q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32sztf | why is mexico so corrupt ? | How did it get to the point where it is now ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32sztf/eli5_why_is_mexico_so_corrupt/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqeb742",
"cqef02p",
"cqehgxb",
"cqeinun",
"cqeuc2r"
],
"score": [
14,
10,
38,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Americans buy drugs, which makes the cartels both rich and willing to use bribes and violence. If you were given the choice between taking bribes worth more than you could ever earn, and being the subject of a Narcocorrido about an official who was murdered, you would probably take the former option. Now rinse and repeat until the cartels are publicly recruiting soldiers with banners in the streets.",
"Because it is a third world country with all that that entails. \n\nThere is almost no faith in the system, the authorities. So people attempt to game the rotten system. \n\nWhich is of course the reason the system is rotten.",
"Long time Mexican here. Corruption mainly comes from the great inequality in the distribution of riches. There are really rich people there along with really poor people. I've seen parts of the city where there are mansions besides very poor homes. People can see what they don't have and of course crave it. The easiest way to get it is by being corrupt. Going to school might help you be better of economically but the opportunity for school isn't there for everyone, and secondly it might only lead you to the lower middle class. Why go to school if you can sell drugs and become a millionaire? The rich aren't interested in anyone else being rich so they're not going to promote class equality. The not rich do what they can to get a piece of the pie. When I was a child I was sent to the local market to get some groceries, I found some money in the floor inside the market. I pick it up, give it to the clerk in case someone showed up for it. I go home and tell my mom and she basically called me stupid for not taking the money. Honest acts are for the most part seen as naive and dumb. \"El que no tranza no avanza\" is a popular saying. Rough translation is he who isn't dishonest does not advance. There's been inequality and so few chances of advancement for a very long time. Generations. So the corruption has become very ingrained into many, if not all, aspects of the culture.",
"My take on it is this: the country had a revolution in the early 1900's, from what I know, that is the start of the Mexico we know today. At that time the people with money put their friends into power and they become rich and powerful. Fuck everyone else. Up until a few years ago the same political party ruled for decades.\nSo the people in power are corrupt and they have a really rich neighbor (the US). At some point in the 60's & 70's the US started to use drugs for recreation and someone realized they could bring them from Mexico. Soon poor farmers could grow weed or poppy plants to make heroin, and at some point they began transporting the cocaine for the Columbians, eventually obtaining it directly from the Columbians and bringing it into the US themselves. Rich neighbors=BIG & Easy money for the drug dealers. Now the drug dealers kick back to the corrupt people in power (whom were already corrupt to begin with). Up until recently (2010ish) everyone knew this existed and no one did anything. Sure there were some gangland style killings here and there, but mainly among the rival drug dealers, or politicians who decided not to take bribes. Civilians were pretty much left alone. \nThis is similar to the Mafia in the US in the late 1800's early 1900's. \n\nUS Prohibition is a great example of where Mexico is right now. When the US made alcohol illegal the Mafia started killing all kinds of people. Violence got worse before things got better. In 2010(ish) the new Mexican president decided his big thing was to stop the drug cartels. So just like the Mafia in the US, they fought back. For the US fighting the Mafia with guns didnt work, what really took them down was following the money and overhauling the financial laws that made laundering money more difficult and bigger punishments for those who did it. Al Capone went down for tax evasion, not murders or bootlegging. This is the step that Mexico has yet to take. They are not following the money, because if they did it would lead right to the top. Until they take steps to stop the dirty money they wont stop or slow down this process. \n\nThis is a very rough response to your question, there are obviously a lot more details and reasons but this is my take on it. \nI am Mexican/American and have had an interest in the history and current events of stuff since I was a kid. I recall going to Tijuana for family vacation and on the way back seeing the wanted posters at the borders for the Arrellano Felix brothers, at the time they were the biggest king pins. ",
"Because is now at the point of not return, all the economic-politic system is corrupt and the system itself ensure to keep it that way. \n\nThe answer of /u/Indigofly is quite accurate, the inequality is the root of all this problems, some people are just waiting for the first chance to steal something, and instead of feeling guilty they feel smarter than the robbed. The basic premise is that, if you are honest you are some kind of stupid.\n\nHowever people will never admit it openly , media is biased and there is a double moral all over the place. People here is classicist, even the poor people itself discriminate their own people when they got something that the others doesn't have, and that lead to envy, envy lead to corruption.\n\nTLDR: Envy, inequality and culture."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
c3tidb | why do some noises, like slurping or clicking sounds, bother us when they come from other people but not when we make them ourselves? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c3tidb/eli5_why_do_some_noises_like_slurping_or_clicking/ | {
"a_id": [
"ert64oa",
"ert65vl",
"ert7y6s",
"ert9xmq",
"ertbaqo",
"ertbcwc",
"ertenux"
],
"score": [
48,
5,
30,
3,
28,
19,
13
],
"text": [
"Depends on the situation and usually depends on etiquette standards. Depends on your culture too, for instance slurping is considered a sign of gratitude in some countries.",
"Do you ever really annoy yourself?",
"It used to drive me crazy when a roomate would leave the TV on. After they moved out, I found myself leaving the TV on and not being bothered by it. Doesn't make sense, but clearly it was not simply the sound of the TV that bothered me, it was something more. Perhaps the consideration factor. Perhaps it didn't bother me later because there was no one else it was effecting.",
"Uhm, not a scientist, or smart, but I think it's got to do with nurture. If you were raised being told to chew with your mouth closed, it may very well bother you as an adult that others make so much noise when eating. Not the best explanation but the analogy translates to wasting energy by leaving the TV or lights on too.",
"I think it has to do with having control over it. When you are the one making a sound, you have control over starting and stopping it, and rather than just an isolated noise it is connected to the action you are doing. When somebody else is making the noise it is just a sound you have no control over and that is disconnected from your actions.",
"It’s an invasion of personal space. Sounds like that disrupt the space you occupy, and it’s irritating, because you can’t switch off your ears and not hear it. It’s like a fart; I’m sure you don’t mind your own, but when someone else does it and you can’t get away, it’s infuriating.",
"I think you may be describing a condition called misophonia. This is a disorder in which certain sounds trigger emotional or physiological responses that some might perceive as unreasonable given the circumstance. Those who have misophonia might describe it as a sound that “drives you crazy.” Their reactions can range from anger and annoyance to panic and the need to flee."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
32sxgw | why can iphone imessages travel through wifi connection and cell tower connections while regular sms messages can be sent through cell tower only? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32sxgw/eli5_why_can_iphone_imessages_travel_through_wifi/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqeai2b",
"cqeasd3",
"cqebufl",
"cqef4mu",
"cqeft5c"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Because the SMS protocol only allows for being sent through the normal connection between a cellphone and tower. Everyone has to agree on these protocols in the same way two people need to agree what language they're going to speak or they can't communicate with one another.\n\n Nobody is going to put in the big effort to update the SMS protocol because why would they? There's already a massive collection of alternatives that can be sent over the internet. Updating the protocol would take a lot of time and require all carriers to retrofit equipment to deal with the new protocol. Not worth it. ",
"In theory there's nothing stopping a phone from receiving some data over the internet and interpreting it as a SMS message, or sending an outgoing message through the internet. However, an SMS is addressed to a phone number, and your cell provider only knows your phone number because you're connecting through a cell tower which can verify some details on your SIM card. You could come up with a protocol for the phone to verify those details via the internet, but then you can still only send and receive messages on the phone that has that SIM card in. You'd prefer to be able to send and receive from any internet-connected device, so you'd better have a username and password to allow you to log in on any device. And at that point you've invented iMessage.",
"It's also worth noting that when SMS was developed in the 80s the main thing phones were used for was making calls. They wanted a way to send a text message from one phone to another. Well, what's the one thing all phones can do? Establish a voice connection (i.e. make a call). So, they just used that same system (protocol) for transmitting the text messages. And it's worked pretty well so far. And as others have pointed out, seeing as there are countless way to contact someone if you, for whatever reason, have a wifi or wireless data signal but no voice signal, there's not really a need to update it.",
"iPhone = Instant Message \nText = Text Message \n \nYou can download any app to send a message using wifi, but only people using that app will be able to see it. Same with iMessage.",
"There is actually a technology called UMA that allows any GSM connection to be encapsulated in Wi-Fi: [wiki here](_URL_1_). But it is difficult to implement, and [RCS](_URL_0_) is replacing everything, it is basically a evolution to the SMS in order to have similar features than iMessages."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network"
]
]
|
||
2zlu5r | why do you sweat sometimes even if you feel really cold? | Was just walking outside and I was sweating a bit but I was freezing cold. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zlu5r/eli5_why_do_you_sweat_sometimes_even_if_you_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpk3xhg",
"cpk5d2m",
"cpkidr4"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
12
],
"text": [
"You sweat to release the heat building in your core. You feel cold because on the surface you are but inside your body is still heating up and needs to release that heat through your pores.",
"I believe there are also certain viruses/conditions that can play havoc with your bodies ability to regulate it's temperature properly. Hence why when you have Flu you can be freezing one minute and sweating the next or end up having a cold sweat.\n\nHopefully someone on here with a medical background will be able to explain why that happens.",
"Okay, you know that 98.6 degrees (37 degrees C if you are not from the USA) body temperature thing? That number is really, really interesting for several reasons. One of the biggest is because proteins break down if it gets much hotter than that. It's part of the reason you run a fever when you get sick. Whatever you have that is making you sick isn't going to be able to tolerate that heat like you can. \n\nSo we run hot. Deliberately. Why? Well, in simplest terms most chemical reactions happen quicker if you add more heat. If you are waiting for two chemicals to bump into each other to create a reaction this will happen more often if you add more energy and the molecules are bouncing all over the place than if they are creeping along. Biology works under similar rules.\n\nWarm blooded animals basically have their metabolisms running full throttle all the time. Mammals and birds operate just slightly under the zone where your own body heat will start killing you. \n\nThe truth is that excess heat is a bigger problem for your body than too much cold. Yes, you get too cold and it will kill you. However, just the energy expended by moving around doing something moderately strenuous generates so much heat that it should kill you. Yet it doesn't because your body has some really, really clever ways of getting rid of all that excess heat before it does kill you. One of its more effective tools is by sweating.\n\nYou sweat every day. It doesn't matter if it is hot or cold. You are going to sweat. The more you move around the more you are going to do it. Really, really active people can actually sweat more than a less active person. Why? Because your body starts conditioning itself to recognize patterns. If it knows for a fact that once this guy starts going for a jog he isn't going to stop for another hour it figures it better get in ahead of the problem and start trying to get rid of heat first before it becomes a serious problem rather than reacting to it only after it is too late.\n\nSo, sweat is just one of several mechanisms to keep your own metabolic heat from killing you. It's actually a fairly effective one too. Yeah, it wastes a lot of water and you run the risk of dehydration if you don't stay on top of it, but it gives humans quite a bit of endurance.\n\nSo why sweat even when it is cold? Well, as someone else pointed out, what is going on with your core doesn't necessarily correspond with what your surface skin is experiencing. If you are moving you are going to be generating more heat. Even with the cold air surrounding you, you are probably going to start building up heat faster than you can radiate it off by the exposed parts of your skin. So, your body does its job to keep you alive and dumps more of the problematic heat using other means. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
47nko6 | why are scallops so expensive? | Scallops seem to be disproportionately expensive compared to any other sea food, at least at my grocery store (I'm from the middle of Canada). They cost more per pound than lobster, salmon and all the other shellfish, why?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47nko6/eli5_why_are_scallops_so_expensive/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0e9sy5",
"d0edwzm"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Scallops are really expensive to farm, so most are harvested in the wild (not all, but most). Also depends on where you live and the time of year. If you live on the coast line, they're generally cheaper.",
" > I'm from the middle of Canada\n\nThere's your answer. Scallops are rather hard to transport and stay fresh."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
b3hb7q | cytokines | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3hb7q/eli5_cytokines/ | {
"a_id": [
"eizn35z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Proteins and hormones and other similar molecules that are released by white blood cells (and other cell types) to send signals about activating, deactivating, or modifying the response of the immune system."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1hbgf9 | 'guilt by association' | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hbgf9/eli5_guilt_by_association/ | {
"a_id": [
"caspv5y"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Guilt by association is the idea that a person can be guilty of something based on the people they surround themselves with or are connected to in a social or economic or political way. It can be broadly applied or very narrowly applied. A basic example of this would be if you were best friends with a neo-nazi. You may not be a neo-nazi yourself, you may detest the idea, but because they're your best friend, people may look down upon you or judge you based on the fact your best friend is a neo-nazi. \n\nOr, say you're a politician. You accept political donations from an oil company involved in controversial business practices and you intend to use that money for your next political campaign. Maybe you agree with the oil companies practices or not. Maybe you believe every one of your political positions based purely on principle and the money doesn't matter. However people may think less of you because of your association with the oil company.\n\nWhether that judgement is justified or not is a matter of debate which is often left up to the specifics of each individual case. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7li0hv | why can sphincter muscles stay clenched/tense pretty much all the time, but other muscles need to be relaxed for usually a long period of time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7li0hv/eli5_why_can_sphincter_muscles_stay_clenchedtense/ | {
"a_id": [
"drmdip2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Other way round. \n\nThe relaxed state of a sphincter is \"closed\". You have to \"tense\" muscles to get them to *open*. Sure, you can tense them in the opposite direction to close them righter, but that's a different matter. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ow6dk | li5: immanuel kant's groundwork of the metaphysic of morals | My brain hurts and I think that I get this a little; we all have to do whats right with the least amount of consequences for the masses? Probably way off... thanks for any clarifications. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ow6dk/li5_immanuel_kants_groundwork_of_the_metaphysic/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3kjsrn",
"c3klfsa"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"I wouldn't talk to a five year old about complicated shit like this.\n\nThe whole ELI5 subreddit--with a few exceptions--is best answered with \"when you're older\"",
"If it's OK for me to do it, it has to be OK for everybody to do it. If it's not OK for everybody to do it, then it's not OK for me to do it either. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
lyo3z | the noticeable differences between film and video | How can one tell the difference just by looking at the movie? Why is it a big deal that film movies are no longer being produced? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lyo3z/eli5_the_noticeable_differences_between_film_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2wp1ym",
"c2wp1ym"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The line between the two is now blurred to the point of being invisible, because of changes in \"video\" technology that let it more closely emulate the way film works.\n\nI put \"video\" in quotes there because it's kind of being careless to use that word to describe anything that isn't film. Film is a specific thing, video is a specific thing, and then there's a third kind of thing.\n\nFirst, film: It's exactly what you think it is. A strip of light-sensitive material is run through a box with a hole in it. A rotating piece of metal called the shutter lets light through the hole, where the light forms an image on the film. Then the shutter rotates to block the hole, and a motor pulls the film down a bit so a blank spot lines up with the hole, then the shutter rotates to let light in again. In this way, film is basically no different from taking a bunch of still photographs, one right after the other, twenty-four of them every second.\n\nNext, video: Video doesn't use a light-sensitive recording material like film. Instead, it uses a type of electrical sensor. When light hits the sensor, an electrical signal comes out, and that electrical signal can be recorded on magnetic tape for later playback. These sensors vary a lot in the details, but they all work basically the same way, by a process called *scanning.* The sensor is divided into rows, and as the light hits the sensor, the sensor sends out an electrical signal that's basically the first row from left to right, then the third row from left to right, then the fifth row from left to right, and on down to the bottom … then back to the top and the second row from left to right, the fourth row from left to right, the sixth row from left to right and on down to the bottom again.\n\nSo a film camera — whether it be still or motion-picture; in this case we mean motion-picture, but it's true of both — records an entire image at once, for however long the shutter is open. Video, by contrast, does not record an entire image at once. It records each scan line (for that's what they're called) individually. That is to say, each scan line is recorded at a different moment in time. In order to make this work, it's necessary to record the scan lines *very quickly* and *very close together*, otherwise the image would be all distorted and blurry. Because you aren't recording the image all at once, you see, but rather assembling it together from pieces over time. To *approximate* a still image using this technique, you have to go as fast as possible, so the stuff in front of the camera doesn't have time to move very much as you're recording.\n\nThese differences add up to that distinctly different look you alluded to in your question. Film images just look *different* from images recorded on video, because of the fundamental differences in how the two types of images are recorded.\n\nOf course, film is better than video. Period, end of paragraph. The results you get from using that scanning type of image recording are just not as good — not as true-to-life, nor as pleasing to the eye or as convincing in the illusion of continuous motion – as the results you get from taking 24 still photographs per second.\n\nBut film is expensive, and troublesome to work with. So some years ago, some clever people started trying to figure out ways to record images in a way that's similar to how film records images, but which still spits out an electrical signal which can be recorded on magnetic tape … or these days, more often something like a computer disk.\n\nThat's the third kind of thing I referred to above. Once you aren't doing exactly what I said before — scanning the odd lines one at a time, then scanning the even lines one at a time — you aren't making video any more. Video is standardized, for reasons of interoperability, and if you aren't doing exactly what the standard says, you aren't doing video. But the third thing is *kind of similar* to video, in some respects, while still working like film.\n\nBasically what people did was figure out, first, how to make an electronic light sensor that was the same size and shape as a film negative. This was very tricky, because electronic light sensors naturally want to be smaller than the nail on your pinky finger, while film negatives are more than an inch across. It's hard to build such a large electronic sensor, but they had to figure out how, so they did.\n\nThe next thing was to figure out how to \"read out\" — as it's called — the entire sensor at once, rather than scanning it like we talked about above. That's because film records an entire image at once, so this \"electric film\" thing has to do the same. Nobody's actually figured out how to do that yet, but they've gotten pretty good at it. Whereas with video, about thirty-two milliseconds elapses between recording the first scan line and the last scan line — a lot can happen in front of the lens in thirty-two milliseconds — these new types of cameras can get the whole sensor read out in about four milliseconds. That's still a far cry from the \"all at once\" of film, but it's a lot better than the hour and a half (which is what 32 milliseconds is like at this scale) of crappy old video.\n\nAnd then they needed to crack this nut called *dynamic range.* Dynamic range is basically how big the difference is, in a recorded image, between the blackest part of the image and the whitest part of the image. The electrical sensors they used for video, back in the day, were pretty rotten about recording dynamic range, because they had a *linear* response. If you shine twice as much light at the sensor, it would put out twice as much voltage. Which is fine and all, except that's not the way the human eye responds to light, nor is it how film responds to light. This meant video did a lousy job of capturing the dynamic range of an image, making it look all flat and washed out … or else completely over- or under-exposed. But those smart people we talked about before started thinking of some ways to record images with electrical sensors — which are inherently linear-response kinds of things — that could be *post-processed* to have the kind of logarithmic response that film has, and incidentally that the human eye has.\n\nPut all that together, and today you have cameras which are not film cameras and which are not video cameras, but which record images in much the same way that film cameras do, while being economical and easy to work with the way video cameras used to be.\n\nToday it takes a very trained eye indeed to distinguish between a well-shot image recorded on film and a well-shot image recorded on one of these new \"third way\" cameras. Which is why some movies that are being made today, and *nearly all* television, are shot on these new kinds of electrical cameras, rather than on film. It's not *quite* as good, but it's close enough, and the advantages outweigh the shortcomings.\n\nAs for the downside … well, the thing about film is that it's forgiving. If you have some kind of technical problem with your film camera — like a poorly made kind of lens, or a light leak somewhere in the camera, or a wobbly shutter — you're still going to get something *interesting*, and maybe even something cool enough to be usable. With these new computery-type cameras though … they just turn themselves off. You just don't get anything. Which on the one hand means you can't waste film … but on the other hand, it means it's much harder to get *interesting* images.\n\nSo what do people do? They figure out complicated computery-type things to do to these new kinds of recorded images *after the fact* in order to take the clean, perfect, and yes, a bit *sterile* digital photography and make them look *interesting* again. You go out and shoot something that's flawless, then spend a lot of time and money *putting the flaws back*. Upside? You have precise control, and can get exactly the quirks and flaws and imperfections you want. Downside? Everybody involved in the process feels just a little bit silly.",
