q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
d5agka | why streets have ave, blvd, and all the other endings to it (u.s. user) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d5agka/eli5_why_streets_have_ave_blvd_and_all_the_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0kseuh"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"From the video link posted:\n\nRoad (Rd.): Can be anything that connects two points. The most basic of the naming conventions.\n\nWay: A small side street off a road.\n\nStreet (St.): A public way that has buildings on both sides of it. They run perpendicular to avenues.\n\nAvenue (Ave.): Also a public way that has buildings or trees on either side of it. They run perpendicular to streets.\n\nBoulevard (Blvd.): A very wide city street that has trees and vegetation on both sides of it. There’s also usually a median in the middle of boulevards.\n\nLane (Ln.): A narrow road often found in a rural area. Basically, the opposite of a boulevard.\n\nDrive (Dr.): A long, winding road that has its route shaped by its environment, like a nearby lake or mountain.\n\nTerrace (Ter.): A street that follows the top of a slope.\n\nPlace (Pl.): A road or street that has no throughway—or leads to a dead end.\n\nCourt (Ct.): A road or street that ends in a circle or loop"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3ffvh7 | the "higher education bubble" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ffvh7/eli5_the_higher_education_bubble/ | {
"a_id": [
"cto7ryx",
"cto974i"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"A bubble refers to a market for a product that is considered overvalued and therefore overpriced. You're paying more than it is actually worth, but because everyone shares an unrealistic overvaluation a \"bubble\" forms in which people continue to buy the product. When enough people realize that the product is overvaluated, they stop buying; and as demand dries up, the bubble pops, and many are left holding product on which they can never recoup their investment. \n\nThere's a current theory that the value of higher education is disproportionate to what you'll earn as a result of buying it. In other words, an insufficient return on investment. This is a much-debated proposition with some valid arguments on both sides and a lot of emotional arguments clouding the debate.",
"Some Jobs require college. Now everybody goes, raising the cost. Too many college grads apply for a job, only the most experienced onces get the job leaving the others unemployed. So more people go to college again trying to gain more of a foot hold, raising the cost again. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2ysntu | how is it that political movements often gather tremendous momentum only to fizzle and die completely? | I'm thinking of Bloc Quebecois from years ago when separation look like a very real possibility and we've not heard a peep like that since. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ysntu/eli5how_is_it_that_political_movements_often/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpcjozc",
"cpcjtay"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the people joining these kinds of political movements are just doing it because it's the flavor of the month. It sounds cool, being a part of it makes them feel better than their peers, and it gives them something to do. They don't really understand the issue and they are in it for their own personal satisfaction rather than the movement itself.\n\nOnce enough people join the movement, it stops being cool. They have to go join some other up and coming movement. When they do that, the previous one fizzles out.",
"Not heard a peep?\n\nThere's still pro-Quebec separatists working away and they're virtually militant about it, pushing anti-immigration laws, shutting down businesses that don't comply to draconian language laws.\n\nIn Quebec's case, they actually got their referendum which failed to vote for separation, so after that the push for full separation was dulled, but they still rage away and to this day 30-40% of Quebecers would still vote to leave Canada.... well not 'leave' but have autonomy and still have Canada pay for everything. \n\nAs a general statement though, political movements will often build to a specific point, an election or war or event of some kind...and if they fail to fulfill the requirements they needed at that point, then they fizzle...the fervor and immediacy is gone. \n\nLike if your political movement was entirely Anti-Obama, when Obama wins the 2nd election...well, now there's nothing you can do, it happened. The Tea Party thing also really rallied around all the economic stuff and wanted to use a period in time to create a financial disaster, once they lost and the US didn't default on its obligations... they lose the stage and momentum.\n\nSame with the hippie side, Occupy Wall Street... people were in panics over that stuff, the markets had crashed and bailouts etc... etc... people were still upset. 4-5 years later it becomes apparent the Government MADE money on most of the bailout and markets were at new highs. The hardcore can stay mad, but the public loses interest. In their case too there was no agenda whatsoever, so nothing could ever be accomplished. \n\nThere tends to be a time period, once it passes, the movement passes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
32negb | why is obama removing cuba from the terrorist list? why has no one else done this before? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32negb/eli5_why_is_obama_removing_cuba_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqcvqa0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They really never warranted being on the list in the first place, so it makes sense from a factual perspective. However, it is move that offends conservative/Republican types so it took a Democractic president with a set of balls to actually have Cuba taken off. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5wprqi | how does 60 fps playback on youtube work even with content captured at 30 fps? | Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm having trouble even wording the question as is, so searching for the topic is proving rather difficult!
In a nutshell, here's what has been messing with my head recently: how does YouTube play content captured at 30 FPS at 60 FPS?!
My gut instinct is that it just doubles up the frames, but I feel like I'd be able to tell pretty conclusively if that was the case, yet I'm unable to do so? Even more confusingly, the 60 FPS playback *seems* to be running "smoother": that is, it almost *appears* as if the 30 FPS gameplay was running at a higher frame rate!
Can anyone help explain this to me? I have a basic understanding of interlaced and progressive scanning already if that helps simplify the process any. Thanks in advance, all! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wprqi/eli5_how_does_60_fps_playback_on_youtube_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"debzmko"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As far as I know, the frames are just doubled. Do you have a video example that was captured at 30fps but uploaded to YT at 60fps? They might also be adding interpolation between frames to smooth it out, but I seem to remember seeing a comparison video back when 60fps came out showing that the frames were just being doubled.\n\nAre you sure the original video was captured at 30fps?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3371aw | how do you quickly test water quality? | Let's say you're knocked out and parachuted into an unknown country. You land beside a body of water. It looks really nice. You want to go for a swim and/or take a drink from it. How do you know it won't kill you or fill you with carcinogens, etc?
let's say you're also given a kit of easily accessible items that you've prepared before hand. what's in the kit to make your test easier/accurate?
for example: [this lake](_URL_0_) looks kinda nice right? apparently it's full of hexavalent chromium. how would I be able to tell? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3371aw/eli5how_do_you_quickly_test_water_quality/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqi5d78",
"cqi5e3l"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"If it comes down to life or death: dying of dehydration or ingesting a little carcinogens go for the long term killer.\n\nThe absolute best indicator is wildlife. Watch for that. If you see animals using it as a drinking source it's cool. If you see it is surrounded by dead animals best leave it alone. If there is healthy vegitation growing around it-good. It looks like a portal to the underworld surrounded by death and decay-bad. \nTake a few drops, put it on the back of your hand or armpit or groin wait half an hour. Check for redness, swelling or any indicators that it might be a bad idea swim in. Drink a little bit wait half an hour. If you are fine it is good. If you get sick don't continue to drink.",
"My old groundwater chemistry professor would start on a consulting job by making coffee with the local water. Differences in pH, dissolved minerals, turbidity, tannin content; all would affect the taste. It would give a quick-and-dirty scope of what was going on. Of course you have to know what you're tasting for.\n\nAlso chromium-6 is apparently dangerous even at the ppb (part-per-billion) level which I don't think would be noticeable in coffee. So that's not a perfect solution."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/p3gW8l0.jpg"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
k1tjh | how do blackholes 'bend' time? | I just got done watching an episode of Discovery's 'Curiosity' (the Is There a God one) and during the last twenty minutes, my mind just filled up with fuck
Isn't time just a subjective measurement of events transpiring and passing as perceived to ones self? They state that time slows down on ones approaching the blackhole and becomes non-existant within the hole itself....but, if the blackhole is constantly consuming matter--the perceived passing of events--then how the fuck does 'time' just stop when it reaches the 'hole'? Doesn't it still become squashed and packed in into the 'hole'? I'm still kind of brainfucked about this idea so perhaps i'm not verbalizing it coherently and for that i apologize, but if someone could explain a blackholes effect on what we've defined as 'time', it would be much appreciated. Additionally, how does time *not* exist? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k1tjh/eli5_how_do_blackholes_bend_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2gva8r",
"c2gvrlk",
"c2gvvs9",
"c2gxg1z",
"c2gva8r",
"c2gvrlk",
"c2gvvs9",
"c2gxg1z"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
23,
2,
3,
9,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"Time goes slower when are standing next to something with more mass. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for this, but when you're next to a black hole, it is so massive that time will pretty much stop.",
"Time is, like everything else, relative. If you could walk up to a black hole without being destroyed by it, time would seem to you to proceed normally. Your watch would still tick by at one second per second. However, a distant observer of you would see your watch slowing down the closer you got to the event horizon of the black hole. Eventually it would appear to the observer that your watch completely stops. The opposite would be true for you. You would see the watch of the distant observer getting apparently faster the closer you got to the event horizon.\n\nNow, what I don't really have a firm grip on is this: once you got to the event horizon (or arbitrarily close), it would seem like the universe around you would be zooming around doing its thing infinitely fast. As you got to the event horizon would you see the universe speeding ever faster to its eventual end, whatever that may be?",
"Not just black holes, but anything with gravity \"bends\" time to some extent.\n\nFirst you need to know what time dilation is (no gravity involved yet).\nThe important thing to remember here is that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is always the same. \n\nImagine a simple type of clock, a beam of light bouncing between to equally spaced mirrors.\n\n *****\n |\n |\n *****\n\nSince the speed of light is the same, the time it takes to go from the top to the bottom is the same each time, one tick of the clock. \n\nNow imagine this clock is moving:\n\n ***** ***** ***** -- > \n \\ / \\ / \\\n \\ / \\ / \\ \n ***** ***** *****\n\nSince light *always* moves at the same speed, and the diagonal lines are longer, it takes longer for light to go from the top to the bottom, it has longer ticks. \n\nBut, what if you are moving at the same speed as the moving mirror?\nThen, the light will look like it's going straight up and down again, and since light *always* moves at the same speed, the ticks will be back to their original size! \n\nSo if I am on the ground with my own clock, watching you run with your clock, I will see that it takes longer for each tick on your clock compared to my clock. Since both clocks are working properly, I must conclude that time itself is moving slower for you. \n\nNow for the *really* confusing part. From your point of view, light on your clock is moving straight up and down, but the light on my clock has to go backwards diagonally, so you will similarly conclude that time is moving more slowly for me!\n\nAnd we would both be right! This is why it is called the theory of *relativity*, because the relative point of view you are talking about makes a *huge* difference. \n",
"we are traveling in time the fastest we can while we travel in space at a very slow pace, the faster we travel in space the slower we travel in time.\n\nnow when you get near at black hole it accelerates you at near the speed of light, which is the fastest you can travel in space... making you travel in time slower...",
"Time goes slower when are standing next to something with more mass. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for this, but when you're next to a black hole, it is so massive that time will pretty much stop.",
"Time is, like everything else, relative. If you could walk up to a black hole without being destroyed by it, time would seem to you to proceed normally. Your watch would still tick by at one second per second. However, a distant observer of you would see your watch slowing down the closer you got to the event horizon of the black hole. Eventually it would appear to the observer that your watch completely stops. The opposite would be true for you. You would see the watch of the distant observer getting apparently faster the closer you got to the event horizon.\n\nNow, what I don't really have a firm grip on is this: once you got to the event horizon (or arbitrarily close), it would seem like the universe around you would be zooming around doing its thing infinitely fast. As you got to the event horizon would you see the universe speeding ever faster to its eventual end, whatever that may be?",
"Not just black holes, but anything with gravity \"bends\" time to some extent.\n\nFirst you need to know what time dilation is (no gravity involved yet).\nThe important thing to remember here is that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is always the same. \n\nImagine a simple type of clock, a beam of light bouncing between to equally spaced mirrors.\n\n *****\n |\n |\n *****\n\nSince the speed of light is the same, the time it takes to go from the top to the bottom is the same each time, one tick of the clock. \n\nNow imagine this clock is moving:\n\n ***** ***** ***** -- > \n \\ / \\ / \\\n \\ / \\ / \\ \n ***** ***** *****\n\nSince light *always* moves at the same speed, and the diagonal lines are longer, it takes longer for light to go from the top to the bottom, it has longer ticks. \n\nBut, what if you are moving at the same speed as the moving mirror?\nThen, the light will look like it's going straight up and down again, and since light *always* moves at the same speed, the ticks will be back to their original size! \n\nSo if I am on the ground with my own clock, watching you run with your clock, I will see that it takes longer for each tick on your clock compared to my clock. Since both clocks are working properly, I must conclude that time itself is moving slower for you. \n\nNow for the *really* confusing part. From your point of view, light on your clock is moving straight up and down, but the light on my clock has to go backwards diagonally, so you will similarly conclude that time is moving more slowly for me!\n\nAnd we would both be right! This is why it is called the theory of *relativity*, because the relative point of view you are talking about makes a *huge* difference. \n",
"we are traveling in time the fastest we can while we travel in space at a very slow pace, the faster we travel in space the slower we travel in time.\n\nnow when you get near at black hole it accelerates you at near the speed of light, which is the fastest you can travel in space... making you travel in time slower..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2q7l1t | you know, at the art museum, those absurd paintings of giant red squares or giant blue rectangles? what makes them so valuable? why are they so special? | I recently took my friends to the local art museum and we walked into a section with "color field" paintings (like this one by [Rothko](_URL_0_) or this other by [Newman](_URL_1_)). They asked me, incredulously, "Is this art?" and although I said yes -- I couldn't explain why. I have my own theories (the color itself is the subject; it's about evoking feelings; etc.)... but can anyone else explain better? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q7l1t/eli5_you_know_at_the_art_museum_those_absurd/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn3ljm5",
"cn3m1nz",
"cn3m70i",
"cn3tgwh"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't \"get\" modern art either. Sometimes the artist can explain it and then you understand, but oftentimes... no.\n\nTrue story: Atlantic City, NJ commissioned a piece of artwork that would welcome travelers to the city at the end of the Expressway. When it was unveiled, everybody just sort of scratched their heads at it: it was a tall triangular prism made of wooden slats. Nobody knew what to make of it and it was sort of an embarrassment.\n\nBut the artist later explained that since it was designed to be installed at the end of an Expressway ramp, the setting sun would filter through the spaces between the wooden slats and glimmer like sunlight peeking through the gaps in the boardwalk when viewed from beneath it. It was made from the same type of wood, too.\n\nEveryone kinda went \"Oh!\" when they read that... but it was a little late. The installation piece was hated and eventually scrapped.\n\nBut anyway, like you, I often don't get it. Like pop art. Why are paintings of Campbell's soup cans so fantastically iconic and artistic? I dunno.",
"Because context is key, and the art world is EXTREMELY Meta. ",
"Part of it is the modernist trend toward abstraction. If you think about the work of [Piet Mondrian](_URL_1_), with the famous blue, red, yellow, black & white geometric shapes, what he was doing essentially was boiling down the visual language of painting into what he saw as its essential elements. You saw the same thing earlier with the Impressionists like Monet... instead of giving you a detailed, accurate depiction of a bunch of flowers in a pond, he offered just the colors, vague smudges, tricks of light. He's giving you the elements and then it's your job as the viewer to decide both what the painting represents and also why it matters to you: is it beautiful, does it evoke a memory or a mood, etc. \n\nRothko is part of that tradition. He gives you these color shapes that vaguely remind you maybe of earth and sky, a horizon. Or maybe just shapes, or just colors. Different colors represent different times of day, perhaps different moods. Rothko himself wanted people to be overwhelmed with emotion (he painted huge canvases, 15 or 20 feet high sometimes). He wanted to evoke feelings if ecstasy, tragedy, death, grief, the feeling of being human and alive, etc. Take a look at \"[Black on Grey](_URL_0_),\" one of the paintings he made in the last year of his life. I think it definitely conveys drama, perhaps fear, solitude, bleakness. \n\nThat's what abstraction is all about: trying to convey emotion or experience with the absolute minimum possible elements. ",
"View from my desk:\n\nI understand this to be a real-life philosophy experiment. In some cases, the artist is trying to challenge the question: \"What *is* art?\" The point being that it's 'easy' to see a Rembrandt portrait as art, because it's an incredible rendition of an object. Not just realistic, but modified (by enhancing the colors to simulate different lighting, for example) to be ideal. \n\nEven a significant simplification (Monet) is pretty clearly art, as it takes its subject (a pond filled with water lilies, for example), but presents it in a way that isn't realistic. This allows the viewer to generate their own image. For another angle, consider Dali - whose surrealism included images so detailed and realistically presented, but are most certainly not 'real' in the ordinary sort of the word.\n\nFrom there, consider Andy Warhol, with the concept of 'Pop Art'. That something very basic, or plain (like a non-particularly interesting image of a can of soup) could 'become art' if it was to be presented as art. So with very limited alterations (like presenting the image in each of four parts of a canvas, with slightly different color schemes) it becomes art. Whether you agree with this or not isn't the point. The purpose is to make a statement. \n\nThe extreme statement, to me anyways, is the 'all white canvas'. This is the maximum statement, which is that \"Anything could be art.\" That statement, if you want to extend it, could also mean that the concept of art has no meaning. Anything could simply be declared as Art, and therefore painting technique and talent, vision, are all useless. One could even put an 'installation' in a museum that is a blank wall with no painting hung up - and call it art! Notice that this concept also appears in music, as people have recorded both silence (John Cage's 4' 33\") and nonsensical sounds (like audio feedback) as called it 'music'.\n\nI've known highly abstract artists (Mondrian is one example) who paint canvases or design sculptures that are otherworldly, and require years of practice and/or study. Mondrian painted 9 foot (3 meter) long lines that were 'perfectly straight' with tolerances of under a 1/16 of an inch (under 1 millimeter). I can see the value in those examples. But as for me, I don't see the value in 'art' where the content is only in the statement, not the work itself."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.fondationbeyeler.ch/sites/default/files/fondation_beyeler/sammlung/kuenstler/mark_rothko/rothko_redorange_l.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism#mediaviewer/File:Newman-Onement_1.jpg"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://ipaintingsforsale.com/UploadPic/Mark%20Rothko/big/Untitled%20Black%20on%20Gray.jpg",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=piet+mondrian&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1403&bih=850&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=8NmZVInvPMOagwShoYOICA&ved=0CI4BEIke#rls=en&tbm=isch&q=mondrian"
],
[]
] |
|
nlo39 | what does obama gain from signing the "infinite detention" bill? eli5 | It seems this would be bad move with a re-election coming up. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nlo39/what_does_obama_gain_from_signing_the_infinite/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3a5y2g",
"c3a8lcu",
"c3a8ygc",
"c3a5y2g",
"c3a8lcu",
"c3a8ygc"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing. The laws are simply being codified and put into one bill. Obama has been capable of doing everything in that bill since his presidency, and every president before Obama up until about WWII had the same power (possibly even before then).",
"It's worth remembering that the NDAA isn't just the \"infinite detention\" bill, it's the \"pay to keep the military funded\" bill. It's a largely political move, based on the realization that most people aren't paying as much attention as Reddit is.\n\nAs much as it may look like it'd be horrible for him to pass a law so many people think is awful and anti-American, it's worth remembering that even most registered voters aren't that informed. What Obama's worst-case scenario would be is that he vetoes, it's overriden (and it would be), and now whoever he's running against (since it's unlikely to be Ron Paul) is going to be able to run commercials with ominous music and a voiceover of:\n\n\"While fighting two wars, and trying to keep America safe, our proud fighting men and women deserve a Commander-in-Chief who will support them. Barrack Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. He wanted to keep money out of the military, fail to pay our brave fighting men and women, and allow our military, the mightiest in the world, to crumble. Is he really who you want protecting your children?\"",
" > It seems this would be bad move with a re-election coming up.\n\nYou *massively* over-estimate the intelligence of the average voter in the USA.\n\nThe average voter in the country is dumb as shit. Seriously. Remember, this is the country that voted W Bush into the president's office - **twice**.",
"Nothing. The laws are simply being codified and put into one bill. Obama has been capable of doing everything in that bill since his presidency, and every president before Obama up until about WWII had the same power (possibly even before then).",
"It's worth remembering that the NDAA isn't just the \"infinite detention\" bill, it's the \"pay to keep the military funded\" bill. It's a largely political move, based on the realization that most people aren't paying as much attention as Reddit is.\n\nAs much as it may look like it'd be horrible for him to pass a law so many people think is awful and anti-American, it's worth remembering that even most registered voters aren't that informed. What Obama's worst-case scenario would be is that he vetoes, it's overriden (and it would be), and now whoever he's running against (since it's unlikely to be Ron Paul) is going to be able to run commercials with ominous music and a voiceover of:\n\n\"While fighting two wars, and trying to keep America safe, our proud fighting men and women deserve a Commander-in-Chief who will support them. Barrack Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. He wanted to keep money out of the military, fail to pay our brave fighting men and women, and allow our military, the mightiest in the world, to crumble. Is he really who you want protecting your children?\"",
" > It seems this would be bad move with a re-election coming up.\n\nYou *massively* over-estimate the intelligence of the average voter in the USA.\n\nThe average voter in the country is dumb as shit. Seriously. Remember, this is the country that voted W Bush into the president's office - **twice**."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6yez2g | how do online auction sites like quibids and dealdash offer items at "95% off the retail price" and still make a profit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yez2g/eli5_how_do_online_auction_sites_like_quibids_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmmtmjj",
"dmmtt4y",
"dmmtvmy",
"dmmtwml"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
5,
32
],
"text": [
"The model of those sites usually relies on the fact that in addition to the final bid amount, every single bid placed before that incremented the auction price, but cost the bidder money to place even if they did not win.",
"Every time somebody raises the bit a penny, they have to use a \"token\" or a \"credit\". Those tokens/credits cost money - like 10c or a quarter.\n\nIf an item sells for \"$50\" that means that people paid $500+ to get the item to that price *and most of them get nothing for it*.\n\nIt's a giant scam and basically gambling",
"I can explain Quibids as an example. You buy the right to bid with money. Each bid raises the price of the item by a penny.\n\nBids | Cost\n---------|-----\n45| $22.50\n75| $37.50\n300| $150.00\n600| $300.00\n800| $400.00\n\nCanon EOS Rebel T6i Digital SLR Camera Best Buy Price is $749.99. It sold recently on Quibids for $55.28. That would be 5528 bids. 5528 x .50 cents= $2,764 + $55.28 (bid $ amount). Quibids just made $2,069.29 (depending on how much the purchased for). \n\n",
"You have to pay to bid, and that payment is nonrefundable.\n\nFor example, when you bid on an item at Quibids, you pay $0.50 to place the bid, the price of the item goes up by $0.01 (hence the name for this type of auction: \"penny auction\"), and the timer on the auction resets. If the timer reaches zero with no one bidding, it sells to the final bidder. \n\nSo let's say that an iPad starts at $0.01, and ultimately sells for $20. That means that people have bid on it 1999 times. At fifty cents a pop, that's $999.50 in nonrefundable bids placed. And the winner has to also pay the $20. So Quibids makes $1019.50 on the iPad that \"sold for $20\".\n\nThe person who won the auction may have gotten the iPad for cheap, but the thousands of other people who paid to bid on it lose money and get nothing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bh5wfd | why does the sun's rays penetrate your skin harder when it is overcast/cloudy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bh5wfd/eli5_why_does_the_suns_rays_penetrate_your_skin/ | {
"a_id": [
"elqb244"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"They don't. When it is overcast you don't get as hot so you stay in the sun for longer. Maybe the sun rays are 20% weaker, but if you don't feel it as much you can stay exposed for twoce as long, for example."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5ot0ss | how is temperature measured and considered to exist in space? | So with going over concepts such as absolute zero and the definition of temperature in chemistry, it got me wondering how it is calculated and defined in space? Basically I was wondering how we perceive it because there is no atoms or molecules to move around in empty space, doesn't that mean that any specific section of it is at absolute zero? I get that heat can be transferred through cosmic energy from the sun and other stars but if there is nothing to move because of the heat, doesn't that make it have an absolute zero or nonexistent temperature? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ot0ss/eli5_how_is_temperature_measured_and_considered/ | {
"a_id": [
"dclu19u",
"dclwrv4"
],
"score": [
2,
14
],
"text": [
"Temperature is measured by having a mass in space and monitoring its temperature. Depending on where you are in space, it can be hot (such as unprotected exposure to the sun) or cold (basically whenever you are shaded from the sun). But the further out from the sun or other stars, the more cold it gets. This temperature comes mostly from radiation sources, and ever-present background microwave radiation in space keeps it from ever actually reaching absolute 0°K.\n\nAlso, there technically are atom and molecules scattered out in space. They are just very far apart compared to mass found on celestial bodies.",
"Believe it or not, a lot of space is actually pretty darn hot! In fact, there are clouds of gas/plasma that surround large galaxy clusters that can reach up to 10 million degrees Kelvin. Wow! An environment like this provides a useful example to answer your question:\n\n\"Temperature\" of a gas (most of space is gas/plasma) is really a measurement of the kinetic energy contained in that gas. In other words, it's a measure of the average speed of each of the individual gas particles. Think about a room full of children as an analog for a container full of gas. If the kids have a lot of energy and are running around really fast then that gas is \"hot\", if they are tired and just sitting there then that gas is \"cold\".\n\nSo what would you feel if you put your hand in some of the intergalactic gas that is 10 million degrees? Probably nothing. The reason is that, while each individual gas particle has a huge amount of energy, the density is so crazily low that not many of them hit your hand and transfer energy to it. In the children analogy, hot gas in space is like a huuuuuuge room with only a few kids running really fast.\n\nSo how do we actually _measure_ the temperature of gas in space? Unfortunately the answer is very complicated and depends hugely on what type of gas you're talking about and how hot it is. The short, mostly accurate answer is that things that are hot tend to cool (even in space) and the cooling process almost always results in some sort of emission that we can detect and measure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
za6o8 | what it is the president does. | I understand he's part of the balance of powers but the only things I ever hear about the president doing is vetoing or supporting bills, going to other countries, and getting blamed for the most recent problems. What else is he doing?
