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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3cdyd6 | why do many birds risk their lives by flying low and through traffic when they can seemingly fly a few feet higher to avoid such danger? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cdyd6/eli5why_do_many_birds_risk_their_lives_by_flying/ | {
"a_id": [
"csunys6"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"First and most importantly, birds are not as smart as humans, and cannot tell that cars are 'dangerous' the way adult humans can.\n\nWhile many bird can fly quite high, most urban birds species do not do so regularly; they live their lives in shrubs, bushes, and relatively short trees. As a result, they fly in a from bush to bush, often at a relatively low level. \n\nHighways are commonly lined with bushes, shrubs, and trees to combat carbon dioxide (and also for the aesthetics; most people who rather look at greenery than moving vehicles). Birds make their homes and shelter in this greenery, and fly between them in a (relatively) direct line - right in front of cars which, again, they are not truly smart enough to recognize as inherently dangerous. \n\nBirds do, however, recognize changes in air pressure as potentially dangerous; they indicate a fast-moving object, which could be a predator. As a result, many (arguably most) birds do get out of the way before being hit by a vehicle, as they sense the change in air pressure being pushed in front of the vehicle. Some birds, unfortunately, are not fast enough. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4ih86d | how movies can be 'not yet rated' | If a movie can advertise all over TV don't you think it can at least be rated at that point? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ih86d/eli5how_movies_can_be_not_yet_rated/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2y1nej",
"d2y1oaa",
"d2y25ik",
"d2y2iyy"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Because it's not a final cut, they haven't submitted a final video script so clips can either come out or go in, once it's finalized it is then rated",
"That usually happens when the movie hasn't finished being made yet. They have some parts finished, and can use those parts to make an advertisement, but the final movie isn't finished, and the movie can only be rated in its final form.",
"I would say that there could be two reasons:\n\n1. The movie hasn't been finished, therefore they can't give it a rating yet.\n\n2. The producers/other important people have been told a rating that they don't agree with, so they're probably tied up in some legal battle with whoever is making the ratings... Or changing things in the movie to try to get the desired rating. ",
"A movie doesn't have to be finished in order to advertise. You can finish shooting a handful of scenes and start putting trailers together"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4wtebf | what effects would consuming an excess amount of protein do in the long term? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wtebf/eli5_what_effects_would_consuming_an_excess/ | {
"a_id": [
"d69wogy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"According to the Wikipedia article on \"protein poisoning\" or rabbit starvation (since historically the way to get this condition is to consume large quantities of rabbit - an extremely lean meat), excessive protein in the human body would lead to excess ammonia and urea in the bloodstream due to amino acid decomposition which leads to the blood becoming too basic. Excess urea usually gets deposited into the joints, and so one long-term result of this diet is gout, assuming one doesn't die earlier from blood pH imbalance."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4bi6z1 | can someone explain to me what forex trading is? and why is it gaining a lot of popularity right now? | EDIT: I am seeing a lot of posts on Instagram and Facebook from people I got to university with. Apparently they are making money out of FOREX and there are a lot of people "recruiting" freshmen students to get into this. What is this exactly? , and is it worth getting into this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bi6z1/eli5_can_someone_explain_to_me_what_forex_trading/ | {
"a_id": [
"d19bvv8",
"d19cl7q",
"d19d3zp",
"d19g60v",
"d19ilna",
"d19nvco",
"d19r1jo",
"d2rnar4"
],
"score": [
76,
2,
16,
14,
8,
30,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"It is trading currencies... FOREX stands for Foreign Exchange. Due to the drop in oil supplies and slowdown in China, currencies have been more volatile the past few months, which means more opportunity to make money from trading currencies (if you know what you're doing). But it's complex and there are many people who've been doing it exclusively for many years... it's not something you can just dabble in with no knowledge and expect to do well.",
"FOREX is the trading of currencies as opposed to stocks, bonds, and other assets. It operates very similar to the others but it is traded 24 hours and can be done outside of markets as well as in them.\n\nTrading currency always been popular. In fact, currency is the most traded asset. It may seem popular right now because of volatility in global markets, which arise from oil, economic growth, politics etc. Countries that are resource-dependent have currencies that fluctuate with resource prices. This leads to opportunities to profit off these fluctuations. Currencies are showing up in the news a lot because there's a lot of uncertainty and many fluctuations are quite large.",
"FOREX (more often written FX) stands for Foreign Exchange. It basically means that you are buying or selling currency. \n\nFor example, clothing shops in the US who buy their clothes in bulk from China will often have to buy those clothes in the Chinese currency, yuan/renmibi. That means they have to buy currency before they buy the clothes. The store then goes to the FX market, says they can buy a certain amount of yuan for a certain amount of dollar, and if the prices are fair, the currency transaction goes through. The store can then buy the clothes from China and ship it to the US.\n\nThe prices of currencies tend to fluctuate quite a bit. We call that depriciation or appriciation. Think of supply and demand of a normal good. Traditionally, if very many people want that good (demand increases) the price will go up, and conversely, if there are many people selling a good but not very many buyers, the price will go down (supply increases/demand goes down). \n\nThis same effect happens with currency. If very many people want to buy a currency at the same time, the currency will increase in price (appreciation). This can happen when the central bank of a country increases the national interest rate (e.g. the Fed fund rate). And it's quite logical - when the Fed fund rate goes up, you want to put money in the bank rather than spend it, because you actually earn money from having it in the bank (nominally at least). A lot of people outside of the US will also think that: \"Oh, I can put US Dollars in the bank in the US and earn money? And I **can't** do that here in the EU? Well, fuck it I'll go buy myself some dollars.\" When many people think that, the price of the dollar will increase, just based on simple supply and demand. \n\nA lot of institutions base their business on trying to take advantage of \"inefficiencies\" in these currency markets. Nowadays, that is moving more and more into algorithmic trading, because humans are too slow to spot arbitrage opportunities. \n\nThe reason you may see it more now is because (like /u/blipsman says) there are a lot of factors that play into our global economy at the same time. US rate hike, EU unemployment, refugee crisis, China slowdown, oil price volatility, negative rates across the EU to combat low GDP etc. ",
"A cautionary note: One must be very careful when selecting a broker through which you trade currencies. Unlike equity (stock) and futures markets, foreign exchange (FX) markets are lightly regulated. This means market participants (e.g., retail traders like you and me) have relatively few protections or recourse if their FX broker mis-handles their account or closes up shop. \n\nIf you are curious, please check the events surrounding Jan. 15, 2015 and the effect on several FX brokers who promptly fell apart. Light reading: _URL_0_\nRelated suggestions: _URL_1_",
"FOREX stands for 'Foreign Exchange', or investing in other national currencies. So you 'trade' your 1000 US dollars for 970 Euros. If dollars become less valuable, or Euros become more valuable, then later you might trade your 970 Euros for 1045 US dollars, and you have a 'gain'.\n\nAs a financial analyst, I would not consider trading FOREX for income to be a good idea. Most are based on 'high leverage' systems. The moves in currencies are usually small, so you use 'margin' or borrowing, in order to make large investments with small amounts of money. You might be able to make small amounts of money on most trades.\n\nThe problem with these systems are that the traders don't realize that there is a possibility of a *big loss*. And since they are making large trades with relatively little money behind them, they can lose 'their life savings' easier than they think.\n\nWho makes money through FOREX? Big companies that encourage people to make money trading. They have a 100% chance of making money, because unlike traders, they get paid on every trade, whether or not it makes money. If a trader loses money? So what? It's the trader's fault for making a bad trade.\n\n",
"I think what OP is asking is not exactly what FOREX is but what is the MLM related to FOREX that all his friends have gotten into. It's basically former Vemma and MDC alphas trying to muscle people into using a third party FOREX tracking app and recruiting more people to use the app for profit. \n\nThe reality is you can trade forex through brokers without paying for an app and recruiting your friends to be your \"downline\" or \"binary\" or whatever BS they are trying to sell.\n\nHope this helps someone, the entire pitch I have seen has been the \"I help people become millionaires\" and \"i help create leaders\" approach and it's just damn heartbreaking...\n\nEdit:\nCase in point _URL_0_",
"I would advise against getting into this for the following reasons:\n\n-there is no 'risk premium' in currency trading (with the possible exception of EMFX), so there is no way to passively invest and expect to make money over time. This is important because:\n\n-retail investors lack the expertise to beat the market, which contains a lot of very sophisticated investment funds. Do you have a detailed real time company by company model of all currency flows into and out of an economy? Because you are trading against organizations who do. I used to work at one such organization (tens of billions in assets under management), and one of our smaller but consistently profitable trading strategies was a set of naive algorithms that just took the other side of all the common retail FX trader strategies (all the various vol strategies, interest rate differentials, etc).\n\n-retail investors lack the tools and capital to accurately quantify and manage risk, particularly as it relates to leverage. Indicatively, many retail FX brokers don't even bother to actually put on the position that you ask them to because they know that the vol will wipe you out and they'll get to keep your money. Yes, that should be illegal, but:\n\n-retail FX trading is very lightly regulated and the big brokers are typically based in places like Russia or Cyprus where they are beyond the reach of the laws designed to protect you.\n\nI have seen smart, well meaning people lose way too much money trying to trade currency markets. Unlike the stock market, its a zero sum game, and it's rigged against you. If you treat it like entertainment (e.g. like going to a casino), then by all means, enjoy it, but recognize that you will most likely lose the money you put into it, and possibly all at once.",
"This playlist will explain everything in 19 videos. How basic analysis works and how you trade on forex. A beginners guide if you'd like :) \n_URL_0_ "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.stockbrokers.com/news/swiss-franc-shock-hits-forex-brokers-hard/",
"http://estherfx.com/how-to-safeguard-your-forex-funds-against-brokerage-bankruptcy.html"
],
[],
[
"http://m.imgur.com/qb9O036"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sBlF2XOctc&list=PLOQ5INmqRmgHIteAG3-Bv_m0ADu0YO668"
]
]
|
|
ba2lwj | what defines an island? why is greenland the largest island in the world and not australia? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ba2lwj/eli5_what_defines_an_island_why_is_greenland_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek8ky6h",
"ek8ljb4",
"ek8lvhl",
"ek8nbsf"
],
"score": [
52,
5,
42,
18
],
"text": [
"Australia has its own continental plate, so it is a continent. Greenland on the other hand sits firmly on another continents continental plate (north America’s), so it counts as an island.",
"Pure convention in naming things. There is no geographical basis for what defines a continent. You can ask people from 4 backgrounds and get 6 different answers for the number of continents on Earth",
"There isn't a universally agreed scientific definition of a continent. What we think of as continents correlate with tectonic plates, but Europe doesn't have its own tectonic plate, and there are some places which have their own plates but aren't considered full continents (e.g. Arabia, Indian peninsular). Australia does have its own plate and Greenland doesn't, so that could be part of why one is considered a continent and the other isn't. But as I said, it's not a strict rule.\n\nThe other thing is size. Most maps are misleading when it comes to size because they exaggerate how big things are the closer they are to the poles. So Greenland often looks huge on maps (and it is to be fair), and Australia looks small in comparison. But in reality Australia is 3 times the size of Greenland. It is a bit arbitrary, but if you're defining an island vs a continent based on size then the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line is apparently somewhere between the size of Greenland and Australia.",
"Australia is the largest island in the world. We define our country as an island continent, never in my life met another Australian who hasn’t though that Australia was an island \n\nThe belief that Australia is not an island seems to be a purely non-Australian phenomenon. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4tgfbv | how do identity thieves not get caught? | If someone uses a piece of personal information, or several, to steal someone's identity, with all the technology that exists, how do these people not get caught? I mean, there are cameras in stores, at ATMs, etc.--can't the authorities track people down based on that? Or is it so widespread and massive that kind of stuff doesn't happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tgfbv/eli5_how_do_identity_thieves_not_get_caught/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5h2waa",
"d5h390d",
"d5h5hnd"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"For the most part it's because nobody is trying very hard to catch them. Individually most identity thieves aren't causing enough financial harm to individuals for law enforcement to do much. They usually make a few fraudulent purchases that the victim gets cancelled by the credit card company and that's it.\n\nThe credit card companies know that the expense of tracking down and prosecuting individual thieves also isn't worth it; there are too many that'll take their place. Instead they spend their time and effort on more secure systems or trying to educate people on how to prevent credit card theft in the first place and reporting it quickly when it does happen. ",
"Let's say you do manage to find a low quality security camera image of an identity thief after spending time sifting through footage. Now what? Door to door search? Use a tv show CSI computer guy to enhance five times and get all the nations databases together to scan for a match? \n\nThe truth is, most crimes go unsolved, most always have. People who commit lots of crimes eventually get caught. A person who snatches a purse once and no other crimes beyond that probably won't. \n\nAt the level of murders, we're talking 1/3rd are never solved. And some of those \"solved\" cases aren't proven, they can be cleared because the police have a suspect in mind, but the prosecutors don't think they have a winning case. Some cities solving less than 1/4th of their murders in a year. \n\nNow that's murder, that's a big thing that really draws resources. Seems rapes cases are cleared at 40% rate. Robbery 30%, larceny and theft 23%. Only one in eight motor vehicle thefts are ever solved. \n\nThe basic reality, is that individual crimes don't get solved, justice works on the law of averages. So long as thief commits 5 crimes, they're more than likely to get arrested. ",
"Laundering the money is also not too hard.\n\nLet's say I steal you SSN, name and birthday. With that, I file a fraudulent Tax return, and have them send the refund to a prepaid debit card. I then make a couple of purchases at a grocery store and get cash back, or use an ATM. The absolute BEST case scenario there is that you get my face on camera at the store or the ATM, if you manage to track the card. That's next to nothing to go on. If I use the card to buy bitcoin and then buy something else, you're screwed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1sn2al | what was happening in the middle east and africa during world war ii? what sides were taken and how were they affected? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sn2al/what_was_happening_in_the_middle_east_and_africa/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdz7a6n",
"cdz8cny",
"cdz9t5b",
"cdza029",
"cdzb3aw",
"cdzbz3q"
],
"score": [
42,
8,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The Italians tried to take North Africa. The British along with Australia and New Zealand destroyed the Italians. An Allied army of just a few ten thousand destroyed an Italian army 1/4 million strong.\n\nThe Germans, fearing the Allies taking total control of North Africa sent Rommel to North Africa. Rommel was placed under Italian command and had orders to just hold onto what the Italians had left. He was only authorised for limited offensive action only so much as it was for defence.\n\nRommel went, \"Fuck that,\" and took off across North Africa. This was at a bad time for the Allies as the gutless British commander in North Africa, Wavell, had given up much of his army to be sent to Greece, without complaint, even though he thought it was stupid. Many of the soldiers sent to Greece would be lost.\n\nFor a time Rommel rampaged across North Africa until he ran into the Australian garrison at Tobruk. Rommel had to drive his supplies across North Africa but capturing Tobruk would give him a good harbour. The Australians held him off for 8 months until the siege was broken. \n\nThe battles in North Africa would rage for years until Rommel's Afrika Korp and the Italians were destroyed or captured. Rommel would make a name for himself as a brilliant general/field marshal in North Africa but in reality he was quite mediocre. \n\nIn the Middle East there was also some fighting, such as the Australian action against the Vichy French in Syria. The fighting there was highly censored as it was thought that news stories about fighting the French, a supposed Ally, would damage civilian morale.\n\nA myth about the fighting in North Africa was that the German plan all along had been to captured the Suez Canal to prevent the Allies from using it and forcing them to go the long way around Africa. This is false as Rommel and his German forces were only sent to North Africa, as I said, to shore up the Italian defences. Rommel wasn't privy to the upcoming attack on the Soviet Union and thought that if he disobeyed orders and attacked he'd be given all the men and supplies he needed. Oops for him.\n\nNorth Africa provided the Allies with valuable battle experience after the British were kicked off the European continent and also for the US after they got involved. North Africa showed the Americans just how outdated their military methods were even after the British had tried to inform them of the new ways of waging war. The Germans \"fleeing from the British and retreating through the Americans,\" at Kasserine Pass demonstrated to the Americans that they had to change their way of thinking. Luckily for the US they were able to quickly adapt.\n\nThis is a bit of a rant and only touches upon just a little bit of the entire thing. It did rage for years. ",
" > What sides were taken?\n\nThe short version is that most of the area was colonized by France, England, Italy, and Spain. They did not really take side as much as go along with the colonizing powers.\n\n > How were they affected?\n\nAfter WWII, the colonial power had neither the strength nor the will to hold to their colonies. The lead to a massive wave of decolonization in the latter half of the 20^th century that independence in the region and throughout the world.\n\n",
"you can thank public schools for this question...",
"This was a major area of conflict in early WWII and there is a lot of information on the subject, but here is a very brief synopsis...\n\nItaly had a vision to recreate its Mediterranean empire which included the balkans (Albania, Greece, etc) and North Africa/MidEast. Italy had an old military and inept leadership, which led to its many failures in Greece and Egypt (Albania was the only \"successful invasion\"). From its colony in East Africa they invaded Ethiopia in 1936. Then when it aligned with Germany in 1940, they marched east from their holdings in Lybia in an attempt to capture Egypt and more. Germany's reason for aiding in the North Africa campaign included 1)Defending Italian holdings in the region, 2)pushing the allies out of the Med and preventing the use of the Suez Canal, thus essentially splitting the British empire in two and 3)potentially pushing into the Middle East and destroying the British supply of oil (out of Persia, who was under British protectorate at the time).\n\nThe axis forces were greatly outnumbered by the Allies (which included British, Australian, South African, and Indian/Middle Eastern forces). This plan didn't go well and they were quickly pushed back by Allied forces. The Italian/German push into Greece caused the British to send a bulk of its army from Africa to help in defence. With the Rommel led German reinforcements, a very long back and forth campaign occured, each side basically becoming supply blocked from finishing the job. After Operation Torch in the west and the second Battle of El Alemain in the east, the Axis could do nothing but retreat. The Allies owned the sea and air, preventing reinforcements and supplies from reaching Africa, and eventually Tunis was finally captured. (This was VERY brief, for more detailed info, just google).\n\nAs far as the rest of Africa, there were not any real significant conflicts.\n\nWhile I cannot confirm or deny what /panzerkampfwagen said about Rommel in terms of motive, he was in fact a brilliant tactician and earned the name 'desert fox' due to his maneuvering in desert warefare and success with sub-par forces. Yes Germany sent troops to defend Italian holdings, but not lost in their minds was the possibility of capturing the Suez and how it would impact British/Allied forces. If nothing else, it would be a thorn/diversion for the Allies while Germany finished off Russia.\n\nThe Middle East, as mentioned before, was basically under protectorate from Britain and/or France in most areas. While no realistic ideas to capture the Middle East existed, the Axis did toy with the idea of disrupting/capturing what oil supplies were there either after North Africa was captured or Russia fell.\n\nHowever, as /kouhoutek mentioned correctly, the aftermath of the war led to decolonization and independence movements throughout Africa and the Mid East. How the Allies carved up their Mid East holdings and the creation of the state of Isreal shows you how the aftermath of the war is still causing issues to this day in the Middle East.\n\nNote: I have taken classes in college and am an avid history buff, but by no means am I a professor of North African/Middle East conflict in WWII. I tried to use as many facts as possible, but this is not a term paper so I will forgo my sourcing. :)\n\n\n\n",
"im from saudi arabia\n my grandmother said that she didnt know there was a war until it ended ",
"The Middle East\n\nWhile, as others have mentioned, much of The Middle East was under the control of the British, as the Nazis moved into North Africa in 1941 the \"Golden Square Rebellion\" took place in Iraq. The Pro-British Iraqi government was overthrown, this coup was financed and supported by the Nazis. The British, fearing that the Nazis would move into the region and utilize it as a staging area for further advancement in the Middle-east and North Africa, quickly move to squash the rebellion. Led by Indian troops and backed by a superior air force the British were able to restore the pro-British government in about two weeks time. \n\nAlso, during World War II is when the long established alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States was established. The relationship was beneficial to both parties, Saudi Arabia needed protection from the Italians who had been attacking the country, interrupting both fuel production and Muslim pilgrims into Mecca, and the United States would be allowed to construct air bases as well as oil installations. This relationship,while not necessarily too significant during World War II has certainly shaped Middle-Eastern politics ever since."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4l7xsy | why can't we build arrays of solar panels in space and then beam the electricity to earth like cell phone signals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4l7xsy/eli5_why_cant_we_build_arrays_of_solar_panels_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3l2kx3",
"d3l2ly3",
"d3l2wt6",
"d3l843n"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We probably could, it'd just be enormously expensive and not necessary.\n\nWe don't have a shortage of energy on Earth now. We just have a shortage of clean energy. Overall solar panels are pretty clean and renewable - even factoring in the cost to produce the panels - but other forms of energy are cheaper.\n\nOver time as the cost of solar comes down and the cost of extracting oil from the ground goes up, solar will naturally become more prevalent.\n",
"Because it's way cheaper to just put the solar panels on the ground. The extra efficiency from not having to deal with clouds or atmosphere is massively outweighed by the fact that it costs over $2000/lb to put things in orbit.",
"There is no good way of beaming that energy back to earth. Cell phone signals don't come from space. Satellite phone signals do, but they transmit tiny amounts of power.\n\nEither way, both light and radio waves are just different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, so what you're describing is just a means of collecting lots of solar radiation and focussing it on a point. You'd be building a massive lens in space. The dangers of missing the target would be huge, and it wouldn't get you much more power than just putting the solar panels on the earth's surface, as others have said.",
"Hey, if it happens in SimCity 2000, we can do it IRL, right?\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBut yeah, at this time it is too cost-prohibitive vs just using ground-based solar arrays."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.simtropolis.com/repository/screens/monthly_04_2004/thumb-63f9ed1821444a64d6b4a8a36486d13c-newimage.jpg"
]
]
|
||
2pjy0u | microwave popcorn | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pjy0u/eli5_microwave_popcorn/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmxeijw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This question has already been asked and answered. Check these out!\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15rkyi/why_do_the_first_popcorn_kernels_to_pop_not_burn/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e5uuh/eli5_why_is_it_that_if_you_cook_popcorn_for_20/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hu2lj/eli5when_i_make_microwave_popcorn_it_can_take_up/"
]
]
|
||
n9e3f | can someone please explain to me what this sentence means? | Someone I know posted this as their FB status asking what it means? I know it's from his field of study which is IT.