"The line between the two is now blurred to the point of being invisible, because of changes in \"video\" technology that let it more closely emulate the way film works.\n\nI put \"video\" in quotes there because it's kind of being careless to use that word to describe anything that isn't film. Film is a specific thing, video is a specific thing, and then there's a third kind of thing.\n\nFirst, film: It's exactly what you think it is. A strip of light-sensitive material is run through a box with a hole in it. A rotating piece of metal called the shutter lets light through the hole, where the light forms an image on the film. Then the shutter rotates to block the hole, and a motor pulls the film down a bit so a blank spot lines up with the hole, then the shutter rotates to let light in again. In this way, film is basically no different from taking a bunch of still photographs, one right after the other, twenty-four of them every second.\n\nNext, video: Video doesn't use a light-sensitive recording material like film. Instead, it uses a type of electrical sensor. When light hits the sensor, an electrical signal comes out, and that electrical signal can be recorded on magnetic tape for later playback. These sensors vary a lot in the details, but they all work basically the same way, by a process called *scanning.* The sensor is divided into rows, and as the light hits the sensor, the sensor sends out an electrical signal that's basically the first row from left to right, then the third row from left to right, then the fifth row from left to right, and on down to the bottom … then back to the top and the second row from left to right, the fourth row from left to right, the sixth row from left to right and on down to the bottom again.\n\nSo a film camera — whether it be still or motion-picture; in this case we mean motion-picture, but it's true of both — records an entire image at once, for however long the shutter is open. Video, by contrast, does not record an entire image at once. It records each scan line (for that's what they're called) individually. That is to say, each scan line is recorded at a different moment in time. In order to make this work, it's necessary to record the scan lines *very quickly* and *very close together*, otherwise the image would be all distorted and blurry. Because you aren't recording the image all at once, you see, but rather assembling it together from pieces over time. To *approximate* a still image using this technique, you have to go as fast as possible, so the stuff in front of the camera doesn't have time to move very much as you're recording.\n\nThese differences add up to that distinctly different look you alluded to in your question. Film images just look *different* from images recorded on video, because of the fundamental differences in how the two types of images are recorded.\n\nOf course, film is better than video. Period, end of paragraph. The results you get from using that scanning type of image recording are just not as good — not as true-to-life, nor as pleasing to the eye or as convincing in the illusion of continuous motion – as the results you get from taking 24 still photographs per second.\n\nBut film is expensive, and troublesome to work with. So some years ago, some clever people started trying to figure out ways to record images in a way that's similar to how film records images, but which still spits out an electrical signal which can be recorded on magnetic tape … or these days, more often something like a computer disk.\n\nThat's the third kind of thing I referred to above. Once you aren't doing exactly what I said before — scanning the odd lines one at a time, then scanning the even lines one at a time — you aren't making video any more. Video is standardized, for reasons of interoperability, and if you aren't doing exactly what the standard says, you aren't doing video. But the third thing is *kind of similar* to video, in some respects, while still working like film.\n\nBasically what people did was figure out, first, how to make an electronic light sensor that was the same size and shape as a film negative. This was very tricky, because electronic light sensors naturally want to be smaller than the nail on your pinky finger, while film negatives are more than an inch across. It's hard to build such a large electronic sensor, but they had to figure out how, so they did.\n\nThe next thing was to figure out how to \"read out\" — as it's called — the entire sensor at once, rather than scanning it like we talked about above. That's because film records an entire image at once, so this \"electric film\" thing has to do the same. Nobody's actually figured out how to do that yet, but they've gotten pretty good at it. Whereas with video, about thirty-two milliseconds elapses between recording the first scan line and the last scan line — a lot can happen in front of the lens in thirty-two milliseconds — these new types of cameras can get the whole sensor read out in about four milliseconds. That's still a far cry from the \"all at once\" of film, but it's a lot better than the hour and a half (which is what 32 milliseconds is like at this scale) of crappy old video.\n\nAnd then they needed to crack this nut called *dynamic range.* Dynamic range is basically how big the difference is, in a recorded image, between the blackest part of the image and the whitest part of the image. The electrical sensors they used for video, back in the day, were pretty rotten about recording dynamic range, because they had a *linear* response. If you shine twice as much light at the sensor, it would put out twice as much voltage. Which is fine and all, except that's not the way the human eye responds to light, nor is it how film responds to light. This meant video did a lousy job of capturing the dynamic range of an image, making it look all flat and washed out … or else completely over- or under-exposed. But those smart people we talked about before started thinking of some ways to record images with electrical sensors — which are inherently linear-response kinds of things — that could be *post-processed* to have the kind of logarithmic response that film has, and incidentally that the human eye has.\n\nPut all that together, and today you have cameras which are not film cameras and which are not video cameras, but which record images in much the same way that film cameras do, while being economical and easy to work with the way video cameras used to be.\n\nToday it takes a very trained eye indeed to distinguish between a well-shot image recorded on film and a well-shot image recorded on one of these new \"third way\" cameras. Which is why some movies that are being made today, and *nearly all* television, are shot on these new kinds of electrical cameras, rather than on film. It's not *quite* as good, but it's close enough, and the advantages outweigh the shortcomings.\n\nAs for the downside … well, the thing about film is that it's forgiving. If you have some kind of technical problem with your film camera — like a poorly made kind of lens, or a light leak somewhere in the camera, or a wobbly shutter — you're still going to get something *interesting*, and maybe even something cool enough to be usable. With these new computery-type cameras though … they just turn themselves off. You just don't get anything. Which on the one hand means you can't waste film … but on the other hand, it means it's much harder to get *interesting* images.\n\nSo what do people do? They figure out complicated computery-type things to do to these new kinds of recorded images *after the fact* in order to take the clean, perfect, and yes, a bit *sterile* digital photography and make them look *interesting* again. You go out and shoot something that's flawless, then spend a lot of time and money *putting the flaws back*. Upside? You have precise control, and can get exactly the quirks and flaws and imperfections you want. Downside? Everybody involved in the process feels just a little bit silly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
31u63g | why does standard music notation use 7 letters but has 12 notes? | Wouldn't it make more sense to have 12 letters like A - L , and instead of a regular musical staff have 12 lines for each letter? It's been a while since playing any musical instrument and now I'm teaching myself piano and I'm wondering why it's like this. I feel like I keep trying to look for patterns when looking at chords on a musical staff so I can memorize them but the conclusion I came to is that 7 doesn't fit evenly into 12 so it fucks up my pneumonic device for trying to memorize the chords. It seems like it may be easier for our brains to understand maybe in a more linear fashion, but I figure it must have something to do with the certain laws of physics and mathematics
because It's used so prevalently in my and most cultures around the world. Or do we as humans prefer to just use this type of notation for interpreting music? are there other notations know to be used or is this the only one that works? Could my idea work? I'm not super educated when it comes to music theory and the purpose of the standard music notation so i figured trying to understand this a little better could make my efforts in teaching myself piano more efficient.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31u63g/eli5_why_does_standard_music_notation_use_7/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq50m7a",
"cq5260c"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"That's just the way that the human ear and brain perceives music and other sounds. In a single Octave on a Piano keyboard, there are 7 white keys and 5 black keys. Why? because that's what someone, or a group of people, a long time ago, decided was pleasing to the human ear, and so they devised a system that reflected that.\n\nIt's not just \"made up\", however. There is some science involved. On the other hand, someone had to make a decision about octaves, sharps, flats, \"keys\", and so on -- in the sense of putting that information into a system that gave musicians a common language in which to communicate.\n\n[note here that I am using the Piano as a reference instrument, because the Piano practically covers the entire range of musical theory and performance]\n\nWhy are there 7 white keys and 5 black keys in each octave on a piano keyboard? I don't know. Nobody does. You'd have to ask Cristofori or maybe some dude who lived before him.\n\nWhy is a day divided into 24 hours? Why does that seem so natural to us? I don't know. Ask the Babylonians and ancient Egyptians, if you can find them.",
"Believe it or not, some cultures actually do use this sort of technique. For example, the French learn a fixed-do system where each pitch has a permanent number, so C = 0, C# = 1, and so on up to Bb = t (for ten) and B = e (for eleven). There are pros and cons to our system and their system, as follows.\n\nMovable Do (7 names for 12 notes) is very easy to transpose into all twelve keys, but then pitches are 'spelled' differently enharmonically, as in F#/Gb. Its also easier to talk about raised or lowered pitches, especially when teach how major and minor chords and scales differ from one another. \n\nFixed Do (12 numbers for 12 notes) is relatively difficult to transpose, as you have to understand that 047 is the same thing as 6t1 (major triads of CEG and F# A# C#) just by looking at the numbers, but the notes don't ever change their spellings. In addition, this method of note naming is becoming the standard method of analyzing 20th century literature (set theory and dodecaphonic music, if you're interested - Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire is often considered the epitome of this sort of literature), so students analyzing 20th century works have an advantage if they were initially taught with numbers as opposed to letters. \n\nEdit: after rereading your post, I'll answer your questions more directly. Yes, that system does in fact work, like the French I mentioned. The 7-note name system is so prevalent because of Guido d'Arezzo, mentioned multiple times in this thread, and Western tradition has created over a millennia's worth of music in this notation. Also, the problem with notation is that it's an attempt to convey sound through a visual medium. As you could probably guess, that's pretty damn hard, especially if you want to talk about pitch, volume, timbre, attack, style, and all the other musical characteristics that go into, well, music. So what you're used to is pretty much the best we've come up with that works for most Western music (besides the 20th century stuff I mentioned). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
ajs94h | when a game says it is made on a engine what does that mean and what’s the difference between using a certain engine than another | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ajs94h/eli5_when_a_game_says_it_is_made_on_a_engine_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeyatlx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A modern game engine is a large toolset. It has tools for AI, animation, sound design, even scripts or dialgue and, most shiny, the graphic renderer and all other tech that hangs on the graphical side. \n\nThis is basically all that means: those two games had the same tools used when built. \n\nNow come the details: Some engines might limitations, that then limit what the game maker can do. Maybe the renderer is not advanced of another engine. Some engines might make modding harder, etc etc.\n\nThe tools might favor some type of game, i.e. if you get an engine that is made for shooters, i.e. CryEngine then it might be easier to make an shooter, because the tools are all made for that, but this does not mean you cannot do a RTS. The game maker just had to develop their own workflow. At times the game-maker might even modify parts of the engine/the tools to make *their* game support something the stock-engine does not have or to have tools that allow them to easier make the game they want to make. \n\nBut modern (major 3D) engines are usually so powerful that all can make good looking games or one that have a simpler look due to limited money for the game-maker to create textures. \n\nGameMaker for example is an engine to easily make 2D games of all sorts. Obviously, you could not do a graphical heavy shooter with that. But if you played some space-ship-sidescroller or some sort of simple oldschool RPG, you could not tell they both were made with Game Maker unless the screens told you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5mi3hu | identical twins have the same dna. if two sets of twins had children together, genetically, are the offspring siblings or cousins? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mi3hu/eli5_identical_twins_have_the_same_dna_if_two/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc3y0by"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There's no standard term \"genetic siblings\" or \"genetic cousins\" that I've ever come across. However, to answer your question: the offspring will have as much in common as if they all had the same parents. So genetically they are similar to siblings."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8tmkbr | why are powerline insulators shaped the way they are? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tmkbr/eli5why_are_powerline_insulators_shaped_the_way/ | {
"a_id": [
"e18nhg9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are basically a stack of glass plates which serve to electrically insulate the cable from the support structure. Their spacing and extension outward prevent three electricity from just arcing around them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5mt9xu | in the us, why do drugs that aren't addictive or highly-deadly (like birth control or blood pressure meds) still require a prescription? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mt9xu/eli5_in_the_us_why_do_drugs_that_arent_addictive/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc65lwx",
"dc6675h",
"dc68q7l",
"dc69zih",
"dc6b4wo",
"dc6bhyc",
"dc6duw6"
],
"score": [
25,
7,
6,
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because of what they are used for. Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are for general pain relief and fever reduction. They are very general medicines. But blood pressure mess can be dangerous to people if they just use it because they think they may have a condition. It is all liability issues.",
"Some, if not all, hypertension medications require regular screening to confirm damage is not being done to the liver and kidneys. Source: former hypertension patient",
"OTC vs Rx is a choice made by the manufacturer. Zyrtec was Rx for years. Over that time the manufacturer collected data that shows the drug is very safe. They take this data to the FDA, to prove the drug is \"so very safe\" that it can be sold OTC. The FDA standard for \"safeness\" is much higher for OTC than for Rx medications which will be used with a doctor's supervision.\n\nThere is work going on to show statins (a common blood pressure med) are that safe. Birth control pills are probably not safe enough, and so doctors screen for cervical cancer (Pap test) and high blood pressure, which are apparently rare side effects. They aren't rare enough to justify OTC sales.",
"There's also the interaction issue. Many drugs can be completely benign if you take it without a real need, but will kill your ass dead if mixed with another completely benign drug. Your Dr will give you an Rx for Drug C instead of Drug B if you're already taking Drug A, which can't happen if you cut the Dr and Rx out of the picture.",
"I asked my Doctor why I needed a script for birth control last time I was in. BC is used to manage a lot more than I realized. It can increase/decrease blood pressure. Prevent/bring on migraines in some people. There's more but I have forgotten. Basically they have to check to make sure you aren't being negatively affected by your current BC and it can change as you get older with hormone levels etc.\n\nAnd the other super fun tests can be done at the same time. ",
"In the Netherlands you can buy contact lenses in the convenience store.\n\nImagine my surprise when being told in the US that one needs a doctor's prescription for them...",
"Doctor here- what aggravates me the most is when people come to the ER, make a BS complaint up, then requesting a prescription for OTC Motrin etc bc it's \"cheaper\" by Rx. No ma'am you and your 3 children with colds who you have decided to bring to the ER can go buy it OTC, btw do you realize how much money you are costing the system by coming to the ER for a non-emergent complaint?\n\n2) many meds like others have said require monitoring, are dose adjusted. Motrin and Tylenol you have a minimum and max dose and you titrate to affect (pain relief). Cholesterol, blood pressure meds need close monitoring over long periods to see how patient responds. Monitoring liver function, electrolytes, kidney function etc. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4t7z9l | what makes morel mushrooms so hard to grow commercially? | Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t7z9l/eli5_what_makes_morel_mushrooms_so_hard_to_grow/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5fa6dn",
"d5fbkl2"
],
"score": [
3,
23
],
"text": [
"They grow around dead or dying trees. To continuously re-plant trees needed to grow morel mushrooms around them is less efficient than to simply go out and find them growing around existing trees.\n\n\nMushrooms are weird like that. They often have very specific food sources.",
"The question is easier to answer the other way: Why are commercial mushroom so easy to grow? and the answer is, roughly, they eat dead things. Feed them *dead plants or downed wood (depending on their preferred diet) and they happily go through their life cycle and make mushrooms.\n\nMorels grow in symbiosis with trees: they pass the tree minerals, the tree passes them back nutrients. They're bound to the life cycle of the tree, producing the mushrooms when the trees sap up in spring and when they die. It's not easy to get the trees and morels together. It's not hard to grow the morel mycelia (the actual body of the morel, fine hairs that grow underground and around the tree roots) separately, but without the trees nobody has found a dependable way to get the mycelia to make mushrooms. \n\nAn amusing fact: Mushrooms have multiple sexes. The sexes grow together in the mycelia, but don't combine except in specialized cells in the mushrooms. You could think of mushrooms as furry little fungal orgasms. But not at dinner.\n\n*manure is an inexpensive, easy to sterilize (by composting), high protein diet. Most of the mushroom that will grow on it will also grow on straw or leaf litter.\n\nEditted for typo."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3t68bv | why do we ignore the fact that islam oppresses women and hate homosexuals to the point of murdering them, and defend them like they need defense against these beliefs but any other religion doesn't like these things and they get thrown under the bus? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t68bv/eli5why_do_we_ignore_the_fact_that_islam/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx3eldr",
"cx3euwg",
"cx3ew0m",
"cx3ff09",
"cx3fr8m",
"cx3g7q6",
"cx3gclh",
"cx3hiwr"
],
"score": [
15,
11,
8,
8,
3,
4,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"the catholic church literally shelters child-abusing priests by hiding their records and moving them around. Yet I don't see people clamoring for an end to the church.\n\nwe don't take the worst part of something and judge the entirety, it seems.",
"Because pretty much all the same stuff is said at one point or another in the bible and you don't see all Christian's following it blindly just as you don't see all Muslims following the Koran blindly, its not the religion it's the people. ",
"So you're saying that historically women in Catholic Europe have been seen as equals to men and homosexuals have always been welcomed?\n\nIt's not about religion, it's about education. The western world is far more educated than the middle east, and so thus are more accepting and hold less prejudice. One day the middle east can become a better educated place, people will have higher quality of living, and Islam, women's rights and homosexuality can live along side each other\n\nSome bible quotes which modern Christians ignore to show this is the case:\n\n1 Timothy 2:12-15\n\n > I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.\n\n1 Corinthians 14:34-35\n\n > The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.",
"There's a video of Reza Aslan talking about this. This isn't a \"Muslim\" problem. This is an African problem or a middle eastern problem. There are many predominantly Muslim nations where women are treated as equals and homosexuality is accepted or at the very least just ignored.",
" > We say they are peaceful but their home countries are war torn, oppressive, hateful places where no one is free.\n\nThe countries with the highest Muslim populations are Indonesia and India, with a combined ~450 million Muslims. Neither of those exactly qualify as war torn, oppressive, hateful places where nobody is free.\n\nSimilarly, I'm very confused by your association of Islam with racism. A majority of Muslims are non-Arab, and historically Islam has been very accepting of people of all races. Is there something in particular you're thinking of? There are definitely tons of instances of racism + Islam happening, but they don't strike me as any more significant than the history of Christianity and racism, Judaism and racism, Buddhism and racism, etc.\n\nAnd just generally speaking, it's worth mentioning that there is a huge diversity within Islam, to the point that making broad sweeping generalizations about the content of Islamic belief is essentially useless. Some forms of Islam, like that practiced by ISIS, are brutally oppressive towards women, gays and religious minorities, while others, like the Ismaili branch, don't even pray 5 times a day and even tolerate alcohol pretty loosely. There's incredible variation within Islam, because of course there is. There are over a billion and a half Muslims, and that means there are over a billion and half ways to be Muslim and to practice Islam.",
"Because they don't. Look at Indonesia, look at Turkey, both very Muslim countries. Women there do extremely well and are even in higher political positions than men. \n\nIslam has billions of followers. Just because Saudi Arabia is one way, doesn't mean all of Islam is, it just means Saudi Arabia is that way. We group all of Islam together when we should really be looking at this from a country to country basis. ",
"You're thinking of countries like Saudi Arabia, where a crazy lineage was put into power that acts much like a fascist government where they force people not to do things, but do it themselves. That has nothing to do with Islam, much like Christianity had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. \n\nIn places like Turkey and even Pakistan, women have much more rights. The best thing is, when there is an issue on gender relations, they're allowed to protest the government in these countries without government intervention. Men join them too in these marches. \n\nAs for homosexuals, I am not too sure. However, the young muslims are very liberal and don't care much about that stuff at all. They're on the right track, but they'll get there eventually. Remember, the U.S just passed the equal marriage laws this year. It took a while for them to get that right, but they'll be recognized everywhere soon. \n\nI recommend to not dwell on these issues that much, in your case I mean. Judging by your wording, it seems that you're not curious for an explanation at all. Rather, you seem to want to instigate an argument or support anti-islam. Thing is, you're allowed to not like a religion or peoples. Just don't trample on their rights like the Saudi government does. ",
"I'm going to remove this one for soapboxing (though it's also a loaded question, so there's that too). Please read the [rules]( _URL_0_ ) in the sidebar. Thanks a lot. \n\n > Don't post just to express an opinion or argue a point of view. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/rules"
]
]
|
||
72olr2 | how come things that go into recycling need to be completely clean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72olr2/eli5_how_come_things_that_go_into_recycling_need/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnk4hhr",
"dnk4hzy"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > I've heard from a few sources (anecdotally) that any food residue in recyclables makes the item not recyclable anymore.\n\nThat isn't true. However much of recycled material is sorted by hand and those workers would really appreciate not having festering refuse to pick through.",
"They don't have to be clean, depending on what both the recyclable and contaminant are.\n\nAsking you to clean your recyclables does a bunch of beneficial things... but not all are necessary for all types of recyclable, and the benefit in a lot of cases is just to decrease the \"cleaning\" processing required to recycle the product. Here's some examples:\n\n* Metal food cans take less energy to melt down, have less overall volume, and don't attract pests or stink if remaining food is rinsed out. It's just easier to process and ship all that volume of metal around if it's washed and labels are removed first, particularly if they're crushed.\n\n* Cardboard with a lower percentage of packing tape and grease contamination results in a greater yield of reusable fibres. The cost of processing around the greasy spots of, say, a pizza box, increases to the point where it's just not worth it, so they don't want them and all that greasy \"glue\" that destroys the solubility of the fibres.\n\n* Plastic lids are often a different type of plastic than what's in the rest of the container, and so minimizing the number of those lids in a batch speeds up the recycling firm's ability to process that container's specific type of plastic.\n\nIn general, the more you can clean and make your recyclables perfectly uniform after their initial sorting, the less \"extra gunk\" (some of which like motor oil can really foul up a batch!) finds its way into the resulting recycling process, and the easier it is to turn that product into something else.\n\n[minor edits for clarity]"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2uvcnb | how do forces like kinetic or chemical energy fit into the 4 fundamental forces? | For example, pushing on a block to create motion involves friction, inertia, etc. Where do the fundamental forces come in, and how do they relate to these forces of motion? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uvcnb/eli5_how_do_forces_like_kinetic_or_chemical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cobzpkv",
"coc99as"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"So you're confusing energy with fundamental forces. They're not really the same thing. They do definitely relate though.\n\nBut regardless:\n\nKinetic Energy - This is a description about how much a moving object can impact another object. Kinetic energy is related to the **force of gravity** because kinetic energy allows you to change where you are located to something else, which impacts the pull of energy. The electromagnetic force also allows an object with kinetic energy to transfer that energy to another object, by hitting it.\n\nChemical energy - This is a description of the energy held in a chemical bond. These bonds exist because of the **electromagnetic force**, and when they're broken they also create kinetic energy (when bomb blows up due to chemical energy, stuff is thrown all over the place)\n\nPushing a block - this is kinetic energy, which your body transfers to the block thanks to the electromagnetic force.\n\nFriction - This is the block, giving kinetic energy (and heat energy, as well as sound energy) to a table, thanks to the electromagnetic force.\n\nBonus: Nuclear energy - This is energy that's extracted from some atoms which are split up through fission. This energy comes from the breaking of the **strong nuclear force**, and it appears as neutrons that move really fast (have a lot of kinetic energy).\n\nBonus: Radiation - This is energy that comes from atoms breaking apart, decaying. This is due to the **weak nuclear force**.",
"One of the issues is that you are conflating different things. You've mentioned forces, energy, and inertia. One way to tell that they are different things is that they use different units.\n\nLet's start with inertia. Inertia refers to the idea that an object resists changes to its movement. An object at rest remains at rest, and moving object continues with a constant speed and direction. Two ways of describing inertia are with momentum and inertial mass.\n\nMomentum of a classical object is defined as its (inertial) mass times its velocity. Momentum is conserved. That is, if the momentum of some object changes it matched by an equal and opposite change in the momentum of other objects.\n\nInertial mass basically tells us by how much an object resists change in motion. \n\nNow we can talk about forces. Previously I stated that the momentum of an object does not change unless something is acting on that object. We call this thing acting on the object, causing the change in momentum, a force. An easy way to define a force then is to say that it is the difference between the final momentum of the object and the initial momentum divided by how long it took for the change to take place. This makes a type of intuitive sense, and force that is twice as great, takes only half the time to change the momentum. The units also work out.\n\nMomentum = mass * velocity\nForce = mass * acceleration = mass * acceleration / time\n\nThe can be many forces acting on an object at once. For example a ball being thrown by a pitcher will experience a force due to gravity, a force due to the pitcher pushing on the ball, and force due to wind resistance.\n\nCurrently we describe 4 fundamental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetic, Weak Nuclear Force, and Strong Nuclear Force. Other things that we describe as forces are descriptions that we use so that we don't have to attempt to track every single subatomic particle, rather we know how to describe their approximate behavior based off of just the things we can easily observe.\n\nLet's now look at energy. Energy is all expressed in the same units. Furthermore, just as there is a conservation of momentum, there is a conservation of energy. If the energy of an object has changed then, that change in energy must be balanced somewhere else.\n\nThe easiest place to start understanding energy is with kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a measure of the energy of an object due to its motion. The change in kinetic energy of an object is equal to the total force applied to the object times how far the object went while the force was applied. Intuitively, this is the \"effort\" used to change the momentum of the object. \n\nKinetic Energy = F times d \n\nI suppose you could also identify fundamental energies to parallel the fundamental forces. Since the fundamental forces can change the kinetic energy of an object, and since energy is conserved, we can talk about potential energy. Say for example a rocket moving away from the moon gradually slows down due to the force of gravity. The kinetic energy of the rocket is decreasing, since energy is conserved, that energy must be going somewhere. We call this gravitational potential energy. As the rocket falls back toward the moon, it starts to move faster, the kinetic energy is increasing, this is balanced by a decrease in the gravitational potential energy.\n\nChemical energy is just another way of describing electromagnetic potential energy without having to deal with all of the messy details. Electrons are bound to atoms and molecules by the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic potential energy of the molecule is determined by the pattern of the electrons and nuclei. As that pattern is altered, the electromagnetic potential energy changes.\n\nHeat is another way of talking about kinetic energy. It describes the combined effects of the kinetic energy of the particles making up a substance without worrying about the actual motion of each individual particle.\n\nTL;DR: Inertia is the resistance to change in motion. Forces are what cause a change in motion. Energy describes who much effort is being made. Momentum and Energy are conserved. We can explain visible phenomena in terms of fundamental forces."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
53768z | salt of the earth = good. salted earth = bad. ??? | These are two common expressions that completely disagree with each other.