And moreover, what is his M.O. for the things I mentioned? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/za6o8/eli5_what_it_is_the_president_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"c62txw8",
"c633d2n"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"In the grand scheme of things, the POTUS wears seven different hats. If you were president, you would be:\n\n1. Chief of the executive branch. This is the role you take on as the head of the branch of government that enforces laws and regulations. For this, you appoint top officials to the different sectors and regulatory bodies (For example, you appoint the head of the department of education), and you also pick federal supreme court judges.\n\n2. Commander in chief. You are the leader of the armed forces. You have the final say of troop movement, and in states of emergency can even move troops across borders without approval, but in most cases to do anything regarding crossing over enemy lines (Acts of war), congress has to approve it.\n\n3. Head of state! This is like the queen in Britain. This is the hat you wear when addressing the people, being the top-most elected official in America. For example, when you call the people in charge of Curiosity to congratulate them or you do an AMA on reddit, you're being the head of state.\n\n4. Director of foreign policy. This one's easy: It's all about diplomacy with regards to other nations. You decide if we send money to Greece, you decide whose side we're on in the Pakistan/Israel debacle, et cetera. You're an ambassador and a decision maker in one.\n\n5. Leader of the political party. Obama is the leader of the democratic party right now. You will shape the positions your party stands on and will be the major fund-raising entity for it.\n\n6. Guardian of the Economy. This one is the role you take when being the final decision force for economic stimulus programs, tax cuts, and other such things.\n\n7. Finally, you are a legislative leader. You can veto bills that Congress pushes to your desk.\n\nNow, what does he actually do on a day-to-day basis? Well, it depends on the time period. Clearly right now, he's giving speeches getting ready for election day. When re-election isn't in his near-field, he could be reading new bills that congress is voting on, he could be greeting visitors to the white house, he could be reading reports (Dozens of these come in a week) from the different departments, travelling to other countries, inspecting the armed forces strategy, or meeting with high members of the democratic party to discuss their weekly strategies. Being the president is a lot of reading and putting on airs. ",
"Waiting for /u/PresidentObama to answer..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
49chzc | why is that 3 out of every 4 years america is "the greatest country on earth", then on the fourth year "we need to make america great again"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49chzc/eli5_why_is_that_3_out_of_every_4_years_america/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0qorrm"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"As Americans we only think America is great when related to other countries. We NEVER think America is great when speaking with each other. Bernie Sanders is the first candidate in a long time who openly believes we should be more like other countries. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
69c9w4 | how does money from the money factory get into the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69c9w4/eli5_how_does_money_from_the_money_factory_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh5gxd2",
"dh5ha46"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You mean the Mint?\n\nThe US Mint has several locations around the country that print and stamp bills and coins which are then shipped and exchanged with banks when the banks send the old worn out bills to be shredded.",
"where exactly do you think the money factory is located? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2ez3bj | when i tell a website to "save username and password" where is it stored? is it safe to do so? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ez3bj/eli5_when_i_tell_a_website_to_save_username_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck4bric",
"ck4bvmy",
"ck4huh2"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"A website doesn't remember that, the browser does. How they do it varies. It's not safe if other people use the computer really, no.",
"It's being saved on your computer. It's not the website that's saving your password, it's your internet browser. It's pretty safe to do, but obviously if you leave your computer unlocked and somebody uses it, they can log into your accounts. I know Firefox lets you put a master password on your saved passwords, so that you'll only be able to see them if you know have that password, and you can make it so that it won't automatically fill in the password on a website without the master password. But that doesn't help if you leave yourself logged in all the time.\n\nSome browsers do (Firefox, for example), however, give you the option of syncing your passwords between computers. On Firefox, this would store the information on Mozilla's servers; I would think it's fairly safe. Typically, this won't happen unless you specifically set up the syncing.",
"The most common way is as a cookie(note) stored on your browser which contains information such as your username and password and which site this cookie is associated with.\n When you open up Reddit for the first time and expect it to remember your login Reddit will send a request to your browser and ask if there is a cookie(note) stored there which belongs to Reddit, if there is Reddit will use this information to log you in automatically. If you clear your browsers' cookies this note disappears and Reddit no longer remembers your login. \n\nNow regarding whether or not it is safe...\nIt is completely possible that Reddit stores in a Database they own a unique ID associated with your username. Along with this could be everything you've done on this website. Notably everything you've ever written. Possibly everywhere you've visited along with other activity. \n Since your credentials are stored on Reddit's Database it is possible that something could happen and for whatever reason they are compromised and Reddit loses this information to somebody. That person could then know your Reddit persona, not necessarily who you are in real life, but everything you've done on Reddit. \n\nEdit: Also, security-wise with cookies. There are ways for malicious software to look at your cookies and obtain the information stored there. They can use this to login as you and get any information that way. Note though it is difficult to do any of this, there is plenty of security in place to prevent these things. \n And I no idea if Reddit stores all your information or not, I'm too tired to find out right now, maybe later. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4djdd9 | if debt is an agreement between borrower and lender, why can a loan be sold to a third party? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4djdd9/eli5_if_debt_is_an_agreement_between_borrower_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1rh4k8",
"d1rhc3o",
"d1rwzcl"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's probably stated as such in the contract. It's important to note that the third party still must operate under the terms of the original contract. So they can't raise rates or add fees that didn't exist in the original. it's simply a way for the debtor to get SOME money when it's unlikely they'll get any, and can't establish the resources to collect on debts\n",
"A debt is usually an agreement between a creditor and a debtor, with the creditor providing some sort of goods and/or services to the debtor in exchange for money. A loan is a promissory note with only money being the consideration, said note can be sold or transferred to a third party.",
"Because part of the debt agreement allows for the debt to be sold. It's written in the contract."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4uuh8z | how can we tell where one gene ends and another begins? | I routinely see statistics talking about how many genes different species have, but also that we don't understand genetics well enough yet to even try to 'read' what the genes mean. With that in mind, how can we tell what is or isn't a gene in a given organism's genome? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4uuh8z/eli5_how_can_we_tell_where_one_gene_ends_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5svz91",
"d5syn4a"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nBasically, your DNA is subdivided into triplets of base pairs. A few of these pairs specially encode that a gene for a protein should *start*. Others say the protein should *stop*. The rest specify which amino acid should go into the protein.",
"Specific patterns in the genome can be recognized by ribosomes which we consider to be called an Open Reading Frame (ORF). These start with a start codon (AUG) and end with a terminating codon (TAG, TGA, TAA) and generally define one gene. \n\nThere are many other indications to when a gene begins and ends, for example, many genes have a promoter region called the Shine-Dalgarno sequence which usually precedes a coding region by 8 amino acids. Another region that precedes a gene may be a TATA box, which is another set of amino acids that promote a gene expression. On the other hand, an indication of where a gene ends can be found in a long stretch of the same amino acid which tends to slow down the amino acid and may cause it to stop. These are patterns that bioinformaticians use to predict where genes start and end. One of the big questions remaining in genetics is the purpose of non-coding DNA. These sequences do not encode proteins, and for a long while many biologists assumed it was junk DNA they called \"Dark Matter\". Recently however we're discovering that these non-coding regions may play a large role in gene regulation.\n\nWhen biologists say we can't read what the gene means, it may mean we aren't sure how the product of the gene (protein) functions. Protein function prediction is possible, but it requires computer algorithms and actual experimental evidence to demonstrate what it does, let alone where it's located in the cell, how it's regulated, etc. To complicate it even further, not all genes are read in the same direction. Many organisms have genes which may be read in different directions from other genes. In some cases, the very same gene can be read in two directions to produce two different products. Talk about efficiency; imagine if everything I just wrote here could be read backwards to make another point."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Start.2Fstop_codons"
],
[]
] |
|
918drn | in college football what does redshirting a player mean? (i'm a football player this is so sad) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/918drn/eli5_in_college_football_what_does_redshirting_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2w3vzd",
"e2w3wwe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basicallly, it means taking a college freshman and disqualifying him from play for that year, to develop his skills. A redshirted freshman is eligible to play for an additional year. College players can play for at most four years; redshirting just starts that clock a year later.\n\nIt can be useful both for balancing out the team, and when a player will benefit significantly from a year's training.",
"A redshirt player is a freshman who practices with the team but doesn't play games with the team. Consequently, he doesn't lose a year of NCAA eligibility. They're called redshirts because traditionally you have your freshmen wear a different coloured jersey in practice, to identify that they aren't on the roster."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1fb0b2 | how does cobra insurance work? | I am going back to school in the fall, and my job ends mid July. My wife is job searching, but so far there's no progress. We also have a young daughter. How does COBRA work, and is it worth it for us? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fb0b2/eli5_how_does_cobra_insurance_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca8ip8w"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"COBRA is part of a law that required companies with 20 or more employees to continue to offer group health insurance to employees for a period of time after they leave employment. The goal was to make sure that employees who were laid off were able to continue to receive insurance while searching for a new job. You can continue to be insured through COBRA for 18 months (36 in a few special circumstances such as death of a covered spouse).\n\nWhether it's for you depends... The advantage is that you will keep the same insurance you have, and if it's good insurance that's probably a good thing. The downside is, you will most likely have to pay more for it. You will have to pick up the full tab, which includes what you were paying plus what your employer paid, plus a bit extra for administrative costs. If you were paying $100 a month for family coverage, but your employer was picking up $500 a month of the plan, that means COBRA would cost you $600 a month (plus a bit more).\n\nBefore deciding you should figure out how much it would cost you (ask your employer) and what your alternatives are. Unfortunately the health care exchanges won't be open by July, but in the meantime you can search [E-Healthinsurance](_URL_0_) for a quick idea with no committment. If you can accept a high deductible then you may find a individual policy is significantly cheaper.\n\nOther things to look into are your school's insurance, often universities have decent group plans available to students and their families. In addition if your wife is unemployed, you are not earning income and you have a child, you may qualify for subsidised state insurance programs such as medicare or medicaid. The [_URL_2_](_URL_1_) site has some additional information that may be helpful."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/",
"http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insurance/understanding/options/#WhataremyoptionsifIcantgetcoveragethroughwork",
"healthcare.gov"
]
] |
|
o4cpy | model-view-controller (mvc) software architecture. | . | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o4cpy/eli5_modelviewcontroller_mvc_software_architecture/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3e9f5q"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"There are different parts of a computer program (\"software\"). These days, excepting some embedded systems and other time-sensitive applications, it is best to separate these parts so they can be easily maintained.\n\nModel-view-controller separates the components of software into three parts:\n\n* **Model**: The part of the software that handles application logic, such as what data is saved, and how that data should react to certain commands, etc.\n* **View**: The part of the software that handles what is displayed to the user. This part of the program takes info from the Model part (and sometimes the Controller part) to display the information.\n* **Controller**: The part of the software that handles user input. This part of the program waits for user input, then informs the other two parts to make appropriate changes.\n\nFor example, let's say I have a spreadsheet program.\n\n* The \"Model\" section would contain the current values of the data in the spreadsheet.\n* The \"View\" section would take information from the Model section to display some of the spreadsheet on the screen (possibly not all of it, if the spreadsheet is too big).\n* The \"Controller\" section would manage the user's mouse clicks and keyboard presses, and translate them into commands for the Model and View components. It would also need to know something about the View, in order to know, for instance, what cell the user clicked on.\n\nNote that there aren't necessarily only one of each. For instance, if you have multiple files open, the spreadsheet program might have multiple models, or just one model that covers all of them, depending on the programming style.\n\n**tl;dr**: Model-View-Controller is basically Logic-Output-Input\n\nThis technique was developed because, for simpler command-line programs, the three sections were often combined in the same place. When these programs had to be updated for graphical interfaces, or just needed to be changed, it was very difficult, as the underlying code assumed the output and input would not change. Imagine having to replace all sorts of printf() commands with the appropriate GUI elements - not fun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7d54ps | how did we settle on twelve pitches to be the musical notes? what is the pattern behind 1,3,5 major chord/triad? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7d54ps/eli5how_did_we_settle_on_twelve_pitches_to_be_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpvaoui"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"For thousands of years, people have discovered that certain pitches sound nice together - either at the same time, or when heard in a row.\n\nThere's a really good physical reason behind that.\n\nConsider a musical A, which is traditionally exactly 440 Hz. The simplest possible note is a pure sine wave:\n_URL_1_\n\nNote that each complete waveform in the graph above is 1/440 of a second. Every 1/440 of a second, it repeats.\n\nYour ear has stereocilia of different lengths. One particular length of cilia is just the right length that something that has a frequency of 440 Hz makes it vibrate perfectly, just like a swing has a natural frequency and trying to push it too fast or too slow doesn't work.\n\nThe waveform doesn't have to be a sine wave! You can get other waveform shapes that still repeat every 1/440 of a second, and you hear that as the same pitch (but a different timbre, like from a different instrument):\n\n_URL_2_\n\nNow to answer your question, look at the graph of 880 Hz. Note that while it repeats every 1/880 of a second, it's also true that it repeats every 1/440 of a second.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSo, that cilia that vibrates well with the 440 Hz tone will also be stimulated by the 880 Hz tone. It's like if you push someone on a swing twice as often as the natural frequency, it will still work great - half of your pushes will be useless but the end effect will be lots of swinging energy.\n\nToday we call this an octave. A note with one frequency and another note with twice that frequency are one octave apart.\n\nOther intervals that sound good are also simple frequency ratios. For example, what we now call the perfect fifth - like playing a C and then a G, universally sounds pleasing. Every culture in the world that has music uses that interval. Mathematically it's just 3/2 times a frequency: so 660 Hz compared to 440 Hz, for example.\n\nWe've discovered flutes 9,000 years old that play those notes.\n\nWhen you put other notes together that all sound good together, you get chords (if you play them together) and scales (if you play them in sequence). The 1,3,5 major chord you mentioned is just one example.\n\nIn Western music, there are typically 7 notes in a scale. Most songs don't need any more than that. In fact, more than 90% of popular music songs from the past 60 years can be played with just 7 notes. (The keys are different, but it's the same 7 notes just in different keys.)\n\nSo why do we have 12 notes?\n\nIn the last few hundred years, it was discovered that by picking 12 notes **equally spaced mathematically** within each octave, nearly all of the notes from commonly used scales can be found among those 12 (not exactly, but mathematically close enough that our ears have a hard time hearing the difference).\n\nThat way, with a single instrument, you can play all of the notes in all commonly used scales, but more importantly you can play them starting on any note. This allows you to play songs in any key, and also to modulate - change keys in the middle of a song.\n\nSo 12 happens to work out really well. You could do 24, but many people wouldn't be able to hear the difference between some of the pitches. You could do 11 or 13 or some other number of equally spaced notes but then you wouldn't get many of the pitches that sound good in scales. You could pick pitches that aren't equally spaced in an octave but then you couldn't modulate - you couldn't play the same song starting on a different note.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.desmos.com/calculator/yrc1zk8vgs",
"https://www.desmos.com/calculator/i47pq6k8n0",
"https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7t9s7p0hhv"
]
] |
||
1pt77v | how come cars don't automatically detect and tell what is wrong with them? given all the technology we have today? | All we have is the check engine light. What I would like is an LCD text prompt that tells what specifically is wrong. Is it because repair shops have monopolized on the check engine light reading equipment? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pt77v/how_come_cars_dont_automatically_detect_and_tell/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd5ra2x",
"cd5rfhc",
"cd5s0uz",
"cd60sdn"
],
"score": [
14,
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"But they do, just not to you.\nYou can read out an errorcode and look it up with an instrument for $100 off ebay, but why whould you?\n\nIf the code turns out to be, faulty generator, you still need to go to the shop.\n\nAnd EVERYTHING will give off false messages all the time, the trick is learning how to interpreting them, and the shop is generally better than you (No offence :D).\nDo you really want an LCD display that will be filled up with 100+ errorcodes every time you blew a fuse?",
"This is changing. You can buy a USB device that plugs into your car and download a free app on your phone that will tell you many diagnostic things about your vehicle. I'm still learning about the USB devices and which ones are better, but Torque is supposed to be a good app for this.",
"They do. I'll give you an example.\n\nMy 2001 Corvette threw a 1214 code a few weeks ago. If you go look that up you will find that it relates to a specific relay within one of the several computers. A dealership would have swapped the computer and charged me $2k. As an electronic technician, I decided to fix the relay because it's a known issue on the C5 Corvette. It cost me no money and a few hours of my time.\n\nI love you OBDII.",
"What bothers me is that you still have to go to some trouble to read the code yourself. Sure, you can get USB thingies or other tools from the internet. \n\nBut many cars these days already have digital readouts for things like trip computers, mileage calculators, etc. Can't the code just be shown there? Most new car stereos have digital readouts to show what song is playing. Can't the code just show up on that digital readout? \n\nI just get the feeling that it's a racket set up by the repair shops. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2vuj3x | how do music venues decide on the price of a certain band? how do they figure out their popularity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vuj3x/eli5_how_do_music_venues_decide_on_the_price_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"col1zfz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The band usually has a guarantee. So, the venue really doesn't do much other than rent the space out to the promoter. Promoter books the room, and pays the band's guarantee. \n\nYou can track a band's popularity by a multitude of factors. Radio play, fan base through social media, and previous tours. \n\nSo, if the Black Keys' guarantee is 50K (I'm just making shit up.) The promoter needs to sell enough tix to cover the band, the room, the local crew, the band's ryder, etc etc... and make a profit.\n\nThere's a whole lot more shit involved the bigger the band and the bigger the room.\n\n\n \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3l56el | how do dogs learn to deal with emotions | I'm kinda referring to this video _URL_0_ where the dog seems to ask for forgiveness.
But do they really understand why they want to forgive, what is sad, happy, cause and effect for emotions. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l56el/eli5how_do_dogs_learn_to_deal_with_emotions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv3aeq9",
"cv3ai3q"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs can't comprehend what an accident is. If you fall on the dog by mistake for example, the dog will think you did it on purpose. It will either see the action as a threat or it will submit to you and try to relay that it's loyal to you so no need to attack it. Same thing if the dog bit you by mistake, it thinks it did it on purpose. \n\nDogs don't ask forgiveness, they're not that smart. The dog is trying to show it's not a threat and wants you to forget what happened.",
"No, they don't. The dog knows he's fallen in disgrace because his owner doesn't react the way he usually does. He has learned that while living with his owner. Dogs are very socio dependent animals, they cannot live without a pack – or at least they will try anything to not be alone. So it's of the uttermost importance to him to get back on track with his owner and he sucks up to him. Dogs do that in their pack to appease to members higher up the ladder. The feelings of the owner do not have any part in this. "
]
} | [] | [
"https://vid.me/TWAX"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4476jb | - why gandalf chose bilbo. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4476jb/eli5_why_gandalf_chose_bilbo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cznywlu",
"cznyzzu",
"cznzvgh"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"He saw that there was more to Bilbo than even he himself knew. He was an exceptional hobbit capable of greatness when it was thrust upon him. Also, the party needed a burglar and hobbits are light on their feet and silent moving second only to elves. And we all know how well liked an elf would be in a party of more than a dozen dwarves, and how unwilling an elf would be to help dwarves recover their lost home and treasures. \n\nEdit: READ THE BOOKS! READ THE HOBBIT AND READ LotR! They're fucking AMAZINGLY good. Quite simply my favorite book I've ever read is Lord of the Rings",
"In LOTR, Wizards aren't human, or even mortal. They are essentially minor angels, sent to Middle Earth by Eru Illuvatar (God) to protect the world. As a result, Gandalf has more senses about what he should and should not do than an ordinary mortal might due to his semi divine nature. This may have played a role in his choice. I'm not sure if the topic is ever explained in canon more directly, though.",
"Because Tolkien wanted to write a book about someone ordinary who finds inner strength when thrust into extraordinary circumstances. \n\nThe in book explanation is that Gandalf is super wise and his intuition told him Bilbo was the right person for the job.\n\nThis is a common theme in storytelling. Usually the reader accepts a little contrivance to set up the story's underlying theme."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2zd4in | what would the polarity of a spherical magnet look like? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zd4in/eli5_what_would_the_polarity_of_a_spherical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cphs3xp",
"cphsd0j"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It would have one \"end\" that is the magnetic north pole, and another that is the south. Just like the Earth.",
"I am assuming that you are talking about having the outside one polarity and the inside a different polarity. Simple simulations show the field as non-existent. I would be interested in knowing what other more knowledgeable people think about the resulting field."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
cn32q0 | how did we figure out what plants and animals were edible? did someone just take one for the team and try it and if they didn’t die we knew it was safe to eat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cn32q0/eli5_how_did_we_figure_out_what_plants_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew6fc3g",
"ew6fixf",
"ew6gyct",
"ew6jaib",
"ew6m4bo",
"ew6of9g",
"ew6qe9k",
"ew6qmuy",
"ew6rg1j",
"ew6spgc",
"ew6st72",
"ew6tivn",
"ew6tkgo",
"ew6tnzb",
"ew6tq94",
"ew6tyts",
"ew6ufgx",
"ew6uldd",
"ew6ur2n",
"ew6v7o0",
"ew6vbi2",
"ew6yvy9",
"ew6zdbq",
"ew6zpsn",
"ew75j7u",
"ew7f5qx"
],
"score": [
4,
79,
24,
2632,
62,
2,
1178,
15,
2,
2,
7,
5,
2,
7,
7,
2,
8,
13,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Far as plants go you can watch other animals eat them. If they don't suffer any kind of harm from consumption chances are its safe to eat. Saem for animals, watch predators hunt their prey. If they can do it so can we",
"Yeah either someone took one for the team or you fed it to your animals to check. It's not like it's that risky tho, the amount of lethal meat or plants is not that high depending on your continents difficulty. You can eat a lot if things if you just boil it or fry it well.",
"Fun fact - the fly agaric toadstool/mushroom is deadly, it used to be used in a bowl of milk and honey for pest control waaaaay back in the day. Druids and shaman learned that the potency of the poison could be reduced by saliva in the mouth leaving a strong hallucinogenic mush, so in order to harness the hallucinogens other members of a tribe, mostly the women iirc, would chew and spit out the poisons leaving the triptastic mush for consumption of the shaman. How that process was ever discovered is beyond me.",
"You don't have to die to know if something is safe/unsafe. Although there is that risk.\n\nThere would be a certain amount of risk involved, but if you eat a very small amount of something and it doesn't make you sick, then you can try eating a slightly larger amount of it, etc. It's basically trial by error. A lot of things would make you ill if you ate them in decent quantities, but in small amounts would just make you feel not great. It's relatively few things that would kill you even in small amounts (e.g. hemlock and monkshood).\n\nThen the information gets passed down via oral tradition.\n\nThe greater question is how did people discover that SOME parts are edible whilst others aren't?! That's just a testamant to the tenacity/stupidity/curiosity of humans. Rhubard stalks are edible, but the leaves will poison you. Asparagus stalks are delicious, but the berries are poisonous. Mayapple fruit is edible in small amounts but the rest of the plant is poisonous.",
"Hunger makes people desperate. A lot of it is trial and error. When you're facing starvation, you start to become open to trying to figure out if a certain kind of mushroom still makes you violently sick if you just boil it enough.\n\nSimilarly, cheese is essentially spoiled milk, but if you're really short on food you're probably willing to give it a try if nothing else.",
"In addition to what others are saying (and bear in mind that I have no knowledge in the field, i just make guesses), i have one more idea. Humans did not just appear one day. We emerged after many many many years of evolution. Our ancestors had developed a kind of instinct to know what to eat. So this knowledge of some plants/animals that are edible passed on to us.",
"Animals and plants have evolved alongside each other and have always been eating each other. For most things, it's just the way it's been.\n\nHumans didn't pop out one day and had to figure everything out.\n\nFor other stuff, it's like other have said. Watching animals eat it. Or having to eat it out of desperation.",
"[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nThis article might help provide some insight. Great apes (and other mammals) share discoveries (that made me sick, that's delicious, that cured my headache), but the article also mentions caterpillars that when infected by a parasitic fly seek out and eat plants poisonous to the fly larvae, which suggests that in some species knowledge of what to eat is innate.",
"Pre civilization humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers. As omnivores we and our ancestors had been eating plants, roots, fruits for a long time and I'd imagine in this long period of time narrowed down the edible plants and the ones to avoid.",
"Theres a similar viewing in the recent Netflix series \"another life\" where they start by rubbing some on their skin and looking for a reaction. Then on the lips (more sensitive skin) and look for a reaction. Then setting in the mouth, then chewing but not swallowing and then just eating.",
"Didn't Neanderthal or cave men notice other animals consuming plants and animals?",
"I always wondered about stuff like popcorn or beans.\n\n* Let me dry this corn up then throw it in a fire and see if it tastes good.\n* lets boil these rock hard beans for 9 + hours and see if they get soft enough to eat!",
"3 step test: Smell. Touch. Taste\nSmell the plant and give it a minute. Smells funny don’t try it.\nTouch the plant to your skin or lips and give that a minute, that’s the point you would find out if it’s poison ivy or something and say no. \nTaste the plant, just a tiny piece and give that a few minutes. Just because a tiny bit didn’t make you sick doesn’t mean a bunch of it won’t. \nAlso pay attention to what plants animals do and don’t eat since they can figure that out too.\nNow to find out what animals aren’t edible some poisonous animals are brightly colored or have venom glands like snakes. Open them up and look for a gland or something like that that isn’t normally in other animals.",
"So a lot of it is observing. although some animals can eat shit we can't. And some was just trying it out. i'll never know how they figured out to smoke weed, but god bless them.\n\nAnd it snowballs, i'll try to explain.\n\nSo you notice some animals eating a plant, or you notice their footprints around some shit that's clearly been eaten. You try it out, and generally, the animals we eat, also eat things that are safe for us, of course we didn't know this at the time, but if an animal is eating something, it's gotta be for a reason. \n\npoor example as plants and shit were wildly different but say you notice a red apple \"oh shit this red apple is good\" ..then you notice a raspberry..\"i know this color\".. now thats cool, but also some red shit is not the best, but they now have that information to actually test these other plants and shit, that information being \"red CAN be good for us.\" \n\nand then there's some parts of plants that are good, and some aren't (someone mentioned this here) well let's say (another bad example but just for the sake of making a point) the leaves of a carrot are bad for you, but ALL that other carroty shit is awesome. Well next time you find a vegetable with leaves and a big chunk of shit hanging off of them.. well don't even fuck with the leaves then, you know better, even if they COULD be good, there's no reason to risk it.\n\nSo it's trial and error, extrapolation, observation. \n\nor..maybe those fuckers were daredevils and literally just tried to eat every god damn thing there was",
"There is a whole process to determining if something is edible or not. This would have to be repeated for each part of something that you are eating, because sometimes only certain parts of something are actually harmful to eat.\n\n\nFirst, you go near the thing in question and wait. Does it cause a bad thing to happen? No. Proceed.\n\n\nTouch it with an extremity, like a finger or toe and wait. Does it cause a bad thing to happen? No. Proceed.\n\n\nTouch it to your lips and wait. Does it cause a bad thing to happen? No. Proceed.\n\n\nIngest a small amount and wait (usually a day unless in dire circumstance). Does it cause a bad thing to happen? No. Proceed. \n\nEat a normal amount of it and wait (again, usually a day unless in dire circumstances). Does a bad thing happen? No. Proceed\n\nEat it for a month and wait. Did something bad happen? No. You can assume its edible.\n\nWhen applying heat for the first time, you would repeat these steps to figure it out, as there are some things that are edible raw that are not edible cooked because of the heat changing compounds in it. Same goes for cooking things together.\n\nSo essentially, yes, for a large part of our history, we did have to eventually have one take one for the team, but it was done in a way that minimized risk.\n\nNow, envision someone with a concerned look on their face going through this process, fully aware that it might kill them while everyone else is cheering them on. Enjoy the laugh. It truly is a marvel that we didn't die as a species.",
"There was probably some confirmation of what to eat when we saw other animals eating things and not dying.",
"That's kind of a Young Earth, creationist question that presumes humans found themselves one day in a modern ecosystem. Remember, we as humans evolved right alongside the plants and animals we eat. We have been figuring this stuff out since before we were even humans.\nThat said, individuals with a tendency to eat indiscriminately tend not to pass along their genes very successfully.",
"Human beings didn't just spring into existence one day. They evolved over the course of thousands of years from something else. What was poisonous was passed on from generation to generation but also many things instinctually look like they should be avoided.",
"Surprised that none of the top responses have \"if you see a mammal eating it, it's reasonably likely that you can eat it too\" as an option.\n\nThis is not *entirely* true as naturally some animals can eat things that are poisonous or harmful to humans, but if you're trapped on a desert island it'd give you a basis to work from.",
"ALL non-venomous animals are edible. As for plants, I believe the rule of thumb is to eat those which certain insects and smaller animals also ate.\n\nBUT, let's remember we weren't starting from square one. We carried over tastes and appetites from previous ape ancestry. The rule stated above is useful for expanding the menu though",
"This is why we have societies. Children learn what is edible by trial, based on what's given to them. Parents feed their children edible food.\n\nLists of foods are traditional, as-in carried over through generations. \n\nFlavors are learned by success rather than failure. Flavors that differ from your current palette will be \"bad\" by instinct, hence the term \"acquired taste\" and children spitting out literally any new food.\n\nYes, someone needs to try a new food and show everyone else that it's edible, but the human digestive tract is flexible to say the least. Religious rules are made for poisonous plants and animals.",
"ELI3: Yes.\n\nELI5: you can take baby steps and take small samples to just get sick instead of going dead.",
"Better question is how did humans know what rocks to melt in a pot to make metal? \n\nFood is easy, don't eat that flower because bill died from it last year. \n\nHow did humans make the leap from carving wood and chipping stone to smelting ores?",
"It's definitely a good thing that in order to breed as a human, you must live at least a decade, in which you would've figured out what you can eat. \n\nPerhaps almost all humans just learned from their parents, and in the worst cases, by trial and error?",
"Grog eat berry. Grog get sick. Berry bad. Grog tell tribe. Grog eat new berry. Berry good. Grog happy. Grog tell tribe.",
"As Asian cuisine teaches us, you can eat any animal.\nFor plants, if you look in survival guides, there is a sequence of tests you run to learn if it's poisonous. First, you test a little bit on your skin and wait a day for a reaction. If that's ok, you can try a sample in your mouth, but don't swallow it. If you still don't have a reaction to that, you can eat a tiny bit. If all those are ok, you can eat it.\nGranted, if you did some of these tests on spicy foods, you would say they're not safe to eat, but better be safe than sorry if you don't know. Culturally, people would have experimented over generations on what plants in their areas could and couldn't be eaten; and some people would have paid the price with their health or their lives to learn it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/orangutans-use-plant-extracts-to-treat-pain1/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9v96qe | how some types of batteries can provide power and be recharged simultaneously | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v96qe/eli5_how_some_types_of_batteries_can_provide/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9aaz16",
"e9ab7pe"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"No battery can be recharged and provide power at the same time, \n\nA battery is a chemical cell that uses a chemical reaction to provide electricity, \n\nThat reaction can only happen one way at a time, let it be oxidation or reduction, the idea is that you have a compound that reacts to turn in to a low energy state compound releasing energy in the form of electrons flowing from cathode to anode.\n\nAnd when you put power in to that battery the reaction is reversed. \n\nNow most modern electronics have a Bypass and charge control circuit, \n\nThe Bypass circuit will power the device directly from the charger when the battery is charging as to not damage the battery, so when your cellphone is charging but you´re using it, your phone is actually being powered from the charger, not the phones battery. \n\nWhile the Charge control circuit will control the amount of current going in to the battery depending on current charge, Temperature and power coming in from the charger. with specific cut off points where its not safe to charge the battery or if the battery reaches its \"full\" position. \n\nA lithium battery will normally report empty around 2.8V and full around 3.8v, this is to basically protect the user from the fact that lithium is pretty volatile, and reacts badly when overcharged and has a tendency to never charge again when under charged. ",
"They can't. The power supply can charge the battery and power the device simultaneously. If the AC supply is lost, the battery starts discharging immediately. \n\nAn interesting thing happens in cars, the charging current is not a steady DC, it is 3 phase rectified AC. There are no smoothing capacitors. That means that the DC has pulses (called ripple) in it. The battery is alternately discharging and charging. It charges during the peaks and discharges during the troughs. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4alubi | how come women's shampoo typically comes separate from the conditioner vs. men's shampoo often is a 2in1 conditioner combo? sometimes 3 in 1 body wash, shampoo, condish. | Is this just a scam where hair care companies prey on the fact that women care more about their hair | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4alubi/eli5_how_come_womens_shampoo_typically_comes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d11ixh6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"2 in 1 is pretty much bullshit. Shampoo is supposed to take shit off of your hair, while conditioner is supposed to leave shit on your hair. Trying to do both at the same time is much less effective. Men tend to have short hair, so not conditioning it properly isn't such a big deal since it will be cut off before damage starts to show on the ends."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1s1bt4 | what is the feeling of being tickled, why is it more sensitive in different areas, and why does it happen to humans but not animals like dogs? | When you get tickled it is an odd sensation and it makes you laugh. Why are there spots that tickle more than others? Why can't other mammals be tickled? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s1bt4/eli5_what_is_the_feeling_of_being_tickled_why_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdt1212",