"An organised collection of your house, neighbour's house, friend's house, etc. is perhaps the same as the idea proposed by the idealised models, in modelling perspective ONLY - i.e. an association or a set of associations that are based on model unit kinds, and since a model might be closely connected to a given model kind and the language that the model inherits based on the model kind but not necessarily model unit kind provided the level of abstraction of the model is specific to the model unit kind, a model characterised by its focus is ALWAYS built by creating model units of the suitable model unit kinds" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n9e3f/eli5_can_someone_please_explain_to_me_what_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"c37b0bx",
"c37b22i",
"c37b0bx",
"c37b22i"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Is this semiotics?",
"Your neighbor's house etc are similar to the perfect models but only in abstract modelling terms, which are strictly in the world of model terms. \n\nThen there are like set \"stereotype\" models that other models adhere to, which could be like a house based on a certain building that exhibits a specific architectural style. The non-stereotype models share similar language to the stereotype ones in terms of descriptions.\n\nFinally, then it says that a model with a certain direction/style is always built by following other models with that similar direction/style. \n\nI apologize in advance if I have it wrong, but this was my best try. ",
"Is this semiotics?",
"Your neighbor's house etc are similar to the perfect models but only in abstract modelling terms, which are strictly in the world of model terms. \n\nThen there are like set \"stereotype\" models that other models adhere to, which could be like a house based on a certain building that exhibits a specific architectural style. The non-stereotype models share similar language to the stereotype ones in terms of descriptions.\n\nFinally, then it says that a model with a certain direction/style is always built by following other models with that similar direction/style. \n\nI apologize in advance if I have it wrong, but this was my best try. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
68qv6i | how do elected military positions work in the us? like surgeon-generals? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68qv6i/eli5_how_do_elected_military_positions_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh0lsmz",
"dh0mz82"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So the Surgeon General isn't actually a military position, just like the Attorney General. The Surgeon General is just one of the top doctors in the US and is a Cabinet-level position.",
"The Surgeon General is an appointed position by the president. It's not a military position. Technically the surgeon general is appointed to the rank of Vice Admiral (O-9) in the Public Health Service, but this isn't a \"military service\" except by a fairly border-case interpretation. In fact there is completely little to no need for such rank or officer status to exist for the surgeon general.\n\n1) You would receive an appointment as an O-9 in the Public Health Service. For your Army service its likely you would retire your commission in the army as to not hold two commissions at the same time (and/or they would transfer your commission) transferring services as an officer is a thing that exists, but is very rare, as transferring to a different service is just not something that comes up often. In theory, yes you could wear badges and ribbons and such from the Army, as long as they were authorized for your new uniform (uniform regs are complicated). Considering you'd become the Surgeon General, they'd make everything work out for the best.\n\n2) There does not seem to be any precedent for this case.\n\n3) Yup, the rank of O-9 is real, even though its not really traditional military.\n\nEdit: To clear about another point. The military does not have any \"elected\" positions. The military does not have elections and elected people have no say in the military other than the President (who is the head of the military, so technically, in that case there is one elected position in the military, The President)\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3pl7to | why is auto correct on my phone less accurate when i'm typing with caps lock on? | Auto correct is pretty good with adding apostrophes and being able to predict what words I want to type when I'm typing normally. However once caps lock is on and I try to type quickly I get little to no suggestions or corrections and it renders useless. Why does using caps lock make this feature operate differently? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pl7to/eli5_why_is_auto_correct_on_my_phone_less/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw79dfy"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"When you turn on Caps Lock, there's a good chance that you are typing an acronym. Most acronyms aren't recognizable English words, but people don't like it when they get changed, so it makes sense for auto-correct to do little or no suggestions when caps lock is on."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1e0956 | why the hair on our arms and neck stand up when we are cold or scared. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e0956/eli5_why_the_hair_on_our_arms_and_neck_stand_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9vj4fy",
"c9vj5ya"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"It's an old survival mechanism to make you look bigger, since we have no thick fur or hair or anything it doesn't really make a difference. If we had that then all of it standing up at once would maybe scare predators away because we would be bigger than they first thought.",
"When you're cold, they stick up to effectively trap a layer of still air between your skin and the surrounding air. Stagnant air is an excellent heat insulator.\n\nWhen you're scared, it's a remnant from evolution to make you look bigger if you're being threatened."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1uk4va | federal income tax. mandatory or not? why is there confusion over whether it is mandatory or not? | A post I saw on my Facebook news feed prompted me to ask this question. Once and for all, is federal income tax mandatory? If yes, why do people think it is not? If not, why do people think it is?
EDIT: For the sake of clarity, I'm referring to the United States here. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uk4va/eli5_federal_income_tax_mandatory_or_not_why_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceivwp4",
"ceivwu2",
"ceiw1kb",
"ceiw1vj",
"ceiw6u3"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mandatory. Some confused people think it is not because it isn't specifically written into the constitution. They are wrong. ",
"Yes, it is mandatory. Some people think it's not mandatory because they've been lied to; there's no reasonable argument for why it might not be.",
"Mandatory. Others have pointed out that a few confused or misinformed people think it is optional, but every single time those people make their arguments in court, they are shut down right away.",
"It is mandatory--there's no real confusion, only scammers looking to scam: _URL_0_",
"Is it considered unusual or untoward to post within a question a side bar type question that feeds off the OP's post? I know a handful of people who simply file \"Exempt\" in order to not pay taxes. They have never been audited and none has ever actually done anything that would exempt them. How does this come to be? I mean, are they just lucky?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/voluntary.asp"
],
[]
]
|
|
5ys3w2 | why is it so popular to drink beverages using a straw in us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ys3w2/eli5_why_is_it_so_popular_to_drink_beverages/ | {
"a_id": [
"deshjbk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Have you used a straw?\n\nIt is fun. \n\nYou can drink more easily and more quickly. \n\nWe put ice in our drinks and straws make drinking that easier. \n\nGlasses are colder because of all the ice and straw allows you to drink without your hands getting cold, or wet from the condensation. \n\nWoman can drink without lipstick/gloss getting ruin. \n\nYou can put a lid on it and drink with much less risk of spilling or leakage. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8np84z | why is charcoal white when hot but black when cooled? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8np84z/eli5_why_is_charcoal_white_when_hot_but_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzxblq8",
"dzz5ga8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't change color due to heat, it turns white/gray as the charcoal burns and turns to ash. If you look at a charcoal pile after it's burnt out and cool enough to touch, it stays white/gray",
"The white stuff that’s left after you’ve completely combusted something (as might happen on a piece of charcoal), is at least in theory all the inorganic stuff and trace minerals that were present in the wood used to make the charcoals.\n\nCarbon itself will burn and become oxides of carbon which are gases (practically there probably will be some leftover). But things like calcium carbonate, potassium carbonate, and other compounds either won’t be oxidised or form solids which just remain where they are. \n\nIt shouldn’t make a difference how hot it is afterwards. Maybe the ashes are just falling off?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2aywfe | why does the usps use jeeps to deliver mail? | Jeeps are notorious for high gas costs, and frequent maintenence, so why does the USPS use them? Isn't there a cheaper alternative?
Edit: cheeper | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aywfe/eli5_why_does_the_usps_use_jeeps_to_deliver_mail/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj03zx2",
"cj044bf",
"cj04cmi"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"If you look carefully, those Jeeps have the postal worker drive on the right side. I'm sure at the time, the USPS was trying to find a car manufacturer that could cheaply provide an efficient car with a steering wheel on the right side. Looks like Jeep won that bid.",
"Where I live they have all been replaced by Dodge Caravan minivans. ",
" > Why does the USPS use jeeps to deliver mail?\n\nThey don't. Or at least, I've never seen one. The iconic \"mail truck\" is the the [Grumman LLV (Long Life Vehicle)](_URL_0_), and they're so durable that they haven't had to purchase new ones since 1994."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV"
]
]
|
|
6f4jm1 | how do choreographers write out choreography? | Musicians have a notation that they use to write out their music, is there an equivalent for choreographers? How do they keep track of all of the details of the movements that they want to incorporate into their dance? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6f4jm1/eli5_how_do_choreographers_write_out_choreography/ | {
"a_id": [
"difcjyp",
"difcxvn"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"It's a sheet with the specific cues/times, the actions, the notes, and a space for drawings or photos to go. Known dance patterns can be called by name, and dancers are drilled to go to specific locations, as written on the sheet.\n\nExample: _URL_0_",
"There have been multiple choreographic notations throughout history. One of the most famous is Labanotation, but in my experience, choreographers use anything from stick figures, to shorthand, to coded words for movements. Movements stay in people's bodies for a long time, even after years of not doing it. So they repeat it in their own time to better explain it. Often you'll see a choreographer mark the dance very quickly to remember the next part. They also use their stick figures, shorthand, and coded words for remaining movements. What's nice is a lot of movement names are under a shared vocabulary that all dancers learn through years of training. \n\nIn terms of preservation of dance pieces over time, video is obviously now widely used for reconstruction, but before video it was basically passing the choreography down through memorization. Every piece I've been in I've either learned through video or physical demonstration from the choreographer or an assistant (if the choreographer isn't physically capable of demonstrating, which is often the case when it comes to older pieces or pieces not done very often). \n\nLabanotation: _URL_1_\n\nDance Notation: _URL_2_\n\nBallet Dictionary: _URL_0_\n\nedited formatting and a missing word"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://kellylasley.com/uploads/2/8/3/5/2835519/2976682.jpg?529"
],
[
"https://ballethub.com/ballet-terms-dictionary/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labanotation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_notation"
]
]
|
|
204xds | mainframe computers | I just seen a book on about the zSeries mainframe. Since I thought mainframes are some kind of obsolete computing system, I was kind of surprised to see the publication date recent. Went to zSeries page and kind of got lost because I don't know much about them.
Here are some questions I have.
What are mainframes and what classify a computer as a mainframe?
Are they they still used today and how exactly? What are the most acceptable applications? Can you elaborate especially in cloud computing and maybe how they apply to security specifically?
Is there still a future for mainframes since everything is going parallel and concurrent? Especially when devices are increase in cores CPU's and processing power? Why buy a big machine?
Do you think there is a demand in the future? When will we quit needing them?
