you sell it to them, pay off the balance of the loan and then once the bank sends you the title you then send it off to them? Seems like a lot of trust to have in a stranger that you just have potentially thousands of dollars to.",
"I have 30 years experience selling vehicles and I would strongly advise against doing this, unless you are VERY close to the end of your current loan.\n\nHere's how fools operate and dig a big hole for themselves, and unscrupulous dealers are happy to oblige, so be warned.\n\nLet's say someone still owes $5000 on their vehicle but are only receiving $2000 for it. The other $3000 is called 'negative equity' and can be rolled into the next loan depending on your credit or the willingness of the lender (bank) to take you on. Now, when you finance the next car you have a depreciating asset (your car) which is worth less when you drive it away, you have the taxes on top and any other add ons that the dealer sells you, plus the negative equity from your previous loan, so you drive away owing hugely more than the vehicle is worth. Fools do this, again and again, and end up in such a massive hole it is ridiculous. I just saw a deal where a customer will pay over $55,000 on her loan for a used Nissan Sentra. She is buried !\n\nIf you can live with your old car = a way better plan. Wait till it is paid off or almost paid off."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
dew830 | what is negative pressure and how is it used? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dew830/eli5_what_is_negative_pressure_and_how_is_it_used/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2zel9g",
"f2zf7at",
"f2zfvx8"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Pressure below atmospheric pressure or just a negative value when comparing 2 pressures (differential pressure.) One example would be an air draft -air being sucked into a combustion chamber just like in a non turbo/ supercharged car engine",
"Another example is in ventilation systems, for instance at a hospital the operating room will have positive pressure to keep contaminates out, and a quarantine room will have negative pressure to keep them from spreading.",
"Typically, pressure is measured relative to some other pressure, typically atmospheric but doesn't have to be. When pressure goes negative, it means that the pressure your measuring is lower than your reference. \n\nIt's used exactly the same as a positive pressure, it's just in a different direction. It's kinda like saying how is walking to the left used compared to waking to the right. If you have a positive pressure, you're trying to push outwards. With a negative pressure, you're trying to pull it in. \n\nAs an example, an airbrush uses negative pressure. It uses what's called a venturi pump to mix the paint into the air. The venture drops the pressure in a section of the airbrush to below atmospheric pressure (making a negative pressure). There's a hole in the section that's open to the air outside the pump. Because there's negative pressure, air is pulled into the hole bringing paint with it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
m70w5 | colorizing photos, how does it work? besides just photoshop. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m70w5/eli5_colorizing_photos_how_does_it_work_besides/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2ync5l",
"c2ync5l"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Colors are represented in many different ways. The most familiar scheme might be the RGB triple---(many, not all) color can be written as a positive linear combination of R, G, B.\n\n\nAnother way to represent a color is the HSV triple (Hue, Saturation, Value.)\n\n * Hue corresponds to the type of color (red, green, blue, yellow, purple, cyan, etc). Imagine the typical color wheel you see.\n\n * Saturation corresponds to how vibrant the color is. Zero saturation gives a grayscale color, no matter what the hue is.\n\n * Value corresponds to how bright the color is. Zero value corresponds to black.\n\n\nYou begin by converting the RGB values for all pixels to HSV. Once a region is selected to be colorized, you would set all the H values to be consistent (e.g. red.) Since the original image is grayscale, the S values should be zero everywhere. Bring that to some nonzero value, and presto, you have a colorized region. Repeat for all regions.\n\n\nThere's one ingredient that I have not described in full, which is how to select regions correctly and easily. That is when edge-detection comes in, and there are many ways to go about this.",
"Colors are represented in many different ways. The most familiar scheme might be the RGB triple---(many, not all) color can be written as a positive linear combination of R, G, B.\n\n\nAnother way to represent a color is the HSV triple (Hue, Saturation, Value.)\n\n * Hue corresponds to the type of color (red, green, blue, yellow, purple, cyan, etc). Imagine the typical color wheel you see.\n\n * Saturation corresponds to how vibrant the color is. Zero saturation gives a grayscale color, no matter what the hue is.\n\n * Value corresponds to how bright the color is. Zero value corresponds to black.\n\n\nYou begin by converting the RGB values for all pixels to HSV. Once a region is selected to be colorized, you would set all the H values to be consistent (e.g. red.) Since the original image is grayscale, the S values should be zero everywhere. Bring that to some nonzero value, and presto, you have a colorized region. Repeat for all regions.\n\n\nThere's one ingredient that I have not described in full, which is how to select regions correctly and easily. That is when edge-detection comes in, and there are many ways to go about this."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
6oxdex | why do people clean shower heads? are there actually any health hazards? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oxdex/eli5_why_do_people_clean_shower_heads_are_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkkx9jq",
"dkkxov7"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"If for no other reason than the various dissolved minerals and substances in your water will gradually accrete and begin to plug holes or interfere with flow. They can also look powerful ugly. ",
"Usually, you only need to clean the limescale (the build up of sediment/minerals). A descaling solution (commercially available) will fix that. Or putting the showerhead in vinegar.\n\nWith a frequently used shower, health hazards really won't occur (you don't clean your kitchen taps, even though you probably drink from them). Stagnant water *can* cause problems, but it's pretty rare. \n \nLegionella *can* be a problem from showers in hotel rooms that are rarely used. The water needs to be stagnant for legionella to be a problem, so domestic showers will almost never be at risk."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3embah | why do some diet sodas like cream soda, root beer, mountain dew and sprite taste like the non-diet counter parts but diet colas (like coke or pepsi) taste nothing like regular colas? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3embah/eli5_why_do_some_diet_sodas_like_cream_soda_root/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctg9wab",
"ctgb6ac"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"When Diet Coke was formulated its flavor profile was based off Pepsi's. Diet Coke was marketed as a women's drink and therefore it was believed the harsher, sharper taste of Coca Cola would be off-putting.\n\nLater, Coca-Cola came out with Coke Zero, which was designed to more accurately mimic the flavor of classic Coke.\n\nCola marketing comes down to image. Flavour is a distant second. ",
"Sodas with strong flavors like root beer are much easier to make a convincing diet version. Colas like Coke and Pepsi actually have fairly weak flavors, with the sweeteners being a much more significant part of the experience than the other drinks -- so it's far more noticeable when the sweetener is changed. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
auqcvn | why does sales tax always go up but never down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/auqcvn/eli5_why_does_sales_tax_always_go_up_but_never/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh9tb60",
"eh9tiac",
"eh9tjvs"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The check and balance is the voter. If the governor raises it, they may not be governor anymore after that. ",
"Actually, I live near Imperial Beach, CA and their sales tax used to be 8%, but then went down to 7.5%",
"A lot of times if the sales tax is raised for a certain type of project, it's because it's a long-term project that can't just be \"completed\". For instance, if a county raises sales tax to fund improvements to the public transportation system, they can't just shut the tax off after $25,000 because they got enough for their new buses; they also have to continue those taxes in order to pay the new drivers, maintain the buses, etc. \n\nSometimes the tax increases *are* set for a specific duration of time (for instance, 30 years). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3mbq8n | how does human skin graft to things like sofas and beds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mbq8n/eli5_how_does_human_skin_graft_to_things_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvdng76"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Can you clarify the question for us?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1plljl | british badger cull | I keep seeing news on BBC and comments about pro/com badger cull, but I can't seem to make heads or tails of all the drama. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1plljl/eli5_british_badger_cull/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd3lkwa",
"cd4dhnu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bovine Tuberculosis is a serious disease that affects dairy cattle and makes their milk unsafe for humans to drink. Every year in the UK 30,000 dairy cows have to be slaughtered due to contracting Bovine TB, which costs the farming and dairy industry a huge amount of money.\n\nThe bacteria which cause Bovine TB can also be carried by other animals, in particular badgers have been identified as a common reservoir of the illness. Some researchers have therefore suggested that roaming badgers are an important way in which the disease can be spread to a previously-uninfected dairy herd. An alternative position is that the link between badgers and the spread of Bovine TB is unproven.\n\nThe current UK Government however believes that badgers are responsible for spreading the disease, and have therefore arranged for a cull of badgers in some parts of the country. The plan was to kill (by trapping and shooting) 70% of the badgers in the areas in a 10-week period, the idea that this would sufficiently decrease the badger population to make them unlikely future disease vectors. The alternative point of view is that because badgers haven't been conclusively proven as spreading the disease, and also because the effectiveness of culling hasn't been fully demonstrated, all the cull will do is kill a lot of badgers for no real gain.",
"Unlike in movies, curing actual diseases takes decades. Eliminating all possible carriers of a virus can represent a quicker return on investment.\n\nMorally it's pretty out there, lots of wildlife destruction and it won't cure the disease, just limit infection: a 16% decrease is what the UK government are hoping culling badgers and other measures will deliver (although not many disease experts believe this will be achieved)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
33o4yd | why does it seem that every instructional/educational video was made in the early 90's? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33o4yd/eli5_why_does_it_seem_that_every/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqmrr5l",
"cqmshii"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Consider yourself lucky. Back in the early 90's, our instructional videos were all shot in the 70's.",
"That's because in the 90s they decided to retire the films in use from the 50s-70s. \n\nI remember my drivers ed class had simulators with a film driving through 1970s Chicago in a huge ass car past pimps and hoes. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
flshri | how do paleontologists know where to find fossils? | For example, this video: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/flshri/eli5_how_do_paleontologists_know_where_to_find/ | {
"a_id": [
"fl0aja9",
"fl0k0ui",
"fl0th94",
"fl19kls",
"fl19s1t"
],
"score": [
45,
13,
59,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"In the case of the video you sent, they already know that the area has lots of fossils. (You can see multiple on the ground there). \n\nThen they just find the right kind of stone (I don't know what the one in the video is called) and hope to find a fossil inside.",
"The earth is always piling new layers of stuff on top of old layers. If nothing moved around, then you’d have to dig reeeeeally far down to the layers from when those fossilized critters and plants existed. \n\nBut everything moves around! Rivers, mountains, continents—stuff is always shuffling around very slowly, but if you wait a long time, this leads to big changes. Because of this, the really old layers with fossils sometimes get exposed or moved to the surface. If you go to the Grand Canyon, for example, you can see the different layers in the cliff sides. All these layers together are called the “stratigraphic record.”\n\nGeologists and paleontologists learn how to ‘read’ these different layers based on the kind of rocks you typically find in them. They’re also good at figuring out how different kinds of rocks are made and what they look like. Some rocks are made from old lava, others from old mud or sand, and so on. If a dinosaur died a long time ago and its bones became stuck in mud, you just might find these bones in one of those rocks that used to be mud. \n\nIn fact, some rocks are partly made of layers and layers of seashells and shrimp-like things and other critters that died a long time ago on an ocean floor and all clumped together. Some of these are now fossils!\n\nSo, if you want to find a fossil, then go (or dig) to a place where you can get to the layer with fossils, find the kind of rocks made of the right kind of stuff, and just keep breaking rocks until you find fossils.",
"Some rocks are igneous (made in the earth's core). Some rocks are sedimentary (made from stuff on the surface, like sand or mud piling up.)\n\nIgneous rock doesn't preserve fossils, because it originated as crazy hot magma at the center of the earth. There are no animals where igneous rock is made, and if their were, their skeletons would burn up anyway. Granite and Basalt are igneous rocks.\n\nSedimentary rock does preserve fossils, because plants and animals get trapped in the sand or mud, and if conditions are right, they will get preserved. Certain types of sedimentary rock, like shale, limestone, and sandstone, are the best at preserving fossils. Paleontologists look in those rocks first.",
"The short answer is they keep breaking open rocks till one has a fossil and then they only post that video. If you look behind him you would see he has constructed a 16 room mansion from rocks that did not contain fossils",
"Experience and persistence.\n\nNot all rocks will have fossils, so you can eliminate vast areas right off the bat. Once you find the right type of rock (sedimentary rocks, shale is probably the absolute best) you just gotta start cracking rocks.\n\nSome rocks like chalk (calcareous limestone) are pretty much all fossil. Just tons of little shells crushed together to form a rock.\n\nOther rocks like shale are just mud that has been turned into rock. If a dead plant or animal is encased in mud, it stays pretty safe and can fossilize over time.\n\nDepending on where you are, there are amazingly easy places to find fossils probably pretty close to you. And nothing is better than taking a kid out there and breaking open a rock or two and then showing them something that has been hidden for a hundred million years. It will blow their minds"
]
} | []
| [
"https://gfycat.com/forthrightinfantileconure-paleontology-ammonites-charmouth-geologist"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1jsy02 | why is getting rejected by the one we love feel so painful, sometime for even years ? | I have learnt in school that pain is a "sense " and that it is cause the stimulation of nociceptors in our body. But how do we get psychological pain, such as a broken heart without any sensory input from nociceptors? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jsy02/why_is_getting_rejected_by_the_one_we_love_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbi0tkq",
"cbi6l1i"
],
"score": [
20,
8
],
"text": [
"I read this somewhere years ago, and I tried looking for it and couldn't find it. So this is by memory, apologies in advance.\n\nThere is a theory that being \"in love\" is essentially a collapse of ego boundaries between two people. There needs to be a certain level of trust and compatibility between those two people for those ego boundaries to fall.\n\nA stress event happens when one of the parties decides they aren't \"in love\" any longer. One party's ego boundaries have been re-established, while the other's hasn't. The pain we are feeling is a completely natural, almost atavistic event that occurs when we are exposed, trusting, and then find out that the world has changed and we weren't aware of it.\n\nIt is this sudden and rapid change in ego boundaries that causes the stress event to occur. It's kind of funny looking at it from a distance, but the person ending the relationship usually knows this is a stress event as well, but since their ego boundaries snapped back a while ago, they can be oblivious to the ineffectiveness of their own statements. \n\nStatements such as:\n\n- I love you but I'm not *in love* with you.\n- It's not you, it's me.\n- I'm ending this for you.\n\n...do little but make the stress worse. Not only is the person having their notion of trust and how/when to relax their ego boundaries eroded, but they are now being challenged as to whether they can accurately assess another person's intentions.\n\nEdit: Please also read and upvote cuddlesy's answer below which adds some information about the physiological side of this question.\n",
"The others have covered the emotional side, I'll cover the physiological side. \n\nEssentially, the right ventral pre-frontal and dorsal anterior cingulate cortexes - areas that are involved in processing pain, including non-physical feelings like empathy - can, when exposed to higher concentrations of cortisol (the main hormone responsible for the sensation we feel as stress), stimulate the vagus nerve and cause physical pain in the chest, nausea, or other symptoms.\n\nThat's the main hypothesis, at least. \n[Source for chest pains.](_URL_1_)\n\n\nSource for vagus stimulation: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/WhyRejectionHurts(TICS).pdf",
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-chest-pains"
]
]
|
|
9au923 | why did in the past using the phone disconnect you from the internet? how did we get past this problem today? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9au923/eli5_why_did_in_the_past_using_the_phone/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4y58h8",
"e4y58r8",
"e4y5i7n",
"e4yivzu"
],
"score": [
25,
7,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Today we know phones as personal appliances. But before they were, phones were household appliances. A single line for one or more phones in a house to share. \n\nIt was over this phone line that people first started getting on the Internet, using a modem to transfer digital information over the analog line. But only one person can use the line at a time, so if someone else picked up a phone in the house while someone was online, it could easily knock them offline. \n\nWe have gotten around it by no longer using the voice landline as a way to get on the Internet. Most people get on through cable modems, DSL (which goes over the same physical line as a landline phone but on different frequencies so they can both work at once), or cellular connections. Very few people use landline phones and modems today. ",
"In the past most people connected to the internet via a telephone modem. The modem used the same line as the phone, so you couldn't use both at the same time.\n\nMost people now use dedicated internet lines (ADSL, cable, or fiber), but that wasn't very common in the 90s.",
"In the past, the internet was accessed using something called \"dial up internet\" which was exactly what it sounds like. You computer was calling a phone number. Instead of you using a phone to call another person on their phone and talking with your voice, your computer used a modem to call another computer with its modem and talked using a series of tones and beeps.\n\nIt couldn't work at the same time you used your phone to call someone for the same reason you couldn't have someone else in your house make another phone call from the same line. 1 phone line=1 conversation with someone/something else, whether that's a human talking to a human or a computer talking to a computer. Just like how you could pick up a second phone in your house and hear a family member on the phone if they were using it, if someone was on the internet you could pick up the phone and hear the computers talking to each other. That's what those loud hisses and pops and screeching were. \n\nWe got past it by using a different sort of technology to access the internet. DSL, which also uses phone lines but does it in a way that it doesn't occupy the part of the phone that human voice goes over so it doesn't cancel out phone calls, cable internet which uses the same connection as cable TV, satellite internet which uses a dish to talk to a satellite directly, fiber optic internet which uses a completely different sort of connection(cables that carry light) instead of piggybacking off of something you already had like cable or phone, or cellular internet which uses the data connection of cell phone towers. ",
"I feel like everyone here is making this incredibly over complicated.\n\nDial up used the phone line, only one call can be placed at a time"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
65zw94 | why is it nearly impossible to print your own checks? | A check is technically anything with your account and routing numbers on it that authorizes your bank to provide funds to the party cashing it. Why do we still need to pay specialty printers to make checks for us? Would the world crash and burn if MS Word had a check template? Can magnetic ink still really be necessary when I can deposit a check by snapping a pic of it from my phone? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65zw94/eli5_why_is_it_nearly_impossible_to_print_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgei8xw",
"dgejvv7",
"dgelaci",
"dgeo4rq",
"dgeyjb8"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"...you can print your own checks. and it's perfectly legal. \n\nyou can write a check on a napkin using lipstick and it's be legal. ",
"It's a legal instrument, but it might take extra time to clear and might require extra scrutiny to assure the banks involved that it's legit. ",
"I used to write software to print checks. You had to buy MICR toner to make them machine readable, and use a special MICR font, but other than that it wasn't very complicated. However, I imagine the consumer demand for this just isn't very high",
"Many years ago I saw a news story about someone who carved a check into a watermelon and was able to cash it. This may or may not be the same story, but the typewritten text on yellowing paper says that it was a long time ago. _URL_0_\n\nWikipedia says the People Are Funny TV show ran from 1954 to 1960.",
"For the most part, checks are easier to have preprinted than go through the hassle of manufacturing your own check. While a one-off, hastily scribbled note on a napkin *can* be a legitimate instrument of transferring money, there's a lot of verification that has to go into this kind of thing and banks discourage it because it takes an employee's time to process, rather than using a machine to handle it. So the bank is losing some money on the process, which means that they definitely don't want this sort of thing to be a normal procedure. So, preprinted checks. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc333537/m1/1/"
],
[]
]
|
|
3rzdjk | if all of the oxygen in the world suddenly disappeared for 3 seconds, what would happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rzdjk/eli5_if_all_of_the_oxygen_in_the_world_suddenly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwso1mg"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Chemical bonds with oxygen would be broken. All life would die, no exceptions. Water would instantly become pure hydrogen. The instant all oxygen comes back, a great fire would engulf the Earth as thousands of tons of hydrogen and oxygen are burned to become water.\n\nMost metals would weld together by cold welding, though I am not completely certain.\n\nBad stuff pretty much. Earth would probably not be suitable for life for a couple decades, maybe centuries of years, or longer. Though do not quote me on this.\n\n\nEdit: Out of interest, I decided to calculate how much energy would be released if all the hydrogen in the water of Earth burned. I got 1.815 * 10^28 Joules. In comparison, it is believed that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is believed to have impacted the Earth with 4.2 × 10^23 Joules of energy. The amount of energy released from all of the hydrogen burning is about 200,000 times that of the asteroid impact. This is also about 100000000000 times the amount of energy the world's biggest nuclear bomb, the Tsar Bomba, has released. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5kusvs | how is there wind on mars if there's no air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kusvs/eli5how_is_there_wind_on_mars_if_theres_no_air/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbqsjib"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Mars has an atmosphere. It's very thin, and a different composition that ours, but it's there. It blows around just like Earth's air does."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9n3l3v | why is constant economic expansion deemed good? obviously it can’t expand forever, shouldn’t stability be the preferred state? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9n3l3v/eli5_why_is_constant_economic_expansion_deemed/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7jcna8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Why do you say the economy cannot expand forever? An economy is nothing more than a group of people exchanging goods and services (these days through a medium of exchange).\n\nE: The reason I ask is because one of the two folks who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics, Paul Romer, won it withhis work on the Endogenous growth theory. That theory (major layman paraphrasing here) essentially says that the economy can grow by people taking resources and rearranging them to be more valuable, as opposed to simply increasing resource inputs. \n\nIs it right? No one knows, it's a theory. But the idea that there is a hard limit on economic expansion is not one universally held."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6wvxto | how did bullying even become natural to human interaction? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wvxto/eli5_how_did_bullying_even_become_natural_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmb67fe",
"dmb69yf"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Why would it not be natural? Pecking order exists in almost all social mammalian groups. It's a competition and the weak get squashed. They don't get to breed and their genes die out making the next generation stronger.",
"You think that humans got by, all these years of history and pre-history without some people kicking other people's ass and taking charge? They didn't. In fact there is some significant thought that many of these behaviors that we now see as violet or oppressive were actually extremely important in many human societies during our development. Understand that these types of actions have only become a particular societal issue in more recent times, as how humans live and interact now, is a far cry than in the past.\n\ntl;dr: These may have been very important traits throughout history, it may or may not be now, but society as a whole tends to look down upon it as we have changed to a modern world."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
19w32a | what is limiting us from viewing our galaxy, compared to the hubble which has seen so much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19w32a/eli5_what_is_limiting_us_from_viewing_our_galaxy/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8ruur9",
"c8ryyvk"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"\"The atmosphere\" has already been said, but I'm gonna elaborate on *why*.\n\nAs light comes in from space, the air in the atmosphere bounces and jostles it around. That's why the sky is blue, whereas once you get out in space, everything's black except for the things that are emitting/reflecting light like the stars, planets, etc. Light doesn't just travel unimpeded in a straight line from its source to its target, it interacts with and is affected by things that it bumps into.\n\nNot at all coincidentally, the atmosphere is why stars \"twinkle.\" The light from the star is constantly getting bumped and harassed by the air that it has to move through, so it's wobbly and inconsistent.\n\nSo, if we can put a telescope outside of the atmosphere, like what we did with Hubble, we greatly reduce the interference that the atmosphere causes.\n\nIt's not a perfect analogy, but if you think of how water affects light, it's basically the same idea. You can't see nearly as far through water as you can through air, and what you can see is often blurry and hard to make out. The reason is that water, particularly impure water like in a lake or ocean, interferes with light much more than air does. Likewise, the \"vacuum\" of space interferes with light much less than air, so we can see things much better if we put a telescope way up in orbit.",
"Dust and stars from our own galaxy are in the way. It's like trying to view downtown from your house and all you see is other houses and buildings. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
cbqo78 | how do jellyfish mate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cbqo78/eli5_how_do_jellyfish_mate/ | {
"a_id": [
"ethq49m"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"There are many different types of jellyfish, so there isn't necessarily a single answer that applies to all of them. Like pretty much all animals, jellyfish produce sperm and eggs, and in most (but not all) species there are distinct male and female sexes. The sex organs are often pretty easy to see, as in [moon jellyfish](_URL_2_) which have four circular gonads. Many species don't really \"mate\" exactly, but instead just release eggs and sperm into the water where they meet, so fertilization happens externally. They often coordinate this process based on daily cycles so that all jellyfish of the same species do this at the same time ([source](_URL_4_)). However, some species like the aforementioned moon jellyfish do have females take in sperm and fertilize their eggs internally, after which they temporarily hold on to the [fertilized eggs](_URL_1_) before releasing them ([source](_URL_3_)). Finally, a small minority of jellyfish do have something more akin to \"one-on-one\" mating, where males directly transfer sperm to females. One example of this is [box jellyfish](_URL_8_), where the males pass sperm into the female's mouth for fertilization (it's not like they have a uterus or anything), and females then lay strands of embryos mixed with stinging cells for protection ([source](_URL_5_)).\n\nI also want to point out though that in some ways, mating is the *least* interesting part of the life cycles seen in some jellyfish, since it's not really all that different from many species we're more familiar with. Most true jellyfish are also capable of asexual reproduction, and have something called \"[alternation of generations](_URL_7_)\". Essentially, the larva that develops as a result of sexual reproduction settles down on a surface and grows into a polyp. From there, rather than growing up into a single individual as you might expect, the polyp starts reproducing asexually (i.e., by growing and splitting apart). The polyp basically turns into a [chain of attached baby jellyfish](_URL_0_) (all of which are genetically identical) that pop off one at a time in a process called \"strobilation\"; here's a [cool video](_URL_6_) of this in action."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/3c/58/9e3c58ce3e02a9f4a051812a2797fb75.jpg",
"http://www.janvanduinen.nl/Aurelia002.jpg",
"https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/7/aafeature2_album/image002.jpg",
"https://academic.oup.com/plankt/article/18/6/987/1560402",
"https://academic.oup.com/plankt/article-abstract/5/5/619/1460856?redirectedFrom=fulltext",
"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmor.20395?referrer_access_token=xJXNzFQNkh1nTsWMuhvwBE4keas67K9QMdWULTWMo8Mzd7MqkVLRIxkESsohRJB_-hizHRmIUn6HMoNgiCs03FCZEVtfL-VRqH-cyHxYsHut7AD0bP3_8u0wc7e-tdiE1n2z1Vj2rDYinIisDlfuwQ%3D%3D",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcQs3dkrH0A",
"https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=876x10000:format=jpg/path/s37af0fcd02709117/image/i702f1190ebbda9c9/version/1385668005/image.jpg",
"https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA2Ni82NzEvb3JpZ2luYWwvY2FyeWJkZWEtc2l2aWNraXNpLWplbGx5ZmlzaC1tYXRpbmcuanBn"
]
]
|
||
bhsg50 | why some areas rarely have thunders, while others have several in the year. | I grew up on the Balkans where there were often thunders. 2 times out of 3 if it rains - it thunders. Now I live in Berlin, and I've only witnessed three thunderous rains in 4 years. Tonight is the third time. I don't get it. ELI5 please. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhsg50/eli5_why_some_areas_rarely_have_thunders_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"elvelfr"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"To form thunderstorms you need conditions where a big mass of warm, wet air at low altitude can very quickly rise up to high altitude. Usually this happens in areas where a low, warm, and wet air current meets a high, cold, and dry one. The two masses of air basically trade places and cause the massive updrafts that form huge thunder clouds."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
a6md7z | why are things water resistant only up to a certain depth for a certain amount of time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6md7z/eli5_why_are_things_water_resistant_only_up_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebw4lmb",
"ebw4oyh",
"ebwax06"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The deeper it goes, the higher the pressure. They can only withstand so much before failure. ",
"Devices are like people. Hold your breath and dive 3 meters. If you have no defects, you'll be able to come back up and function just fine. Now do it 5 meters. A little harder, but you should still be fine. Now 10 meters. Wow, it's suddenly harder! There's pressure and less air. You may be able to do it and come back up fine.. How about 50 meters? That's at the upper limits of what a someone in peak physical form can do in one lungful of air.\n\nWell, same for devices. A new device can stand the pressure of 50 meters. An older device... maybe not.",
"Those devices contain a rubber seal called a gasket that sits in the tiny gap between the two halves of the device casing. The rubber seal can only withstand so much pressure before it fails and water can get inside."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3ky0xe | why is newly appointed labour leader, jeremy corbyn so unpopular with his own party? | Why is he being criticised by his own peers past and present? Clearly he was a popular choice hence being appointed, but he's received such negative press.