"cdt3jdz"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure about the other animals not being able to be tickled but i recall reading about this a while back. From what I recall it is an evolutionary thing. Think of the places that tickle. Your feet, neck, ribs, all are very open and vulnerable parts of the body. These places tickle so that we learn objects in that area are not good things and can be potentially hazardous.\n\nOnce again no expert, but i saw this had no comments so thought I'd answer to the best of my knowledge.",
"You can tickle a dog by rubbing/scratching its stomach and watching his leg move."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1e1ovr | why do headphones sound better when you press on them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e1ovr/eli5_why_do_headphones_sound_better_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9vxd1p"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"you get a better seal around your ear, making more sound go directly in the ear rather than floating off"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
xpswp | what is the process of initially translating a new language? for instance, if a new tribe is found in a remote part of the world - how is their language learned? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xpswp/eli5_what_is_the_process_of_initially_translating/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5oj251",
"c5ojzx6",
"c5olzqc"
],
"score": [
23,
13,
8
],
"text": [
"You point at a tree and say, \"Tree.\"\n\nThen see what they call it. Document, and repeat with more subjects.",
"New languages are rarely truly new...they are invariably related to other local languages. Just as knowing Latin will help you understand languages from French and Romanian, finding out which language family a new language belongs to is a big head start.\n\nBut beyond that, as Aww_Shucks said, if you have a living, breathing speaker of the language, trial and error will eventually work.",
"Linguists have used the [Swadesh List](_URL_0_) to get words for common items in order to build a basic dictionary of sorts with which to learn a language. \n\nAs Awww_Shucks said, they point at stuff with native speakers and say \"Tree\" in hopes of documenting the correct word."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swadesh_list"
]
] |
||
31v7xd | what exactly is my printer doing when it's performing maintenance on itself? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31v7xd/eli5_what_exactly_is_my_printer_doing_when_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq5ahoc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This largely depends on the kind of printer you have (ink jet, bubble jet, laser, etc). Lots of cheaper/personal printers rely on ink instead of toner. Because of the mechanism involved in ink printers (essentially tiny nozzles spraying the ink onto your paper) it can easily get clogged. In order to unclog these, the printer ramps up the amount of ink being output - essentially changing the dial from \"sharp stream\" to \"full blast\" in order to push the dried ink out of the nozzle heads. It's recommended that you don't do this too often, because it wastes a lot of ink.\n\nIn order to better understand what your printer is doing, I suggest you look up the differences between laser and ink printers. They each clog in their own way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4jtmpb | during the rwandan genocide, how did the hutus identify the tutsis? i don't want to sound racist but how do you tell them apart? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jtmpb/eli5_during_the_rwandan_genocide_how_did_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d39gslh",
"d39gvek",
"d39lhv6",
"d39tkis",
"d39vaxg",
"d39vq1l",
"d39z4eg",
"d3a2cc8",
"d3a2zpf",
"d3a90j3"
],
"score": [
15,
5,
91,
21,
48,
9,
4,
13,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"According to my literal 5 minutes of research, there are apparently clear differences in phenotype. The Tutsi are taller with a narrower face, while the Hutu were more average build. As well as they were culturally diverse there were clothing differences and different speech patterns.\n\n\n\nIf anyone can correct me feel free. Like I said. 5 minutes of research. ",
"They apparently had identification cards.\n\n > Most writers on the 1994 Rwandan genocide note the introduction of group classification on ID cards by the Belgian colonial government in 1933, an action most significant because it introduced a rigid racial concept of group identity where it had not previously existed. Of great significance also, however, was the repeated decision by the post-colonial Rwandan authorities to retain the group classifications on ID cards. \n\n > In massacres northwestern Rwanda in early 1993, ethnic categories on ID cards facilitated the identification of victims. When this event occurred negotiations were in progress for power-sharing under a Transitional Government. Among the provisions in the August 4, 1993 Arusha Accords was the following, \" The Broad-Based Transitional Government shall, from the date of its assumption of office, delete from all official documents to be issued any reference to ethnic origin.\" (5) This continued presence of group classification on ID cards, even after their role in facilitating genocidal massacres in 1993, shows that both moderates and future killers recognized in advance the important function these cards might play in ethnically targeted mass killing, such as later ensued in April 1994. \n\n_URL_0_",
"They had identification cards.\n\nBut at the same time there were minor physical traits that they used to \"identify\" each group, a tactic similar to the onw used with the Holocaust and Jews.\n\nMost of these were indistinguishable. They even made a joke about it in \"Hotel Rwanda\" where an American photographer asks two women what they are the reply that one is Hutu and the other is Tutsi. He then says \"You two looks like twins\".\n\nIn Hotel Rwanda they even say that Hutus were supposed to he taller, thinner with light skin and longer faces. Meanwhile Don Cheadle displays those features and he is supposed to be a Tutsi, outlining the flaws with that system.",
"Rwanda is a small country and people know each other. It was not a matter of identification cards so much as someone knowing someone else as Hutu or Tutsi. This is why the current government talks about the genocide as neighbors killing neighbors, friends killing friends, and relatives killing relatives. \n\nRegarding other comments: Chinese and Koreans are, actually, easy to identify since they have distinct facial features (except in border areas). African groups are also easy to identify based on facial features; people from Uganda have different faces from the Congolese or Senegalese, for instance. You can see the difference after living there some time. This doesn't mean you always get it right, but you can definitely identify where someone is from most of the time through the way they look (usually confirmed by hearing them speak).",
"Because it wasn't necessarily strangers killing strangers, it was, sickeningly, neighbours killing neighbours. Sometimes to avoid being accused of betraying their race and being killed themselves. ",
"If you look close you can tell the difference. The Tutsis have a almost Somalian look where as the Hutus look very Central African. They can tell each other apart easily just as Greeks and Italians can tell each other apart when to me they just look swarthy. ",
"This reminds me of a video from Syria. Some truck drivers who were stopped on a desert highway by armed men telling them to get off. Then they were asked if they were Shia or Sunni. \n\nThey all said they were Sunni but they seemed very nervous. Then they were asked how many times they bowed down during morning prayer and that was the end of them.",
"Northern Ireland resident here.\n\nPeople have been killing each other in this country for a hell of a long time over being Catholic/Protestant (Nationalist/Unionist respectively, generally speaking) and we are, for the most part all white, European Christians.\n\nPeople would use the places people lived and also their names to tell the difference. For example, if you where to pass by a group of people and one guy says to another, \"Hey, Sean!\" it's a pretty safe bet that's a group of Catholics. Same applies for someone called William, he's probably a protestant. Also, a number of times when I was quite young I would be confronted by a large group of people and asked pointedly \"What school do you go to?\". Answer with the wrong one and you'd get a pretty bad beating.",
"If you're interested, check out \"We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories From Rwanda,\" by Philip Gourevitch. It's a hard read, but very informative.",
"you don't tell them apart via looks necessarily. You know everyone in your village. half of the village self identifies at hutu the other as tutsis. Years of hate speach pour over the radio controlled by lunatics. Eventually you massacre your neighbor with a machete. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/rwanda/indangamuntu.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4xcbhe | what do politicians mean when they say the government should deregulate the economy and make the free market more free? | Its often that I see politicians discussing how the government should tackle poverty. However, the topic is generally divided across partisan lines.
The left frequently promotes government spending plans and entitlement programs with specific goals such as expanding medicaid, providing food stamps and housing subsidies, improving education etc.
Meanwhile, the right frequently counters that welfare programs remove the intensives to work and suggest that the more efficient way to combat poverty is through macroeconomic policies that improve economic growth: such as deregulating the economy, removing restrictions on business, cutting red tape to improve the free market, and reducing government spending. However, without any specifics the rhetoric seems like meaningless jargon.
What are the restrictions that are hampering businesses and how? What regulatory practices are hindering economic growth and how? What red tape should be removed to make the free market more free? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xcbhe/eli5_what_do_politicians_mean_when_they_say_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6ebpy1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Deregulation is based in economical theory and ideology.\n\nFree market proponents assume that market forces will organically develop the best solution to any problem. Government intervention via regulation will always stifle the free market and lead to sub-optimal solutions.\n\nAn example:\n\nIf the goal is to protect the climate and environment, the government might institute a regulation forcing companies to lower their CO² output by 25% or face extensive fines.\n\nFree market proponents would argue that this regulation hampers business and does not solve the problem as efficiently as the free market would. They believe that absent any regulation business would be driven to reduce CO² output simply due to competition and find the best economical solution to do so.\n\nThis is the same principle for any regulation, the government sees a problem/challenge and institutes a regulation to achieve a given target (environmental protection, workers protection, increasing % of women in leadership positions, protect competitive markets, etc.) which according to free market proponents hurts businesses and doesn´t actually solve the problem.\n\nIn pure theory the assumption that a central government does not know best how to solve any problem and will cause undue consequences via direct intervention is sound. However it´s doubtful to assume that businesses will always act in the best interest of society and tackle such problems themselves. Imho without regulation most problems would not be tackled by business in the best time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9f7t9s | how do we know that the big bang started from a single point, instead of some larger object? could it have started as the size of a baseball, the sun, or even an entire galaxy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9f7t9s/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_the_big_bang_started/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5uctai",
"e5ucxo1"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"When scientist use the term \"single point\" they are referring to the mathematical construct of a \"singularity\".\n\nIt's a hard concept but try this - Make the smallest dot on a piece of paper. That's where the universe started, but infinitely smaller than what you just drew. \n\nIt's hard to understand because in the \"before time\" there was no universe, therefore was no 2nd or 3rd dimension. Not the concept, but the dimension itself. ",
"Let's clear up some things.\n\n1. The \"Big Bang\" did not start out as a point *in* space. But rather *all of space* was crunched up infinitely dense. Imagine you took a bed sheet that represents space. Instead of the Big Bang being a point on that sheet and expanding outward, the entire sheet is crumpled up into an infinitely small point, and the sheet itself (and everything in/on it) expands outwards.\n2. But even that doesn't really capture the truly bizarre nature of what happened. Because a bed sheet is finite, but space is not. So imagine a bed sheet that continues infinitely in all directions. If you crumple it up in one spot, you still have an infinity of bed sheet that is left uncrumpled. So you enlist the help of an infinite number of friends who all pick a spot on this infinite bed sheet (covering all of its infinite points) and begin crumpling it up until every single point on this infinite bed sheet is infinitely dense. And *then* it starts expanding outward in all of its infinite directions.\n3. But! The \"infinitely\" dense nature of the Big Bang is a consequence of trying to resolve Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And this is recognized as mathematically as a singularity. A point of infinite density (and more). While we use this as a reference point to talk about the early universe (So many nanoseconds after the Big Bang) the Big Bang itself actually represents a break down of our scientific models. We really can't talk about this point in time in a meaningful way. Not at least we resolve this incompatibility with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.\n\nAll that said, the Big Bang wasn't an object in space. It was *everything*. All matter. All space. Everywhere. Squished down to an infinitely small size."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2lj87b | what's it like to have dementia? | Are you still you? Or how does it feel? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lj87b/eli5_whats_it_like_to_have_dementia/ | {
"a_id": [
"clvadbi",
"clve6kb",
"clve6nu",
"clvf1cm"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It varies dramatically from person to person and form to form. The most common form of dementia is Alzheimer's disease. This disease impairs memory, causing frequent forgetfulness and confusion.\n\nOther forms cause changes in behavior, language, and judgement. ",
"For my grandmother, I could see it in her eyes. She is in her late 80's and has been showing signs for about 5 years. She lives in a different country, so I can't describe her progression, but she visited my family recently and she would sit for hours with a vacuous look on her face. There was a dimness in her eyes that would come and go. Sometimes she'd register a question, sometimes she wouldn't. It was like she was a battery-operated robot that was on its last bit of juice. \n\nIn comparison, I regularly see two of my friends' grandmothers. They are 3-5 years older than my grandma and in their 90's. While they have trouble with their hips and back, their minds are still sharp. From week to week, they may share the same bit of advice they told me before, but their eyes make contact with mine when they speak. I'm able to see a range of emotions through their eyes. ",
"My dad has dementia. I was unaware of the symptoms until a major stroke hit him and caused other complications. Early indicators included him becoming confused about payments and interest being made to him (and he was a financial genius), trying to give a person directions in a city he had lived in for 50 years and discovering that he didn't know the names of streets he had always known, and similar simple things. Now that he is in the later stages of the disease he no longer recognizes family, cannot respond to even yes and no questions consistently, and is pretty much reduced to potted plant status.\n\nIt's hard, watching a personality you have always known and loved gradually disappear. The shell is still there but the mind and character of the person is now pretty much gone. He used to be angry about not being able to remember and upset at the inability to recall things he had always known, but now even that is gone. ",
"My grandmother who is in her late sixties has had Huntington's disease for at least 10 years. Over the last five she's had dementia, which has increased her inability to make rational decisions, she gets things stuck in her mind and then doesn't forget about it until something new happens, she will get upset about the slightest things, and she often hides the mail from my grandfather who needs to pay bills. Just things like that, and unfortunately Huntington's hereditary."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fhbm5s | why do people sell off stock in response to bad news? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fhbm5s/eli5_why_do_people_sell_off_stock_in_response_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fka4gem"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People want to cash out before it gets any lower. While the market tends upward, who knows how long the downtrend will continue or how long it’ll take to get back up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6nqcdc | pcos and birth control | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nqcdc/eli5_pcos_and_birth_control/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkbnt70"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You may want to ask this in /r/PCOS. There will be a lot of women there who have been through the same issues you have. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
83r9p9 | why does sleeping help cure a hangover, when if the same amount of time passes whilst awake you will feel little to no difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83r9p9/eli5_why_does_sleeping_help_cure_a_hangover_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvjycgf",
"dvk6sei"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"I wouldn’t be able to prove this but doesn’t your body recover faster while asleep? ",
"Sleeping off a hangover; sleeping itself doesn't really help. What is happening while you sleep is that your liver is scrubbing the toxins from your system.\n\nThe best way to address a hang over (other than drinking less, and thats no fun) is to take vitamin B6 and B1, drink lots of water and avoid Tylenol."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
26hbrn | why do helicopter not have ejection seats like planes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26hbrn/eli5_why_do_helicopter_not_have_ejection_seats/ | {
"a_id": [
"chr1txh",
"chr1ubf",
"chr1ug0",
"chr28dl",
"chr29eh",
"chr49xa",
"chr5ivr",
"chr6vu2",
"chr7266",
"chr79cf",
"chrfe71"
],
"score": [
9,
21,
15,
9,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Many do. The rotors are attached to small charges to blow them off just before.",
"Some do...\nFor improved pilot survivability the Ka-50 is fitted with a NPP Zvezda (transl. Star) K-37-800 ejection seat, which is a rare feature for a helicopter.[17] Before the rocket in the ejection seat deploys, the rotor blades are blown away by explosive charges in the rotor disc and the canopy is jettisoned.[18]\n_URL_0_",
"Can't tell if OP is serious or not, but that was hilarious and is getting an upvote.",
"helicopters generally operate too close to the ground to make parachutes practical. \n\nin addition, helicopters are very delicate machines. even compared to other aircraft. although ejectors have been done in helicopters, in most cases the intricate technologies required to do it would come at too high a cost in terms of weight, space, and performance.",
"They aren't called 'Choppers' for nothing...",
"Because whack whack whack is not just the sound the rotors make through the air... very similar sound when going through your neck.\n\nReally though, the ELI5 answer is to try jumping on your bed into the ceiling fan",
"Would an ejection system that ejects the pilots from underneath the helicopter work?",
"You guys are idiots. You don't always have to go RIGHT ABOVE THE HELICOPTER. What about out the sides or something? I'm pretty sure OP isn't retarded.",
"The vast majority of military helicopters fly with more than a pilot and copilot on board. No one I serve with would ever punch out and leave passengers/crewmen behind.",
"They do. There are a couple variants. One was posted below (blowing the rotor off). Another fires the ejection seat down and to the side.",
"Your username is mildly relevant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ynomg | explain the american election system to me. what is the point of primaries, and why do we vote for individual presedential candidates if the president is decided based on electoral votes??? | This whole thing has confused me since childhood. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ynomg/explain_the_american_election_system_to_me_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5x81zm",
"c5xb79r",
"c5xbuh7",
"c5xc8fg"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Anyone who meets the qualifications can run for president, they just need to gather the required signatures in each state to get on the ballot (unless they're running as a write-in, in which case they just need to file some paperwork). A Republican or Democrat has won every election in the past 150 years or so, though, so you greatly increase your odds by appearing on the ballot as one or the other. However, the parties only allow one candidate to represent them in the general election, so there has to be a way to choose their official nominee. In the past, a bunch of party leaders just got together and picked someone. Today, it's done through the primaries. People who identify as Democrats vote for their favorite Democratic candidate, and likewise for Republicans (in general - sometimes people cross over, and some states allow independents to have a voice). The winner of each party's primary, along with third party choices and independent candidates, move on to run in the general election.\n\nAs for the electoral college question, I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at. Everyone votes for president, but the results are grouped together at the state level, not the national level, and the candidate who receives the most votes in a state gets all of that state's electoral votes (excluding Maine and Nebraska, who allow split votes). So, technically speaking, we're not voting for a president, we're voting for representatives to the electoral college, and in the past in many states, you actually marked votes for people running for the college, not for a president. But each presidential candidate chooses his slate of electoral college reps for each state, so it's basically the same thing (defections are relatively rare, especially in modern times).",
"In the electoral college each state is given a number of votes (determined by population, for example, California has 55 while Alaska has 3). The candidate with the majority vote gets all that states electoral votes. \n\nThis system was set up in a time in which individual voters didn't have access to enough information to make informed decisions about the candidates, and it was difficult to ensure the security of individual votes pre-electronics. An entire states votes going on horseback would be a nightmare.",
"Hokay. \n\n1. Anyone who meets the qualifications laid out in the Constitution (American born, over 35, etc.) can run for president.\n \n2. But each individual state is allowed to make its own laws on how to run elections, so if you want you name actually get printed on the official ballot, you have to obey the state election laws. Usually this means a) filing a form that says \"Hey, State Official In Charge of Elections, I wanna run for president.\" and b) submitting a bunch of signatures from voters who live in that state who agree they'd wanna vote for you and the state should put you on the ballot. (Sometimes if people don't collect enough signatures to get their name printed or don't submit them in time to get on the official ballot they ask their supporters to \"write in\" their name in on a line at the bottom of the ballot. This is a super-long shot thing that basically never works. Sometimes people also write in \"Micky Mouse\" or \"Satan\" on the write in line instead of a real candidate as a form of protest.) \n\n3. So, whoop-di-fuckin' do, your name's on the ballot. Do you know there's like a bajlllion fucking people in this country? And in order to win you have to get a shitload of them to like you? (Or at least hate you slightly less that the other candidates.) Really, this shit is fuckin' hard. You have to get your name and your message out there by advertising, you have to travel around giving speeches and promising all kinds of people that you're fucking awesome --- this is gonna cost a fuckton. It sure would be handy if you had some help. Like, if there were a bunch of other people who basically agreed with you about most stuff and think you're neato, and would chip in cash to fund your travelling and ads and would tell all their friends how awesome you in fact are. Such as....a political party. \n\nNow, to be clear, when the Founders origianlly put together the Constitution, they were kind of hoping there wouldn't be political parties. They called them \"factions\" and worried that once you have permanent political interest groups established, shit would inevitably get real and it would tend to create more conflict among the citizens, maybe even wars (just like, say, the 17th century English Civil War. Kinda. it's a long story). The way they wrote the Constitution, they were sort of cross-fingers-knock-on-wood hoping that a bunch of well-known guys would independently offer themselves up as candidates and then people would choose amongst them. That's why they originally had it that the runner up in the election would be VP, for example. \n\nBut this \"we'll just pick from among the best guys\" idea basically lasted about 3.2 seconds after the Constitution got ratified. It just turned out that people had serious, fundamental disagreements about how the new government should work and that like-minded people tended to group together and try and make sure their buddies were the ones in charge and voila, factions/political parties. Some kind of party arrangement has basically been in effect ever since Jefferson, though the ideas represented by those parties have changed a lot as different leaders have pushed their parties in new directions. Nowadays, to have any chance of being elected president at all you basically need to be a prominent member of one of the two major parties.\n\n5. So You Wanna Become A Major Party Candidate. During the 235 years or so there's been a US, there have basically been three ways to become a major party candidate. \n\n--- The 18th century/Founding Fathers way: Did you help write the constitution and/or are the blood relative of someone who did? Great, basically everybody who can vote and has money knows who you are, what ideas you support and whether or not they think you're a dick, and getting the party's nod is pretty much a case of you and your buddies getting together and giving you the nod. \n\n--- 19th/early 20th century Convention way: Well, the country's a lot bigger now and there's a shitload more people, parties are getting more sophisticated, we're adding a new state like every Tuesday, so instead of just a me-and-my-buddies thing getting the nod gets a little more complicated. Basically the party bigwigs invite representatives from all across the country to a big city for a three day blowout called a convention, and through a series of public arguments and backroom meetings, decide who they think the party should nominate. They have a big vote amongst themselves (or several) and then announce to the world: \"Hey, this is our candidate.\" \n\n--- the late 20th/21st century Primary way: Believe it or not, but it wasn't until the late 1960s early 1970s that the convention system really gave way to primaries. In the late 1960s/early 70s you had a series of events, mostly on the Democratic side, that really pushed people toward wanting a more open process: The sitting Democratic president, Johnson, decided not to run for re-election, there was big split between young hippie types and old FDR types about whether to support the Vietnam war, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated shorty before the '68 Democratic Convention, and there were huge fucking riots at the '68 convention after the hippie types protested it and Chicago Mayor Richard Daly sent hundreds of cops to beat the shit out of them. After all that, a lot of people pushed hard for the nomination to be really decided by the primary voting and not at the convention, so that the party would have to obey the wishes of the grassroots members. \n\nThere had been primaries before the 60s and 70s, but they were mostly just for the party members in a given state to help sort out who they would support during the convention: if Joe Schmoe won the Illinois primary, the the Illinois delegates agreed to vote for Schmoe to be the candidate at the convention in the first round of voting. During the 1970s, both major parties basically agreed to abide by the results of the primaries, and that's the way it works today --- once one candidate has won enough primaries/caucuses to obtain the support of a majority of convention delegates, then they're the nominee. This has made the whole convention thing pretty redundant and some people think we shouldn't even bother with them anymore. However, getting a majority of delegates ain't always easy: The rules for the primaries are up to the individual state parties --- some are winner take all, some are proportional, so if a candidate get 50 percent of the primary votes they get 50 percent of the delegates, and that means it can take a while for one candidate to get a majority. (During the 2008 election it was so tight between Obama and Hilary it was totally possible neither would have gotten a majority before the convention, and then it would have had to be have been done like in the old days, with shit loads of wheeling and dealing going on and maybe several rounds of voting before there was a clear winner.) \n\n6. Congratulations, you're a major party candidate. Now let's have us some electioning! The Constitution lays it all out from here, pretty much: sets date for the election, everybody votes, and then we send that sucker to the Electoral College. Dafuq you say? Good question. Remember back in 4) when we were talking about how the idea of political parties made the Founders all nervous and they basically preferred the my-buddies-say-he's-cool nomination system? Right. They were also a little nervous about direct popular voting. Plus, this was the 18th century: Just tallying up the votes to figure out who won could take weeks. Campaigning back then was nothing like it is now; it was a lot more difficult for people to get their names and ideas out there. Hell, by the time John Quincy Adams could have hauled his ass down from Massachusetts to give a speech in Georgia the election would be damn near over. So you often might have a candidate that was super-popular in one or two states and pretty much unknown in the others --- if you have a couple candidates like that, then nobody is able to obtain a majority. The founder's solution to this is the Electoral College, and it works like this: Every state gets a certain number of electoral college members (one for every Senator and Representative it has). The candidate who wins that state gets its Electoral College votes. After the votes are tallied up in each individual state, the electors for that state meet, figure out who they're suppossed to vote for, vote, and send a letter to Congress that says, \"Hey, this guy won our state so we vote for him, we swear, sincerely, The Electors.\" Congress collects all the letters, counts up the Electoral College votes, and if one candidate has a clear majority, sweet, she's President. If no one has a majority, Congress has to vote from among the top three candidates. (This happened in 1824 and it was a complete shitshow.) \n\nAnd that, pretty much, is it. ",
"There are a lot of really good explanations below, so I'll just compliment with a metaphor: it works like a sport championship, were the states are individual games.\n\nIf you win the game, you get the points for the championship. The extra goals or whatever you score in one particular match do not matter, all that matter is the final points (i.e., how many games you've won).\n\nIn different systems, it works like a sum of all goals. So, if you're counting all the goals at the end of the championship, scoring 45x10 is very different than scoring 1x0.\n\nWHY is it that way? I have no idea... Maybe to reinforce the power os states over power of individuals? I honestly don't know."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1wy47r | cricket!? | I find the game somewhat entertaining to watch but I have no idea how it actually works. Can anyone give me a bit of an overview as far as what to look for while watching to determine good play from bad and allow me to yell at players for being stupid, which is like half the reason I watch sports anyway... Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wy47r/eli5_cricket/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf6g074"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The basic idea in cricket is to get more runs (points) than the other team. The team that wins the coin toss at the start of the game decides whether they want to bat first (expecting to put up a large score), or bowl first (expect to restrict the batting team to a lower score).\n\nThe batting team has two players on the pitch at any time (a total of 11 players in the team). They stand at opposite ends of the pitch and attempt to hit the ball that is bowled by the bowler to the boundary (or at least away from any of the fielders). When the ball is live, the batsmen run between the two ends of the pitch called the wickets. Each time the batsmen cross each other, they score 1 run. If the ball crosses the boundary rope without hitting the ground, the batsman scores 6 runs for the team, but if it hits the ground even once before crossing the boundary, it is worth 4 runs.\n\nThe bowling, or fielding team's job is to get the batsmen out by any legal means necessary. These include\n* Bowled - the ball hits the wicket before the batsman has a chance to hit for runs.\n* Leg before wicket - the LBW is given when the umpire deems that the batsman would have been bowled out, if it had not been for his leg that got in between the ball and the wicket. Usually loudly appealed by the bowler and his teammates by screaming \"Howzzat!\"\n* Caught out - The ball is caught by one of the fielding players after hitting the bat and before touching the ground. The batsman is not out if the ball simply bounced off his leg guard.\n* Stumped - The batsman missed the ball, the wicket keeper caught it and used the ball to knock the bails off the wicket while the batsman was outside the batting crease.\n* Run out - This happens when the fielding team uses the ball to knock the bails off the wicket while the batsmen are running between the wickets. The batsman is out only if any part of his bat or body are outside the crease.\n\nIf the team is batting second, they are referred to as chasing the score put up by the first team. They need to score at least one more run than the other in the given time to win.\n\nCricket is played in multiple forms - the longest called test cricket is played over a 5 day period and has 4 innings, two batting and two bowling for each team. The plays are much slower due to the long nature of the game. The most common form is limited-overs (an over being 6 balls) and usually limited to 20 or 50 overs and has only two innings (1 batting + 1 bowling). The 50-over form is referred to as one-day cricket, since it is usually played over a single day, starting in the morning and finishing before sunset or starting in the afternoon and going on into the night (with stadium lights). The 20-over form is called T20 and is modeled after faster paced games in order to finish a game within about 3 hours.\n\nThe most common reason that I have for yelling at players is for them getting run-out for being too greedy, or for a fielder dropping a catch.\n\nHopefully this should help you enjoy the game."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8h24iu | why is hydrogen and oxygen the most efficient rocket fuel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8h24iu/eli5_why_is_hydrogen_and_oxygen_the_most/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyggv5v",
"dygq2jm"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I do recommend the book \"Ignition\" which is a humorous and informative book on the efforts into rocket fuel research during the pioneering years in rocketry. Hydrogen and oxygen does have some advantages and some disadvantages to other fuels. First of all you need an oxidizer and a fuel to get a reaction. (There are exceptions). Even on the ground there is not enough oxygen to work as an oxidizer for a rocket engine as they need a lot. The fuel and oxidizer needs to have high chemical energy and the resulting exhaust needs to have low chemical energy. In this case hydrogen and oxygen have a lot more energy then water. Secondly due to the laws of thermodynamics the number of exhaust molecules should be as high as possible for the rocket engine to be efficient. So a rocket engine burns a lot less hydrogen then it would burn hydrocarbons for the same thrust as water have almost a third of the molecular weight of carbon dioxide. So the specific impulse (similar to fuel mileage in a car) is much better for a hydrolox rocket then most other rockets.\n\nThe disadvantages are also there. Hydrogen is a lot less dense then other forms of rocket fuel. So you need a lot bigger tanks which adds weight and drag to the rocket. In addition hydrogen is much harder to pump though the engine and causes lots of issues for the engine so the engines tends to be much bigger and heavier. So when you add all the additional complexity and weight of the entire system hydrogen is might not be the most efficient fuel in your use case.\n\nEdit: High Isp - > Better Isp",
"Burning hydrogen releases *a lot* of energy. Per kilogram you get about 2x as much energy from combusting hydrogen than you do from methane. This results in gas leaving the rocket engine faster which results in a higher specific impulse.\n\nTo combust hydrogen, you split your O2 molecule and bind each one to an H2 and you get 2 H2O. To combust methane you must first spend energy splitting the CH4 and the O2, then form water and CO2. Forming CO2 doesn't release as much energy per kg as forming H2O does so you end up with less energetic exhaust\n\nThe result from all this is that a kilogram of hydrogen fuel will get you more delta V than a kilogram of Methane, the trade off is that hydrogen isn't dense so carrying 200 MJ of liquid hydrogen will require a 23.5L tank(1.67 kg) while 200 MJ of Methane needs just 9L(3.6 kg) so your super fuel efficient hydrogen rocket will need to be massive to hold enough fuel and its structure will cancel out the efficiency gains of the hydrogen\n\nThus we make most rockets with Methalox(CH4/Liquid Oxygen) first stages and only really use Hydrolox(Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen) for second stages and beyond which use far less fuel."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1sypfi | if inbreeding causes congenital birth defects, how did the human population go from small to large over time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sypfi/eli5_if_inbreeding_causes_congenital_birth/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce2ksqu",
"ce2mrcw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Inbreeding increases the chance of defects being passed on. If the original population had the alleles (one version of a gene) for this genetic diseases, any offspring are more likely to have the disease. If the original population was large enough, had enough genetic variation and were lucky, then they could still expand.\n\nVery basically, organisms like us have two alleles for a gene. If the alleles are different, it's heterozygous. If they are the same, it's homozygous. A lot of defects are only harmful when the alleles are homozygous. \nWe can have \"Dominant\" and \"recessive\" alleles. Basically, if one allele is dominant, it takes priority over the recessive one. So if (not a real example) the allele for brown eyes (call it \"B\") is dominant, and blue eyes (call it \"b\") is recessive, then someone with BB alleles will have brown eyes, Bb will have brown eyes (because B is dominant over b) and someone with bb will have blue eyes (because recessive alleles are generally only expressed when there is no dominant one). Inbreeding increases homozygosity, so there is the potential for deletarious recessive alleles to spread throughout the population.\n\nThere is the potential for deleterious alleles to be 'purged' from a population. Those suffering defects likely die, and are less likely to pass on genes. The surviving members are less likely to have these defects. Cheetahs have a very low level of genetic diversity (i.e. very inbred) and have probably suffered a population bottleneck (a great decrease in population sive) in the past like humans are supposed to have suffered. Cheetahs actually have very low levels of genetic disease, because most the harmful alleles were lost from the population.",
"The minimum viable population size is estimated to be around 1000 for humans, and the human population has always been much larger than that by most accounts.\n\nRemember, evolution is a gradual process that can occur throughout a population. 10,000 primates can evolve into 10,000 hominids who can evolved into 10,000 humans, all the while never dipping below that size."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
27u3mh | why do bodies emit radiation? | Any object whose temperature is greater than absolute zero emits black body radiation. The composition of this radiation on the spectrum of wavelengths depends on the objects temperature.