Thanks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/204xds/eli5_mainframe_computers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfzv6kh",
"cfzv7t9",
"cfzvcza"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Modern-day mainframes aren't quite the same thing as what we used to call mainframes. In the older days, Mainframes were like the computer towers of desktop computers today. They housed the CPU and main memory of the computer. Computers were large and expensive, so rather than buying an individual computer for each user, they had one or two mainframes.\n\nOriginally, they accepted punch cards and similar forms of input. Eventually, keyboards and monitors became more common, and mainframes began to have terminals connected to them. Terminals are basically like desktop PCs, except that they didn't have their own CPU or hard drive. Instead, they send all their input to the mainframe, which processed it and returned the results. Basically, it was like having multiple monitors and keyboards attached to a single computer.\n\nNowadays, mainframes are more like giant servers. Server blades are individual computers designed for fitting in server racks, and they don't have a built-in interface. Instead, they're connected to via a terminal or a remote desktop connection, much like older mainframes. They're usually used to host dedicated network resources, like storing files, hosting websites, or hosting video game servers. They may or may not be connected to the internet, depending on the needs of the company that owns them.\n\nMainframes are similar to server racks. Rather than having multiple individual machines each designed to run a single server load, mainframes are giant machines with a lot of power. Depending on the needs of the company, they can use all of that power for a single purpose, like bulk data processing, or they can use *virtualization* to split it up as necessary.\n\nVirtualization basically creates an imaginary computer that can access a certain amount of resources of the larger machine. Programs can talk to the virtual computer as if it were a real one, but there is no physical machine there. This allows the owners of the mainframe to split up the resources as they see fit. Depending on their needs, they can use the virtual machines as servers, virtual desktop computers, or something else entirely.\n\nAs far as I can tell, they will still be necessary in the future. Mainframes can be have far more individual cores in their CPUs compared to a desktop or server blade, so they will continue to be useful even in the age of parallelization. The only point I can see where we'll ever stop needing mainframes is the point where a single desktop machine is powerful enough to run high-end computations on large amounts of data. Since the past trend has been that the more computing power we have, the greater number of computations we want to run on data, I don't see that happening any time soon.",
"I can't really answer most of this for you, but one thing I can tell you is that mainframes are still very prevalent in the banking industry. They are still very much in use.",
" > What are mainframes and what classify a computer as a mainframe?\n\nMainframe can be considered as a server computer which has a capability to process massive amount of instruction (and data). Currently the two most popular mainframe systems are IBM Mainframe and HP Non stops.\n\n > Are they they still used today and how exactly? What are the most acceptable applications? Can you elaborate especially in cloud computing and maybe how they apply to security specifically?\n\nYes they are very much used today. They are used by large corporations (banks, insurance companies , stock exchange erc). \n\nMost of the ATM systems, banking systems, billing systems in telephone and insurance companies use mainframe systems. They are mostly centralized systems and access is controlled at server level using security software. \n\n\n\n\n > Is there still a future for mainframes since everything is going parallel and concurrent? Especially when devices are increase in cores CPU's and processing power? Why buy a big machine?\n\n\nYes companies are still buying mainframe system. One of their biggest USP is uptime. These system almost never go down. They are very secure and hugely scalable. As of now cloud has not proven themselves on these factors and major corporations are not putting their critical data on cloud.\n\nAlso there is hundred of million of lines of codes already existing on mainframe. This code works and no body is ready to spend money to port this to any other system. \n\nBut cloud and distributed servers have had an impact on sales of mainframe.\n\n > Do you think there is a demand in the future? When will we quit needing them?\n\nThe system will continue to have demand for at least next 20 - 30 years . The catalyst that can make us stop needing them is a system which will allow porting of existing code base to newer system with 100% assurance that they will continue to behave as they do now.\n\nPS: I am mainframe programmer who designs and codes new applications for HP Nonstop and IBM Mainframe."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3hd7ci | why is fainting preceded by seeing black? | Why/How does the brain process the information from the eyes that should be giving signals about the actual colour of whatever is in ones field of vision in a way that it seems black shortly before fainting? Why does less oxygen in the brain equal smaller / unclear vision? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hd7ci/eli5_why_is_fainting_preceded_by_seeing_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu6cwsb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The visual cortex progressively looses the ability to process stimulus. One is simply observing this gradual shutting down of that processor as the oxygen fuel is spent. The O2 not directly impacting the observation of visual stimuli, but it's metabolism supports the nervous system so it is a gradual shutdown. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
17ld7d | how does your phone know when you tilt it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17ld7d/eli5_how_does_your_phone_know_when_you_tilt_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c86m6y3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Put a slinky in a long glass tube and fix one end of the slinky to one end of the tube. Now lay the tube on your desk. The slinky is all curled up . Next, stand the tube upright. One end of the slinky is fixed to the top of the tube and the bottom of the slinky dangles down. What if you held the tube at an angle... say 10 degrees off of exactly horizontal. Gravity still pulls down on the free end of the slinky, but a lot of the weight of the slinky is supported by the tube. The slinky is all bunched up, but not completely bunched up (like in an exactly horizontal tube). \n\nThe longer the slinky is the more vertical the tube is. Put another way, you know how much the tube is tilted based on how long the slinky is. \n\nPhones do something similar. They have a tiny 'springs' that are effected by gravity. The phone can measure how deformed the springs are which means it knows how vertical/horizontal the phone is."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
247wu7 | why isn't mikhail gorbachev seen as a historic hero for his actions transforming the ussr into russia? | Between ending the Cold War, the impending nuclear doom of the world, and being the figure that ended decades of craziness, why isn't Gorbachev seen as a hero? Is he simply seen as right place, right time? I would think that the leader of North Korea that ends all the propaganda and opens the nation's borders would be considered a hero, so why isn't Gorbachev held in an extremely high esteem? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/247wu7/eli5_why_isnt_mikhail_gorbachev_seen_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch4gh6p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Gorbachev didn't transform the USSR into Russia. His attempted reform of the USSR led to the dissolving of the USSR altogether, leaving a bunch of newly independent states (of which Russian Federation was one). Just an important terminology issue there. Russia is not the USSR and the USSR is not Russia — Russia was just the biggest and most powerful country _in_ the USSR. \n\nAs for why he isn't seen as a hero, people in Russia have mixed feelings about how things went down. They went from being a very strong country to a very poor and disordered one. A lot of the support for Putin comes from the fact that he is perceived to have made Russia \"strong\" again. In the USA, we tend to focus on Reagan as the \"hero\" if we pick a hero, or Yeltsin as a \"hero\" (for successfully standing up to the Soviet hard-liners who tried to stage a coup). \n\nBut the real issue here, I think, is that Gorbachev wasn't _trying to be this kind of hero_. He was trying to _reform_ Soviet Communism, not _destroy_ it. He was trying to make things a little better, but instead the entire edifice fell apart. Even if one holds him primarily responsible for that (I do), even if one thinks that is ultimately a good thing, he didn't really do it _intentionally_. \n\nMy favorite book on the downfall of the USSR, if you are interested, is David Remnick's _Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire_. It's a really engrossing read, aimed at a popular audience, but very well-done."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
co1y9t | why do people cover their laptop's camera but not their smartphone's? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/co1y9t/eli5_why_do_people_cover_their_laptops_camera_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewfa2pk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I can't speak for everyone, but my phone camera is usually either in my pocket, or laying flat on a surface pointing one camera at the surface and one on at the ceiling, neither of which would generally make exciting pirate video. \n\nAlso my laptop camera is covered because I work from home, look like a hobo, and have a couple communications apps that try to start the dang thing automatically every time they get used."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2btdea | what is preventing terrorists from using nuclear weapons? | Seems like it would have happened by now. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2btdea/eli5what_is_preventing_terrorists_from_using/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj8oxfn",
"cj8oxzf",
"cj8p6el",
"cj8pphj",
"cj8pvp2",
"cj8xdnh"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Having access to the right materials, and enough of it to do significant damage. Also it takes money to build the proper facilities to do it. You also need educated and skilled people to run the facility and make the bomb. The things needed to do this is heavily regulated by the UN. Plus intelligence agencies keep eyes on groups that would like to use one and those who would sell the stuff to them. If someone farts in the wrong direction, intelligence agencies know about it. ",
"Acquiring nuclear weapons is pretty difficult, and even if you do obtain one, you better expect some serious repercussions by the government.",
"A nuclear bomb the way we think of it is very complex and difficult to make. They can get their hands on radioactive material, but rarely can build an atomic bomb.\nInstead, what we should worry about are dirty bombs, which they can easily and cheaply make, and will most likely be used in the future.",
"The number one thing that keeps terrorists from using nuclear weapons is the lack of access to the fuel needed to run them, what is known as \"fissile material.\" This means either uranium that has been processed in massive factories so it is \"enriched\" in the atom U-235, or plutonium, which can only be produced using nuclear reactors and other large, messy, difficult to run production facilities. \n\nIf terrorists had access to several kilograms of enriched uranium or plutonium, they would be most of the way on the road to making a nuclear bomb. Fortunately both of these materials are hard to come by, and generally kept under strict lock and key. And anyone advertising it for sale would get a swift visit from various intelligence agencies around the world (or turned in by others in the black market who would love to have a \"get out of jail free\" card from the intelligence agencies who work in their country).\n\nEven if they had the fissile material, they would need to have access to several expert's worth of knowledge and experience to fabricate them into a bomb. But this sort of thing is much easier than having access to the fissile material itself.",
"*The Science of Fear* by Daniel Gardner has an interesting chapter on terrorism, in which he discusses why it would be extremely difficult for terrorists to get their hands on, much less successfully deploy chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and cause widespread death. \n\nGardner discusses the example of Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult which perpetrated the Tokyo subway sarin attack which killed 12 people. \n\n > Led by Shoko Asahara, Aum was fixated on the idea of inflicting mass-casualty terrorist attacks in hopes of sparking an apocalyptic war. Aum's resources were formidable. At its peak, the cult had a membership of around 60,000. Outside Japan, it had offices in Australia, Germany, Russia, and even New York City. It had at least several hundred million dollars in cash and perhaps as much as $1 billion. And it had highly skilled members... One Aum scientist later confessed he joined simply because Aum's laboratories were so superior to those of his university. At one point, Aum had twenty scientists working on biological weapons. Another eighty investigated chemical weapons. \n\n > Naturally, Aum also sought nuclear weapons, going so far as to purchase a 500,000-acre sheep station in a remote part of Australia with plans to mine uranium and ship it to Japan \"where scientists using laser enrichment technology would convert it into weapons-grade nuclear material,\" according to the Gilmore Committee. Aum also tried very hard to buy off-the-shelf. In Russia, the group bought large quantities of small arms \"and is known to have been in the market for advanced weaponry, such as...even a tactical nuclear weapon.\"\n\nWithout getting into too much further detail, basically, despite the fact that Aum had scientists trained at the best Japanese universities, enormous amounts of money, and years of freedom with little interference from the authorities who didn't know what was going on, Aum still didn't manage to inflict mass death. What the Gilmore Committee (an American congressional advisory committee) concluded was that \"Aum scientists, socially and physically isolated and ruled by an increasingly paranoid leader, became divorced from reality and unable to make sound judgment.\" Basically, it's hard for an organization based on religious mania to function well. Al-Qaeda lacks the money, infrastructure, and talented scientists of Aum, but shares its \"hothouse atmosphere.\"\n\nMoreover, it is extremely difficult to build a nuclear device that can produce mass destruction, even for nations and much more so for terrorist groups. Saddam Hussein attempted to do it but failed. \"It took [South African] scientists and engineers--who were endowed with a large and sophisticated infrastructure--four years to build their first gun-type system (the crudest form of nuclear bomb).\"\n\nFinally, it is difficult to buy a nuke on the black market. It was feared that the collapse of the USSR would result in bombs entering the black market, but this did not occur, and anyhow, they need regular maintenance, and nuclear devices usually have \"tamper proof seals and other devices designed to prevent precisely [the possibility of a bomb being sold by a disgruntled Russian officer].\" \n\n**TL;DR It's hard for religious fanatics to have the organizational capacity to pull off mass destruction, it's hard to build a nuke, existing nukes have safety mechanisms to prevent them from being used by the wrong people.** \n",
"I'd add to all the very good arguments by saying that the financial ressources required for such a project (buying or making) would probably be used by terrorists to fund and orchestrate many many targeted/effective attacks. Deploying a nuke would be an incredibly scary and effective attack, but because of the degree of difficulty and ressources needed, making a second bomb, while investigated by pretty much every country would be impossible (assuming the first one was possible.) \n\nSo maybe it would be considered as the ultimate act of terrorism, but people and governments would know that this was a one time event after a few months which makes it less effective as an act to terrorize a population than smaller attacks which could happen again. Also removing any deterrent to hunt you down. \n\nInstead you could fund many attacks like Heathrow or 9/11 which would have a very similar effect long term (causing dear that an attack may come anywhere anytime), bringing much less heat. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
34xq2x | if other primates, such as chimps, evolved alongside humans from a common ancestor, why is their behavior often used as an indicator of our primal past? | Isn't a logical fallacy to assume any of their social habits can explain our social behavior, when their social behavior may have only developed since the split from our common ancestor? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34xq2x/eli5_if_other_primates_such_as_chimps_evolved/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqz17hq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think the assumption is that their behavior maps directly to ours. \n\nI think the idea is that exploring the similarities and differences between our behavior and that of our close relatives can give us insights about how our own social behaviors have evolved. \n\nIt can tell us what behaviors of ours are shared with other primates and which are uniquely human. It can also give us indication as to which of our own behaviors might be cultural constructs, and which might be more innate."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
e2alch | why have we been able to discover invisible atoms? | Not because they are small, but because they have no color.
Say Hydrogen and Oxygen, yes we can see water, but, how did scientists distinguish that there were one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms in it if these elements are invisible to begin with? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e2alch/eli5_why_have_we_been_able_to_discover_invisible/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8ugusk",
"f8uh4vw",
"f8ve1h5"
],
"score": [
18,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"When you run electricity though water, bubbles of gas form - and the gas that forms on the negative electrode behaves *very* differently from the gas that forms on the positive electrode. So they must be different substances.\n\nYou can collect these two gases and recombine them into water. But *you can only combine them in a very specific proportion:* it's always 2-to-1. If you use a different ratio, you will have one of the gases left over when you're done. So there has to be two of *something* combining with each one *something else*.",
"There are many, many more measurable attributes than color that people used to figure these things out. \n\nTo use your example of water: if you run electricity through it, it breaks apart. Early scientists wouldn’t know that, but they would know that it makes the water turn into gas. \n\nYou place a tube over this to capture it, and you can find by experimentation that the top 2/3 is much lighter, and when released carefully without disturbing the bottom 1/3, is flammable, while the bottom 1/3 is not. Clearly there are 2 different substances here\n\nPut a glowing splint in the bottom gas, and it bursts into flame. This gas must support combustion. Gather it and burn different things, you’ll find that it makes the same substances burn that burn in normal air, but much faster. Perhaps this is the part of air that allows things to burn? \n\nPut a small animal in a container with the gases. With the lighter one, it dies. The heavier one, it lives! This gas supports life while the other does not. \n\nOn and on and on until you discover the attributes of this substance and realize you cannot break it down into anything else, and it must be fundamental.",
"Something to keep in mind: Individual atoms do not have color. They are too small to reflect visible wavelengths of light on their own, and even if they could, they wouldn't be the color of the \"stuff\" we associate with those atoms anyway.\n\nAtoms bond with each other in different configurations based on their individual shapes and properties (a bit like legos or kinects). The different structures that these form are what reflects the light in different ways and are what give things their color (or lack of it).\n\nThis is why things that look as different as coal and diamonds can be made of the same kind of atom."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1zz56m | do other languages have a "gay accent"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zz56m/eli5_do_other_languages_have_a_gay_accent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfyacwu",
"cfyad70"
],
"score": [
6,
10
],
"text": [
"This isn't really an ELI5 question. This sub is for simple explanations of complex topics- you're really just looking for a yes or no answer.\n\nThe answer is yes.\n\nI studied Japanese for about eight years, and yes, there are at least two different \"gay accents\". I'm told that Tagalog (the language of the Philippines) also has a \"gay accent\". My best friend who is Mexican has told me that there is similarly a Mexican-Spanish equivalent as well.\n\nThere are probably tons of other examples.",
"Yes. As a other-language speaker, more specifically norwegian, i can confirm this. I dont know how a \"gay accent\" develop, but also in norwegian they have a tendency to sound more feminin. They sometimes also have a slight lisp :)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
aqq870 | why do some office buildings have keys for the bathroom? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqq870/eli5_why_do_some_office_buildings_have_keys_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"eght7wt",
"eghtnjd"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Most likely to cut down on just anyone off the street coming in to use, sleep in, do drugs in them, or hide in them until after hours to commit a crime. A lot of office buildings where I live there is no security at the main entrances be it a uniformed guard or lock on the door so anyone can access the building during business hours.",
"Pretty much as explained. Security, especially if you're in a city with a large homeless population.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
bfenzg | - what happens when photons hit a molecule? | I know photons are incredibly small and moving very fast, but what happens when it hits a molecule or atom? I know it happens everywhere that’s why we have visible light. But what happens to the molecule? Does anything dramatic change or happen to it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bfenzg/eli5_what_happens_when_photons_hit_a_molecule/ | {
"a_id": [
"eld2bgj",
"eld2i5v",
"eldqppm",
"eleu3tr",
"elex445"
],
"score": [
3,