Why is he being criticised for being left wing?? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ky0xe/eli5_why_is_newly_appointed_labour_leader_jeremy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv1g65f",
"cv1gghd",
"cv1v5sv"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that the current system to elect the leader allows anyone to vote who has paid dues. This is, apparently, a relatively recent development. \n\nCorbyn and his supporters supposedly used this system to flood the voting ranks with Corbyn supporters. Of course, if you are left leaning, this is a good thing and reflects a leftward move for the party. But many prominent members of Labour are more centrist, and don't think that his election to leadership will actually help the party's chances in the future. \n",
"In recent times both the Labour (traditionally left) and Tories (traditionally right) have taken a more central position. For Labour this all really started with Blair and \"New Labour\".\n\nCorbyn is on the far left, he's a socialist. Those who don't like him think he is too left wing - even calling him a radical and claim he will take them back to the 70s / 80s (which were a bad time for the party). \n\nAnyone could join the Labour party and vote for him as leader - you pay £3 to join the party and you could then vote on who became leader. Some claim that a large number of people joined after the General Election up until now just to vote. Some people even say that lots of Tory supporters joined and then voted for Corbyn as he'd do the most damage to the party, leaving the Tories in power for some time. That may be a little far fetched, but who knows.\n\n",
"because the last time there was a labour party that was as left wing as him, they were a mess and the conservatives dominated for that time, before Blair formed the new labour movement, the party was left wing and unelectable. A lot of labour supporters are worried that will repeat itself again, and that people will either remember the Labour party then and not want them back, or they will just be unelectable. \n\nHe's unpopular with large parts of his own party, he got onto the ballot late and was seem as a huge outsider and was there to make up numbers and raise issues, as opposed to being any threat. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3dtxp5 | why is there so many procedures / paper work when adopting a child but almost none when it comes to giving birth/purposely making one? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dtxp5/eli5_why_is_there_so_many_procedures_paper_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct8labi",
"ct8lafd",
"ct8lbua"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the children that are available for adoption likely have some special requirement or need, and are therefore more vulnerable. This requires more thorough investigation to ensure that kids don't have more disruption than they have already had.",
"Having a child is considered a right by many people, but adopting is not.\n\nIn any way, there is no reasonable way we can limit people naturally having a child via procedures and paper work. Who gets to decide who gets to have a child? What standards are set? How do you make sure people stick to the rules? You cannot put people on birth control without their consent. You cannot just take away a baby without reason. \n\nWith adoption, there is already a fairly limited amount of children up for adoption in the USA and many of these children do have special needs (either due to physical or mental disabilities or due to things they have been through). There is a good reason adoption agencies want to make sure that these already living children's rights to a good life are put above the desire of some random person to have a kid. ",
"For adopting you can be picky on the parents you get, when giving birth you can't except for taking parent's children away instantly and I don't think that many parents would be okay with that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2lni0k | how did countries deal with refugees during world war 2 yet they can't seem to cope with refugees in current times. | During world war 2 battles were fought across the world meaning there would have been refugees. There were great migration periods but they weren't seen as refugees and many countries accepted them with open arms. In current times countries are hesitant or outright refusing to take refugees into their country even when the group size is so much less than the number of refugees in world war 2. What has happened to cause this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lni0k/eli5how_did_countries_deal_with_refugees_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"clwurrz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"After World War 2, most refugees just went back to their home country. Some others didn't want to go back because the new government of their country was a dictatorship. Those actually had great difficulties going back. In 1948, there still were 850 000 people with nowhere to go.\n\nOne thing that helped other countries welcome them was that there was a massive labour shortage. Workers who had died as soldiers needed to be replaced, so some countries did welcome foreign refugees to man their factories and mines, but this took years and the relocalisation was still going on in the early 1950's.\nMoreover, the Cold War was starting, and Western countries prefered that people from Central and Eastern Europe come and work for their economies rather than for the Soviets'.\n\nNowadays, refugees have a hard time finding a home because there is global unemployment rather than labour shortage. Most governments try to limit economic immigration. People who want to move to a richer country to have a better standard of life sometimes try to pass for refugees. It makes governments suspicious of refugees in general: refugees have to prove that they'd really be persecuted in their home country and that they aren't just migrating to get a job."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5ngms2 | how does a surface-to-air missile (sam) distinguish hostile aircrafts from friendly aircrafts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ngms2/eli5_how_does_a_surfacetoair_missile_sam/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcbc94z",
"dcbdn1m"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The typical SAM can't tell the difference between friendlies and hostiles. For systems where the SAM is guided from the ground, it's up to the operator to make that call.",
"Aircraft carry a transmitter called an IFF (interrogator friend or foe) transponder. It can transmit a code that identifies an aircraft as friendly. However, that isn't exactly the answer, be a use the missile doesn't read the IFF code. The shooter would be responsible for identifying the target, not the missile itself."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3v853v | statue of limitations | More specifically how is it justifiable, that one year a person can be guilty of a crime but the following year not be guilty? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v853v/eli5_statue_of_limitations/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxl6c5o",
"cxl6i98",
"cxldcqo"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a compromise. If I can say you mugged me 30 years ago, and you can't prove where you were on a random night 30 years ago, no prosecutor wants to try that case. The legislature brings some consistency to situations like this by imposing a statute of limitations of let's say 7 years on mugging. Otherwise cases are venue shopped, one judge will take 10 year cases and another only 5 year old ones. Inconsistency provides lots of schemes for avoiding justice, so there is artificial consistency instead.",
"It's a statu**t**e of limitations. There's a funny joke in The Good Guys about someone making that mistake. But throwing that \"t\" in there makes all the difference.\n\nThere are a number of reasons:\n\nIf the government wants to charge you with a crime, or you have some dispute, then you should promptly address that. If you wait then it's a fishy sign. It's a sign that you're being disingenuous, that you aren't using the lawsuit for the stated purpose but for something else (e.g., revenge for something else). That's not what justice is supposed to be about.\n\nMemories and evidence deteriorates. Stuff gets lost, contaminated, reused, people forget, all that stuff gets worse with time. That makes it harder to figure out the truth. Specifically, it makes it harder to defend yourself if no one remembers what happened for sure and all the evidence is gone.\n\nInsurance companies don't want to be on the hook for everything that you ever did. They can better figure out how much to charge you if they know that they'll only be on the hook for stuff that happened within the last 2 years (or whatever the relevant time is). This encourages you to afford insurance, you to be insured, you to make money, the insurance company to offer insurance and make money, and for people that are wronged to get compensation. It's a good policy goal.\n\nIt also helps add to deterrence and punishment. If someone acts impulsively, knowing that they may or may not face consequences in 10 years, then they're probably going to make shitty impulsive choices. If the punishment is swift then they're more likely to follow the rules.\n\nFinally, if you use the search function then you'll find that this has been asked and answered a number of times.",
"In addition to the smart stuff said elsewhere in this thread, which at the time of this writing all looks right to me, the law favors repose. That means that the law doesn't like stuff hanging around unresolved for a long time.\n\nThe desire for repose drives other legal doctrine also. For example, one generally cannot introduce new evidence on appeal for a conviction. It may seem unfair, especially in cases in which the evidence seems to exonerate the convicted party, but the system is set up to present the evidence once, evaluate it, make a decision, and move on.\n\nYou can also see the hand of repose in the doctrine against double jeopardy, although basic fairness is a larger factor there. Collateral estoppel and res judicata are similar doctrines that operate on civil, as opposed to criminal, law. The basic idea in all three is that somebody raised a question, we got an answer that we hope is good but maybe it's not but that's too bad, and now we're living with that decision as a settled matter."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
ensk8k | how do parking enforcement officers know that you parked past the 2 hour limit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ensk8k/eli5_how_do_parking_enforcement_officers_know/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe4ihdk",
"fe5gy37"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"The old-fashioned way is for an officer to go around every hour and put a chalk mark on each car's tire. Then, if she sees a car with two chalk lines, she knows it's been there for at least two hours, and writes a parking ticket.",
"Ehh.. so you don't have these \"parking cards\"?\n\nIn the Netherlands, you put a care behing you windshield stating the time you have parked. Whenever that time is more then 2 hours ago you get a ticket. \n\nAnd yes, you can go back after 1 hour and 59 minutes to turn the time forward 2 hours again.\n\nProblem solved?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4564tx | is it actually possible to knock someone out with a chop to the neck, like in the movies? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4564tx/eli5_is_it_actually_possible_to_knock_someone_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"czvhlc9",
"czvhw0n",
"czvif4u",
"czvjs0s",
"czvnaa1",
"czvo00u"
],
"score": [
38,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Actually, yes. The arteries going up to your brain have pressure sensing bodies in them; hit these just right and your body thinks the pressure is way too high, panics briefly, and drops the pressure going in. This means your brain doesn't get enough oxygen and you can get knocked out for a few seconds. I've had it almost happen to me before: I hit hit like that in the neck and I got tunnel vision and would have taken if I hadn't been helped down to the floor. You recover pretty quickly though, it's not like the movies where you just stay down.",
"Kind of. It is possible to cause brownouts or blackouts by hitting someone in the nerves in their neck (brachial plexus origin). However, it's pretty unlikely to work, and most attempts you see in movies would just piss the guy off. ",
"As the others explained, the answer is \"yes\" BUT there is a huge difference. In most movies, the person would blackout for hours and then go about their day. IRL they would pass out for a few seconds and would have trouble gaining composure. Furthermore, being knocked out *could* cause significant brain damage",
"yes assuming you dont break their spine the blow should \"disrupt comms\" between brain and host causing a power save or sleep mode",
"Can confirm. Friend let me try it on him after learning it in a combatives class. We just hit with our wrist rather than a knife hand. Dude went down like a sack of bricks. Beginners luck.",
"How's this bruh?\n_URL_0_ \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJxMvVoPeU"
]
]
|
||
1rcghb | why do some subreddits hide score for a period of time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rcghb/eli5_why_do_some_subreddits_hide_score_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdlstcj",
"cdlsuzf",
"cdlsvey"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"I think one of the reasons is that a lot of people determine if something is good solely based on how many up or downvotes it has. This means a perfectly good post, that just pissed someone off, or someone mistakenly thought was inaccurate, will be ignored and further downvoted based solely on how many downvotes it currently has, and of course vice versa. ",
"It prevents the rapid band-wagoning that occurs on certain posts as people blindly up vote because of other up votes. It puts a stop the positive-feedback system by removing one of the links in the feedback cycle.",
"Y'know how people like to do what everyone else does? Now, it works like that for Reddit too. When someone downvotes you, it makes people think your comment was worse that it would be if they hadn't downvoted it, but of course they don't realise this. It works the same way for upvotes. So, it's basically to prevent bandwagon voting.\n\n**TL;DR People love jumping on the bandwagon.**"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
famrmz | what do the people who go in person to the new york stock exchange actually do? especially with online trading and information everywhere? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/famrmz/eli5_what_do_the_people_who_go_in_person_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fizlc1y",
"fizmx6u",
"fizsn7b",
"fizssm5",
"fizuiaq",
"fizw9l1",
"fizy76k",
"fj035f9",
"fj062cl",
"fj06wjn",
"fj08vua",
"fj0p8me",
"fj1a5ve",
"fj1av7v",
"fj1bvio",
"fj1gw89",
"fj1kiij",
"fj1oh8s",
"fj20u66"
],
"score": [
4006,
1100,
201,
3658,
1432,
4,
24,
2,
2,
14,
3,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Extremely large trades. Like institutional stuff that requires verbal negotiation and work to secure the nescessary quantities. \n\nYou cant pop onto etrade and buy 50million dollars without moving the price.",
"It's like if the stock exchange was a restaurant, online day trading would be people coming in booking a table for two for a quick lunch. No special concessions required, no additional help.\n\nNow say you want to host a party in that restaurant with potentially hundreds of guests. Well that takes time and active effort. You need everyone involved to agree on when to meet, the details of the party, how it's going to be funded etc.\n\nIt will also have an impact on the restaurant. That many people showing up for a big event will affect the layout of the restaurant, which seats are more desirable, the party may reserve items on the menu so there won't be any left for other people, which will also affect the desirability of other items on the menu. \n\nFor a task this large it very much helps to get an event planner to organise the party and help the restaurant get set up, make sure they get their money and the guests are all happy, and to maybe research any issues this disruption may cause to other customers.\n\nThe stockbroker is basically the event planner. Organising and processing huge trades and calculating the effect this amount of money changing hands will have on other stocks in the space.",
"Imagine you are at an auction. This auction is being televised and people are able to bid on these things at home. Well being there in person allows you to buy items faster instead of calling over a phone and putting your bid in with a debit card. The people in the \"pit\" are there to buy large amounts of stocks for a price at a fast rate. Let's say a stock was worth 500 dollars and all of a sudden dropped to 350 well some people who have that stock might want to sell very fast while others who believe the stock would go back up might want to purchase it. That information doesn't get to the viewers online for a significantly longer period of time. \"we are talking 5 seconds to maybe a minute\" but by then the stock has already been rebought by someone in the pit. Seeing it first hand and getting dibs on it faster. Think of it as a lag component when gaming. Everyone wants the best set up and the least amount of lag. Only the people that are with the big companies that are trading millions get the best setup (get to send someone to the NYSE pit).\n\nI hope this answers your question.",
"I think fundamentally the floors of stock exchanges exist for social reasons. Some have started to close but others like NYSE remain quite active. It is a status symbol to have a seat on the floor of the NYSE even if it's of limited use\n\nIt basically comes down to:\n\nWhy do people still go to the casino if they can play poker on line?\n\nIt's more fun to gamble in person.\n\n\nThere is nothing that happens on the floor these days that doesn't happen a thousand times a day electronically but you can still go make trades with a human being if you want. These trades may involve more elaborate financial instruments than shares of single stock (but you can do that electronically too). Also one actual reason to be on the floor is that it is a forum for discussing investments. Although you get a much larger forum on a Bloomberg Terminal. Still talking to a person face to face is way more efficient than messaging.\n\nEdit: typis\n\nEdit 2:\nA Bloomberg Terminal is a program that ever trader uses. It's a news feed, stock ticker, spreadsheet, messaging app, and trading platform all in one program. It was designed in the 1980s by Mike Bloomberg and it's UI has never been updated, and looks as terrible as it's designer (although there are new front ends you can plug it into). It costs $20,000+ a year and is the reason Bloomberg is a billionaire.",
"Nothing. They could very easily shut that building down tomorrow and nothing would change. \n\nBut companies listing for the first time like to go to a place and ring the bell and CNBC and Bloomberg TV need a backdrop for their reports, so they keep it open.",
"They take orders and buy and sell stock as directed, they're what's called execution traders. \n\nBack in the day, think over 20 years ago, these folks also worked with what's used to be called prop (proprietary) traders along with other execution traders and market makers. The prop traders traded the bank's own money so they could make more money.\n\nThe folks inside the horseshoe thing with monitors all around were market makers. Essentially large banks holding stock to sell. Think of them like the Costco of the stock market.... Where sometimes people buy shit from each other in the parking lot",
"_URL_0_\n\nWhich Is Better? It may seem intuitive or obvious that electronic trading is superior to open outcry. Certainly computers are faster, cheaper, more efficient and less error-prone with routine trades - though the error rate in open outcry trading is surprisingly low. What's more, computers are at least theoretically better for regulators in creating data trails that can be followed when there are suspicions of illegal activity.\n\nThat said, electronic trading is not perfect and open outcry has some unique features. Because of the human element, traders who can \"read\" people may be at an advantage when it comes to picking up non-verbal cues on the motives and intentions of counter-parties. Perhaps analogous to the world of poker, there are some players who thrive as much on reading the players as playing the odds - and electronic trading removes those signals from the equation.\n\nOddly enough, human interaction is also often better for complex trades. Many of the trades that are sent to the floor at the CBOE and other open outcry exchanges are complex or unusually large. Skilled floor brokers can often get better execution (better pricing) by \"working the order\" with other traders - something that electronic systems generally cannot do so well. (Find out some of the lower-risk ways to invest in foreign markets. For more, see Playing It Safe In Foreign Stock Markets)",
"Traditionally Network connectivity could make spilt second difference being in the stock exchange Vs being far away. That was important at one point.\n\nNow it's all AI trading and nanoseconds differences. It cost a lot of money to get a computer hosted on the same/close network to the stock exchange. All about the machines not the employees So not so relevant to your question but still thought it was an interesting aside.",
"They utilise a trading ‘Turret’ - it’s like a phone except all channels are almost always open. They just talk and the other end is there, no dialling, no faff. It’s immediate communications. They usually piggy-back the company LAN & use WAN for VoIP or ISDN channels (if older). This is expensive equipment that you wouldn’t really find at a home office & allows them to do their job a lot more efficiently.\n\nBut generally, it’s to allow a ‘finger on the pulse’ environment. Never ever disturb a trader whilst they’re working, I’ve seen Turrets come back for repair with bullet holes in. Losing ££££ apparently stresses people out, who knew!",
"\n\nI went there and I got a tour by one of the guys who used to give tours back when there were traders there.\n\nThere are no traders there. No one shouting and jostling. No floor cluttered with trading slips. It's not loud.\n\nThe majority of the people there are news anchors, for some reason still covering the market because people like to see it on TV I guess even though there's no traders there, and the cameraman and support crew for those news anchors.\n\nWhen you see in the media from time to time some newly listed CEO pounding the gavel to start the days trading, there's no traders listening and chomping at the bit on the floor below them.",
"Having once worked on the NY Commodities Exchange for 7 years in 2 positions, I have some idea.\n\nI worked for the Exchange proper, not any trading/brokerage firm. Working for the Exchange in simple terms is like government work just not a part of the official government.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n1 - Lots of low ranked people show up early to handle prep work for the day. They do various tasks such as answer phones, paperwork, when computers became a big deal entry work of trade data, interact with other brokerage firms and houses to resolve trades and possible issues. They do a lot of grunt work during the day. They stay after markets close to try and resolve all daily trading data so there are no discrepancies, sometimes you can wind up staying WAY late. Members of the Exchange like myself have to stay late to given we were impartial and sometimes assisted them, there were times I had to stay as late as 2 AM. Then you do the long NYC commutes, get home late sometimes and STILL have to be in early the next day.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n2 - Traders themselves at first seem like they have it easy, they do not have to show up early but sometimes do and can leave early but not always do. Even though that seems comfy, they do a lot of intense work during the day. You have to work in a trading ring, if the market you work in is not busy, it is easy on those in that market that day. When the market is expected to make big moves though, it gets crazy with lots of yelling in attempts to get your business done.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n3 - There are certain health issues for those working in the trading rings. You need exceptional hearing both for traders so there is no misunderstanding. If there is a sale, one person might think he sold 5 shares of something to someone who only needed 4, accidents like this happen even to those with the best hearing and it falls on the low ranking clerks to resolve later. When the difference is really big or you get a case where someone thinks they bought or sold something the other side says never happened, then it gets uglier since the greater the difference the more it can cost people and companies financially. Good hearing is also needed by exchange personnel working since one fo the Exchange duties is to accurately record the data of the various prices traded as they happen for real time updates.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n4 - There's also the spitting, yes spitting. It is not intentional but happens. I still remember when they redesigned the trading rings, when I first worked there rings actually had a circular wooden shelf on stands in them, traders would use that if they could and Exchange personnel would stand around the outside while monitors inside the circle helped people see data on the market. Then someone got the 'bright' idea to change the design, the shelf was removed, screens put on stand around the outside and Exchange employees had to stand in the center thinking it would help use hear better what happened but we also got accidentally spat on.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n5 - Sometimes someone may do something real serious, this is where the Exchange proper starts doing its government type work. Trading Exchanges and the personnel who work for them are impartial agencies set up to function like a government for and by the various trading / brokerage firms. Exchanges do work like record trading data in real time, assisting in resolving issues and data entry, resolving disputes of various severity including those that can require punishments and other impartial business.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n6 - I have not gotten into the stories about the crazy and shit like what happened to the inflatable Santa one time. Also the REALLY bad shit like one time someone unknown for unknown reasons called in a fake massive sized trade to a brokerage house, they thought it was real and did it but when it was discovered to be a fake, they first had to undo all the trades they did requiring massive payments including fines even though they were not really responsible the fake caller was plus everyone who worked for the firm targeted by the fake trade lost their jobs.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n7 - I did once try working for a brokerage firm, never could do it again even if asked or pushed to especially since there was some deception involved.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n8 - Have not discussed the after hours shit including the drinking especially on pay week, of course this was back in the late 80s, early 90s when I worked there, I am sure they still have their party people but I think it has been dialed back some, there were certain changes happening showing this even then.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThis is somewhat simplified.",
"Yeah the trading floor these days is mostly just a News Studio, with a handful of old-school guys that show up and trade in the booths on the floor. Source: I used to work for NYSE and have been on the floor a few times.",
"The NYSE has dominated market on close business. Coming up with a last sale price is a place where the Exchange has managed to keep their presence necessary. Also, the NYSE and Nasdaq fight for IPO business with lots of companies still desirous of a NYSE listing.",
"I’ve never understood why on days the market is way up the news will show a picture of a happy stock trader worker on the floor of the exchange, and on days when the market crashes they show a sad trader. I’m thinking these people are just executing trades and stuff and get paid if the market goes up or down. And with everything all computerized I too wonder what they are actually doing.\n\nEdit: my username was randomly assigned. Weird.",
"Companies that move a ton of money will hire traders to work on the floor. It’s the nexus for a lot of trading information as a result and serves as a hub for traders to network.",
"Open outcry still exists because they have clients that prefer orders via the antiquated system. A lot of bulk trading is still done through the system. If you’re really interested in antiquated elements of the trading world, look up the LME’s ring/red couch which ultimately sets the prices for published base metals...the diamond ring is even worse",
"The people actually on the floor are just market making for a relatively small number of huge companies. It could be done online (and is) but the NYSE is such an institution they haven’t done away with it yet.",
"The reason the stock exchange is where it is TODAY is because it's the closest the businesses can get to the backbone of the internet. Fractions of a second are everything when it comes to high frequency trading so closest proximity possible for the absolute fastest connection is what it comes down to.",
"The people in the stock exchange itself are the ones receiving your e-trade notifications and buying and selling the stick for you. Only certain people can be on the floor, normal people can't just walk in."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0511/the-death-of-the-trading-floor.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2vwygj | is the flat earth society a joke or are they serious? | With all the increases in science and whatnot, pictures of space and stuff, are they being serious? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vwygj/eli5_is_the_flat_earth_society_a_joke_or_are_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"collnoo",
"collo5d",
"colm3co"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think they actually believe it... I live in New Zealand and skype family in the UK, when we have sun, they don't and vice versa. It doesn't take a professor to show that the earth couldn't be flat.",
"Some do, and basically attribute it to a massive conspiracy to keep everyone in the dark for... some reason. They have come up with some really convoluted ways to explain their beliefs too. This is a good article to explain what they believe: _URL_0_",
"I expect some are serious. They think the experts with all their fancy degrees have confused themselves, or there is some kind of motive for conspiracy. \n\nI expect some 'members' did it on a lark, or gave a membership to someone as a joke, or may be trolling or griefing. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html"
],
[]
]
|
|
ld9ei | high-speed cameras | How can a camera record large number of images (2K, 4K, etc) in a second? I can't believe there is an actual shutter that works mechanically that fast. ELI5 Please! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ld9ei/eli5_highspeed_cameras/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2rqaby",
"c2rqxgy",
"c2rqaby",
"c2rqxgy"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Modern high-speed cameras are digital and don't employ a physical shutter to control the speed of the exposure. They have specialized image sensors (usually a CCD or CMOS censor) that are designed specifically for this sort of task, which is one of the reasons high speed cameras are more expensive than their standard speed counterparts.\n\nAnalog high speed film cameras that predated these couldn't film at these high rates due to physical limitations of the shutter, as you pointed out, and the film they shot on. They still shot relatively fast frame rates for the technology, but not close to the rates that we can get today with digital high speed cameras.",
"One limitation of high speed cameras: as the framerate increases, the resolution decreases. \n\nAs LLCoolGeek said, they usually have an electronic image sensor, just like in your cell phone camera. But each pixel in the image sensor requires a certain amount of time to capture its part of the image and reset itself - and this speed is limited by the technology. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a pixel can capture information and reset 1000 times per second. So the camera can capture video at full resolution at 1000 fps. \n\nBut if you wanted to increase the speed to 2000 fps, the camera essentially pairs off the pixels and offsets them. So two neighboring pixels are capturing image information in alternating fashion - one grabs info from t=1-5 ms and resets itself from 6-10; the other grabs information from 6-10 ms and resets itself from 11-15 (while the first one can grab information again). \n\nTo double the framerate again, it makes little groups of 4 pixels, etc. So many high-speed cameras can actually capture at ridiculously high framerates (16000, 32000, and higher) but the videos they get out are generally very small (64x128 pixels, for example). ",
"Modern high-speed cameras are digital and don't employ a physical shutter to control the speed of the exposure. They have specialized image sensors (usually a CCD or CMOS censor) that are designed specifically for this sort of task, which is one of the reasons high speed cameras are more expensive than their standard speed counterparts.\n\nAnalog high speed film cameras that predated these couldn't film at these high rates due to physical limitations of the shutter, as you pointed out, and the film they shot on. They still shot relatively fast frame rates for the technology, but not close to the rates that we can get today with digital high speed cameras.",