I know many other facts about this phenomenon. BUT I don't think I have a good explanation as to WHY this phenomenon occurs. Where do the photos come from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27u3mh/eli5_why_do_bodies_emit_radiation/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci4dpjc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Temperature is essentially the vibrations of the molecules in the substance. That vibration goes down to the atomic level, vibrating the charged particles in the atoms, and moving them through each others' electromagnetic fields in the process. This can release a photon, which is essentially an electromagnetic \"ripple\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7ew655 | salt water oceans, but fresh water ice caps? | Most sea/ocean water is salt water, from what I understand. And most of the earth's fresh water is in the ice caps that are (I assume) in the salty sea. How does this work? Also why is sea water salty...? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ew655/eli5_salt_water_oceans_but_fresh_water_ice_caps/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq7v5f1",
"dq7vt7k"
],
"score": [
10,
11
],
"text": [
"When water forms ice crystals it forces out other solutes like salt. There's no room in the well ordered ice crystals for other stuff.\n\nThis is part of the reason salt and other solutes lower the freezing point of water. Any water that begins to freeze leaves the rest of the liquid water even saltier (which, after a point, becomes energetically very unfavorable).\n\nBasically, when you boil or freeze water, the stuff that's in it doesn't come along for the ride.\n\nThe oceans are salty because salt is very water soluble. Over billions of years rain has fallen and rivers have flowed over the ground, picked up some salt along the way, and carried it to the oceans. That water then evaporates to start the cycle over again but the salt stays behind in the ocean.",
"Greenland in the north, and Antarctica in the south, are composed of solid land underneath the glaciers. The ice caps are not in the salty sea, they are on land, although they do border on the sea, and icebergs break off into the salty sea and float away.\n\nGlaciers are formed by an accumulation of snow. If you have a cold, snowy climate where there is snow every year and the snow never melts, then you get an increasingly thick layer of snow, and then the weight of all this snow will compress the snow into ice, and when you have enough ice it constitutes a glacier.\n\nSnow does not contain salt because the water has effectively been distilled. When water evaporates, it leaves the salt behind. This would happen just the same way if you put a pot of salty water on your stove and boiled it. The steam would not contain salt, and when all the water boiled away, you would have all the salt left behind as a residue in the bottom of your pot.\n\nSea water is salty because the sea has been around, here on planet Earth, for billions of years, and during that time various soluble salts have washed out of the continents and into the sea. It is a slow process but it builds up over time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3rut26 | why do nba big men struggle so much with free throws? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rut26/eli5_why_do_nba_big_men_struggle_so_much_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwrk2tw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"To make it in the NBA as a not-big-man you need a very impressive skill set including speed, jumping, passing and typically the ability to make points from a distance. Free throws use that making points from a distance skill. \n\nHaving a great deal of size is such an advantage in basketball that you can still be successful without an accurate distance shot. And indeed it isnt practiced that much because you don't usually shoot out there, so better to spend time perfecting your inside game. \n\nIn other words, NBA big men often struggle with fre throws because they can struggle and still be successful, and because once successful they don't spend as much of their time shooting from that distance. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
53i2g0 | because science and medicine has been wrong for so much of history, how do we know science today is correct? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53i2g0/eli5_because_science_and_medicine_has_been_wrong/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7t81kw",
"d7t88ac",
"d7t8aga",
"d7t8z0d",
"d7t90z6",
"d7t94cc",
"d7t95gg",
"d7t9jd6",
"d7t9qgl",
"d7tb6av",
"d7tcg69",
"d7teksu",
"d7tg4mg"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
47,
10,
7,
13,
4,
37,
4,
6,
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Science hasn't been wrong for most of history, it has been improved upon and added to in great detail. The evidence that scientists collected were fairly accurate, but the conclusions they drew may not have been. As the body of knowledge and evidence grows, the conclusions get more accurate. \n",
"We don't. And, improvements and details will always change.\n\nBut, that is way better than relying on some guesswork, trying things that just happened to maybe have worked last time or following the teachings of some 2500 year old scrolls written by people who think they heard it from a transcendent entity.\n\nAnd, when something science accepts now is shown to be wrong based on new evidence, then the new evidence helps rewrite what scientist accept. Repeat as needed through history. Yes, sometimes old (wrong) theories are defended too well, but usually the newer idea wins out based on the science!",
"We don't know, but at the same time, 'science has been wrong' tends to be a lot of cherry picking, that is, looking for the times it has been wrong, or generalizing off a few opinions and not a broad consensus.\n\nTyping this on a computer that uses quantum mechanics to make small chips that work, likely communicating over fiber optics that carry data over the internet, and reading off a monitor who's pixel colors were designed based on human eye biology, and seeing everything looking nice, science has a good enough track record for me to consider it fairly reliable.\n\nAs a bonus, the best way to become a successful scientist is to demonstrate that other scientists are wrong in a clear and convincing way, so there is a lot more testing of stuff that becomes established as 'science' than most people see in most fields.",
"The scientific method is inherently doubtful of itself.\n\nThe experiment step tests the hypothesis, which may disprove the hypothesis. The experiment itself is carefully prepared, using statistics to determine how to form your sample size to get a meaningful result, the test itself follows procedures that aims to remove bias and error. The results are further analyzed to determine if the result is significant, to detect errors, and remove noise. The results are then published so they can be reviewed by peers, other scientists who know enough about your subject that they may spot flaws, and then the research can be independently reproduced - the results should match if your conclusions hold true.\n\nAnd even then, that is only the most correct we can currently get. All our knowledge is that way - the best as we know so far. There's almost always the chance for a breakthrough, or a revolution and turnover of established knowledge.\n\nBut knowledge has come a long way. Before, people dreamed up elaborate ideas of how the world worked, wrote it down, and people regarded it as an accurate model. And history is littered with quacks who were motivated to make a quick buck than to advance knowledge or medicine. People sold cure-all tonics made from piss and alcohol, and electricity to reverse aging, and were completely unfounded to believe anything of the sort, while real scientists were busy at the same time trying to understand *anything*.",
"It's better to view science as a process. Rather than seeing scientific inquiry as a series of \"ok now we're right! Oh wait... Ok NOW we're right!\" proclamations, it's more accurate to see it as one continuous process of evidence gathering, testing, interpreting and applying that constantly changes due to the availability of new evidence and new discoveries derived from testing, analysing and interpreting that evidence. \n\nSo in reality it's not a question of science being considered to have the correct answer to a question, and then finding out that it was wrong. It's more a case of \"this is the best guess we can make now with the evidence we have available\" and those ideas being added to and developed when new evidence becomes available. ",
"Saying that science has been wrong for so much of history is quite silly. Science is a process, not a system of belief. Scientists collect and analyze data and make a best guess based off of what they know is proven. The process is very similar to what it was in the past, but the quality of data is much better.\n\nLet's look at the medical field as an example. It used to be that doctors thought malaria was caused by infected or \"bad air\", hence the name. How did they come to this conclusion? Patients were more likely to become ill with the disease in humid climates and near swamps. Swamps were associated with smelly gases. Doctors guessed that the bad air of swamps caused malaria and told their patients not to live there, and it worked! It was for the wrong reasons though. Malaria is actually transmitted through mosquitos, not the air. Mosquitos do live in greater numbers in swamps though, so the doctors were able to remove patients from the hazardous environment even though their conclusion was wrong.\n\nToday, we have developed microscopes of such quality that we can actually *see* diseases that mosquitos and other vectors carry. Our ability to collect quality data has improved enormously, so our conclusions are also more accurate. Like I mentioned at the beginning though, this didn't happen overnight. It has been a *process* of hundreds of years to get to our data collection abilities of today.\n\nTL;DR Science today is much more accurate because our data is much more accurate, so we're working with fewer unknown variables.",
"It's probably more accurate to say knowledge was less complete due to lack of investigation. For example, the germ theory of disease was developed after scientific investigations in to the causes of disease. There have long been theories about diseases, such as malaria being caused by \"bad air\" - that's what \"malaria\" means, \"bad air\". If such theories had been subjected to actual scientific investigation, they would have been found wanting, but for most of history they weren't. ",
"Have a read of Isaac Asimov's [The Relativity of Wrong](_URL_0_). It's a reasonably short essay that explains how some ideas are more wrong than others, and how, over time, we're getting *less* wrong. It contains one of my favorite quotes:\n\n\"*John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.*\"\n\nIn short: *wrong* isn't a binary absolute. There are *degrees* to which one can be wrong.",
"This is a bit of a blanket statement, so let's break it down.\n\nMedicine was not really regulated or tested as thoroughly as it is today. A lot of the old procedures were based on religious ideas, or things that were found to have worked. Today we have so many tests to see if a medicine will work, and even then you'll see drugs taken off the market due to side effects not seen in trials and studies. Medicine is fairly knowledgeable due to this trial and error we go through.\n\nScience in general has a similar trial and error procedure. You've probably heard about something finding to have cured cancer-- the common cold or cannabis for instance. But in science, you have to have others verify your work before it's truly taken as fact. When you have lots of scientists verifying the work, you have what's seen as factual.\n\nBut, when you get more information and results that no longer work with that idea- your theory/facts are no longer valid. This isn't the idea of necessarily being wrong, but not having all the data needed to form a proper conclusion. In something like physics, for example, you have theories that could be proven correct by observation of the universe or through experiments/mathematics. Even if you continue to test these things and you form a conclusion, the end result could be changed if you realize your math was wrong or an experiment was tampered with from an outside force.\n\nTL;DR: Both go through serious trial and error, which gives us a decent answer but new information will make something wrong.",
"Today's isn't completely correct--it's just less wrong. We have more data points and much better instruments to study the natural world/universe with. More accurate facts and more total facts lead to much stronger hypothesis and theories.\n\nThat doesn't mean every conclusion is correct, just that they are less wrong.\n\nWe also have the capacity to cross-test (if that's a word) theories today. Geologists can compare notes with paleontologists, chemists and biologists can approach similar questions from different starting points. More minds and more tools result in improved progress toward answers.",
"Think of a car with 10,000 moving parts. If one breaks we think \"what a piece of junk\" without realizing the other 9,999 still work. Is the car a dud? Science is like the car - we see when something goes wrong but rarely see what goes right.",
"It has a history of being wrong because, normally, there are a bajillion ways to be wrong and only one way to be right.\n\nThe actual scientific method is not all that old, some few hundred years, give or take. There has been science and discoveries for longer than that but a frightening amount of early science was by simple decree by established potentates or scientists. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. Sometimes they actually did true science and proved what they said. They gradually got it right over time. Sometimes a hypothesis was the \"science\" of the day, simply because that's what they had, the provable theory hadn't yet been discovered and shown (Gravity traveling in the ether, disease caused by bad humors, the sun revolves around the earth,… Dark Energy is the modern day version of this. \"Dark Energy\" is just a scientific shorthand, a placeholder for something we know should be there but don't have a clue what it is. We have a hypothesis of Dark Energy being out there, and that's about all we know about it.) There is always some sort of working hypothesis that seems reasonable and everyone uses until someone comes along, does the work and shows a new theory that is so demonstrable and compellingly convincing. Science is wrong a lot because it is very easy to come up with a large number of wrong explanations but very hard to come up with only one correct one. We know today's science is right because it is tested and shown itself to be compellingly convincing and it can predict behavior. It will continue to be right until another explanation is even more compelling and has even better ability to predict behavior.\n\n Science has a history of being wrong because science is always wrong, until it's right.",
"You mistake what science is. It is not a belief system, it's a process of observation and experimentation. The idea of science actually means to doubtful of your knowledge. \n\nWe have ideas, till someone finds evidence that says otherwise. Now, we create a new theory which replaces it.\n\nThe science we have nowadays are the theories which are the best of the best. They are ideas which by all our current evidence, are how the world works. \n\nYes, new evidence can come and replace what we think is right. The THEORIES can be wrong, but the system of science allows us to think up a new one that explains the new results. \n\nSo next time, understand yes our theories may not be correct, but science means that we're always ready for changing our ideas. \n\nIt's like trying to say you actually don't know who you are as a person because you're not what you were when you were 5. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
yryzh | the show: lost | To the brave soul who can explain the show LOST to me (Starting around the confrontation of the others) will get a reward from me. PM me to discuss the terms of your reward.
Please help me
EDIT: What happened to John Locke!!!