21,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, that depends on the exact molecule as well as the wavelength of the photon. Depending on the wavelength it can cause the molecule to stretch, compress, rotate, vibrate, or put off more light. These interactions are the basis for the field of spectroscopy which is the process of analyzing how a substance reacts to light in order to determine what it is made of. Unfortunately this isn't something I can explain in detail on this subreddit simply because of how complex it actually is.",
"Depending on the energy of the photon there are a couple of options -\n\n\"Nothing\". Of course nothing would violate laws of physics, so the photon would be reflected (or absorbed) and the molecule would be pushed. ( A tiny amount. Enough that you could propulse a starship with huge sunsails in space, but to less to be noticeable in common situations)\n\nA electron of an atom could be pushed into a higher orbit, or completely out of the atom.\nThat could lead to effects like photovoltaic cells or plants are using, or others...\n\nA bond between atoms could be broken up, that would lead to molecule degrade. This needs more energy in photons, ultraviolet light has enough.\n\nThe effects of this can lead to skin cancer (if the body isn't able to repair all damages to all molecules, especially if DNA molecules are hit) or e.g. printed colour bleaching in the sun.\n\nLastly, parts of atoms could be be kicked out the atoms. Energy for this would need x-ray or radioactive radiation at least.",
"Chemistry major here!\n\nSo in general the effect depends on the energy (wavelength/frequency) of the photon. Particles have energy levels, much like rungs on a ladder, and usually prefer the lowest rung (ground state) to higher rungs (excited states). There are actually multiple ladders which correspond to the three main ways in which a particle can be excited: Rotationally (the particle spins), Vibrationally (bonds in the molecule stretch and bend) and Electronically (can lead to ionisation where and electron leaves the molecule). Rotational is the lowest energy and electronic the highest.\n\nAssuming the energy of the photon is of the \"correct\" energy, it can excite the molecule/atom into an excited state from a ground state. The type of excitation depends on the photon energy; photons in the microwave region usually cause rotational excitation, infrared for vibrational, and UV/Vis light for electronic (in order of increasing energy)\n\nThis vibrational excitation from infrared light is actually the reason CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it absorbs infrared light (heat) emitted from the Earth which causes a stretching/bending in the C=O bonds.\n\nNow, the particle doesn't like being excited, so, through processes hard to ELI5, it falls back down to the ground state, releasing a photon of (usually) lower energy than initially used to excite it. Again, this is all assuming the photon was of a \"correct\" energy in the first place to cause excitation. \n\nThe key words if you wanna know more would probably be spectroscopy, rotational/vibrational/electronic excitation, term symbols and energy levels in spectroscopy. \n\nIf you've got any questions feel free to ask, I'm more than happy to help!",
"One of 3 things. \n\n1. It's absorbed and re-radiated. \n\n2. It's reflected\n\n3. It passes through it. \n\nOften it's a little of all 3. Those cool blacklight posters with the super bright colors are more of #1. High energy UV light is absorbed by a phosphor, then re-emitted as lower energy visible light. In other words it converts invisible light into visible light, and glows. \n\nPhotons can also be absorbed and their energy used to power chemical reactions such as in photosynthesis and solar cells. Sometimes this is a destructive process. For instance bleaching is the process by which photons bombard pigments in a substance, and like shots fired into a window factory, break them up into little pieces, which changes the wavelength of light they reflect, causing them to become transparent. If you've ever seen a soda can left out in the grass, you've probably seen this effect as the colors fade. \n\n\nReflection we're all familiar with; mirrors, the surface of water, the walls in your room reflecting a lamp, etc. \n\nAnd believe it or not, some light moves through a material without interacting with it at all. Even solid steel and lead. Or, you know, glass, water, less opaque substances.",
"Think of photons as packets of energy floating around. Energy transfer is nature's message to \"do stuff\".\n\nPhotons are the universe's messenger for energy exchange. If the molecule receives a photon and does stuff, that photon is absorbed in the process. The message is accepted. If a molecule does less stuff, it gets rid of it as a photon and thereby tells something else to do stuff instead.\n\nThe \"stuff\" that happens depends on how much energy we're talking here. Very low amounts, like in the range of radio waves, might just cause a bit of kinetic motion of the molecule. Higher amounts of energy - say microwave energy range - might cause the molecules to rotate. Higher still in the infra-red tends to cause the molecule to vibrate more, or in higher energy vibrational \"modes\" that take more energy to do. Visible or ultra-violet light tends to get molecules' outer electrons to enter higher energy orbitals - the electron \"wavyness\" gets a bit more wavy and shaken up. Getting up into X-ray range you start exciting the electrons at the very core of the atoms. By the time you reach gamma rays you start stripping the electrons off the molecule completely and creating ions. \n\n\nOf course the photon might not be absorbed and instead just be reflected, refracted, scattered ..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cjcl7g | why is it that thinking about things to hard makes them harder to do without thinking? (sleeping, swallowing) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cjcl7g/eli5_why_is_it_that_thinking_about_things_to_hard/ | {
"a_id": [
"evcflfn"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your brain stores muscle memory in a series of neural connections that fire in a squence and are reinforced every time you do it correctly. \n\nThink of it like a path in the woods. Every time someone uses that path, it gets worn in better and it gets easier to go through the woods to get home. \n\nWhen you think about it too hard, you're not letting your brain trigger that sequence. You're telling your brain to do distinct actions as part of what you want to do. Which you are terrible at. \n\nSo instead of just following the path you try and force your way through the woods. It's slow and awkward and you usually don't end up where you want to be. \n\nSleep on the other hand has more to do with being relaxed. A long long time ago if you were stressed it was for good reason. Predators, rivals, food. So you wouldn't sleep because maybe that thing you're stressed about would kill you. \n\nWhen you lay in bed thinking \"just go to sleep.\" And you don't go to sleep, well that stresses you out. So now you think \"come on! If I don't sleep I'll be tired tomorrow!\" That stresses you out more. Your brain doesn't know you're stressed about wanting to sleep. It just knows stress is going on and that's bad so better stay awake to deal with it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2eqhal | if cocaine is worse than weed, why is cocaine a schedule 2 drug and weed is schedule 1? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eqhal/eli5_if_cocaine_is_worse_than_weed_why_is_cocaine/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck1xxsc",
"ck1y4w5",
"ck1ynyj"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Schedule 1 drugs have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSchedule 2 drugs also have a high potential for abuse, but do have accepted medical use.\n\nMarijuana, according to the DEA/federal government, has no medical uses, whereas cocaine is used as an anesthetic and vasoconstrictor during some surgical procedures.",
"Because Harry Anslinger needed a new gig after prohibition ended. It was politically motivated.\n\nThere is quite a bit of information available on the subject. Perhaps you should cruise by /r/asktrees and ask over there. You'll get more complete answers there than you will here (no offense, ELI5 responders).",
"The drug schedule isn't exclusively about potential harm. It is about the intersection of harm and medical use. Further, the schedule is determined at the federal level. So...cocaine is used in medicine, marijuana is not (according to the FDA).\n\nI'll add that while I'm a staunch supporter of the legalization of marijuana, I don't think it should be legal medically...yet. Why? We have a process for determining the legitimacy of medical drugs - the FDA and their approval process. While I have problems with this process and think it could serve us better, I do not think \"it doesn't harm you\" is enough to substantiate calling something medical. We've started saying \"medical marijuana\" even though the amount of rigorous research on the topic of the medical use of marijuana wouldn't get past the front door of the FDA (this _is_ changing). I think we're opening the door to all sorts of sham medical treatments by shrouding our desires for legalization of marijuana as a medical issue. This is not to say that medicalization of marijuana won't help a ton of people, but...if it will...we should be pushing for it to be well researched, validated, tested against specific diagnosis and so on with the same standard we do other treatments. It seems somewhat strange that in CA a doctor can prescribe marijuana _for anything_ , but other medications we call \"medical\" can only be prescribed for those things approved by the FDA. Marijuana should either be medicalized - in which case it should be run through the same standards as others, or it should be chicken-souped - left to hands of individuals to use their discretion about how and when to use it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3o1is5 | why does a cars' value depreciate as soon as you drive it off of the lot, once purchased, yet you can test drive a buick right now for 24 hours with no loss in value? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o1is5/eli5_why_does_a_cars_value_depreciate_as_soon_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvt69p0",
"cvt6atb",
"cvt6cqu",
"cvt7yi6"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The \"as soon as you drive it off the lot\" isn't technically accurate, just an interesting way of thinking of the concept.\n\nWhat really depreciates the value is that, once it's bought, it goes from a brand new car to a used car. Brand new is worth more than used (if you're confused of the reasoning of that, let me know, otherwise we'll move on).\n\nDuring test drives, you don't own the car. It's still \"new.\" It's being used under supervision of the dealer, or at best is still under their responsibility. If there are problems with the car, it's up to them to fix it and thus they ensure it's in good working order as a new car.\n\nAfter it's been purchased the only person who has responsibility for ensuring it works is the person who bought it... and they have a much lower responsibility to ensure it works (and are less capable/qualified than the dealer).\n\nIn fact, even if you purchase it, drive it off the lot, and decide you don't want it and return it (and the dealer accepts this), it's still worth just as much because the purchase was void and it becomes a \"new\" car again, even though you drove it off the lot. Responsibility to ensure it's in full working order falls back to the dealer.",
"The reason the value drops so much cliff when you drive off the lot has little to do with any *actual* wear-and-tear on the car. It's because there are not many reasons to sell a brand-new car, and one of the biggies is that it's a lemon (i.e. an unreliable piece of garbage). Lemons are disproportionately common among used cars. With Buick's thing, there is a separate reason why it's returned so quickly that doesn't suggest anything about the car's value, so there's no inherent reason the value should drop (also, it's not lumped in with other used cars, so you have people looking to buy a new car at new-car prices who you're selling to). ",
"Basically because car dealerships say it does. They have to turn a profit on every car, so if you bought a car for $30k, immediately drove it across the street to a competing dealership they might give you $25k for it in trade. \n\nBuick dealerships are allowing the 24hr test drive in the hopes that people who take them will want to keep the car. It's a marketing gimmick and you're not likely to put all that many miles on it while you have it for a day. They can take the car back at the end of the 24 hours and still sell it as new. ",
"Car salesman here. You're thinking of it the wrong way. \nDepreciation is a loss in value, the vehicle no longer being worth what one paid. The real issue with this is that the price is subject to the market, and is determined by the seller. /u/sonofaresiii is half right. A car with 1 owner is not new once it has been registered, the vehicle is no longer new and therefore depreciates, however, a car with 1000 miles will still demand higher than new prices in the right market. \nThe real issue with \"depreciation\" that most Americans experience is negative equity. A situation where the amount you have loaned is greater than the value of the car. In my experience this is so prevalent because people finance more than the car is worth, in taxes, fees, warranties, etc. Creating a situation where the car was never worth more than the loan taken out to finance it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2v3do3 | why are bills lumped together instead of voted on individually. | I understand the concept of saving time, but this has clearly wasted a lot of time lately. If things must be grouped why can't they be similar topics. Lately its clearly a tactic to get something passed that would never have passed on its own, but in practice now nothing gets passed at all, including good things that people actually want. Would it not be more efficient to break a bill down after it stalls the system? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v3do3/eli5_why_are_bills_lumped_together_instead_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"coe7j3f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because of compromise.\n\nI might not be crazy about the tax cut you are proposing. I don't absolutely hate it, but on its own merit, I'd vote no. At the same time, you feel the exact same away about my education bill.\n\nBut if they are in the same bill, we both get what we really want, with out having to give away too much. The combined bill is stronger than the sum of its parts.\n\nNow multiply that by everyone in congress, and you have a lot of extra junk in the bills."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3pobd3 | why there was such an expansion in the religious right in early 1980s politics | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pobd3/eli5why_there_was_such_an_expansion_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw7zodu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In the 1970's Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell began urging Christians to become politically active and to support social conservatism in their voting. As a response to this, the 1980's Republican party altered their platform to capture these Politically active Christian votes. \n\nThe 1970's Christian leadership was motivated as a moral counter-culture to the wild 1960's culture of loose morals, free love, drug use, etc. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
75w44z | how do small animals not get hurt by rain drops? | For humans which are large the rain drops must be nothing other than slightly annoying, maybe slightly painful on a very rainy day.
But how do small animals not get hurt by water drops that are fairly large hitting them? it would be akin to us being pelted with hail or something?
I get that they could hide it out but what about places where heavy rain is expected and almost constant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75w44z/eli5how_do_small_animals_not_get_hurt_by_rain/ | {
"a_id": [
"do9erdd",
"do9geal",
"do9gf3h",
"do9gim3",
"do9gri7",
"do9gw73",
"do9h0px",
"do9hr69",
"do9i4x6",
"do9i7m1",
"do9idk3",
"do9iljn",
"do9kqdk",
"do9ktzd",
"do9lf3t",
"do9lzg7",
"do9mbp5",
"do9n0oa",
"do9nbau",
"do9psr3",
"do9pw5l",
"do9sf5e",
"do9tpto",
"do9w69y",
"do9ywgi",
"doa1vor",
"doa9kuk",
"doavlf9",
"doax5wb"
],
"score": [
7514,
27,
7,
2,
640,
187,
18,
2,
6002,
12,
56,
7,
2,
130,
392,
20,
14,
3,
2,
3,
6,
30,
2,
34,
5,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[This was actually posted on r/askscience a few years ago. Here was the top reply:](_URL_0_)\n\nHave you ever wondered what happens to mosquitoes in the rain? A raindrop is, like, 50 times heavier than those little suckers. So getting hit by one has gotta hurt, right?\n\nWell, not so much. Because researchers at Georgia Tech have found that the bugs are so light, speeding water drops simply brush them aside, without imparting much force. The results appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Andrew K. Dickerson et al., \"Mosquitoes survive raindrop collisions by virtue of their low mass\"]\n\nPrevious studies have shown that precipitation can be a real pain for lots of winged critters. Bats expend twice as much energy flying through a storm as in clear skies. But what about bugs no bigger than the raindrops themselves?\n\nResearchers used high-speed video to watch mosquitoes wingin’ in the rain—well, through a spray of mist in the lab. They saw that when a skeeter and a water droplet meet, the insect basically hitches a ride for a bit before peeling away off unharmed.\n\nSo the bugs go with the flow and offer little resistance. And the drop slows only slightly, keeping its kinetic energy rather than blasting the bug. So for storm-trooping skeeters, resistance is not only futile. It’s all wet.\n\n--Karen Hopkin",
"Small insects sometimes face drowning of they become stock in a water droplet and can't break through the surface tension. Ants have tiny hairs around their body to help prevent this.",
"It has to do with the ratio of the animals volume to their surface area. Tiny animals have a huge volume compared to their surface area. Look up Kurzegast on YouTube for a more detailed explanation. \n\nEdit: huge surface area in relation to volume, sorry I messed up!",
"Dunno if it's already been posted but there's a good YouTube vid that explains it _URL_0_",
"everyone in this thread is talking about insect, but there's a bunch of animals inbetween tiny mosquitoes and humans\n\ndoes a leaf frog get hurt when a rain drop hits it?",
"Kurzgesagt has a great video on this _URL_0_\n\nThe Size of Life explains the difference the world has on smaller beings vs larger entities. ",
"Basically it boils down to physics. Bugs have a hard exoskeleton to protect them because as things get smaller, the world around them changes (ie. Air density). [I'm not good in explaining this, but hopefully this video from kurzgesagt can help](_URL_0_)",
"What about butterflies, moths,? ",
"Lots of talk of arthropods and such, with some good references, but that's kind of missing several important factors. It's easy to intuitively think of raindrops hitting small organisms as being equivalent to cinder blocks falling from the sky and hitting us, but that's not how it plays out.\n\n[Raindrops are not moving very fast, nor are they heavy](_URL_0_). For a raindrop to be considered a raindrop it has to be between roughly .5mm - 6mm (about the size of a fly at the largest). A big raindrop has a terminal velocity of about 10 m/s (20 mph), with smaller drops down closer to 0.9 m/s (2 mph). That's basically to say that there isn't much energy in any given raindrop to do a lot of damage with.\n\nAnother part is that smaller creatures are quite strong and tough as a result of the [Square-cube Law](_URL_1_). This is why an ant or a spider is proportionally so strong and an element of this is why a mouse generally won't fall fast enough to get seriously injured whereas a horse or an elephant will splash from a long fall. Also why a raindrop falling on a shrew or a butterfly isn't the equivalent of a cinder-block falling on a human.\n\nRaindrops can certainly hinder small organisms, but that tends to be more an issue of surface tension, heat loss, splashing and water flow, and things like that rather than the actual impact of the water droplet.\n\nFor many flying organisms *fog* (and, to a certain degree, drizzle) is actually much more difficult thing to deal with as the tiny water droplets are suspended in the air and they accumulate on the surface of the flying organism, adding a lot of weight. This is why you usually don't get mosquitoes buzzing about when it's foggy.",
"They dont die when you smack them out of the air. why would rain, which is much softer and much less mass than your hand, hurt them? ",
"How do humans?\n\nUmm OP appears to be an alien doing research. ",
"They sometimes do, but consider the difference in outcome when a larger animal falls from 10 feet vs when an ant falls from 10 feet. the fall might kill a large animal, but the ant will be unharmed. I'm not enough of a physics expert to explain in detail why this is, but I believe the same principle would answer your question.",
"Humans are fur-less and featherless. An exception among mammals and birds. Animals with protection on their skin like fur or feathers, will not feel the effects as much as we do",
"I don't think it hurts them at all. You can fling a bug or ant across the room, the equivalent of us falling off the Grand Canyon or jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, and yet they land and continue about their business.\n\nA bit off topic, but this has always fascinated me. Hurricane Camille hit our area back in 1969. It's been said that it was the highest saturation of rain ever recorded. That birds and other animals outside drowned b/c they were unable to breath through the massive sheets of rain coming down.\n\nFrom Wikipedia:\nThere, rainfall was so heavy that reports were received of birds drowning in trees, cows floating down the Hatt Creek and of survivors having to cup hands around their mouth and nose in order to breathe through the deluge. \nSo much rain fell in such a short time in Nelson County that, according to the National Weather Service at the time, it was 'the probable maximum rainfall which meteorologists compute to be theoretically possible.",
"Physics doesn't scale up and down like you think.\n\nElephants are the biggest land animals. Have you ever seen one jump? Elephants are heavy enough that they could do serious damage to their bodies by falling a few feet.\n\nIn a similar vein to this, think of a beetle falling off a skyscaper. Does it hurt to hit the ground? Maybe... but they just weigh nothing, so tiny creatures like this have very little to fear from heights. Even at their terminal velocity (the fastest speed they can fall with wind resistance), they may not have enough inertia to do damage to their body. We've all tried to slap a fly out of the air-- it must be like getting hit by a freight train for that fly, right? Not really. We are surprised to see them fly off, unphased. This is also part of the reason why toddlers bounce, and adults break things-- adults have four times the mass behind them when they crash into something or fall off their bike.\n\nAnyway, it's tempting to think about this question in terms of scaling raindrops up to the size of excersize-ball sized water balloons, and \"wouldn't it hurt if...?\" but this is simply the wrong approach to the problem.\n\nRelated reading about the square-cube law:\n_URL_0_",