"One limitation of high speed cameras: as the framerate increases, the resolution decreases. \n\nAs LLCoolGeek said, they usually have an electronic image sensor, just like in your cell phone camera. But each pixel in the image sensor requires a certain amount of time to capture its part of the image and reset itself - and this speed is limited by the technology. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a pixel can capture information and reset 1000 times per second. So the camera can capture video at full resolution at 1000 fps. \n\nBut if you wanted to increase the speed to 2000 fps, the camera essentially pairs off the pixels and offsets them. So two neighboring pixels are capturing image information in alternating fashion - one grabs info from t=1-5 ms and resets itself from 6-10; the other grabs information from 6-10 ms and resets itself from 11-15 (while the first one can grab information again). \n\nTo double the framerate again, it makes little groups of 4 pixels, etc. So many high-speed cameras can actually capture at ridiculously high framerates (16000, 32000, and higher) but the videos they get out are generally very small (64x128 pixels, for example). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2nw6if | in humans, what is the functional difference between wide, flat noses and narrow, pointed noses? | Or is there a difference? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nw6if/eli5_in_humans_what_is_the_functional_difference/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmhgjwv",
"cmhpdp1"
],
"score": [
28,
13
],
"text": [
"The various shapes of noses appear to be tied to adaptations to climate.\n\nThe nose must properly heat and humidify the air that you breathe. In a cold climate, it's advantageous to have a narrower nose. That's so that when a person inhales, more air comes into contact with the mucosal surface of nose, which provides moisture. The narrow nose maximizes the surface area.\n",
"Humans with narrow noses are from cold climates because back then it helped condense the air and keep the body warmer. Those from warmer climates have a very wide nose (especially males) because it allows for better air intake and lung capacity. Now that you have started mixing, it gets more complicated but that's the gist of it. Humans are very interesting a species to study, they have some of the most intraspecific variation we've seen."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3lu16d | what do internet service providers actually have to pay for when supplying you internet? | Besides operating costs like the technical support personnel and one time costs such as laying the infrastructure, do they actually have to pay for anything? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lu16d/eli5_what_do_internet_service_providers_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv99bg3",
"cv99huh",
"cv99s74"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Their hardware needs to constantly be maintained and replaced. It's a good practice to swap out all of your switches and routers every 3 years when they're as heavily used as the ones they have are used. Then there's the cable infrastructure out to homes. It needs maintenance less often, but it does happen.",
"Outside of support costs and the business costs of paying the staff and executives that handle generating and sending you the bill and processing it,\n\nThere's infrastructure (detailed by /u/GenXCub ) and there's fees to hook into your local city connection to worldwide internet backbones.",
"There are a lot more costs than you imagine.\n\nFirst of, laying down the infrastructure is not really a once-in-a-lifetime cost. The initial investment is the highest yes, but over time, there will also be general maintenance costs and costs due to damage.\n\nThen as for personnel, an organisation like that will have more than just technical support staff. There is going to be a technical support team (usually two tiers). Then there will be a separate division for business, one for sales, one for billing, one for customer relations (and sometimes others as well). All of those teams need supervisors. Then there is internal IT personnel, maintenance and cleaning staff, marketing and advertising staff, human resources staff, payroll staff, accounting staff, a whole bunch of managers to make thing run smoothly (supposedly), a board of directors and a CEO.\n\nThen you get costs related to the rent and upkeep of the buildings they have where all their staff works. Costs related to maintaining internal IT structures and upgrading those when necessary. (very important if there is a help desk, cause the people who man the phones can't do shit without their computers). Of course, a company like this will also have a fleet of maintenance vans, so there is costs in that as well, in terms of gas, insurance and upkeep.\n\nThen there are going to be marketing and advertising costs. As in, the costs they make to get commercials on TV/on the radio/in magazines.\n\nPlus costs of any potential expansions. Even if they don't expand, they often do do research into it (to see if it is an interesting market for them to enter or not) which can also have additional costs.\n\nThis is just a really rough overview of the kind of costs a big company is going to have (and I am probably leaving out loads). A lot of those costs might not look directly related to getting internet to your home, but they are still going to be vital for the running of the business and therefore cannot be discounted. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2m32el | what is the scientific purpose of landing on the comet, and what are it's implications? | Besides, you know, because we can. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m32el/eli5_what_is_the_scientific_purpose_of_landing_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm0hani",
"cm0mpjd",
"cm0n9f7",
"cm0nyro",
"cm0oo0u",
"cm0oyrm",
"cm0s7bp",
"cm0yaqm"
],
"score": [
17,
8,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The purpose is exploration and the testing our capabilities. If at some point in the far future we are going to harvest comets for resources (which would be more practical for building things in space as it takes far less energy to get resources off a comet as opposed to earth) this is the first step in a long process of making that happen.\n\nAlso there is basic exploration. We have never been on a comet before, therefor there is a lot to learn about the makeup and development of comets. ",
"We won't know until we get there. \n\nThey guy that discovered radio waves was asked by a journalist what his discovery was useful for. He said 'I don't know, but I'm sure someone will come up with something' ",
"Finding new minerals or even potential micro organisms that were preserved in space from billions of years ago is my guess. Maybe we find Alien DNA and start cloning this DNA, to create a new Alien-Human race and take over the world. Or maybe we just find lots of rocks...\n\n\n",
"No one cares about the signal (low frequency song) its giving off?",
"There are a couple of reasons. \n\nFirst off, there is the technological incentive to do something that's never been done. We've landed on moons, planets, but never on a tiny comet that's moving at 135,000 km per hour. \n\nSecondly, comets are interesting because they are building blocks of the solar system. The solar system, like most cosmic bodies, was formed from giant nebula - giant gas and dust clouds spanning huge regions of space. These clouds contained lots of light elements and trace amounts of heavier elements. Over time, these particles collided and formed larger masses, and created gravity wells. Eventually, clumps formed larger clumps through gravity and massive stars like the sun and planets were formed. When planets and stars were formed, the lighter elements clumped together with heat and friction and created heavier elements.\n\nComets were clumps that never joined with anything else to create planets, moons, or stars. They orbit around the system but never fell into a retrograde orbit with another larger body for millions of years. They contain lots of ice and dust and are believed to be the building blocks of the larger cosmic entities. Additionally, comets are believed to contain organic compounds that might have jump started life on earth. So investigating comets is like looking into how life and the planets in the solar system were formed.",
"I feel like you're going to get a multitude of answers in this thread so I thought I'd offer my input.\n\nFor purely scientific purposes the reason landing on a comet had to happen takes us back to the formation of the solar system. We believe our Solar system started as a huge gas nebula reaching the distances of Neptune, possibly further. Over time the disk shed rings that orbited the Sun, exactly how these came about is still debated. Within each ring firstly electrostatic interactions then gravity caused the particles to accrete (or become one) and form the planets we see today. \n\nHowever, a couple million years after its formation Jupiter and Saturn are believed to have migrated further from the Sun to their present positions, this caused millions (probably billions) of asteroids (these were just rocks from each ring, not asteroids as we classify them today) to start flying around the Solar System, called the Heavy Late Bombardment. For thousands of years the rocks pounded places like the Earth and the Moon. These rocks are believed to have been made up of a lot of water and Ice, possibly even bringing it to Earth, and as we have observed water is so important for Life to flourish. \n\nNow the reason we want to study them is firstly, to see whether our hypothesis holds true, whether comets could have brought water (possibly even the organic materials needed for life) to Earth, if we observe things like this in a comet it supports that theory. Secondly, if this happened in our Solar System what are the chances of it happening in another Solar System and the possibility of life, and thirdly, if they are made up of organic materials or water where did it come from. \n\nFinally, the reason the comets are such a good candidate for observing these things is because of their lives, the majority of a comets life is spent billions of KM from the Sun literally with no interaction from anything other than other comets. At some point in their lives they get pushed towards the Sun, whether this is due to a close encounter with a star, planet allignment or a collision is unknown but once they become trapped by the Suns gravity they race through the inner Solar System passing by our planet giving us chance to observe them and do experiments on them.\n\nNow you might ask? Why don't we venture out to the 'comets' ourselves before they come to us? Well, not only can we not detect them in their current positions and orbits, it would be a million times harder to land something on one, it takes an 8 hour round trip to communicate with New Horizons and thats only just passing Pluto, so communication with it would be next to impossible. \n\nThe implications are purely financial, there is literally nothing that comet can throw up that won't give us great insight into something to do with the composition of the Solar System and its origins.",
"In addition to Dicktremain's comment it isn't just learning about comets. It will help us understand the outer solar system as well. We have done very little study and almost no physical study on anything beyond the kuiper belt. What little we have learned has been from pointing telescopes and other tools that way or examining meteors, each of which has lots of room for missing information.\n\nSeeing as how most comets come from the kuiper belt and beyond (some speculate all the way out to the ort cloud) this gives us a chance to study what conditions are like out there.",
"As some others have said, a big part of this was just to test our spaceflight abilities. We have ambitious plans for space travel in the coming years, and this was an important milestone. It's no easy feat to land our hunk of metal on a giant frozen piece of rock hurdling through space.\n\nHowever, primary reason we went, I think, was to learn! We had never been to a comet before. Just as we send probes out to learn about the other plants, we also investigate the smaller things going on in the solar system, like comets. With this mission, we will surely learn new things about our solar system, while also gaining a huge amount of complex space travel experience."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
10iyic | the bradley manning situation. | Why are so many in an uproar. Why do some call him a hero, and some condemn him as a traitor? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10iyic/eli5_the_bradley_manning_situation/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6dvcm9",
"c6dx9me",
"c6dyb9n",
"c6dyfpp"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bradley Manning allegedly copied a vast amount of classified information and leaked it to the internet.\n\nThe government says this leak was not only illegal but harmed a lot of people.\n\nPeople who want the government to be more open think this is a good thing.",
"Backup question, for those tired of answering this over and over:\n\nWhat is the current status of his trial? I know he's no longer receiving the inhumane treatment he initially was, but is anything moving on that front?",
"Let's consider something that happened 60 years ago. The [Pentagon Papers](_URL_0_)\n\nThese papers proved lies and criminal duplicity in government that bordered on treason. \n\nWhich is more criminal? releasing the papers or crime of perpetuating war? \n\nWas Daniel Ellsberg a hero or a criminal? ",
"Christ, you kids grow up so fast...\n\nThe truth here isn't black and white. He's not a traitor, but he's certainly not a hero. You see, Manning worked in a position through the US military that allowed him access to privileged information, like what you would write down in your journal kiddo. Now, think about when you're brother took your journal from you and started reading it to your friends. Some things, they probably should have known about (if Mikey smells, he needs to know to get a bath), however some of these things didn't need to be released (When your brother told everyone that you said Christy likes Andy, that was a breach of trust between not only you and your brother but likely hurt your friendship with Christy as well, right?)\n\nHere's where it gets a bit more complicated, slugger. Some of the information that Bradley released didn't just hurt feelings, it could have physically hurt people. Good people, like Andy's Mom and Dad. Bradley was entrusted with this information, and made a pinky promise to protect it. He promised so hard that he told everyone that if he were to ever break his promise, he should be punished. That's a pretty big promise.\n\nGrown ups don't always think things through when they say them, though. They can be very selfish, you remember that word from class right? Some grownups believe that the information he was promising to protect should belong to everyone. These people fully believe that Bradley is a hero for doing so, because it helps people like Mikey know that he needs to shower. These people forget that people's feelings get hurt when people break promises, and sometimes worse than just that.\n\nOther people want to claim that he's a traitor. That's not correct either, buddy. You'll learn all about this more when you get to be a big kid, but being a traitor is a very specific type bad person. In fact, it's the only crime that's written into the Constitution. I know you don't really know what that means yet, so think of it like the house rules that Mommy and Daddy have for you. We have these rules to make sure that everything goes smooth, as well as keep everyone safe. \n\nAnyways, these people think that Bradley should get more punishment than he's currently getting. Now, you know I worked with Andy's Mom and Dad when I was in the military, so I could have been one of the people that got hurt when Bradley broke his promise. Bradley deserves to be punished, and I promise you he will be, but he doesn't deserve to be punished for things he didn't do. When you steal a cookie from the cookie jar, we give you a time out for stealing and ground you for lying. I can't punish you for something that you didn't do simply because I'm mad.\n\nThat brings us up to today. When grown ups get in trouble (even in the military) they're allowed to have what we call a \"trial\" where other grown ups talk about what they did and see how they should be punished. Bradley hasn't had a chance to defend himself yet, but that's partially his fault. See, he told the grown ups defending him that they should do the trial later so they would have more time to decide what to say at it. Unfortunately, this means he has to stay in time out, because when you join the military and make these promises to protect secrets or else be punished, they make you keep them.\n\nWhat makes it worse is that some mean grown ups made his time out worse than it should have been at first. Time out isn't fun, you know this, but it shouldn't be mean. These people were told that what they're doing isn't ok, and they made his time out a bit more fair. \n\nI wish I could tell you for certain if he's a good guy or a bad guy, Champ. You'll learn when you grow up that very few things are that simple. Bradley will get punished for breaking his promises, and I can promise you that a lot of people are like Daddy and we want to make sure his punishment is fair.\n\nI hope this helped you understand a bit better. Now grab your glove, let's go play catch.\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers"
],
[]
]
|
|
9d8jil | how does someone like al capone report his illegal income to the irs and not get arrested for it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9d8jil/eli5_how_does_someone_like_al_capone_report_his/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5g0arz",
"e5g0gjl",
"e5g0klh",
"e5g0wlt",
"e5g1cst"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The IRS isn’t a law enforcement agency. They collect taxes, no matter where the income came from. While marijuana is still illegal, dispensaries still pay their federal taxes. Same concept.",
"The IRS wants their share of all income so they put a line on the tax form for income from potentially illegal sources. They don't be ask which source or how\n\nThe FBI or other agency would need to show they knew where at illegal money was coming from to charge someone with a crime. There are many sources that could generate illicit funds without being something within the FBIs domain and they can't just go on fishing expeditions until they finally figure it out, they have to have something figured out *before* they can get a warrant",
"Well he didn't, hence the arrest and conviction for tax evasion.\n\nMore generally, what you're asking about is called \"money laundering.\" This is an attempt to falsely report illegal income streams as legitimate income so that you can use it.\n\nThe IRS receives a notification any time a suitably large purchase is made, so if you want to actually spend your ill-gotten gains on fast cars and giant boats you have to report it first.\n\nBut how? By operating a shell company. Let's say you made $700,000 selling cocaine last year and $28.36 running a banana stand.\n\nYou report the banana stand income as $700,028.36. You pay the taxes. The money is now \"clean\" and free to be spent.\n\nOf course real laundering operations are more elaborate since absurd all cash business incomes also raise suspicions, but that's the general idea: report your illegal cash through a legal channel.",
"Through money laundering.\n\nMoney laundering is when money from an illegal activity is moved through an ostensibly legal business (like a restuarant or strip club) in order to make the income appear legitimately earned.",
"The IRS is not law enforcement and they do not check if your income is legal or not. They just want you to report it and pay the appropriate taxes. Al Capone was arrested because he did not report the money he obtained illegally which was an additional crime, and one that had evidence they could get him on. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1iiern | gaming pcs- why are things like resolution and texture filtering dependent on gpu, while other graphical elements like shaders and hdr are dependent on cpu? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iiern/eli5_gaming_pcs_why_are_things_like_resolution/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb4qtjf",
"cb4rkkp",
"cb4sasp"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The GPU and the CPU are like 100 idiots with calculators vs. 1 Physicist. The idiots can do 1000 division problems much faster but the physicist can do calculus if you give him enough time. \n\nThe GPU can do calculation really, really fast but there are only a few things that it can do. If you want your GPU to do something it basically needs to be built into the chip. That's what standards like OpenGL 1.2 and DirectX 11 mean. They are lists of types of calculations that the GPU can do. If the GPU isn't setup to do something then a new program with new software probably won't help.\n\nThe CPU can do anything. It can literally calculate anything that any other computer can do if you give it enough time. But it isn't that fast at doing those things. Often it needs to do a bunch of steps and there are only a few cores in the CPU to work on the problem.\n\nSome things like texture filtering or sending info or splitting the image into pixels are built into the GPU so it can do them really fast. But other things like HDR like complex shaders are often not built into the GPU so the CPU needs to work on them first. ",
"Shaders are dependent on GPU too. They are small programs executed for each pixel on the screen, and each vertice(dot) in a 3d model. That's why GPU's have so many cores, if i remember correctly.",
"HDR are done by shader who are calculated on the GPU. Invalid question."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3lqf1p | how do we go from binary codes to basic programming languages? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lqf1p/eli5_how_do_we_go_from_binary_codes_to_basic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv8f3t7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The lowest level instructions in a computer are the instructions of the CPU architecture. This varies between CPUs but there's two main ones currently: x86 used by Intel and AMD processors, and the one used by ARM processors.\n\nThese instructions usually look something like \"MOV 1, 2\" which might mean to take the number stored in memory location 1 and copy it to memory location 2. Or you might have \"ADD 1, 2, 3\" which adds the two numbers at 1, 2 and puts the result in 3.\n\nWhen you hear about binary being the lowest level in a computer, it's just a binary encoding of these CPU instructions. So MOV might be 001 and ADD is 010, then the memory locations are represented as binary numbers after the type of instruction. When you hear about a 32-bit or 64-bit processor, that's how many bits each CPU instruction is."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1x2qj0 | why does my dog roll in poop? | Today I let me dog out and was walking besides a grassfield which was fertilized (they cover it a bit in some feces) very recently. Before I could realize what my dog was about to do, my dog ran up onto the field like a madman and starts rolling around in this stinking grass, yes the smell was pretty bad. The dog even had poop smeared on it's face... like what the hell.
Alright, so anyway why do they do it. Do they want to mask their smell or do they just like the smell of poop all over them? I don't get it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x2qj0/eli5_why_does_my_dog_roll_in_poop/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf7ncgh",
"cf7qip4"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Poop is actually really exciting for dogs specifically because it's scent is so potent. They don't care that they will be covered in poop because dogs do not have a negative thought associated with their own or others' excrement, unlike humans. Dogs don't really have social boundaries. This is also why they smell each other's butts and genitalia. ",
"quite a few predatory animals use feces or other smelly objects to disguise their scent when stalking so that they have less chance of being spotted so I guess its just a throw back to when dogs weren't fully domesticated and a bit more wild"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
cxxkgp | consider oranges and apples are so cheap. why are orange juice and apple juice so expanisve compare to drinks like soda? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxxkgp/eli5_consider_oranges_and_apples_are_so_cheap_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyo5k8n",
"eyo6fud",
"eyo6uhp",
"eyom3x5"
],
"score": [
16,
7,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually apples and oranges aren’t cheap at all (depending on your country or region) compared to high fructose corn syrup. Corn is a cash crop in America that is actually subsidized by the government making it a fraction of the cost of apples or oranges.",
"That aren't that cheap and it takes a lot of apples/oranges to make juice. One medium sized apple has about 1/3 of a cup of juice. It's similar for oranges.",
"You need a lot of oranges to make a lot of juice (good quality ones)... You need only water and some chemicals to do soda",
"Soda is cheap af to make. Or just compare the cost per pound of sugar vs the cost of apples and oranges. Yeah, there's also artificial colorings and flavorings in soda. But I'm pretty sure their cost is about $.01 per gallon of soda made."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5mria7 | what causes that "sick" feeling when you see your crush with someone else? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mria7/eli5what_causes_that_sick_feeling_when_you_see/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc5yu3a"
],
"score": [
59
],
"text": [
"Emotional pain is interpreted the same as physical pain in the brain. Body releases adrenaline in a fight or flight reaction, just like with physical pain. In that state of mind, your body's focus switches over from digestion and relaxation to escape or fight. Muscles tense, digestion slows down, heart rate increases, and your body get a ready to do something. Panic can be a normal response to this."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2uqrey | why aren't there any viruses out there that make our bodies feel great? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uqrey/eli5_why_arent_there_any_viruses_out_there_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"coasn3b",
"coat4tq",
"coathnq",
"coazgug",
"cob0gbr",
"cob2oog",
"cob3udg"
],
"score": [
26,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Two reasons. The first reason is that viruses use your own cells to reproduce, which eventually destroys them (so Hepatitis virus will cause jaundice, for example). The second reason is because your immune system recognizes viruses as foreing and fights against them - most of what we call flu-like symptoms (fever, muscle/joint aches, malaise...) are side effects of your immune system fighting the infection.",
"We have a lot of bacteria in our system that help us, but things get a bit more compliated with viruses. I'm not able to give an ELI5 explanation, but these links are a start at least: \n[Endogenous viral element](_URL_0_) \n[Endogenous retrovirus](_URL_1_)\n\n[Exaptation](_URL_2_) is a central concept here.",
"There are viruses that help us. Bacteriophages, for example, help control bacteria populations and prevent them from eating us. You'd definitely feel a lot worse if you didn't have them all in you.",
"The [iridovirus](_URL_0_) makes it's host have more sex, but it currently only infects crickets!",
"A shame there isn't something like Pokérus but for humans, which makes you learn twice as quick.",
"its not the viruses that actually make us feel bad a lot of the time, its our immune system's response. feeling bad is the immune system's way of communicating to us that we are ill. \n\nit wants us to feel bad so that we get rest, and don't overexert ourselves. and we can keep ourselves away from others as well. \n\nhence it wouldn't make sense for our immune system to decide to make us feel good to communicate to us that we have a virus. we wouldn't rest and shit. \n\n\n",
"Short answer: there are.\n\nLonger answer: viruses (and bacteria too) are kind of like people in that few are good, few are bad, overwhelming majority are just present.\n\nEven longer answer: there is a growing body of evidence (can't find the links at the moment, if anyone knows that I'm talking about -- please post) suggesting that viruses altered, helped, and even sped up the evolution of species, particularly humans. Not all viruses are invasive species that infiltrate your cells, multiply, and leave a disaster zone. Some tweak your immune response, some tweak your DNA, some (as in the case with crickets) make you horny -- all without leaving a sliver of harm."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_viral_element",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation"
],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/01/300999096/contagious-aphrodisiac-virus-makes-crickets-have-more-sex"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3ybyti | why do men start having a difficult time getting an erection as they get older and how do drugs like viagra help that? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ybyti/eli5_why_do_men_start_having_a_difficult_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"cycg39v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not positive, but its just the way hormones work and the human life cycle. When a guy gets to be about 12, their bodies get inducted with huge amounts of testosterone in order to bring on puberty. Testosterone levels stay high until 30ish, when they slowly begin dropping off. In addition to testoserone, other chemicals are released by the brain during sex to speed up heart rate and dilate the arteries and veins. The dilation causes an erection. Because these chemicals just aren't made as much, it's harder to get an erection. Speaking evolutionarily, it makes sense. After 30, humans typically already have a child (especially primitive humans). The child probably has better/more diverse genes than the adult, so its better for a species if older adults stop making babies and instead leave it to the younger generation. That way, evolution will occur faster.\n\nViagra simply dilates the veins, thereby giving a made an erection. If you give a girl Viagra, the same thing will happen, just with ~different~ organs. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1l4lyo | the difference between unison and harmony. | EDIT: I guess I understand the words you guys are saying, but I don't really understand the difference... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l4lyo/eli5_the_difference_between_unison_and_harmony/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbvq3gf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When two instruments are playing the same notes, this is unison. When two instruments are playing different notes, then this is harmony."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4eympp | what would be the consequences if washington dc became the 51st state? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4eympp/eli5_what_would_be_the_consequences_if_washington/ | {
"a_id": [
"d24godp",
"d24gtqr",
"d24jc2t",
"d24khue"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"That would be very hard to predict, especially since you don't say *how* DC would become the 51st state. Since the Constitution says the federal government gets DC, you would probably have to amend the Constitution.\n\nThe biggest issue would probably be the state government fighting with teh federal government over land use since DC is very small in terms of area for a state. Rhode Island, the smallest state, is about 1200 square miles. DC is abotu 63. There would be problems just finding room to build a state legislature, courthouses, etc. \n\nThe state government would also interfere a lot with the city government. The city covers the entirety of the area so you would end up with a mayor and governor that have power over the exact same area and they would likely fight each other over who could control what.\n\nMaking DC a state would accomplish very little, be a huge pain in the ass, and would probably require amending the constitution. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that.",
"There would be two more Senators and one more Representative, all who (with about 99% accuracy) are guaranteed to be Democrats. It would change the voting dynamic within Congress - more so within the Senate. But not a whole lot would change beyond that. ",
"If Washington reverted to the control of Virginia or Maryland, it probably wouldn't be a big deal. I live in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and unlike Washington or Canberra in Australia, we have no federal capital territory. Ottawa is a city in the province of Ontario just like like Toronto or Hamilton, and falls under all normal provincial legislation. A lot of federal departments and offices are also right over the Ottawa River in Gatineau, Quebec, and they all fall under Quebec provincial jurisdiction. There are plenty of federal/provincial disputes in Canada, but Ontario has never tried to seize the federal Parliament by eminent domain or anything like that, so I don't see why it would have to happen in the U.S. \n\nWe DO have a federal government department called the National Capital Commission, which controls a lot of land on both the Ontario and Quebec sides of the Ottawa River, and so exercises a certain degree of authority above and beyond the two city governments, and cities belong to the provinces, so that does cause head-butting on some occasions, but nothing earth-shattering.\n\nAll that said, I don't see why D.C. would or should become a state or revert to Virginia or Maryland. It would be a lot of work for very little reward, I think. The current system pretty much works, although I do think people in D.C. should have voting representatives in Congress, like all other Americans. I elect a member of parliament to the House of Commons even though I live in Ottawa.",
"Everyone is missing the point. It cannot be done because 51 stars won't come out looking so nice and even. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1vypiy | the difference between an llc and s corporation. | I've researched and talked to family/ friends, seeking advice on making my commission portrait business an actual business. I am still left a little blurry on the pros and cons of each.