EDIT 2: Thank you very much! DifferentCeilings has done a great job of explaining, as well as the video of the English Gentleman explaining it! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yryzh/eli5_the_show_lost/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5yaodu",
"c5yaqzr",
"c5ybkwg",
"c5yc883",
"c5ycy7h",
"c5yd0tk",
"c5yd0ut",
"c5yd1gr",
"c5yd78x",
"c5ydgz0",
"c5ydhng",
"c5ydtwr",
"c5ydxi3",
"c5ydxp3",
"c5ydxwx",
"c5ye1um",
"c5ye70b",
"c5ye7vr",
"c5yedlk",
"c5yenby",
"c5yeqwj",
"c5yeypw",
"c5yfd4f",
"c5yfgfp",
"c5ygg1f",
"c5ygrnv",
"c5yhu5i",
"c5yi9ev",
"c5yk3sm",
"c5ymehs"
],
"score": [
66,
1025,
54,
20,
7,
2,
12,
2,
2,
2,
7,
22,
3,
17,
13,
3,
18,
17,
4,
6,
3,
14,
12,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine it's your first day of kindergarten and you arrive to a class full of new kids. No one knows each other. The teachers decide that it would be fun to have a field trip on the first day, and you go to museum. But once you're there, something goes wrong and all the teachers are gone. You're actually all alone in the museum with the new kids! Nobody seems to like this very much, and no one knows each other well. One kid (jack) seems to have the most friends, and he tells people what to do to stay calm. Not everyone likes him, but hes elected \"lineleader\" and people listen to him. Everyone puts together coins to buy food and water from vending machines, and you can tell there's enough candy and drinks for years! But a lot of people want to go home, and no one knows how to get out of the museum. And no one knows why the teachers left. The first night everyone goes to sleep throughout the museum, but scary noises wake everyone up. Just the loud fans say most people, but then you notice Timmy who sat next to you on the bus is gone the next day. People stay together at night now. As days go on in the museum, you learn more about your classmates, some are nice, others are mean. What's crazy, is that it turns out you had the same piano teacher as Bill even though you never met, and Bill's sister once beat up Ann. Connections appear everywhere about how everyones' related in some way, but people don't seem to care. \nThings are weird in the museum though. The exhibits scare people, and every now and then another kid will go missing. One day, you see a kid that isn't part of your school. But then he disappears, and other kids see the same thing from time to time. This is scary, because strangers are bad. Al and Adam find one exhibit that is really weird, and looks like it might hold something special. Its all metal and has a big door on it they can't open. At about the same time the class meets a girl who has been in the museum a verrry long time and seems like she could be in 8th grade. She also has a gun. She screams about 'other kids' then disappears after we talk to her for a while.\nSome kids really wanna go home now. 4 of them make a big ladder to climb out of the museum, and everyone wishes them luck as they climb away. It doesnt work.\nThey finally get the big metal door to open and they find all kinds of stuff. And not just candy and soda like usual, they find ham, turkey, peanut butter, white bread and even some guns. You also find a kid who wasn't part of your class in the exhibit! He talks about the 'other kids' being mean and he had been pushing a button every 108 minutes for years to prevent the world from ending. According to him. So you keep pushing it for him since he wants to leave. Some kids are wondering what this metal exhibit is doing in the museum. But people can't wonder for too long because now Anthony is tired of Jack being the lineleader, and he tries to bully him. Eventually Anthony steals the guns and Jack can't be leader as well as before. People start to split up into teams, like in dodgeball. \nBut wait! Now you find out that the whole back of the bus got seperated at the very beginning of the field trip and they finally meet up with the rest of the class. But not many of them are there. And they have had more encounters with the 'other kids'. The 'others' are scary and mean.\nThe 'others' finally come out and show themselves. They say that they've have been in the museum for a reaaally long time, and we better stay in the lobby of the museum, because the rest is their's. \nPeople get in a big fight anyway, and some kids from the outside world come to get the class out of the museum. They have a bus in the parking lot waiting for them if they can get out of the museum!\n\n-End of seasons 1-3, I don't have the skills to explain seasons 4-6 to my friends, much less a 5 year old.",
"Spoilers abound!\n\nLOST is a show about a group of people who crash on an island, a remarkable and special island. See, the island is a mystical and magical place that is searched for and intentionally hidden by many different groups of people throughout time. But why is the island so special? The details are alluded to but never directly announced, all we know is the island acts as a cork that seals in an unforeseen force.\n\nJacob is the protector of the island along with his brother who is referred to as \"The Man In Black,\" however, his brother wants off the island, while Jacob chooses to stay and protect the island. Again, never explained but announced is the idea that The Man in Black cannot directly kill Jacob, so he must have someone else do his dirty work for him. For over 2000 years Jacob and The Man in Black play a game where MIB brings people to the island to fuck with Jacob and attempt to kill him. Jacob always outsmarts MIB and thus continues their eternal struggle. So MIB lays out a long term plan in which he will bring multiple people to the island over thousands of years acting as a multilayered plan to kill Jacob. However, Jacob always has loyalist to his cause known as The Others, who are lead by different men throughout history,\n\nLets move to the 1970's! Using modern science, a group of researchers locate the island and set up a settlement there. Doing science shit they sort of fuck up and drill into an electric magnet hotspot, releasing a massive amount of radiation that has to be contained and maintained every 108 minutes. A few years later, some asshole kid with daddy issues decides to join up with the others and kill all of these scientists using chemical weapons.\n\nLet's move to current day! Oceanic flight 815 is flying along (minding it's own business) when the island gets all OAG and pulls it down. The show centers around these survivors and focuses on their personal transformations on the island. We got a guy who used to be a drugged out rock star, a woman who had cancer (yet was cured on the island), a convict, and a cripple who can magically walk on the island. Since all these people have different life stories they all view the island different way. See, some of the people are r/christianity and some people are r/atheism, this eventually divides the survivors into two camps. \n\nWhat is not immediately apparent is that all these survivors are actually hand chosen by Jacob and brought to the island with different purposes to play as pieces on a chess board, or backgammon, if you please. Jacob and MIB are playing a very carefully crafted game using these people for good and evil. If MIB wins then the cork comes out and the world ends, and if Jacob wins the world is protected. Black and white, light and dark, blah blah blah.\n\nAlso, there is a Dog named Vincent who is owned by a magical black child who gets too old to be on the show so is promptly written off.\n\nAny-hoo, MIB actually convinces that little bitch with daddy issues to stab Jacob in the heart and kill him (just his physical body, baby, he's still Soul Jacob), thus releasing the lock on MIB!\n\nSo the survivors get all \"hell no\" about this and do everything they can to stop him, but he's all immortal-n-shit, turning into black smoke and killing people, so,they're fucked. That is, until an Irish bloke who likes to say \"Brother\" every line goes down into a cave and (I am NOT making this up) pulls a giant cork out, rendering MIB mortal, thus allowing him to get shot and killed by Kate, a shit-tier character. The cork is placed back and all returns to normal.\n\nAfter killing MIB, some characters get off the island while others stay back to protect the island. Eventually, they all die and meet up in the after life and are all happy about being tied together in saving the world.\n\nTL;DR: A God'ish guy and a Devil'ish guy play a game of chess with actual people and a shit-tier character kills the Devil'ish guy.\n\nNOTE: I left specific characters out and just focused on the overall plot line. If you want I can break down season by season, event by event, character by character.\n ",
"[The post-it version](_URL_0_)",
"Damaged people crash land on damaged island; fix island, themselves.\n\nNow go watch the show.\n\nEDIT: So many people have enjoyed this summary that, in the interest of giving credit where it's due, I should point out that it's my faulty memory of a [tweet by Damon Lindelof](_URL_0_).",
"Maybe when you're older, kiddo.",
" > But why is the island so special? The details are alluded to but never directly announced\n\nMy main gripe with the show right here.",
"[Alex Day explains it pretty well](_URL_0_)",
"Greenspank, what are you doing up? The grown-ups are watching TV now. Let's go to bed, I'll read you a story instead.",
"[It was just a bad dream from the dog](_URL_0_)",
"~~Nobody ever dies.~~ Everybody always dies.",
"They pulled shit out of their ass every week and made it into a story",
"If anyone wants specific details about ANYTHING lost related, (characters, motifs, symbols, hatches, etc) go to _URL_0_. That site was like my bible during my Lost years ",
"the Man in Black is a genie, the island is the bottle, and Jacob is the master but Jacob lets Locke think he's the master for a while. That's how it should have ended. Just ignore what actually happened and pretend that's what happened, because it's much better.",
"Explain like you're five???? Can someone explain it for a 23 year old? ",
"There's only one thing you need to know: 4 8 15 16 23 42",
"A shared hallucination between a group of loosely related people moments before they die.",
"Shows writers have and idea for a story, studio says great but we want 7 seasons not 3.\n\nWriters go fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu.",
"It's a reality show where each actors get to keep their job as long as they avoid getting a DWI while partying in Honolulu.",
"I doubt anyone's ability to explain the plot of this show in terms understandable by a fifth grader.",
"Basically, it's a TV show about polar bears, tropical islands and time travel. At first you assume that there's some sort of incredibly intricate, complex and interesting plot going on, that everything will be explained and revealed at some point, but with each season you realize more and more that the writers have no bloody idea what the hell they're doing. It's mystery for the sake of mystery and it drags on for 121 episodes, all those assumptions you've made at the beginning, all those hopes for intricate story are completely destroyed at the end. In short, it's a huge convoluted mess, the writers just keep piling up more and more weird stuff and at some point you realize that *this* the real show - a metric shit-ton of weird things happen and you're just supposed to be amused by it. There's really no point in trying to figure things out because after about three seasons it became blindly obvious that even the writers didn't know what was going on, it was all about mysterious shit.",
"if u want to know about the connections of the characters and answers to lost check this pages\n--- > _URL_0_ < ---\nand this --- > _URL_1_ < ---",
"One day a bunch of special people with special problems all happen to board the same airplane (flight 815). The particularly special people were each visited at some point during their lives by an important and very old man named Jacob. Though unknown to the special people, the effects of these visits put them on their life path to this plane. These people were some of the Candidates who were the next possible protectors of an important island. Their plane was supposed to fly from Australia and to Los Angeles.\n\nSuddenly their plane crashes and conveniently smears itself onto the beach of the Island. Mostly the important people survive, but many others die. Many strange or unusual things occur leading to \"[Jack faces](_URL_2_)\" and [a sound](_URL_1_) synonymous with \"what the fuck just happened\".\n\nWe learn about the important survivors through flashbacks. A lot of them are big meanies or have \"daddy problems\". Luckily, there are awesome survivors too. Many of these people are connected to one another in some way like a world-wide game of 6-degrees. A lot of the drama comes from problems between people of \"science\" and people of \"faith\".\n\nThe survivors of flight 815 meet a group they creatively call the Others. These Others also inhabit the Island but actually have their shit together. One faction of the Others* conduct experiments and play mind games with the survivors. These Others are part of a group started in the 1970s called the Dharma Initiative. Several people want power over their peers or the Island itself. Also; polar bears.\n\nSome of the survivors get off the Island but end up going back by retracing their \"steps\" (same airplane, same people) after being egged on by this super-cool dude named Jack who has a crazy beard. For round 2, they all end up on the Island, but whoops, not in the same year. Some are in the present and some are in the 1970s. They fix what they can with a bomb and end up in two different Presents again: their current Present as if the bomb did not work, or in a Present where their plane landed safely in LAX. All of the crazy time traveling means there are several Presents. I'm starting to confuse myself, so I'll get to the point: All of it happened. And it was magical.\n\nTo wrap the last season up, we'll go back to Jacob. He is very, very old. He also has a brother referred to as the Man in Black. The Man in Black manifests himself as the Smoke Monster. In their various manifestations, these mystical brothers have been battling over controlling or escaping the Island. Both brothers fuck around with the survivors and the Others (see seasons 1 - 6) as Jacob searches for the next protector of the Island. Jacob and the Man in Black are killed and new protectors are found.\n\nIn another Present off of the Island where their plane did not crash, they all end up in a church together, recover their other memories and \"move on\" into a very bright light.\n\nLuckily most of us didn't watch for the Answer to all the [WTF](_URL_5_)'s because we didn't really get many answers. Tears.\n\n[Wikipedia](_URL_4_) actually gives a good rundown of the show (in a more chronological format than what I just wrote). Be sure to check it out.\n\nMaybe these [one](_URL_0_) and [two](_URL_3_) timelines will help too.\n\n* edit",
"[Best Explanation for 5 year olds. Seriously.](_URL_0_)",
"[Lost in 3three minutes with Post-its](_URL_0_)",
"This is the best thread I have ever seen. This will be buried but it's awesome to see a dedicated community towards LOST ",
"Lost in 3 or 4 words (depending on how you count the hyphen) \n \nPIRATE-WHEEL TIME MACHINE",
"Spoiler: More major banks are going to go under the next few years, and more Americans will be broke and angry as a result. Yes, this is a response to the LOST post. I just think it's that. Important. *Burp*.",
"It was a show with an interesting premise riddled with poor, unfocused plot lines and endless loose ends. As parodies by [this video](_URL_0_).",
"Can anyone offer their theory or alternate ending to the show? Because its been more than two years and I need some satisfaction.",
"Wrote this a while back, let's see if it'll fit here:\n\nI just started Lost Season 1 this week. Last night was the episode where they confronted Ethan. Here’s a quick summary:\n\nJACK: Okay Claire, we need you to walk out into the jungle alone so the creepy madman can capture you again.\n\nCLAIRE: I’m Australian! I’m having a baby!\n\nJACK: I’m gonna take that as a yes. Now Locke and I are going to retrieve the guns that we really should have used the first time. Hey Sawyer, have a gun!\n\nSAWYER: Already got one. Got all kinds of things back here — food, guns, three generators… Come back for lunch and I’ll have a complete Sizzler buffet.\n\nJACK: Whatever. Just come with us.\n\nMEANWHILE…\n\nWALT is trapped in an improvised shelter by the POLAR BEAR.\n\nPOLAR BEAR: Finally, some screen time. Roar! Slaver! Bite! Slash!\n\nWALT: *cower*\n\nMICHAEL: We’re coming son! Locke and I just have to navigate this improvised obstacle course!\n\nPOLAR BEAR: *reading script* What? Me again? ROAR!\n\nWALT: Stay away from my dad! *stab*\n\nPOLAR BEAR: I am the Animal Incarnation of Fear, kid. You can’t just *stab* me!\n\nMICHAEL: Stay away from my boy! *stab*\n\nPOLAR BEAR: What did I just say? Screw this, I’m gonna go try and eat the French chick again.\n\nMEANWHILE…\n\nCLAIRE: I’m Australian! I’m having a baby!\n\nCHARLIE: I won’t let anyone hurt you. Your total dependence and lack of personality feels like reciprocal love to me.\n\nCLAIRE: I’m Australian! I’m having a baby! Wait…I remember… Hospital gowns and bright lights, an army of men chanting “Aaron!” as they march to war…\n\nJACK: Oh lord, not again. Can somebody reset Claire?\n\nCHARLIE presses a button on the back of Claire’s neck.\n\nCLAIRE: I’m Australian! I’m having a baby!\n\nJACK: Okay, reverse-ambush time. GO!\n\nETHAN: Do you like my creepy makeup?\n\nJACK tackles ETHAN\n\nETHAN: I have the strength of five men but I am overcome by your Righteous Doctor Fighting Skills.\n\nLOCKE: Jack’s got him!\n\nETHAN: Hey Locke, what’s up? It’s me, Ethan. Dharma company picnic, 1976? Me and Randall Flagg won the sack race?\n\nSAWYER: You’re busted, pal. Hey Sayid, you got any bamboo shoots left?\n\nETHAN: Curses! Captured by the enemy! I’ll have no choice but to reveal all my evil plans, laying out cruicial plot points for the next five…\n\nCHARLIE: Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam!\n\nETHAN: Ugh! Six bullets to the chest! My secret supervillain weakness! I die!\n\nJACK: Charlie, what the hell?\n\nCHARLIE: Television is a rough business, Jack. One premature plot reveal and I’m back to playing Victorian Thug #3 on Doctor Who.\n\nKATE: I don’t have any lines in this scene. I’m just here to provide an unrealistic standard of female beauty. Oops, my t-shirt is stretching across my chest again! Why does that keep happening?\n\nABRAMS: Cut! I love this job."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HWECQa23Cs"
],
[
"http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2011/03/31/lindelof-sums-up-lost-in-one-tweet/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HWECQa23Cs"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmaykBtOpcM"
],
[],
[],
[
"www.lostpedia.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Character_connections",
"http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Unanswered_questions"
],
[
"http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16600000/Lost-Timeline-Infographic-lost-16650617-2560-1656.jpg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhVGw5bk0I0",
"http://light-comma-sticks.tumblr.com/post/10414771121/jack-faces",
"http://www.classesandcareers.com/collegelife/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Lost-Infographic.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_\\(TV_series\\)#Overview",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGz-xr1l2A"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji3BYXAQSrk&list=FLrF15niTCGQSMMXaxABbGXQ&index=22&feature=plpp_video"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HWECQa23Cs"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdTfkpHDZ0k"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
ai683r | how does thc interact with the brains of individuals diagnosed with autism? | My girlfriend has a mild form of autism. According to her, marijuana does not affect her in the way that it does me. She claims that it makes her hungry and gives her a headache, but that's about it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ai683r/eli5_how_does_thc_interact_with_the_brains_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"eelvyfo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Is this a medically/scientifically recognised phenomenon, or is it just something your Girlfriend complains of? Anecdotal evidence isn't particularly easy to work with. If you could provide a link to some studies, it might make it easier to explain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
91upo1 | marketing terminology | Can someone please explain the difference between a brand, a corporation/company, and a product? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91upo1/eli5marketing_terminology/ | {
"a_id": [
"e30wtri"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"* A product is something you buy. A car is a product.\n\n* A corporation is an organization that creates a product. Toyota is a corporation.\n\n* A brand is a name associated with the product, to differentiate it from other products. Prius is a brand.\n\n* The company's name is also often a brand. Toyota is a brand.\n\n* A product can have more than one brand. A Prius is also a Toyota.\n\n* A company can make products that do not carry its brand. Toyota makes the Lexus brand, but a Lexus is not part of the Toyota brand.\n\nConfusing? Just remember that a brand is how marketers identify their products to the public. When you hear \"Toyota\", you think \"moderately priced, reliable, practical car\". That's not what something that is going to make someone want to buy a luxury car, so Toyota created the Lexus brand for that.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
clek60 | why is salt sour? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/clek60/eli5_why_is_salt_sour/ | {
"a_id": [
"evuu3st",
"evuy2r0"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"With our taste buds detecting sweetness, bitterness,sourness,saltiness and umami it's hard to understand why you would detect sourness in your salt? Is it basic table salt?",
"NEWS FLASH: It's not. \n\n\nI'm concerned that either a) someone has been replacing your table salt with citric acid or b) you don't have a firm grasp on what 'sour' means."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8oh8s4 | why do restaurants serve "lobster rolls" at a fixed price, but ordering the lobster itself is priced at current market value? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8oh8s4/eli5_why_do_restaurants_serve_lobster_rolls_at_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e039t6u",
"e03bioo",
"e03fs30",
"e03ht47"
],
"score": [
14,
20,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Probably buying frozen lobster tail at a fixed price to make the lobster roll, can’t do that with serving a whole lobster. ",
"\"Market value\" does not really fluctuate that much on a day-to-day basis. Maybe it is different season-to-season, but the main reason that whole lobster is sold at \"market value\" is because the weight of each lobster differs. If lobster is $12/lb, there's a big difference between buying a 1 lb lobster and a 2 lbs lobster. \"Market value\" is also a marketing term; it increases the customer's perception of fresh-caught, straight-from-market seafood.\n\nLobster rolls always contain more or less the same amount of meat. The restaurant can prepare huge quantities of lobster salad each morning, enough to meet their anticipated needs. Any minor fluctuations in price are canceled out by the sheer volume and consistency of roll size.",
"It's marketing, for two reasons:\n\n* Putting something on the menu as \"market price\" makes it feel like it's \"fresh from the market\", giving it the illusion of instantly being fresher / healthier / etc.\n\n* It allows the restaurant to avoid the \"sticker shock\" of seeing one item on the menu that's drastically more expensive than everything else on the same page. If you have to *ask* for the price, then you've already accepted that it's \"special\", so you're expecting a higher price.",
"The reason is that, even in New England, for a lobster roll you use frozen knuckle and claw meat. It is the meat from the whole claw appendage. It freezes well, and the average joe won't notice the slight degradation of quality, especially when mixed with the mayo and other flavors. This product is sold at a pretty consistent price.\nFor whole lobster, you have to use the fresh live lobsters. This is a more volatile price because of the many factors that are involved with the fishing and transportation. \n\nSource: 20 year veteran of the Kitchen, as well as a New Englander with friends and family in the fishing industry."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1p6b12 | as someone who doesn't live in america, why do black people seem to always call each other 'niger'? | As someone who doesn't live in america, why do black people seem to always call each other 'niger'?
Granted I get this from mostly internet videos, and maybe most of them don't but some of them still seem to? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p6b12/eli5_as_someone_who_doesnt_live_in_america_why_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccz6tol"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First off, the black people who refer to each other as nigger are generally younger, uneducated, poor (or grew up poor), and grew up in predominantly poor, black neighborhoods.\n\nThe use of the word nigger is them trying to turn the word around into something positive and bonding. It's like a badge of honor.\n\nFor example, bitch is generally a derogatory term. It denotes a woman who is rude, mean, aggressive, etc. However, many women are starting to call themselves bitches as a term of empowerment because being a powerful, assertive woman should be seen as a positive thing. _URL_0_\n\nOlder black people (say 40+) and middle and upper class educated black people still see nigger as a highly offensive term. Beyond the history of the word, there's the fact that the people who use it positively do not improve the reputation of black people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://videosift.com/video/SNL-Tina-Fey-on-Hillary-Clinton-Bitch-Is-The-New-Black"
]
] |
|
3njig0 | if there is so much water on earth, why do we have so much drought and desert land? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3njig0/eli5_if_there_is_so_much_water_on_earth_why_do_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvonm08"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Earth is surrounded by water yes, but only a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny not enough tiny's tiny portion of that is clean drinkable water. \n\nIn order to make salt water drinkable requires large expensive plants to do that. Sadly those that can afford such methods don't need it, and those that need it cannot afford it. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4mqmzl | why haven't nuclear weapons been used in war again after the usa used two in wwii? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mqmzl/eli5_why_havent_nuclear_weapons_been_used_in_war/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3xjqbf",
"d3xjqnd",
"d3xjr2w",
"d3xjrzx"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
17
],
"text": [
"Because other nations have nuclear weapons.\n\nThe U.S (with the help of it's allies) were the first and only one that had the bombs when it was dropped. \n\nThe Soviet soon had their hands on it and it almost caused WWIII. Since then no one wants to actually use it because it greenlights other nations using it on them. \n\nThis is also why no nation that has Nuclear weapons has been invaded as a nation with nothing to lose has nothing holding them back from unleashing the Kraken!",
"If one side fires the other one will fire more to counteract this keeps going on until the world ends. ",
"Well, there weren't any world wars since then, for one. \n\nAnd, shortly after WWII, more than one country had nuclear weapons, and therefore there was deterrent to using them. That's really the main reason - we basically had a Cold War with a lot of proxy wars, where both sides had nukes so they didn't want to fight directly. \n\nYou'd hope that seeing the kind of destruction those things do would also have been an incentive against using them. But seeing as we can do the same (or more) damage anyway... \n\nThat all said, we came *terrifyingly* close on several occasions. ",
"Simple answer is a concept called mutually assured destruction or MAD that was observed by the us and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The idea is that if a nuclear weapon is used then everyone else will use their nuclear weapons. \n\nThis doesn't account for attacks on countries without nukes and that breaks down to their allies (who may have nukes) and the overall destructiveness of the weapon. You have to realize that the nukes of today are exponentially bigger than the nukes dropped on Japan. The destruction and fallout would be astronomical. Also using a nuke on a country that doesn't have a nuke would be viewed as slaughter by the international community. \n\nBasically people aren't evil enough to destroy the world. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bk3zzy | why do finger/toe nails never grow back the same if they've been damaged? | Slammed my finger in a car door many years ago, and it has grown back irregular compared to my other finger nails. Curious to know why. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bk3zzy/eli5_why_do_fingertoe_nails_never_grow_back_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"emdx7qx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The fingernail is actually produced by a section of tissue called the \"nail matrix\" which is back up under the cuticle. Injury to that tissue can lead to persistent problems in growing future nails, as if a scar is left the nail matrix won't grow as before."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3uip4u | why did blu-ray win the war over hd-dvd? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uip4u/eli5why_did_bluray_win_the_war_over_hddvd/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxf5v00",
"cxf5wrv",
"cxf66ms",
"cxfbyzj"
],
"score": [
3,
26,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Many film studios chose Blu-ray, stores like Blockbuster and Target started exclusively carrying them, and Sony (one of the major companies that started the Blu-ray Assosistion, along with Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Technicolor, LG, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung) put a Blu-ray player in the PS3. \n \nAlso, HD DVD can hold only 30GB, a typical Blu-ray holds 50GB, and most files are > 40GB, so quality would have been reduced on HD DVD. ",
"Sony owned blu Ray. They ps3 released in 2007 I think came w a blu Ray player... That ended that. But Sony did let you bring your hddvds back and paid for blu Ray replacements. And hddvds players also you could return for bluray. I only remember that because a friend of mine at the time bought an hdvd player for his dad. And he returned it for a bluray no charge.",
"To add to /u/homeboi808's answer, Blu-Ray also supported (and continues to support) more advanced copy-protection mechanisms than HD-DVD, which made Blu-Ray ideal for movie studios that were concerned about piracy.\n\nAlso, movie studios can region-code Blu-Ray discs so they only function in players from certain regions/countries (a feature that movie studios and distributors often desire) whereas HD-DVD had no region codes and the idea was that any HD-DVD should be playable on any HD-DVD player (better for the consumer, but studios/distributors didn't like it).",
"I choose to believe Tropic Thunder:\n\nBecause of the sheer volume of content it produces, the porn industry basically dictated the decision. Porn studios chose Blu-Ray, and the rest of the film industry followed suit, because by that point Blu-Ray had won. \n\nBut why did porn go blu-ray? Well...the PS3 came with a blu-ray player built in, and gamers love porn almost as much as they love games.\n\nI tried to find the scene on YouTube where Jay Baruchel explains this, but I couldn't. So just watch Tropic Thunder - it's a great movie."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
vti9s | the possible effects of lowering/raising taxes (in america), with as little bias as possible, please. | We hear a lot about how the Republicans want to lower taxes, and while I feel like that sounds good, it sounds like it could lead to some serious lacking in federal funds. Can someone explain the possible effects, and what could happen by raising taxes, as well? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vti9s/eli5_the_possible_effects_of_loweringraising/ | {
"a_id": [
"c57hcsn",
"c57jf2p"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"This is the [Laffer Curve](_URL_0_). It is a graph that shows a very important thing: if you raise taxes too far, your total tax revenue begins to **decrease**, because you start killing off the economy. So you want to target the tax rate to the point in the curve where the revenue is maximal. \n\nThe Republicans and Democrats disagree at where this point is. And the Republicans would prefer to err on the side of less taxation.",
"Starting in World War 2, America had very high taxes on the rich, and reasonably low taxes on everyone else.\n\nFor decades, things went fine with that setup. Rich people complained that taxes were too high, but nobody listened much.\n\nThen in the 1970s, taxes on ordinary people went up (it had to do with something called bracket creep--never mind what it is).\n\nNow rich people's claims that taxes were too high found an audience, Because taxes really were too high. Ronald Reagan promised to cut taxes, so people elected him.\n\nReagan cut taxes sharply, *but only for the rich.* In fact, he *increased* taxes for everyone else.\n\nEver since, Republicans have promised lower taxes, people have listened because their taxes really are too high, and then Republicans have cut taxes in ways that went entirely, or almost entirely, to the rich. \n\nIn fact, it's pretty clear now that Republicans *don't want* to cut taxes on ordinary people; after all, someone has to pay for all of the federal subsidies, military contracts, and bailouts that are the reason that many rich people are rich in the first place.\n\nAlso, these tax cuts were supposed to bring great, widespread prosperity. They haven't. If rich people really were job creators, we would be awash in jobs right now. We aren't. \n\nSo the effects of lowering and/or raising taxes depends on who you're lowering and raising them on. Ordinary people really should get more tax relief--they would spend the extra money, creating jobs and prosperity. They would probably spend the money more efficiently than government can. But rich people should pay more taxes--cutting their taxes hasn't worked. And rich people buy stupid things with their money--government can be more efficient with money than rich people, for the obvious reason that you buy everything you really want with your first million dollars. By your hundredth million, you're just wasting the money on an eighth house or a private jet or a giant yacht that isn't even fun to sail on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg"
],
[]
] |
|
2sa2ob | why do followers of the catholic faith address the pope, or other priests, as "father" when the bible says not to? | Matthew 23:9 says " And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven," but many followers of the Catholic faith refer to the Pope as father. Just wondering what the thought process behind it is. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sa2ob/eli5_why_do_followers_of_the_catholic_faith/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnj6sx",
"cnnjk46"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm interested in someone answering this as well. It seems there are many things the Catholics do that are not in the Bible.\n\nFor example, praying to Mary.",
"Former Catholic here (not religious, raised Catholic). Catholics aren't literalists and this passage is seen as part of Jesus's call for humility among religious leaders, given the behavior of the Pharisees. It is calling out hypocrisy rather than a literal rule that people not call anyone \"father\" (or \"master\" or \"teacher\" etc)\n\nAll of Matthew 23:\n > 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. 6 They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students.[b] 9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.[c] 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted. (_URL_0_)\n\nRe: Mary (and saints), Catholics pray for the intercession of these holy figures on their behalf, with the belief that as a person on earth can pray for you, so could Mary. They are also seen as models for how to live life in a holy way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=NRSVCE"
]
] |
|
a1qcjr | why can foreign car companies like honda (japanese), volkswagen (german), and hyundai (south korean) make successful sedan-type cars in the united states, but domestic companies gm and ford struggle to make good-selling sedans. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1qcjr/eli5_why_can_foreign_car_companies_like_honda/ | {
"a_id": [
"earwddc",
"earyghf",
"earz5xf",
"eas4puv"
],
"score": [
29,
17,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a columnist in Bloomberg [who argues](_URL_0_) that during the oil embargo in the 1970s Americans turned to fuel efficient sedans like Hondas, and were impressed with how infrequently they broke down.\n\nWhen the Big Three in the US tried to catch up, their sedans were trash. They got better, but :\n\n > The Big Three have never been able to convince the reviewers — or, more importantly, the car-buying public — that their sedans were as good as their Japanese competition. To put it another way, the American car companies have never been able to shed the reputation they gained in the 1970s for making lousy sedans.\n\nI experienced this bias when I was buying a new car after driving American my whole life. Choice between the Chevy Cobalt and a Honda Civic, and I went with No 2 because of the reputation for longevity and gas mileage.\n\n14 years later, the old beast is still with me, and I believe I may die before it does.",
"American cars have, at least in Europe, a reputation for poor fuel economy. And sometimes questionable reliability, too.\n\nThe foreign companies producing cars in the US produce pretty much the same cars there as they do here, with the minor alterations required to fit regulations on different markets. In other words, you pretty much get what we have.\n\nBetter fuel economy. And probably in some cases better reliability.\n\nIf the car also happens to be cheaper to buy AND cheaper to service than the domestic brands comparable models...then you are all set for a successful market strategy.\n\nCheap to buy. Cheap to service. Cheap to drive. And lasts longer.\n\nWhat else is there to ask for, really?",
"There's been a lot of discussion about American cars being less efficient, but no one has answered the question WHY can't they catch up to foreign competitors?",
"Because US cars are rubbish < dives behind cover > . Australian here, and all US car brands are considered rubbish here, awful build quality, reliability and atrocious customer service if you have an issue with it after purchase (we don't have the Lemon Law like you guys have, unfortunately). It was the same when cars were manufactured here (not anymore though), the major Asian brands were generally considered to have better quality and reliability. The likes of Toyota, Mazda, Hyundai etc, and some Euro badges."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-29/chevrolet-sedans-suffer-while-toyota-and-honda-hang-on"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5gsxb4 | the appeal behind watching sports and why it's a multi-billion dollar industry. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gsxb4/eli5_the_appeal_behind_watching_sports_and_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"daut8h2",
"dauu1ab"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's people performing at the top level of their sport or discipline which is interesting and, depending on the sport, incredibly aesthetic. Also sports provides truly unscripted drama. You can also find community in the form of fan base and shared experience if you watch live.",
"Being part of something \"bigger than you\" can be fun and exciting...as well as being in a stadium of 30,000+ people cheering and celebrating. \n\nNow on the other hand all the other 24/7 sports news entertainment gossip is crap. \n\nEdit: That and lots of people gamble on the games too. That sure makes it more interesting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1qefly | how do non-profits make salaries for employees? | A friend of mine expressed interest in "working" for non-profit, but I was wondering how they can pay employees when they technically are not trying to make a profit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qefly/eli5_how_do_nonprofits_make_salaries_for_employees/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdbz7bh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Profit is the money that is left after expenses. They spend all the money they take in on expenses like employee salaries, office space, resources and so on, so they have zero profit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2vgv6m | what causes 'teflon sh*ts'? | I heard the term 'Teflon sh*ts' first coined about 2 years ago as: 'When you shit and you only have to wipe once, or not at all due to low or no residue left behind.' What causes this beautiful phenomenon? Is there something I can add to my diet to make it happen more?