- If someone is "the salt of the earth", they're fundamentally a great person.
- "Salted earth" is dead, uninhabitable ground.
The two defy logic, unless we're saying salted earth is awful, but the actual NaCl that made it that way is great lol. Do we just chalk it up to different origins (Christianity vs near-east, I think)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53768z/eli5_salt_of_the_earth_good_salted_earth_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7qj9ht",
"d7qk4um",
"d7rdqay"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Salt of the Earth refers to salt as a seasoning: we 'flavor' humanity. \n\nSalted earth is when you spread salt on farming land to make it unable to grow crops.",
"\"Salt of the Earth\" = natural and what should be there\n\n\"Salted Earth\" = out of balance and destroyed.",
"Salt, mined from the ground, used to be a currency in ancient times. Salt was valuable. Roman Legions were paid in salt (it's literally the source of the word \"salary\"). It's crucial in preserving foods (even more crucial before refrigeration was available). Describing a person as 'salt of the earth' is describing them as someone of value. I believe the Sermon on the Mount is the source of the phrase, but it may have been used earlier. \n\nSalt is also used to destroy things. It's been historically used to prevent conquered peoples from being able to grow crops. Therefore salting the earth is something you would do to your enemy. Or it might be something you do to drive away evil spirits or demons or whatever your particular belief system incorporates. \n\nSo the sayings are not at all contradictory or logic defying. Salt of the earth is a good thing, but salt can be used to destroy as well. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
23hlr5 | why is it called easter? | Why is the holiday celebration Jesus's resurrection called Easter? Christmas obviously is derived from Christ, so what is the origin of the name? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23hlr5/eli5_why_is_it_called_easter/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgx2o53",
"cgx2o8g",
"cgx2qrs"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the date of the holiday was co-opted from a pagan fertility celebration for a goddess with a similar name. \n\nThe church had a habit of converting pagans by demonstrating how its not so different from what they were used to. \n\nIts also why there's still rabbits and eggs involved.\n\nChristmas Co-opted the date of the pagan holiday called Yule. Fenced yuletide greetings and yule logs still bring a thing you hear about sometimes.",
"[From the Wikipedia article on Easter:](_URL_0_)\nThe modern English term Easter, cognate with modern German Ostern, developed from the Old English word Ēastre or Ēostre. This is generally held to have originally referred to the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess, Ēostre, a form of the widely attested Indo-European dawn goddess.\n\nIn Greek and Latin, the Christian celebration was and is called Πάσχα, Pascha, words derived, through Aramaic, from the Hebrew term Pesach (פֶּסַח), known in English as Passover, which originally denoted the Jewish festival commemorating the story of the Exodus. Already in the 50s of the 1st century, Paul, writing from Ephesus to the Christians in Corinth, applied the term to Christ, and it is unlikely that the Ephesian and Corinthian Christians were the first to hear Exodus 12 interpreted as speaking about the death of Jesus, not just about the Jewish Passover ritual. In most of the non-English speaking world, the feast is known by names derived from Greek and Latin Pascha.",
"Most scholars believe that Easter gets its name from Eostre or Ostara, a Germanic pagan goddess. English and German are two of the very few languages that use some variation of the word Easter (or, in German, Ostern) as a name for this holiday. Most other European languages use one form or another of the Latin name for Easter, Pascha, which is derived from the Hebrew Pesach, meaning Passover.\n\nCopy and pasted from someone else's article about the subject."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Etymology"
],
[]
]
|
|
5p788y | everything else being equal, why does standing on a bicycle burn more calories than sitting? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5p788y/eli5_everything_else_being_equal_why_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcoxtc5",
"dcp20vw",
"dcpoak1"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because of the efficiency of how you are supporting the weight of your body. Your spending the same amount of calories to move the weight, but if you are standing, you're spending extra calories to keep your body upright and balanced. It also changes your center of gravity (i'd imagine) which can also make keeping the whole bike-you system balanced require more energy as well. ",
"You're spending energy to push your whole body upright or hold yourself above your seat and as opposed to seated peddling where you just move your legs and all your force is transferred nice and efficiently into your wheel movement. ",
"I'll add something here: \n\nSlow twitch vs fast twitch muscle movement. For illustration, exaggerate the scenario by standing on one leg. Your slow twitch muscles are \"supporting your weight\" but it's the same amount of weight two legs were supporting a second ago so it shouldn't take more energy from a physics perspective right?\n\nAh - but notice how you are nearly shivering and trembling, swaying and shaking on one leg? That's because your \"fast twitch\" muscles are flexing all over your body making micro-corrections to keep you balanced. The difference in energy output is ENORMOUS. This is also why when you're cold you start to shiver uncontrollably - it's your body micro-flexing to warm up your body. \n\nTLDR, standing burns more calories than sitting because you are balancing your body hundreds of times a second. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5q4ni0 | how would a scientist identify the key differences in the body between a 18 year old and a 16 year old female? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5q4ni0/eli5how_would_a_scientist_identify_the_key/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcw983j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"That depends entirely on the differences between the two girls.\n\nSince people mature at slightly different rates, people at those ages can't be *guaranteed* to have developed in any specific particular ways (unlike the difference between a 1-year-old and a 3-year-old which is much more likely to have some definitive differences)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ayz537 | if aids is spread through blood how do you contract it from intercourse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayz537/eli5_if_aids_is_spread_through_blood_how_do_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei49mdd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"HIV has several transmission vectors, not just blood. but also semen and vaginal secretions. It does not spread via saliva.\n\nFrom a website on it:\nBlood contains the highest concentration of the virus, followed by semen, followed by vaginal fluids, followed by breast milk."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5jx3ol | why do some terms like kilowatt and kilobyte progress to megawatt and megabyte, whereas some terms like kilometer and kilogram don't progress to megameter and megagram? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jx3ol/eli5_why_do_some_terms_like_kilowatt_and_kilobyte/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbjlqbj",
"dbjlu84",
"dbjlvmk",
"dbjmc7q",
"dbjmj6q",
"dbjyfhg",
"dbk2bwg",
"dbkhuvx",
"dbkkf5x"
],
"score": [
50,
272,
9,
2,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Megagam and Megameter exist. We just don't use them frequently because they don't really apply in out day to day lives.\n\nPower and Computer power increase so fast that what we use in our day to day live increase with it. We used to have MB hard drive, then GB and now TB is common place, so the word we use the most vary over time because the technology change over time.\n\nBut a Megameter is 1000 km. We just don't travel this distance very often. In most of our live we could use Megameter in some occasion like when we travel in planes, but it represent such a small percentage of the distance in our lives that we just don't bother with Megameter and stick with Km.\n\nAstronomer would use Mega and Giga meter more often because they speak a lot more about vast distance than most human do. Just like people that work on a small scale use nanometer often so they use that term a lot more than normal people.",
"Well, to tell the truth, they do, or at least *can*. If you said \"That's gotta be at least a megameter from here\", it might take a moment to figure it out, but most people familiar with metric measurements would understand after a moment's thought.\n\nThe reason we don't see such terms in common use is mostly because we generally use terms of measurement for values that we would commonly work with- it's easier to say \"ten megabytes\" instead of \"ten thousand kilobytes\", so when we started working with larger values of storage, the word fell into common usage.\n\nAlso and even more importantly, because kilometers and kilograms are used to measure values we can physically observe, we've started thinking of them atomically- that is, when you think of a \"kilometer\", you're not really thinking \"a thousand meters\", you're just thinking \"1 kilometer\". Breaking it into smaller pieces simply doesn't happen. If it's less than a kilometer you'd probably think \"half a kilometer\" instead of \"500 meters\".\n\nAs an aside, back in the early 80's, \"megabyte\" was the biggest value for anything computer-related. I remember when I first saw a hard drive measured in gigabytes- it was a strange moment because I had no idea what it meant for a moment. Now, it's the most common term for computer memory storage because they're all measured on that scale.\n\nAnyway, back on track. We don't say \"megameter\" and \"megagram\" mostly because in our minds, \"kilometer\" and \"kilogram\" are the base units. We may know intellectually that, yeah, a kilometer is a thousand meters, and a kilogram is a thousand grams, but we still think of them as single units, so it's easier shorthand for our brains to say 1000 kilometers and 1000 kilograms.\n\n",
"They do. The SI prefixes can be used with any SI unit - the megameter and megagram are exactly what you'd think they'd be. You just don't see these units used as frequently. We don't talk about distances on the scale of megameters very often, and when talking about masses on the order of megagrams, the word \"tonne\" tends to be used instead (though this is actually the same unit - 1000kg).",
"They do progress to mega-meter and mega-gram if you'd like but standard convention is not to do that even though it isn't \"wrong\".",
"Both megameter and megagram are perfectly valid metric units. The reason you don't see them used is that there are other units that are much more popular and represent the same quantity. For megameters that would be \"1000s of kilometers\" and for the megagram \"one tonne\". \n\nYou could say that an aircraft carrier weighs 300.000 megagrams (or 300 gigagrams, or 0,3 teragrams), but people will get a much better idea how much that is if you say 300.000 tonnes.",
"Everything here is a prefect explanation but I would like to add that for memory(kilobyte) we kind of just do what we want. The normal metric system prefixes are [HERE](_URL_1_). Metric starts 10^±1 and goes to 10^±18. We don't really use deka or hecto cus they are kind of redundant for common speech. In the case of memory things start at base or to the 0th power and go up to the 10^24 or 10^80 (Decimal and Binary). There is no deka or hecto and the last is yottabyte which is not part of the metric system. Chart [HERE](_URL_0_) ",
"[they all do](_URL_0_)\n\nIt's just that some of them are more commonly used that others so you're more familiar with them",
"From now on I'm going to say I'm traveling a Megameter instead of 1,000 kilometers, when I drive home.",
"I actually do use megameter all the time, at least in my own thinking. I find it's an extremely useful unit for driving distances. Half a megameter, three megameters... Also for shorter-range space applications. The moon is 380 Mm away, instead of 380,000km. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.shutha.org/sites/default/files//uploads/3_Courses/3_Digital_Imaging/Prefixes.png",
"https://s3.amazonaws.com/user-content.enotes.com/5a145e1aacdd809cec35342ffef9cf4011753f2c_thumb.gif"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5mmozr | why do most international fast food chains offer some menu items that are exclusive to one region/country, and are not available at all participating locations worldwide? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mmozr/eli5_why_do_most_international_fast_food_chains/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc4pei4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They tailor the tastes to the local market so they'll sell more, but there might not be much call for these items in other markets. For example, Big Macs are pretty popular world wide, but in India, not many people eat beef. Instead, McDonalds has the Maharaja Mac, which uses chicken patties and has a spicy sauce in place of the secret sauce to make it a better fit there. With both regular Big Macs and chicken sandwiches available in other countries, there's not much of a reason to make the Maharaja available outside of India. Likewise, pork is popular in Germany, so there's a Germany-only pork sandwich available as part of the regular menu. Meanwhile, the McRib is a special item available occasionally because a lot of people will get them when they're first introduced, but then sales tail off rapidly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1bvp4o | if we hear so much about north korea having missiles that can't even hit the us, why are we so worried about war with them? is it because of their allies? | The title seems like war is a good thing to me, well it's not. I know that. And I'm pretty sure they have a huge army so that won't be easy to battle...
But if we're technically 'safe' from their missiles, why are we worried about war with them or 'World War 3?'
Is it because of allies they have? Who are they if they have them?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bvp4o/eli5_if_we_hear_so_much_about_north_korea_having/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9ahx1o",
"c9aizld",
"c9all3r"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We're worried about war with them because we're not used to having other countries threaten to destroy us. South Korea has to deal with this all the time, so they aren't nearly as worried.",
"We're more concerned about South Korea, who they can hit.\n\nSouth Korea's military alone is capable of defeating North Korea but the initial damage to Seoul and other South korean population centers from a day one bombardment would be severe.\n\nNobody wants to deal with the millions of North Korean refugees either.",
"We are worried because they might:\n\n* use them against US allies like South Korea and Japan\n* use them against the nearly 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea\n* sell them or the technology to make them to other countries, like Iran"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
9h59id | . michael foucault | Like wtf. Even attempted explanations of ideas quickly devolve into what appear to be philosophical masturbation. What are the basic tenets of his ideas? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9h59id/eli5_michael_foucault/ | {
"a_id": [
"e697ebl"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"In a nutshell: When we think of \"power,\" we usually think of \"sovereign power,\" the authority of a legal overseeing force that can declare from above. But the form of power that most affects us is a kind of networked, decentralized power that we all participate in even as we are subject to it. This power generally takes the form of \"knowledge\" - we claim to come to an understanding of something (medicine, insanity, sexuality, etc.) but what we actually do is redefine the terms by which we're able to think about it. We bring new social realities into being under the guise of having learned objective truths.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThat's kind of basically the core of it that most of his books assume. Part of the problem with Foucault is that his books assume it rather than outlining it, for the most part. If you want accessible, readable and understandable Foucault, don't bother with the books he published in his lifetime (or at least, save them for later) and read the College de France lectures that were published after his death. They're a LOT less cryptic."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
23yomt | why do people feel violated/flustered/angry when someone is taking a picture or video without asking permission? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23yomt/eli5_why_do_people_feel_violatedflusteredangry/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch1umdr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Mainly because I have no idea what that picture will be used for, what context it will be shown in, etc. More so, I can imagine, if you're a woman, with all these creepy subreddits and websites out there, who knows where that image will end up..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2ekw7l | how is it you can legally stream a video game but not a real sports game? | Google tried to buy _URL_0_ and Amazon finally did, for almost $1B. I don't know much about it, but it's basically a sight that streams people playing video games. But there's also just tons of Youtube videos and other videos of people just playing video games.
So do video game companies just not care, can't enforce, don't care, view it as marketing? Are there limits to how many people can view, who can comment, etc? Does it have to do with purchasing the game? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ekw7l/eli5_how_is_it_you_can_legally_stream_a_video/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck0gdn3",
"ck0hfux"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"The market value of a video game is mostly in the interaction -- you tell it to do something, and it does it in the game. Streaming it online loses them little, if any, money.\n\nA real sports game, however, the market value is 100% in the spectators watching it. Television companies pay big bucks for exclusive broadcast rights for these games, and streaming it online would violate those contracts.",
"Actually, video game publishers *could* shut down streaming of their games if they wanted to, but (for the most part) they don't want to.\n\nThe legality of streaming a video game isn't set in stone yet. Game publishers own the performance rights to the characters, logos, music, and pretty much everything in the games they publish. It isn't clear if a player's playing adds enough to the performance to be considered Fair Use, as no case has been decided on those grounds yet. However, most publishers see streams as free advertising, and those that don't see it that way turn a blind eye to streaming to avoid pissing off their hardcore fans."