I will, of course, sit down with a professional and seek legal advice (family full of lawyers) but I thought maybe ELI5 could break down the very basic basics for me. .. like I'm 5!
Thanks in advance
Edit: spelling | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vypiy/eli5_the_difference_between_an_llc_and_s/ | {
"a_id": [
"cex1uxy",
"cex1z0u"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The short short answer is that an S Corp is more complex and has stricter rules on how it's governed, but gives tax benefits.",
"S-Corp: Ownership divided into shares of stock. Shares of stock have voting rights. Has a board of directors, a President and usually required to have a Treasurer. Liability for the actions of the S-Corp can \"pierce the corporate veil\" and impact the shareholders, especially shareholders with substantial ownership percentages, and **especially** shareholders who own or control 50% or more of the stock. Profits of the S-Corp are distributed to each shareholder pro rata for tax purposes. There are some limits on what kinds of entities can own S-Corp shares and what kinds of equities S-Corps can own.\n\nLLC: Ownership is divided into Membership Interests, which act like stock but are not stock. Control of the operations of the LLC can be (and virtually always is) divided between two groups - Managers and Members. Liability for the operations of the LLC is limited to the Managers except in certain circumstances. Sometimes Managers are not Members. Profits are distributed to the Membership Interests pro rata. Ownership restrictions for LLCs are different in some cases than for S-Corps.\n\nThe whole point: An S-Corp is generally treated just like a C-Corp (a normal no-frills Corporation) except that its profits are taxed pro rata as income by its owners.\n\nAn LLC allows ownership to firewall their liability for the actions of the entity. The Managers typically are held responsible for everything the LLC does. The Members can wash their hands of the Managers, claiming ignorance for their activities. That's the \"Limited Liability\" part of the LLC.\n\nThis is actually a throwback to how the whole idea of corporations arose in the first place. The intent of corporations was to create this separation between ownership and management for liability. But over time the law has steadily eroded the separation and now it is reasonably easy to break the corporation's separation and attack the majority shareholders directly with litigation.\n\nThe LLC is an attempt to restore this firewall."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
67aehp | why is the brain unable to filter noise after the sound is recorded? | Our brain is known for doing a lot of amazing stuff with our "input sensors". On the vision for example, it combines two 2D pictures to create 3D vision and not just that, it stabilizes the image and analyses the images in real time. What kind of stuff the brain makes with sounds? I mean, as far as I know it has a selective stuff that filters out background noise, so we can hear perfectly someone nearby talking in a stadium but if we record that conversation it will be almost impossible to understand what was said by hearing the audio. If the mic is recording everything around why the brain cannot do its magic again and filter the background noise and make the dialog clear again? What is missing from the environment that is not present in the audio that makes the brain unable to filter it again? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67aehp/eli5_why_is_the_brain_unable_to_filter_noise/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgovvxk"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There are several things at play here. When your brain filters things out it is looking at a few things to decide what to pay attention to.One of the cues is that the noise is coming from far away. The shape of your ears and the fact that you have two help your brain figure that out. Also the frequency makeup of the sounds and whether or not the noise is consistent. \n\nRecordings don't accurately reproduce those cues. They are typically made from just one or maybe two microphones and they are usually played back on only two speakers. So you lose the proper depth of sound that happens naturally. Even when a sound only comes from \"one place\" it bounces off nearby surfaces. That sensation is lost with only two speakers. Also mics aren't great at capturing very low frequencies that your ears can hear and your body can feel. All this adds up to your brain being hyper aware that what they are hearing isn't \"natural\". Because of that your brain assumes it should pay attention to this sound as opposed to ignoring it as background noise. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7mwgpu | do video games give you any real life skills? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mwgpu/eli5_do_video_games_give_you_any_real_life_skills/ | {
"a_id": [
"drx62tl",
"drx68w1"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"It depends on the video game, but yes they have been shown to have benefits such as....\n\n- Increased hand-eye coordination.\n- Increased reaction times.\n- Increased focus/concentration and memory ability.\n\nSome have educational value (such as typing games and games focused on topics such as history, language, etc.).",
"Studies have shown that they can possibly help with hand-eye coordination and certain types of problem solving. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nThey can also help people become more persistent by presenting players with challenging tasks over time: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nSo they're potentially somewhat generally beneficial in that they sharpen your abilities a bit. However, it bears mentioning that this is not evidence that games are the best or even a particularly good way to do these things, compared to other activities. \n\nAlso, games generally don't provide you with actual real-life *skills* per se - Guitar Hero doesn't really help you learn guitar, most driving games don't make you a better driver, and most shooting games won't help you with real-life self-defense. \n\nSo, there are benefits in playing games, but that doesn't prove that games are the best way to spend a lot of your time. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201402/are-there-benefits-in-playing-video-games",
"http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/11/video-games.aspx",
"https://www.parentingscience.com/beneficial-effects-of-video-games.html"
]
]
|
||
5ep3nj | how do you have a statistically better chance winning the lottery with a quick pick the bigger the amount gets, if the pick is just random numbers anyways? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ep3nj/eli5_how_do_you_have_a_statistically_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"dae3ek0",
"dae3thz",
"dae4ou6"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You don't. *Someone* does.\n\nThe bigger the jackpot gets, they more people play the lottery. The more people who play, the more likely someone is going to win and reset the jackpot.",
"I think because people tend to pick numbers that's aren't really random. It increases the chance that someone will share your numbers with you so less chance of the lottery being won overall but even if you do win you'll be sharing the prize",
"You may be confusing the probability of winning with the expected payout. \n\nSuppose you're going to play a game where it costs you $1 to roll a die and you win if it comes up 6. The odds of winning are 1/6 and that never changes. If the prize is $1.05, it's a stupid bet to take. 5/6 of the time you'll be out $1 (net -$0.833) and 1/6 of the time you'll have $1.05 (net $0.175), for a total expectation of -$0.658. \n\nBut if, instead of $1.05, the prize is $105, it's a great bet. The net works out to $17.50 - 0.833 = $16.667. \n\nThat's what happens with these lotteries. The odds of picking the winning numbers never changes. But they payout can eventually become so huge that the expected payout is enough to justify the bet. The actual calculation, to be perfect, is difficult, because the odds of having to share with another winner also go up as more people play. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
duobf7 | how can the shape, size and material of a cup, glass or container make such a significant impact on the taste of the beverage within? | To clarify with an example: I make a pot of coffee, pour it in two cups of different size and shape, and it always tastes better in my favourite cup (a very plain, 'boring', white porcelain mug). Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/duobf7/eli5_how_can_the_shape_size_and_material_of_a_cup/ | {
"a_id": [
"f77fa9a",
"f77jhlf",
"f77kl3q"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"Uh, I don't think it does. It can be just in your head. You think it tastes better because it's your favourite cup.",
"Fluid dynamics due to shape of the container and the respective friction alongside the material it's made of cause the carbonic acid of sparkling drinks to gas out in the container rather than your mouth. This is why beer from a tap tastes different than the exact same beer from a bottle.\n\nThe resting product tastes the same, no matter what container.",
"It depends, really.\n\nSometimes, you don't wash your cups well enough. The flavor from whatever was in there before stays in there and flavors the next glass. Over time and with many drinks, that can really add up and change the flavor. And if you use a certain cup a lot, it probably has been washed more, which in turn means that it has had more chances to get little nicks, pores, and scratches from cleaning that can trap flavor molecules. That doesn't necessarily mean the glass is covered in bacteria, though. Bacteria needs the right amount of food, acidity, time, temperature, oxygen, and moisture to really thrive, which aren't likely to be found in just the tiny, tiny amounts of drink left behind after an average cleaning.\n\nSometimes, the shape of a glass matters. The shape of the glass can determine how much you drink at once. There is a big difference in taste when you sip something and guzzle it. Smaller openings mean you drink less. If a glass is bigger or heavier, you are more likely to tilt it back a bit further when drinking from it. The shape also affects how much air is getting into the drink and how much gas is getting out of it. A soda drunk from a saucer will get flat much faster than one drunk from a bottle - there's just more surface area for the gas to escape from. And with hot or cold drinks, if more of it touches the air, it gets closer to room temperature that much faster.\n\nSometimes, like you noticed, the material matters. A tin cup is probably the best example of this - tin leaves a much stronger taste than most other materials we use for our cups and glasses. But whether you're drinking from glass, porcelain, plastic, styrofoam, wood, or something else, the material affects how porous the cup is (which affects how much flavor can remain trapped between cleanings), how much heat it retains (which affects how quickly it takes for the drink to reach room temperature), and what flavors the cup itself will offer.\n\nAnd sometimes, it really is just in your head. That's not just a dismissive answer, though. The way you think about what you eat or drink DEFINITELY affects how you taste it. Don't believe me? Think about a child vomiting up their dinner because they've convinced themselves so strongly that they will hate it. Think about how different the exact same dish can taste when you are eating it when it was made by a loved one versus when you make it for yourself or have it at a restaurant. Think about blind taste tests, and how two items that normally taste quite different, like apples and potatoes, can be confused when you don't get to see what you're eating. Think about how a good memory can suddenly change a dish, even if you've had it many times before (and if your favorite cup doesn't give you good memories, it probably isn't much of a favorite cup)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1jlz1w | why do restaurants give you a basket of bread before your order arrives? wouldn't that fill you up, causing you to spend less money on food? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jlz1w/eli5_why_do_restaurants_give_you_a_basket_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbfzpm9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Bread before meals is a custom that exists in many cultures, breaking bread with friends for instance... However it's good customer service and bread is relatively cheap, it also may make you more inclined to order something to drink, which increases their chances of a higher tip... Also they can make you think your entrées are bigger by getting you more full. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
bj7pxi | where/how does puss from cysts and spots go/breakdown in the body if left 'unpopped'. | I assume it doesn't just sit in the blood stream forever, if you excrete it out, how does it get there. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bj7pxi/eli5_wherehow_does_puss_from_cysts_and_spots/ | {
"a_id": [
"em5y54g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Biologist here:\n\nPus (also called Liquor Puris) is a protein rich fluid thats basically made up of dead white blood cells from the immune system that had been fighting the invaders that formed the cyst/boil/wound.\n\nThe body constantly breaks it down and the liver filters it out of the blood and into the waste system, but as the fight continues more white blood cells form more pus, and the body continues to keep throwing it out.\n\nAfter the invasion is dead, no more white blood cells are dying or coagulating inside the wound. The body eventually works it all out using enzymes in the blood to break it apart and filter it out thru the kidneys.\n\n\nIf the body is creating pus faster than the body can remove it, it will continue to grow the cyst until it bursts or needs drained, forming an abscess"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1c4lg2 | how is the concept of time applied in electronic circuits and digital devices? | Yesterday I stared at the clock shown in the screen of the CNC machine I operate, and I started wondering “How does It know that one second has passed?”
Old watches have mechanical geared systems, but what about electronic boards and digital devices?
The more I thought about it, the more abstract it seemed. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c4lg2/eli5_how_is_the_concept_of_time_applied_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9cyeaa"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Computers normally have crystals that produce electric currents that oscillate at a well defined rate. The computer simply counts how many times the current has oscillated and divides by the known rate of oscillation to get seconds."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
391w8a | - why is it that sometimes when i sneeze, i get a weird tingly feeling in my testicles. almost like pins and needles | Mainly when I do a really big sneeze I get this. It's really strange and not particularly pleasant | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/391w8a/eli5_why_is_it_that_sometimes_when_i_sneeze_i_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"crzzm40"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"probably nitrogen ( same thing that causes divers to have \"the bends\" )\nwhen you sneeze, cough, you pressurize your lungs which forces more oxygen/nitrogen into your blood, and while under pressure is moved through your blood vessels and into your surrounding tissue...\nwhen the sneeze/cough is over, pressure goes back to \"normal\" levels, and the extra gasses ( mostly nitrogen ) form bubbles, causing the tingling / pain... I sometimes get this mostly in my shoulders after a coughing fit\n\n-edit: words"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
yfuze | naturalistic pantheism | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yfuze/eli5_naturalistic_pantheism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5vaxa8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You believe the natural world to be \"god\". The laws of physics to be \"god's law\". It's basically using the word \"god\" as a synonym for every natural physical phenomenon. In my opinion, its rather deceiving because Naturalistic Pantheists do not believe in any supreme being or \"supernatural force\", they're really just atheists who don't want sass from the religious population."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
83gii1 | why can little kids squat on their haunches, but most adults cant? | My two kids can squat and balance in the weirdest way, and it seems all little kids can do this, but I fall down if I try it. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83gii1/eli5_why_can_little_kids_squat_on_their_haunches/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvhlwy4",
"dvhpl19",
"dvihz4d"
],
"score": [
23,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Practice. Adults who regularly do it can still do it well into their older years. In fact, squatting on the haunches is a pretty common sitting style around the world.\n\nWear and tear does eventually take its toll, but for most people it's atrophy and loss of flexibility due to inactivity that's playing the larger role.",
"They're little, so their weight distribution is totally different. Ever heard the old saying that one pound off your waist is four pounds off your knees? Well now imagine that you only weighed forty pounds. ",
"You're just not used to it. In the western world adults never really squat - we sit on chairs and sofas instead. So we don't maintain the necessary muscles/flexibility/balance required. In other cultures adults can comfortable squat for hours as a restful position. And it's physically much better for you than sitting is!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1pqiss | how does marijuana chemically reduce stress? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pqiss/eli5_how_does_marijuana_chemically_reduce_stress/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd4yrgp"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I wrote this report in college but I wouldn't try and steal it because our teacher made us upload it to those stupid essay checker websites. It's about decriminalization but it might help.\n\nMedical Marijuana Decriminalization\n\nMarijuana, also known as weed, refer, pot, etc. is a greenish collection of the dried stems, seeds, shredded leaves and flowers of the cannabis plant. Marijuana can be smoked, eaten, or consumed in drink form in order to achieve the effects of the major active chemical in marijuana, THC. The chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, causes the mind-altering effects of marijuana. The amount of THC determines the potency and effects of marijuana on its user as well. Marijuana has many positive effects on chronically and terminally ill patients suffering from diseases such as cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, gonorrhea and asthma. While marijuana has all those advantages some people won’t even recognize it as a potential medical drug. Marijuana should be decriminalized as a medicinal drug due to its ability to successfully relieve chronic pain, ease nausea, and aid children suffering from ADD and ADHD, Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.\n\nThe notion of using marijuana for medicinal purposes is far from a new proposal. Marijuana has been used for therapeutic and medical purposes for the past 5,000 years. Historians believe the earliest use of this drug was as an antiseptic and painkiller. Throughout the years, marijuana has become increasingly noticed as a drug with potential medical purposes. However, all future medical research was cut short in 1970 when the Federal Controlled Substances Act was released and cannabis was classified as a schedule one substance. A schedule one substance is a substance currently having no accepted medical use in the USA while having a high potential for abuse. By putting marijuana in this category it made it nearly impossible to legally research the medical uses of marijuana. The main argument the public and even the Supreme Court is displaying is that marijuana has no true medicinal purpose. They feel that marijuana is a drug unworthy of being used in the medical field and it could easily, if legalized, acquire patients who may abuse the drug. But not all people feel this way, even the DEA's chief administrative law judge himself, Francis L. Young, stated that marijuana in its natural form is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II”(Medical Marijuana). If marijuana were made into a Schedule II drug it could be legally researched and prescribed by scientists, doctors, and physician.. By definition, a Schedule II drug is a drug with a high abuse risk, but also has safe and accepted medical uses in the United States. These drugs can cause severe psychological or physical dependence.\n\nResearch conducted over the years have shown that patients suffering from nausea due to chemotherapy or other chronic illness related issues can be greatly affected by the use of marijuana. For example, a person who endured cancer chemotherapy may have severe nausea or vomiting throughout or preceding the process. If a cancer patient were to smoke a prescribed dosage of marijuana it would curb such feelings of nausea while reducing the chances of vomiting or discomfort. It’s said that THC may work as well as codeine in treating cancer pain. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognized THC's effectiveness in relieving nausea in 1985 and approved a synthetic version of the drug called dronabinol, which was then distributed under the trade name Marinol. The problem with this drug though was that it was too expensive for some and didn’t have the same natural affect that smoking marijuana had on the patient. In addition, when marijuana is smoked rather than ingested as a pill such as Marinol, the THC has an extreme advantage, including how quickly the effects are felt. Numerous studies have found that cannabinoids have analgesic effects along with the ability to enhance the effects of opiate pain medications. This allows the other drugs to be used in lower dosages when incorporated with marijuana use.\n\nAlong with nausea relief, marijuana is exceptional in eliminating pain caused from chronic illnesses. Studies conducted over the years have shown that morphine does not work on all patients, and where morphine falls short, marijuana might just be the answer. Andrew Rice, a senior lecturer in pain research at London's Imperial College says, \"It's known that if you injure a nerve, the morphine receptors in the spinal cord disappear and that's probably why morphine isn't a very effective pain killer for such conditions as shingles, people who have had an amputation or perhaps if cancer has invaded the spinal cord”. He continues, \"But what we've shown is that the cannabinoid receptors do not disappear when you injure a nerve. So this could offer a therapeutic advantage over morphine for treating such pain.”(Annie Appleseed Project). Cabbabinoid receptors are never going to disappear, even when the nerves are damaged, unlike the morphine receptors that, once destroyed, become utterly useless.\n\t\nFurthermore, there have been multiple studies showing the positive effects marijuana has on children suffering from ADD and ADHD. Usually children with these disorders are routinely placed on one specific drug, Methylphenidate, or better known as Ritalin. Keith Stroup, a spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws says, “Ritalin is an amphetamine — we have all of these youngsters running around on speed.”(Cannabis ‘Scripts) Marijuana is being consistently proven to have fewer side effects and a more effective result on the patient than Ritalin. Marijuana helps ease the symptomatic mood swings, lack of focus, anxiety and irritability in people suffering from neuropsychiatric disorders like ADD and ADHD. Claudia Jensen, a California pediatrician, asked the Drug Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, \"Why would anyone want to give their child an expensive pill … with unacceptable side effects, when he or she could just go into the backyard, pick a few leaves off a plant and make tea for him or her instead?\"(Cannabis ‘Scripts).\n\n\t\nAll in all, the 5,000 years marijuana has been used as a medical drug researches are still to this day finding increasingly more uses for it. Marijuana is natural, can be planted and produced freely and is proving itself a worthy contender in the war against illnesses. It’s treatments ranges from pain relief for chronic illnesses to nausea from chemotherapy in adults, while still managing to help adolescents get over the symptomatic problems associated with ADD and ADHD. With the research and technology we have readily available to us today, it makes no sense why such a powerful and potential drug is being kept illegal and out of our labs for research.\n\nWorks Cited\n\n- Medicinal marijuana: the struggle for legalization.\" CNN. \n\t1997. Cable News Network, Inc.. 29 Mar 2007 < http:/\n\t/_URL_1_\n\tindex.html > \n\n- Melville, Nancy Marijuana & Pain Relief. Retrieved March 23, \n\t2007, from Annie Appleseed project Web site: http:/\n\t/_URL_2_\n\n- Vlahos, K (2004 April 20). Cannabis 'Scrips to Calm Kids?. Cannabis \n\t'Scrips to Calm Kids?, Retrieved March 23, 2007, \n\tfrom _URL_0_\n____"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117541,00.html",
"www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9702/weed.wars/issues/background/",
"www.annieappleseedproject.org/maraidnerpai.html"
]
]
|
||
1qmy4m | special and general relativity considerations in programming gps satellites | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qmy4m/eli5_special_and_general_relativity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdee9kq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Due to their relatively high velocity and necessity for very accurate clocks to work, they are susceptible to the effects of relativity (their clocks move slightly slower relative to those on earth). As a result, they have to synchronize their clocks periodically so their times match those on earth."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
34f1bx | why does the us economy depend so much on growth? isn't that unsustainable over time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34f1bx/eli5_why_does_the_us_economy_depend_so_much_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqugk9w",
"cqu0sug",
"cqu0vfr",
"cqu0yhd",
"cqu27bs",
"cqu2j1h",
"cqu2l8b",
"cqu36xt",
"cqu5jsp",
"cqua64g"
],
"score": [
2,
21,
5,
6,
29,
2,
3,
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Growth is critical because today's investments are based on assumptions of tomorrow's prosperity. \n\nI hire you to build my factory because I think lots of people are going to buy widgets next year. \n\nIf I don't expect the economy to grow, I won't build my factory and you don't have a job. \n\nNo expectation of growth means no investment. That's a problem because around 20% of all current economic output is related to direct capital investment each year. If there's no reason to invest for the future, we suffer an immediate contraction.",
"The growth is necessary, because the economic policies we have are based on the assurance that in the future, there will be a bigger economy, and that will make loans easier to pay back.\n\nThis is something that developed based on expansion in a physical geography sense, and in an industrialization sense in the US. When we were expanding, it made total sense. This has not been very true since the 1970s, and the US economy has been more and more based on growth in things that are not physically in the US since then.\n\nSustainability.... not sure about that. It's been going on for a long time now, and it seems like we've become (as a nation, as an economy) very inventive about maintaining growth.",
"If I remember what my Economics professors told me, long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, economic growth means wealth is being created. Because human ingenuity is infinite, economic growth has no finite limit.",
"Wish I could be more thorough, but conventional capitalism assumes linear models of resources & production. Most any linear system won't be sustainable. \n\nAlso I define sustainability as the ability of any entity to ensure its continued existence. \nShout this question from the rooftops and if you can, watch the movie Surviving Progress.",
"Five of us are a family. Each day our parents give us $1 to buy ice cream. Each day, the ice cream truck comes by with ice cream bars which we buy for $1. One day our parents have another kid but the six of us only get $5. All of us want ice cream but only 5/6 of us can buy ice cream unless our parents give us another dollar or the ice cream man can figure out a way to make the ice cream for less. \n\nTL/DR - We need GDP growth to match or exceed population growth, anything less is unsustainable. Growth is achieved by: 1. More efficiently allocating resources if it is not currently optimal or 2. Innovation makes resource use more efficient. \n\nEdit - wording",
"Let's start by recognizing that the opposite of 'economic growth' is 'economic collapse'.\n\nIf you're in a nation where the economy is declining, citizens stop wanting to be part of that nation because it has no future. The citizens best able to either leave or re-construct the nation are also the citizens who tend to contribute the most to its productivity, so you get a snowballing effect where the nation's political structure is effectively destroyed.\n\nSo *all* nations 'depend so much on growth'. It's a basic assumption of economics because the alternative to growth is non-existence.\n\nIn terms of sustainability, you seem to be thinking in terms of the 'labor theory of value'. This is the notion that value of a good or service is based on the sum of the component goods or services that go into it. However reasonable this may seem on the surface, it's actually incorrect.\n\nRather, the value of something is based on what you can agree upon at a point of exchange - no matter what the underlying value of the components may have been.\n\nThink of an iPhone 6 vs. an iPhone 1. In terms of 'labor value', both products are nearly identical. They have similar raw materials, they require similar labor to design/build/market/etc. But their actual value is wildly different. An iPhone 6 has a price in the hundreds of dollars. An iPhone 1 is a glorified paperweight.\n\nOnce you can wrap your head around this idea - that value is largely independent of raw materials/labor - it should be a lot easier to grasp why permanent economic growth is 'sustainable'. Economic growth isn't based on 'using up' resources.",
"The US population is increasing, therefore there needs to be economic growth to keep up. Think in terms of apples.\n\nThere's 5 people who maintain an orchard and they have enough apples for 6 people to live there. If one more person comes, it's fine, but add a seventh and someone has to starve. So if you keep adding people, you have to make the orchard grow larger to feed them. If you were to stay at 5 or 6 people, though, the original orchard wouldn't need to grow.\n\nIt's a little more complicated when you factor in the difference between nominal and real growth, as well as wealth disparities, but that's the basic gist. If you have a growing population and a shrinking economy, people will starve and that just sucks.",
"Economic Growth is important because Population Growth is a near certainty. If the economy doesn't grow but the number of people does, then the same amount of wealth is being spread among a larger number of people, meaning everyone ends up with less than what they had before. \n\nBut population growth does a lot by itself to spur economic growth, simply because there are that many more people needing goods and services. \n\nThe big gains in economic growth come from productivity growth - which is also why our growth does not necessarily mean someone else's decline. If you can develop a technology that lets you grow 20% more corn on an acre of farmland, then farmers can A) grow more corn for the same amount of time/money or B) grow the same amount of corn with less time/money - the combination of both means more corn is being sold, while at the same time, people have more time and money to do other things (like shopping or travel or whatever). Productivity growth spurs more goods, more capital AND more disposable wealth and time to consume other goods and services. (This is at the macro level... there is a long and meaningful political debate to be had about just how those gains of productivity growth are distributed, but that seems to be an entirely different conversation)",
"I just got out of an Econ 200 level course this semester and the way it was explained is that things are always going to become more efficient, and the population will rise. This means that the jobs of today, won't be around tomorrow, as well as there being more people entering the workforce than leaving it. So it is necessary for the Economy to grow to accommodate these changes.\n\nBut what is growth? Does somebody lose out? Not really.\n\nLet's say I sell lemonaide for $1 and there are 100 employed people in a town of 150. I am able to sell 100 lemonaides for $50. Now this town grows to 175 people, 125 being employed. These 25 people now have money to spend at my business, so I can expand my empire, and even hire *more* people. The trouble is in predicting growth. Those new 25 people on day 1 won't be able to find jobs, but companies like myself need to predict future growth and realize that I should start producing/employing more to meet upcoming demand.\n\nAverage inflation rate is 1-3%. \"Safe\" growth rate should be 2-4%, [which the US generally averages.](_URL_0_) Otherwise you end up with a situation in China where empty skyscrapers are being built, and Realestate market is crashing, and pollution is running rampant, all because their Growth rate is 10+% the last several years.",
"I suggest you read [this Freakonomist blog article](_URL_1_).\n\nTo summarise the point: what is considered \"growth\" is completely arbitrary as it simply depends on what people value at any given moment. By simply *coming up with new ways of using existing resources*, we experience growth. Even something non-resource based like a massive increase in people wanting massages will lead to growth. It doesn't have to involve physical raw materials, it's merely a way of measuring human satisfaction. Monetary exchange (GDP) is only an indirect way of measuring growth, but it reflects the fact.\n\nFor example, somebody figures out that you can [use water bottles to provide indoor lighting](_URL_0_) in countries with unreliable electricity grids. That's growth, and it actually even makes a positive impact on the environment. Where does this growth come form? It comes from extracting new value out of existing resources, and this value is indoor light. More indoor light means you can work better indoors, and not even have to pay for electrical lighting. Simply one guy saying \"here's what you do with old bottles\" generates considerable economic growth."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year"
],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23536914",
"http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-forever-of-course/"
]
]
|
||
klvji | trickle down economics: how does raising taxes on rich individuals slow job growth? (not being sarcastic, preachy, or feigning ignorance) | I'm pretty economically ignorant, but trickle down economics doesn't make any sense to me. There are, however a lot of people who believe in it, so I'm trying to understand.