"Remember that something can only hit you with as much force as you're able to hit back. That's why even a champion boxer won't be able to punch through a piece of paper floating in the wind - there's not enough resistance in the piece of paper for the punch to connect with.\n\nIt's the same idea with very small insects. If they do get hit with a raindrop, the energy transferred to them is limited by their extremely small weight. So long as they're able to get away from the raindrop before it hits something heavier (like the earth), they'll be fine.",
"What about bumblebees and other critters that aren't either way smaller or way larger than a water droplet? \n\nI can envision a bumblebee getting hit by a water droplet dead center and the droplet breaking apart (like when it hits a human being). Would the bumblebee just lose some altitude and buzz on like nothing happened? \n\nIn general, what does a creature that's only marginally larger than a water droplet (but just massive enough to not be brushed aside by it) experience when hit?",
"So one of the things that isn't really being answered, but is still being questioned by people here, is a question based around a fundamental misunderstanding of how our understanding of the way the world is experienced is almost nothing at all like the way the world is experienced by very small or very large creatures. The easiest ELI5 explanation for that part of it is [a small, cute, yet very informative](_URL_0_) video by Kurzgesagt. The way you think of the world and how physics and your environment work are unique to us. Small animals don't experience the world only in a scaled-down version of the way we do, it's vastly different and weird, just like how we don't experience the world the way, say, an elephant does.",
"This is the video you are looking for. Look around 0:48 for footage \n\n[Mosquitoes also can fly in the rain](_URL_0_) ",
"Okay this is more like Explain Like I am at a Graduate Seminar.\n\nJ.B.S Haldane's famous essay on this topic referenced:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nLink to actual essay:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nMy favorite quote by Haldane (a loose quote here presented): \"Not only is the universe stranger than we suppose. It is stranger than we can suppose.\"\n",
"Not about rain, but in terms of falling I think i read that they were gonna drop some ants off the empire state building to see if they died but by the time the elevator reached the top they had all been killed by the change in pressure.",
"This is what kills me about the old scale tests in mythbusters I mean they understood some science and they never masqueraded as full-fledged scientists, however the scale tests always counted on \"well we threw this scale car at the wall at 30mph and it didn't break, so that means a full size car made of the same material will do the same\". \n\nOr \"we tried to start an avalanche on our scale test using a megaphone, which to scale would have been the size of half the mountain, now oddly enough we can't replicate the scale test with a real mountain and the same sized megaphone from before\". \n\nAnytime a scale test was involved my brain checked out and drove off for the rest of the episode because they would crutch everything on the idea that everything scales uniformly regardless of stress, energy, resistance, terminal velocity, mass. It just devolved into pseudo science. \n\n",
"How sure are you the question is why they don't get hurt and not; Why don't they whine like little babies like we do when they get hurt?",
" > For **humans** which are large the rain drops **must be** nothing other than slightly annoying\n\nNice try. Back to /r/totallynotrobots with you.",
"The short answer is that the smaller you are the more sturdy your body becomes. The reason ants can lift 10x their body weights is because of that.\n\nThink of it this way: the shell of an ant is not order of magnitudes thicker than say the thickness of a zeppelin or regular balloon. But you might be able to put a lead ball on the body of an ant without squishing it, yet won't you won't be able to put a soccerball-sized lead ball on a zeppelin and expect it to withstand it. \n\nIt has to do with force distribution when you go down in size. Going 4x smaller ends up giving something like 2x decrease in the durability of the spherical object.",
"When I was a kid I was disturbed because it rained one day at my church and when I walked out the front door that morning after service, the sidewalk was covered in dead, rain splattered earth worms. I was told that the rain had caused the ground to vibrate and push the worms out of their holes. They tried to run but got basically bombed to death by rain drops.",
"What I love about Reddit: You can ask the most out of nowhere questions, and there's already a professional who knows the answers! I find people so fascinating! \n\nI wish I was smart and knowledgeable...\n\nP.S. Not being sarcastic",
"I had a pet rabbit that would just sit outside in the middle of the most violent of hailstorms. The hailstones were about as big as his head, yet he just sat there in the middle of it all, unperturbed. (Fun fact: those hailstorms were strong enough to leave some real big-ass dents on cars left outside. Idk wtf my rabbit was thinking.) Maybe he was getting a massage....? Nonetheless id always have to force him to go under some sort of cover as i was worried that one of the hailstones would hit his lil noggin and knock my bun unconscious, or worse. If he didnt get bothered by hail i think it would be a safe to say that Mr. Buck didnt give a fuck about rain. And I know this isnt really an answer but its a related story that i wanted to share :P",
"I once had a co-worker that tried to convince me that \"God\" was the one that made it so raindrops wouldn't pierce our skulls.\nHis argument was: \n\"Think about it - the raindrops are falling from such great heights at such great speed. Imagine if you dropped a coin! That would go through you!\"\n\"No Danial, you're wrong...\"\n\"W/e man. Someday God will show you.\"\nThen he proceeded to smoke some weed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/39zo4v/comment/cs83p61"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7KSfjv4Oq0"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/f7KSfjv4Oq0"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/f7KSfjv4Oq0"
],
[],
[
"http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2013/09/10/how-fast-do-raindrops-fall/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/f7KSfjv4Oq0"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/XWyoy44oV3Q"
],
[
"http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Being_the_Right_Size"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
19ppac | can someone explain the relationship between canada and england? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19ppac/can_someone_explain_the_relationship_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8q72z1",
"c8q83mw"
],
"score": [
22,
41
],
"text": [
"You can find most of your answers on Wikipedia:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBasically the Queen is the official head of state but has zero authority in reality. As a Canadian I can say that she is not generally thought of at all unless she or her family is visiting, and then it's a big deal. Her image is on some of our currency and we probably pay more attention to royal weddings that our American friends but that's about the extent of our relationship with the Queen.\n\nOur relationship with England, the country not the monarchy, is not as close as say the USA and England, but due to our common link to Royalty, it's always friendly and cordial.",
"Right now, the two countries are allies, with Canada being a completely separate and sovereign nation. This means the British government has no power over the Canadian government, no taxation by Britain is levied on Canada etc.\n\nMany people get confused because of the royalty, and think 'Why, you have the same Queen! Therefore you must be part of the same kingdom!' While it is true the Queen is the same person, officially her title from a Canadian government standpoint is the \"Queen of Canada\", not the \"Queen of England\". What this means is there is officially no overlap between the British government and the Canadian government, just one person with multiple job roles.\n\nTo further the separation, the Queen of Canada resides in England, so while she is not Canada (almost always), her job is done by a Canadian viceroy called the Governor General (currently David Johnson). The elected Prime Minister of Canada 'recommends' to the Queen who should be the Governor General (read: the Prime Minister picks the Governor General).\n\nFinally, the role of Queen / Governor General is mainly ceremonial. The Governor General has two real powers. They can, in a round-about way, veto a law coming into power (this has never been done, and is quite the convoluted process), and has the power to grant / refuse the request of the Prime Minister to call an election (Im not sure if the GG has ever refused the request, but it would be a historical event).\n\nAnother confusion in the relationship between the two countries lie in the path to sovereignty Canada has taken. It was a long process, and difficult to pinpoint exactly when Canada became a fully separate nation from England.\n\nIn 1867 the Dominion of Canada was created with its own government, but Britain retain a lot of control over the country. There are many significant steps from then to present day that mark steps toward further sovereignty. For example, in 1931 the Statute of Westminster meant that Canada now had control over its foreign policy, Britain could no longer force laws on Canada, and Canada could repeal any British law in effect. In 1949 Canada adopted its own Supreme Court, which meant the highest court for Canadian law moved from Britain to Canada. In 1965 we got our own flag, in 1980 our own national anthem, and finally in 1982 Canada brought its constitution home, which meant only the Canadian government could amend the constitution.\n\nI hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Government_and_politics"
],
[]
]
|
||
3mehi1 | why are so many non-catholics going crazy over pope francis when john paul ii was literally a saint? | Or is this something mainly limited to Reddit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mehi1/eli5_why_are_so_many_noncatholics_going_crazy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvebs4u",
"cvebte9",
"cvebtv0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pope Francis speaks more to liberals than he does to actual Catholics, and Reddit is a pretty liberal place. John Paul and Benedict probably wouldn't have gotten nearly as much positive attention, and you probably would have heard more about how the US is hosting a pedophile ring leader.",
"It's because he's acted so differently publicly than previous popes. Two main perspectives I see here:\n\n* Very outwardly humble, saintly, no-hypocritical pope.\n\n* Appeals to the public effectively in the opinions he renders, and appears more liberal (e.g. the environmental thing).\n\nI personally really like Pope Francis and am very glad to have him as the Church leader. I think he'll bring great and refreshing new leadership to the Church.\n\nDisclaimer: Turn back now if you don't want more opinion.\n\nThat being said, I think the public in general is hyped up about him for some of the wrong reasons. No matter how much people may want him to, **he is not going to change Church doctrine** and do things like acknowledge gay marriage -- he simply can't. The Church does not change core beliefs, only manners in which it goes about existing in the world.",
"He has a better PR team than Ratzinger - that's essentially it. They let him say a few sentences or two that sound liberalized, then roll it back later when nobody's paying attention. Oh, he didn't mean _that_.\n\nBut he's the same sort of person. He has the same views and has done the same sorts of things. He wasn't voted in by accident - he's continuing the precedent, just with a nicer smile."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
90vm2r | if ram (in typical computers) is memory used for temporary storage and is the fastest form of processor-storage transfer, what is video ram for? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/90vm2r/eli5_if_ram_in_typical_computers_is_memory_used/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2thdlo",
"e2tje21"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Same thing but for the graphics processor instead of the normal one. There are two primary processors in a computer, the GPU and the CPU. One is for graphics and one is for data, speaking simply. ",
"Your assumption is incorrect. RAM is a very middle-of-the-road type of memory in terms of speed - it's only fast compared to hard drives or optical storage. Cache memory is magnitudes faster than that, and information kept in processor registers is still faster than cache.\n\nSpecial Video RAM is built into GPUs because it takes too much time to retrieve the information from main system RAM on high performance GPUs - it alleviates a bottleneck. That is not to say GPUs can't work off main system memory. In fact, if you completely fill up a GPU's Video RAM, it starts using main system RAM thanks to clever drivers, but at that point performance degrades very noticeably. Integrated GPUs use system RAM and work just fine, though they don't perform very well in terms of gaming. So do consoles, but those are specially designed to provide fast access to system RAM for the GPU."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
148w9o | what is the point of the house of representatives? | We have the executive branch, the supreme court, and the senate, what is the point of the house? Do they actually matter? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/148w9o/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_the_house_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7awtfm",
"c7b47m3"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"We have 3 branches so that they each have separate responsibilities. It was designed that way to spread out power in the government, so no one group of people or person would have too much power.\n\nThe legislative branch consists of the house and senate. Senators were originally elected by each state legislature, but that changed with the 17th amendment (they are now elected by the people). There are only two from each state. The house is different; there are several representatives from each state based on its population. This means states with more people have more representation. The house was always elected directly by the people, and yes, they do matter. They have rights the senate does not have (initiate budgets, impeach people), and vice versa. The house is particularly important because each representative has a small area with less people, so they can more accurately represent their voters.\n\nThe executive branch's job is to execute the laws and provide commands not in the form of laws. Basically, this branch is responsible for day-to-day operations, as well as decision making (but not making laws). They keep the other branches in check with vetos, appointing officials, and calling for sessions of congress.\n\nThe supreme court is part of the judicial branch, which rules on laws or actions. Basically, their job is to interpret the laws that the legislative branch makes. They are important, as they can basically make things legal or illegal through court rulings (like Roe v Wade, Plessy v Ferguson, etc). They also preside over impeachments.\n\nEach branch is important to hold the others in check and help the government run smoothly. \n\n",
"The House gives proportional representation based on population, so a state like California has 53 representatives in the house, while a state like North Dakota has only 1. Given that there's only a maximum of 435 representatives in the house, this gives California a lot of weight in decision-making relative to the other states.\n\nThe Senate is the other half of the 'bicameral' Congress ('bi' meaning two) where each State gets two representatives, regardless of population.\n\nIt was designed this way as a Compromise during the Constitutional Convention. Small (by population) states were worried that they would be dominated by large (by population) states if the entire system was set up like the House of Representatives. Large states were worried that small states would have too much power if the entire system was set up like the Senate.\n\nSo, in a profound moment of clarity, Roger Sherman asked [why not both?](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://emotibot.net/pix/6129.jpeg"
]
]
|
|
2jk979 | how does reddit efficiently store 9 years worth of posts and comments? | The total number of posts and comments across all the subreddits on Reddit during the time of its existence must be ridiculously large at this point. I know that they don't allow new comments on posts after a certain amount of time. But how do they store so much stuff so it is all still searchable? I am assuming it is some sort of database system, but I don't know enough to really understand how it would work. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jk979/eli5_how_does_reddit_efficiently_store_9_years/ | {
"a_id": [
"clci20a",
"clcjorx",
"clcqtp7"
],
"score": [
64,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it's all text, it gets stored quite easily, not to mention it can be compressed.\n\nFor example, let's say that you get 10 replies to your post and they're all about as large as what I'm putting here. the text will total out to be about 10 Kilobytes (1 byte per character and some control characters, formatting characters, etc).\n\nOn one TB of storage, you could have 100 million posts like this uncompressed. At least 3 times that compressed.\n\nThen what happens is the data gets hashed and deduplicated. No single block is ever repeated on storage. Just pointers to that block. So if you have 10,000 posts that have the same sentence in it, those get removed and a pointer is created.\n\nSo on a single TB, you can probably have ~ half a billion posts just like yours.\n\nOn 1 PB of storage, you could have 500 billion posts like yours. That will not happen for a very very long time.\n\nSearching 1 TB is easy, searching 1 PB isn't, but that's where Content Indexers can come in and keep a running tally of topics to attempt to group them and set up keywords.",
" > But how do they store so much stuff so it is all still searchable\n\nWell, they don't. \n\nHave you tried using Reddit search lately?",
"I'm actually curios, ELI a comp sci student?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1m5ekz | why do college campuses hate wireless routers? | I live in a dorm on campus and apparently it's pretty common for college campuses to HATE wireless routers in the room. The vernacular reason is "it steals other people's internet" but that doesn't really make sense to me because I've been in places with lots of Wi-Fi networks with no problem. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m5ekz/eli5_why_do_college_campuses_hate_wireless_routers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc5xrsp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because they can't control who connects to your wireless router."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5lp8q5 | what is the purpose of hands free soap dispensers? | To prevent germs? Every touch to a soap dispense is followed by a mass genocide of germs on your hands | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lp8q5/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_hands_free_soap/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbxgfen",
"dbxozg0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If the person before you had something really nasty on their hands, like an antibiotic resistance bacteria or something, you wouldn't want that to get on your hands. Soap does a great job of getting crud off your hands, but it isn't perfect. Not getting other people's germs on you is better. ",
"Of course it's to prevent germs... what are you thinking?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
ujqd2 | communism, socialism, and why i hear people use "socialist" as an insult | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ujqd2/eli5_communism_socialism_and_why_i_hear_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4vz78i",
"c4w0n0d",
"c4w1ndz",
"c4w2vpt",
"c4w34nr"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
17,
62,
2
],
"text": [
"During the cold war the Soviet Union was our enemy, and they were a Marxist government. There is a difference between the two, but basically it boils down to economic policies, and the American right has begun to use \"socialist\" as an insult for anyone who is in favor of any type of government run social program. I can explain more about what communism is if you'd like, but I don't want to bore you.",
"The way I explain it is that Communism is an economic system that is different than, but not the opposite of capitalism. Communism believes in direct, possibly violent, control of the economic status by the government on for the sake of the working class (proletariat). Whereas capitalism is the belief that there should be little and preferably no intervention on anyone's behalf. The opposite of communism is fascism (like the Nazis). They believed that there should be direct, and most likely violent, government control of the economic status by the government for the sake of the government.\n\nSocialism, as it is used today, is more of the government policy regarding the wellbeing of its citizens. The government will step in on behalf of the less fortunate. It isn't an economic policy. It's a social policy. The opposite of socialism would be like a libertarian that believes it is the responsibility of the citizens to take care of the less fortunate, but that they shouldn't be forced to do so by the government. \n\nCommunism and socialism, while similar, do not always go together. For example, many Scandinavian countries are socialist, but not communist. While a country like China could be described as being communist (In their own way) but not socialist.\n\nThe insult is used a lot by the media and they don't really understand what it really means. In the US we pay social security. That pays to take care of the elderly that can't work and is a socialist policy that republicans and democrats both support.\n\nEdit: Like everyone is saying, they're complicated, and overlapping. And the way they are thrown around It's hard to get a firm understanding of both.",
"If you hear socialist used as an insult, you're probably in America or reading American media.\n\nIn a lot of places, it's nothing of the sort. It used to be the form of state that was supposed to lead to pure communism but it's now basically used to imply capitalism with a strong governmental support system for the disadvantaged funded by taxes.\n\nIn the current sense that people mean when they use it in regards to politics, it is widely considered a good thing in most places.",