Sorry for asterisk, I am not sure how to set as NSFW. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vgv6m/eli5_what_causes_teflon_shts/ | {
"a_id": [
"cohidlp",
"cohjgo7"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"I mastered this at a young age. Provided you don't have the runs, this is easy. When you sit down, put one thigh down first at an angle. Like you are going to sit with half of your leg hanging off the toilet. Dig in, scoot your butt over like you are trying to spread your cheeks, because you are. After it is stretched as far open on that side as you can, put the other cheek down. Equalize. This is known as the spread - cheek starting position. Lean forward just a bit, torso forms a 70-80 degree angle with your lap. \n\nNext step, let the shit flow. It will take a few tries to master, but assuming the position is quick once you get it. Alternatively, you can manually spread your ass cheeks before you sit. \n\nSource: I have been doing this since I was 10 when I am in a hurry. \n\n\nEdit: it is because your cheeks are spread and you aren't smearing shit all over the innards of your grand Canyon. ",
"I've always called the 'no wipe' a flawless victory. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
av7zm7 | if fine motor skills can be improved by practice and repetition, why can handwriting remain messy, despite writing hundreds of words every day? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/av7zm7/eli5_if_fine_motor_skills_can_be_improved_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehd8p3y",
"ehdal8f",
"ehdbdoc"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because most of the time when people are writing they're simply trying to get words on a page. If their handwriting doesn't prevent their message from becoming legible then there's no reason to try to improve their technical handwriting. ",
"practice and repetition do not improve a skill, except possibly in the speed you can perform said skill at. Practice and repetition of the **correct** way to do something does improve skill. For example, if you think that 2x3=7, and you practice and repeat that, your math skill will never improve because you're practicing the wrong answer. \n\nIn other words people have messy writing because they are repeating and practicing messy writing. If you slow down and try to write neatly and clearly every time you will get faster at writing neatly and clearly until it's fast enough to feel like a comfortable pace. ",
"If you practice good handwriting, your handwriting will improve.\n\nYou have to practice right, not just practice."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3255l3 | the difference between capitalism, objectivism, neo-/libertarianism. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3255l3/eli5_the_difference_between_capitalism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq7zq63"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Capitalism is a term which solely identifies an economic system. It is generally used pretty broadly to describe a \"free-market\" system. This means that there are little to no government controls over the economy. Most real-world economies are nowhere near a pure capitalist system, but first world countries are still usually deemed to be capitalist. If you are interested in more, start with Adam Smith, then read some Hayek and Milton Friedman. \n\nObjectivism is a moral philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. Although it is related to capitalism, Objectivism was intended to be an all-encompassing philosophical system, including answering questions about human knowledge and morality, along with economics and political philosophy. Boiling it down to its most simplest form, Objectivism claims to be able to deduce objective claims about the world as \"axioms\", and from these we can derive moral principles, the core of which are centered upon human freedom and an understanding of the objectivity of nature. Some common beliefs espoused by Objectivists are that selfishness is a virtue, that governance is derived from the self, and that capitalism is the best economic system. Most objectivists are usually minarchists, but are sometimes anarchists (they believe in SOME government, and don't want to eliminate it completely). Rand wrote both fiction and non-fiction works about her philosophy; I'd recommend reading Atlas Shrugged or The Virtue of Selfishness if you want to learn more.\n\nNeolibertarianism is a less commonly-used term, and has been used to stand for multiple viewpoints. Neo means \"new\", and the common understanding nowadays is that neo-libertarianism is more interventionist than more classical libertarianism (which is usually more isolationist, or non-interventionist). Like Neo-conservativism, neo-libertarians believe that sometimes intervention is necessary to protect individual rights, so they may support stronger military, active involvement in world affairs, and pragmatic involvement in military operations. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
12i1xx | what's the purpose of having 87, 89, 91 type of gasoline? | I've noticed most people just buys the cheapest option, 87 and was curious why the other two options are there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12i1xx/eli5_whats_the_purpose_of_having_87_89_91_type_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6v78sd",
"c6v7984",
"c6v9eix"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"There is no *benefit* for most vehicles. Your vehicle was designed with a specific octane in mind, most modern vehicles can run on other octanes, but may suffer inefficiencies for it (especially if you put lower octane in a car that requires higher). \n\nIf you're not sure, look in your owners manual or call the manufacturer of the car, they'll tell you what the best octane to use is. \n\nOlder cars can knock with the wrong octane, but modern cars with computers can compensate for the differences. \n\nHigher end sports cars will perform better, for instance, with higher octane gasoline. ",
"Regular gas has an octane rating of 87 and premium is 91 or 92. A higher octane rating means the fuel is less likely to cause your engine to knock. What's knocking? An engine needs gas to provide energy to run, and this is realized by combustion of the fuel. If the air around it was hot enough to set it alight, it knocks your engine. This is because it is the job of the spark plug to do that, and when an engine ignites spontaneously due to compression, it leads to uneven burn of the fuel., thus leading to vibrations in your engine. \n\nThe majority of cars are designed to run on regular gas. Higher-performance cars often require premium gas because their engines are designed for higher compression (higher compression = more power), and regular gas may cause knocking.\n\nCan you use 91 type gas for your '92 Corolla? Sure, but your engine wasnt designed for such fuel. On the other hand your Ferrari needs 91 type gas to run efficient and not knock.",
"Ok so theres already a few post of people explaining why but I'm gonna take another shot at it for your reading pleasure.\n\nInside the engine are pistons and cylinders. (Were not going to go into detail here, [read and watch the animation](_URL_1_)) If you were designing a car and you wanted it to go faster one of the things you could do was design it for *higher compression*. \n\nHigher compression is this: When the piston comes up in the cylinder it squeezes the fuel/air mixture tighter and puts it under more pressure. Why? Because a tighter squeeze means a bigger bang! Which = more power. The downside to this is when compression gets too high the fuel/air mixture can automatically ignite itself without the spark plug; this is bad because the timing of the explosion will be off and can cause damage and less performance.\n\nHigher octane fuel is based on fuels resistance to [preignite](_URL_0_). The higher the number the better that fuel is at resisting igniting itself under higher pressure\n\nExtra credit: Compression is normally rated in a X:1 ratio. Or, taking X units of volume and compressing them into 1 For example a 9:1 Compression ratio is taking 9 units of space and putting it into 1. Comparitively a 10:1 ratio would mean higher compression because you're trying to pack more in. Does that make sense? Picture it like this. You have a box and that you're trying to pack with springs. If you try to put 9 springs in a box the lid will try to push open on you. Now if you try to put 10 or 11 springs in a box the little with push harder! And thats where it all makes sense to you OP"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking#Pre-ignition",
"http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm"
]
] |
|
3vhsi6 | why do we still see things that fall under a shadow? | If a shadow obstruct light, why can we see things under the shadow? Isn't it supposed to be very dark under the shadow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vhsi6/eli5_why_do_we_still_see_things_that_fall_under_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxno2ka"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They're still getting light, just LESS light. Light is reflecting off of everything else in the environment, providing some illumination to the area in shadow, just less than if it wasn't blocked. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2pq6o5 | why will a severe headache usually go away if i take a hot shower? is this some sort of placebo effect? | Usually if I get a really bad headache, I can take a scalding hot shower for ten to twenty minutes and focus the water on the back of neck, which seems to relieve the pressure in my head, but I'm not sure if this is a real thing or I am imagining it.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pq6o5/eli5_why_will_a_severe_headache_usually_go_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmz4l5v",
"cmz8kai"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely you have a tension headache. The muscles in your neck pull on muscles that wrap up to your temples. Relaxing the neck relaxes the head. \nI can feel mine pulling the whole way like a band on each side of my head. \n\nThe cluster headaches I used to get were not alleviated by a hot shower",
"It's actually not just a placebo. Your blood can travel through your body using blood vessels. These blood vessels can tighten and release depending on your body temperature - cold makes them tighten and hot makes them expand. When you raise your body temperature in a hot shower, you're allowing your vessels to relax and blood can pass with greater ease.\n\nImagine your blood are cars and your blood vessels are highways. A constricted blood vessel is like an accident on a highway - the cars are used to four lanes, but now they've got to squeeze through one lane. When you take a hot shower, it's like the tow truck clearing up the accident and expanding one lane to four lanes again.\n\nMedical Fun Fact: If you take a hot shower to relieve a headache, but it makes your headache worse, this could be a sign of an internal brain bleed (contusion). This is really only applicable if you've suffered a traumatic head injury recently or have a history of aneurysms."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3mr5y9 | would drugs like alcohol or marijuana affect animals like it does humans? | I've seen tons of posts about a pig drinking beer or a dog eating someone's weed stash, but does it affect them like it would humans? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mr5y9/eli5_would_drugs_like_alcohol_or_marijuana_affect/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvhdnv2",
"cvhdo83"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Give a dog a beer.\n\nThey have incredibly efficient livers, so they get drunk and sober up quickly.\n\nIt helps their coat, helps them keep on weight, and can act as a flea repellent (bad tasting blood).",
"It depends on the animal. For mammals pretty similar to humans like pigs, rats, and dogs, it probably has a relatively similar effect. Their brains have all the same \"circuitry\" that exists in our brains that is impacted by THC and alcohol. They also digest stuff similarly so alcohol would get into the system in a similar way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1mpjyr | when a lot of people die in one event, such as a natural disaster or 9/11, how do insurance companies pay everybody? | How do (life) insurance companies stay in business with natural disasters and similar when lots of people die at once?
Say 3000 people on 9/11 all had a 500,000 policy, thats 1.5 billion right there. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mpjyr/eli5when_a_lot_of_people_die_in_one_event_such_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccbeawc",
"ccbei1z",
"ccbesqh",
"ccbfn7i",
"ccbk719"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1.5 billion dollars isn't that much money for a big insurance company. I mean, it's still a big amount of money, but it's not a crushing sum either, assuming it isn't happening regularly. \n\nYou're talking about a giant insurance industry that's taking in insurance premiums monthly or yearly from millions of people. They've got armies of accountants and actuaries dedicated to calculating the risk factors and statistics for big events like 9/11 or hurricane Katrina or whatever, and making sure that they collect enough premiums over time to cover the occasional big event.\n\n",
"They don't \n_URL_0_",
"There are many insurance companies. It's not 1.5 Billion from *one* insurance company that's being taken. It's a few million here, a few million there, etc, etc. They'll all take the hit, sure. The companies' business models are designed to take hits. \n\nAlso, each buyout doubles as an ad to get more people in the pool. One family receives a cool half-mil, they tell their friends, family, etc. Now they're all getting life insurance - or switching policies to one they know works. You can't pay for better direct marketing.",
"To reduce risk from large disasters, insurance companies have their own insurance! It's called [\"reinsurance\"](_URL_0_), and it's a specialty field dominated by a few expert companies that don't sell ordinary insurance.",
"Insurance companies buy insurance too, to safe-guard against big disasters. They can buy this insurance from a big bank willing to offer it. \n\nYou can think of it as just a contract that says something to the effect of \"In case 10,000 llamas suddenly fall from the sky, OR the water level in the Sahara Desert rises to 2 feet, OR suddenly everyone gets super powers and doesn't need insurance anymore, you will pay us a bajillion dollars\"\n\nAnd then the insurance company and the bank they're buying \"re-insurance\" from agree on what the insurance company should pay in exchange for this contract - and they would pay more the more likely it is that this thing happens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/19/how-insurance-companies-exploited-9-11/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance"
],
[]
] |
|
32rssy | why textbook puiblishers make different versions (us version, international version) of the same book? is that beneficial to who? | I had bought some international edition textbooks in Taiwan and _URL_0_, with contents totally the same as the U.S. edition in my college's library. Some textbook has one edition only. The prices of international and U.S. editions usually different. But why make such distinction? Is it beneficial to the publishers or who? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32rssy/eli5_why_textbook_puiblishers_make_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqe2ofs",
"cqe41bc",
"cqenmme"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I suspect some students would appreciate their textbook being written in their native language. ",
"Could be as simple as metric or imperial measurements.",
"The real reason is [price discrimination](_URL_0_).\n\nMost Americans are wealthier than other nations' inhabitants, so they can afford to pay more. If you price a textbook at 200USD in Thailand, then you will sell very few copies. However, in US, you will sell considerably more."
]
} | [] | [
"AbeBooks.com"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination"
]
] |
|
67j2s1 | how and where do websites store their massive amounts of content? | Big websites like Instagram, Facebook and Youtube. How do they keep so many people's information (Thousands and thousands of terabytes of pictures and videos)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67j2s1/eli5how_and_where_do_websites_store_their_massive/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgqt3f4",
"dgqt6hp",
"dgqtatc"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Places that look something like [this](_URL_0_).\n\nJust big ol' buildings filled to the brim with rack upon rack of computing equipment and hard drives, cabling and enough A/C units to keep the whole system from overheating. Running a big datacenter like that is a big job and there are quite a few specialist jobs for the people with the know-how to manage such things.\n\nA lot of companies don't do this themselves, rather they pay another company essentially to run a datacenter for them. Reddit itself, for example, is entirely run through Amazon Web Services - the part of the Amazon corporation that sells you the computing power, disk space and related things you need to run a big website. Plenty of other companies sell the same sort of service - IBM, HP, Microsoft, Google, RackSpace, and many more.",
"Websites like Facebook store their content on Content Delivery Networks (CDN's), these are companies like Akamai, Amazon, or Cloudflare who own thousands of servers in dozens or hundreds of places around the world. Websites pay these companies to host their content for them, so when you upload photos for example to facebook, they will actually be put on an Akamai server somewhere (close to where you live), then Akamai will copy this information to all its other data centres. \n\nThis means that if someone on the other side of the world wants to look at your photo, it will actually come from a data centre to close to where they live, so they don't have to wait for it to come for the other side of the world (it may seem like a small difference to us, but when you handle billions of data requests every day, the energy and time savings starts to add)\n\nSo why don't websites just make their own servers? having dedicated companies that already have infrastructure all over the world is more efficient, you don't have to worry about building the server, or buying a building, or how you're going to support millions of users around the world. its much easier for these companies to increase the number of servers they have, than for a new company to gain a world wide presence. This means its better for the CDN's because they have a business, it's better for large websites, because they don't have to worry about expanding their infrastructure as much, and its much better for small websites. Small websites and companies would never be able to build servers in different countries, but CDN's give them a moderately cheap way of giving there audience a much better experience.",
"Major web service providers like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have their own data centers—basically warehouses (in multiple locations around the world) full of hundreds or thousands of servers (always-on computers) with a combined total of petabyte(s) worth of storage capacity (a petabyte is a million gigabytes). Data is also often replicated across multiple servers / storage units for greater durability and availability (as well as for faster / lower latency access).\n\nMost other websites, like reddit, rent 'cloud' server instances and storage capacity from companies like Amazon who, in turn, operate their own data centers and are responsible for managing the server hardware in those data centers.\n\nIn other words, most other websites only concern themselves with the software and virtual server components and leave the data center operations, hardware maintenance, etc. to the professionals (like Amazon and Google) who provide enterprise level web/cloud hosting services and solutions to thousands of popular websites, many of which you probably use daily."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/screen-shot-2015-06-24-at-11-54-41-am.png?w=720"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
8nw24x | mortgage interest. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8nw24x/eli5_mortgage_interest/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzysoff"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Compound Interest\n\nIt's not 4.5% of what you borrowed over the 30 years of the loan, it's 4.5% interest per year based on how much you still owe.\n\nSo let's say your mortgage is $100,000 and you make month payments of $500, just for the sake of simplicity.\n\nThe way the bank calculates the payment is as follows:\n\nIn January of the first year you owe $100,000\n\n$100,000 x 4.5% = 4500 / 12 months = $375\n\nSo your first payment is $500 ($375 interest + $125 principal)\n\nFebruary rolls around and you now owe $100,000 - $125 = $99875\n\n99875 x 4.5% = $4494.38 / 12 months = $374.53\n\nSo your second payment is $500 ($374.53 interest + $125.47 principal)\n\n\nSo as the months go by, even though you are paying the same \"convenient\" monthly amount, the amount of your payment that's interest vs principal is constantly changing in your favor.\n\nThis is why people say that you pay more interest at the start of your loan than at the end. As you owe less money on the total money borrowed the actual interest you pay is less and the principal is more so you pay off your house more quickly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
45v3w8 | is boiling point a definite point or a range of temperatures? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45v3w8/eli5_is_boiling_point_a_definite_point_or_a_range/ | {
"a_id": [
"d00e9wq"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's a range, but that's not what your seeing.\n\nIt's a range because the boiling point also depends on the air pressure in the room. At lower pressure, the boiling point is also lower.\n\nHowever, what you're seeing with some bubbles forming before it starts boiling in earnest is a combination of two things:\n\n* Some water molecules reach the boiling point faster than others\n\n* The water needs what's called a \"nucleation point,\" basically a rough edge of something where the water molecules can more easily rearrange themselves out of the semi-organized structure they make up with other water molecules and escape as a gas.\n\nThe water is technically boiling when you see the first bubble, just not all of it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
22q30i | the whole cliven bundy ranch situation in nevada. | I'm sorry. I've tried numerous websites and blogs. Since there is no such thing as honest media, I find several different (and confusing) explanations of what's going on there. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22q30i/eli5the_whole_cliven_bundy_ranch_situation_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgpad6d",
"cgqekdp",
"cgr37az"
],
"score": [
35,
20,
7
],
"text": [
"OK, so, the Bureau of Land Management is a government agency that owns a lot of land out in the west. In Nevada especially, where the BLM literally owns most of the land in the state.\n\nRanchers use BLM land to graze cattle. It's a good deal: the ranchers don't have to purchase lots of land, and the government gets grazing fees from the ranchers.\n\nThere's a rancher out in Nevada who grazed on BLM land. There was some dispute 20 years ago, regarding the habitat of an endangered tortoise that lived where he was grazing. Back about 15 years ago, the BLM revoked his grazing permit. But, he continues to graze his cattle on BLM land without a permit. Eventually, the government got fed up with it, went to court, and got an order to impound the cattle that had been illegally grazing on federal property.\n\nThe rancher has made claims that this is really his land, his birthright, from before the BLM owned the land (so, before the 1870s). He doesn't seem to have any legal claim that a court will recognize.\n\nHe has a lot of support, mostly from other ranchers who don't like the idea that a tortoise habitat can take precedence over their livelihoods. So, there's protests and the like, but the basic issue is this: he's already had his day in court, he's already lost, and he doesn't like the result.",
"His ranch does not extend into the the federal land. I am at a loss as to why people think it's OK for an individual to use up public resources to make a profit. He can still graze his cows on his private ranch, no one is removing cattle off his private property they are removing them off public property. The reality is the western states do not have sufficient grazing for the number of cattle they want to raise.",
"To add a bit more complexity to this, it was Reagan who, by executive order, imposed grazing fees for cattle on public lands. Seems to present a bit of a conundrum for the Reagan conservatives.\n[Executive Order 12548 -Grazing Fees - February 14, 1986](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/21486b.htm"
]
] |
|
k2lfl | how or why the set of all real numbers is larger than the set of all integers | Infinity > Infinity breaks my brain if I think about it too much. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k2lfl/eli5_how_or_why_the_set_of_all_real_numbers_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2h2dqu",
"c2h2dqu"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"You could count the integers, if you had an infinite amount of time. You could sit down and go \"1,2,3,4...\". It would take an infinite amount of time, but you could list every single integer. But you *cannot* do this with the real numbers. If you give me a list of real numbers, even an infinitely long list, I can tell you a real number that is not on the list.\n\nIntegers are countable, real numbers are uncountable.",
"You could count the integers, if you had an infinite amount of time. You could sit down and go \"1,2,3,4...\". It would take an infinite amount of time, but you could list every single integer. But you *cannot* do this with the real numbers. If you give me a list of real numbers, even an infinitely long list, I can tell you a real number that is not on the list.\n\nIntegers are countable, real numbers are uncountable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
24hpou | why in every zombie movie has no one ever heard of zombies? it's never an issue with other horror monsters (vampires, ghosts, aliens, etc). so what makes zombies so special? | Since ~~the only~~ most movies that mention them by name (i.e. Zombieland, Shawn of the Dead) are comedies, it makes me wonder if this unspoken rule has to do with suspension of disbelief. As if the word Zombie itself somehow explains away the creepiness? I don't know. What do you guys think?
* EDIT: Wow! So many thought-provoking comments! I'm particularly impressed by those distinguishing the specific *kind* of fears that zombies elicit (very different from other monsters), and the unconscious metaphors they invoke. And thanks to /u/TRUSTINVICTA for this interesting little [clip](_URL_0_).
* EDIT 2: Okay, yes. There are several non-comedic examples that defy the trope by using the word zombie. But it's still a trope. The fact that you'd notice and remember the word being used shows how prominent of a trope it is. The QUESTION is why is it a trope in the first place. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24hpou/eli5_why_in_every_zombie_movie_has_no_one_ever/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch78ht9",
"ch78v7x",
"ch78ygo",
"ch79qmt",
"ch7ag70",
"ch7cnrf",
"ch7dq2q",
"ch7eso0",
"ch7frcl",
"ch7gilw",
"ch7gjc7",
"ch7grpl",
"ch7gt4z",
"ch7him8",
"ch7hubk",
"ch7i97i",
"ch7il7o",
"ch7ivj0",
"ch7j0yg",
"ch7j3em",
"ch7jcu4",
"ch7jeig",
"ch7jjh2",
"ch7jjpv",
"ch7jjzs",
"ch7jlhl",
"ch7jpg4",
"ch7jwsp",
"ch7k81m",
"ch7ka4o",
"ch7kbg0",
"ch7keu1",
"ch7klzy",
"ch7kqz2",
"ch7kwsw",
"ch7lb7w",
"ch7lfke",
"ch7llhg",
"ch7lola",
"ch7ltor",
"ch7lud2",
"ch7lzg1",
"ch7m00b",
"ch7m1l7",
"ch7m2oi",
"ch7m7pe",
"ch7mbxv",
"ch7mn6y",
"ch7mnto",
"ch7ms05",
"ch7msr0",
"ch7mt01",
"ch7mt80",
"ch7mvwr",
"ch7nk7z",
"ch7nozn",
"ch7np04",
"ch7or6c",
"ch7paso",
"ch7pcdw",
"ch7qi7z",
"ch7quq5",
"ch7r1e7",
"ch7rsyp",
"ch7rx80",
"ch7ry7x",
"ch7rzdz",
"ch7s53v",
"ch7s652",
"ch7s66l",
"ch7sa2n",
"ch7sd36",
"ch7sg5o",
"ch7sky9",
"ch7ssb9",
"ch7ualc",
"ch7v9qt",
"ch7w3po",
"ch7w8fo"
],
"score": [
1115,
399,
8,
89,
53,
6,
18,
43,
13,
2,
12,
8,
18,
2,
7,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
21,
2,
2,
2,
2,
18,
21,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
11,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because really the zombie plague represents an unknown pathogen that spreads rapidly. Like a pandemic. It is the visual representation of something taking hold and killing many, spreading rapidly, and breaking down modern society. \n\nThere are movies that actual deal with real illnesses and uncontrolled spread, but it's far less exciting. The unexpected initial onset is important for the plots because they represent our fear of the government withholding information or trying to reduce panic. \n\nAt least, in one of my college classes, that's what we came up with. Like ten years ago. ",
"My theory is that realistically, a zombie apocalypse has a very low chance of happening.\n\nThis is because if everyone knew a zombie apocalypse was going on, there would be rednecks and thrill seekers RUNNING to the scene of the outbreak.\n\nThere are groups on Facebook and otherwise that literally plan for a zombie apocalypse scenario.\n\nIn real life, you would need a virus that spreads rapidly and through more than just a bite or scratch. If such a thing exists, it could actually cause a zombie apocalypse because the infected humans would go towards other people and try to touch them and invade their space and attack them, this activity would spread the virus like wild.\n\n**Please do your own research on the events of 9/11. This article is a good place to start: _URL_0_\n\nIf the people in the film knew about the zombies, they would get rid of them. The basis of the rapid spreading usually has to do with people going to \"help their neighbor\" and suddenly getting attacked by someone, having no idea that they will be infected with a deadly zombie virus if they get bitten or scratched.\n\nIt also adds suspense and a new psychological element:\n\n\"What... is going on?\"\n\nAs opposed to:\n\n\"Oh great, a zombie apocalypse! I know exactly what to do!\"\n\nI think the movie Zombieland poked at this concept with the main character's \"Rules\".",
"There are a few reasons.\n\nThe first reason is that \"Zombie\" is kind of a silly word. It just sounds odd to English speakers. The second reason is that the term is also not even technically accurate - \"zombies\" in traditional Voodoo lore don't eat people, they aren't really \"undead,\" and they don't turn other people into zombies. \n\nThe third reason is that zombies aren't a monster, not really. They're a setting. In zombie movies, the zombies themselves are not the plot. Zombie stories are really just stories of how people suck, and how shitty we are at cooperating and trusting each other and treating each other like human beings when the thin veneer of society crumbles.\n\nPlus, the zombie apocalypse is a fairly well-used setting, but it actually requires a very specific set of coincidences to work. If the characters had seen zombie apocalypse movies, and then one happened to them, they would be like, \"Really? That fiction writer guessed EXACTLY what would happen in real life with this completely random and unlikely set of coincidences?\"",
"Because if zombies were a common thing in pop culture in a zombie movie, there would undoubtedly be a bunch of people with zombie bug-out bags doing well.\n\nAnd you can't have that, you need total chaos.\n\nImagine the Walking Dead if Daryl came in and said \"Ok boys, these seem to be Romero style zeds, hit 'em in the head, find a good place to hold up, give it a few years, and they'll rot away\"\n\nIt would totally eliminate the first stages of pandemic if everyone knew \"You got bit by the crazy moaning dude after he got shot in the heart, he's a zombie, time to die\" and wipe it out in it's infancy.",
"For your movie to make sense, you need to explain how prior fictional works turned out to be true. For other types of monsters there are ways of doing this, but it is much harder to explain how humanity forgot about a zombie outbreak. \n\nEvery Vampire series eventually has the Dracula talk, where it explains that Dracula was true but a poser / deliberate misinformation / or something else. As sentient creatures, it is explainable how vampires have always been here and somewhat hidden, so that some people knew of them but not enough to be considered fact. \n\nLikewise, the idea of aliens is general enough that we can imagine them before encountering them. However, if aliens turn out to look exactly like ET, Spielberg has some explaining to do.",
"Because if people knew, the whole thing would go like this:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Zombies are inherently \"defeatable\" by severe damage to the brain, and unlike the other creatures you presented their strength comes from the fact that they are unyielding, feel no pain, and every one of your lost to them becomes one of them. \n\nThat is relevant because imagine how a zombie apocalypse would actually happen, if there is a \"patient zero\" and people know or can infer that he's a \"zombie\", then a small scale infection is largely managable if you know to keep your distance and not get bitten (they're largely shown and slow and lumbering, unlike say 28 days later which is a more modern take on a zombie).\n\nEver notice how zombie movies rarely show the first infection, or anything less than a full blown hoard that overwhelms the currently uninfected? Because the only way that an outbreak can occur is due to ignorance, you see a person lumbering around acting dazed and you'd assume they're in shock and concussed, rush to help, and you're bitten and are now a zombie. ",
"In an incredibly worthwhile zombie movie [Wild Zero](_URL_1_), zombie survivors begin to argue with each other when they realize that none of them have ever seen The Night of the Living Dead.\n\nOf course, Wild Zero is not a typical zombie movie - it is the story of Ace, a wannabe rocker, who after earning a life-debt from the real life Japanese punk band [Guitar Wolf](_URL_0_), must save his transgendered girlfriend from a perverted zombified record producer.\n\nPS The drinking game, that was included as an extra feature in the DVD release, you drink whenever anybody combs their hair, yells \"Rock and Roll!,\" when anything shoots fire, and when anyone's head explodes. It is deadly...\n\nMaybe not answering your question but you all need to watch this shit.",
"If they knew it was zombies, it would pretty much end the plot right there. Imagine in any other horror/slasher film. You have a character decide \"Nah, I won't go down that dark hallway. I'll just leave this creepy house to avoid the possibly life ending scenario.\" \nThe character made a logical choice based on what we all know from the movies. And thus, the movie would be over. Same with zombies. \nIf everyone knew it was zombies, and knew the general gist of a zombocalypse, the movie would be over after a small city was only partly killed. ",
"Because a zombie outbreak is very easy to nip in the bud by people who have seen zombies before. ",
"They mention zombies in Shaun of the Dead.\nOne scene Shaun says not to mention the zed word. He is obviously referring to the word Zombie",
"I think it's all about suspension of disbelief. To put it simply, this means the story has to flow. \n\nThis could mean one of two things:\n1- \"Zombie\" as a word distracts the audience from the idea that the non-zombie characters don't know what these things are. \n\nor\n\n2- There is some kind of taboo in Zombie movie culture that looks down on the use of the word \"Zombie.\"\n\nOn the idea of suspension of disbelief-\nI actually think that, logically, it is hard to imagine a world where the word \"zombie\" doesn't exist, yet all the other normal things about the modern world do. i.e. The Walking Dead where they have a ton of modern technology such as guns and cars, yet the word zombie never came to them to describe creatures that are clearly zombies. \n\nSo for me, NOT using the word zombie is more of a distraction than to use the word walker or infected or whatever. \n\nI just realized that this comment wasn't helpful. But erasing it now seems futile. ",
"Slightly tangential but a really good zombie story where people know what zombies are when it happens is the Newsflash trilogy by Mira Grant. It goes so far as to mention George Romero, hailing his movies as survival guides basically and the number of kids called George or some derivative after the rising is pretty damn high. It's worth a read if you like zombie stories.",
"In Zombieland people were aware of the concept of zombies.",
"It's too self-referential. The movie would be calling attention to itself and might be perceived as a distraction. ",
"Well, think about it. As a writer of a movie script the minute you \"go there\" then you turn the movie into an introspective examination of zombie lore. Now, who, as a write of a movie script really wants to go there?\n\nSure, it makes sense for a comedy where you're lampooning the accepted zombie tropes. But if you want to be serious about it you really need to keep your characters pretty naive on the whole concept of zombies.\n\nBasically it's hard to add references to zombie lore without falling into a trap of examining the container you're using to contain your container. If that makes sense...",
"Several zombie movies do talk about zombies in movies. Night of the living dead 2 comes to mind. They hassle one of the main actors on zombie info because he watches zombie movies. When hitting them in the head doesn't kill them he is at a loss. ",
"I believe Cockneys vs zombies knows about them. They make a joke of it.",
"Probably so they can put whatever spin they want on them (fast, slow, decomposing, virus, starving to death) without having to address any preconceived notions on how zombies are supposed to behave.",
"We've had stories/myths about \"zombies\" before they were called zombies. Zombie is actually a relatively new term compared to ghosts, ghouls, goblins, monsters, werewolves, vampires, devils, demons, etc. That's why. They're trying to stop using the term that was coined by a few English dudes a few 100 years ago after they ripped it from Voodoo, West Indian Jumbi/jambi, and the kongo word nzambi. \n\nBasically they're just trying to be more original, and I guess possibly stop using a word that historically mostly referred to black slaves/mind controlled people, just like the word \"robot.\"",
"Robert Kirkman, the creator of The Walking Dead comics, [explains](_URL_0_) that his characters hadn't heard of zombies and zombie pop culture content did not exist \n\n > \"One of the things about this world is that people don't know how to shoot people in the head at first, and they're not familiar with zombies, per se. \"This isn't a world the (George) Romero movies exist, for instance … because we don't want to portray it that way, we felt like having them be saying 'zombie' all the time would harken back to all of the zombie films which we, in the real world, know about.\"\n > \"So by calling them something different, we're kind of giving a nod to … these people don't understand the situation. They've never seen this in pop culture, this is a completely new thing for them.\"\n\nBasically, people's lack of knowledge about zombies in these universes explains why and how the threat and danger escalated to such high levels.",