]
} | []
| [
"Twitch.TV"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5n751m | how does texture affect the tastiness of food? | How something crispy becomes intolerable once it becomes soggy, etc | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n751m/eli5_how_does_texture_affect_the_tastiness_of_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc98e82"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"tldr: variety is the spice of life\n\nYou have asked two quite disparate questions.\n1. How does texture affect the tastiness of food.\n Here I assume, by tastiness you are referring to the enjoyability rather than the actual number of distinguishable tastes in the food. Having textural variety tells the brain that what we are eating will cover a wide range of nutritional inputs. This is what the body needs. Our reward centers light up to teach us to eat more texturally varying foods. \n\n2. How something crispy tastes terrible when it becomes soggy.\n We have come to associate crispy food with a caloric surplus. Celeries are crispy too but we don't compulsively down stalks of celery. So there are exceptions. But for the most part crispy = good! Here, again, our reward centers teach us that caloric surplus foods are encouraged. \n If that same food gets soggy, firstly you are expecting the food to be crispy because of prior knowledge of its underlying form. So your expectations are dashed. And secondly, soggy also entails that the food is probably wet and cold. Wet and cold foods are interpreted by our brains as being negative because usually, decomposing or rotten food is wet and cold. \n I have eaten day old soggy \"churros\" that I made myself. They didn't bear resemblance to churros in reality but tasted alike. Since I had no preconceived notions that what I was eating is supposed to be hot and crispy, I enjoyed day old soggy churros too."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2z5npq | why isn't the kkk illegal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z5npq/eli5why_isnt_the_kkk_illegal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpfvg1b",
"cpfvgh3",
"cpfvib4"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
7
],
"text": [
"It's not illegal to be a racist asshole, only if your actions infringe upon the rights of others can legal action be taken. So if they lynch someone, or set a cross on fire they can be prosecuted. If not, nothing can be done. \n\nIt's not against the law to be a bad person, only to do bad things. ",
"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.\n\nNowadays, the KKK isn't as violent as it used to be. They pretty much just say stupid things about how interracial relationships \"don't work\" but don't actually do anything. They almost certainly wouldn't get away with killing anyone nowadays.",
"The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech AND the freedom to peaceably assemble. Past iterations of the Klan were destroyed because they were linked to violence and dissolved (generally because they were sued in civil court and didn't have the assets to cover the liability when convicted), but current organizations haven't had such links proven in court."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2smu6i | what makes hypoallergenic dogs/cats hypoallergenic? | I saw someone say that it's because these animals have hair, not fur. What's the difference? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2smu6i/eli5_what_makes_hypoallergenic_dogscats/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnqxt7o",
"cnqzqri",
"cnr7fcv"
],
"score": [
20,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"The part that makes people allergic to cats is actually a protein (FEL D1) found in their saliva. When a cat licks herself, she deposits the protein on her skin, and when it dries off, the flakes become airborne and trigger symptoms of allergy in people. So, it's not the fur that's the issue, it's the dead skin.\n\nIn short, there's no cat that's 100% hypoallergenic, they can only produce less of the protein FEL D1 than regular cats. Some cats tend to be preferred because of trial and error, and even then, some of the most likely to not cause allergies still do because maintenance is required (like bathing or brushing) to make those pets optimal.",
"Biologically and structurally there is no difference between hair and fur. \nBoth are a outgrowth of a protein called keratin, which also makes up things like nails and claws. Fur is used to describe animal with thick coats (e.g. dogs, bears, cats, rabbits), hair is usually reserved to describe animals with thin, sparse coats (e.g. humans, hippos, elephants, manatees). ",
"No animal is truly hypoallergenic. It all depends on what exactly (saliva, dander, fur) has the most protein and how much the animal's activities put those things into the air. This will determine how sensitive the allergic person is to the animal. Even so-called \"hypoallergenic\" breeds (those who don't shed or whatever criteria are used) may elicit a serious reaction and other breeds or individual animals may not. This is why an allergic person even considering adopting or purchasing an animal should meet the individual animal first and observe reactions. My son is dog allergic but reacted horribly to a shih-tzu (a \"hypoallergenic\" breed) we were considering buying--but reacted not at all to our rat terrier mix. Nothing is more important when looking at individual allergies than examining the individual animal."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
50rc1g | why is it not advisable for us to use fans to dry sweat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50rc1g/eli5_why_is_it_not_advisable_for_us_to_use_fans/ | {
"a_id": [
"d76cutj",
"d76cztn"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"Your premise is untrue; fans are fine to use when you are sweating. Perhaps you misunderstood your source of information or they are crazies who believe in fan death or something.",
"Absolutely false claim here with your question. \n\nFans are not only fully acceptable for cooling off and drying sweat, they are one of the standard methods for cooling down and drying sweat. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3tx88x | how is it that two different species like a horse and a donkey reproduce to make a mule, but other instances of interspecial breeding do not produce offspring? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tx88x/eli5_how_is_it_that_two_different_species_like_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx9znbe",
"cx9zzs4",
"cxa5w98",
"cxa82wr",
"cxa86wl",
"cxa8o9s",
"cxafnop",
"cxaiz96",
"cxalxat",
"cxanca8",
"cxauhps"
],
"score": [
3,
248,
6,
7,
36,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually, the differing biology of the two species stops the hybrid animal from surviving to birth. Donkeys and horses are closely related - less distant than humans and chimps - and happen to have compatible biology, so their hybrids can survive.",
"There is actually no globally applicable, waterproof definition of what a \"species\" is. One common definition is \"if it can't interbreed, it's a different species\", but cases like horse/donkey (and tiger/lion) show its limit. Another problem is that it can only apply to populations that existed at the same time: How can you say that horses today and horses 500 years ago are the same species?\n\nDefinitions aside, two populations can interbreed if their genes are compatible, but that is really more a continuum than a yes/no question. There are, for example genetic defects where people who carry the defect cannot have viable offspring with each other, but can with anyone who doesn't. In the case of horses and donkeys, their genes are almost compatible, but there are differences which cause the offspring to be infertile.",
"\"Species\" are really a scientific taxonomy. Whether two animals can interbreed depends on a number of things:\n\n- Is their physical anatomy aligned?\n- Is there mating cycle aligned? \n- Are they in proximity to each other? (Global warming may create new hybrids we haven't seen before.) \n- Does the sperm penetrate the oocyte? \n- Are the number of chromosomes aligned? (There is some forgiveness for a mismatch of a few, but more than that generally results in dead embryos.)\n- Do the gene sequences on the chromosomes readily hybridize when combined?\n\nTo answer your question, some hybrids are sterile because the genetic mismatch of genes/chromosomes wasn't lethal, but their gametes are abnormal. \n\nYou might be interested to know that human/chimp breeding has not been ruled out. Human sperm do penetrate the outer layer of a primate egg (one of the conditions for interbreeding). Additionally, even though we have different numbers of chromosomes (46 vs. 48), about 97% of the DNA does hybridize in a test tube. (Interestingly, one of the major differences in chimpanzee genes seems to be related to the increased size of testes/greater sperm production). ",
"If I got into it I could write for hours but fish can really do some fantastic cross breeding within a genus. My favorite, blue gill and green sunfish. Their resulting hybrid get huge and do awesome in ponds. But now comes the fun part. About 10% of the offspring are fertile and can produce young that can be 100% genetically as the one of the original parent species. You want fun, study fish genetics",
"In order for two mammals to have viable offspring, a certain quite high level of similarity is necessary at the level of their genes. In order to go through cell division (mitosis) successfully, the sets of genes of the two parents have to be able to \"match and line up\" (said to be \"homologous\" if that can happen) in order for the cell to divide without something breaking. The less similar the gene sets are, the less likely it is that this matching-and-dividing process can happen properly. \n\nHorses and donkeys have almost identical genes arranged in very similar chromosome sets. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62, mostly likely because one of the horse chromosomes split and stabilized at some point in the equine evolutionary history. ([This text](_URL_0_) talks about it but says the horse and donkey genomes aren't all that well studied.) So the genes can line up well enough to produce a live offspring (a mule or hinny), but the offspring has an odd number of chromosomes (63), which makes the other cell division process, meiosis (necessary to produce gametes --egg and sperm) almost never work. \n\nA similar level of homology (\"match\") can be seen in human and chimp chromosomes, where chimps have one more pair of chromosomes than humans, either because a chromosome in the primate evolutionary process split in chimps and not in humans, or because two smaller chromosomes got fused together in humans and not in chimps. (Human chromosome 2 is the \"fused\" one.) \n\nSo the production of a hybrid offspring is a probabilistic function of how similar the gene sets are. Relatively small differences (in relation to the total amount of genetic material in the organism) will stop two mammals from having live offspring. If the difference is small enough, animals from two different \"species\" (in itself a vague term) can have a live offspring, but not a fertile one. But any significant degree of divergence in the genetic structure reduces the chances of successful pairing, replication, and cell division taking place in the embryo formed by the union of the gametes of two individuals. \n\nHere's a fascinating recent finding about homology and fertility in humans: it's been discovered via genetic studies in the Icelandic population that [the optimal level of gene match for fertility in humans is at the level of third or fourth cousins.](_URL_1_) Closer than that and you have trouble with bad recessives pairing up for a non-viable embryo; further than that and fertility decreases due to the degree of genetic difference between the parents. So you have an interesting genetic tension in human beings when it comes to evolutionary success in reproduction: we want to mate with people different enough from our own genetic stock to have kids with robust immune systems (more diversity = very good in human immune genetics) and no genetic disorders, but similar enough to ourselves to guarantee the greatest fertility. ",
"horses and donkeys are close enough genetically that their genes still match up, much like lions and tigers, or horses and zebras, as much as they are different species, they are still big cats/horse-ish animals and basically look the same with very few changes.",
"I think you mean ELI5: why are there no human/primate hybrids? ",
"What happens if a mule breads with a horse or donkey. Are there names for these? Murse or Munkey.. lol",
"So...theoretically, can a human and a horse make a centaur?",
"how about dog breeds? can you mate a chihuaua with a great dane?",
"I wouldn't try to fuck a chimpanzee. Trying to fuck chimpanzees is a good way to get yourself killed. Wait, sorry. Forgot all science stuff. ELY5?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=ZL3A097IbjsC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=horse+versus+donkey+karyotype&source=bl&ots=IyEK2i5yBr&sig=QAlESfblIqM2ymjUgnL3CJUBNtU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzqre28abJAhUHyT4KHcDPCbwQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=horse%20versus%20donkey%20karyotype&f=false",
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4hkdr9 | do our eyes reflect light (similar to a mirror)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hkdr9/eli5_do_our_eyes_reflect_light_similar_to_a_mirror/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2qb26c",
"d2qb2qn"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"yes, your eyes do reflect some light. This can be clearly seen when taking hi-res photographs of peoples eyes, and the lighting is right.",
"Pretty much everything reflects some light. The difference between an eye (or any other lens) and a mirror is that the mirror is backed. The purpose of a lens (again, including eyes) is to allow light to pass through, whereas mirrors are specifically built to be as reflective as possible.\n\nSo basically yes eyes reflect light, but not because of any inherent similarity to a mirror (other than the fact that everything reflects some light)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
248udi | when a gif offers me the choice between html5 vs gif, which one should i choose and why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/248udi/eli5_when_a_gif_offers_me_the_choice_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch4qvwa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Generally, \"HTML5\". This will probably get you a video file that is much faster to load. Gif is a very inefficient format for anything but the simplest of animations, so it takes a long time to load. HTML5 makes it easy for web pages to serve more efficient video files without mucking about with plugins.\n\nBut don't take my word for it – try it yourself and see which one works better for you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
42priq | why are eating disorders commonly thought of as under-eating? why is over-eating not considered disordered? | When thinking of eating disorders, the image that usually comes to mind is that of anorexia and bulemia - under-eating or binging and purging. Why is it that over-eating i.e. leading to obesity not considered an eating disorder? Why isn't it treated like one? Surely similar cognitive therapy would be much better than crash diets (the equivalent of "just eat more" for someone underweight, in my mind) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42priq/eli5why_are_eating_disorders_commonly_thought_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"czc6qhb",
"czc7phk",
"czc93lv",
"czcjgvj"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First, I think it's much more common that people both love food, and hate the consequences of eating too much food, then the reverse. So we think of anorexia and bulimia much more through the lens of medical science (explaining *why someone would do that*) whereas with obesity we already understanding the temptations and the pitfalls.\n\nAlso, remember that being underweight or obese and having an eating disorder are two different things. You can eat in a \"disordered\" way and maintain a normal weight, whereas you can eat yourself into diabetes-land with a very orderly, regular diet. (At least in theory. Metabolic disorder and other problems of obesity tend to breed disordered eating as well. But my point is, a steady calorie surplus can get you to obesity all on its own, even with meals that look perfectly normal and are eating at regular times, in regular quantities.)",
"[Habitually overeating is considered a disorder](_URL_0_) \n\nThe social perception of eating disorders hasn't quite caught up to this, though. And just like how not everyone skinny has bulimia or anorexia, not every fat person has binge eating disorder. ",
"Look at it more as addiction with over eating, most people who over eat, use food the same way people use heroin. \n\nWith Anorexia and Bulimia, they are disorders in order to obtain a certain body type. \n\nOvereatings short comings are gas, indigestion, and the ITIS. People who overeat do for comfort.\n\nStarving, or throwing up, is a self mutilation. Its instant self harm, maybe psychologically linked in punishment by not looking the way they want, and are punishing themselves until they fix the problem.\n\n",
"Undereating and overeating are both dangerous and can both be disorders. I think the reason they get treated differently is that undereating can kill you in a matter of months, whereas the effects of overeating usually take a couple of decades to do you in. It's a question of urgency, I think."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.dsm5.org/documents/eating%20disorders%20fact%20sheet.pdf"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cqp490 | why is it when you zoom in on a photo it becomes all pixelated and distorted but when you aren't zoomed in it's normal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cqp490/eli5_why_is_it_when_you_zoom_in_on_a_photo_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewy030d",
"ewy03my",
"ewy0ap6"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Image compression and how our minds fill in holes to perceive an image. Most pictures and videos we see online have large amounts of data loss when sent through the internet or downloaded.",
"* The pixels you see are what the image is made up from.\n* If you are \"far away\" enough from the image, the pixels merge together in your brain to form the image.\n* When you \"zoom in\" you are telling the device to scale up the image but the pixels are the smallest detail level of information the picture has, it can't show any greater detail than that.",
"A digital picture is taken in a certain resolution. A resolution being a certain number of pixels by a certain number of pixels, so, if you take a 1080x1080 picture and zoom it in, you’re essentially zooming in on those pixels that make up your image."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2ewwm4 | why do pedophiles disproportionately target boys? | In the general population some estimates say that only 5% of men have a sexual preference for males instead of females, and that 95% of men prefer females. Other estimates say that men who have sex with men makeup about 4% of the male population.
But among offenders arrested for molesting children, about one third targeted boys instead of girls. So in the general population, 4 or 5% of men are gay. But among pedos, 33% are gay (male victims).
Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ewwm4/eli5_why_do_pedophiles_disproportionately_target/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck3pcz7",
"ck3pr17",
"ck3wxh4"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"I would GUESS, that since male pedophiles were once boys themselves they have better insight into how to psychologically manipulate boys. Sometimes with first hand experience as a victim.",
"two things:\n\n1. Don't assume the reported statistics are accurate. \n2. Don't assume all paedophiles are male.",
"I always thought that it was basically just easier access. \nMost parents are far more comfortable leaving a boy with a grown man than they are to leave a girl with a grown man."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3dh94n | how lyft is almost as big uber but only uber is suffering with regulations, fines, arrests and stings? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dh94n/eli5_how_lyft_is_almost_as_big_uber_but_only_uber/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct54kiu",
"ct54l4r"
],
"score": [
5,
26
],
"text": [
"I can tell you that in Albuquerque Lyft was forced out due to all of the regulations and fines. So they are not immune to it, but they just get less publicity than Uber. ",
"It's not. \n\nLyft's last valuation put it at $2.5B _URL_1_\n\nUber's last valuation put it at $41B. It has raised more money than Lyft is worth.\n_URL_2_\n\nLeft currently serves 1 country\n_URL_3_\n\nUber serves 57 countries\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.uber.com/cities",
"http://www.businessinsider.com/carl-icahn-invests-150-million-in-lyft-2015-5",
"http://www.businessinsider.com/novogratz-ubers-valuation-jumped-15-billion-in-one-week-2015-5",
"https://www.lyft.com/cities"
]
]
|
||
2rasen | why is neon the 4th most abundant element in the universe? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rasen/eli5_why_is_neon_the_4th_most_abundant_element_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cne2z3o"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It isn't. It's fifth, [after hydrogen, helium, carbon, and oxygen](_URL_0_).\n\nAs for why that is - the higher elements are built up in stars by fusion (often through some intermediate steps) of Helium-4 nuclei. So the most common elements other than hydrogen have atomic numbers that are multiples of 2 and masses that are multiples of 4: Helium-4, Carbon-12, Oxygen-16, and Neon-20 (we're missing Beryllium-8, which is unstable for complicated reasons)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements"
]
]
|
||
56xtmv | who is this ken bone guy? why is he all over the internet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56xtmv/eli5who_is_this_ken_bone_guy_why_is_he_all_over/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8n8l48",
"d8n8s4q"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Apparently he was deemed winner of the debate by the moderator for his rockin red sweater and epic stache",
"He was one of the undecideds at the debate. All of the others dressed smartly, like suit and tie level of smart. Ken Bone's red sweater made him stand out and his appearance in general was pretty sweet and meme-able. His question as an undecided was pretty awkward and not well composed. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3xvsxx | why can't we bring african animals to live in the southern usa? ie: elephants, rhinos | It just seems like the US could better regulate conservation if we had herds of elephants here. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xvsxx/eli5_why_cant_we_bring_african_animals_to_live_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy8806u",
"cy88d13",
"cy88f4o",
"cy8et29"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no natural habitat for them in the US. Without care, they may not survive long outside of their normal ecosystem and/or they might cause substantial damage to the local ecosystem. Thus those shipped over are typically kept and cared for in zoos.",
"A few decades ago there was [an effort](_URL_0_) to bring hippos to Louisiana to eat an invasive plant. Some game species are brought to US ranches today, as well.",
"It would cause an ecological invasion.\n\n Since invasive species (species brought to a new habitat unnaturally) have no natural predators in the new habitat, they would slowly drive out the native species (You see thi very often with invasive plant species)\n",
"Every environment has a delicate ecological balance, where every species, whether plant or animal has its own niche. This is a specific role this species plays in that ecosystem, such as controlling the population of certain plant species or animals by predation and also providing food for other animal species. They may also contribute by fertilising land (with their poop) or exhibit other behaviour that other species depend on (such as bees pollinating certain plants for example). When you introduce a foreign species into a new ecosystem, this balance will be disrupted - for example they may eat the same plants as another animal and are now competing with this animal for food and there may not be enough of this plant for this species B to thrive anymore (because this new species A is eating it all) and thus the population of species B begin to drop. Species C is a predator of species B and so they also suffer as their food source is now dwindling. Species C also eats and digests the seeds of another plant which is a food source for species D so this species is also affected and so on... Also if certain species that would have controlled the population of another drop, the population of the other species will grow and they can over feed on certain plants affecting the balance this way also... So introducing a foreign species to a different environment has a potentially massive domino effect on the entire ecosystem and would be disastrous. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://magazine.atavist.com/stories/american-hippopotamus/"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cuvau0 | how do rappers like travis scott or migos make so much money? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cuvau0/eli5_how_do_rappers_like_travis_scott_or_migos/ | {
"a_id": [
"exzaiyi",
"exzd4t5"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"The vast majority of money from most music artists is made from touring. Big artists and small artists, its mostly from touring. They generally don't make much on album sales and streaming/royalties, but pull in big bucks when they are on long tours. Doesn't mater if its a rapper, singer, rock band, or saxophonist, touring is where the money is at.\n\nThis isn't new, this is pretty much how it has always been. The vast majority of profits a musician earns is in live performances, the music label makes money on the albums and songs, the artist on performing it.",
"They get majority of a cut from touring, while their managers, stage hands and other staff take a small cut to divide up.\n\nStreaming services also pay the artist pennies every time their song is streamed, 100 000 people listen to your song today, theres $2000.\n\nSelling physical merchandise,\n(Tyler the creator's Golf brand, i love/Ehate Elvis badges).\n\nKanye west and dr. Dre mentor a prodigy and take a specific cut as per contract (look up 50cent and G-Unit holding other artist's songs assets)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
57wi5c | how do you express feeling/sarcasm/etc. in tonal languages (chinese, vietnamese, thai, etc.) | In languages like English there is a lot of meaning expressed by tone of voice, such as feeling, sarcasm, teasing, etc. How does that happen with a tonal Asian language where there are already changed meanings to the word or phrase depending on the tones used? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57wi5c/eli5_how_do_you_express_feelingsarcasmetc_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8vubju",
"d8vv9va",
"d8w0gjg"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Vietnamese-Am. here.\n\nSarcasm is still said with a \"mocking\" voice.\n\nThe accents used are just another context clue like topic of conversation is. For example, did you notice that I missed a \"the\" in the previous sentence? \n\nLikewise, changing the tone doesn't change the meaning of each word because you have enough hints to infer the meaning.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nedit: Although I am not fluent nor experienced enough to say for certain ... \n\nI guess words (and their consonant sounds), when said completely sarcastically, usually sound abnormal without the sarcastic context because the pitch of consonant sounds are not ever modified by accent symbols.\n\nTherefore, those weirdly pronounced words make it easy to infer sarcasm.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nedit2: Vietnamese, IMO, is *extremely* similar to English and shares many of the same ways of expressing emotion. \n\nFor example, we have multiple words showing varying degrees of affection just like English also has \"like\" and \"love\". \n\nWe have \"thích\", ~~\"tình\"~~ thương and \"yêu\". The connotation of each is different so convey different feelings.\n\nFun fact! We have redundant phrases such as \"lua chon\" (which has accents I can't type on mobile). Both words mean \"to choose\" so using just one of them would have the same effect as using the other or both.\n\n",
"I am fluent in English and both major Chinese dialects, Cantonese and Mandarin.\n\nTo my general understanding and research over the years, English is not a language that communicate emotion well because it is rather simple and not very flexible. This is especially true in simple conversations when we often use very simple words and comments like \"that is cool\" or just \"cool\", which isn't even exactly a yes or no and could mean just about anything. For English we rarely think of new ways to form sentences or find new words to use.\n\nEnglish is one of the better written languages and does well in formal documents and laws, or for business settings such as presentations. Because the language is rather rigid, well written clauses and full sentences usually leave little room for interpretation.\n\nThis is not the case for Chinese. Chinese is quite an emotionally charged language, so it doesn't take much to express emotion, and there are many different ways to say the same thing. Some characters and some ways you build the sentence have sarcasm implied that does not require anything extra.\n\nIt is in some ways the opposite of English in that conversations are rather colorful and quickly reflect character and language command. But when it is written for formal purposes it is a headache trying to understand and interpret the exact meaning and intent of clauses.",