"This could get a bit long but I will try and lay it all out as simply as possible.\n\nCommunism describes an economic system based on the theories of Karl Marx. \n\nMarx believed that capitalism exploits the working class (proletariate) to generate wealth for a small, elite group of rich and powerful (the bourgeois). Because of this, a revolution of the working class was the natural result of the capitalist system. The ruling class would be overthrown and a new society would arrise that placed collective well-being and equality as its goals.\n\nHowever Marx never stated how he believed his ideas could be implemented in the real world. So when the Russian Revolution took place, the new design for the nation's economic and governing models was developed by people like Lenin, hence why term Marxist-Leninist is used to describe the system implemented in Russia.\n\nThe Marxist-Leninist model, which had a huge influence on all communist revolutions of the 20th century, was based on a single 'vanguard party' that would control the governing of the state. The party, and effectively the leader, would lead the country in a way designed to benefit the collective good. They did this by replacing the role the market plays in capitalist societies, instead controlling pricing and production rates through regulation. However the implementation of this system led to a lot of corruption and in many areas widespread suffering and poverty. However, China is currently demonstrating the ability of this system to function successfully for a long period. If you want to learn more about how they ran the state check out the wikipedia page for marxism-leninism.\n\nThis system of government/ economic system is what the term 'communism' predominantly refers to today. However it is important to note that what we call communism is simply an attempt at implementing Marx's ideas. The negative connotations that the word is imbued with as a result of the Cold War can get in the way of understanding the ideas that underpinned the movement.\n\nSocialism, on the other hand, describes theories and economic systems based on Marxist ideas. Communism is socialist, but socialism is not communism. Communism is one attempt at establishing a society based on a socialist system, however it does not represent socialism as a whole. \n\nIn fact, socialism has many other examples around the globe. Sweden and Norway practice economic systems based heavily on Socialist ideas. France has a socialist president who wants to reform the tax system and increase public funding of healthcare and education. Even the tiered tax system that America (and pretty much every other developed nation) has is based on socialist ideology. \n\nSo just to sum up what i've said so far: \n\n* Marx believed capitalism exploited the working class leading to inequality, \n\n* Socialism describes ideas and systems designed to address the inequality inherent in a capitalist system,\n\n* Communism is one system that attempts to completely replace capitalism with socialism.\n\nSo that explains the first part of your question, but the second is based more on US history then economic theory.\n\nThe US has a deeply entrenched belief in the capitalist system and the free market, and with good reason; it has made them extremely wealthy and powerful. Core US values such as the idea of 'rugged individualism' are based in capitalist ideology. The free market, and protecting it from regulation, are therefore very important to Americans, both historically and today. As socialism restricts the free market it has naturally been disliked by many in America, even though in a true free market their are no minimum wages or taxation.\n\nHowever the truly insulting connotations the word has taken on (in American usage, at least) stem from the ideological battle of the Cold War. Communism was an affront to everything the US believed in, therefore it was savagely attacked by all facets of American society during the Cold War. Because of this, anything to do with communism has assumed all of the anti-american sentiment that the USSR was felt to stand for.\n\nWhen Republicans call Obama a socialist for promoting a healthcare system that provides for the poorest people, who could not afford one otherwise, they are partially correct. Obamacare is based in socialist ideology. However what they really mean when they say it is, \"Obama, you are un-american, you are a threat to our economic growth, you are a threat to our freedom as a democracy\". That is what the term came to stand for when the USSR was expanding through Europe and American's were terrified that a US communist dictatorship was just around the corner.\n\nSo there you go.\n\n**TL;DR: Karl Marx developed the idea that capitalism exploited the working class, Socialism described alternative ideas to capitalism that reduced wealth inequality, and Communism was an attempt by many countries in the 20th Century to replace capitalism completely, with varying degrees of success and generally a great deal of corruption and suffering. 'Socialist' is an insult in America because it symbolises all of the feelings American's had during the Cold War.**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"For a five year old:\n\nSocialism is the idea that everyone in play group should share toys and no one gets special treatment.\n\nCommunism is where everyone in playgroup decides together who has the best idea for a game and then they all contribute their playtime to playing the same game with ALL the toys.\n\nMost people don't like the idea because they think they are better at deciding what to do with their toys and how to make themselves happy with them and they don't want to try letting others tell them how to play. I guess if the toys are theirs in the first place, that's okay... but if the toys were all on the shelf for everyone and you were the first one to get there, its kind of just being a jerk because you think you're special for running faster when how fast you ran has nothing to do with how good you are at imagining fun games to play.\n\nSome people think that the action of racing to get the toys is beneficial... but a lot of people get knocked down and stepped on when no one has any manners."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
97nklg | why can we use our touch screen smartphones only with our fingers? why doesn’t it work if we use a pencil for example? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/97nklg/eli5_why_can_we_use_our_touch_screen_smartphones/ | {
"a_id": [
"e49jxej",
"e49jxmr",
"e49k1hs"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
7
],
"text": [
"The screen responds to the electrical capacitance of your fingers. Therefore things that are not electrically conductive don't trigger it.",
"Modern touch screens are capacitive. They detect \"touch\" when your finger (which is electromagnetically conductive) changes the capacitance of the area near the screen.",
"In order for most modern touch screens to work, the thing that touches them needs to conduct a certain amount of electricity. When you touch the screen with your finger, it completes the circuit and it registers as a “touch”. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4td66a | how do blisters form? and what is the purpose of the liquid inside of the blister? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4td66a/eli5_how_do_blisters_form_and_what_is_the_purpose/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5gfcbb",
"d5glh8r",
"d5gll8p",
"d5gln04",
"d5glw7q",
"d5gnqqj",
"d5go39a",
"d5gp35b",
"d5gp9jq",
"d5gr5d0",
"d5gx72m",
"d5gx9bz",
"d5gz3av",
"d5hymrd"
],
"score": [
1101,
48,
5,
4,
3269,
19,
2,
5,
735,
2,
90,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Blisters form in response to repeated agitation or friction to the area. The fluid is usually made up of plasma and is designed to pad and protect the area beneath so that nothing more than the skin is affected.",
"I have a follow up question. What usually happens if you don't pop a blister? \n\nDoes the pus reabsorb? does the pus become septic?\n\n\nReason I ask is because when I was young, around 10 or so, I got 3-4 blister on my hand, my mom told me not to pop them and I'm convinced they turned into warts and I've blamed her for her bad advice ever since. I could have been mistaken, this was almost 20 years ago.\n\n\n*edit: TIL pus is spelled with one 's', also, blisters contain plasma, not pus.",
"Blisters are caused by skin being irritated. The most common example is when a shoe rubs against your heel.\n\nYour body, realising the skin is being damaged, secretes a fluid under the skin. This fluid acts as a cushion between the source of the irritation and the lower layers of your skin, preventing further damage.\n\nSource: I've had a lot of blisters. ",
"At gymnastics we were taught to rip them open all the way, why was that ?",
"If you were 5, I'd explain: \"Blisters are nature's band aid.\" They form to protect the underlying layers of skin from an irritant. The reason people will tell you to never pop a blister is because the fluid within it is sterile. Not only that, but our outer layer of skin is our \"first line of defense\" against pathogens. When you pop the blister, you break that line of defense and release the protective sterile fluid - leaving the underlying layers susceptible to infection.",
"Interesting. This topic came up yesterday after hiking a full day. I had gotten some nasty blisters on my feet. My friends recommended I don't pop them and let them heal on their own. So I went to sleep and upon waking up they were exactly the same except more painful. I said \"fuck it\" and gouged them with a corkscrew. Not really paying too much heed to sterilization. The liquid spurted out and after some intense stinging, I was almost pain free. I had to walk another 5 or 6 miles or so too. They began to hurt again after a while but overall it seemed to be much better after popping them. No infection and now the blister spots are back to normal. I feel like I would've gone through hell walking and waiting for it to heal if I hadn't popped them. So where's the logic in this? In my mind it seems the night of not popping gave the raw flesh a chance to heal a bit. So popping them after had less chance for infection as well as irritation. I could be wrong as I'm not a skin doc. Any insight?",
"When we are younger and picked up the odd blister we would just burst it and peal the skin off, within about 24h it was hardly sore at all! Prob not the best advice but we never picked up an infection",
"A blister is when the top layer of the skin breaks away from the lower layer. The fluid in your body flows into this break. puffing it up. \n\nIt is best that you leave it be, because the fluid and the old skin will protect things as your body grows new skin inside the blister. When this is done, the blister and the old skin on top will dry up and peel away.",
"When you put too much friction on a particular spot, the upper layers of skin start to separate. There are liquid filled sacs in a lot of your joints too. It works like padding but in a blister you also get pain which prevents you from agitating it more. It's your body's way of saying \"You gonna keep wearing those Old Navy flip flops bitch? Fine fuck you.\"",
"The fluid is plasma. \n\nThe reason it is there is to transfer the cells and nutrients to help heal. I doubt there is any benefit to the accumulation of fluid, that is likely just a side effect.\n\nThe fluid should be sterile, as it is from a relatively sealed system.\n\nUrine is not sterile as there is an entry point from outside the body.",
"I hate seeing cases where the top two responses answer the question but leave the thread unexplained.... To sum up: \n\nBlisters form when the top layer of skin gets detached from the lower layers, separating \"plasma\" sacs in the process. The plasma is completely sterile and serves to protect the lower layers of skin from further harm, basically natures band-aid with a bit of pain thrown in to keep you from doing more damage.\n\nTo pop a blister use a sterilized (wiped with alcohol or hydrogen-peroxide) sewing needle along the side of it, as low as you can go. Aim the needle into the fluid, it shouldn't hurt. Press the plasma out, apply antibiotic ointment and a band-aid. Done.\n\nTL;DR. Come on it's not THAT long... Skip the second paragraph if you want. Also don't wear tight shoes.",
"When your skin is damaged, the healthy layer says GTFO to the damaged layer (Called Epidermis). This pushes the Epidermis up and away allowing the vacant space to fill with a sterile fluid called serum which allows the new skin to form without leaving space for pathogens to enter. ",
"Sort of cool I haven't seen this yet but- \nLPT: Blisters need all of 3 things to form: \n-moisture \n-friction \n-heat \nIf one of those are totally removed, then the likelihood of a blister forming is slim to none. \n\nI've done a good many miles of backpacking and have found what I consider to be the perfect sock combination to never get a blister. \n\nBase sock is merino wool, very high quality but still pretty lightweight (there's a big difference between christmas wool socks and hiking merino.). These wick moisture from the feet and into the outer layer of the sock. Merino dries much more quickly than cotton. \nOn top of that sock I have what's called a \"[Wright sock](_URL_0_)\". These are dual layered socks that are very very lightweight. They're literally anti-skid/anti-friction socks. \n\nThis combination has left me without blister ever since I started using it. I don't ever have hot feet also due to the quality of the socks I believe. \n\nShould these ever fail me, or I get blisters between my toes, then I'll be trying out merino toe socks for the base layer. I've actually heard very, very good things about them. \n\nTake care of your feet!",
"I get blisters on my hands from doing flying trapeze and Chinese poles. They're a constant nuisance but the things I learned from older, wiser circus legends:\n\nDon't let calluses get too big. You don't want them ripping and causing blisters.\n\nAt the same time you don't want to rid yourself of calluses entirely, especially if you wear grips. Blood on the white leotard is considered bad form.\n\nReach for the olive oil every night- the vitamin e is good for your hands.\n\nPee on 'em. Peeing on your hands (in the shower; or in the bar if you're into that sort of thing) also toughens up your hands. Seriously.\n\nBag Balm: Know it, love it. It's for cow udders but it feels great on freshly ripped hands. Speaking of those...\n\nNew-Skin. If you rip a blister or a callus, this liquid bandage will help. It will feel like the devil himself is pissing into your rips but I've been able to use it, tape up the hand, and keep on training."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004L6LKR6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468859995&sr=8-1&pi=SX200_QL40&keywords=dual+layer+wrightsock&dpPl=1&dpID=41OzIPKxmYL&ref=plSrch"
],
[]
]
|
||
2308te | pushing a car to start it? | I recall as a kid pushing the family car to get it started. Never knew why, and don't remember if it was standard or automatic. What problem does the pushing solve? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2308te/eli5_pushing_a_car_to_start_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgs3sk7",
"cgs6tyf",
"cgs92fv"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If the car is in gear and you're pushing it, then the rotation of the wheels will rotate the drive shaft (transmission, which then rotates the piston shaft (engine) (none of that is accurate terminology, by the way). If you get the piston shaft rotating, it can help you start the car because it will expand and compress the engine cylinders as if the car were already running. All you need to do is to feed some fuel in (gas pedal) and have enough electricity to run the spark plug ~~(battery)~~ (see /u/mike_pants below).\n\nThe key-start method requires more power, because it has to run the starter motor, which tries to start the entire engine by rotating all the pistons. By pushing the car and turning the pistons already, the load on the starter motor is lessened.",
"Your battery is dead, which means your starter won't function, and you won't be able to deliver electricity to the spark plugs.\n\nPutting your care in motion while in gear solves both of these problems. It gets the engine moving, which is what the starter does, and it engages the alternator, which can provide power to the spark plugs.\n\nIt only works with a standard. You put the car in gear, push in the clutch, get the car moving, then let out the clutch while simultaneously turning the key to start the car.",
"You all are *mostly* correct. This method can only be used on a vehicle with a standard or manual transmission. Automatics are fluid transmissions that must be driven from the front through the torque converter.\n\nThe most common reason this is done is because the battery is either run down or the (electric) starter is on the fritz. An important note here is that electronic ignition systems (and most of the computer controlled bits on modern cars) require 10.5 volts or more to operate. This voltage cannot be provided by an alternator alone as it requires input voltage to even begin producing power. So let's put to bed the \"loop\" theory. So if the battery is totally flat (below 10.5 volts) you're s.o.l.\n\nA caveat to the voltage situation; some older vehicles used a magneto ignition system that will actually produce it's own power. A good example of this can often be found on old(er) motorcycles."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3dd87y | what is the difficulty with anything travelling faster than the speed of light? | I understand that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 m/s, also referred to as "c" and that it is pretty damn fast. it's not the fastest thing imaginable though, that would be infinite. Why does nothing travel faster than this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dd87y/eli5what_is_the_difficulty_with_anything/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct407js"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because you can't, its a fundamental law of physics. The closer you get to c the more energy you have to put in, eg. it takes 1 unit of energy to get to 1/2 speed of light, another unit gets you to 3/4, another one to 7/8, and so on. I.e. you half your \"distance to c\" for each additional unit you put in, but that obviously leads to requiring infinite amounts of energy to actually reach c (infinite as in: mathematically infinite, not just \"twice the energy in the whole universe\")."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1kgy88 | how scientists can freeze/store light for 60 seconds with electromagnetically induced transparency. | I read [this](_URL_0_) article, but I still don't totally understand. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kgy88/eli5_how_scientists_can_freezestore_light_for_60/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbov28q"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"In order to understand EIT, it is first important to understand the interaction between light and matter. \n\nAtoms have certain energy levels where electrons (usually we just consider the outer-most) can reside. By tuning a laser to the appropriate frequency, the electron can absorb a photon and become excited to a higher energy level.\n\nFrom here, a couple of things could happen. First, the every state has a certain lifetime which determines how long the electron will stick around in that state. Afterwards, it can randomly fall to a lower state while emitting a photon in a process known as *spontaneous emission*. Note that in this process, the \"quantum coherence\" is lost and it essentially is not the same light. The other process is *stimulated emission*, where if after the atom is excited and another laser is present tuned to a transition, the atom will emit a photon at the frequency of that laser. See figures in _URL_0_\n\nIf we look at figure (a) in your link, states |g > and |s > are long-lived. However, the laser light won't take us directly from |g > to |s > . We have to go via |e > . Note though that |e > is short lived. Suppose the atom starts in |g > and we have a laser from |g > to |e > . The atom gets excited to |e > . We can either go through spontaneous emission where we emit a random photon, or stimulated emission where we de-excite back to |g > and emit a photon with the same properties as the incoming laser. Note that for all intents and purposes **the photon we release via stimulated emission is the same as the one that we absorbed**. Now you could argue \"well, it's not the same photon\" but it shares all its properties!\n\nHowever, because of the small lifetime of |e > , we don't really get anything you could qualify as storage. That's where EIT comes in. We are going to us another laser from |e > to |s > , and tune it in such a way that an electron never actually excites |e > . Instead, it maintains the \"information\" of the photon in |s > . Since |s > is long lived, we have this information for a long time, and thus can spit out the light again later.\n\ntl;dr: Its not the exact same photons we get out as we put in. Instead we store the information about the photons in the state of the atom and spit them out again with those parameters."
]
} | []
| [
"http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/80"
]
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients"
]
]
|
|
2nfcjb | how, if there's nothing to push against in space, do the iss's thrusters work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nfcjb/eli5_how_if_theres_nothing_to_push_against_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmd3raa",
"cmd3w1u",
"cmd44bt",
"cmd4tfp"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They are pushing against the thing they are attached too - the ISS.",
"I'm not sure if [this] (_URL_0_) will help, but I was also curious.",
"It's Newton's Third Law: \"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.\". \n\nA propellant is burned and the exhaust gases leaving the thruster cause the ISS to recoil in the opposite direction.",
"The thruster pushes against its exhaust, and the exhaust pushes back against the thruster."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
dqmbcj | what determines the storage a usb or hdd etc. can hold ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dqmbcj/eli5_what_determines_the_storage_a_usb_or_hdd_etc/ | {
"a_id": [
"f670kmu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A typical old school HDD used a metal platter where an electric pen of sorts could write 1s and 0s on it using magnets.\n\nA USB or any SSD HDD instead uses transistors, or tiny switches, to record the 1s and 0s.\n\nIn either case, there's a physical limit to how much can be written down, either by the size of the platter or the number of transistors."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3h9p6y | how do tv shows 'play'? | When I'm watching TV, I'm obviously watching a pre-determined series of programs, but what is the process of getting them onto the television?
Does the channel transmit a 'playlist' every day, or every week, or does someone in a studio somewhere hit the play button when the ads finish?
I know that programs are sometimes cancelled at the last minute because a live sporting event has lasted longer than expected or whatever, so there is obviously a live 'controller', but is this someone who has to intervene, or someone (or a group of people) who is constantly in control of the transmissions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h9p6y/eli5_how_do_tv_shows_play/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu5kd9r",
"cu5khje",
"cu5l3qg",
"cu5o20u"
],
"score": [
35,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Somewhere there is a big room called an MCR or Master Control Room (a bit like the place where Homer works in the nuclear plant) in which people control all that stuff. They have a kind of TV guide they're working from, which is much *much* more detailed than the one consumers see, and includes every commercial and trailer and station ID, to the second. Some of it is automated, and some of it is done by people clicking buttons and turning knobs. What makes it more complicated is Localisation, which means that there's one main channel showing the same movie across a wide geographical area, but in the ad breaks, different regions get different commercials.",