"Because the entire zombie trope is a modern invention of Romero, which is an amalgam of various things. In fact modern zombies more resemble old vampire legends than what the word \"zombie\" originally came from - which is a voodoo concept and probably related to putting people in a weird trance with pufferfish toxin.\n\nOriginal vampires were undead, unintelligent corpses that sucked blood. They're 90% the same as modern zombies, except modern zombies eat flesh instead. The modern concept of the \"vampire\" being an intelligent being that, whilst dead, wasn't rotting was created by Bram Stoker.",
"From watching earlier zombie movies (Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead), having the characters not understand zombies really builds upon the suspense and depth of the story line. Of course these movies don't follow the time line of our dimension (after Night of the Living Dead we all should be aware of zombies and how to kill them) but a parallel universe that never has seen the dead return to walk and kill the living. I have to say that after a while, it's kinda of tiring to see each movie start and retell the whole \"how they discovered zombies\" again. \n\nBut this makes the writers of the movie have more to discuss and fill in between the scenes of finally understanding these undead guys want brains. Think about a newer movie like Zombieland (one of my favorites), just how much shorter would that movie be if right from the beginning they knew how to kill zombies instead of using cardio. :)\n\n",
"All these answers explaining the reasoning are fair, but couldn't there be a solution where characters still call them zombies without having previously heard of zombies before?\n\nExample: shortly after the virus is discovered, a news report announces that the virus is being referred to as the \"zombie virus\" named for the West African and Caribbean term meaning revived from the dead.\n\nProblem solved. We get all the popular tropes and recurring themes from zombie movies *and* the characters in the film refer to the zombies as zombies.",
"My theory is the wider popularization of \"zombie\" is relatively new (most notably with the Night of the Living Dead in 1968), at least compared to the notion/words \"vampire,\" \"ghost,\" or \"alien\". Thus it's not as historied and has a cheesier, less timeless ring to it when compared to the others.\n\nThe same way an scary email is less timeless/less haunting than a scary phone call.",
"The very first thing that mankind wrote about (18th century B.C. !!) was zombies. The Goddess Ishtar seeks to destroy Gilgamesh for refusing her sexual advances. (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned) \n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIf you refuse to give me the Bull of Heaven [then] I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion [i.e., mixing] of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of the dead will outnumber the living.\"[11]\n\n\n\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\"Gatekeeper, ho, open thy gate!\nOpen thy gate that I may enter!\nIf thou openest not the gate to let me enter,\nI will break the door, I will wrench the lock,\nI will smash the door-posts, I will force the doors.\nI will bring up the dead to eat the living.\nAnd the dead will outnumber the living.\"",
"This post has been up 7 hours and none of the top level comments have contained either of these two things:\n\nIn all of the major early zombie movies, except one, no one says the word \"Zombie.\" They're written as though it's a phenomenon that no one ever came up with and that there isn't a whole universe of (in-universe) fiction around.\n\nShaun of the Dead had a bit of fun with this, where the main characters shriek like they're in pain at the mention of \"the Zed word!!\"\n\nThe one early movie that mentions zombie fiction is none other than Return of the Living Dead, the not-as-good cousin of Night of the Living Dead. And when zombies are referenced, it's a pretty cringeworthy scene-- \"Remember that movie?? What did they do in that movie?\"\n\nThe point being, zombie movies (and really, lots of fiction in general) avoid mentioning in-universe zombie media because it breaks the fourth wall. People in a movie talking about how people in a movie solved a problem that the movie-people you are watching have reminds you that you're watching a movie. \n\nIf that doesn't make your head hurt, it still kills the suspense or drama of a moment.\n\nFinal point, other horror monsters aren't obvious at first. \n\nWeird guy with a European accent moves into your neighborhood. So what? Doesn't like garlic. Neither do I. Drinks blood. You'll only find out when it's too late.\n\nStrange noises at night? It's these old pipes/the freeway/the foundation settling. You think stuff is moved without anyone around? You're being forgetful. Then semi-transparent demon monsters steal your soul.\n\nEt cetera.\n\nBut get a few, or, fuck, just one pallid, shambling, moaning person with bite marks and blood stains reaching for you from down the road-- that's a fucking zombie. Run.",
"With most mythical creatures such as vampires and werewolves, they are creatures that have been seen repeatedly throughout history. the legend of knowing what they have done Is what makes them so frightening but with most zombie movies they are the first instances of zombie epidemics and so people supposedly have to learn how to kill them ,otherwise if they already knew how to eliminate them easily and effectively while also how to survive, it would turn the zombie apocalypse Into a cake walk\nThe fear of the unknown with zombies is what makes them scary",
"Well I see my theory isn't in here, so lets add it to the bottom. For all the other monsters, there's a movie being made about an already existing superstition. Vampires, ghouls (the ones that don't infect anything) mummies and werewolves can all be referenced without mentioning Hollywood. Zombies were taken from a pretty much unheard of Voduo superstition (but not really even). To basically everyone, a zombie is a product created in Hollywood. A person thinks 'zombie' they then think 'movie'. To call a zombie by it's name, in a very round about way, breaks the fourth wall, and lets the audience know they are just watching some zombie movie.",
"What always bugged me is there's always the scene where there is like a zombie in the street clearly eating another human being and some randy comes up and is like \"hey man are you ok?\" before he gets bit and turned into a zombie. If someone is eating another person call the dam police.",
"because of [not using the Z word](_URL_0_)",
"I feel like you're on to something with suspension of disbelief. I like The Walking Dead approach where basically different groups calls them specific things based on behavior. Biters, walkers, etc. I feel like it would detract from the seriousness of the thing if that universe also had a pop culture thing called zombies that also explained how to dispose of them. How convenient. \n\nIn order to be dramatic it has to be an unknown danger (at least at the start). It does feel more believable that way. \n",
"An honest take on this would be the Newsflesh Series. While a book series and not a movie, it takes place in a world where the name George is the most popular name in the world because of George Romero's films gave people on the streets the knowledge to protect themselves.\n\nAlso, the zombification process is really cool in that it affects any mammal over 40lbs and just eating meat from ANY mammal can cause you to spontaneously zombify due to how the virus works.\n\nI'd really recommend you check it out, it's good.",
"They knew what zombies were in World War Z, it was one of the few redeeming qualities of that movie.",
"Let's look at it in terms of a fictional universe. \n\nSay you have a movie where vampires exist, and everyone is familiar with vampires and how they work. In this universe vampires therefore have, one assumes, lived for a very long time. The movie then has two options: 1. make it so that everyone knows about vampires, or everyone in a small town believes in them and then the protagonists show up, or 2. you make it seem like literature about them is real but they've been hiding so well/some spell has been holding them at bay for so long that we've all started to treat it as fiction (except for a few hunters). \n\nThis works for monsters of any kind where the population is low and they can hide easily/live in inaccessible areas. Witches, mummys, maybe bigfoot, sea people, Lovecraftian cults, whatever. \n\nGhost and aliens are a bit different, because people actually do claim to see them all the time. There are shows about ghost hunting, shows about alien encounters, and unlike, say, vampires, a sizable percentage of people who actually believe in them. So, for this, all you have to do is write a story in where you take one person for their word. The aliens or ghosts have unique visual designs, sure, but the basic concepts are so common among all cultures that it's not illogical that someone would be able to recognize a ghost/alien in a movie. \n\nNow, zombies. Zombies make it difficult to do these two things. Zombies themselves are fairly modern concept compared to other types of monsters, and movies about them usually detail a massive epidemic, which isn't something you can hide. If it occurred in the past, people aren't likely to forget it. Dracula, on the other hand, involves a handful of players who may at the end have no evidence. For the second point, zombies aren't something people claim to see all the time, at least not in the horde scenario.\n\nSo, TL:DR, unless you're dealing with some generic necromancer-in-the-tribal-village kind of thing, zombies would be a new creature, technically, in any zombie movie. Plus suspension of disbelief. \n",
"Mainly, it's to establish what they are to the audience. A majority of people today know what a zombie is, but this is how movies set their zombie guidelines. Since they set the plot so that the lowest denominators can understand, this way would be the best to show what their version of the zombie is. IMO, World War Z the movie had the least amount of exposition for zombies. ",
"TVTropes: [Not Using the Z Word](_URL_0_)\n\n > Suppose your monsters are rotting shambling undead that want to drink your blood. Call them zombies and every casual reader's going to assume they're after \"braaaaaiiinnss,\" while calling them vampires brings up images of old black- & -white horror movies, Anne Rice and sparkles. When it's used to force a sense of \"realism\" (we don't call them \"zombies\" because zombies aren't real), it smacks painfully of Genre Blindness.",
"If anyone is interested in a zombie story in a world where they are aware of zombie fiction, read World War Z (or listen to the audiobook, but don't watch the horrible movie). One of the lines in the book goes something like \"The scientists insisted that technically, they weren't zombies, because they weren't actually reanimated corpses or something, but most people didn't care, we still called them zombies, or Zeds for short.\"",
"Don't say that!\nThe Z word!\nIt's ridiculous!",
"World War Z uses it. Now with that out of the way, most \"zombie\" movies are written as if zombie movies have never existed. Part of it is how society would react when people rise from the dead and 'change', they cant be like \"oh shit its just like the movies\".",
"Vampires, werewolves, ghosts, aliens, and the like, all exist as myths in the public consciousness; although they appear in movies, they also \"exist\" independently of movies. There are mythological, oral and literary traditions associated with these creatures, some going back thousands of years, long before the advent of film.\n\nWhilst the term \"zombie\" also comes from history and legend (in the form of the \"voodoo zombie\"; supposedly a corpse raised from the dead to do a witch-doctor's bidding, in reality a person who has been slipped a particular cocktail of drugs which lowers their metabolism and makes them compliant), **the flesh-eating zombie of modern cinema is primarily a creation *of* modern cinema**.\n\nThe closest creatures to the flesh-eating zombie in Western mythology are probably the ghoul and the revenant, and in fact, the term \"ghoul\" *was* used in the original *Night of the Living Dead*, which was the first film to feature what we would now call the flesh-eating \"zombie\" (although people only referred to them as \"zombies\" in hindsight). However, ghouls and revenants are not as widely known as the creatures mentioned above, so the terms never stuck. In the films that came after *Night*, the term \"zombie\" began to be used. However, of the few \"zombie\" movies released between *Night of the Living Dead* and *Dawn of the Dead*, I cannot think of any that actually use the word \"zombie\", so I think *Dawn* was the film that popularised the term. In that movie, a character with connections to Trinidad draws comparisons to the voodoo legends and later calls the undead flesheaters \"zombies\", for possibly the first time in cinema. \n\n**Therefore, for characters in a zombie movie to know about flesh-eating zombies,** to understand the \"rules\" associated with flesh-eating zombies, and to casually refer to them as \"zombies\", it would tacitly establish that films like *Night of the Living Dead* already exist in the film's universe, and that the characters have seen them. It would be one thing to have things from the time-shrouded mists of mythology turn out to be based in reality, but inventions from recent pop culture? It would be akin to someone identical to Superman appearing on Earth, who just so happens to be bound by all the same rules and weaknesses as the comic book character. Setting aside the breaking of known physics, what are the chances? The similarity would, at the very least, invite comment and lengthy discussion. Some films do lampshade it in this way (*Return of the Living Dead* is a case in point), but for others, it's too conceptually messy and meta. It's tidier and neater just to have a fresh start; to just assume that flesh eating zombies are a completely new concept to the universe of the film.",
"That's not true though - in World War Z they refer to zombies a few times in the film and it's clear they were aware what they were before the carnage.",
"World War Z mentions by name and is not a comedy",
"The movie-version of World War Z briefly referenced the pop-culture phenomenon of Zombies when they were discussing the early reports coming in.",
"[Feed](_URL_0_ is a novel that comes to mind, the survivors praise Romero as a saviour of humanity.",
"TL;DR: zombies don't have the same kind of folklore and history to back them up as other, more famous, monsters. It's therefore harder to justify an informed zombie reference without also breaking fourth wall and drawing parallels to prior movies (which certain directors may not want to associate with their version of zombies.) \n\nFULL: There's a lot of storytelling themes and folkloric history to consider when we're talking about how horror monsters are translated on screen. \n\nFolklore involving vampires/succubi/incubi/etc has existed in some form or another for centuries and can be found all across the globe. That historic element is usually a large part of how they are then portrayed as ancient, aristocratic, and otherworldly because they have almost literally stepped out of time. Anytime someone DOESN'T know about them or plainly refuses to believe in them, they'll usually be at odds with an old-world believer (which may even be the vampire itself, considering they usually have the ability to explain themselves to the ignorant if they so choose.)\n\nSimilarly, the concept of ghosts can be found in almost any culture that accepts the existence of a human soul or spirituality. A major part of the pathos within ghost themed horror is going to focus on the terror that results in having to directly face, not only your human mortality, but that the unknown is suddenly concrete. It's the confirmation of an afterlife or hell, and finding out that it's depraved. To truly convey that kind of fear, it's best that our main characters understand all those implications beforehand. \n\nAliens are pretty interesting because they're even younger than zombies in terms of horror movie antagonists. However, I'd argue that their particular brand of scary is slightly more ambiguous than zombies; there's a lot of ways they can be played. So while both of them are (again) dealing with a fear of the unknown, zombies focus on the unpredictability of a broken society and the anarchy of broken natural laws. The tension with zombies is grounded in an uncertain human nature, meanwhile, aliens are focused on the complete and utterly foreign. Why come to Earth? Why fuck with us? What's with all the anal probing? Who the fuck knows, and fuck these completely unknown entities of which we have nothing to compare them to! \nThe thing to remember here, in terms of why it's okay to know about aliens prior to encountering them, is because the sci-fi genre often includes some element of discovery or exploration. The type of characters most likely to encounter an alien monster are also the type who probably have some understanding of the universe's vastness. They may not know WHAT kind of alien they're dealing with, but the possibility of us being completely alone in the universe isn't usually a thought for them (unless your name is Scully and you insist on being stupid even after seeing crazy shit 10,000 times.) Therefore, while an alien encounter may be unexpected, the CONCEPT of one wouldn't be.\n\nProbably the biggest thing keeping prior knowledge of zombies away from movie characters is other pop culture. Zombies would not be where they are today if not for movies. And unlike the other kinds of monsters we find horrific, they exist almost solely in movie form. \nMary Shelley first published Frankenstein around 1818, Jane Loudon would later publish The Mummy in 1827, but it wasn't until we were well into the next century that the idea of the reanimated dead would gain any traction. Even though zombies, as we now know them, got their start from a Haitian tradition, we don't really find this kind of monster anywhere else. It was strangely unheard of until Hollywood got involved. \nSo when you mention that comedy is really the only place you can find characters who understand what the hell zombies are, that's because it's really hard to reference pop culture without breaking the fourth wall and giving a wink to the audience. To acknowledge zombie academia, characters wouldn't be saying \"It's like that super obscure voodoo folklore I read about!\" they'd pretty much be saying, \"Holy shit, it's like we're in a movie!\" And that's a bit more problematic to insinuate when a director may be trying to craft their own portrayal of zombie origins, which will probably rely heavily on an element of surprise (at least, for our main characters.)\n\nAdditionally, your theory that being able to identify zombies right away might kill the mood is spot on! The power of zombies lies in the absurdity of watching the most basic law of nature cause utter devastation. Just because you knew what to call these freaks, it's not like you wouldn't be just as terrified as some oblivious Joe Schmoe, but it does add a different impact and drama when we have to watch our main characters struggle with the complete destruction of all their preconceived notions of what is and isn't possible. ",
"Unlike many other genres, zombies are understood to be caused by a \"real\" phenomenon. If you reference vampires in a vampire movie, you make the idea of something supernatural real and there are no issues in your mind. But if you reference zombies in a zombie movie, you get a conflict. The cause of zombie outbreaks are never metaphysical, so you and the characters in the movie referencing them must grapple with the unlikeliness of the concept. You can't just accept it. If the characters in the movie did, they would be in a zombie movie and the realism is gone.",
"Actually, the Walking Dead deals with this rather well, at least, I've heard...\nApparently, in their universe, there are no Zombies in media. This is why they refer to them as Walkers, not Zombies. \n\nThe more you know! ",
"Monsters such as vampires, werewolves, ghosts, etc. origin from old stories and legend. People in movies can have heard of vampires from old stories while still saying \"I just thought they were a legend/I didn't know they existed for real.\" Zombies are different because a zombie outbreak is something \"new\", not some ancient, dormant evil or something that has been hiding in Transylvania for hundreds of years. This means that it would be too much of a coincidence if people in movies knew about zombies because of pop-culture and then some virus comes which oh so ever coincidentally turns people into zombies. People in movies NEED to know about/heard about vampires/ghosts/werewolves because it plays on the premise \"I thought they just were a thing of legend/a fairy tale/superstition\" when they later turn out to be real. Zombies on the other hand, can't have \"existed\" before in the same way, so having people know about them beforehand becomes too unrealistic through coincidence (A new virus turns people into things that are identical to the zombies we've seen in movies, read about in books, etc.) ",
"Think of it this way. If people knew they were zombies, and with everything most people know about zombies, they are easy as shit to deal with (unless they're like 28 days later or the new dawn of the dead zombies or something). If they were as much of a joke in those movies as they are in other movies, then they would never have spread. And it would end up like [the xkcd comic](_URL_0_) where it's just as simple as killing off a couple. Not to mention that a scene of Walking Dead zombies attacking a military base would be an absolute laughing stalk; Guys posted every 20 feet with flame throwers and machine guns. Those kinds of zombies would be boring in real life, as far as destruction-of-humanity is concerned.",
"In George A. Romero's Classic 1978 Dawn of the Dead, Ken Foree as Peter Washington calls them zombies but other than that one film - Your right!",
"What the fuck just happened with all the deleted comments.",
"In world war Z tho",
"Because zombies only happen once...they aren't a historically famous figure brought on by literature and false accounts. Pure make believe. ",
"It's the only way to make zombies a credible threat. You can't make zombies smarter, so you have to make people dumber.",
"Zombie's are a metaphor for the blind, consuming masses. That's why there is no awareness. Because sheep aren't aware.",
"A lot of the responses here boil down to this: \n\nHollywood filmmakers are lazy writers. \n\nThe fact of the matter is that you can have a compelling, thrilling, horror film about Zombies in which the characters are aware of the concept, but it would be more difficult to write the story in a way that could still be taken seriously. \n\nSo, we see the same shit regurgitated over and over because the people paying for these films to be made are working with a formula they know works. ",
" > it makes me wonder if this unspoken rule has to do with suspension of disbelief\n\nThat's it in a nutshell. Zombies - at least most types of zombies - aren't all that scary. They're not smart, sneaky, or fast. If there really were a zombie uprising, it would be stomped out pretty darn quick (at least in MURICA, where we all have guns).\n\nSo the unspoken handicap we use to even the playing field is that nobody in the movie is allowed to know what's going on until they figure it out for themselves. Without that, the film would be over quickly, and there would be no suspense.",
"World War Z definitely mentions Zombies and has the reactions that you would expect. ",
"The characters in the movie Dead Snow (2009) know about zombies and do some stupid things as a result",
"What's a zombie?",
"As a kid I wondered why Uncle Buck hadn't heard of John Candy. Seemed like Candy's movies would have been right up Buck's alley. ",
"A lot of redditors in this thread are overanalyzing the question. The real reason is that, insofar as this is a \"rule\" (and there are plenty of exceptions, particularly among 70s zombie films), it is adhered to primarily as an homage to George Romero, who never thought of his \"ghouls\" as \"zombies\" back when he filmed Night of the Living the Dead. At that point, \"zombie\" still referred predominantly to those under the hypnotic spell of a voodoo priest, whether living or dead, and it took some time for the two horror creature tropes to merge into a single identifiable monster. \n\nCompare the shuffling magic thralls of White Zombie, or any other seminal voodoo zombie film, with the ravenous undead cannibals of Night of the Living Dead, and you'll see why filmmakers never traditionally referred to the ghouls/infected/walkers/what-have-you as \"zombies.\"\n\nAnd we still sometimes draw the distinction; how many times have you heard any \"hardcore\" zombie fan refer the Mayan-spirit controlled Deadites from the Evil Dead as \"zombies\" in the Romero sense? Or the Infected (but still living) victims of 28 Days Later? Or even, god forbid, the sentient vampire-like plague victims of I Am Legend?",
"Some Zombie flicks are representations of societal norms that are flawed i.e. Dawn of the Dead from the 2000's. Where not only the survivors but also the mindless monsters flock to a shopping mall. Romero wanted to show how ridiculous the consumer culture of the U.S. is by representing society with zombies. \n\nThis is reiterated in Shawn of the Dead where both survivors and zombies gather at a pub. Also, near the end of the movie. Where it was said that the Zeds were perfect for keeping the consumer industry going by having them do a remedial task (While on screen they had a zombie fetching carts from a parking lot).\n\nTo the point, no one has heard of Zombies in some movies because we are already the zombies.",
"It does have to do with suspension of disbelief for the audience. \n\nHaving a a group of characters reflect on the fact what they are facing is indeed zombies is sort of like why in horror movies people just don't get up and leave when faced with overwhelming odds. Jason, monster of the week, etc.? Oh, we'll just leave. End of movie. Characters aren't allowed rational considerations because it breaks tension and is more the focus of sci-fi novels then movies. You can't have the expert, because then it ruins the plot, provides a solution to conflict, possible Deux Ex Machina, etc.\n\nThink of Ghostbusters. If ghosts were proven real it would mean people had souls, there is an afterlife...the possible existence of God (or Gods), the existence of magic. You can't have a reasonable discussion in a movie about such things.\n\nZombies are along the same lines. The characters really don't know what they are, it promotes tension and in film its probably better to rest in ambiguity.\n\nInterestingly enough, Aliens is exactly the movie where we have an expert but is ignored and ends in tears. It wouldn't be entertaining if the characters simply went around, nuked it from orbit, etc. ",
"I think it is because if everyone knew about zombies and their weaknesses, there would not be a zombie apocalypse in the first place.",
"OMG! Ive been wondering this for years, I mean these films and shows take place usually in present day, but they go the distance to always make up some absurd name for them \"Walkers\", haha\n\nAnd my other big pet peeve \"Hey guys, lets walk past this abandoned convoy of up-armored humvees which dont require keys to start and have these huge .50 cal's mounted on top and instead drive around in this 1985 Toyota Camry and 2013 Dodge Charger instead...oh hey look a mini van, we need that too...\"",
"One of the rules for most zombie movies is that zombies can't exist in-universe. It makes the story easier to write if the characters initially don't understand or know how to deal with the threat. There are several other rules that I can't think of off the top of my head as well.",
"Professor John Vervaeke from the University of Toronto actually explains this really well:\n\n_URL_0_",
"World War Z mentions them by name. ",
"I think it's because Zombies are usually like an end all type of thing. Like once there is a Zombie outbreak there will be no one around to remember it type of thing.\n\nI would love to see a movie that is like 30 years after an outbreak that shows how society ended up.",
"copyright laws. In a backwards way I think they do it to legitimize the zombie like word they use. \"Zombie\" is a copyright, almost all movies will not pay the money for the use and will develop there own like, \"zed\", \"walkers\" or any other non sense. Any movie that uses the term Zombie, almost always will have characters that are familiar with the concept.",
"No one expects the zombie inquisition",
"It's a thing called genre-blindness. Basically, it means that for most zombie movies to be even remotely 'realistic', there has to be a large suspension of disbelief. And by that I mean, the people in the movie can't have foreknowledge of zombies.\n\nBecause if a zombie apocalypse *really* happened, right now, outside our doors, we'd go, \"Holy shit, the zombie apocalypse!\" and take more appropriate measures, like arming ourselves rapidly, or barricading our homes, and avoiding people (things that usually don't happen for awhile in your average zombie flick).\n\nPart of what makes most zombie movies work is the victims not knowing what is happening. If they are aware that the zombies *are zombies*, then it's less fun for the viewer. So they have to basically live in a strange alternate universe where they've never heard of zombies, because that makes the story unfold in a more interesting way.",
"In the real world we are prepared and armed with knowledge of these fictional abominations. Even the CDC is prepared for such an outbreak. _URL_0_",
"\"Zombie Outbreak Occurs in Small Mountain Town; Literally Everyone was Prepared\"\n\nThe movie is over before it began.",
"Related question- Why are zombies never covered in flies/maggots?",
"because the original Zombie film Night of the Living Dead ...didnt actually use the word zombie. \nno one in the film said it. \n\n > In the film you never actually use the word “zombie”. \n*The characters don’t know that they’re zombies.*\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nand now it's kind of an in joke and nod to george romero that other zombie films dont say it either. \n\nit has become a thing.",
"All Monsters are personifications of fears we have in our society. If you look at the wolf-man you see wild man not in control and dangerous, a vampire is always portrayed as nobility that drains the life from the people, but the zombie horde is purely American. Haitian zombies were never the villain in their culture, they were tools of evil voodoo types. American zombies not only represent the our fears of sickness and death but a loss of individuality and personal identity. Calling them Zombies turns it into a monster hunt; a US vs THEM. But all good zombie movies use a US vs US angle; that isn't a zombie that is little Jenny from two houses down, that isn't a zombie that is my spouse who only had a scratch and we took care of it with first aid stuff. Dehumanizing them with the Z word puts a block in the best path the horror aspect gets to sink its hooks in you."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwAbQD-gZU&feature=youtu.be&t=5m28s"
] | [
[],
[
"http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/874-why-i-am-convinced-911-was-an-inside-job.html**"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://xkcd.com/734/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_Wolf",
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267116/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thoughtcatalog.com/michael-koh/2014/02/14-things-your-brain-didnt-know-about-the-walking-dead/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar",
"http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ishtar.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotUsingTheZWord"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotUsingTheZWord"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_(Grant_novel)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://xkcd.com/734/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwAbQD-gZU#t=4m14s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Interview-George-A-Romero-On-Diary-Of-The-Dead-7818.html"
],
[]
] |
|
46ckak | if i subscribe to a sub reddit, why does it stop showing up on my feed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46ckak/eli5_if_i_subscribe_to_a_sub_reddit_why_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d042yj0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your front page only shows a certain number of subbed subreddits at a time (I think it is 5, but I'm not sure.) \n\nPeople joke about how reddit gold is worthless, but one of the benefits is you get 100 subreddits on your front page. (Also, myrandom is pretty cool.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4yj5bf | is there any particular reason that, on a 2-d world map, the pacific ocean is the "cutoff"? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yj5bf/eli5_is_there_any_particular_reason_that_on_a_2d/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6o26uf",
"d6o292i"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"You must be from the west (I am, too!). The reason that I can tell this is that maps have a 'focus' that tend to be where they were produced. \n\nTake a look at [this Japanese world map](_URL_0_) and tell me what seems different about it?",
" As the maps you are familiar with using were developed in Europe it makes sense to center them on that area. Also putting the cut in a large ocean makes sense so as to avoid cutting a country in half, and considering that Europe was much more interested in crossing the Atlantic rather than the Pacific it would be less convenient to put the break there.\n\nBasically you are looking at European convention."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.travelerscafe.jpn.org/date/worldmap.png"
],
[]
] |
|
ayqtjw | why do they handicap horse races, and not just let them race to find the fastest horse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayqtjw/eli5_why_do_they_handicap_horse_races_and_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei2kj5b",
"ei2qcij"
],
"score": [
23,
3
],
"text": [
"The goal for the handicapper in a handicap race is to assign the proper amount of weight to eat horse so that ideally they all end in a straight line. This obviously never happens.\n\nThe goal for the people who are betting is to outguess the handicapper. If you know some horse is carrying underweight or overweight than you put that into your guess and use that. This makes it more exciting so you aren't just choosing the horse that always wins.\n\nMost horse racing isn't about finding the fastest horse. It's about gambling.",
"Also, the handicapping is not to make certain horses faster or slower. The handicap is supposed to ensure each horse carries the same **weight**. The jockey for each horse is weighed and then the horses with lighter jockeys have extra weight added to the saddle. I think there's a target minimum weight and some horses with the heaviest jockeys don't get a handicap, but I might be wrong.\n\n\nOf course, the jockeys do their best to cheat the weighing (they are paid to win!, after all), but there's a limit to how much a person can sweat, vomit, or excrete away in the amount of time between the official weighing and the start of the race."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5ynt87 | why is it almost impossible to change someone's mind on any given topic - even when there is clear proof they are wrong? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ynt87/eli5_why_is_it_almost_impossible_to_change/ | {
"a_id": [
"derhyfh",
"deri5to"
],
"score": [
20,
13
],
"text": [
"Cognitive dissonance... Your mind literally does everything it can NOT to change opinion. It doesn't want to believe it's wrong, so it'll do everything possible to not believe it",
"A lot of times people identify with their beliefs. This means an assumed \"attack\" on their belief is an attack on them personally. Also, when someone has their mind made up there are usually many factors that go into that specific idea, that is why its difficult to change their mind without changing the foundation that the idea is built on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2pd88d | why is it so hard for our world's nations to sign a climate agreement? what interests comes in the way? | Wouldn't it be better for the economy in the long run to invest more in sustainable development in our nations? If it's so easy that it comes down to economic growth. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pd88d/eli5why_is_it_so_hard_for_our_worlds_nations_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmvko1v",
"cmvksxw",
"cmvmw8r",
"cmvxw0c"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We've already got one, [The Kyoto Protocol](_URL_0_). I believe the aim is to cut CO2 emissions to 40% of the 1990 levels by 2100 in order to stabilise the atmosphere. But generally they just set targets about 5 years at a time. It's a bit rubbish to be honest because China hasn't signed up because it's still developing; Clinton signed the treaty for the US but then the senate stopped it; and Canada have pulled out because they aimed for lower targets but then failed to reduce their emissions and would have been faced with huge fines. Also about 80% of the world isn't in on it. ",
"The biggest problem is countries like America and England got to take advantage of cheap power sources to fund our industrial revolution. Now the countries who are going through that currently dont want to use clean power because its much more expensive for them and would hinder the progress some. They argue how is it fair for us to have benefited but then they dont get to.",
"It is about self interest, trust, and fairness.\n\nReducing greenhouse gases benefits everyone, even countries who choose not to do it, who will continue to benefit from unsustainable growth. No one wants to take the economic hit unless everyone take it with them.\n\nThere is also a fairness issue. If I am Brazil, and see how North American and Europe became rich cutting down their forests and polluting everything, I'm not really interested in hearing them lecture me about sustainable growth. If they want to deny my the same benefits they reaped, they need to find a way to share the wealth. ",
"There's another reason that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm supposed to be studying for finals so I'm not gonna type it out, but look up The Prisoners Dilemma in relation to climate resolutions. Basically, if everyone actually does it, great, but if one country gains some edge from ignoring it, and not limiting their production, they'll do that to get the edge. Then the other countries will have an unfair disadvantage and will follow suit. In the end, back to square one. The only way to make it work is for everyone to fully participate which won't ever happen. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
216ywk | u.s. health insurance terms | Monthly payments, copays, coinsurance, deductibles, etc.