There are people who say that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate will retard economic growth and result in fewer jobs being created. I thought people's personal income was kept separate from business income/funds. If you tax wealthier people, you're taxing their income, right? Not any companies they might own? So how does raising taxes on rich people slow down job creation? It seems like you hire the number of employees you need to meet demand for your product / service and that's not really connected to how much money the owner of the company personally has in the bank.
And I don't see how demand for goods/services relies on the personal income of rich individuals either, unless a company sells goods / services that are primarily patronized by the wealthiest individuals (luxury yachts or something).
So please, explain this to me like I'm five. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/klvji/trickle_down_economics_how_does_raising_taxes_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2lb7in",
"c2lbloa",
"c2lbwpn",
"c2lc9qk",
"c2leuw8",
"c2lb7in",
"c2lbloa",
"c2lbwpn",
"c2lc9qk",
"c2leuw8"
],
"score": [
4,
13,
158,
11,
2,
4,
13,
158,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Here is the idea: If I'm rich and living somewhere I am going to want things, like a cool car, a nice house and to eat out at nice places. In order to do that those things need to exist. A builder will have to build me a nice house (giving money to the builder), a car manufacturer will have to build the car and a dealership will have to sell it (giving money to the other company and the dealer, and the sales man), the restaurant will also employ lots of people for a nice dinner to be made. \n\nSee if you think of the flow of money like a river, then the money flows from the \"rich man\" to the people that support him, and when the people that support him spend that money then they support other people, and when those other people buy things from the \"rich mans\" company he has more money to spend on things.\n\nIf you don't have the rich man in the system, then they don't buy enough things and there isn't enough money in the system to support everyone.\n\nThe problem with they system is it only works if everyone spends, everyone works and buys things, if they stop buying something, say cars for example, then the rich men who own the cars don't spend money, which means the house builders don't have work, and so on.",
"The theory is that the wealthier members of society spend more money on more goods and services. Higher demand for goods means more jobs to produce the goods.\n\nWealthier individuals are also the ones more likely to create small businesses, thus jobs. It takes a large upfront investment to create a business, and this is something the middle class has a harder time doing, particularly during an economic downturn. So, according to this logic, if the upper class has more money to spend through lower taxes, they should be able to create more jobs and buy more goods, boosting the economy. This is why it's called trickle down economics. Allowing the upper classes to keep more of their money should have a \"trickle down\" effect on the rest of the economy.\n\nIn our current economic environment, as most economists will tell you, the middle class is taxed disproportionately and thus has less discretionary income (that is, money left over after paying for necessities like rent, food, etc) to buy goods, and certainly not enough to create businesses. Further, with the relatively high interest rates we currently have in place to mitigate inflation, this creates an incentive for investment, as an investor will see a greater return on their investment. What this means is that the very wealthy, those that are the crux of trickle down economics, are not spending their money like the theory suggests. They are instead investing it in secure assets to see the highest return on their investment as possible, which logically makes perfect sense and you and I would do the same. This is where it gets a lot more complex with Keynesian economic theories, which suggest the government should stimulate spending to mobilize this capital and in turn the economy as a whole.\n\nThere is not a lot of empirical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the wealthy slows job growth, particularly in a recession, but there is some logic to the theory. ",
"First thing you gotta remember: when the government takes money from somebody, it gives that money to somebody else. My social security taxes become grandma's social security check.\n\nSo does taking money from me and giving it to grandma destroy jobs? There's no particular reason to think that. Who's to say who's better at creating jobs - me, or my grandma. Could be either one.\n\nBut, there *is* a situation where taking money from one group and giving it to another is clearly helpful. To explain that, let me talk about \"supply side\" and \"demand side.\"\n\nHere's a simple way of looking at it. In order for a person to open a new television factory, two things have to happen:\n\n1. There have to be some people who are promising to buy the new TVs.\n2. There has to be an investor who's willing to fund the creation of the factory.\n\nIf either one of these isn't there, the factory won't open. In other words:\n\n* You need some customers who have some money in their pockets (the \"demand side\")\n* You need some investors who have some money in their pockets (the \"supply side\")\n\nBut sometimes, the economy swings like a pendulum, and things get out of balance: all the money in the pockets of the investors, and none in the pockets of the customers. Sometimes it swings the other way: all the money in the pockets of the customers, and none in the pockets of the investors. At either extreme, the factory can't get built. It's only when the economy is in balance, with some money in the hands of customers, and some in the hands of investors, that things function.\n\nSo that's where taxing rich folks and giving the money to grandma comes in.\n\nSo regular folks are mostly customers. Sure, we may put 10% of our income in a retirement account, but we spend the other 90%. So we're 10% investors, 90% customers.\n\nTruly rich people, on the other hand, are mostly investors. They couldn't spend 10% of their money even if they spent 24 hours a day shopping for cars. So basically, they're 10% customers, 90% investors.\n\nSo if you take money from a rich person, and give it to a regular person, you're pretty much taking money from investors and giving it to customers. Whether this helps or hurts depends on which way the pendulum is swinging.\n",
"Like you're 5, and going to try to do this without bias (since so many others seem to ignore that rule):\n\nPretend like Billy owns a lemonade stand. Billy's lemonade stand is very popular, so he hires Bobby, Susie, and Jimmy to help him. Billy's stand earns ten dollars every day. He has to spend five dollars every day in order to buy sugar, lemons, and cups. He also pays Bobby, Susie, and Jimmy each one dollar every day to help him out. Billy then keeps two dollars for himself.\n\nBut Billy's parents decide that they're going to charge Billy two dollars every day to let him keep the lemonade stand in the yard. Billy's still making ten dollars every day, but now he has to spend twelve dollars. He has to keep buying lemons, sugar, and cups, and it wouldn't make sense for him to not make any money, so he tells Jimmy and Susie that they can't work for him anymore, because he can't afford to pay them.\n\nIn case you haven't figured it out, Billy's parents represent the government, Billy represents your average \"rich American\" (a small business owner), and the other kids represent the workers. That's trickle down economics in a nutshell. Those with the money are typically the ones who provide jobs to people, and the logic is that most business owners mix their business finances with their personal finances. So if personal income is down, business income is down. Since taxes directly affect income, higher taxes means less money to hire people.",
" > I thought people's personal income was kept separate from business income/funds.\n\nI am a partner in a $1 million+ a year business. We are looking to grow right now and open a new office in a new city with new employees. That's a good thing and exactly what the country needs repeated about a couple hundred thousand times to pull us out of our slump.\n\nThe government should be doing what they can to support us if they want the economy to get better. Part of that would be keeping all the other taxes that we encounter in the course of doing business low. But another part is encouraging investors and banks to give us money so we can open that office and hire those people. In that regard, raising taxes, even on personal income, can be harmful because it transfers money out of the hands of people that are likely to invest and gives it to the government who may not use it in any meaningful way that helps us at the small business level.\n\nHistorically, keeping taxes low has been very positive for the economy as a whole, so there is certainly logic behind it. But we also have historic national debt and a growing income disparity problem to go along with that booming economy and there is an urgency to reverse the direction of the debt. That is why the idea of tax increases for the wealthy is on the table, because the alternative is bigger cuts to spending which is also harmful to the economy. The question that isn't so easy to answer is: which would be more harmful?",
"Here is the idea: If I'm rich and living somewhere I am going to want things, like a cool car, a nice house and to eat out at nice places. In order to do that those things need to exist. A builder will have to build me a nice house (giving money to the builder), a car manufacturer will have to build the car and a dealership will have to sell it (giving money to the other company and the dealer, and the sales man), the restaurant will also employ lots of people for a nice dinner to be made. \n\nSee if you think of the flow of money like a river, then the money flows from the \"rich man\" to the people that support him, and when the people that support him spend that money then they support other people, and when those other people buy things from the \"rich mans\" company he has more money to spend on things.\n\nIf you don't have the rich man in the system, then they don't buy enough things and there isn't enough money in the system to support everyone.\n\nThe problem with they system is it only works if everyone spends, everyone works and buys things, if they stop buying something, say cars for example, then the rich men who own the cars don't spend money, which means the house builders don't have work, and so on.",
"The theory is that the wealthier members of society spend more money on more goods and services. Higher demand for goods means more jobs to produce the goods.\n\nWealthier individuals are also the ones more likely to create small businesses, thus jobs. It takes a large upfront investment to create a business, and this is something the middle class has a harder time doing, particularly during an economic downturn. So, according to this logic, if the upper class has more money to spend through lower taxes, they should be able to create more jobs and buy more goods, boosting the economy. This is why it's called trickle down economics. Allowing the upper classes to keep more of their money should have a \"trickle down\" effect on the rest of the economy.\n\nIn our current economic environment, as most economists will tell you, the middle class is taxed disproportionately and thus has less discretionary income (that is, money left over after paying for necessities like rent, food, etc) to buy goods, and certainly not enough to create businesses. Further, with the relatively high interest rates we currently have in place to mitigate inflation, this creates an incentive for investment, as an investor will see a greater return on their investment. What this means is that the very wealthy, those that are the crux of trickle down economics, are not spending their money like the theory suggests. They are instead investing it in secure assets to see the highest return on their investment as possible, which logically makes perfect sense and you and I would do the same. This is where it gets a lot more complex with Keynesian economic theories, which suggest the government should stimulate spending to mobilize this capital and in turn the economy as a whole.\n\nThere is not a lot of empirical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the wealthy slows job growth, particularly in a recession, but there is some logic to the theory. ",
"First thing you gotta remember: when the government takes money from somebody, it gives that money to somebody else. My social security taxes become grandma's social security check.\n\nSo does taking money from me and giving it to grandma destroy jobs? There's no particular reason to think that. Who's to say who's better at creating jobs - me, or my grandma. Could be either one.\n\nBut, there *is* a situation where taking money from one group and giving it to another is clearly helpful. To explain that, let me talk about \"supply side\" and \"demand side.\"\n\nHere's a simple way of looking at it. In order for a person to open a new television factory, two things have to happen:\n\n1. There have to be some people who are promising to buy the new TVs.\n2. There has to be an investor who's willing to fund the creation of the factory.\n\nIf either one of these isn't there, the factory won't open. In other words:\n\n* You need some customers who have some money in their pockets (the \"demand side\")\n* You need some investors who have some money in their pockets (the \"supply side\")\n\nBut sometimes, the economy swings like a pendulum, and things get out of balance: all the money in the pockets of the investors, and none in the pockets of the customers. Sometimes it swings the other way: all the money in the pockets of the customers, and none in the pockets of the investors. At either extreme, the factory can't get built. It's only when the economy is in balance, with some money in the hands of customers, and some in the hands of investors, that things function.\n\nSo that's where taxing rich folks and giving the money to grandma comes in.\n\nSo regular folks are mostly customers. Sure, we may put 10% of our income in a retirement account, but we spend the other 90%. So we're 10% investors, 90% customers.\n\nTruly rich people, on the other hand, are mostly investors. They couldn't spend 10% of their money even if they spent 24 hours a day shopping for cars. So basically, they're 10% customers, 90% investors.\n\nSo if you take money from a rich person, and give it to a regular person, you're pretty much taking money from investors and giving it to customers. Whether this helps or hurts depends on which way the pendulum is swinging.\n",
"Like you're 5, and going to try to do this without bias (since so many others seem to ignore that rule):\n\nPretend like Billy owns a lemonade stand. Billy's lemonade stand is very popular, so he hires Bobby, Susie, and Jimmy to help him. Billy's stand earns ten dollars every day. He has to spend five dollars every day in order to buy sugar, lemons, and cups. He also pays Bobby, Susie, and Jimmy each one dollar every day to help him out. Billy then keeps two dollars for himself.\n\nBut Billy's parents decide that they're going to charge Billy two dollars every day to let him keep the lemonade stand in the yard. Billy's still making ten dollars every day, but now he has to spend twelve dollars. He has to keep buying lemons, sugar, and cups, and it wouldn't make sense for him to not make any money, so he tells Jimmy and Susie that they can't work for him anymore, because he can't afford to pay them.\n\nIn case you haven't figured it out, Billy's parents represent the government, Billy represents your average \"rich American\" (a small business owner), and the other kids represent the workers. That's trickle down economics in a nutshell. Those with the money are typically the ones who provide jobs to people, and the logic is that most business owners mix their business finances with their personal finances. So if personal income is down, business income is down. Since taxes directly affect income, higher taxes means less money to hire people.",
" > I thought people's personal income was kept separate from business income/funds.\n\nI am a partner in a $1 million+ a year business. We are looking to grow right now and open a new office in a new city with new employees. That's a good thing and exactly what the country needs repeated about a couple hundred thousand times to pull us out of our slump.\n\nThe government should be doing what they can to support us if they want the economy to get better. Part of that would be keeping all the other taxes that we encounter in the course of doing business low. But another part is encouraging investors and banks to give us money so we can open that office and hire those people. In that regard, raising taxes, even on personal income, can be harmful because it transfers money out of the hands of people that are likely to invest and gives it to the government who may not use it in any meaningful way that helps us at the small business level.\n\nHistorically, keeping taxes low has been very positive for the economy as a whole, so there is certainly logic behind it. But we also have historic national debt and a growing income disparity problem to go along with that booming economy and there is an urgency to reverse the direction of the debt. That is why the idea of tax increases for the wealthy is on the table, because the alternative is bigger cuts to spending which is also harmful to the economy. The question that isn't so easy to answer is: which would be more harmful?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
8oh3th | would i still have asthma if i received a lung transplant with someone who didn't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8oh3th/eli5_would_i_still_have_asthma_if_i_received_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e039878"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That depends on the type of asthma you have. If you have allergic asthma you would probably still have it after the transplant. If you have asthma caused by enviromental factors or if you are working in a dusty enviroment you probably won't have it after the transplant but if you kept living/working in that enviroment it would come back eventually."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
spnwk | ancient alien theory | And why I should or shouldn't take it seriously. I'm kind of thinking it's bullshit but The History Channel is supposedly reputable so I'm kind of on the fence. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/spnwk/eli5_ancient_alien_theory/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4fwxh4",
"c4fwy1k",
"c4g0i6o",
"c4g1zr7"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly everything on the History Channel about Ancient Alien theory is sensationalist bulllshit. Their way of explaining it is usually along the lines of \"We don't quite understand how ancient people achieved this, or what these symbols that kinda sorta look like spaceships mean, therefore:aliens.\" \n\nThat being said, there's no reason to assume that its completely impossible for aliens to have influenced ancient civilizations. Almost every culture throughout history in almost every culture in the world has stories about people coming down from the sky, ancient cultures tended to pay particularly close attention and have very advanced knowledge of the movements of stars and planets, and ancient alien theory can go a long way in explaining a very large portion of the things we don't understand about ancient history. There's just no reason to not remain skeptical about it when there's absolutely no solid, irrefutable evidence to support it. ",
"I have only seen a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens, from what I gather, the theory is that Aliens visited earth long ago, and those visits were documented in legends, like religious experiences, or over worldly phenomena.\n\nAs for the seriousness of the claims, some may seem compelling and believable, and some may be harder to believe. Personally I do not find that the evidence provided substantiates the claims. As once was said, extra-ordinary claims requires extra-ordinary evidence.",
" > The History Channel is supposedly reputable\n\nIt's not.\n\nP.S. Hilariously enough, a sitting U.S. Senator recently went on Twitter and [started complaining](_URL_0_) about the History Channel. Good to know he's on top of things.",
"It helps if you know about the Drake Equation. Here's [Carl Sagan](_URL_0_) explaining it. The short version is that if you think life is a longshot, a one-in-10-billion chance (100x less likely than winning the Powerball grand prize), you would still get a galaxy with more intelligent alien races than Star Trek."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-is-sen-chuck-grassley-so-upset-with-the-history-channel/"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ztl8CG3Sys"
]
]
|
|
66woz1 | why do humans tend to get congested after a night of drinking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66woz1/eli5_why_do_humans_tend_to_get_congested_after_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dglvjov",
"dglvo6j",
"dglvuw0",
"dglvx5t",
"dglxvzo",
"dglzhj1",
"dgm0rwp",
"dgm0zdk",
"dgm1zmg",
"dgm2dq7",
"dgm3bqe",
"dgm3s60",
"dgm571o",
"dgm59qy",
"dgm74ye",
"dgm9d5u",
"dgmcckc",
"dgmcin4",
"dgmdbjh",
"dgmfysp",
"dgmhkdu",
"dgmll5b"
],
"score": [
369,
28,
1590,
27,
32,
2,
2,
135,
8,
4,
283,
8,
3,
3,
26,
12,
4,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is news to me as it isn't \"humans\" that tend to get congested after a night of drinking. Rather it is a subset of humans who have a genetic trait of alcohol intolerance. Their bodies are not able to properly break down and digest the alcohol and the congestion is a symptom of the body fighting the poison.\n\nI myself do not have this genetic defect and therefore have not experienced this before and I only learned of its existence just now.",
"Well there is no one answer but here is what I have found - \n \nAlcohol is a Vasodilator(widening of blood vessels), which means it dilates blood vessels, especially near the skin. This is why people often flush red in the face, or bleed easier and more profusely when drinking. One of the consequences of this effect is the small capillaries in your nose and sinuses, dilate causing the tissue to swell thus congestion.\n \nOther reasons - \n \n- Dehydration(As a symptom of dehydration, the mucus produced by the goblet cells along your nasal passage becomes dry and more viscous, which causes the sensations of a \"stuffy nose.\")\n \n- Due to sinus infection problem\n- Third it may be due to chillness. \n \nIt is not the same for everyone, some people may not experience this at all. ",
"Sinus congestion from alcohol is caused by an alcohol intolerance and high levels of histamine in alcoholic beverages, according to CNN Health. One of the first signs of alcohol intolerance and sensitivity to histamine is sinus congestion and flushing of the skin. The condition is commonly referred to as an alcohol allergy, but is accurately diagnosed as an intolerance. The intolerance is a genetic condition where the person's body is unable to break down the alcohol, leading to complications. _URL_0_ states that beer and wine specifically are high in histamine, leading to nasal congestion.\n\nI have a friend that suffers from this. There is a couple of breweries that he found that is better on his allergies. Stone Delicious is the one I remember. ",
"I personally have a severe mold allergy. I might wind up sneezing and congested all day, or fine. I all depends on what im drinking, how it is filtered, or if the taps are clean at the bar...\n\nSo many factors.",
"Lol you think a night of drinking makes you congested? try a night of doing blow...",
"I was thinking about this exact thing do to my current condition. \nThe congestion builds between my sinus and throat, causing me to gag like I might vomit. No fun. ",
"According to [this](_URL_0_) site;\n\n\"Alcohol intolerance can cause immediate, unpleasant reactions after you drink alcohol. The most common signs and symptoms ofalcohol intolerance are stuffy nose and skin flushing. Alcohol intolerance is caused by a genetic condition in which the body is unable to break down alcohol efficiently.\"",
"Wait, we do? /Totally not a robot",
"What planet do you hail from?",
"I would say it is safe to use an antihistamine only after a couple hours (~8 hours) of drinking. \nHowever, you should never use concomitantly as that may cause some serious CNS depression or other heart problems. Especially with first generation antihistamines. \nI would ask for a physicians opinion as each patient's profile differs based on your medical history. ",
"Great question, I started noticing this in my early 30's. But I only occasionally have nasal connection or a runny nose, but I ALWAYS have a cough. \n\nIt's gotten worse over the years, as have hangovers...But as we get older our production of alcohol dehydrogenase decreases... I never had a hangover until 32, it's been all downhill from there. \n\nI think the histamines in alcohol coupled with an increase in other inflammatory chemicals that result from the consumption of alcohol all add up. \n\nI found this article which covers several possible relationships between alcohol and inflammation:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFrom the abstract:\n\n\"Chronic inflammation is often associated with alcohol-related medical conditions. The key inducer of such inflammation, and also the best understood, is gut microflora-derived lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Alcohol can significantly increase the translocation of LPS from the gut. In healthy individuals, the adverse effects of LPS are kept in check by the actions and interactions of multiple organs. The liver plays a central role in detoxifying LPS and producing a balanced cytokine milieu. The central nervous system contributes to anti-inflammatory regulation through neuroimmunoendocrine actions. Chronic alcohol use impairs not only gut and liver functions, but also multi-organ interactions, leading to persistent systemic inflammation and ultimately, to organ damage. The study of these interactions may provide potential new targets for therapeutic intervention.\"\n\nThe bottom line is alcohol needs to be imbibed in moderation and everyone reacts a little differently, so just monitor what works for you and what doesn't. ",
"Very interesting, I usually get somewhat congested when I drink pretty much any alcohol but then Kronenburg beer is a whole different animal; By the end of the first bottle I'm very runny, by the end of the second bottle it's like someone built an airlock in my nasal passages.",
"Not a human and I've never drank but it is probably due to the high levels of histamine in alcoholic beverages. Maybe premedicate with benadryl or claritin.",
"In my experience, if I start sneexing, I have a good buzz. If I get congested and start constantly sniffling, I am 3 sheets to the wind. Effects come on faster with hard liquor.",
"A glass or two of water and a Pepcid AC or its generic versions of famotadine with an antihistamine an hour before drinking help mitigate the symptoms of congestion and red flushed skin. \n\nSource: me, it works, bye bye Asian flush",
"Alcohol raises the histimines in your system. You know how when people have allergies they take antihistamines? They're used to fight your body's over-reactive histimine response to what it perceives as a threat to its system. Because alcohol has a lot of histimines in it, you get the same reaction as would someone who is exposed to something to which they're allergic. ",
"Why is \"humans\" in the question? Are you getting your dog drunk and noticing it doesn't get congested...Or are you an alien?",
"For me it's the tannins in wine. They give me a very slight allergic reaction. I can't drink more than about 4oz of wine without starting to feel bad, a headache creeps up on me far more easily on wine than on beer or even liquor. White wine has fewer tannins so I can drink it more easily. My mom gets a much worse reaction than I, getting some real congestion from red, so she avoids it. There's tannins in lots of foods, like tea, but for some reason none of them bother us like wine does. ",
"Apparently alcohol intolerance is a thing but I'm allergic to wheat and barley so I believe that's part of the reason I get clogged up as well",
"i mean, this has never happened to me once? ",
"I'm allergic to milk, which means that I can't drink most wine because milk is used as a clarifying agent. I get sinusitis pretty rapidly after drinking any with traces of milk. Most wine has sulphites and egg as well.\n\nBeer, scotch and whiskey contain barley, which my SO is allergic to, which also causes sinusitis.\n\nMany people are allergic to sulphites that are pretty commonly used to product various beverages.\n\nIf you've got a food allergy, have a look at what you're drinking and what is used to make it. Try drinking something different, we can both drink gin and vodka, so they're our goto at the moment.",
"It looks like your question has been answered, but as a somewhat related side note, red wine specifically has associated symptoms known as \"Red Wine Headache.\"\n\nI was in a wine tasting course where the somalier told us about it. He personally claimed that it is caused by allergens specific to areas where the grapes are grown causing allergic reactions. He said that he and other somaliers that he goes to tastings with always take an Allegra or some sort of allergy med (non-drowsy, of course) beforehand and that it has always helped him."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"MayoClinic.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/alcohol-intolerance/basics/definition/con-20034907"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842521/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
f98tz9 | why are we so worried about covid-19? isn't the flu worse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f98tz9/eli5_why_are_we_so_worried_about_covid19_isnt_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiq00ql",
"fiq0gun"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"No, flu doesn't have a higher mortality rate, even in 65+ age bracket only about 1% dies from flu. And most people don't even need treatment for flu, while in case of coronavirus many patients will need to be in intensive care and without it up to 10% may die(and hospital space is limited, and will run out quick in case of flu like epidemic)",
"2% death rate is just the official numbers it's likely much worse but even if we take it it would be 20 times more deadly than the common flu that has a death rate of 0.1 \n\nWhen you see videos of doctors complaining that all the funeral homes are overwhelmed with the corpses and so they have to stack corpses in an empty hall\n_URL_0_\nIt seems to be far more serious than the flu and when you look at how contagious it is\n_URL_1_\n it seems really scary"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.bitchute.com/video/gokK1_-R0I8/",
"https://youtu.be/hKpFsoX_xe8"
]
]
|
||
25arxk | question about reality tv shows/competition shows | I'm not sure what the technical terms are, so I'll use master chef as an example...