"I worked master control in college. Today nearly all tv stations use an automated playlist to control what shows are on air. \nThe shows and commercials are stored on a server. Some shows that are not on the server are played from a satellite feed or it is a live event. In this case the person working has to switch the output signal back and forth between 'live' and server. This may cause the cutting off of a commercial.\n\nBefore automation shows and commercial were played from taped decks and each commercial or show had to manually be put in a played. \n\nBasically tv channel broadcasts are like putting 24 hours of content in VLC or some other media player and clicking play. ",
"I don't know how they do it in the digital age. And back in the 1960s networks probably shipped tapes to the local stations. But by the 1980s the programs were received with large dishes from a satellite. About that time the price had come down enough that homeowners could put ten foot dishes in their back yards and eavesdrop on the transmissions. I did not have one, but occasionally watched someone else's. Live things were broadcast live, but you might see a bunch of episodes of a children's cartoon show broadcast, one after another. The local stations would be taping them. (And people think that Netflix invented binge watching.)\n\nYou can see the network and local affiliate coordinating on The Today Show. The weatherman will say, \"here's what's happening in your neck of the woods,\" which is a cue for the local station to play a tape of the local weatherman.\n\nThere are national ads and local ads. The local ads are grouped together. The national ads come with the program. There is a blank space where the local ads are supposed to be inserted. Sometimes something will go wrong and you might see a black screen with a small NBC logo.\n\nI think that is the reason that \"upcoming show\" ads play right before the end of the commercials. If somebody is slow playing the ads, then it will run over the networks own ads, instead of ads that a customer paid for.",
"Put your VCR on a movie, tune it to channel 4 VCR in, Antenna out. Set up an \"old\" analog TV right next to it, and tune it to channel 4. Have the TV on a set of rabbit ears. You just ran a mini TV station.\n\nThat's how. Imagine a lot of tapes, and a bigger antenna to broadcast. You now have a TV station."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4todiv | why does something like water require a nutritional label, but fruit does not? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4todiv/eli5_why_does_something_like_water_require_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5iwztt",
"d5j47fu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Different regulations for packaged food vs whole, unprepared food.\n\nA can of fruit salad has nutritional information, a whole raw fruit/vegetable would not.",
"A: Labeling fruit would be nigh impossible. Each fruit has a different weight, and as they sit on the shelf this weight can actually change, and the nutritional content can as well.\n\n\nB: Labeling fruit would necessarily decrease their quality, especially soft fruits like peaches and grapes.\n\n\nC: Fruits are sold as-is. You don't have to guess what's in it because nothing has been added, and fruit typically isn't being prepared before it's sold. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2rpgii | have we scientifically explained "imagination" and how we lose it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rpgii/eli5have_we_scientifically_explained_imagination/ | {
"a_id": [
"cni272x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's a couple of ways of looking at imagination, and hence ways to answer the question.\n\nThe first way is to consider imagination is as being able to visualize or intentionally perceive things that aren't there or do not exist. In this way we draw from our memories and assemble elements - images, sounds, narratives, which we stitch together in our conscious thought patterns to create a semi-perceived constructed experience. This type of assembly is often done as children and can be lost through patterned thought - we are taught not to assemble or interact with things that do not exist, we replace internal constructions with external constructions of movies and games, and suppress this behavior. It is, however, possible to relearn imagination through focussed or guided experience, including fictional narrative in books.\n\nThe other form of imagination is better termed creativity. Here, the brain makes connections of disparate ideas or concepts to create or explore new concepts or ideas. Creativity is lost through repeatedly enforced structure. In essence, we are 'programmed' to believe in 'the box', that there is one right answer, there is one way to look at situations, it's important to never be wrong, etc. Creativity demands error, demands the collision of ideas and concepts. It too can be relearned, but only through great pains on the part of the individual to break down the conditioned behavior of the structure."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4x7nf9 | space - instead of traveling to other planets why can't we just stop and wait? | The Earth rotates around the Sun and the Sun is moving through the galaxy. The Galaxy is spinning around the galactic center, and the entire galaxy is moving through space. The speeds are "astronomical". Why can't we leave earth and stop moving and wait for the next system of planets to travel to us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x7nf9/eli5_space_instead_of_traveling_to_other_planets/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6d4h17",
"d6d4h6s",
"d6d4hry",
"d6d4l4v",
"d6d4oo2",
"d6d637t"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Speed is entirely relative and depends on your frame of reference. Energy wise, it doesn't matter if you want to reach a certain speed or come to a stop from the same speed in space.\n\nTo \"stop moving\" in near zero friction means to accelerate in the opposite direction - and with the, as you mentioned, astronomical speed involved here, \"just\" stopping means spending tremendous amounts of energy.",
" > Why can't we leave earth and stop moving and wait for the next system of planets to travel to us?\n\nStop moving relative to what?\n\nThere's no such thing as absolutely zero speed in space. It's all relative.\n\nIf you stop moving relative to earth you'll be pulled back to earth by it's gravity. This will also require you to accelerate towards the earth, since you had to accelerate away from it to move away from it.\n\nIf you stop moving relative to the sun you'll be pulled back to the sun by it's gravity. This will also require you to accelerate until you're matching the velocity of the sun (essentially cancel the velocity you already have from the earth orbiting it)\n\nIf you stop moving relative to the galaxy you'll be pulled slowly towards the center of the galaxy by it's gravity. This will also require you to accelerate until you're matching the velocity of the galaxy as a whole (so you'd need to cancel out the velocity the solar system has from orbiting the galaxy).\n\nIn every case accelerating to cancel the velocity relative to something else uses a TON of fuel. If our goal is to get somewhere else that fuel is far more efficiently used by pointing generally towards the thing we want to go to. Instead of struggling to stay a certain distance away from the sun's gravity while the planet gets to us.",
" > Why can't we leave earth and stop moving and wait for the next system of planets to travel to us?\n\nBecause stopping moving is the same as moving to somewhere else. Its effectively the same. Stopping relative to say distant galaxies means gaining massive massive speed in the direction you want to go.",
"From what I understand, even though the speeds are so fast, it would still take lightyears or more for anything to reach us. Things are just too far spread out and there is soooooo much space out there. It's hard to comprehend the amount of pitch black vacuum in between.\n\nEdit: From others' answers, it appears I am completely wrong. Haha.",
"How do you propose to stop? Consider Newton's first law: an object in motion stays in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. If an object is in space, there are no forces acting on it other than gravity. If we ignore gravity for the moment: if you leave the Earth and float in space, you still have the same velocity as the Earth, you'll keep moving in parallel with it. If you include gravity, things get more complicated but you still get generally the same result: if you're orbiting the Earth, you keep orbiting; you don't stop.\n\nIf you actually work through the physics, you get an interesting result. If you think of the Earth is moving at some speed, and you want to use a rocket to brake and stop moving, it takes exactly the same amount of work as if you think of the Earth as stationary and you want to use the rocket to fly away at that speed. This is a property of physics called *invariance*: even if you look at the problem differently you still get the answer. This is actually a very important property: what would it mean if you could get different answers just by looking at things a little differently? How would that physically work? For physics to work, *the same process must give the same result, no matter how you look at it*.\n\nSo, there's no difference between flying a rocket to accelerate and go somewhere else, and using your rocket as a brake and waiting for somewhere else to come to you. You have to spend the same amount of energy, no matter what.",
"Imagine you're in a plane flying in one direction and there's a plane moving in the opposite direction that you want to get to. From your perspective the plane you're on isn't moving. Getting off the plane's fairly easy but now you're out of the plane and falling away from it while the other plane's still flying away. Even if the other plane was flying towards you you'd still have to speed yourself up so that you don't get flattened when it flies into you. \n\n\n\nWhen you say \"stop moving\" it basically means \"start moving towards the other solar system\" the two problems with doing that are that it takes a huge amount of fuel and acceleration and that when you arrive at the other solar system you have to turn around and slow down the same amount because otherwise you just keep going.\n\nAnother problem is gravity. If you don't move fast enough gravity just pulls you back now I don't think these numbers are very accurate but they're just to give a general idea, to get out of the solar system from earth you need about 15km/s total velocity, but once you've done that the nearest known star is 4.3 light years away. A light year is 9460730472580 km, at 15km/s it would take 630715364838 seconds or 1.2 million years to get there.\n\nSomeone else can probably do this all better but that's my explanation XD"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6t45c2 | what makes my brain go "i don't know how to do this therefore i don't want to do it"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6t45c2/eli5_what_makes_my_brain_go_i_dont_know_how_to_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlhrrfl",
"dlhwcxo",
"dli6147"
],
"score": [
8,
26,
2
],
"text": [
"Noob here but I'm 99% sure it's the same part of your brain that is responsible for fear.\n\nWe fear the unknown because of it's inherant risk. Therefore lack of experience can be enough to scare us away from new pursuits.",
"1) Fear of the unknown. An evolutionary instinct we are born with.\n\n2) Fear of failure. A sociological reaction we learn.\n\n3) Sloth/Laziness. Don't want to invest the effort required to learn this new thing.\n\n4) Combination of 1, 2, & 3. Most likely answer. Nothing is so simple.\n\n",
"A task with a large initial \"cognitive load\" often means you'll avoid doing it even if the rest of the task is easy. Doing something new isn't necessarily difficult, but you need to prepare your brain for it and THAT is usually the trickiest part. It's related to the concept of how starting to clean your house is difficult, but once you get going, you get \"on a roll\" and it's much easier. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3ceo80 | what's all this talk about "september 2015" and how something bad (i.e. doomsday, an economical crash) is going to happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ceo80/eli5_whats_all_this_talk_about_september_2015_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"csutdp0",
"csuu44s",
"csuv30y",
"csuzin3"
],
"score": [
4,
25,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"To be honest, I'm not sure where some of these people get their theories from. As it was with the 'Mayan Calendar' prediction, they speculated that the world would end because the calendar ended in December of 2012... (Spoiler: Didnt happen)\n\n[A list of how often the world was predicted to end](_URL_0_)\n\nI'd assume this one is no different than any of the others and some sort of prophetical mumbo jumbo someone extrapolated from seeing something on a piece of toast.",
"There are two things we know for sure:\n\n1. Bad things will happen.\n\n2. We don't know when.\n\nSome people find ways to profit from this. \n\n",
"These things are repetitive and, as already mentioned, the people pushing the various theories are probably trying to make money somehow, hoping to be the new Alex Jones. \n\nPeople new to conspiracy theories sometimes get hooked in, but they come to realize (when nothing happens, but there’s soon a dire prediction for a new date next year) that it's a repeating meme. \n\nFor example, I was new to this kind of thing at the time of the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, and I allowed myself to be semi-convinced that a 'dirty bomb' or 'suitcase nuke' would be set off by 'tptb' at the Games. I started reading websites where people were focusing on things like the street names in the vicinity of the Olympic stadium that was getting built in east London. They were tying these random details to esoteric topics (Freemasonry, numerology, occult, ancient Egyptian religion etc.). There were other supposed indicators of an attack, e.g. some [weird slideshow](_URL_0_) that got posted on the Daily Telegraph website years before, imagining a nuke going off at a sports stadium in London. This was said by some to be an example of things being ‘hidden in plain sight’.\n\nI found all of this fascinating and quite seductive in an apocalyptic way. And, living just five miles or so from the stadium, I became rather uneasy. But, of course, nothing happened. \n\nAll sorts of events have been predicted since then – from deliberately engineered economic meltdowns and catastrophic ‘false flag’ attacks, using nukes or biological weapons, to full-on WW3, or an ‘extinction event’ caused by an asteroid strike – and this September 2015 thing is just the latest in a long line. \n\nIt wouldn’t surprise me at all if terrible things did happen in the future, but I am sure anyone making specific timed predictions has no inside knowledge whatsoever and is just a charlatan.\n",
"What talk about something bad in September?\n\nThis is the first I've heard such a thing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events"
],
[],
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/4220575/Blackjack.html"
],
[]
]
|
||
7e3c3f | how can we breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide almost immediately after? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7e3c3f/eli5_how_can_we_breathe_in_oxygen_and_exhale/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq24pm9",
"dq24rfy",
"dq24y8o"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Like a train arriving dude... all the people get off and different people get on for the trip back. \nThe other folk will get a later train home. ",
"You are not breathing in or exhaling pure oxygen/co2, you are just exchanging the air inside and outside the lungs. \n\nThe air inside the lungs will have a slightly lower concentration of oxygen, and a higher concentration of co2, than the surrounding atmosphere, so this exchange works out favorably.",
"We don't immediately convert the O2 to CO2 in that one breath. We absorb some of the O2 in that breath into our bloodstream. The CO2 we're releasing in that breath comes from O2 we absorbed sometime earlier."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
41hsnp | how do rockets use fuel so efficiently? | Thinking about the Falcon stuff, they put a rocket in space using a shit load of fuel, then still had enough to make a landing... And enough to make it explode from tipping over.
How is rocket fuel used so effectively? Does it burn slowly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41hsnp/eli5_how_do_rockets_use_fuel_so_efficiently/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz2hx2u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's actually burning the opposite of slowly.\n\nThe Falcon 9 first stage is 135 feet high and 12 feet wide. Almost all of that is propellant (fuel and oxidizer). That's over 114,000 gallons.\n\nAnd it burns almost all of that in about 3 minutes. It's consuming hundreds of gallons per second.\n\nEssentially, there's just a *lot* of propellant on board the rocket. It's designed to have enough to go to orbit and back. Some very smart engineers did the math to make sure it would have enough given the known efficiency of the engines."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
12qdto | musical instruments - why are some in concert pitch and others in f, eb etc | Even took music theory and sight singing in college and never understood why when I played a C on the flute, the clarinets played a Bb. Why are they not ALL in C? And if you play an instrument that is not in C - does it make guessing pitches hard? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12qdto/eli5_musical_instruments_why_are_some_in_concert/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6xcpzi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Way back in the day, wind instruments could only be built to play in tune in a couple of keys. It had to do with how the tuning system at the time worked for woodwinds, as well as the complexity of adding keys, and the lack of valves for brass instruments. In order to play in a number of different keys, players would have different instruments pitched in different keys so they could play pieces in any key. As the fingering system for woodwinds developed, and valves were added to brass instruments, the number of instruments you needed to play in every key decreased. Ultimately the clarinet settled on two keys, Bb and A, which are still used by orchestral players today. The other woodwinds made it to C, but the clarinet has some complexities in developing a fingering system due to it going up a 12th when going up to the next register, not an octave. Brass instruments settled on which pitched keys were most versatile given the nature of how valves work, as well as which instrument they preferred the tone of the best. Trumpets are usually in Bb, but are frequently in C in orchestral works. French horns are in F but also have a set of pipes that put them in Bb. Trombones are generally in Bb but sometimes have an extra set of pipes or two to put them in F or even Eb. Tubas are commonly in Bb or C but can easily be found in Eb and F too.\n\nAs for knowing the pitches, you have to learn to offset but once you get the hang of it it isn't difficult at all. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
csfczz | how does earth spin so fast but we don't notice ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/csfczz/eli5_how_does_earth_spin_so_fast_but_we_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"exee2bl",
"exee58i",
"exeeemu"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because we’re attached to it and moving at the same speed. Like how you can walk around on an airplane and not notice that it’s moving really quite fast.",
"Because it is moving at a “constant” speed. It isn’t speeding up or slowing down. \nImagine you’re in a car. When you are moving at a constant speed you don’t experience anything, but when you start speeding up braking you experience that.",
"Centripetal force - put simply, the earth doesn’t have enough spin.\n\nA bit longer explanation, the formula for centripetal acceleration is 4 * pi * r / T^2 where r is the radius of the turn, and T is the time it takes to complete one rotation. Now that radius of the earth is about 6.3 million metres, which is very impressive - the time it takes to go a full rotation is obviously one day, but we actually need that time in seconds, which is 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400 seconds. That means we experience 4pi * 6371000 / (86400 * 86400) = 0.0107 m/s^2 of acceleration, which is peanuts compared to the 9.8 m/s^2 that gravity does in the opposite direction."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2i07vs | what would happen if you never swallowed again? | Let's say hypothetically you receive your nutrition intravenously and you spit your saliva out instead of swallowing it. What would the effects on your body be? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i07vs/eli5_what_would_happen_if_you_never_swallowed/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckybior"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, this works out for people in comas (besides deterioration of their body from disuse). Not sure if you can take in enough calories to support exercise from an IV though. But if you could, then the only other thing might be constant hunger, even though you have enough nutrition.\n\nThings going through the stomach just appears to break down your food, and murder anything harmful that happened to be in it. So, if you got your hypothetical and contagion free solution, then this would probably work out okay. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1oxqoe | what is "hubbles law" and how does it effect our universe? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oxqoe/eli5_what_is_hubbles_law_and_how_does_it_effect/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccwpuhk",
"ccwq7xs"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"On land, the Doppler effect affects sounds, for example, an ambulance siren; as the ambulance approaches, it sounds like the pitch is getting higher. This is because the ambulance, as it moves closer, is catching up with its own alarm sound waves. The waves get all squished and the pitch of the siren sounds like it is getting higher. As the ambulance drives away from you, the sound waves get all stretched out and have a lower pitch. \n\nSame thing happens with the light in space. As space moves apart, the light wavelengths get all stretched out. So what color were seeing isn't the real color. \n\nThat is all I know. As far as its importance, sorry. ",
"Lets say you are standing near a Nascar track. As a car is coming towards you the tone of the sound is higher because the frequency of the sound is squeezed together as it moves towards you and as it passes and moves away from you the tone of the sound gets lower because the frequency of the sound is stretched out as it moves away from you. This is because as the car is moving towards you the sound waves are piling up on each other and as they move away from you they are thinning out. It works the same way with light. If you run a beam of white light (light from the sun for example) through a prism, the light breaks up into the different colors of the spectrum. If a star or galaxy for example are moving towards us, the object will look bluer (blue shift) than it really is and if its moving away from us it will look more red (red shift). We know that distant galaxies are moving away from us because the light rays that we collect from them are moving towards the red."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
55wc4h | how are withdrawals triggered from using a small amount of a substance even though the person is no longer using the substance? | I'm thinking of heroin (based on TV) and benzo withdrawals, but alcohol or others may have the same effect.