I'm a college student in the U.S. dreading having to sort all of this out for myself in a couple years. How does it all work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/216ywk/eli5_us_health_insurance_terms/ | {
"a_id": [
"cga7cy5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"* Monthly payment - How much you are paying your insurance each month.\n\n* Copay - This is how much you will pay for a medical service. For example you go to get your ear looked at, the bill comes out to $200. You insurance will put in $100, and you copay the rest.\n\n* Deductible - This is how much you have to pay before insurance kicks in. You are hit by a car and rushed to the ER, your bill is say $2,000. Your deductible is $3,000. That means you are paying that bill out of pocket. Lets say the bill was $5,000 then you have to pay the first 3,000 and your insurance kicks in to cover the rest. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4qg30p | how does g2a shady system works? | I've been reading lately that g2a has taken stolen keys, but how does this work?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qg30p/eli5how_does_g2a_shady_system_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4sn3pm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The keys are purchased with stolen credit card information. G2A makes no effort to validate the sources of their keys.\n\nWhen the card holder finds out and their bank reverses the transaction, the key becomes invalid. Bye-bye game."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
22l4ye | is streaming basically downloading something temporarily? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22l4ye/eli5_is_streaming_basically_downloading_something/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgnvveu"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Yes, that is exactly correct.\n\nWhen you stream a video, it downloads the video in chunks which get stored in a temporary buffer. The video may also be cached to the hard-disk for some time and can be accessed using specialized software like [this](_URL_0_).\n\nIn the case of live streaming... it's just a continuous download where the buffer is a set size and as new information gets loaded into the buffer, old information is purged."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/video_cache_view.html"
]
] |
||
3c3wmw | what would happen if sometime in the future somewhere on the earth or another planet a massive amount of gold ore is found? | And I mean with the world economy. Seeing almost every country holds part of its wealth in gold bars. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c3wmw/eli5_what_would_happen_if_sometime_in_the_future/ | {
"a_id": [
"css04cd"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Not much - Although the world has [around 7 trillion dollars in gold](_URL_1_) currently, and a major new find would tend to lower the value of existing gold, keep in mind how much any one country or person really has.\n\n[The United States](_URL_0_) holds the most gold by far, worth roughly 306 billion dollars. Germany comes in second, at less than half as much. Both countries could survive the complete loss of that value without much trouble.\n\nMost of the gold in the world, however, doesn't belong to governments, [it belongs to private holders](_URL_2_), with almost half in the form of jewelry and another fifth as \"investment\" products (bullion coins and bars). And again, while it would certainly hurt to lose that value, the sort of people buying up a significant amount of gold can typically weather its loss.\n\nA major gold find (of a scale large enough to devalue existing gold) *would* have an upside, however - Gold has a *ton* of industrial uses. Although we have gotten very, very good at using it in tiny amounts, countless products would benefit by more liberal use of it if not for the price."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.econmatters.com/2014/12/top-10-countries-with-most-gold-reserves.html",
"http://onlygold.com/Info/All-The-Gold-In-The-World.asp",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve"
]
] |
|
2igadg | why do people continuously disagree about what foods are "healthy?" why haven't nutritionists been able to agree on [insert controversial food item here] being good for you or not? | It just seems like since I can remember, diets and various eating trends have grown and diminished in popularity. Carbs are bad, fats are bad, dairy and eggs are bad, no..now carbs and fats are good. Meat is bad. RED meat is bad, etc. The fall of veganism and the rise of paleo. It all gets so confusing.
The way our bodies store and process food must be consistent, so why can't experts agree on what is definitively good for us or not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2igadg/eli5_why_do_people_continuously_disagree_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl1wneo",
"cl1wuf2",
"cl22aj1"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"People live various different lifestyles, and experience differing levels of activity which is why certain people seem to be able to eat anything while others struggle with weight no matter what they eat. Human metabolisms are quite varied, and two people can eat the exact same diet, and number of calories with different results.\n\nNutrition and food is as susceptible to fads and trends as any other component of culture, and 'healthy' can all too often be used as a marketing term which helps muddle the issue. I tend to eat low carb, high protein because I feel better than when I eat a lot of grains. This works for me, but not for everyone. \n\nThere is a tendency for people in these arguments to determine the 'right' diet for everyone, when the 'right' diet is more likely tailored to an individual's lifestyle and metabolism.",
"To have proof, you need a controlled experiment, so you'd need a group to eat red meat and a group not to eat red meat, and study them on a bunch of different variables. Repeat for vegetarian, dairy, gluten free, etc.\n\nThe other complicated thing is foods can do complex things to your body. Some claim non-organic foods raise your risk for cancer. That might not show up for decades. There are worries soy might mess with your hormone levels. Might not be a problem for some but mess up others. \n\nThe other thing is that a lot of people make money off the food you eat. The latest book or food product labeled \"The thing we've known for years that's obvious\" isn't a good sell. ",
"Nutrition science is still relatively young; vitamins were only discovered in the early 1900s, HDL/LDL cholesterol and saturated/unsaturated fats decades later. Contrast this with classical sciences like mechanics and electromagnetism which made huge advancements in the 1700-1800s. Also, the human body is difficult to conduct controlled experiments on; so many variabilities among different people compromise the ideal scientific method.\n\nMarketing is a huge part; companies will latch on to the newest hint of a finding and tout it as the new revolution in foods, and there's a snowball effect as everyone jumps on the bandwagon.\n\nBottom line: what's healthy is what has worked for thousands of years for countless cultures before modern nutrition science started confusing us. Unprocessed foods, fresh vegetables, small portions of meat as a special experience (not at every meal), and general moderation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3nm4um | if weight doesn't affect how fast an object falls, why will the center of gravity tilt an object while it falls? | Question visualized by this oddly fantastic 80's montage: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nm4um/eli5if_weight_doesnt_affect_how_fast_an_object/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvp9r3g",
"cvp9t4e",
"cvp9yft"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Weight doesn't affect how fast an object falls _in a vacuum_. But these objects are not in a vacuum, and are subject to air resistance and affected by the resulting aerodynamics.",
"Two things:\n\n1. When a car drives off of a ramp there's a moment in time when the rear wheels are on the ramp and the front wheels are not supported. During that time the car starts rotating nose-down. Ideally it starts out angled up and rotates to be aligned with a landing ramp by the time it gets there. If the car is going too slow then it spends too long on the ramp and will over rotate. Moving the center of gravity towards the back makes it so that there is less torque pulling the nose down as it leaves the ramp.\n\n2. Aerodynamics. This is much less important for a car jump, but it can be an effect that determines the orientation of an object that is in freefall. This is why you can drop an arrow oriented horizontally and it will land point-down.",
"They're getting angular momentum: rotation while the car is in the air. That momentum happens *as it leaves the ground*, not after. It's not that the center of gravity is changing, it's that the car is rotating around the center of gravity while it's in the air. That angular momentum comes from the acceleration of the car as it goes off the ramp, the suspension pushing on the rear wheels, and probably a little bit of drag on the front of the car, too."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF9JCjo4Rfs"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b10d8x | every time a ambulance passess to our road, when a ambulance is approaching. i hear siren loudly. when its going away, i hear siren noise less. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b10d8x/eli5_every_time_a_ambulance_passess_to_our_road/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiib0jc",
"eiibdpy",
"eiik26u"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
11
],
"text": [
"Doppler effect, change in frequency as it approaches (small waves with high frequency) and as it passes the wavelength is increased (lower frequency).\n\nSorry, this is my first post on this subreddit. Someone can maybe explain it better.",
"The siren is pointed towards the front of the vehicle. It is to let everyone in front of the ambulance know it's coming so they have time to react and move",
"It is *not* the Doppler Effect like most other posters are saying. The doppler effect applies to the pitch of the siren, not the loudness. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAs one other poster said, it's louder when it's approaching because the siren is pointed towards the front of the ambulance. It produces much louder sound from it's front than from the sides or back. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
69kh26 | if video can be measured in frames per second, is there an equivalent unit for audio? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69kh26/eli5_if_video_can_be_measured_in_frames_per/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh7a17r",
"dh7a19f",
"dh7a4kl",
"dh7i3aj"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
156,
6
],
"text": [
"For digital audio there is the sample rate.\n\nAudio is recorded in digital form by taking the amplitude of the sound wave at regular intervals. CD quality audio does this at 44.1kHz, in other words 44100 times a second.",
"Yes - samples per second (s/s). \"CD Quality\" was set at 44,100 s/s. The reason for this that you need at least twice as many s/s as the highest frequency you want to capture, which for humans is about 20,000 Hz. These days a pro studio records at 96,000 s/s (96k).\n\nThe other major digital audio parameter is bit depth, which is a measure of the potential quality of each sample - like the film or frame size (35mm, 70mm, 1080p, 4K) determines the quality of film or video. \"CD Quality\" is 16 bit depth, now 24 bit depth is typical.",
"Yes, it's samples per second aka the sampling rate of an audio signal. When you convert analog sound to a digital format it is done by sampling the analog wave thousands of times a second to convert it into a number like a voltage. The higher the sampling rate, the greater the frequency in hz that can be represented. It ends up needing about twice the sampling rate, to correctly sample a specific frequency of sound. \n\nFor instance if you need to record a 20,000hz analog soundwave, you need to sample it at 40,000 times a second or 44.1khz which is what music on a CD is sampled at. \n\nThe other factor is the size of each sample which effects how many levels of sound it can encode for each sample. This is analogous to how many colors an image has. An 8 bit sample allows for 0-255 levels of sound, or 256 colors if it were photographic data. Where as a 16 bit sample allows for 0-65,355 levels or voltages, or 65,356 colors if it were an image. \n\nSo a 16 bit 44.1khz wave file encodes 65,356 discrete \"loudness\" or voltages in each sample and it samples (or does it) 44,100 times a second. ",
"Several people have mentioned that the sampling rate of a digital audio signal needs to be at least twice the highest frequency you want to accurately capture. This is called the Nyquist limit, and [I whipped up a quick graphic to explain why here.](_URL_0_)\n\nThe gist is that to produce a faithful representation of a continuous periodic function using finitely many data points, you need to have at least two points present in every period, or you won't have enough information to recreate the original signal. \n\nReal audio signals have many component frequencies, not just one like the pure tone in those images, so you need to decide what the maximum frequency you want to capture is, and then sample at least twice that often. For most people, human hearing really drops off past 20-25 kHz, so sampling at 40-50 kHz will sound good, hence the CD audio standard of 44.1 kHz."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/a/PcWxd"
]
] |
||
faej5l | how does a car track mileage? how does it know how far you’re going? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/faej5l/eli5_how_does_a_car_track_mileage_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"fixhz5b",
"fixkvav"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Math.\n\nThe car is aware of how many times the wheels rotate (as it is in control of how of many times the driveshaft turns based on gear and RPMs of the engine). Given that the wheels are a fixed diameter with a fixed circumference, it is simple math to translate how far the car travels for every rotation of the wheels.",
"Also if you change the size of your wheel, the mileage your car clocks won’t be the actual mileage travelled due to this calculation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
69ahuf | why is it so much easier to notice typos after you send a message, compared trying to proofread the message before you send it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69ahuf/eli5_why_is_it_so_much_easier_to_notice_typos/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh51w35"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Your brain makes all kinds of assumptions for you when it builds a picture of something. Your eyes even have a blind spot that you never noticed because your brain fills in what it thinks should be there.\n\nWhen you are proofreading something that you just wrote, your brain will auto correct small mistakes because it knows what you meant to write. \n\nWhen you hit send you change the environment the message was in. there are different colors around, it might be in a different font, ect. So it kind of resets what your brain thinks is supposed to be on the page and you actually read it again.\n\nArtists take advantage of this by viewing their work in a mirror to find mistakes or just things they don't like. It is the same idea, viewing the work in a different setting resets what your brain thinks the work should look like and you actually look at it again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2a2ax2 | when i put chocolate milk mix in a glass and then add milk, it clumps up and doesn't dissolve well. if i do it the other way around it works fine. what's happening? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a2ax2/eli5_when_i_put_chocolate_milk_mix_in_a_glass_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciqsp93",
"ciqsvc3",
"ciqtd81",
"ciqu2qm",
"ciquqxf",
"ciqy2i6",
"ciqyibw",
"cir0v10"
],
"score": [
19,
134,
7,
6,
2,
26,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No idea I've had the exact opposite happen with me",
"When you have a pile of powder at the bottom, not very much surface area is exposed to the milk, only the top layer. When you pour it into milk it is spread out and there is a lot much more surface area to dissolve into the milk.",
"When you pile the powder at the bottom, it's already all together so it clumps *very* well. In fact, you don't even touch the lower layers until you begin stirring, so you've got less to work with to begin with. Once it clumps, it's hard for the milk to come between the particles.\n\nWhen you pour the mix in, momentum causes much of it to continue into the milk for a bit, spreading it out and establishing a layer of milk between the particles, making it much easier to break up and dissolve.\n\nPretty sure, anyway.",
"Fill glass to a third with milk,\nAdd desired amount of chocolate mix,\nStir as much as possible,\nAdd more milk,\nenjoy",
"Basics physics are happening. When you pour the milk in, it's forcing the powder to be stirred up, and as a result, there is SIGNIFICANTLY more surface area, and more of the powder is exposed to the liquid milk, preventing the \"islands\" from forming since there isn't enough dry mass to float upwards.\n\nELI5 is not for actual 5 year-olds.",
"It's actually a pretty neat and complex mixing problem. First, most powdered drinks are less dense than water and retain a fair bit of air. This means that if they're resting on top of the water, they won't immediately sink to the bottom (as opposed to sand, for example, which is fairly dense and nonporous). First, imagine what it would be like to add just a little bit of the powdered mix to the water and stir it in. Dissolves pretty quick, doesn't it? You've got two things working for you -- the drink mix doesn't tend to clump together (because it spreads out inside the larger volume of water), and it dissolves faster because the saturation is still very low. This is a **solution**.\n\nWhat happens when you increase the amount of drink mix? A barrier is created between the water and the drink mix; a small amount of mix at the surface of the water becomes waterlogged but because of a variety of phenomena (including surface tension), it stays pretty much where it is. As you stir the water, the powder that's closest to the water gets pulled in and dissolved; more powder gets incorporated and saturated, but the process is fairly slow -- you're using the stirring of the water to gradually incorporate more drink mix over time until, finally, it's all dissolved. This is also a **solution**.\n\nNow, let's imagine that you added the drink mix first. You pour the water in, but gravity pulls the water down and through the powder. Larger clumps form as the water trickles down through the mix. These clumps don't separate because they're surrounded by other dry mixture; instead, they solidify slightly and become little orbs of dry powder encased in a semisolid goop \"shell\". If you were to just add all the water at once, these little pockets of powder would still exist; you'd need to break them apart in order to distribute the mix inside. Normal stirring might not create enough turbidity to disrupt their structure and, predictably, your drink gets lumpy. This is kind of like a **suspension**.\n\nYou can avoid lumpy drinks in several ways:\n\n* Add powder gradually to the liquid while stirring. This will slowly increase the saturation of the solution until the desired concentration. This works well when you only need one liquid. But what about when you need two types of liquid (like hot water and cold milk for cocoa)? You could bring both liquids together beforehand, but if the liquids include oils (like eggs or... y'know... *oil*) they're likely to separate.\n\nSo...\n\n* Add the powder first, and add just enough liquid to make a highly saturated goopy paste. The difference between this and the \"add all the liquid\" approach before is that *now* you're stirring the liquid into the powder, not visa versa. The additional movement in the powder breaks up the little powder pockets that would normally form, and instead you get a **mixture**, not a suspension or solution. Now add your other liquids, and the powder will help bind everything together. This is why you stir your eggs and milk into the cake batter, not the other way 'round.\n\nAnd of course, when all else fails...\n\n* MORE POWER. The solution to most problems can be found with the proper application of torque. A fast-moving blade of an immersion blender will generate so much turbidity and local instability within the liquid that no powder pockets can hope to survive. You have annihilated the powder pockets and forced the drink into submission. *... but at what cost?*",
"This is why Mommy and Daddy always buy you the syrup instead.",
"Here's a trick, put the powder in, add a small amount of milk and stir so it's like a thick paste. Then add the rest of the milk and it will dissolve easily and cause less mess"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ifd47 | if my air-conditioning is on fan mode does it waste less electricity/cost me less money or is it just the same purely by turning it on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ifd47/eli5_if_my_airconditioning_is_on_fan_mode_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl1p897",
"cl1pft4"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"When your air conditioner is running fan mode, it is only powering the fan. When running in Cooling mode, it is also powering a compressor and that uses a lot more energy. If you can get by with just the fan, do it.",
"Refrigeration engineer here. To explain like you are 5, the more work being done generally equals more electricity being used and therefore costs more to run. The fan just moves air. While on cooling there is a MUCH larger amount of electricity used for mechanical energy in extra components such as refrigerant compressor and external condenser fan. Not to mention power losses from inefficiencies like entropy at the compressor etc. But that's already getting a bit too technical."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
mpjlk | when and why server wages were suddenly made okay to be lower than minimum wage. | I get that they receive tips, but to be forced to live off of them and have them taxed seems silly. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mpjlk/eli5_when_and_why_server_wages_were_suddenly_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"c32t1gx",
"c32tg8f",
"c32tksf",
"c32tquw",
"c32ui4n",
"c32t1gx",
"c32tg8f",
"c32tksf",
"c32tquw",
"c32ui4n"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
3,
2,
2,
5,
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They get tips, which is income. Why does it seem silly? ",
"It's actually the responsibility of the employer to make up the difference if the waitstaffs' wages plus tips are less than minimum wage.",
"they must be paid minimum wage. If they don't make it in tips, the employer **must** make up the difference.",
"A servers income in the United States is based off of tip income and is usually their primary form of income. Depending on where they work at, their pay can range drastically from the mid 25,00 a year to 50,000 a year at upscale restaurants(don't believe people who say they can't make that much, it is possible). States differ on tax polices but the one I live in a state that makes servers report all of their tips and if that amount falls below what minimum wage would be, the employer has to pitch in to make the minimum.",
"Well, in some states that's not true. My state for example does not allow tips to be used as part of the income. Every server must earn at least minimum wage independent of tips. However, it is still income (because you earned it, that's not hard to understand) so it is supposed to be reported as income. How much it is in practice is another question. \n\nAlso, even though it's not true in my state I've heard about it for years so I'm not sure why you think this is sudden. \n\nEDIT: Think of it like commission. They aren't selling goods like we traditionally think of commission (retail, cars, etc) but they're selling their service and personality. Many commission positions earn less than minimum wage, even in my state. ",
"They get tips, which is income. Why does it seem silly? ",
"It's actually the responsibility of the employer to make up the difference if the waitstaffs' wages plus tips are less than minimum wage.",
"they must be paid minimum wage. If they don't make it in tips, the employer **must** make up the difference.",
"A servers income in the United States is based off of tip income and is usually their primary form of income. Depending on where they work at, their pay can range drastically from the mid 25,00 a year to 50,000 a year at upscale restaurants(don't believe people who say they can't make that much, it is possible). States differ on tax polices but the one I live in a state that makes servers report all of their tips and if that amount falls below what minimum wage would be, the employer has to pitch in to make the minimum.",
"Well, in some states that's not true. My state for example does not allow tips to be used as part of the income. Every server must earn at least minimum wage independent of tips. However, it is still income (because you earned it, that's not hard to understand) so it is supposed to be reported as income. How much it is in practice is another question. \n\nAlso, even though it's not true in my state I've heard about it for years so I'm not sure why you think this is sudden. \n\nEDIT: Think of it like commission. They aren't selling goods like we traditionally think of commission (retail, cars, etc) but they're selling their service and personality. Many commission positions earn less than minimum wage, even in my state. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
r18mu | why was it important the americans won the space race? | Beyond the politician's speeches, rumor, and propaganda that was out there at the time when the Soviets launched *Sputnik,* would it really have been that big of a deal if the Soviets landed a man on the moon first? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r18mu/eli5_why_was_it_important_the_americans_won_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c422zlu",
"c423mrq",
"c4248sx"
],
"score": [
17,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Numerous reasons. First publicity. Would it look bad if our worst enemies landed on the moon first? It would say that communism leaded to smarter people, and a better education system. We wanted to beat the Russians in sports, wars, and in perception.\n\nSecondly, it allowed for satellites to be set up, under the guise of \"discovery\", so we could spy on the Russians before they could spy on us. ",
"The technology to put an object in orbit happens to be identical to the technology that allows us to drop a bomb anywhere in the world with very short notice. While the space program had many benefits, the main military benefit is that it also did the work for the creation of ICBMs.",
"No, it wasn't important at all. The Soviets beat us into space, into orbit, and landing *unmanned* vehicles on the moon. We only beat them at one thing -- landing a *human* on the moon. Then we declared victory. So if we had lost that race as well then we go to Lagrange points, then perhaps off to mars.\n\nThe point of the race was to beat them once -- at *anything* (since we were getting our asses handed to us over and over) and then declare victory. That's why we Americans are completely unaware of how many times the Russian beat us at hockey in the Olympics -- because we only care about the one time we won."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5oktpe | can you negate transplant organ rejection with hiv? | From what I understand, transplant organ rejection happens when the body's immune system begins to attack the foreign tissue. HIV is a virus that affects the immune system. I know people who have transplants need to take immunosuppressant drugs, but their body can reject the organ at any time.
I read that life expectancy with HIV now is quite good and the infection is getting more controllable. Could we in the near future use the HIV virus (in an altered form?) to reduce the likelihood of organ rejection? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oktpe/eli5_can_you_negate_transplant_organ_rejection/ | {
"a_id": [
"dck20uy",
"dck2ic5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you take the medication, the damage done by the virus to your immune system is negated. Therefore, it's not going to stop the rejection reaction.",
"You talk of the immune system like it is one single thing. In fact there are multiple components working together and separately. HIV does attack one important part of the immune system and you would likely be able to use HIV as substitute for some immunosuppressant drugs but not all of them. However you need to be able to regulate the progress of the AIDS so it does not get too weak to fight off infections. So you still need to take drugs for the rest of your life but now carry a deadly disease that can cause harm to others.\n\nIf we are able to control the spread of HIV and control it we might be able to make variants of the virus that target specific reactions of our immune system. It might be conceivable that you can get an HIV injection against asthma, abortion, organ rejection or any other autoimmune diseases."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.