For instance, the competitors are cooking frantically while Gordon Ramsey walks around and stuff. Then, the scene jumps to a single competitor sitting in front of a camera, being interviewed. My question is, do they do these "interview sessions" before the actual cooking session, or after the cooking session, and then they talk as if they are in present tense? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25arxk/eli5_question_about_reality_tv_showscompetition/ | {
"a_id": [
"chfd00v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Those interviews normally happen after the competition... They're coached to make it sound as if they're being interviewed just as it's happening, which would be impossible in a show like Master Chef, where all the cooking sessions are timed... In a show like Cutthroat Kitchen, you can easily see how they're interviewed after the fact, since the Chefs are routinely interviewed with less than 10 seconds to go in the competition, but the interview clips are 12-15 seconds...\n\nSometimes they do the interviews before the competition, depending on who's supposed to win, or who's the underdog of the episode..\n\nAnd sometimes, the interviews are fabrications from previous tapings of other competitions, or from pre-recorded interview sessions where designated rivals are instructed to \"talk smack\" about each other for placement in future competitions..\n\nHowever, the single interviews from the segments where someone is being \"voted off\" are usually done right there, during the segment.. That's why you'll often hear competitors(after the fact, on other programs) talking about those parts of the shows lasting hours, because the producers are pulling people off to be interviewed as the segment progresses to add drama and conflict to the overall show..\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
a31lky | how is it possible, with almost all cars having keyless entry, we don't occasionally unlock someone else's car? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a31lky/eli5_how_is_it_possible_with_almost_all_cars/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb2m3v2",
"eb2mcch",
"eb2nkkk",
"eb2nnsg"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Each car has a different RFID fingerprint in the key, so you can't unlock a different car with the same key",
"Because the binary \"key\" has lots and lots of variations. Orders of magnitude more possibilities than mechanical keys. You're way more likely to unlock a random car with your physical car key. ",
"In very broad terms. Every keyless key is actually 'sending out' a number. When the car hears its unique number it opens.\nEach manufacturer has a unique number, each model has a unique number, each factory, then add a serial number. Combine to 1 code, then encrypt. \n\nSo Ford, escort, 1200 turbo, made in Glasgow, serial number 00005\nWould be 01,04,08,04,0005\n And then encrypted would be a2e211cc57\n \nBmw would start with 99 for example, Nissan with 45, \n\nSo your code isn't going to work on any other car. \n\nBut it's not exactly like that because the key interacts with only 1 component, the ignition control module. The icm is coded to a manufacture code, depending on how the car is put together the icm and key combo could come from a different location than the car and engine. All that matters is the manufacturer ignition code assogned for that serial number chassis. How each manufacturer choses to build thier code is up to them. And a closely guarded secret. ",
"Think of it this way.\n\nAlmost everybody has a mobile phone these days. How is it that you never call and get put through to the wrong person?\n\nIt's because a phone number is 100% unique. Cars work the same way - each key is programmed to a very unique serial, and only works for that one car."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3gk1z4 | why is it bad for the chairman of the board of directors of a corporation to also be that corporation's ceo? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gk1z4/eli5why_is_it_bad_for_the_chairman_of_the_board/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctyusgk",
"ctyw29d"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Generally, a board of directors provides oversight. So, if the head decision maker (the CEO) was in charge of the body that was responsible for making sure he is doing his job correctly there might be a slight conflict of interest.",
"The chairman of the board represents the interests of the shareholders and provides overall guidance on the broad direction of the company, whereas the CEO makes the day-to-day decisions to actually run the company.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
c8al1v | how do satellites distinguish between all the billions of signals emitted by all the devices in the world? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c8al1v/eli5_how_do_satellites_distinguish_between_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"esl9itp",
"eslb4bl",
"esllqd1"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"They pay attention to the signals that are aimed right at them.\n\nVery few of the billions of devices in the world have enough power to be picked up by a satellite 23,000 miles up.",
"Satellites work on certain frequency ranges that differ from those used by most devices on the ground - usually satellites use higher frequencies and don't overlap to much with those used on the ground. Additionally, most of the devices on the ground are not even close to powerful enough to send a signal that could get picked up by satellite, those signals are not much more than background noise that gets filtered out easily.\n\nTo get around the power requirements and to reduce overall signal noise for everyone often enough signals are somewhat targeted/directed at the satellite so it becomes easy for it to distinguish the strongest signal that is meant for it. Also, certain encoding techniques are used so the satellite can read the 'signal ID' to discern whether the signal is meant for it or not.",
"Very few of the devices that people use day-to-day communicate directly with satellites (aside from GPS, but it only receives data broadcast from the satellites to every GPS devices). If you do not own a boat or an airplane, you likely also do not own any device that can transmit to a satellite (this is actually true even if you do own a boat or airplane, but you're more likely to find satellite phones and similar devices in these places). You of course *can* buy such a thing, but they're expensive to operate because two-way satellite communication has very limited bandwidth. Satellite TV can send lots of data because it sends the exact same data to every device listening. Rather than working like a whole bunch of individual telephone calls, it's essentially just one big loudspeaker aimed down from space."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6w2hlh | why do toddlers love to hand you things? | I'm babysitting for my nephew (20 months old) and for the past hour we've done nothing but essentially play fetch. He's grabbed just about every toy in the room and runs to bring them to me. By the time I've tossed it back, he's grabbed another and is running it over to me with a smile on his face as wide as the Mississippi.
I'm curious as to what part of development makes this so joyous for him. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6w2hlh/eli5why_do_toddlers_love_to_hand_you_things/ | {
"a_id": [
"dm4ud1l",
"dm4voaa",
"dm4w538",
"dm4wexn",
"dm4wj7f",
"dm4ygaz",
"dm4z7la",
"dm50730",
"dm5097x",
"dm50bom",
"dm50emr",
"dm50g69",
"dm50gbg",
"dm50i4o",
"dm50vph",
"dm515ok",
"dm51nya",
"dm51u4c",
"dm51vd9",
"dm51you",
"dm52lsp",
"dm52v3p",
"dm53jld",
"dm53wd3",
"dm54bjq",
"dm54ckq",
"dm54nod",
"dm54qgn",
"dm54vu5",
"dm55lcw",
"dm55o16",
"dm55r10",
"dm55t03",
"dm55ys8",
"dm563a4",
"dm56any",
"dm56aor",
"dm56jo6",
"dm56kp7",
"dm56n8p",
"dm575at",
"dm59hpa",
"dm59ray",
"dm59rf8",
"dm59t8i",
"dm59xcl",
"dm5agdw",
"dm5c30g",
"dm5c6r0",
"dm5c7hk",
"dm5c8sh",
"dm5dvbt",
"dm5e7rb",
"dm5ecp2",
"dm5fie3",
"dm5folq",
"dm5h10e",
"dm5i6o0",
"dm5inw0",
"dm5k893",
"dm5n5oy",
"dm5nhjh",
"dm5pqgp"
],
"score": [
1455,
26168,
123,
3922,
63,
54,
20,
4,
59,
441,
2055,
16,
16,
54,
165,
3,
3,
5,
2,
5,
38,
23,
9,
19,
3,
2,
3,
5,
5,
3,
12,
4,
2,
2,
920,
3,
3,
2,
34,
8,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
5,
4,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"It starts out as a fascination with the ability to manipulate objects. \"Oh that's a thing! Hey now that thing is in my hand! Oh my god that's amazing!\"\n\nThen it becomes a fascination with interacting with other people. \"Oh you have the thing in your hand! Hey you put it in my hand! Hey now it's in your hand again!\"\n\nAnd of course, it gets reinforced by the way that adults react to the toddler when they hand stuff over. \"Hey here's the thing can you take it in your hand? Wow look how happy you are! Hey I'm going to go find another thing to make you happy!\"",
"In a recent post on here talking about kids and films/TV, the top answer mentioned that one thing that makes kids so prone to certain kinds of movies (and to watching them over and over again) is that the Toddler brain thrives on predictability. \n\nFacing a world that can be scary and unpredictable (and having a sort of inborn biological drive to learn about the world through positive and negative feedback) the toddler quickly fixes on anything that has a predictable positive result. This is especially true -- cribbing from that answer -- when the toddler has the power to do something they already understand (like get a toy) and still get the same result (positive interaction with you.) \n\nEventually they'll tire of it or get distracted, but to them that kind of predictability and control is as valuable as hitting GM in overwatch or watching whatever the last episode was of GoT that you thought was good. ",
"Beginnings of pro-social interaction and connecting with others. One of the most common ways humans bond is in sharing. Besides the fact that it's really cute, the kindness and desire for friendship/connection behind it is kinda heart melting. :)",
"There are two reasons.\n\n1) Very young children do not understand how to control their hands and use them to move objects. They learn this throughout early childhood and are still learning it into toddlerhood. Picking up objects and throwing them or carrying them around is an expression of this new skill and is fun and interesting to the toddler.\n\n2) When the toddler brings you a toy, you react. Young children *love* getting reactions from adults. Smile at a baby, and the baby will almost definitely smile back. This is why the toddler hands you the toy. You probably smile at them or talk to them when they do.",
"Toddler's are essentially dogs that have the ability to speak a limited vocabulary. You react positively to something they do (they hand you something, you say \"omg YES this is a toy!\") they repeat. ",
"Here check out this amazing new thing i have found! Here is another amazing new thing i have found! And another, and one more! Woah look at all of these amazing things, now give them back!",
"I learned in a development psychology class that kids around that age base their self esteem off of their possessions. That is why it can be hard to get children to share; they feel like their toys and possessions are part of their being. When the child gives you their toys, it's like they are wanting to share this exciting part of them with you.",
"Piaget says that age is sensorimotor. Which is marked by object permanence and lots of exploring/motion. \n\nErickson says year 1 is trust vs. mistrust. ",
"This is called a schema. It is a pattern of repeated behaviors that toddlers and infants use to understand and explore the world. There are lots of different schemas, like throwing things, lining things up, putting things inside of other things, and on and on. Kids will engage in a schema for a while then move on. It helps them make sense of things. ",
"As human beings, we are hard-wired to interact with other people from an extremely young age. Even babies will attempt to make eye contact with you. We are highly social animals. So, that simple act of interaction between you and the toddler is teaching her how to interact with another person she isn't normally around. \n\nNow, from a cognitive perspective, a toddler is learning quickly that s/he can significantly manipulate their environment. One aspect of this is [object permanence] (_URL_0_), which is the mind-blowing concept (to a baby) that just because something can't be seen anymore, doesn't mean it ceases to exist. Monkeys, apes, some birds, dogs, and cats may have this ability to a degree. When the child hands you a toy, she is at the point where she knows that that toy isn't going anywhere. It's not going to disappear, she can get it back. It's part of the development of meta cognition. \n\nAs others have said, there is a psychological aspect too, one of control, but also one of love. Handing you objects is how a toddler builds affection and trust with her caregivers. \n\nSource: am parent to a 11 year old and 6 year old. They seem well adjusted. ",
"I've worked with children for years and I can PROMISE you it's because they want you to notice what they notice. \n\nFor example: a child walks to me and hands me a 'pete the cat' stuffed animals. I have two choices: \n\n1) ignore it and the child, or take it for a second and hand it back (\"oh wow it's pete\")\n\n2) take what the child has given me and be in awe as they are! They have chosen to hand me something they believe is worthy of a notice - and notice I will. \"Wow - is this pete the cat? Don't you love pete the cat? I bet he loves you too!\" And engage. \n\nKids hand you shit so you talk to them about shit. ",
"I have a BA in Human Development with a minor in child development and am the mom of two children with the younger child being a toddler who just turned 1. It's a social interaction for them. My daughter will hand me something, I say thank you and she smiles and toddles off to bring me something else. Toddlers like praise and warm reactions from caregivers.",
"you'd better appreciate that before they realize there's something called REWARDS or BRIBES.... I used to LOVE asking my nephew to bring me a bottle of water from the fridge years ago. Then he learned that he was getting nothing out of it and stopped bringing me stuff without rewards :\\",
"It's an important social development stage. The beginning of something called Theory of Mind, which is essentially recognizing that other people have unique thoughts. \n\nWhy this is important, is that if you're not doing it it's indication that you're not really thinking about other people. This might be a red flag for a developmental disability like autism.\n\nEdit: some other ones are looking where you're looking, looking at people's faces, pointing, following simple verbal directions. If your kid isn't doing these things bring it up with your pedestrian. Early intervention does absolutely amazing things. I really can't stress that enough. Don't wait.",
"Daycare teacher here. Seems like you got your answer, and I completely agree. Toddlers love doing something they understand, especially when it brings others obvious joy. If you get tired of the fetch game, try fitting objects into others. Find a ball and a container the ball will fit into, and show them how to drop the ball into the container, and dump it back it. It helps develop fine motor skills, and most kids love it. ",
"In my experience they are trying to be helpful. They want to give you things because they see other people do that. ",
"It's shared attention - a development skill. I'm not sure people this age are actually hardwired to do this, but kids this age really enjoy it.",
"Kids that age develop \"touchstones\" which are sounds, smells, actions, images, or the like which help feel safe about their place in a world that's filled with scary/new/uncertain things for them. \n\nSo in this case it was handing you something. For others it's showing you the same \"touchstone\" over and over and over again. \n\nChild marketers leverage that to try to create/insert their own touchstones in toddlers which stay with the kids for the rest of their life. It's called \"branding\" the kids. \n\nSee the movie [Consuming Kids](_URL_0_) for an overview of that. \n\nSo good for you for helping your nephew with a touchstone that's not one that's branding. ",
"If you are interested in more depth you should research 'stages of development'. These are ways that we can understand why children do things as described by theorists on the topic, most notable Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson and Freud. They explain why the baby does something and what it hopes to achieve etc. Interesting stuff!",
"Ain't it a similar case with dogs? They just kinda bring you stuff they perceive as nice, and hope you'll like it too.",
"He thinks your too big and slow to feed yourself/bad a hunting. So he's killing his toys to show you how it's done.",
"He's spent the last 12 months of his life increasingly understanding that life is about people giving things to him--toys, food, hugs--and he's only recently old enough to figure out a way to do it back--sharing all his shit--and he's over the moon about it. ",
"One word, sharing. This is one of the first things they learn from their parents. Don't worry, they'll grow out of it. ",
"As an educator I'd say developmentally this child is within the 'transportation schema.' They enjoy and learn by moving objects from one place to another. In this case, to you. And you're right, it's fetch. It's a game and he's little still, so it's fun. It probably generates a positive response from you so he continues the action.\n\nInfo on schemas: _URL_0_",
"Because he loves you. It's the opposite if screaming “Mine” and not sharing. If you give him a christmas stocking then they might just pack you a gift bag. You know they are developing an extra step when they include an adult type gift instead of just things they enjoy themselves. Such as a coffee mug or keys. \n\n\n\nYour nephew might also love a regifting game where you wrap the toys up individually in anything, newspaper, a towel etc, doesn't have to be pretty wrapping paper, and give them back to him to open up his beloved belongings. ",
"Isn't there also a psychological part too, where they want to make you happy, by sharing what makes them happy? I.e. toy makes them happy > > child loves uncle > > child shows love by sharing what they love aka the toy?",
"Children (Toddlers and Infants) strive for a sense of consistency. Consider the reason why you understand a simple task is because someone drove a point home with you. Children are very good at drawing correlation between two actions - if X, then Y. If you're throwing a ball and they know that they get attention in bringing it back then the net earn is praise. Its also why they get upset if something deviates from that plan - if X, then Y, unless Z is a super difficult concept because Children need to understand 'the why' behind it and they're just not quite 'there' cognitively. \n \nUltimately children do their best to tell you what it is that they want, but the disconnect between how we understand communication - based on how they understand cause and effect - paired with the added misunderstanding of noises, dialects and phrasing that we use to communicate with one-another just serves to make their way of life more difficult. ",
"Kids learn from feedback. \n\nThink about what parents do--often handing a kid something with a positive expression, fetching something (cereal, toy, whatever) and bringing it to the kid happily. This is positive and obviously should be emulated. When the kid brings you something, default reaction is often \"how nice!\" or somesuch. Hey, positive result! Must try again!\n\nIt may extend to imagination games, too. When I was around that age I would line up toys and pretend to be serving at a restaurant, taking \"food\" to my grandfather. I'd not have food toys, so anything remotely approximate would work (a hen toy for fried chicken, coasters for pancakes, layered coasters for burgers...) To the uninitiated, or if the child doesn't explain adequately (or at all) this would be confusing.",
"Same reason dogs and cats do. A combination of a retrieval instinct, easy exercise, and a way to please someone with a present while not having a concept of what is actually valuable to us.",
"It's called shared attention and is one of the primary ways we as a species learn. Also includes pointing at things. Children with autism most often do not develop this kind of shared attention, so that is one of the primary ways that doctors diagnose children at such a young age. ",
"Let's say you just started playing an RPG that you've never played before and after fumbling around with the controls for awhile, you find out that you can pick up pretty much anything in the game. There are NPCs all around you and every time you use any object on an NPC, they make sounds and do something. Also, you can't really do anything else except piss and shit yourself.",
"Ill give it a try. I think they are practicing the handoff skill. Seriously. No other animal does this like humans. Other primates are clumsy with the timing. The extend, the grab and then release takes practice. I think its a primal instinct to learn this. ",
"a lot of the time, it's because its the first time they've ever seen whatever it is! They're excited to show you, not realizing that its not new to us.",
"How often do you babysit? Is it possible he is happy your there and is trying to show all his favorite things to you?",
"Haven't managed to read all the comments so forgive any repetition.\n\nThere are developmental \"stages\" (known as schemas) which children go through that teach them about the world around them. This particular phase falls under the \"Transportation\" schema.\n\nThese schemes are: \n\n-Trajectory - creating lines in space by climbing up and jumping down. Dropping items from up high. (Throwing food from high chair)\n-Positioning - lining items up and putting them in groups. (Cars/Trucks etc)\n-Enveloping - covering themselves or objects completely. Wrapping items up or placing them in containers. (Hiding in boxes)\n-Rotating - enjoys spinning items round and round. Likes to run around in circles or being swung round. (Pretty self explanatory)\n-Enclosing - adding boundaries to play areas e.g. fences around animals. Adding borders to pictures. \n-Transporting - carrying or moving items from one place to another; (carrying items in containers or bags.)\n-Connecting - setting out and dismantling tracks, constructing, joining items together with tape or glue.\n-Transforming - exploring the changing states of materials, transforming them from a solid to liquid state and back again.\nOrienteering – an interest in positioning themselves or objects in different places or positions e.g upside down or on their side.\n\nLink to easy to read article:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\nEdit to add: Managed to read a few comments now. And yes, cause and effect, social interaction and object permanence are also being explored through this. \nChildren's brains are going a million miles a minute at this age. \n\nSource: Early Years Teacher (Honours Degree in Early Education)",
"I feel like it's the same as why my dog brings me a toy after I get home from work. He likes the positive attention that it gets. ",
"He is trying to gauge what things you like, especially things he likes. He's figuring you out. It's really a fun time. ",
"I really think that it's because its such a fundamental (and easy for young people to absorb!!!) way of interacting with people!!!\n\nImagine that you were just learning a new language in a new country. You don't know too many words, but you DO know how to say \"hello,\" \"goodbye,\" \"thank you,\" and \"where is the bathroom?\" Would you *ever* miss an opportunity to practice/show off the tiny bit of [insert language] that you actually understand?! It helps you feel like you are a part of the \"game\" that you might otherwise be completely excluded from and helps foster even more conversations/interactions with people!!\n\nNow imagine that you are not just learning a new language, but learning *the entire fucking implicit social contract!!!* You constantly see people, on tv, in real life, and otherwise, *handing things* to one another. That is an act of communication/ kindness/ love/ interaction that you can easily understand, even before your analytical brain is developed. It is nice to \"have things,\" so it is nice to have things *given* to you! So you never miss an opportunity to practice this tiny bit of [all of social existence] that makes sense to you!!\n\nI hand it to you. You hand it to me. We are interacting, acknowledging this thing and each other's existence and participating in the great social game together!!! Why would we ever stop?",
"It's a positive, social interaction that also is an exciting new game. \n\n\"I have the power to pick up an object, grip it tight, hold onto it, and take it with me while I move around. I can drop it or throw it at will. It will still exist. Others also have this power.\" \n\nYou're not born knowing that. It's fascinating stuff, to a toddler. Existential even. Toddlers are really just learning the mechanics of a new video game. They don't know how the universe works yet. \n\nHell, I had to test out this exact same mechanic in Stranded Deep. I wasn't sure how grabbing/carrying/dropping/throwing/object permanence worked in the game until I tried it a few times. ",
"They grow up being handed things by people that they like, so they give people what they like.",
"Could it be that they want you to explain/show the object?",
"Jesus Christ this is frustrating\nI went a couple posts down and not a single one mentioned the actual terminology\nIt's called \"RECIPROCAL PLAY\"\n\nIt's a means of communications and play that the toddler understand and can see that you understand.\nAs they get older it can mean different things\nBut handing something to you means they know you'll take it and it's a form of connection/communication through reciprocal play\nReciprocal play get more complex as you get older, but this is the starting point",
"Everything is new and fascinating to the young. They want to share. They want to have it explained. They want you to join them in their world. These four facts explain it all.",
"Not sure if it's been mentioned here, so soz if it has!\n\nI watched a really great show on BBC One over here with David Eagleman (neuroscientist) who said that kids also grab things when developing their sight. Typically newborns can't see very much in terms of distance and so when that develops kids grab things and move them around in order for their brains to begin judging distance and develop depth perception. Just something as adults we really take for granted, the fact we know how far something is away from us.\n\nWas a seriously interesting show, and the above may have something to do with it - neuroscientists of Reddit can correct where they can lol",
"They often want you to do something with the item, or at least to see if there is something that could be done (e.g. open a box, unlock a phone, activate the remote etc).",
"Or hear me out... it's a game of what is this, tell them what it is, game continues. Smart ones keep handing you different things and never stop asking questions ",
"Kids want to show you things that they possess so they can receive some sort of praise for that item. Saying stuff like \"Wow! That's so cool!\" makes them feel happy, like the items they own have value and make other feel amazed.",
"Toddlers are naturally helpful! if you drop something and reach out they will help you and grab the item and give it to you!\nThis behavior has been observed in Chimps aswell.\nThis challenges the claims of many behavioral and social scientists that we are egotistically motivated even when helping others.\n\nThe Altruism revolution:\n_URL_0_\n",
"Could it be possible the toddler just truly enjoys handing things to people. He would make a great mailman one day ",
"It's their way of studying things. They want to observe and understand the Universe. They may hand you an item to see your reaction, and how you treat/handle it.",
"The better question is why do they throw things? ",
"Because they're just over getting to learn how to use their hands and want to show the only person they know how cool it is, to share that sensation, and the only method of communicating that is through pre established norms, which are few, until talking begins.",
"It's basically due to predictable positive outcome, coupled with (adult) human interaction. Both of which are very strong instincts in children, necessary for a safe upbringing. \nKids are more or less hardwired to repeat behavior that seem to make adults (primarily their parents) happy. \n\nThe hard part is explaining why they eventually get bored/distracted regarding some things, while some stuff they can do 'til death. My son for example, he literally watched ONLY \"Robots\" for a week, until we just put on \"Wall-E\" and he started alternating. ",
"Play schema is an interesting concept and it's the study of how all children who are developing normally go through various \"schema\"\n\nRotation, Trajectory, Enveloping, Orientation, Positioning, Connection, Enclosure/Container, Transporting and Transformation are urges that show in all children starting as early as their first birthday, some times before.\n\nHanding you things is sort of \"pre schema\". It's the most basic form of interaction. Next, he may get into transportation and like to put things into something in order to move them elsewhere...or he might like positioning...so he will line stuff up.",
"There comes a certain point in every person's life where you love to show your mom or dad or whoever is looking after you (and who you trust) everything so they can interact with you about it. You love the attention, it helps you grasp what is good and bad, and there are probably some other benefits involved with the toddler's learning.\nYou, as the adult, did not understand this, so instead of going \"Oh wow! A red ball! Can you roll the ball? Can you throw the ball? Can you get me the blue ball?\", you mistook this toddler for a pet dog, and inadvertently created a game that gets the toddler thinking more like a goddamn animal. Way to go! lol",
"Babies also have little to no grasp on the idea of object permanence. As well as their little eyeballs (obviously) not being as developed as our adult ones. This means they also feel joy when they find the same toy again because when you throw it ,in their mind, it went into a bottomless abyss never to be seen again. But yay they found it again! \n\nBabies and toddlers also really love expression from adults, as another poster had said. \n\nHave you ever told a joke you thought was kinda lame and everybody laughed a lot harder than expected? And you felt kinda good afterwards right? Well this is how babies feel when you do things like smiles, and clap. ",
"They do it for lulz... \n\nSeriously though, they want to show/share their toys with you and see your reaction. Do you like the toy? Do you like the colors? Do you like the sound the toy makes? Do you play with the toy the same way he does? It may seem insignificant to you, but your nephew is learning. The social skills aspect comes into play by interacting with you. He is getting exercise by running around and gathering his toys. He is refining his fine motor skills by grabbing each individual toy and setting it in your hand. At this stage in his development, play is learning. Don't forget to talk about what you're doing as you're playing, his brain is also trying to process speech and vocabulary. \n\nQualifications: I have a five year old daughter.",
"I expect they are simply copying what other people do to them all the time. \nWe give things to toddlers all the time, just to encourage them and see what they will do. They reciprocate.",
"You're not meant to \"toss it back\". They give you the toy because they're used to other adults showing them how to play with that toy. For example, a dad might show his kid a wooden car toy, including pushing forward and back across the floor, racing other cars, crashing (game over! let's restart the race!!), carrying passengers, and all. Or a mom might show her kid a doll toy and show how to talk to it and have it talk to other dolls. By giving you the toy, they learn more about the world, and about how to play, which is crucial to self-teaching... assuming you're willing to teach the basics.",
"Children often go through developmental phases called schemes. He may be going through the 'transporting schema'. Also he may just be interested in showing you his things as to him they are his most important possessions. It's just like adults wanting to show someone something cool they've just bought/own. It's just to toddlers all of their toys are the most important thing!",