"You have to make an important distinction, in addition to the other answers which are great. Tones in such languages are *relative* changes in the pitch of a syllable, people who speak tonal languages can still use intonation because that can be expressed as a global change in pitch.\n\nThere are Mandarin speakers who have low bassy voices, and Mandarin speakers with high voices. It's the contour or the difference in pitch that affects the tone of a word, otherwise it would pretty much require all speakers to have perfect pitch recognition."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2pq3n0 | how does increasing the interest rate to 17% in russia and selling of their foreign-exchange help the russian ruble exchange rate ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pq3n0/eli5_how_does_increasing_the_interest_rate_to_17/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmyzyee",
"cmz4fkd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Selling their Euros, etc. to buy rubles means that rubles will become scarcer and the price should rise.\n\nRaising the interest rate means that instead of cashing in and taking your money to Sweden, you will invest in mother Russia to take advantage of the higher interest. \n\nThe first one apparently is working better than the latter attempt at shoring up the currency.",
"By reducing the supply of rubles.\n\n* someone who would have convert their rubles at 10% interest might keep them in the bank at 17%\n* selling euros and dollars and gold for rubles takes rubles off of the market "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
7bswtz | difference between mirrorless and dslr | I have searched on reddit but most of the information seems a little complicated for someone like me who are not really used to the terms used in photography. I'm looking to get a basic camera in hopes to learn a little about photography and have gotten recommendation from the sales assistant to get a mirrorless camera. I was introduced to both D3400 and A5000 so I'm hoping someone can explain it in layman terms for me to further understand the difference between the both. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7bswtz/eli5_difference_between_mirrorless_and_dslr/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpki1mk",
"dpmqwne"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A mirrorless camera projects onto the sensor at all times.\n\n\nA SLR style camera has a mirror that redirects the image through the lens to the viewer that you use to frame the shot. When you take a picture the mirror flips out of the way so that the image is projected onto the sensor, then it flips back up out of the way so the image can project onto the sensor.\n\n\nMirrorless cameras tend to be smaller and less flexible on lenses choices, they also perform slightly worse in low light. SLR have more lense choices but are larger and have better overall performance .",
"I've worked for Nikon for 3 years.\nFinally a question I can answer.\nBasically the difference is in the structure of the camera body. In a SLR or digital SLR the light coming through the lens bounces of a mirror at a 45° angle and in to the viewfinder (little window where you look). As soon as you press the shutter button, the mirror flips out of the way, and the light hits the sensor/film. A mirrorless camera... well... doesn't have a mirror. The light passes through the lens straight on to the sensor. \n\nPros and cons:\n\nDSLR\n\nYou see the picture as is. Through a mirror. It's less straining on the eyes but doesn't provide you with information on what the picture will actually look like after you have taken it (if taken with longer exposure, white balance etc.)\n\nIt's faster at focusing on an object, witch is good if you do sports photography or take pictures of fast moving scenes. Not much faster, but still.\n\nIt's heavier, do to a more complex construction. Puts more strain on your hands and neck, but gives you more stability and less hand shake when taking a picture. Has more moving parts. Therefore less reliable\n\nMirrorless\n\nMost mirrorless cameras let you see what the picture will turn out like. Makes it easier, but if you want to get in to photography seriously, I wouldn't go the easy way. It's better to learn. \n\nIt's smaller and lighter. You won't have to think weather to take the camera with you or not. \nHas better video performance. As the focusing sensors are on the sensor itself, the camera is a lot better at well... focusing during video. \n\nTldr; If you want to get into photography, go for the Nikon. If you are just looking for a daily family driver, go for the Sony. \n\nSorry for the typos. I'm on my phone.\n\nEdit. \n\nA bit of lingo for you.\n\nAperture: (or f stop) is the hole in your lens, that adjusts in size, letting you control the amount of light coming through the lens. The bigger the hole, the brighter the image, and the more of a blurry background you will have.\n\nShutter speed: Is calculated in fractions of a second. Correlates to the amount of time the sensor is open to light. The longer you let light in, the brighter the picture, and the longer trail behind moving objects.\n\nISO: The artificial brightening of the picture by the camera. The camera sends extra power to the sensor. That amplifies the data received by the sensor. Wich makes it brighter, but introduces noise (grain) in the picture."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2fjstv | how come one person screaming can not be heard from very far away, but football stadiums can be heard from miles away? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fjstv/eli5_how_come_one_person_screaming_can_not_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck9w2mk",
"ck9xw3f"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There's essentially more power to a football stadiums worth of screaming. More power means it can trave farther. ",
"Sound works like waves. \n\nImagine two people jumping from a bridge, 5 feet apart. When they hit the water they will both make a circular wave that spreads around them. \n\nWhere the waves collide head on, they dissapear/become smaller. However, where the waves meet up and go in the same direction, instead of crashing, they become larger.\n\nThis also happens when two (or 10 000) people scream. They make sound waves that join up and become bigger. A bigger sound wave means louder sound."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
xql2x | how do they decide what movies are shown in theaters and which aren't? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xql2x/how_do_they_decide_what_movies_are_shown_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5opz0l"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Theatres get paid by movie companies to screen that movie. That's why low budget films struggle to get a box office return, whereas Pirates of the Carribean can pull a billion across their movies. Having a big budget aides not only the production but the release."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9nj4ra | why do things like a fork scratching a plate and fingernails on a chalkboard make us cringe really hard and what is the psychological effect behind it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9nj4ra/eli5_why_do_things_like_a_fork_scratching_a_plate/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7mqzec",
"e7mrnm4",
"e7mrxaf",
"e7ms367",
"e7mslvf",
"e7mu3at",
"e7muq28",
"e7muxq1",
"e7mv648"
],
"score": [
38,
238,
1101,
14,
41,
2,
2,
24,
19
],
"text": [
"I'll try again. I think it's [Misophonia](_URL_0_), which Wikipedia and other sources explain better than me but, essentially, is a non-voluntary psychological/chemical reaction to certain noises. I certainly have it with squeaky balloons and noisy eating & drinking, involving a disproportionately negative reaction to those sounds. ",
"A theory from a previous posting of this question (so I'm no expert myself, just regurgitating) was that it's a remnant of some sort of survival mechanism of an ancestor of ours based on verbalizations that sounded similar. ",
"According to some studies over the years, this feeling we get is a whole new emotion (there isn't an English word for it). \n\nSome researchers say that this feeling/emotion is a human instinct that has lived with us since prehistoric times. Back when were primates, we were prey to some animals, so we had a warning call similar to the alarm call of macaque monkeys, and on hearing this call, we would get the same horrible feeling, telling us to run away or hide. \n\nThat warning call sound must have been identical to the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. ",
"So, it‘s probably evolutionary. Our ancestors reacted to high pitch sounds in the same way we do, it made them more aware, activating Adrenalin. The reason for this is probably the scream of monkeys, that got disturbed by something. Call it a prehistoric alarm system.\n\nThe reason I‘m saying „probably“ is the same as with any prehistoric theory. We weren‘t there and can only deduct the best theory until otherwise disproven.",
"The frequency of sounds like this generate lots of peaks and troughs in quick succession. Our brain interprets this as one long unresolved/dissonant tone and it makes us shudder. ",
"It is an instinct to make people grind their teeth less and to not bite into hard objects. Broken teeth = lower survival. ",
"It could also be because the sounds are very high frequency and human ears are most sensitive at between 2-5khz ",
"Is it related to why scrapping styrofoam gives me shivers? ",
"I'm surprised that people even attempted to answer this question. The only reasonable answer is to simply say \"we have no idea\". We just don't understand much about how/why things \"feel\" the way they do, and it's best to simply admit that rather than make vague, unsubstantiated claims having to do with evolution and survival mechanisms."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-misophonia"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3jfvvp | how are millenials going to suffer from the baby boomers' debt? how did the baby boomers get this debt in the first place? what does this all mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jfvvp/eli5_how_are_millenials_going_to_suffer_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuovqul",
"cuowoaf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The baby boomers have had significant control of the country since the 60s, because they generally have had similar ideologies and objectives and controlled the largest voting contingent and large amounts of wealth. During the 60s they were the flower children. During the 70s they were all into disco and enjoyed plenty of cocaine. During the 80s they were all having kids grow up and started the war on drugs (a huge waste of money). They encouraged trickle down economics that has encouraged the largest inequality in wealth since the gilded age. They specifically funded social security to last until they died off. They decreased regulations for their personal gains, encouraging the bubble and recession that we've gone through these last 10 years or so. They've voted in tax cuts that helped themselves but increased the debt burden on future generations. Now we are reaching the point that they are becoming decreasingly responsible for their actions, and the younger generations are left to clean up their messes.",
"A lot of the problem comes from accruing bad credit. People refused to take personal responsibility and maybe not buy things they couldn't afford. But since they had credit a lot of them imagined it as a future problem they'd deal with some day down the road. Then when it's time to pay they've squandered their money on frivolous things and wouldn't dream of ever blaming themselves for what happened. \n\nNot everyone did it, but IIRC the 20s were when credit really started to kick off as a concept in America. It's existed historically for a while, but our way of handling it was different. \n\nTl;dr: A lot of people used credit as a get-whatever-I-want-with-no-consequences thing. Turns out there are consequences. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1199bg | how do they make processors (intel), and what is a x nanometer process? | Always been curious about this, recently was looking and seeing that sandy bridge is 32nm, and ivy bridge is 22nm, what does this mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1199bg/eli5_how_do_they_make_processors_intel_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6kg2e5",
"c6kg3dd",
"c6kklk4"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the size of the features they are fabricating. The processors are made with lithography, which is essentially burning a pattern into a silicon wafer with a laser. \n\nThe smaller lithography you have, the smaller you can make each transistor, which means less waste heat from each transistor, and more transistors on a given size of silicon. Because it gets harder to manufacture chips without defects as you increase the size of the chip, and because you have limits on power consumption, improvement and advancement comes from making smaller transistors in a fairly constant physical size and power consumption envelope, thus giving you more transistors and therefore more processing power.\n\nIt's like if I gave you a sheet of paper and a paintbrush, and asked you to draw as many smiley faces as you can, while making each smiley face readily visible. If I replaced the paintbrush with a marker, you'd fit more. And if I replaced it with a pen, you'd fit even more, because your lines are smaller. That's sort of what going to a smaller lithography gives you.",
"I'm sitting in an electronics class as I type, and my professor is from Intel (he left on very good terms about a year or two ago.) This is all we've talked about this semester and it still blows my mind - so I really have no idea what I'm talking about.\n\n* A \"semiconductor\" is a material which has properties that can be manipulated, including how easily electrons move through it. \n\n* A \"transistor\" is an electrical component that can be \"on\" or \"off.\" \n\n* The \"nanometer\" is a distance between two semiconductor sections of the transistor and influences how easy it is to turn it on and off, as well as how quickly the electrons flow through it.\n\nThus, a shorter distance means electrons flow quicker and the processor is faster.\n\nI'll be very interested in reading better explanations, so I hope people can expand, simplify, or correct mine as needed.\n\nEDIT: I just realized I only addressed the second part of the question, but there's already another answer that explains it as well/simply as I know how, so I won't try to explain the process. I will say that some other part of the process have to do with the manipulation of the semiconductors that I alluded to. ",
"They make processors by laying down a layer of metal then etching away most of it to leave a layer of wires. \"22nm process\" refers to how narrow they can make the wires.\n\nUnfortunately, there's no needle small enough to scratch away the metal so precisely. So, instead they cover the parts that will become wires with an acid-resistant template and wash away the unwanted metal with acid. Then they wash away the template with a different chemical that doesn't affect the wires.\n\nBut, how do they make a template layer so small? They use a material that starts off soft, but hardens when you shine light on it. To get only the template to harden, they make a big projector slide of what the template should look like and shine light through it focused down on the chip.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography"
]
]
|
|
7p9dmb | what is the procedure in stopping/regaining control of a hijacked plane using air force jets? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7p9dmb/eli5_what_is_the_procedure_in_stoppingregaining/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsfh6nv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You cannot regain control of a hijacked airplane. The interceptors are scrambled so that if the hijackers try to fly the plane into the Pentagon or a major building again, the interceptors can destroy the plane before they do so. But this is a last resort because everyone recognizes that the occupants of the plane would almost certainly be killed. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3b41bw | why do we use "m" and "b" to denote millions and billions but "k" for thousands? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b41bw/eli5why_do_we_use_m_and_b_to_denote_millions_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"csimhwe",
"csimi5g",
"csimiak",
"csimihp"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The SI prefix for a thousand is kilo-, officially abbreviated as k—for instance, prefixed to \"metre\" or its abbreviation m, kilometre or km signifies a thousand metres. As such, people occasionally represent the number in a non-standard notation by replacing the last three zeros of the general numeral with \"K\": for instance, 30K for 30,000.",
"From the prefix kilo, which is derived from the Greek word meaning, appropriately enough, a thousand.",
"M stands for the prefix Mega- which means millions.\nK stands for the prefix Kilo- which means thousand.\nB just means billions for obvious reasons. The prefix for billion is Giga- so it should be G, but it ain't.\n\nedit: Nano is one billionth not a billion",
"K is short for \"kilo\", the metric abbreviation for 1000. M often will be short for \"mega\", the metric abbreviation for million. Hope this helps!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
admqop | how come if you manually set the date of a computer from today to let’s say, the year 2005, why would it make the computer act erratically? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/admqop/eli5_how_come_if_you_manually_set_the_date_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ediehst",
"edier53",
"edigg1n",
"edioxxv",
"edl7e4a"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many programs do things based on the date, like decide to check for updates. They get the time from the clock and subtract from it the time of their last change to their profile file on disk. If it's more than a day, they check for updates. If it's -14 years, they screw up.",
"Imagine if you had reminders set for tomorrow morning, but now the computer thinks they are set 14 years in the future!\n\nWhat if you checked how old a file was, and it says it's age is -14 years?\n\nIt's hard to tell exactly what would break, because each program probably uses dates in slightly different ways, but you can be sure that you'd see some odd behavior.",
"To add on to what others have said, if the computer in question is joined to a Windows domain, it will act erratically because it will not be able to authenticate to the network. By default, if the local clock differs by more than five minutes from the network's authoritative time (whatever the clock is set to on the domain controller), Windows will decided \"something's up\" and not trust your computer.",
"To add on as well, certain programs need time stamps to communicate. If you are connecting to something, and they expect a signal at 4:57:16 but the signal they got was timed 17:23:45. The server will think something is totally wrong. Instead of treating it like you had a 9+ hour delay or is somehow 13 hours ahead. It would tell your system to restart, and see if you can get some expected delays.",
"Another reason that I haven't seen mentioned yet: anything that uses a SSL certificate will no longer work properly because from the viewpoint of the system the certificate has an issue date in the future."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
27nkjx | why does the volume on my tv seem to be infinitely louder when music plays than when there is dialogue? | Currently trying to watch Fight Club while my friend is napping in the other room and keep having to abruptly turn down the volume when there is any music or high action scene in the background. Help. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27nkjx/eli5_why_does_the_volume_on_my_tv_seem_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci2l7f6",
"ci2mbpa"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This might be because the audio track for the movie is mixed for 5.1 surround sound and you're watching it on stereo. In 5.1 the center channel is almost exclusively for dialogue. When it is forced to play through stereo you lose the center channel and the dialogue is quieter without the center channel reinforcing it.",
"It's the same thing as ads. They compress the sound of action scenes and ads to be the maximum volume they can, whereas dialogue is way quieter as it is dynamic, going from whispers to yells. The loudest sound dialogue ever is is generally only for a second, where as for an ad/action scene is constant and way more noticeable. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1jspuj | "heat ripples" in air | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jspuj/eli5_heat_ripples_in_air/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbhwz7b"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It is due to refraction, the bending of light waves, the light is passing through cooler and hotter air, when light passes through the less dense hotter air it goes faster. The light curves, and bends and appears to be wavy. This phenomenon is responsible for mirages of what looks like water in deserts, as refraction is similar to how we perceive reflection from surfaces like water."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
52nfkf | what's happening when installing a new os? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52nfkf/eli5_whats_happening_when_installing_a_new_os/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7lopdf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When most people think of the operating system, they think of the user interface, like the Start menu or the macOS Dock. That's actually a tiny piece of the operating system.\n\nThe big pieces are:\n\n1. All of the common components for all other apps to build on, like windows, menus, buttons, video codecs, audio codecs, 3-D rendering libraries, web browser components, and so much more\n2. Drivers for thousands and thousands of hardware devices, so that apps don't need to know what kind of mouse or printer you have, they just say \"print this\" or \"get the mouse coordinates\" and the OS does the hard part\n\nAll of that adds up to thousands and thousands of files taking many gigabytes of disk space.\n\nWhen you're installing a new operating system, most of the time is spent just copying files:\n\n* Backing up your old operating system in case anything goes wrong\n* Copying the new files into place\n* Upgrading things that need to be changed from the older to the newer version in-place, like certain configuration files that changed formats\n* If all of this succeeds, making the new operating system the default\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3lk8na | why can't some people wear prosthetics? | I have a friend from HS who lost an arm. She couldn't get the arm she wanted because it didn't connect correctly. She mentioned something about how her arm couldn't take a triangle, square, or circle connection. I want to understand why it doesn't work. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lk8na/eli5_why_cant_some_people_wear_prosthetics/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv74irc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First of all, there are two types of prosthesis: Body-powered and Electric. Body-powered limbs are less expensive and work by connecting and responding to cables positioned around your body (Kind of like a puppeteer) and Electric limbs are much more complex and work by reading signals from your muscles or brain. Depending on the position and workmanship of your friend's amputation it might be possible that she does not have the proper muscle mass or positioning to be fitted for an prosthetic\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1ppqfb | why can't i read graffiti? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ppqfb/eli5_why_cant_i_read_graffiti/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd4pvwl",
"cd4pvy5"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"because you are too white",
"A lot of times, graffiti is just the name/tag of the person who painted it, so they're not necessarily words you would recognize. There's also a lot of shorthand with gang graffiti, so a letter and number may stand in as the ID of an entire gang. Sometimes, other gang members will only put their initials around one member's big tag.\n\nCombine that with a highly stylized alphabet and it can appear incomprehensible. Just remember that all of the letters are from the regular alphabet that you know."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
31p2m9 | why are dreams weird? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31p2m9/eli5_why_are_dreams_weird/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq3ofug",
"cq3pf1t",
"cq3plod",
"cq3pq2q"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Based on my own understanding of how dreams work, your brain is putting together tons of random images and thoughts together all at once (from whatever is currently on your mind or things that have happened to you recently). It would be like taking a bunch of random clips from a movie and throwing them all together to make a scene and trying to make sense of it all. It might come out seeming pretty weird. ",
"Also could do with your diet. Take a vitamin B Complex pill before bed and get ready for some real trippy colourful dreams! ",
"When using melatonin pills to help me switch from night shifts to days I get some really odd dream sequences. ",
"Your brain has 3 basic parts, correspond to evolutionary stages and moods... (I'm roughly paraphrasing from Carl Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden') \nbrainstem/lizard brain: fear and lust, no forward planning.\nmidbrain/dog brain: mood without processing, ie religious fervor.\nforebrain/human brain: high level processing, math problems.\n\nThe proposal is your forebrain spends all day riding the more primitive components, and shuts down at night and the more primitive components come out to play. The lizard is trying to make sense of things that don't make sense, and it looks really strange when your forebrain manages to take some of that back to waking land. Check out the Sagan book I mentioned for more."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
6z1v5y | why do coffee makers suggest you start with cold water? | If the machine makes it hot in the end, whats the purpose of using cold water? Specifically is there any scientific reason that using cold water could the way the coffee turns out in the end? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z1v5y/eli5_why_do_coffee_makers_suggest_you_start_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmrtv0d",
"dmrur6h",
"dms28u7"
],
"score": [
25,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Hot water is more likely to pick up minerals from your pipes. It will have a higher metal concentration than cold water, so cold water is \"cleaner\".\n\nNot sure how it impacts the taste of coffee but it is fully reasonable that it could, they are just recommending cleaner water.",
"Basically like mentioned, the hot water draws water from the hot water tank which has alot of sediment in it at the bottom from rust and breaking down the lining. That sediment makes its way into your coffee. Its not healthy to drink that shit and the older the water heater the higher the chance of sediment contaminating the water you wanted to drink.",
"Legionnaires’ disease.\n\nBacteria can grow and thrive in a tank style hot water heater if the water temp is below 140°F so if your water heater is above that range it's likely fine, if not you could be at risk of that bacteria being ingested"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
e9sa69 | why are back wheel brakes on cars on the front of the brake and front wheel brakes are on the back of the brake? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e9sa69/eli5_why_are_back_wheel_brakes_on_cars_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fal5zjx",
"fal7vat",
"falhqsw"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Center of gravity, you want to keep the weight as close to center of the car as possible.\nBut only really high end sport cars have these setups.",
"They're actually usually not that way. It's close to 50/50 with a slight preference for the opposite.\n\n53% of passenger cars have their rear brake on the rear of the rear wheel, and only 47% have the rear brake on the front of the rear wheel. 51% of cars have the front brake on the front of the front wheel, and 49% have it on the rear of the front wheel.\n\nEngineering Explained did a video on this. [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nIn short, it depends on a lot of things. Adequate cooling of the brakes, purpose of the vehicle, cost, and other design factors like the suspension system.",
"Front brakes are located to the rear of the wheel so they don't interfere with your steering mechanism, which is in front of the hub. \n\nThe rear brakes don't really matter as much, so they go wherever is convenient for the designer. Sports cars *might* put them forwards for weight distribution, but with other vehicles they're often behind as well. Reasons can range from \"felt like it\" to \"hey, if we do this we can re-use parts to lower cost and warehouse space.\" (There's some cars that reuse the entire front hub assembly on the rear, IIRC.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEIk0hJ7eGk"
],
[]
]
|
||
9vjxhj | how come you can easily fall asleep again after waking up from, for example, a sound? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vjxhj/eli5_how_come_you_can_easily_fall_asleep_again/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9douf1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Falling asleep isn't like an on/off switch, it's dictated through chemicals in your brain like melatonin. Unless you are like startled awake and pumped up with adrenaline to wake you up, chances are your brain is already responding to the melatonin so you'll easily go back to sleep."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
obx56 | what is the deal with dubai? | I feel like I've only heard of Dubai in the last five or ten years. What's the low-down on the city/country's rise to noticeability? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/obx56/eli5_what_is_the_deal_with_dubai/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3g0foq",
"c3g19ab",
"c3g44wi"
],
"score": [
28,
12,
7
],
"text": [
"Oil money. Then they leveraged that oil money for credit to build up Dubai, initiating a huge slew of construction projects (islands, manmade reefs, tallest building, giant indoor skiing mountain). Some of these building projects are so ostentatious and excessive that people took notice. They have been building a Las Vegas in the Middle East (although they'd compare themselves to Singapore -- they want to be the major trading port of the ME). However, with the recession that hit in 2007, they lost a ton of money and have been unable to sell a lot of what they built. They've had to take a huge ($60bil iirc) loan from their neighboring Emirate cities. ",
"Dubai won the oil lottery. Then they were like \"fuck it, lets buy all the things.\" Now they're running out of money.",
"This may not be relevant to your question, but I visited Dubai about 5 years ago and I thought it was a really strange place. There was construction everywhere. And I really mean EVERYWHERE! There were several trucks carrying sand to and from the construction sites for the man made islands. My friends went on about the crazy rich sheiks who dunno what to do with their money, the crazy laws and gender inequality. The place seemed really conservative and modern at once. A tour guide told me that the crime rate was really low. I dunno if that's true though. If it is, I'm not sure if that's cos they have shit tons of money or if it's cos they have such crazy laws that you're screwed for all eternity if you get caught doing something illegal. There's a really good article about the dark story behind Dubai. It's shocking! I can find it if you really want it. PM or respond to me if you do."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7n27mn | when nuclear bombs are tested over water, what happens under the water's surface? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7n27mn/eli5_when_nuclear_bombs_are_tested_over_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"dryhf2z"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The water's surface is vaporized immediately due to the extreme heat. Those water vapors travel upward and mingle with all of the radio active particles before going far up into the atmosphere. Those tiny water vapors carry radioactive particles with them until the vapors condense and fall as a rain drops. Then you have radio active rain."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
30wtq4 | why did the cold war end, and why did the berlin wall fall? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30wtq4/eli5_why_did_the_cold_war_end_and_why_did_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpwixvo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Soviet Union was going through a massive economic downturn, which also coincided with Gorbachev's policy of restructuring and openness (Perestroika, Glasnost). Several of their client states in the eastern Europe were facing massive demonstrations and open revolts against the communist puppet governments. They basically had the choice between a bloody military suppression (like in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslavia 1968, but on a far wider scale) and letting it all go to hell."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
270ebg | what is sunburn and how does it heal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/270ebg/eli5_what_is_sunburn_and_how_does_it_heal/ | {
"a_id": [
"chw76m1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A sunburn is where the UV rays have essentially cooked the top layers of skin.\n\nThey heal by opening the blood vessels which send anti-body rich blood to the skin in an attempt to heal it.\n\nIn cases where it is extremely severe (much like with any burn) they may use other methods to help the healing. One of the oldest methods that is tried and true is maggots. They apply maggots to the burned areas, and they eat away at only the dead flesh, after which they are removed and the new, fresh, living skin is allowed to heal properly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ayv024 | what exactly is a chiropractor and what are it’s benefits? | I see a lot of people who consider themselves progressive as pro chiropractor. Meanwhile I understand that a lot of people label them as quacks. I’ve also heard Chiropractors aren’t considered “real” doctors, and why is that? Are there actual medical benefits to seeing a chiropractor or is it similar to a massage but for your bones? I have no clue and it’s hard for me to find an unbiased source | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayv024/eli5_what_exactly_is_a_chiropractor_and_what_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei3gdv2",
"ei3j5g8"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"Empirically, chiropractors have no scientific basis (massages do). But they feel so good, so I don't really care.",
"They aren’t considered real doctors because they aren’t. They don’t hold a medical degree, they haven’t completed a medical residency, and they can’t prescribe medications. Evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective ranges anywhere from conflicting to nonexistant depending on what you’re talking about treating."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4hd2xe | what is the point of reddits heavy moderation and censorship? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hd2xe/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_reddits_heavy/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2p2xqx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, if you were to have been on Reddit when it was first created and there wasn't as much moderation - \n\nIt was basically just a cesspit of trolls trying to make people angry, and random penis jokes getting flung around everywhere."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1jc2yv | why would dollar coins be "better" to use in the u.s than dollar bills? | I've heard people tell me the U.S could benefit from using dollar coins more regularly? How and Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jc2yv/eli5eli5why_would_dollar_coins_be_better_to_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbd67cd",
"cbd6ahf"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It's just easier. I would much rather have coins over bills / notes. Bills are big and easy to be mixed up with other denominations. Coins are not. Plus bills are more likely to fall out of a pocket / wallet.\n\nComing from an aussie.",
"I think the most common argument is that coins are much more durable and need to be replaced far less often. This way the government could spend less on printing money.\n\nEven though a dollar coin may cost more initially to make, it will actually end up being cheaper because it will last for say 20 years. As opposed to a dollar bill which might only last 3-4 years before you need a new one."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3f72km | . why did americans blame the troops during vietnam? | If 50+% of Americans new people that died in Vietnam, (presumable that didn't want to be there) why did the public hate the soldiers so much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f72km/eli5_why_did_americans_blame_the_troops_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctlvz39",
"ctlw0yd",
"ctlwi28",
"ctlxo2w",
"ctlxv9i"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they were killing and raping innocent people. Pictures and TV broadcasts were being shown of the soldiers doing horrific things. \n\nExample (NSFW)\n_URL_0_",
"A large portion of the population thought the war was immoral and illegal and that anyone who participated was therefore a criminal. A lot of people felt that if the population had refused to serve in the draft en masse the war would have been over earlier so each person who was drafted and served continued to prolonging an immoral and illegal war.\n\nPeople were also very frustrated that they did not seem to have a political option to end the war. The Presidential candidates of both parties in 1964 and 1968 did not intend to end the war unilaterally and there were not enough anti-war members of the House or Senate to move legislation to end the war either. So folks tended to deflect their frustrations with the elected officials onto those who served in uniform.\n\n",
"I would question the idea that \"the public hated the soldiers\". \nYou had a few cases of activists being assholes, but that's not really something confined to the Vietnam war. I've mostly only seen references to it relatively recently in history, mostly as a barb aimed at anti-war people; eg \"Why do you hippies *hate our troops (and America and mom and apple pie and bald eagles)*?\"",
"It is largely, not completely, a media construction that civilians hated the returning soldiers. Civilian/veteran relations weren't great for a number of reasons, including vet resentment that civilian students (who were generally of a higher socioeconomic class) got deferments and an epidemic of undiagnosed PTSD in the veteran population, as well as an inability for civilians to understand the things vets had gone through in country. And of course veterans often -- not always -- whether as a defense mechanism or otherwise, tended to see the war as just, or at least something worth dying for, while the civilian population overwhelmingly did not by the time the war ended (and the draft-deferred students did not well before it ended). And whether they accepted the war or not, after years of living under military discipline, many vets had adopted many of the customs of the military, from dress, to respect for authority, and so on. This clashed dramatically with the hippified civilian culture which had adopted exactly the opposite culture **as a protest** against the militarism that had so victimized the draftees. Finally, to the extent students had interactions with folks in uniform during the war, it was frequently members of their campus ROTC, people who had joined up willingly, and as such might be assumed to have been more directly hostile to the hippie movement. \n\nUltimately the civilians who avoided the war and the returning vets were two groups on opposite sides of a cultural gulf, and that was the challenge, not that the groups hated or blamed each other, but that they could not understand each other. But remember that the hippies were trying to end the war -- to save their own skin, sure, and to save Vietnamese lives no doubt. But also to bring all those vets home safe.",
"Before US troops were sent to Vietnam most US citizens were already against troops being sent to a far away land that had no effect on the United States. So US citizens already had a \"we don't want to go to war\" mentality. At this time airstrikes were being carried out and a few airbases in southern Vietnam were being used by the United states. \n\nThen sometime in the early 1960s some 150,000 US troops were sent to Vietnam to fight the North Vietnamese. Even though war hadn't been officially declared. \n\nThen the battles between the North Vietnamese and US Troops broke out. US loses began to rise and in the process made even more people oppose the war.\n\nThen in 1965 color Television became commercially available. And every news channel in the world started showing pictures and footage of the War. It was really the first time people could see how brutal war was and what horrible things people are capable of during wartime. As you can imagine many of these things had led people to believe every US troop deployed was a warmongering baby killing bastard. Which was completely untrue. But after people saw the footage and the pictures, they assumed all US troops did was killing people and doing horrific things. Even though these were isolated incidents. \n\n "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/ThreeImages/images/UtphotoL.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4jbcwq | how do ebay sellers offer free shipping for used, low-profit, big, heavy items? | For example, motorcycle parts. [This seller had a metal frame](_URL_0_) that would cost me $20 to package if I bought the box and bubble wrap, or triple that at a UPS store. Just ground shipping to my house would be $36.45.
Do they make it up in volume? I'd think the labor costs would eat that $9 in "profit" right up. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jbcwq/eli5_how_do_ebay_sellers_offer_free_shipping_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d358409"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The shipping cost is incorporated into the total price. People are attracted to free shipping on items so sellers will use it.\n\n"
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kawasaki-Ninja-ZX-6-ZX-600-ZZR-600-1993-2004-Upper-Stay-Bracket-45167-/331794004914?hash=item4d4076bbb2:g:-e8AAOxy2HFSVeGv&vxp=mtr"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
619g9j | when driving in the snow, the faster i drive the less snow accumulates on my windshield. why? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/619g9j/eli5_when_driving_in_the_snow_the_faster_i_drive/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfcpnmi",
"dfcpr99"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because of the wind flowing over your windshield when you're going fast. The snow will \"ride\" the wind up and over your car, but when you're stopped there is less/no wind.",
"Do you know why vehicles and cars are shaped streamlined? \n\nWhen an object moves fast the air has to move around it to get out of the way, this is called wind resistance. \n\nWhen automobile manufacturers make a vehicle they take lots of things into account, like how fuel economy and the like are affected by how much energy a car has to expend to push past the atmosphere we live in. \n\nWhen a car starts moving quickly the air also has to move around it quickly, creating a fast moving buffer of air that pulls snow and the like with it. \n\nThe air moving quickly is the same principle that air foils use (such as an airplane wing or the spoiler on a car)\n\nThere is also a mythbysters episode on this, they drive an open top vehicle in the rain in an attempt to see if they dont get wet. Id expect that has more detail if you are interested."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2no83z | why the christian god created/cannot "defeat" christian satan? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2no83z/eli5_why_the_christian_god_createdcannot_defeat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmfbadx",
"cmfbeuh",
"cmfbxnh",
"cmfcq5k",
"cmfdrdh",
"cmfen3z",
"cmfezbh",
"cmfffcj",
"cmfffk6",
"cmffihq",
"cmffk7d",
"cmffsiz",
"cmffwx6",
"cmfg0l3",
"cmfg1c4",
"cmfheua",
"cmfhj3p",
"cmfif5h",
"cmfitbw",
"cmfj1s7"
],
"score": [
25,
2,
140,
728,
2,
9,
3,
3,
2,
9,
21,
3,
2,
23,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not that he can't defeat Satan, like you said he's all powerful.\n\nIt's that he doesn't want to. Satan represents temptation and sin. Without those things, human by default would be peaceful and loving and worship God. God doesn't want that, he wants people to make the choice, the conscious decision to worship him and be a good person.",
"Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief.\n\nTo put it simply, God created everything which included the angel that would become Satan and gives him a sort of freedom to cause his mischief.\nIt's a yin and yang, a symbiosis where God can't really function without Satan and vice versa because one represents the unexplainable and awe of the world where the other represents the unthinkable and cruel of the world.\n\nBatman and Joker.\n\nIf God defeats Satan (that which represents evil and chaos) and chaos and evil continues in the world, Christianity falls apart.",
"Christian theology usually answers this by handwaving about free will. God could prevent evil, but without the option to be evil, you cannot truly be good.\n\nThere is also the Parable of the Tares. A man finds weeds growing in his wheat field. He could go tromping through the field, disputing everything, to go pull them. Or he could let them grow, wait until harvest, separate the good from the bad, and deal with them then.",
"There are various theories in Christian theology which attempts to explain this. The particular theory that I personally believe is true as Christian is this:\n\nGod has already in a sense defeated Satan and made him 'powerless'. This happened through Jesus dying on the cross. When Jesus died he took the sin of the world upon him, so that anyone who believes in him wont die but have eternal life (John 1:29, John 3:16). Satan seeks for people to die and prevent people from being in relationship with Jesus. Jesus 'defeated' him by providing a way in which imperfect people could be in relationship with a perfect God. A couple of supporting passages are 1 John 3:8 and Hebrews 2:14-15.\n\nSo Satan has been stripped of his power over death, because Jesus defeated death on the cross. However, we believe he is still active in this world and still seeks to tempt people away from life and towards death (tempt people away from Jesus and towards sin [disobedience to God]). However he judgement is already assured and is only a matter of time. On the last day Satan will be defeated completely and be judged by God (Romans 16:20 alongside 1 Timothy 3:6).\n\nELI5s of complex theological topics are hard...\n\nTL;DR: Satan has already been defeated, but not destroyed by Jesus death on the cross. He will be destroyed on the 'day of judgement'\n\nDisclaimer: Christian theology on the matter does vary, but I find this explanation the most biblically consistent of any I know.",
"According to the bible God will in fact defeat the Devil on the Second Coming.",
"because the idea of satan is what has kept them in business for so long.",
"Because it's another made up theology and like other theologies doesn't stand up to logic?",
"why can't batman defeat the joker?",
"because there is no god and no devil. its all made up by earlier civilizations in books that are relics. ",
"Because he's not real. The problem with the story you experience, is evidence of it being counterfactual, as in not true.",
"First, it's not a dumb question. It's actually been thoroughly chewed over by many theologians and philosophers throughout the centuries. Related issues are \"why do bad things happen?\" and \"why does God seem to let evil triumph over good a lot of the time?\"\n\nSo to begin with, Satan is not \"equal but opposite\" with God. Satan was an angel who rebelled against God and wanted to supplant God. (Isaiah 14:12-15). For this reason he was thrown out of God's presence.** So Satan was defeated by God here.\n\nLater, when Jesus (who is also God) dies on the cross for humanity's sins, he descends to hell**. Three days after that, he comes back to life and ascends to heaven. This is also a defeat of Satan.\n\nAnd in fact, it doesn't take God to defeat Satan in Christian theology. Ordinary men and women defeat Satan when they accept Christ and ask for the forgiveness of their sins. By doing this, they go to heaven instead of hell.\n\nThere will be a final reckoning. Some people say the book of Revelations foretells what the final battle will look like, other people say it was a political allegory for early Rome. But in the Gospels, Jesus does say that he will return and he will recognize God's followers and let them into heaven. This is also a defeat of Satan.\n\nWill God ever just squish Satan out of existence? Maybe, maybe not. This starts wandering away from what is strictly Biblical into what theologians and denominations believe about God's character. \n\nSo why is Satan allowed to run around and make bad things happen on earth? Because Satan is not needed to make bad things happen. People being selfish or mean make bad things happen. People trying to do good things with unforeseen consequences make bad things happen. Nature makes bad things happen. Satan doesn't need to whisper in our ears or tempt us to cause suffering.\n\n**Incidentally, while the traditional and pop culture view of hell is a fire-plagued subterraneun space full of creatures who stab you with forks, this is not a Biblically accurate. A better description of hell is less \"torture with forks and fire\" and more \"the utter absence of God's presence.\"",
"Because it is a story, derived from folklore thousands of years in the making, translated numerous times and poorly written in the first place, if you haven't noticed any other inconsistencies you need to read the whole bible",
"Ok, first, God didn't create Satan *as* Satan. Satan started out as an angel, one of the best, in fact. But he rebelled and challenged Gods right to rule. He and the angels who took his side were cast out of heaven. \n\nGod can easily \"defeat\" Satan at any time he wants, but has chosen to let Satan make his argument that people should not follow Satan instead of God, knowing full well that the result of this is awful, so that it can be established in the hearts and minds if all that God's way is the best. Once that has been proved beyond any doubt, Satan will be dispensed with.*\n\n*I got this from my religious upbringing. I don't believe a single word of it. ",
"They're not real people or things. It's a book. That's like asking why the eagles didn't just take the One Ring to Mount Doom to destroy it.\n\nBecause that's how the book goes.\n\nNow Boromir's dead... for no good reason.",
"Satan is our enemy not necessarily God's enemy. Satan may be nothing more like a sifter, a tool, to present a choice between good and evil; and when the End of Days comes, simply discarded as no longer necessary. Taking away that tool, or the choice, would mean we are slaves to God's will, rather then free willed beings. Satan is more of a test for humanity. We are the students, God is the teacher, and Satan... nothing more then a choice in a pop quiz called life.",
"I'm a little late to the party but here's my explanation. People view Hell as this inherently terrible place where really it's just the absence of God. God is such a loving God that he doesn't force us to live with him for eternity, you get to choose. If you decide you don't want to accept God and live with him, then you don't have to. But if you so much as ask God to live with him, no matter what else you do, then you get to live with him forever in heaven. He's defeated satan in the sense that if you don't want to be on satans side you don't have to, but he still allows you to if you do want to. ",
"Because God works in mysterious ways. Obviously.",
"What good is free will if there is only one option to choose from?",
"Long story short, the \"devil\" made a wager that humans were inherently evil, \"god\" said \"that's not true\" and they agreed to let us decide our path of choice because \"god\" believes in us to do the right thing.\n\nrules:\n1.- no direct intervention.\n2.- no one can really know if any of them exist or not.\n3.- once the \"end of all days\" comes the winner is the one with more souls on their realm.\n\nso, basically, this is a game where in the end, the winner takes all.\n\nsorry for my grammar and pronunciation, I am not a native English speaker, but I hope you can endure this if you will read the next part.\n\n**A more in deep explanation**\n\nthere are many different interpretations of the devil and stuff, but in all of them, the devil was an angel, the most beautiful angel that most closely resembled god both in power and image, he and his other angel friends lived happy with god amongst them, and then god decided to create humans.\n\nnow, there are plenty of different stories that portray the devil in many different ways, one says he grew greedy and wanted God´s position, others say he grew envious of the humans because god gave them \"free will\" something the angels didn´t had, but my personal favorite explains the devil, saw the many flaws of mankind, and grew worried that they were going to destroy god, so when he arose his suspicions and concerns to god, god told him to keep calm, humans were gonna be as loving as all the other creations he had made, so, when god gave the humans the \"apple tree\" \"luzbel\" (the devils former name) saw this as an opportunity to prove god that we were not going to make the right choice, and gave eve the \"suggestion\" of eating from the apple tree, which she did, and gave the fruit to Adam.\n\nnow more things differ in plenty of stories, some say god vanished mankind to earth as punishment and after punishing \"Luzbel\" giving him his horrific appearance and changing his name to Lucifer, he vanished him to hell to wait for the end of days, others say Lucifer tried to take control of us and kill god with other angels and god had to intervene vanishing him to hell, my favorite says that \"Luzbel\", after showing god what we had done, was told that \"we\" were more worthy than the angels, because of the free will, and Luzbel should refrain from meddling with us, Luzbel still thought we were not worthy, but God loved him still and tried to reason with him... in the end all stories agree that Lucifer and God came to the agreement of seeing who was right, setting the rules of the \"game\".\n\nagain there are different interpretations, some say, \"Lucifer\" created his kingdom in the entrails of earth to capture human souls and grow and army against god others say that \"Lucifer\" decided he will punish us for our bad behavior if we didn´t abide by God´s rules because we were not worthy, and my favorite says that \"Lucifer\", after making his wager on God, decided to create a place for the bad souls to reside, not allowing them to see God when they died, a kind of a jail if you will, where the punishment is what brought you there in the first place, the angels that agreed with Lucifer went to help him, and god took the rest.\n\nnow, in some it exist but in some don´t, but I personally favor the existence of \"Purgatory\" where the souls that did nothing wrong, but also, nothing right, where sent to wait reincarnation, this, some say is looked after the angels that were in Lucifer side but repented after the fact, others say it was created by god so that Lucifer would not interfere with this souls, and my favorite says that both god and Lucifer are the caretakers of this place, a sort of limbo to wait reincarnation.\n\nnow, the wager they initially made, after setting up their realms and purgatory, mandated that no one on either side should meddle with our lives, but Lucifer still makes suggestions of doing bad things.\n\nsome say its \"cheating\", others say its because he hate us, my favorite says that it is done to prove our worth, still this was not agreed upon and god sent his \"angels\" as referees to make the devil abide by the rules they agreed upon (but angels are not omnipresent as god, and god already said he wouldn´t meddle on this things anymore).\n\nthis is the big thing with religion, when people get \"mad\" that god didn´t do anything to stop/help/give anything that happened to anyone, it´s because he believes we have the power to stop ourselves, and he want´s us to live our lives in happiness and joy, something we can do, but sometimes we just won´t, and he believes we all have the power to do good inside us, and if he meddled, even a little bit, we would have no free will anymore\n\nI just want to add that I don´t believe in any religion of any kind and I have huge doubts about the existence of one all mighty god, but I love this stories because of their intrinsic message and value, no matter if he is there or not, we are the ones in charge of things, and we have the power to do whatever we want, and in the end, we are the ones doing either good things or bad things, and also we are the ones that should stop, or start, dong things wrong, or right.",