"Look at this awesome thing! This is the most amazingnthing I've seen in a LONG time!\n\nAlso, seeing they can control things (people). Babies keep dropping toys somewhere, and the caregiver keeps picking it up. So funny! Becomes a game.\n\nToddlers handing you thins us a combination of these. It controls you and your attentinon, and it's all of these things that are important to them... like a ladle, or a plastic star, or the 37 stuffed animals from the basket, or or or",
"I feel like this is just his way of building a bond between the two of you and developing some reasoning skills. He's trying to figure out what you like and don't like without the more advanced means of communication to do so. When he brings you a toy he's trying to determine a cause and affect. If you like the toy you'll keep it, if not you'll throw it away or give it back to share. \n\nSince you threw it away, he took this to mean you did not want/like the toy, and so he went and got another one. \n\nYoung children are constantly analyzing the world around them, but they lack an ability to express thought verbally in a coherent way. So they must use other means to do so. ",
"There are a lot of sciencey answers in this thread but I tend to think it's as simple as they love it when you hand them something (cuz it's usually a toy or a candy or something they like), so they figure you would like getting handed a toy too."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZYRer5cNA0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.earlyyearscareers.com/eyc/latest-news/the-importance-of-exploring-the-transporting-schema/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.pacey.org.uk/working-in-childcare/spotlight-on/schemas/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtgnSYiRYAY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
62i0lk | watching cops and wondering why radios always sound so scratchy/crackly? is it possible to get it as clear as the sound we get when talking through phones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62i0lk/eli5_watching_cops_and_wondering_why_radios/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfmphjc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Nope.\n\nCell phones have a huge amount of infrastructure in order to work. Remember when you've got no bars, first responders wouldn't be OK with that. So, they use radios with bigger antennas and more power and the signal goes directly to their police station.\n\nJust today, AT & T got a contract and some dedicated radio spectrum to start to build FirstNet, a cellphone-like system for first responders. Something like $40B in infrastructure to let them have dedicated cellular coverage everywhere that can't get overloaded in an emergency because nobody but first responders can use it. Maybe in a decade, we'll see."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1cjq8p | why is male circumcision is generaly accepted during infancy but people flip shit when younger children have piercings and other body modifactions that arent neccesarily permanant. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cjq8p/eli5_why_is_male_circumcision_is_generaly/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9h554r",
"c9h5688",
"c9h74t9",
"c9h7wsi",
"c9hatje",
"c9hcz2i"
],
"score": [
28,
3,
3,
9,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"First of all, you are making some big assumptions. There are many people who object to male circumcision, especially in infancy when the child has no choice. And there are many people who arrange for their children to have piercings, etc, at a young age.\n\nAmongst those people who do think the way you describe, though, I can think of a couple of reasons. Circumcision is required by some religions, and we generally consider freedom to practice religion to be important, including raising your children to follow your own religion. Also, circumcision is not considered to be a hindrance to things like getting a job later in life (there are very few jobs where an employer would have any way of knowing). In contrast, a lot (although not all) of piercings, tattoos, etc are visible some of the time, if not all of the time, and some employers might be less willing to hire people who have visible body art - so forcing this on children who don't have a choice will arguably harm them later in life.",
"I think it is because of the religious and traditional aspect. Circumcision has been done for so many generations that it is considered the norm whereas body 'modifications' are often an outright choice by parents, which will make them appear as bad parents as they are disfiguring their child's figure at their own discretion.",
"It's mostly a double standard. In many cultures (because of their religion) it is considered acceptable to slice the genitals of your youth with a sharp rock or knife. It's a hold-over from a barbaric age but we've adapted as a species to find it beneficial in many cases. It is also generally accepted that the opinions and thoughts of the youth are to be disregarded or regarded with less weight than those of adults. So when children try to get piercings, they're trying to express themselves and that is frowned upon. As I said, it's a double standard and doesn't make much sense but it's mostly because of religion. ",
"Actually many girls do have their ears pierced as infants/babies.",
"**Actual ELI5 answer:** Because circumcision is recommended by some doctors and some religions. Many parents of young baby girls get their ears pierced for fashion reasons, but it isn't recommended by a doctor or a church. Both of these acts are controversial.\n\n**ELI > 5 answer:** In the 1890s, medical professionals in the US and other English speaking countries began recommending circumcision to stave off \"self abuse\" (i.e. masturbation). Other claims about syphilis, insanity, and skin cancer were advanced. \n\nCircumcision in the early 20th century was something of a class marker. Wealthy whites were born in hospitals and were medically circumcised while minorities and the poor were born at home to midwives who did not carry out the procedure.\n\nIn 1999 the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) said there was no medical reason for circumcision. Last year the AAP reversed this and said their was clear evidence of benefits to circumcision including a 90% reduction in the likelihood of a urinary tract infection in the first year of life, and a 60% reduction in the likelihood of heterosexual HIV transmission. \n\nCurrently only about 55% of US-born male babies are circumcised. However that's not evenly distributed. 2:3 of east coast males are circumcised but only 1:3 on the west coast.",
"to everyone: to further the question, why is male circumcision accepted but female circumcision is considered genital mutilation?\n\nto op: have you ever met a puerto rican girl? i think there are piercing guns in the delivery room when theyre born"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3towde | how do companies like eb games and gamestop make money when the game/console creators sell the game online for the same price? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3towde/eli5_how_do_companies_like_eb_games_and_gamestop/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx7y7h5",
"cx7ysg8",
"cx7ysyf",
"cx7zhkc",
"cx7zqum",
"cx7zzai",
"cx7zzs1",
"cx836fu",
"cx83oyx",
"cx83vff",
"cx84ndx",
"cx84pod",
"cx854en",
"cx854wd",
"cx856wp",
"cx85b6p",
"cx85f8r",
"cx87rz8",
"cx88vze",
"cx89f2j",
"cx8an0q",
"cx8b3vn",
"cx8b4jh",
"cx8b6as",
"cx8bcd0",
"cx8bknr",
"cx8d6ih",
"cx8d9hn",
"cx8df1b",
"cx8djwn",
"cx8dlzt",
"cx8eoyh",
"cx8fv1w",
"cx8hl5y",
"cx8hlcm",
"cx8igwp",
"cx8ii4m",
"cx8inv7",
"cx8jknt",
"cx8mshp"
],
"score": [
645,
409,
19,
13,
97,
31,
1941,
2,
46,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
7,
7,
2,
3,
2,
4,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many people still want cd's for several reasons:\n\n• Sell the Game: One problem when downloading is that you cant sell it without selling your whole Account. Most of the CD Games you can easily sell when you dont want them \n\n• Slow Internet or limited data: When having slow internet it's easier for you to buy it and just download small patches instead whole game + patches\n\n• Several Editions: You can get stuff from Collectors Editions which you cannot get by downloading the Game\n\nEdit: Hope you dont mean to buy CD's on the Internet there i cannot give you a answer for :)",
"A big profit source for them is their used games as well. When they \"buy\" a game from a customer for well under its value then turn around and sell it over value, it's pure profit for them. ",
"MSRP. It's a suggested retail price which gives a basic profit margin. Sell for less if you want, but your profits will be minimal, since the supplier sells it to you for a price close to the MSRP. When the game has been out a few months, the supplier lowers the MSRP as they lower the price they charge for it. ",
"Because in six months you can turn on your PS4 and buy Fallout 4 for the same price, while I can go to EB games and buy it for $20.\n\nBecause in two years, you can turn on your PS4 and buy Fallout 4 for the same price, while I can go to EB games and buy it for $15.\n\nBecause in five years, you can turn on your PS4 and buy Fallout 4 for the same price, while I can go to EB games and buy it for $15 and get two other games with it when they're clearing out their PS4 section.\n\nBecause in six years, you can turn on your PS4 and you can't buy Fallout 4 because the network's shut down, while I just put in the disk that I bought at EB games.",
"As a Former manager of both Gamestop and Best Buy. I can tell you that most of Gamestops profit comes from: \n\nused market ≈ 80%\n\nAccessories ≈ 10%\n\nDiscount cards & Reservations ≈ 9% \n\nlastly new anything ≈ 1% \n\nThe mark upon new games is about $1. On new systems maybe $10. ",
"Because I like having my games on a shelf that I can physically touch. It'll be a long time before I go download only. ",
"Source: I was an assistant manager at Gamestop, and I worked there from 2011-2014. \n\nA very large majority of their money comes from used games. We paid $54 for every $60 new game we sold. We only made about $25 off of new consoles. The only thing that keeps them afloat is used games. We would make $35 off a used game that recently just came out which is more than a new console and new game combined. ",
"Explain in great detail but simply put.\n\nRight now buying and downloading the full game still isn't widely adopted. \n\nEB/Gamestop make most of their money on used games. People save money on buying used. ",
"In the uk the physical copies are often 10 pound cheaper than the digital copies and they have a resale value. I can't understand why anyone would buy a digital copy.",
"Having managed a video game store for 5 years as a student job , I can tell you a few things. First of all, unless your name is Walmart, you're not making money off of games. At my store, we would buy games for about 54$ CAD and once you added up the cost of shipping and the employee's salary, you barely made 1$ off the game that was sold 59.99$. It's also the same concept for consoles. You make more money off an additional controller than on a brand new PS4.\n\nedit2: To add more context, a controller would be bought for 32 to 35$ and sold for 49.99$ to 59.99$ depending on the model. A used game that's sold 14.99$ was probably bought for 5$ and one that was sold for 49.99$ was probably bought for 25$.\n\nSo basically, these stores make money off of :\n\n* Used games\n\n* Accessories\n\n* Deluxe editions (not that much money)\n\n* All the little on the side stuff, like candy or soft/energy drinks (we used to sell energy drinks and offer them to people on midnight launches. The point was making them feel like hardcore gamers that were about to do an all-nighter of gaming).\n\nSo yeah, a lot of people still buy used games, because they're cheaper. People also need to buy accessories. But with that said, these kind of stores are barely scraping by unless you're in a big mall and have a lot of people coming in. So your assumption that they're not making money (or barely) because of online purchases isn't false at all.\n\ntl:dr - They barely make enough money to stay open off used games and accessories.\n\nedit: I suck at formatting.",
"I personally like the visualization of seeing the games I own, building shit from all the cases when I get bored. I also only use the PS store for season passes and indie games. for example, I'll visit my local EB and talk to the cute girl about games, and then shut her down when she asks if I'll want to buy the protection plan. or season pass. idk. I also get fun out of that. ",
"OP must be young...I prefer a hard copy for anything AAA every single time. Indie games are fine for DL...as they won't have much resale value and once I get my time out of it I usually don't go back to them. The rise of 'digital', where you buy something and essentially own nothing, is new...",
"You assuming the game creators are selling the game at cost huh?",
"Because the first party seller isn't selling on any discounts on the first place.\nThey are selling at the price that the brick and mortar stores do because they know people will still pay.",
"There's various reasons:\n\n* Used games. For many people, used games are a way to get a game cheaper, and you can't really do this digitally. Plus, stores gain most of their profits from used stuff, so they have a lot of incentives to make it cheaper - they'll still make more from it than selling it new (case in point - I just bought a used copy of Rayman Legends for the Wii U for £4 - 80% off the new price) - all it costs them is the trade-in value.\n\n* Familiarity with non-gamers: Quite a few people who buy games (such as parents) don't play games themselves, at least more \"traditional\" types of games. For these people, going to a game store is better for them - they already go to stores and buy things, whereas digital stores (buying digital goods - things like Amazon are a bit different) aren't as familiar. Also, if the person doesn't like the game, or they make a mistake when getting the game, such as getting it for the wrong system, they can get it refunded much easier than in digital form. These people might also want the help and advice of people who understand games, and game stores can work well for this.\n\n* Physical vs. Digital: Even for individuals, some people prefer physical. They might prefer having a physical copy for collection purposes (a physical copy feels more \"real\" than a digital copy). They might want a collector's edition of a game, which obviously has to be physical. They might not have enough space on their system to store a lot of games. They might want to resell the game once they're finished, and you can't do that digitally. ",
"No different than most other online retailers. (With the big difference being the used game/gear market of EB and Gamestop)\n\nThey stay in business because many people still don't shop online. Or prefer not to. Many of those people may be older and untrusting of \"the internet\" - but even if those people aren't the ones playing games, they may still be the ones buying (for their kids, grandkids). \n\nSome people feel overwhelmed by too many choices and actually *prefer* the limits that a retail store has.\n\nAnd many - like myself - will consider a local store mostly for a purchase that I know would suck if I have to deal with returns. Shipping shit back sucks - and sometimes incurs additional charges. The wait it takes for RMA, shipping, repair, etc and return shipping is often reason enough to pay a slight bit more to know I have the convenience of a local return/refund/replacement.\n\nAnd sometimes you want something right away -sure, you can pay extra for faster shipping, but it's still not as fast as running to the store and buying there for most people. \n",
"Physical copies look good on a shelf. I bought Fallout 4 for PC knowing that it would give me a code for a digital copy of steam",
"Ex-Gamestop Corp employee here. Used items. If they could not sell used items, they probably would not be in business. There is only a few dollars margin in new titles ($60 MSRP is normally stocked for $55-57). This was a real fear for the company back when there was discussion on how Microsoft was going to kill the used market by selling games that could only be activated on a single console. People wanting a physical copy of their games are the only thing really keeping them in business at this point.",
"Well for one thing, many people prefer physical copies to digital because it is kinda cool to have all of your games lined up on a shelf, however inconvineant it is. \n\nAlso, imagine it is christmas, and you are 13 years old. Now imagine your parents saying: hey, you know that game you've been wanting? Well we bought you a gift card so you can buy it!\n\nAlso, ordering consoles just takes too long.",
"Physical media is still good, good for showing off your collection and for being able to prove you own a game if the cloud goes down and zombies invade or something.\n\nAlso, depending on the game and the system, frees up some hard drive space instead of installing 100% of the content, so while you're heading to Amazon to buy a new hard drive, I'll still have half my space left to fill with more disc-based content.",
"Personally, I enjoy a hard copy and gamestop used to be a convenient place to buy games. \n\nUnfortunately, all the associates do now is try to up sell everything. Instead I go to Walmart, where associates do not give a shit and just give you your game. If someone does talk to you, it's because they genuinely like games a d want to talk about it. ",
"In 2 years, fallout 4 will still be like $40 on psn and 25, used, in store. That's how they make money. Also, buying next-gen consoles for barely more than half of what they're worth and selling them for full price",
"Short version: Used games.\n\nSlightly longer version:\n\n* Gamestop's last quarter, they made $580m on $1,760m in sales (net margin & revenue, respectively). \n* $257m of their $580m in net margin was from used games. \n* They needed $491m of their $580m to run their stores (operating expense).\n* This left them with $51m in earnings on $1.7b in sales.\n* Without used games, there would be no Gamestop.\n* Personal knowledge - They probably see between 10 and 20% of their new units sold come back in trades, so diminishing number of physical copies to be traded will eventually hurt real bad.\n\nsource: [This](_URL_0_), and I used to help run Game Crazy's used games business. :)",
"Might be a bit late here, but I work for GAME in Head Office (uk equivalent). Our revenue is pretty much 50/50. It might sound cheesy but a large part of our customers like the fact they can go to a store and talk shop with fellow gamers, a sense of community. Others are gift buyers, mums buying their sons Fifa etc. ",
"I used to work at Game Crazy, a now defunct copy of GameStop that was a subsidiary of Hollywood video. I agree with everyone saying that they made a lot of money off of used games, but I have a different story that all of you should be made aware of.\n\nThis was one of my first jobs and I didn't know the ethical issues but looking back I really wish I would have said something.\n\nEmployees we would get a \"commission\" for selling club memberships or pre-orders. $5 for a club membership and $1 for a preorder.\n\nThe manager had a scheme where he would get the updated pricing for the used games but just not update the price tags on the video games. Whenever someone came in to buy a used copy of a game, he or other employees (not me) would say \"oh that game actually comes with a membership to our game club and a free pre-order of your choice!\"\n\nWhat really happened was he overcharged for the game and then got a club membership and a preorder from them without actually telling them they were paying for it.\n\nFor example, if the game was listed in the computer for $15, but had an old price tag on it for $30, he could \"sell\" a $10 membership and a $5 preorder with the game.\n\nDefinitely not cool. And in hind sight I wish I would have been old enough and wise enough to report it.",
"Because some people are collectors and want an actual copy of the game and not a bunch of ones and zeros with a digital copy that they can never do anything with. Physical copies can be traded, sold, and can retain their value. There are a lot of expensive vintage games as well as modern games out. With a digital game your screwed if you buy it and don't like it and your basically owning nothing and might as well just pirate it by that logic.",
"Preorders!\n\nPreorders are basically free money that GameStop gets interest on. All that money sits in an account with a high rate of return and there's zero risk. Do this millions of times across thousands of stores and that money keeps generating interest for the corporate operations.\n\nEven better is when the customer completely forgets about their preorder. That money is GameStop's forever.",
"I like having games on my person and not online were I could lose it to hackers or even Xbox banning my account\n",
"Because people are idiots, when I used to work in retail you get the same types of people who come in and pay full price, those who have alot of money and dont care about looking for deals and those who are chavs, they would come in and get credit, but whatever and then deal with it.",
"step 1: sell game for $80\n\nstep 2: buy used a few weeks later for $5 store credit\n\nstep 3: sell used for $65",
"I'd rather own a physical disc, can be transferred/sold 2nd hand on ebay if I want, doesn't take up space on my console, ect. same price so why not? just as easy to ask \"what do you find appealing about downloads\"",
"Today I found a brand new Halo 5 game at a Goodwill for $20. It's a $60 game that just came out, so we thought we would see how much Gamestop would give us for it. It was like $24. They would have sold it for $55.\n\nThat's how they make money.",
"The retail business model is the same regardless of what it is you sell. EB Games and Gamestop are retailers that carry video game stuff. Home Depot is a retailer that carries building supplies and home renovation stuff. \n\nThe manufacturers of a product (like a drill or a video game console) will sell to a distributor. Then the distributor will sell to various retailers. At each stage, there's a mark-up and a profit taken. Retailers usually have the lowest gross margins -- it's common for retailers to have 10 - 15%. Grocery chains will go as low as 5%. Manufacturers and distributors will often have higher margins, but this isn't always so (e.g. Sony with the PS3 during the first years of production). \n\nMore sophisticated retailers (like Wal-Mart or Amazon) or more sophisticated manufacturers (like Toyota or Tesla) will often try to handle their own distribution. Big retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon have the scale and the talent to handle such large logistics. That's one of the reasons why they are both so successful. The same with Toyota (and to a lesser extent, Tesla). Controlling more parts of what's called the **value chain** means that a business will capture more of the value, thus making more money.\n\nFinally, retail is only one **channel**. There are different means to get whatever product you are selling into the hands of the end user. Direct sales is a common one for business to business products. Direct to consumer sales used to basically mean telemarketing. But not anymore. Steam is a means to deliver direct to consumers. That means game publishers (or, even further back on the value chain, game developers) can by-pass all the other stops on the value chain and get their game directly to you. All with Valve taking their cut -- which is still ultimately cheaper than the old way of developer -- > publisher -- > (distributor?) -- > retailer -- > consumer. \n\nThe other answers in this thread are good for giving insight as to how Gamestop works and how it handles product acquisition. But finding products to sell is something that every retailer and every distributor is concerned with, from life insurance to tractors. ",
"I owned a game store in Medicine Hat Alberta in the late 90's, early 00's. It's a tough business to be in, that's for sure. Most games had little to no mark-up, but the crazy thing was, once in a while a game came along that I could make money on. The two that spring to mind immediately, are ShadowGate64 and Real Fishing for PSX. For some reason, my cost on Real Fishing was about $70, and Wal-mart was selling it for $119 at the time. I sold mine for $99 or $109, undercutting Wal-mart. ShadowGate was another one that was either $99 or $109 at retail, but had a $75-$80 wholesale cost. \n\nAs others have stated, the vast majority of cash is made at the used market, no question.",
"They make it on the used games. I can't fathom, bandwidth aside, why someone would put up with a midnight release when they can have to downloaded, preloaded, and ready to go. ",
"I can't trade in a digital copy to help fund a new game. That's the sole reason I only buy digital copies of games I plan to play for years, when I wouldn't get much for trading in anyway(gta v, bf4 etc)",
"I was a general manager and inventory control manager for a competitor (small, had 10 stores at its height ). All of our money came from used stuff. The roi on new stuff is next to nothing. We paid 198.00 for a system that retails for 199.99 etc. But the new inventory is what brings people in to buy other stuff (used). Also when the stores offer extended warranties it helps too. Those were almost completely pure revenue. Simply put, you brought us your defective one, our supplier pays us a pretty good chunk for em, they get them fixed and we buy repaired one back and sell as used. ",
"In England a digital console game is more expensive than a physical copy 100% of the time. For example, new games from online stores (Amazon, ShopTo etc.) for PS4 usually cost between £35 and £40, whereas the digital version is always £49.99 and for popular games (Metal Gear, Fallout, Battlefront) it's £54.99. Digital is bullshit.\n\nJust for reference, £55 is $83",
"When my xbox broke down i was in the middle of mass effect 2, I didnt want to wait for it to ship to my house, i went immediately to gamestop and bought a new one. I was back at my house and playing again in an hour.",
"Same way ANY Brick and mortar stores stay in business today. Instant gratification. Other then perishable food, like bread and milk, it makes more sense to buy things on ebay/amazon. The price is nearly always better, the selection is better, you can compare several similar items at once, and see peer reviews on the products before buying. Especially with things like amazon prime, you can have ANYTHING in 2 days, free shipping. \n\nThe thing is, 2 days is too long sometimes. If I don't think ahead, i have to wait 2 days to get my impulse purchase? No thanks.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWtiM2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVmhNVXlacGNHRm5aVDB4TURRM09EQXdNaVp6ZFdKemFXUTlOVGM9JnR5cGU9MSZmbj1HYW1lc3RvcENvcnAueGxz"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1s3e9z | how are jersey numbers picked in sports? | I'm specifically curious about American football, basketball, and soccer but any explanations are welcome. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s3e9z/eli5_how_are_jersey_numbers_picked_in_sports/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdthlnz",
"cdtjl9o",
"cdtjsd8"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"the player gets to choose his number as long as its already not taken by another player and its not retired",
"In the NFL, there are jersey number restrictions based on position.\n\nOn offense: Quarterbacks wear 0-19; running backs are 20-49; offensive linemen are 50-79; wide receivers are 80-89; and tight ends are generally 80-89, but they can also be 20-49 if all 80-89 are already taken.\n\nOn defense: Linemen are 90-99 first and then 70-79 if the 90's are taken (I'm not too positive I'm right about this one); linebackers are 50-62 or something like that; defensive backs (safeties and cornerbacks) are 20-49. \n\nKickers and punters are generally 0-19, but I think there's an exception for them as well that I'm not too sure about.\n\nNCAA college football players generally follow these as guidelines, but they technically can pick any number they want. One notable exception is Devon Gardner, the QB for Michigan, who is wearing #98 this season in honor of a former Michigan player.\n\nNow, on to basketball. I'm not too sure about any specific rules regarding NCAA, NBA, or WNBA, but generally there will be no digits larger than 5. The reason for this is because as a way for the referees to signal to the scorekeeper which player scored/committed a foul/etc. they would use the fingers on their hands to communicate the number. Digits larger than 5 would cause a problem because they require more than one hand to display. For example, \"7\" (5 fingers on one hand and 2 fingers on the other) might be mis-interpreted as \"52.\"\n\nSomeone please correct me if I'm wrong at all, and add on if you know anything about soccer. Personally I don't follow that sport very closely, so I don't know a lot about the numbering system they use.\n\nEDIT: In the NFL, one of the reasons for the numbering system is so that the referees can differentiate between who on offense is an eligible player to carry the ball and who is not. Theoretically, an ineligible player (usually an offensive tackle) can report as eligible for one play at a time, but at the expense of making a previously eligible player in eligible for that play.",
"Theres some good answers. heres a nice little tid bit, when big name players get traded to team and someone on that team already has there number, they will pay big money or give expensive gifts to the person in order to get there number because it is such a big part of the playing identity"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3el61v | why is not recommended to switch back from synthetic or semisynthetic motor oil to regular mineral oil or viceversa? | there so many versions of this subject on the web, some say it's a myth some say you'll destroy the engine. i'm really confused | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3el61v/eli5_why_is_not_recommended_to_switch_back_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctfyz6r",
"ctfzpoe"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it's a myth. Your engine doesn't care. However, on old engines starting on synthetic might, just might, cause a leak. Moreover, it doesn't make sense to switch: why did you pay extra all those times and now you're too cheap? Just pick one and don't worry. Most people get rid of their cars long before it needs a new engine.",
"It's definitely a myth. I worked at a place which does oil changes (Jiffy Lube) for a year, and someone definitely would have told me if there was a problem with going from synthetic back to mineral. Part of my job was to try to convince people to buy synthetic, so trust me, corporate would have loved it if we could tell people that they can't switch from synthetic back to mineral without getting sued. And, of course, if trying to convince people to switch from mineral to synthetic were dangerous, we wouldn't have been constantly harassed by my boss to do it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4kjb47 | why are the mp3 versions of an album sometimes more expensive than the actual physical copy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kjb47/eli5_why_are_the_mp3_versions_of_an_album/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3fcb9z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The physical copy take up physical space, so retailers will often discount it more heavily in order to get rid of them. MP3 albums don't have that issue."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