"The way that I understand it, is that Satan is already defeated, sitting in hell for an extended period of time.\n\nThen he makes a comeback, the fight for humanity. (not as in he's fighting on our behalf, but fighting for support)\n\nBut in the end he loses again, and then we get a whole new world to live in, with no sickness, death, or sin.\n\nLucifer was pretty pissed that God seemed to favor a lesser, mortal creation, and not make it a requirement that they love him(God).\n\nHe saw this as unfair, so he led a rebellion to become the one in charge, God smacked them down to hell like wounded flies, and he decided he was going to fuck some shit up by giving Humanity the concept of \"The Moral Sense\", knowing right from wrong, good from evil, and introducing the ability to choose one or the other.\n\nBasically God introduced free will, he did so by making Adam and Eve in charge of naming the Animals, they had to have some sort of choice regarding that, but it was neither a moral or ethical decision, those did not come until after the fruit was eaten and they realized that they were naked. \"Modesty\" and \"Indecency\", along with \"Shame\"\n\nThey had no reason to choose to wear clothes, or even something sinful like lying in the first place because there was no right or wrong in their eyes, no question of others feelings, just doing things because they wanted. I suggest you read \"The Mysterious Stranger\" by Mark Twain, it's a great story."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2egsmo | the united states courts-martial system? | Im a bit confused as to how it works. Are soldiers not given the right to a conventional US trial while they're in service? And also, is execution/capital punishment possible punishment if found guilty by they UCMJ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2egsmo/eli5_the_united_states_courtsmartial_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjzcu69",
"cjzd6dc",
"cjzj4ba"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"As a service member you fall under the UCMJ and are tried by Court-Martial for violating it. You can still be charged in civilian courts for other crimes, and in some cases both.\n\nTreason is, I believe, the only way a court-martial will end in execution.",
"Service members can be given a civilian trial for breaking civilian laws assuming that a civilian authority chooses to prosecute them. Courts-martial are crimes prosecuted by military authority for infractions of the UCMJ. In many cases there is an overlap of the UCMJ and civilian law, in which case a service member can be tried by either a civilian court or a military court, and in some cases by both. The UCMJ also provides for many of the same protections that an accused would receive under the constitution.\n\nThere are three types of courts-martial and they are separated by the type of crime they deal with, the level of officer that presides over them, and the sentence they are allowed to give, among other things.\n\n**Summary courts-martial** deal with relatively minor infractions, analogous to misdemeanors, and if the accused is found guilty they can reduce a persons rank and confine them for up to a month. Also, summary courts-martial are only used for enlisted personel, the accused must agree to the summary court-martial, and they are not entitled to legal consul, but may retain their own and in practice are sometimes provided one.\n\n**Special courts-martial** are more akin to what you would think of as a trial. Sometimes they are presided over by a single judge and other times they have a jury decide the case. Conviction at a special court-martial can result in reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and confinement for up to a year. If someone refuses a summary court-martial, they are then generally tried under a special court-martial, and in this case they are entitled to legal consul.\n\n**General courts-martial** are the highest level of court-martial and deal with more serious crimes. Under a general court-martial an accused that is found guilty can be sentenced to life imprisonment or death if the crime warrants it, although general courts-martial deal with many crimes that do not allow for capital punishment. \n\nEdit: Also, the vast majority of infractions of the UCMJ are not tried by courts-martial, but rather through non-judicial punishment. NJP is generally presided over by the accused's commanding officer, and the CO reviews the case and issues a punishment accordingly. The punishment can include reduction in rank, forfeiture of half pay for two months, and restriction with or without labor. Like in a summary court-martial, the accused has to \"consent\" to NJP and can, if they choose, request a court-martial as an alternative.",
"well the answer is it depends. Members of the military can ALSO be tried in a courts-martial as well as in civilian court.\n\nAs to who has jurisdiction, that answer is also, it depends. For example, if a service member robbed someone's house, and the civilian authorities arrest him, they are under no obligation to return that member to his service for a courts-martial. However what happens most of the time is that the service will ask to be able to try the service member, and it is often granted.\n\none thing to remember is that in cases like this, a courts-martial is not a get off free card, it counts as a felony and everything that means. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
90q7z0 | why isn't it possible to pay with card and cash together? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/90q7z0/eli5_why_isnt_it_possible_to_pay_with_card_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2saf5f",
"e2safw6",
"e2sahx1",
"e2sajoh",
"e2sb3vl"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
5,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It's more work for the cashier, but often it is allowed as long as the first form of payment is a definite value (an exact amount of cash or the entire card balance).",
"Where? You can do that most places.",
"I've never had a problem paying with cash and card, perhaps whoever told you you couldn't was yanking your chain.",
"I don't know where you experienced this but I do it all the time. I bought a tv one day. It came up to $500 and something. I handed the dude 4 100 dollar bills, and told him I was going to put the rest on a card. He punched in the $400 and got my new Total of $100 something. Then I ran my card like normal.",
"It's called \"Split Tender\" and most systems support it... But cashiers don't know how to do it, so they just say you can't."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1rjds0 | why, of all the dial keys, do we have to dial "9" for outbound calls? | The phones that have this set as a prequisite are typically in hotels, restaurants and work offices. Who determines if dialing "9" is something necessary in the first place, and why, of all the keys, is it #9 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rjds0/eli5_why_of_all_the_dial_keys_do_we_have_to_dial/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdnv110"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Don't over think it. Phones in a hotel or an office building usually have direct extensions. If someone wants to call someone in the same company, they dial something like 35234. At some point every company that was installing these phone systems had a choice, but since 9 is the last numerically and the extensions are probably assigned low to high it was pretty clear it was the best option. Now none of the extensions can start with 9.\n\nActually it's one of the times when businesses cooperating makes the most sense for us. We all know to try 9 if we want an outside line. Another one good for us is the standardization of phone chargers (ie micro usb. Sorry apple customers, now pay us more!)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1t04ak | what is actually happening in my body when i bruise and swell from a hard impact? | I recently fell and it made me wonder why and what happens to the body when it bruises and swells | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t04ak/eli5_what_is_actually_happening_in_my_body_when_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce2zsfi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Bruising is the rupture of the small blood vessels (capillaries) in the injured areas. You hit an area hard enough, and these tiny vessels just shear apart. The swelling has two factors: blood (i.e. bruising) and the inflammatory/healing response, which brings in more blood and fluid in order to provide a rich environment in which the damaged tissue can heal. The body knows to bring fluid because of chemicals released when the injury occurs. It gets the fluid out of the blood vessels by opening small gaps that are big enough to let out proteins and water but not big enough to let out blood cells.\n\n\nInteresting aside: the reason bruises have a reliable colour pattern of healing (purple -- > brown/green -- > yellow) is because of the way our body breaks down blood and which chemicals stick around the longest."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5osavv | how do magnetic chargers, like the ones used for the apple watch, transfer energy without connecting to the battery internally? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5osavv/eli5_how_do_magnetic_chargers_like_the_ones_used/ | {
"a_id": [
"dclo8rz",
"dclrsfk"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Electricity and magnetism are very closely related. When a magnetic field runs through an electromagnetic coil, it induces a charge in the coil. It works in reverse too - run a current through an electromagnetic coil and it generates a magnetic field.\n\nIn order to charge something wirelessly, you have two coils at a distance apart. You then run a current through one coil so that it creates a magnetic field. If the other coil is arranged properly, the magnetic field will run through it and create a charge, which can be used to power a device. Basically, you run electricity through one coil to generate a magnetic field and then you use that magnetic field to generate electricity in a second coil that powers a device.\n\nThis video explains it pretty well and is entertaining: _URL_0_\n",
"To simplify further:\n\nThe source of electrical power in these chargers is called electromagnetic induction. This is the same source of power used in generators. \n\nElectromagnetic induction requires three things:\n\n1 - A conductor\n2 - A magnetic field\n3 - Relative motion between the two\n\nGenerators generate power by having a coils of conductive wire rotate in a stationary magnetic field. \n\nThe charger in these watches works by keeping the conductive coils in the watch stationary and moving the magnetic field by varying the voltage in the electro-magnets in the charger. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQwGjhwPEik"
],
[]
]
|
||
1e782b | how all the different championships work in soccer(football)? | As an American who is use to having one league with one championship, soccer(football) seems complicated. I know that all the leagues have their own seasons and the club in that league with the highest point total at the end of the season wins the Cup. But where and how does UEFA Champions League come into play? And how are clubs selected into it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e782b/eli5_how_all_the_different_championships_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9xiaq2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well the team with the highest points total in the league at the end of the season wins the league, not the cup.\n\nThe cups are generally speaking separate competitions and have nothing to do with the respective leagues.\n\nThe UEFA Champions League, and the UEFA Euro which are large multinational tournaments, assign a number of spots in the tournaments to each country and those are awarded for certain successes such as finishing in the top few spots in the league, or winning a specific domestic cup. The idea being that the best few teams in each country qualify for European play."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2rgyu9 | how do blind people use computers? | This is a question stemming from the r/askreddit question about what blind people think certain animals look like and I was wondering what they might use to use a computer. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rgyu9/eli5_how_do_blind_people_use_computers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnfrobx",
"cnfwc5e"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are software tools that read the text and convert it to speech as well as a host of other functions that help the blind use computers. The thread you referenced actually has some links to more information in it.",
"You can have friends help you use it like in this [AMA](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1oybfh/iama_blind_and_mute_guy_since_the_age_of_3_today/"
]
]
|
|
1j4vm9 | a company like apple reports profits in the billions. where does that go and why are people disapointed? | It sure does not goe to the guys working the store. Is it market resurch? Executives? Also, why does it matter that they loose a little money when they make literally billions! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j4vm9/eli5_a_company_like_apple_reports_profits_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbb4w5q"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Let's say you earned $100,000 last year, and you reported you were able to put just $500 of that into savings.\n\n$500 might be a lot to the guy pouring your coffee at Starbucks, but you kind of suck at saving money, and your SO who wants to save up for a house is probably going to be pissed at you.\n\nApple did the same thing, just to a bigger scale."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1zmfdq | who owns the artists copyrights after his passing? | I'm wondering about musicians in particular. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zmfdq/eli5_who_owns_the_artists_copyrights_after_his/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfux61o",
"cfuxeoh"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Copyright holders or children. Until 70 years after the death, when it comes in the public domain.",
"It would be controlled by his estate -- in most cases this would be passed to a child."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1bbxsd | i've read the main ideas behind general relativity, but i still don't understand how spacetime being curved around something like a planet makes us "fall" towards it. | For the record, I've heard the trampoline analogy a hundred times, but it doesn't actually work, because you're using gravity to explain gravity. If you truly understand the analogy, it breaks down. I'm looking for another explanation.
In other words, [I want the boring answer](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bbxsd/eli5_ive_read_the_main_ideas_behind_general/ | {
"a_id": [
"c95gype",
"c95h0az",
"c95hopc"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The thing with spacetime is you are always moving in it. Even if you are sitting still you are moving through time and therefore moving through spacetime.\n\nImagine a road; this road represents spacetime. If the road curves the car moves along the curve. Moving with the curves of the roads is what gravity is. If you wanted to you could use 4WD and go offroad, but that takes extra energy. The only thing you can't do is stop moving. However, even when you are going off road you are still following the contours of the land (spacetime).\n\n",
"For one, it is really only a mathematical model used to describe what is happening. The curving of space is like the tilting of a joystick. If you stick is straight up you are standing still and your joystick is as tall as possible. Now the joystick is pointed toward any near by heavy mass and you move in that direction. In doing so, your joystick is not as tall since it is bent over, this corresponds to slowing down in time. The closer you get to the mass, the more your stick tilts so the faster you move through space. \n\nSo, if you model gravity as joysticks pointing as masses and the height of the joystick as your speed through time, them you can get a curved model for space. (as if the joystick were on a skateboard and going over a lip into gravity well... you know, all curved like)",
"You may have already heard this explanation, but here goes:\n\nSpacetime works sort of like a sheet of fabric, it's actually a plane. Physical objects within that plane have mass. Depending on their mass, they can put indentations in spacetime, like placing a bowling ball on a trampoline. If you put a few tennis balls near that bowling ball, they'll fall in towards the center of the bowling ball. \n\nBut spacetime includes four dimensions, which means a large object's 'dimple' is able to attract objects in three dimensions, instead of just two like the bowling ball on the trampoline. \n\nIn short, a planet is like a large weight placed on a flexible four-dimensional plane, creating a dimple in the plane thus dragging smaller objects toward that dimple.\n\nEDIT: Just like the bowling ball on the trampoline can only affect the tennis ball's movement in two dimensions, a planet's mass can only affect the movement of physical objects in three dimensions."
]
} | []
| [
"http://xkcd.com/895/"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2mr5rx | why is it that while i am wearing sunglasses and looking at my computer screen straight ahead, it is darker then when i tilt my head ~ 45 degrees to the right, and if i tilt my head ~ 45 degrees to the left(from the center), the screen goes nearly black. | Sorry if this is a dumb question, or just poorly worded. I was wearing my sunglasses to reduce sight of my floaters, and just noticed this effect. It also happens when I try using my cellphone in landscape mode. I'm assuming it has something to do with my glasses filtering out a wavelength, but I am not sure as to why its just, laptop and cellphone screens that have this effect, and I am kind of curious to find out. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mr5rx/eli5_why_is_it_that_while_i_am_wearing_sunglasses/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm6tf95"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You are probably wearing polarized lenses. That means they allow in light that vibrates in one direction. If the light coming into them vibrates in a direction perpendicular to what the lenses allow, then the lenses will block all of the light. When your head is upright, the light coming in is what your lenses allow through, but if you turn your head the angles increase. At 90 degrees, the light is blocked. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1alqif | evolution: how do we lose traits? | So, I understand that we gain traits through evolution. Individuals with useful traits are more likely to survive long enough to spread their genes, the trait becomes more and more common.
But what about "losing" traits? I once got asked on a test to explain how a deep-water fish (you know, the ugly ones with the lights and stuff) might have evolved to NOT having eyesight anymore. I can understand other traits being more useful (echolocation, for example), but why would NotSeeing be a trait that was more useful? At best, I would have thought that it was irrelevant? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1alqif/eli5_evolution_how_do_we_lose_traits/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8yjx6k"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Well, nothing is ever free. So it's not a comparison of \"can see\" vs. \"can't see\", where they both cost the organism the same amount of energy. Eyes cost energy to build, maintain, and use. They can also get infected and wounded easily.\n\nSo it's more a comparison of \"can see\" vs. \"can't see, but need less food, and less susceptible to infection\". In some environments, you can probably understand how that would be a good tradeoff."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
70uq2s | how does memory work for 3-4 year old children? | So we hear all our lives that children don't remember anything from before they are 3-4 years of age. However, anyone who's spent time with a young child of this age knows that they can obviously remember, it's not like talking to a goldfish who can only retain information for 3 seconds. They learn from mistakes etc, which to me, implies memory of prior incidents.
So my question is, when do our memories from early childhood stop, and our grown up memories from ages 5 onward begin?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70uq2s/eli5_how_does_memory_work_for_34_year_old_children/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn5zxje",
"dn5zylh"
],
"score": [
7,
12
],
"text": [
"The standing theory is that infantile amnesia kicks in around age 7. This is when new memories begin to sort of \"overwrite\" old memories, although it is a slow process that takes 2-3 years to finish up. ",
"It's not that children have no memory at all - it's that, as we age, our brains overwrite unnecessary information with new information. *As adults,* we often can't remember things from when we were very young - but this doesn't say anything about a child's memory when they are still that age. \n\nSome suggest there's a link between language ability and memory - such that your memory becomes clearer and stronger the more your language ability develops. Maybe that plays a role as well."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
8499gp | how does vinegar help set clothing dye, when it is also used to remove stains? | I've heard more than once that you can wash or soak new black jeans with some vinegar to help set the dye and stop them from fading so fast. I've also read about using vinegar to help get rid of stains. How can it do both, or is one of those apocryphal?
Bonus question: If setting clothing dye with vinegar does work, would it also work to set the signatures on a jersey written with a Sharpie? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8499gp/eli5_how_does_vinegar_help_set_clothing_dye_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvnsurb",
"dvnsyjl"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I’m not good at explaining like you’re five, but I’ll try. \nSo fabric is made of tiny threads. Like jeans are denim, but true denim is 100% cotton. Natural cotton is whitish. So any color jeans, blue, black, whatever, have been dyed that color. More likely, the fabric was dyed before they were made into the jeans, but very dark rinse jeans are usually dyed again after they’ve been completed.\n\nThreads and fabric lose color when they are exposed to alkaline substances (such as soap, or bleach) because they expand the threads and natural fibers of the fabric, and the color molecules in the dyes are rinsed away and the fabric is left pretty much depleted. The higher the ph, the more of an effect. (Like detergent is alkaline, and will fade color, but it isn’t nearly as alkaline as bleach, which fades color immensely.) So by washing clothes with vinegar (a very acidic substance), you are bringing the ph waaaay down so the detergent doesn’t have such a harsh effect on the color of your fabric.\n\nAs for using vinegar to clean- I’ve heard of people using distilled vinegar to wipe down counter tops, glass, and bathrooms. It’s water based, so it will remove buildup about as well as water can, but it evaporates quickly so it dries free of streaking, which is why things tend to look cleaner when wiped down with vinegar than when wiped down with water.\nUsually when you see a “life hack” to remove stains in clothing with vinegar, you start by rubbing baking soda into the stain first. The chemical reaction between the baking soda and the vinegar (creating hydrogen) pushes the food/dye/stain molecules out of the fabric. ",
"Theoretically I don’t see why it wouldn’t work to help set the Sharpie. If I were you I’d just wash the jersey in cold water and vinegar to be on the safe side. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
15p09y | why, when i try and take a photo of a spinning propellor, do the blades warp and slow down? | I was on a twin engined light aircraft this morning and noticed that the blades of the propellor would either warp, stop or reverse in direction whenever I tried to take a photo. Any explanations? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15p09y/eli5_why_when_i_try_and_take_a_photo_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7ogrmp",
"c7opu0n"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is because of [Rolling Shutter](_URL_0_), where the object is skewed because it has moved while the frame is being exposed.",
" > stop or reverse in direction\n\nThe warping was already explained, the other effects are due to *stroboscopic effects*. These happen every time when you view something rotating trough a camera wit a relatively slow frame rate, e.g. a film camera or you compact camera.\n\nTo explain how this works imagine a propeller with 1 blade (or a clock hand). The blade starts at the 12 o'clock position, the camera takes a picture. Then it moves very quickly to the 11 o'clock position (the propeller is fast, the campera has a low frame rate), the camera takes the second picture and so on. The result is are images at 12, 11, 10, ... o'clock and it seems that the propeller turns backwards.\n\nIf the propeller speeds up a little bit it can happen that all the images are taken at 12 o'clock, so the propeller seems to stand still. Or it moves even faster and then the images at 12, 1, 2, 3, ... o'clock give the impression of a slowly moving propeller.\n\nBasically you can say for a propeller with 1 blade, that it seems to stand still if it turns roughly 24 times per second (if the camera takes 24 frames per second). Of course 48, 72, ... (2, 3, ... times 24) revolutions per second work as well.\n\nTh whole thing works similar with several blades, with the added effect that all the blades look the same, so the speed where the propeller stands still happes also at e.g. 12, 24, ... revolutions per second for a propeller with two blades, and 8, 16, 24, ... revolutions per second for 3 blades.\n\n\n**EDIT:** [link to a similar question/answer](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15pbcl/when_a_car_wheel_is_moving_forward_really_fast/"
]
]
|
|
20lqjc | what happened in australia that caused the people to protest? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20lqjc/eli5_what_happened_in_australia_that_caused_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg4icch"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Victorian government gave powers to the police to basically arrest you for anything protest related. People are protesting many other things at the federal level. The new conservative government essentially got into power because the opposition (then current government) imploded with a massive, messy and public internal power struggle. These are the same people who pulled off the impossible by keeping Australia out of the financial crisis while at the same time achieving large social and environmental goals. (Eg. Apology to both the stolen and forgotten generations, signing the kyoto protocol, carbon pollution tax) The conservatives stocked massive flames of xenophobia with asylum seekers. One of their official election slogans was \"Stop the boats.\" Although this is a serious issue and demands attention and debate, in more sensible countries this issue is basically considered immoral to use for political reasons. In Australia? It's issue #1. Why? Because its the easiest way to win an election and sounds good in a sound byte. Since getting into power the Abbott government is systematically supporting the destruction of the environment (Great Barrier Reef dumping, siding with loggers over the current legal protections of national parks) Reducing all foreign aid, calling Edward Snowden a traitor etc. The government is racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, anti-union and is in bed with every big business there is. They will do whatever the mining billionaires tell them to do and their recent track record proves this. Big business helped them get into power in a big way and they are now making good on their back room deals to pay back the favor. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6p9dey | what is the significance of the domain .io and how does it differ from the other domains such as .com and .org? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6p9dey/eli5_what_is_the_significance_of_the_domain_io/ | {
"a_id": [
"dknjnyy",
"dkntwg2"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"it's the TLD (top level domain) of the British Territory in the ***I***ndian ***O***cean. Since those domains are cheap and gained some notoriety with webgames, web-dev demos and utilities (_URL_1_ is great!), they're used for novelty stuff a lot.\n\nthe I/O (input-output) abbreviation comes to mind too, also nice play with _URL_0_.",
"Top-level domains are generally either regional (.uk, .de, .ru, .br, .es, etc - these are tied thematically to specific regions/countries) or generic (.com, .org, .net, .info, etc - these typically describe what the site is about, whether it's a commercial or non-profit organisation). It's easy to tell them apart since regional domains are usually two characters long and generic ones are three or four, though there are exceptions.\n\nBut then there are some regional domains, which have de facto recieved a second meaning. A primary example would be .tv, domain for Tuvalu, which is mainly used for everything related to television and broadcasting. \n\n.io is similar to that, being the regional domain for Indian Ocean (specifially some islands there controlled by UK), which then became known as Input/Output, and then as everything related to _URL_0_."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"aud.io",
"http://draw.io"
],
[
"Agar.io"
]
]
|
||
14jz3r | this is going against the grain, but here's a link explaining how to use a semi-colon for those that need this rule explained to them like they're 5. | _URL_0_
Enjoy! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14jz3r/this_is_going_against_the_grain_but_heres_a_link/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7dqtna"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This is going against the grain, but here's a link explaining how to spell 'semicolon' for those that need that spelling explained to them like they're 5.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEnjoy!"
]
} | []
| [
"http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon"
]
| [
[
"http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon"
]
]
|
|
6089fk | why does the president of the us need so much more security procedures than many other presidents of the world? why is the us president considered more at risk of an attack? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6089fk/eli5_why_does_the_president_of_the_us_need_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"df4e3cw",
"df4epc6"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"Probably because several US Presidents have been assassinated while in office.\n\nThere have also been a few who have survived assassination attempts. Its easy to forget this as it has been almost 40 years dince Reagan was shot.",
"The U.S. President is both head of state and head of government. They are a national-level politician who represents their own views rather than being a local-level politician who represents the views of the party and their own district. This focuses the power of the government on a single individual in a way that doesn't apply to most heads of government. Killing the U.S. President not only is an assault on the government of the U.S., but it can create radical shifts in policy.\n\nIn contrast, most other developed democracies have a parliamentary system where the head of government is simply a member of the leading party/coalition in the legislature. If you assassinate Theresa May, you aren't killing the individual who represents the nation in the people's mind (that's the Queen, who is the head of state). All you're doing is killing the MP from Maidenhead. Before her seat is cold, some other nearly-as-prominent Conservative MP would take her place and the government would continue as before.\n\nWhile U.S.-style executive branches do exist elsewhere, they're primarily in relatively unimportant (in terms of international clout) places."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
bbenzg | when having an organ transplant why don’t surgeons remove the fat built up on the organ before putting it into the recipients body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbenzg/eli5_when_having_an_organ_transplant_why_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekia03p"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Second question; having a transplant done by taking from an older person to a younger person.... doesn’t that mean the organ will have to work for likely over 100 years? Does this have any negative effects?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5e0uh6 | how is vitamin d, something that we receive from the sun turned into something consumable like a tablet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5e0uh6/eli5_how_is_vitamin_d_something_that_we_receive/ | {
"a_id": [
"da8s83u",
"da8sgr0",
"da8srct"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"We don't receive vitamin d from the sun, its made in our bodies when our skin is exposed to sunlight. Lots of different food have vitamin D naturally.",
"It's not like the vitamin D is flying out of the sun and coming to earth than going into our skin. Our skin just uses sunlight to manufacture vitamin D. ",
"We don't receive vitamin D from the sun.\n\nThe UV from the sun converts a chemical called 7-dehydrocholesterol to another chemical called cholecalciferol (also known as D3). This then gains an hydroxyl group (an oxygen and hydrogen molecule) in the liver to become a chemical called 25-hydroxy D3. This then gets another hydroxyl group in the kidneys to become the active form of vitamins D called 1,25 hydroxy D3.\n\nThe vitamin D you get in tablet form is D3, thus skipping the UV stage."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3dip72 | why do governments bail out their banks instead of just letting them go under? | With everything that has been going on in Greece lately I was just wondering why governments would go bailing out banks that have a lot to do with the problem. After the financial crisis of 2008, the U.S. also bailed out its banks even though again they were the ones to blame for the housing bubble. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dip72/eli5_why_do_governments_bail_out_their_banks/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct5hhth",
"ct5hjpl",
"ct5hnie",
"ct5hr48",
"ct5nlax",
"ct5orrv",
"ct5pc8p",
"ct5qk0l",
"ct5tuox",
"ct5w0fh",
"ct5w504",
"ct5zgne",
"ct63ywn",
"ct64nlz",
"ct65m4c",
"ct65vno",
"ct66wms",
"ct67y6p",
"ct6carj",
"ct6lnm7"
],
"score": [
6,
23,
938,
5,
57,
21,
15,
3,
77,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because we still have news reports from 1929 when most countries did exactly that. It had some very bad economic effects.",
"Because banks provide a useful service to society. The US government guarantees most customer's bank deposits, so they would have had to cover the money anyway. By keeping the banks afloat you can maintain fractional reserve banking for much less money.",
"Because when a company goes bankrupt, that means it doesn't/can't pay its obligations. What obligations does a bank have? Well it owes money to all the people who have deposited money there. \n\nBy bailing out the bank you are indirectly bailing out the people who have deposited money there. And by letting the bank fail, you leave those people in trouble. ",
"blame for these events is much more complicated than facebook cares to comprehend. Banks do have a big share of the fault, but they are not alone by a long stretch.\n\nIn any case, for whatever fault they had, they still serve a vital role to the economy. Their network/service could not be replaced in any reasonable period of time and the void would cause MAJOR headaches for the economy. \n\nTo allow them to go under primarily out of spite would be counter productive to the goal of recovery.\n\nThat doesnt mean after the dust settles you dont investigate anyone that acted unethicly and pass new regulation to prevent the situation from occuring again. \n\nIm not a fan of fines, because those fines are not coming out of the employees pocket (or atleast not the employee that probably set the ball in motion 10 years ago and has moved on since), they are just a tax on the american public in service fees and stock returns.",
" > they were the ones to blame for the housing bubble. \n\nThey weren't the only ones to blame.\n\n1. Congress for passing bills that incentivized the behavior\n\n2. The Fed for keeping rates too low for too long\n\n3. Lenders that targets individuals\n\n4. Individuals that bought in to the \"too good to be true\" en masse, and then defaulted.\n\nLots of players in the field were to blame.\n\nHowever, *we need banks to have an economy.* Without them, your savings and mine goes down the tubes, people and companies can't access capital (thus reducing purchases, thus reducing the economy itself), and basically our progress as a country grinds to a terrifying halt.",
"Banks are the foundation of the economy. Letting a major bank go under would set a shockwave through every company and individual who does business with the bank (which is pretty much everyone indirectly). It's in the public's interest give out a conditional loan to the banks until they get back on their feet instead of letting them collapse.\n\nAlso note that the central bank is the \"lender of last resort\" *by design*. Journalists and politicians will act like it's outrageous that we have to bail out the banks, but that is how the system is supposed to operate in the event of bank insolvency or financial crisis. Ideally it would never happen, but it's a necessary evil since bubbles are inevitable in a complex economy. Speaking of which, it's a huge oversimplification to say that the banks were responsible for the housing bubbles. There are literally dozens of factors that led to it.",
"I can't speak for all governments, but I can try to give a general explanation of why the U.S. bailed out some (but decidedly not all) of the major players in the 2008 financial crisis. \n\nFirst, it's important to know what banks do and why they are extremely important to a capitalist system of economy. They have two major functions: commercial banking (i.e. depositing and basic loans) and investment banking (and the various other complex forms of modern financial products). \n\nCommercial banking allows people to place their money in (mostly) safe institutions at a small profit (interests rates). So, commercial banks are effectively paying you small amounts of money (based on the amount you put in them) to store your money there. The reason they do this is so that they can then turn around and lend your money right back out. Most of the time these loans are for big ticket items like houses, business development and large object finance. Banks then only need to actually keep a small fraction of the money they have had placed into them on hand at any given time. In addition, banks are federally protected (in the U.S.) by up to 250K for any individual depositor. And having banks do this is great, it effectively drastically increases the amount of money (because each individual dollar can get lent out multiple times). More loaning means more investment in the general infrastructure in the economy. This stuff is super important and while relatively uncomplex compared to the second half of my explanation (soon to come) it literally touches EVERYONE in an economy as this development of loaning through banks is the thing that allowed capitalism as we know it to even exist (e.g. look at the development of the Medici in Italy and then the Dutch and the British adoptions of banking in the 1600 and 1700's). \n\nOn the other end of the what banks do side we have investment (and financial product banking). Commercial banking is all well and good but it's very limited. Commercial banks can only produce so much money and can only help business so much with loans. The other major part of a capitalist economy is investment. The major difference between a loan and an investment is with a loan you are simply owed some amount of financing back. As an investor you start to own parts of the product itself. Investment banks can move huge amounts of capital into various industries very efficiently. So, let's say you are an Airline company and you want to buy a plane. You can either takeout a multi-billion dollar loan to purchase a plane. Or you can produce some sort of financial product (stocks as an easy example). Banks are good at getting money from point A to point B quickly. So the airline company may have taken months to put together the financing to get the new plane, but the bank could perhaps do it in minutes. \n\nAs you could probably imagine, these two role are EXTREMELY important to a capitalist society, because the speed of money is basically what the economy is and everyone's welfare (to some extent) is tied to that. So, if a bank is big enough and has it's tendrils in enough places, if it collapses hundreds of billions of dollars can suddenly be ripped out of the economy causing a cascade of other companies to collapse. Which would be super bad! \n\nThe tricky part in the contemporary financial crisis is the problem of moral hazard. So in the early 90's glass-steagal was repealed. Glass-steagal was a law that separated the commercial and investment (or securities) side of banks that came into existence post the great depression. For a time the repeal was a great thing, some would argue (though it's very debateable) that the repeal lead to the huge buildup of capital in internet companies. While some went bust, many high value tech companies might not exist today had the law been in place (arguably, I'm definitely not convinced of that). \n\nSo, in 2008 you had huge banks invested everywhere. The problem was often the way they were invested. Since securities investment tends to be higher revenue generating, banks that could would take huge positions with their large supply of deposits (with huge positions, a 1% increase could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in profit or even billions in profit). The thing is, with securities investment, you should have skin in the game so to speak (that is, risk/reward only works if you have risk) the big financial institutions had only their investors skin in the game. So when everything fell apart, the banks were going to lose insane amounts of investor money, which would basically cripple every other company in the U.S. (and I'm working at a big finance oriented law firm, I've seen some of the crazy shit that happened and the amounts of money that could've vanished). While they without any doubt behaved badly, letting the really large ones die would hurt all of us, badly. On the bright side, I know for certain there have been many SEC indictments to individuals (though in my opinion not nearly enough) though in many cases litigation is still pending. \n\nHappy to answer more high level questions. \n\ntl;dr Banks have money in everything. If that money goes bye-bye everything implodes. \n\np.s. there is obviously political bias in this. I am a fairly left-leaning capitalist which colors my answer. \n",
"The premise of your question is wrong; the govenrment [lets many banks go under.](_URL_0_) The most recent financial crisis forced them to prop up some banks **and industries** because there was much concern at the time that a failiure to do so would have resulted in an even worse economic crisis.",
"Economist here. The answer is really simple and I will try to keep it at eli5:\n\n---\n\nGovernment bail out banks because of something called **fractional reserve** which is what our current financial system unfortunately is built upon. \n\nFractional reserve is an idea that you only need a certain amount of money in the bank as most people put money in the bank for convenience and do not withdraw unless in serious need. So instead of keeping all the money in the bank (full reserve) you only keep a small fraction of it and deal in checks, electronic transactions etc. That amount of money is presently around 3% which means that for every 1000 dollars you put in the bank only 30 of them are \"in the vault\" for you to withdraw. It also means that if you came and wanted to withdraw 50 dollars the bank would be short 20 and would have to borrow somewhere else to make good on the promise.\n\n----\n\nWhat this means in practice is that when people make transactions then money goes all over the place to various financial institutions and companies but of all that money *at any given time* only that 3% (actually less but I don't want to complicate things ) is money which you can actually take physically as banknotes. \n\nAs long as everyone goes about their business it's fine and the system is very flexible but the problem starts when something goes wrong in the market and people increase their demand for cash - make more and more withdrawals. Just like the example before in which you forced the bank to borrow 20 dollars to give you your 50 in a situation when everyone wants their money out the banks really have to work overtime finding the money and usually the best solution is to use the central bank - which is designed to be the so called \"lender of last resort\" which means that if nobody else wants to lend you money you go and borrow at the central bank. \n\nIf the amount of lending the central bank engages in is large enough and focused on specific institutions then we talk about \"bailing out\" because that's essentially what it is - central bank prints money so that banks can meet their obligations to their depositors and lenders in a situation where they will surely go under if they don't get help. It is said \"bailing out\" because it is commonly considered - quite correctly in many respects quite incorrectly in others - that banks put themselves in that position so central banks \"rescue\" them not as part of their routine operations but as saving their asses after they screw up really bad. That is not necessarily the case on a day to day basis but often it is *precisely* that.\n\n----\n\nWhy do central banks do it? Because of how insanely complex and inter-dependent the current financial system is. Everyone borrows from everyone but at the same time everyone has only the *mandatory reserve* - that 3% - at hand. So it becomes a really volatile structure because the same bank can have assets amounting to 10 billion and obligations amounting to 10 billion at the same time and it might result in bizarre situations.\n\nSay bank A has to pay you all of your money - it doesn't have it. So it asks bank B to lend it some money so that it can pay you but bank B also doesn't have enough cash on hand so it borrows at bank C which also doesn't have enough cash on hand so it decides to cash in some assets. Some of the assets are in bank A! And suddenly by not being able to pay you the money bank A exposed bank C which might not get the full amount it had in bank A once it goes bankrupt. If bank C can't get the money it might itself go bankrupt or bank B won't be able to get the loan (because bank C needs the money for itself) and it might go bankrupt.\n\nIn other words the fractional reserve system is a ticking time bomb that would devastate the whole economy if the central bank didn't exist to create new money in case such shortfalls happen.\n\n----\n\nNow there's a question to be asked about why do we have such a volatile and risky system but that's a completely different story and it is a very nasty, political story that probably shouldn't be part of this eli5.\n\n",
"How did that work the last time we tried it?\n\nPretty sure it didn't work at all. Bailing them out isn't ideal, but it's better than the alternative.\n",
"[Because if the tower falls down, it will crush us too](_URL_0_).",
"Banks/Bankers pay Politicians to watch their back.\n\n\n Banks make many risky investments, when they pay off the Banks/Bankers see a profit, when they don't pay off the Banks/Bankers look to the Government to spread the losses over the entire population, or in others words privatize the gains & socialize the losses.",
"Economist here: There really is no ELI5 answer to this, it's staggeringly complex and differs wildly from nation to nation. It's like asking \"why do doctors use medicine instead of surgery?\" \n \nFor the US, specifically, 'banks' actually means a massive derivatives market involving literally trillions in obligations. The systemic risk of letting that collapse is batshit catastrophic. There was no real 'decision' to be made. \"Too big to fail\" isn't just a quaint pithy term, the US economy would have been damaged in a way literally never seen before. \n \nBut...I'm an economist, so you knew there was a but...Greece isn't the US, and Greece isn't Span, and Spain isn't Iceland. Every system is genuinely unique. ",
"Surprised no one has explained to avoid a deflationary spiral that we saw in the great depression when we didn't bail them out.\n\nI'm on my 5 minute break so haven't got time unforcho.",
"Always wondered this as well. Seemed like it goes against everything capitalism stands for. But I also learned today I should start a bank",
"The issue is not bailing out banks. I think most people agree that avoiding a depression and ensuring that people can still access their money is a good thing. The problem is that there was *no accountability* for the bailout -- at least, not in the United States. Even as people sit in jail for years for possessing a small amount of marijuana, the men and women who defrauded the American public on a massive scale through the mortgage crisis, created \"too big to fail,\" and had golden parachutes worth millions never served a single day in jail for their actions. ",
"Because the purpose of a government is to get re-elected, not to improve society. \nIf the banks implode the short term consequences are fairly catastrophic and there goes any political play they had with it. ",
"Shoot, probably too late but here it goes. In the US, there were largely two reasons why the government bailed out banks. The first one is the \"systemic risk.\" As in, if an institution becomes insolvent and defaults, the repercussion on rest of economy \"may\" be catastrophic. Thus government has no option but to bail out institutions that imposes significant risk to the economy --- with the risk that this creates a moral hazard problem where institutions do not restrain themselves with the implicit government backing. However, it's more likely that nobody wants to be the \"guy\" who trigger the next Great Depression. Thus the safer choice is to bail institutions out and engender moral hazard rather than let them fail and mitigate moral hazard problem. Another is the regulatory capture. Vast majority of high level regulators come from the finance industry (e.g. Hank Paulson worked at Goldman Sachs). Thus the people who are supposed to regulate are in essence captured by industry insiders and look out his/her pals rather than rest of us schmucks. One great example is the difference between Washington Mutual versus Wachovia. Washington Mutual called FDIC for help --- whose mandate is to protect the Deposit Insurance Fund --- and FDIC let WaMu go. On the other hand, Wachovia called the Federal Reserves --- although has the dual mandate of low inflation and low unemployment rates, serves the pleasure of member banks --- brokered a deal between Wachovia and Wells Fargo.\n\nI'm sympathetic to the \"systemic risk\" reason though.",
"If the bank goes bankrupt that means your money is gone, if your money is gone you're gonna get pissed, then there will be a big revolution to overthrow the government. That's why they bail out the bank, to stay in power. Use your brain, dumbass.",
"The money a bank loses isn't the bank's money; its your money and my money. If the government does not bail out a bank, then the depositors lose all their money (except for the amount insured by the FDIC.) Thus, the government is forced to bail out the banks in order to save the public. \n\nWhat I say applies to regular banks that take money from regular Joes like you and me, pays us 0.10% interest, then loans out the money at higher rates. This is different from investment banks, who take money from super-rich corporations and individuals for use on, well, investments. Regular banks used to be barred from acting like investment banks. This was known as the Glass-Steagal Act. But around 2000, the law was changed so depositor banks can do risky investment bank stuff. Well, if these banks lose all \"their\" money, it's actually your money and my money that went up in flames. \n\nAnother aspect is that a bank might have $100 million on accounts, but may only have $20 million at hand. The rest is loaned out to its customers. If everyone went to get their money, the bank would go under. Everyone would lose their money. This would be bad for society as a whole. Imagine if you went to the ATM and it's empty. There would be huge lines, and society would stop. \n\nThat's why big banks are too big to fail. Even if you were willing to let average Joes lose their money, the panic would kill your economic system. \n\nIf we were in a sane world, you would tell these banks that take depositor moneys that they cannot do crazy risky things. But the re-enactment of Glass-Steagal has never went anywhere. Banks are paying too much money to keep things that way. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3794"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3w56tx | in 1995 our pc had a 1gb hdd. 20 years later my pc has a 1tb hdd yet they are physically the same size. why can't this process be sped up to create a 100tb+ hdd. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w56tx/eli5_in_1995_our_pc_had_a_1gb_hdd_20_years_later/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxtgjzy",
"cxtgvdf",
"cxthm55",
"cxti197",
"cxtjz7c"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because we don't know how to make the energy storage that dense, yet, or how to manufacture that precisely. Small gains and new techniques are constantly being realized and build on top of one another, hence how we got to where we are today.",
"We can usually only make incremental improvements to existing storage technologies, unless something radical happens to get developed and brought to market. Essentially, we don't know how to make a 100tb HDD that fits in the current form factor.",
"Researchers would love to speed it up - and they're not just dragging their heels going slowly to spite you.\n\nAs /u/onewiseowl says, changes are made tiny bit at a time, building on what came before. Otherwise we could leap from the industrial revolution straight to space-flight just by saying \"Hurry up, guys.\"",
"For the same reason that semiconductors (\"microchips\") don't shrink faster. It takes a lot of work, and hence a lot of money and time, to just do a 2X improvement in density. For anyone to try to speed that process up for magnetic storage (the technology used for HDDs) would take a *huge* investment; one that very well might not pay off. \n \nResearchers are constantly looking for \"leapfrog\" technologies, though. There's always the chance that someone might come up with something that uses a different storage method that would vastly increase density in one fell swoop. But such research isn't nearly as dependable as what the industry has been doing historically, and so far no one has come up with something that matches the density, reliability, and cost/bit that HDDs have been able to accomplish. \n \nFor example, various researchers have tried holographic storage, with some success. But not to the point where it can really compete with HDDs. SSDs use transistors to store data at very high density levels, but they aren't nearly as cost effective as HDDs nor do they have the same level of reliability. ",
"First, the external size \"form factor\" has nothing to do with the internal capacity of a drive. Form Factors are standardized so you know that a drive from Mfg X will work in a case built by Mfg Z. Desktop hard drives were built in two common form factors (5.25 and 3.5) and laptop drives in another. If you buy a SSD drive today it is likely designed to use the same Form Factor as a laptop HDD, even though the actual SSD may be much smaller.\n\nHowever, the more general answer is that you learn from your mistakes. If you know how to make a 1 GB drive, the next step is to figure out how to make 2 or 5 GB drive, not a 100 GB drive. It requires less investment, less risk, and has a greater chance of market success. Making a quantum leap forward requires a huge investment (and risk) in R & D, manufacturing, and marketing.\n\nYou'll often hear about researchers at IBM or Samsung discovering some great new process that will make chips 5x faster or 10x smaller. But that's theoretical. Taking that research, in which a team of 20 PhDs hand built that faster/smaller device in lab conditions (and probably had 100 complete failures along the way) and figuring out how to scale it up to build 10,000 a day at a consumer price-point takes another huge effort.\n\nIf you learned how to build a bookshelf in wood shop, your next project might be a dog house, and you'd probably build a decent one without too many mistakes. But if you tried to build a *real house* next, it would be a colossal, expensive failure."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3yn8qe | how can we successfully transplant any organ and do brain surgeries but haven't figured out how to reconstruct the spine for disabled people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yn8qe/eli5how_can_we_successfully_transplant_any_organ/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyeuy4s",
"cyev9q3"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"I'm no expert, but based on my minimal knowledge it probably has to do with the fact that transplants include an already working organ. Brain surgeries are usually amputations of small portions. Spine reconstruction sounds like building a synthetic replacement for a very complicated body part that includes nerves. If I remember correctly nerve cells aren't even rebuilt by the body. ",
"Most organs work with a small number of fairly large tubes - hook them up, and the organ keeps working. The spine is a bundle of thousands of fibers, each of which is made up of motor neurons - individual cells up to 3 feet long. Each cell has a coating of myelin, which serves as insulation; if it's disrupted the cell can't transmit signals property. And it's almost entirely inside hollow bones.\n\nSo basically, it's difficult to access, and incredibly complex. Doing spinal surgery on that scale would be something like fraying a piece of rope into individual fibers, then re-braiding them without breaking or losing one, and putting them each back in the same place."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.