83805i | how does a single party system work in politics? | Is it dictatorship by a committee instead of a person? Is it like a Western democracy but with the voter filter being education instead of age? or is it something completely different to what I have in mind? Can the ruling party/ideology ever be changed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83805i/eli5_how_does_a_single_party_system_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvfwvq1"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I live in an ex-single party country. My dad was the member of League of Communists of Yugoslavia in his youth, which was the sole ruling party of that country, in a situation where all political activity outside that party was banned. \n\nIn a single party state, being the member of that party is pretty much a must if you want to achieve higher (or even moderate) social positions. \n There are elections though, on both local level and wider. Local committees had members who were voted into their places. Party wasn't under dictatorship rule, since all important positions were electable. Elections go exactly the same like in modern democracies, but limited to a party and its members. All elections are internal. Good example would be elections within US parties before actual elections, like Trump vs Cruz vs others. Good example for the next thing i'll say too (generally both US parties are great examples of how a party works in Single party state).\n\nThe party in Single party state is full of factions. Within Communist Party of Yugoslavia, there were bunch of factions, going from left to right (from leftist, liberal communists and reformers, across centrist moderates, to rightist, socialy conservative, almost Stalinist, nationalist factions). All factions had well-known members among prominent politicians, and debates were pretty democratic and constant. Factions would be created for nearly any important question, just like in multi-party state. \nBecoming a party-member was different than in modern time - Today, at least in my country, parties practically beg people to join them, and all you have to do is join and be loyal to them. \nTo join the party in Single party state, you have to go through screening - you need references, you need to be a good citizen, come from a good family, your father needed to be an honest loyalist. Almost like getting a job. No more than 5-10% of population were members.\n\nAlso, party had those big congresses happening every 4 or more years (pretty irregular time spans) where a lot of important questions would be debated. This is somewhat similar to 4-year presidential elections.\n\nThose congresses are all historical events, and the most important was the last one, the 14th Congress, in 1990, when the League fell apart, after party members from Slovenia walked out during hot debate about autonomy of Yugoslavian republics and republic factions within the League. After this historical walk-out, the League soon ceased to exist and dozens of new parties were created (most out of already existing factions within the League). All parties were focused on republics instead of whole Yugoslavia, most of them were nationalistic (at least those that won republic elections). This was the beginning of our multi-party system, but also, the civil war obviously.\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8lzbna | why do the physics in video games just kind freak out sometimes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8lzbna/eli5_why_do_the_physics_in_video_games_just_kind/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzjlyx1",
"dzjlzxr"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Can’t say for every glitch, but I know in a lot of cases (particularly on original console games) wall collision worked by propelling a player backwards slightly when it made contact. If a player somehow got lodged between two walls (or any two objects), they would build up massive momentum from continuously being propelled backwards. If the player was suddenly not trapped anymore (by changing angle etc), they would be launched outwards with this gained momentum",
"Video game physics are basically a lot of math formulas under the hood. Sometimes things go wrong, and the numbers that the math usually gets as input end up too big or too small or something else weird, and chaos ensues. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
54tooj | object oriented vs class oriented programming | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54tooj/eli5_object_oriented_vs_class_oriented_programming/ | {
"a_id": [
"d84uxmb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"These are the same thing. Object oriented programming is programming that uses classes (which are what objects are instances of). The \"opposite\" (as much as such a thing exists) of object oriented programming is functional programming. \n\nObject oriented programming, as I said, is based around objects: these are things that exist. For example, you might have a class called Square, and every instance of that object is a square. Classes contain data (in the form of member variables) and functions, and these are (with some exceptions) associated to the instances, not the class itself. For example, if A and B are squares, then A.Area might be the area of A, while B.Area is the area of B, and A.ScaleUp(2) might double the side lengths of A, while leaving B unchanged. \n\nFunctional programming is different. Rather than the top level objects being classes and objects, they are functions. That is: they take data in, and they do things to it, and they have return values (which might be void). Everything else exists inside some function (or maybe globally, but those are generally a bad idea to use anyway). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5z9qo6 | how does the new graphics card driver optimize the card for the specific game that i'm playing? how is a graphics card customizable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z9qo6/eli5_how_does_the_new_graphics_card_driver/ | {
"a_id": [
"dewfpg2",
"dewg8mx"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
" > How does the new graphics card driver optimize the card for the specific game that I'm playing? \n\nThey cheat. \n\nThe video spec will say something like \"When a program issues commands A, B, C, the driver should do X, Y, Z.\" \n\nThose game specific optimizations change the driver so that when THAT SPECIFIC PROGRAM does A, B, C, instead of doing X, Y, Z, it will do Q instead. Typically, Q has the same end result as X, Y, Z, but it takes less time. If any other program issues X, Y, Z, the driver will adhere to the spec and do A, B, C. \n\nThis is an especially touchy issue for linux video gamers like me since that's the primary reason why AMD's cards are unusuable. AMD doesn't cheat like Nvidia does, so their cards suck for gaming. \n\n > How is a graphics card customizable?\n\nFor the most part, the card itself is not. (I'm assuming it doesn't contain any FPGAs or other really exotic stuff). The graphics driver, on the other hand, is not part of the card. It is a piece of software runs on the computer CPU as part of the kernel. ",
"Three things that I can think of.\n\nFirst, a graphics driver is very complicated and can do many things in several different ways. It tries to guess about the most efficient way to accomplish the things a game asks it for, and it's usually correct, but sometimes it may guess incorrectly and slow down the graphics card. If a game is popular, Nvidia and AMD engineers will analyze how it uses their graphics cards and if there are any inefficiencies to address. If there are, they may include special instructions in the driver on how to handle that specific game.\n\nSecond, they often provide replacement shaders. A shader is a small program that is uploaded to the graphics card and runs there, doing some sort of processing task (there are many different types of shaders). Video card people will look at the shaders of popular games and see if there are any ways they can be improved to run faster, maybe because the game's developers didn't do a perfect job or maybe because insider knowledge about the video card can be used to squeeze out more performance. Then they'll write a new shader and include it in the driver. When the driver is given the original shader by the game, it'll recognize it and use its own replacement instead.\n\nThird, there may be actual bugs in the driver that cause it to run slowly under some specific circumstances, and a certain game is running into that bug. Fixing it isn't really a specific improvement to that game, but it could be described as that, because it was discovered through that game and if it's an obscure bug that game might be the only one affected."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
6md8jp | why do fireflies not get hot when they glow, and why can we not make anything as efficient? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6md8jp/eli5_why_do_fireflies_not_get_hot_when_they_glow/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk0pcnx",
"dk0pv09",
"dk14o9a"
],
"score": [
8,
137,
15
],
"text": [
"Heat (well not noticable amounts of) is just not a bi-product of the specific chemical reaction produced by the fireflies to produce their glow.\n\nWe do: glow sticks. (Albiet different chemicals but same concept)",
"Bioluminescence is produced by chemical reactions involving molecules called luciferins. These chemicals are able to produce light very efficiently without a lot of waste heat.\n\nAs for making them, well, we can. The reason we don't use chemicals for lighting is because, while efficient, they aren't very *bright*. Try lighting a room with a bucketful of fireflies and see how much illumination they'll give you. Enough to *see*, but probably not enough to read by.\n\nAnother issue is that bioluminescence requires a constant feed of new chemicals to power it. You need something producing new luciferins, as well as oxygen to make it glow. Like a fire, oxygen will be consumed in the reaction and must be replenished, so you can't keep it isolated in a tube. Less convenient than electric lamps.\n\nBut for situations that don't require much light, scientists are already looking into it - [check out this bacteria-powered lamp](_URL_0_)! It has it faults - it isn't very bright, the bacteria need to be fed, and it needs to be in motion to keep the oxygen flowing. But still cool stuff.\n\nIt also turns out that luminescent genes are one of the easier things to splice into...basically anything. Scientists have made glowing plants, fruit flies, shrimp, mice, rabbits, and even cats. I've heard of plans to use genetically engineered glowing trees instead of street lamps in some cities, so that's something to look forward to.\n\nEDIT: Actually, most of these genetically engineered organisms are florescent, not luminescent - they don't actually produce their own light, they just glow in the dark. But there are some experimental [bioluminescent plants](_URL_1_), although it seems they have shorter lifespans because they use up a lot of their energy to produce light.",
"As an aside, we *can* make quite efficient lights that don't produce nearly as much heat -- LEDs!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.wired.com/2015/01/lamp-whose-light-comes-bioluminescent-bacteria/",
"http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/we-may-one-day-be-reading-light-houseplant/"
],
[]
]
|
||
3ieytk | the seemingly recent prominence of right-wing extremist groups in europe, especially eastern europe. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ieytk/eli5the_seemingly_recent_prominence_of_rightwing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuftswn",
"cufupec"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"You're simply witnessing how humans can sometimes react to uncertainty and economic problems (which really get to simply well-being and survival problems). Germany became dominated by Nazis much for the same reason after all.\n\nRight-wing authoritarianism is generally associated with intolerance for ambiguity and focusing on security, too. So it makes sense that increased uncertainty and economic chaos would bring out those who fear the ambiguity and lack of security that it brings, and that their messages of certainty, scapegoats for problems and intense focus on security would appeal to more people.",
"rise of immigrant populations, especially muslims, that take an enormous amount of government money in social programs. a lot of these countries are a newly parts of the eu and have a lessened ability to manage their own finances after joining the eu"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
eigho5 | why are mass shooters never forward and upfront about their motives? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eigho5/eli5_why_are_mass_shooters_never_forward_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcprt9p",
"fcpxfz6",
"fcpyj8k",
"fcq004q",
"fcq02om",
"fcq062l",
"fcq0c7v"
],
"score": [
57,
5,
53,
5,
6,
13,
14
],
"text": [
"You’ve actually made a pretty interesting distinction. It could have something to do with the profile of mass shooters. They are generally loners who suffer from severe mental illness whereas a lot of serial killers are seeking attention and notoriety.",
"I suspect that the distinction has a lot to do with the mindset and execution of the act itself. \n\nWith serial killers by and large, they take single victims they have selected with specific traits, often with meticulous reason and attention to detail. They have a clear and reasoned approach to the selection of victim and method, developed over years. For these minds, the selection of the target is the result of years of buildup, usually starting with the torture of animals, and built up from there. They are usually lacking in empathy to a high degree, all that matters to then is themselves. These kinds of minds are also usually highly organised and intelligent, if bent to a horrifying purpose. These minds may not initially want the infamy, though they are often prepared for it. \n\nWhereas with most mass shooting scenarios, the target isn't so much a single person or even group of people, but people with a shared trait that are gathered in large numbers in a specific place to maximise casualties, usually in response to a real or imagined slight. For these perpetrators, there is little buildup in psychological terms. They may or may not have a specific reason for their target location choice, but most of them just want their 15 minutes of infamy to spray their screed to all who may hear it. They often do not expect to survive their actions, and if they do are not prepared to face down the media they so deliberately wanted their actions to inspire.",
"I think that some do. The shooter who attacked the mosque in New Zealand wrote out a manifesto, the Isla Vista shooter uploaded a video before his attack. There may be others, this is just the only two that I know of off the top of my head.",
"I would guess the reason for that is simply sample size. \n\nI think the subset of serial killers like Daher who are so willing to share their life stories is pretty small. But over the years there have been hundreds and hundreds of serial killers, so theres are a few willing to talk.\n\nThe number of mass shooters is a lot smaller, even more so if you only consider the ones that got arrested and can actually be interviewed.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nKeep in mind that this is only my thought process and I cannot prove any of this.",
"My guess is that shooting a gun is a lot less personal than serial killers. The motive might be a lot more abstract and less planned than perhaps a serial killer's. It seems to be that mass shooters often go on rampages due to frustration, anger or being bullied rather than a deep psychological issue or fetish like a serial killer. That's not to say that a mass shooter isn't psychologicaly damaged, but it seems more reactionary behaviour rather than obsessive and calculated.",
"Elliott Rodger and Anders Breivik wrote long treatises explaining why they did what they did.",
"Mass shooters sometimes have a manifesto. I read the new zealand shooters manifesto. It was erased from the internet rapidly. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nI just wanted to understand, but actual motivations for mass homicide is something that just doesn't get reported these days."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
en3uy7 | one shot film making (just saw 1917) | So I just saw 1917 and thought it was great. I have heard/read about how it was a one shot movie, but I don't fully understand the concept. I watched the AVGN version of a one shot episode (Immortal), and the BTS - is 1917 sorta like that, but on a larger scale? I am fascinated on the concept. Does that mean there were little to no retakes? cuts? Is it like a play and the actors needed to memorize it all in one go? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en3uy7/eli5_one_shot_film_making_just_saw_1917/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdtwtm1",
"fdu573x"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not actually one shot, they just hide the cuts.\n\nBut obviously when you have to hide every single cut there are more and complex requirements on where you can or cannot cut and must do one take for real.",
"They're not actually one shot, they're just creative about hiding the cuts. If you liked 1917, I'd definitely recommend Birdman. It's also filmed as one shot and is one of my favorite movies ever"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3teus1 | if race is just a social construct, why is seperating races so important for bone marrow donation? | I've been on a bone marrow donor registry for a few years now and this is something I've always wondered.
Everyone keeps arguing that race is just a social construct. But for things like bone marrow donation (I don't know if it applies to anything else medically important???), it's extremely important to document every known ethnicity and race you are. Giving someone a bone marrow transplant from someone who doesn't match your ethnicity can kill you. (???)
Why is this?
I am so ignorant on this topic, please educate me! Like I'm 5! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3teus1/eli5_if_race_is_just_a_social_construct_why_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5jr4m",
"cx5jtgm",
"cx5jtsl",
"cx5k42w",
"cx5k5j2",
"cx5kfyd"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is not fully a social construct. There are many genetic components that while minor and mostly superficial do have bearing on some things like potential compatibility of bone marrow, susceptibility of genetic conditions such as sickle cell anemia and how some medications will work for you. ",
"Race is basically a social construct - the differences between skin colours is not much different than the differences between hair colour, eye colour, whether you have an earlobe or not etc. There *are* some differences and these are mostly based on the region your ancestors came from, not skin colour. Bone marrow needs to be very compatible if you want a transplant - even more so than blood transfusions. You can't necessarily accept a donor kidney or blood transfusion from a close family member but they aren't a different 'race'. In this case it's just a very statistically valid screening process.",
"Kind of similar to blood, there is a system in bone marrow that creates things for your immune system (HLA. These have different types, are passed down through genes. The transplant's antigens will attack the body if it's not a match.\n\nIt's more likely that you'll find a match from someone of a similar race because of a more recent divergence between ancestors than someone of a different race, and therefore a more similar gene structure.\n\nRace is a physiological difference, not just a social construct. That doesn't mean that people are inherently worth more or less, but it does matter in fields like medicine.\n\n*Note:* I do not study biology, so someone else will probably have a better answer but this is what I understand from what I read a while ago.",
"Race is a... partially social construct. \n\nThere are some (very, very minor) differences between races, that do lead to different physical characteristics. Skin colour is a very notable one, but it also includes stuff like a genetic disposition towards certain diseases. That's a medical/scientific aspect, and can be used to help fight these symptoms. \n\nNow, scientifically, all humans (regardless of race) are the same species. \n\nThe social aspect of race, sadly, was created mainly to artificially negate that statement. On many occasions it was used to show superiority or inferiority compared to other races. ",
"Everyone's getting two terms confused. Ethnicity is the social construct; it's based on groups of people who identify with others based on presumed common ancestry, cultures, religions, etc. Race is a biological difference within our human species and is clearly visible to most. It's by definition *not* a social construct; that's ethnicity, even if there's a lot of overlap since ethnicity can be based on race.\n\nThe reason race and ethnicity matter with transplants is that in general, someone will *more likely* find a compatible donor from a similar race/ethnicity because we need to match antigens, which are inherited from parent to child. Thus matching on race and ethnicity increases likelihood of a successful transplant, though it's not a requirement for a match.",
"Bone marrow needs you to be fairly close to the person genetically, this is because of mutations that can make the transplant impossible. Since the database is huge it makes sense to automatically exclude anyone of another race when doing the searches because you know they won't be close enough.\n\nI'd bet it's simply to save on computer power.\n\nKeep in mind that even same race people normally can't give marrow to each other. It's actually very hard to find matches, which is why everyone should become a donor, so that everyone's types are on record for those who need it.\n\nRace is a social construct in that it's really only based on a few visible phenotypic differences, when there are many much more important differences we don't group by.\n\nWe have phylogenies and skin colour follows some of the major branches, but there has been mixing of the branches for centuries/millenia and yet race is really only determined by the single phenotype. \n\nFor example, genetically there is a higher within group variation of Black people than between group variation between blacks and whites. That means that there are many groups of black people that are more different from each other than the whole group of blacks is different from the whole group of whites.\n\nThe separation is one we decided on."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1s6ue4 | driving an automatic car, when would i benefit from not putting the car in overdrive or "drive"? | I don't know much about cars, but every automatic car I've driven has overdrive before other options. What road conditions would allow me to benefit from not using overdrive or "drive"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s6ue4/driving_an_automatic_car_when_would_i_benefit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cduh592",
"cduh8l2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You want to use regular-drive when you're hauling anything or your load is of excess weight.",
"Icy hills can frequently be more successfully navigated via engine braking (downshifting) rather than wheel braking. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
8y5qm5 | why is it risky to eat cookie dough with raw egg when mayo also has raw egg whites? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8y5qm5/eli5_why_is_it_risky_to_eat_cookie_dough_with_raw/ | {
"a_id": [
"e28dejq",
"e28oe3x",
"e29iznh",
"e29sniv"
],
"score": [
25,
16,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically because commercially bought mayo uses sterilizing methods to make the eggs safe without cooking them. Besides, chances are that most store bought mayo doesn't even use real eggs.",
"I thought it was due to the flour: _URL_0_\n\nbut maybe it could be both?",
"Aside from commercial mayo, which is normally made with pasteurized eggs (as others have noted), even homemade mayo made with unpasteurized eggs *can* be safer than raw cookie dough. As noted in this [Stack Overflow post](_URL_0_) and the studies linked with it, if the acid content of mayo is high enough and it's held at room temperature for long enough, any salmonella in the egg will die off. Oddly enough, keeping the mayo at a lower temperature actually lengthens the required time for eliminating the salmonella, which is why the recommendation is to let it sit at room temperature for 48-72 hours (depending on the ratio of egg yolk to acid) before storing in the fridge to lengthen the shelf life.\n\n*Not a doctor or biologist, so take this with a grain of salt.",
"Depends upon the eggs. Being Mayo or cookie dough isn’t the factor it is whether or not the eggs were pasteurized or not. \n\nIt is considered unsafe to eat non-pasteurized eggs due to chance of becoming ill but there isn’t any threat to eating a pasteurized raw egg."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2011/12/09/143450624/the-surprising-ingredient-in-raw-cookie-dough-that-could-make-you-sick"
],
[
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33212/room-temperature-rest-for-fresh-mayo"
],
[]
]
|
||
2jf4ni | how does the president moving into the white house work? | Okay, so like how long after being sworn in does he move in?
•Does he bring all his stuff from home
or does the white house provide it all?
• Does he continue paying for his personal house during this?
• Does he pay for bills in the white house ( water, electricity, etc.)
•Can the white house be painted (inside) and decorated differently to suit personal styles? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jf4ni/eli5_how_does_the_president_moving_into_the_white/ | {
"a_id": [
"clb34fi",
"clb446z",
"clbicjx",
"clbmagn"
],
"score": [
7,
25,
5,
8
],
"text": [
"The White House is half house half office building. The president moves his family and their stuff into the living area. Their kids get their own rooms and all that jazz. \n\nThere are many items in the White House that are kept due to historical value. The first lady takes a pretty active role in decorating. The idea is to bring a little something to the house to make it their own even though it's government property. They have a great deal of respect so they don't go with an animal print motif.\n\nA great many presidents will keep their own home to return to at the end of their term.\n\nThe taxpayer foots the bill for utilities.",
"The move is accomplished very fast - during the inaugural ceremony, in fact. The idea is the old president will leave the White House as it was in his term - and a few hours later, the new president will enter a White House full of his family's possessions, ready for a decorator to begin immediately. No time is lost. It's quite a feat of logistics.\n\nThe first family, usually FLOTUS, is expected to redecorate certain parts of the White House to their style quickly. Other parts, like the rooms on the tour, stay mostly the same. Depends on the tastes of the family.\n\nEdit: The tour rooms, and public areas, do change but it's mostly an issue of circulating existing pieces and motifs. Also of note, the National Gallery makes much of its collection available for temporary loan to the White House for the decorating of the Oval.",
"off topic....isn't it true the president gets paid something like $400k a year? This is *peanuts* compared to the responsibility that rests on his shoulders, but 400k nonetheless. Also I believe they are given secret service protection for 10 years after their term as president, which in today's world doesn't seem like that long, maybe that should be extended to a lifetime. ",
"There's a really detailed article about it (from 2009) here: _URL_0_\n\nHere's the key extract:\n\n\"First families move in and out—“They get a four- or eight-year lease,” says Gary Walters, former chief usher of the Executive Mansion. But the staff, customs, and mechanics surrounding the world's most powerful chief executive endure, often for generations.\n\nWalters’s goal was to have the departing family’s possessions out and the new socks in dresser drawers, personal furniture arranged, pictures hung, family photos displayed, favorite snacks in the kitchen—all in that six-hour time frame. There is no chance to get a head start, since the new President does not officially take office until January 20 at noon, two hours after his moving van pulls up under escort in the White House driveway as the outgoing President leaves for the Capitol. To make the deadline, Walters would deploy the entire 90-member staff at once, divided into teams with specific tasks. Months of planning included repeat verbal dry runs.\"\n\nAnother interesting fact is that the President has to pay for all the food, toilet paper, toothpaste and anything else he and his family use in a personal capacity. Given that even a sandwich is made by a top-class chef, a few presidents have had a shock about just how expensive the food is. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/01/president/bumiller-text"
]
]
|
|
2jm51i | why is reuters considered to be a very valid news source? what makes it any different than msnbc or fox news? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jm51i/eli5_why_is_reuters_considered_to_be_a_very_valid/ | {
"a_id": [
"clcyqk8",
"cld0hf1",
"cld4s9z",
"cld666r",
"cld6bm7",
"cld7xt9",
"cld9ll4"
],
"score": [
29,
216,
6,
22,
9,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Reuters is a news operation, making a reasonable and professional effort to present the news objectively. Does a pretty good job, if you ask me.\n\nMSNBC is not a news source at all. It offers only commentary (right-wing in the morning and left-wing in the evening) but it employs no news reporters and offers no newscasts.\n\nFox News is a news source driven by ideology, and offers news and commentary, both from a right-wing perspective.\n\n",
"Reuters is a news agency that sells articles to other people, so that they can publish it and make money. Since Reuters wants to sell their articles to both MSNBC and Fox News, and both of their online sites, and both conservative and liberal newspapers, they make their articles as much of \"just the facts.\" that you can get. \n\nMSNBC and Fox News are both offering political spin on news. It is in their favor to deliberately push an agenda, because that's what their viewers want.",
"FoxNews has a handful of individuals I would dare say resemble decent journalists. Msnbc too. \n\nThe problem is they are probably contractually obligated to perpetuate the lie that these are reliable fact based news outlets. Their failure to contradict their employers contrived reality undermines their credibility.",
"Reuters is a news agency. There are four recognised international news agencies that feed just the facts stories. Reuters, PA (Press Association), AP (associated Press), and AFP (agency France presse). You'll often see their stories printed in newspapers without bylines.",
"Reuters also does not use emotionally charged words, they know that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter too.\n\nThey give numbers and facts, they don't put a spin for any political group or country.",
"Like, animebop explained, Reuters is a B2B agency. Meaning they sell their stories, b-roll, segments, and pictures to other \"news agencies.\" Nearly every \"news\" organization, from CNN to Fox, to Al Jaz, and probably even Vice, has a subscription to Reuters. Let's say you are doing a story on ISIS with a quick turnaround, and you don't have any footage of terrorists in-house, you can just pull it up from Reuters. That's why most news organizations tend to have similar footage, copy, and story content. \n\nI wouldn't say Reuters is committed to journalism, per say. They are a business, after all. So, they only cover stories that would have \"wide appeal.\" Sometimes, they have stories/footage that cost \"extra\" in addition to your subscription, so obviously these type of stories would have to have major appeal in a consumer market. \n\nIf you are a \"big named\" customer, like a CNN, you can also \"request\" their journalists to cover a particular story of your choosing. Ultimately, it's their decision whether they would think it's worth it, cost-wise, to cover it. ",
"Associated Press sticks to the republican viewpoint, I'll start reading an article that seems like a press release then look at the byline, AP.\n\nReuters seems the most factual."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3nkcl1 | why do we chill when we are actually burning with fever? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nkcl1/eli5_why_do_we_chill_when_we_are_actually_burning/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvp4oba"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's a part of your brain that controls your temperature called the hypothalamus. When you get a fever, your immune system makes your hypothalamus change your desired temperature higher. Your body basically wants to get warmer, so it makes you feel cold. When you feel cold, you try to get warmer yourself and you shiver to move your body to create warmth. Your body forces you to feel cold because it wants you to get warm. If you felt hot, you would try and cool yourself down, which is the opposite of what your body is trying to do."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.