My friend used to be addicted to Xanax. Even though he hasn't been using it for a year, drinking alcohol or certain sleeping medicines (things that mess with his GABA receptors?) trigger his withdrawal symptoms. How does that work? Can you wait a long enough time and then be able to take Xanax, Lunesta, Ambien, or drink alcohol like normal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55wc4h/eli5_how_are_withdrawals_triggered_from_using_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8ea8si"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It takes something like 70 days for most addictions to lose their physical symptoms, but the psychological symptoms can last a lifetime. It's these psychological symptoms that trigger withdrawal symptoms. \nAs an example, I've been sober (heroin) for over 7 years, but if I take an opiate based painkiller, I'll experience withdrawal symptoms when the painkillers wear off. I've been sober (alcohol) for a little over 2 1/2 months, and if I were to drink I would likely not experience withdrawal symptoms because alcohol just isn't as psychologically addictive to me and I haven't experience alcohol withdrawal enough to have developed a psychological tie to those withdrawals."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
dxizj4 | what causes us to "feel" tension or stress in a room? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dxizj4/eli5_what_causes_us_to_feel_tension_or_stress_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7ravs8"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There have been estimates that up to 93% of communication is nonverbal. We convey most to our conversations with things like body language and vocal tone. So you walk into a room, you don't need someone to tell you \"we're all uncomfortable and awkward here,\" you just receive this information passively from how everyone is sitting/standing, the proportion and nature of pauses in conversation, the tone of the conversations, the distance between the people, the way they're looking at one another or staring blankly. I even dare say probably some pheromones play a role, but this is speculative. And when you can't pinpoint exactly what made you aware of this tension, you attribute it to a \"feeling\" as opposed to factual information.\n\nEdit: elaboration"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
65m752 | what's the point of stove range hoods that don't vent outside? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65m752/eli5_whats_the_point_of_stove_range_hoods_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgbcxsy"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They contain a filter that removes the worst of the smoke so you don't end up getting a stained ceiling when you cook. Also, they use a fan that slightly spreads out the hot air they collect, reducing the chance of scorching your cabinets."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
22sqf5 | if much of the matter in the universe exists outside the visible spectrum, how come i don't bump into objects all the time that i simply can't see? | In all of my experiences, the only objects that I have ever seen was matter that emitted or reflected light in the visible range. However, a significant amount of the matter in the universe is only detectable by their emitted or reflected UV, infrared, x-ray, etc. radiation. Therefore, would it be possible for me to bump into an object without being able to see it if the light it emitted or reflected was outside the visible spectrum? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22sqf5/eli5_if_much_of_the_matter_in_the_universe_exists/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgpzwhr",
"cgq06ty"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There's not a whole lot out there that is *only* visible in UV/IR/non-visible/etc wavelengths. Most matter, especially solids, is visible in the visible spectrum. It's largely gases that are fully invisible in the visible spectrum, although that does make up a decent portion of what's out in space. Even then, a lot of the particulate matter in space is just a lot easier to see in other wavelengths because it's spread so thinly You may be confusing it with dark matter, which we can only detect through its effects on gravity.",
"Sure, very clear glass. Most glass is invisible in the visible spectrum, but opaque in the infrared or far-ultraviolet.\n\nThe reason we use other spectra to see things in space is that certain things are transparent at other wavelengths (e.g., dust to x-rays) and thus allow us to see through them. There are also many objects that are emitting (not reflecting) a lot of light at certain wavelengths. But most solid objects would be visible in the visible spectrum."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
64slfk | why do people think that killing someone with chemicals is sp much worse than other ways of killing | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64slfk/eli5_why_do_people_think_that_killing_someone/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg4ogle",
"dg4ojmt"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The problem with chemical weapons is that they kill indescriminately. Chemical gases are random and uncontrollable by default, so its inherently more dangerous and irresponsible than most other weapons. The issue isn't so much that it's a worse way to kill people (even though it is), but that it often results in civilian deaths. People wouldn't be making such a big deal about the attack in Syria if it had targeted a group of soldiers in the middle of nowhere. But because we have video of children dying, now the world cares.",
"Because essentially it is torture. Sarin (the Syrian example) paralyzes your diaphragm, which leads to slow and painful death. There was a video in Youtube just moments after it happened, pretty gruel stuff."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2tprhu | why do dogs love sticks? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tprhu/eli5_why_do_dogs_love_sticks/ | {
"a_id": [
"co17kh6",
"co17rdf",
"co187kq",
"co18e35",
"co19rcy",
"co1b1r4",
"co1byli",
"co1c0yb",
"co1ci4d",
"co1cj7h",
"co1ct26",
"co1cwn5",
"co1dsfh",
"co1evv5",
"co1exwx",
"co1fgrn",
"co1fqt4",
"co1g0r7",
"co1g4z9",
"co1ggzg",
"co1hmf9",
"co1i0yc",
"co1jbtc",
"co1kj65",
"co1lv7v",
"co1m6tu",
"co1mig8",
"co1nfoa",
"co1nw4h",
"co1pumt",
"co1y7o7",
"co21z39",
"co2535r",
"co359vd"
],
"score": [
99,
2745,
286,
2654,
14,
83,
4,
158,
6,
3,
2,
2,
553,
2,
5,
3,
36,
2,
2,
17,
6,
19,
2,
2,
19,
3,
5,
2,
2,
13,
4,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't love sticks. They love chasing and fetching stuff.",
"because when you throw it, they give it to you and you are happy, then dog is happy and does it again\n\nin another universe, there is a ELI5: why do humans like it when we bring them sticks?",
"Dogs chew on sticks instinctively to maintain their dental hygiene.",
"They love anything that somehow addresses their instinct to hunt, catch, and kill.\n\nThrowing a stick is like giving it something to run down. It's the same reason dogs love toys that squeak. The squeaking is similar to a prey's screaming as it's being killed. It's also why most dogs could care less about those toys once the ~~screaming~~ squeaking ends. The hunt is over.",
"Sticks remove the plaque and food on/between your dogs teeth. This is the \"barbaric\" equivelant of brushing them :)",
"There are lots of reasons. They like to chase stuff because of their prey drive. They like to chew and destroy stuff because it is good work for their jaws. It can also help to clean their teeth, depending on what they're chewing. They get protective of them because they can be jealous, greedy motherfuckers.",
"Dogs do not like sticks. They are able to assign, via consensus, a temporary value to any random object so that within the parameters of play, having a certain stick becomes of utmost importance. Once play is over, however, the much desired stick is suddenly abandoned as completely as the sheeps bladders and other air-filled projectiles so desired - for a short time - by human sportsmen.",
"Because sticks are fucking *awesome*, that's why.\n\n**Source:** am a dog.",
"Certified Dog Trainer here! I have also been working in a Training Behavior Department for almost 6 years now. My time to shine!\n\n\nI have seen dogs love sticks, and then I have seen dogs that are scared of sticks. Basically it's how they are raised. You see, not all dogs love sticks because of various reasons. Tennis balls are easier to pick up, texture is better in their mouth, and it bounces! But what if a dog never had toys when they were puppies... maybe they were an outside dog their whole life and all they had to play with was sticks. The puppy will grow up associating the stick with fun and enjoyment! This can go three ways. One, the dog will love to play with sticks. Two, he loves sticks so much that he will guard it from you. And the third was is that they will see another toy they will prefer and forget about the stick. \n\nHope I was helpful!",
"A dogs cranium is dedicated primarily to chewing. If you were to look at an exposed skull of a dog, you would see that their jaw muscles extend from their jawbone to the top of their head. When they are gnawing on a stick, or any durable surface such as furniture fixtures, endorphins are being released into the brain. That is why a dog will look high as fuck after munching on something that takes some work to chew through.\n\nThe same can be said for cats. Cats love sticks just as much as dogs, but no one ever thinks of giving a cat a stick. If you have a cat, consider giving it a small bully stick every now and then.\n\nIf you are referring to why dogs like fetch. It's entirely dependent on that dog and whether it's been trained to fetch. Oftentimes, it is a Pavlovian response as another redditor has mentioned. Fun Fact: you can also train cats to fetch.",
"I'm convinced my dog likes them so that it can either puke them up in the middle of the night, or have the most uncomfortable crap ever first thing in the morning. Rinse/repeat... ",
"I read a lot of things regarding their \"instinct\" to hunt prey, but to be honest I'd wager a lot of it simply has to do with their anatomy. Cats have pretty agile paws so they can have fun trying to grab things with them, but dogs have less flexible paws. Using their mouth to grab anything and play with it seems like the best way to have fun, because it's the tool they're the most proficient with.\n\nJust a thought. Am not dog expert. ",
"Biologist here:\n\nDogs likes sticks because they are a coarse and rough substance, great for chewing. This helps keeps their mouth and teeth clean, additionally the extra bits of wood can provide roughage, you know, like when you see them eating grass. Helps with bowel movements. So it helps with oral hygiene and bowel movements, dogs also enjoy fetch. It's like training for catching animals. The whole human-canine evolutionary history is deeply entwined, so dogs have been helping us hunt for thousands of years. The whole playing fetch thing isn't just a fun game, but part of our and dog's evolutionary history. We enjoy it, they enjoy it and doing things that relieve stress combined with exercise is very healthy. \n\nEdit:Forgot some words.",
"I thought it had something to do with their structural similarity to bones.",
"It's not the stick. It's that they are retrievable and chewy\n\nAn employee of mine got a lab trained as a duck hunting dog from a rescue. The dog refused to play with sticks and many other toys because it had been taught not to (don't want to have your hunting dog playing with every stick and branch in the woods while you're hunting).\n\nHe had to buy duck shaped toys to get him to fetch ",
"I would like to know how this is also applicable to children, as they too, love sticks.",
"Dogs follow a predatory sequence:\n\nThe complete predatory sequence is eye, stalk, chase, grab-bite, kill-bite, dissect and consume.\n\nFor example, herding dogs use the \"eye\" \"stalk\" and \"chase\" parts of the sequence to pressure sheep into moving. \n\nWhen your dog is playing with a toy and does the \"head shake\" to \"kill\" it, and then rips the toy apart, it's completing the predatory sequence.\n\nDogs probably enjoy chasing and chewing sticks because it satisfies parts of that sequence, and I also think it has something to do with the fact that, in shape, they mimic bones, which dogs are designed to consume and digest as part of a healthy raw diet. (NEVER cooked bones, as they splinter.) ",
"Dogs like chasing things, people like throwing things, we are just meant to be together.",
"My cat loves playing fetch. She has her favorite mouse toy she loves to play fetch with but she'll also do it with straws and plastic wrappers.\n\nI didn't think cats had the same hunting instincts though.",
"They don't. When I throw a stick, my dog watches it in the air, sees it land on the ground, then looks up at me with eyes that say \"....what the fuck are you doing...\"",
"Dogs as pets are really just big puppies, they never got out of that playful play hunting stage.\n\nA cat bringing you stuff on the other hand thinks you are bad at hunting.",
"Dog here. It's because they feel like femurs.",
"I asked myself the same question yesterday and I found that dogs love to carry stuff around claiming to have sth that is theirs.. That is why they guard those sticks against other dogs, btw . However, sticks can be very dangerous for dogs because they can break and dogs can swallow little pieces. Better would be to train them to take a preydummy or a toy in their mouths and carry it.. Especially with dummies the dog gets a very positive feedback from carrying it, it's like carrying around his/her own food bowl:) ",
"I agree that most \"play\" is a sort of cognitive exercise that sharpens hunting/survival skills from back in the old wolf days.\n\nBut I would add that modern dogs are decidedly social animals, and part of the stick obsession is just that they want to interact with humans -- and they've learned sticks are a good way to get humans to interact with them.",
"I was actually just looking this up earlier. \n\n > When dogs were first domesticated a long, long time ago they were primarily used for hunting for quite some time. After a few millennia of evolution we bred a lot of hunting based instincts into them, one of those being retrieving prey for their master. Basically, when your dog brings a stick to you it's simulating bringing a hunted animal to you. If the dog wants you to throw it, it's mimicking it's natural impulse to chase after prey. If the dog wants to play tug of war with it, it simulates the prey fighting back or something trying to steal it away. (Fun fact, if your dog ever violently shakes it head back and forth it's trying to break the prey's neck) In summary, playing fetch or tug of war mimics the actions we selectively bred dogs to accomplish and gratifies them.\n\n[From here.](_URL_0_)",
"Dogs basically use their mouth like hands. There are soft chews(stuffed toys), medium chews(rubber kong), and hard chews(antlers), each dog is unique in what they like. \n\nDogs enjoy the feel of different chews is the best way I can explain it. A stick is such a unique chew compared to their toys and such at home in that it's fairly soft (can chew through most) but has some ridgidity to massage their gums and teeth. They also have some stick flavor. You can try different types of chews with your dog, when shopping try to get your dog some of each type to keep them stimulated. \n\nThere are of course exceptions to the rule but for most toy driven dogs are like this.",
"Please don't throw sticks for your dog - We did this on nearly every walk with our dog (Cos dogs love sticks, right?!). One day she ended up with a stick stuck in the back of her throat.\n\nThankfully, after a stressful 24 hours, she was home and recovering, now Aok. Vet warned us infections could take hold up to 3 months after the event, due to splinters.\n\nWe now throw tennis balls/squeaky toys/rope toys etc for her...She enjoys this just as much. Just takes a little thought to remember to bring something on each walk.\n\nOur Vet said this happens far too often and is of course avoidable.\n\n ",
"dont throw dogs for sticks.\n\nThe 9k vet bill i paid 10 days ago is proof.",
"Because dogs have been bred for hunting purposes. If a hunter shoots a duck or a rabbit, the dog starts searching for the prey and brings it back to the hunter. Bringing back a stick is a playful variation of that.",
"Dogs with a long nose have a retina with cells aligned in a horizontal strip, they see wide-angle are stimulated by objects travelling across this strip of cells, the throw is engaging, the tracking, chasing and winning is fun.\n\nDogs with short noses have a retina more like humans (a circle), they can watch TV and other stuff we do but are less interested in sticks as they don't have the stimulus of the throw moving so far across their retina.",
"Because dogs loves bones and sticks are just tree bones.",
"A lot of popular dog breeds were originally bred to be retrievers- they would grab the rabbit/duck/pheasant after a hunter shot it, and bring it back for the Hunter. I think many of the dogs who love to play fetch are acting on these breed instincts.\n\nMy Shetland sheepdog has no interest in fetch, but she does love running circles around a group of people until they cluster together like sheep. The dogs I grew up with were setters, and they would point with their noses at any small animals they saw in the yard.",
"I'm a Kaynine. I like fish sticks in my mouth. Love 'em. ",
"my new puppy picks up every stick, leaf, piece of mulch, etc. he sees. probably has to do with teething maybe? I have no idea. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/218b1v/eli5_why_does_my_dog_pick_up_sticks_in_her_mouth/cgalxv8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
b1xzy1 | what is synthetic identity theft, how does it differ from "ghosting" and identity theft and why isn't it as widely publicized as identity theft? | **Disclaimer**: This is not a question about endorsement of illegal activity or how to carry out criminal activity. It is simply an ELI5, as I have searched and no results for this topic. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1xzy1/eli5_what_is_synthetic_identity_theft_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiozpki"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In traditional identity theft, I figure out your details and impersonate you. By doing this, I might entice some bank to give me money, based on your good credit score. My risk is that you might detect me and email the bank \"Hey, this isn't me\". Then I get busted.\n\nSo, it would be a lot better if I didn't run that risk of getting caught. It's more work, but I could just make up/buy a fake identity. Then I make some transactions, maybe I put the fake person on my payroll and start giving it paychecks every week. I convince an online bank to deposit the paychecks. As time goes on, the online bank makes credit reports and the big credit reporting agencies begin to validate that the fake identity is real. Since there is no real person using that identity, there is nobody to complain, an I can't get caught. After the fake identity has enough credit limit, I max out its accounts, withdraw all its money, and forget all about it. The bank gets mad when it doesn't get paid back, and sets a collection agency on the fake identity, and, well, nobody is there to get caught."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4thm0m | do sperms come with pre-installed intelligence and character or are all sperms the same and develop these traits later? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4thm0m/eli5_do_sperms_come_with_preinstalled/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5hfc6c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I like to compare intelligence to a glass of water. You can think of the size of the glass as your genetic contribution (the instructions encoded within sperm and egg cells) and the water itself as your environment. The size of your glass determines how much water you can hold, and obviously a larger glass will hold more water. \n\nHowever, the amount of water you can hold also depends upon how much water is available (the quality of your family life, education, and personal experiences). If you're experiencing a drought, it doesn't matter how large your glass is--you'll end up with the same amount of water. Conversely, if you have a small cup you won't be able to hold much water no matter how much water is available. In the end, you need both an adequately sized cup (healthy genes) and lots of water (an enriched environment with diversified experiences) to be intelligent.\n\nNow given that both genetics and environment are mutually dependent upon each other, the questions then becomes: which factor is more powerful? And though this question is still up for debate, [recent studies](_URL_0_) have estimated intelligence to be between 22% and 46% due to genetic inheritance.\n\n***tl;dr:*** *Sperm and egg cells carry genetic information which places limits on intelligence (about 1/3rd of overall intellectual ability). However, sufficient experience is also required for that intelligence to develop and seems to play a larger role (about 2/3rds of overall intellectual ability).*\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n2/abs/mp2012184a.html"
]
]
|
||
715ksa | why can bands use child nudity on their cover art, and not get slammed with a "child pornography" label? | It just struck me when I was listening to Pandora, that there are artists that use naked pictures of children on their albums. How can they get away with this when they're distributing this all over the world for a price, and it's technically child pornography is it not?
& nbsp;
Some that I can think of off the top of my head are Nirvana-Nevermind & Puddle of Mud-Come Clean.
& nbsp;
[edit] Because it seems like most compare this to parents having pictures of their naked children. Parents having private pictures seems much different than mass producing an image and distributing it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/715ksa/eli5_why_can_bands_use_child_nudity_on_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn891z6",
"dn8954k",
"dn895cz"
],
"score": [
6,
8,
10
],
"text": [
"In the same way that you can have a naked person in a statue or painting and have it be art and not pornography, you can have a naked picture of a child without it being pornography. Tons of parents have pictures of their babies naked - that doesn't make it child pornography. Still might not want to get it developed at Walgreens though.\n\nDue to the highly illegal nature of child pornography, you see a lot less naked kids in art due to the risks involved with crossing the line between art and pornography.",
"We define child pornography based on whether or not it is intended to produce a sexual response. This is why a parent can take a picture of their child in the bath and not get in trouble for it, but a case could be made that a stranger taking that same picture could be producing child porn.\n\nNaturally this could be very hard to prove if we're only discussing a single picture, so the prosecution would have to make a pretty good argument.\n\nFor your album covers, as long as the cover isn't sexual in nature, the artists should be fine, as a photo of a naked baby isn't itself pornographic.",
"Nudity ≠ Pornography\n\nWith any attempt to use the \"art\" exclusion to porn laws, you run the risk of being charged and taken to court."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
60bixq | how do they put sponsors under the ice rink? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60bixq/eli5how_do_they_put_sponsors_under_the_ice_rink/ | {
"a_id": [
"df4zc8u",
"df52dqv"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"It's just painted or adhered to the floor beneath, and then water is frozen on top to make the ice surface. ",
"A german show for curious kids (\"Die Sendung mit der Maus\") has a nice time lapse of how it happens: _URL_0_\n\nBasically, you paint the ice and then put another layer of ice on it. In the video, the second step starts at 3:20.\n\nAnd yes, this has to be done all over every time they want to change something.\n\nEdit - A youtube mirror, should the other link not work in some regions: _URL_1_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Die-Sendung-mit-der-Maus/Sachgeschichte-Eisstadion-Zeitraffer/WDR-Fernsehen/Video?bcastId=22380500&documentId=31634448",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCHtdxRC7gc"
]
]
|
||
1umx6r | what nvidias g-sync and amds freesync is | Allright, so i get that it stands for GPU synchronisation, and that it syncs your GPU with your monitor in some way. ANd that NVidias has some sort of chip inside of the monitor, whilst AMDs is free.
But, i have no clue what it actually does, i've seen a video where 2 laptops renders the same scene, one with freesync, and one without. And you can see some small stuttering when playing the video in slow-mo.
But is that it? How is that worth the money?
Can someone please ELI5 why this is so revolutionary and useful? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1umx6r/eli5what_nvidias_gsync_and_amds_freesync_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cejoohy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"With old CRT's, the monitor had to scan a beam of electrons across the screen to light up each pixel. It could only target one pixel at a time, and did them all in order in a repeating pattern. And each pixel that was lit up had to be constantly hit again by the electron beam, or else it would fade. So basically the monitor had to keep redrawing the entire screen many times per second, regardless of what changed in the scene. And so graphics cards/engines/etc. were designed around that necessity.\n\nNow with modern flat panel screens, it doesn't have to work that way. Each pixel can be individually targeted and turned on/off in any order. But the underlying hardware/software still uses the same basic design that was put in place back when CRT's were the primary display.\n\n G-sync and Freesync basically removes that legacy system, and will allow computers to draw to the screen in more arbitrary ways. The hardware/software won't be locked around some repeating frequency cycle that was necessary on monitors a decade ago, but isn't really relevant on modern screens. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5toffo | why are horizontal and vertical speeds independent of each other? | Working on physics homework and read that if you roll a ball off a table, it's speed doesn't effect the time it takes for the ball to hit the floor. So, horizontal and vertical speeds are independent of each other. This doesn't make sense to me. Hoping someone can explain it in a way that helps me understand. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5toffo/eli5_why_are_horizontal_and_vertical_speeds/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddnuwuw",
"ddnx42c"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"An easier way to think of this is: what should the connection be?\n\nDo you agree that blue ball and a red ball should fall at the same speed?\n\nOkay, then do you agree that a happy jumping person and a sad jumping person should fall at the same speed?\n\nOkay, then do you agree that an object moving north, and an object not moving north, should fall at the same speed?\n\nThere just isn't a connection.",
"Think of it like this:\n\nSay we have two balls, A and B. For every second that goes by, ball A moves one inch down, and two inches to the left. Also for every second that goes by, ball B moves down once inch only. Now say balls A and B both start 5 inches off the ground. Because they each move down one inch per second (so we can say they both have a constant velocity of one inch per second in the downward direction), it will take them both 5 seconds to reach the ground. Take note, however, that they both reach the ground at the same time even though ball A is also moving horizontally. This tells us that we can think of an objects horizontal and vertical components of velocity as independent.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1xznw9 | the unspoken rules and social conventions in england. | Thinking about moving to England in a few years. I wouldn't want to be perceived as rude or a tourist. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xznw9/eli5_the_unspoken_rules_and_social_conventions_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfg1e67",
"cfg1t7y",
"cfg2pkf",
"cfg2ybm",
"cfg30nf"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"It is significantly more difficult to answer this question without knowing where you are from. ",
"For love of Queen and Country, do not dare jump the queue.",
"I can strongly recommend you try to find a copy of a book called Watching the English by Kate Fox, which is all about the unwritten social conventions of the English. I would also suggest you head over to /r/AskUK to get personal opinions on the subject.",
"This one is not so much for being around English people, but in case you are in the presence of non-English Brits, make sure you don't get England and the UK or Britain mixed up. English people generally don't care and maybe do it themselves, but Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people might get annoyed by it.\n\nWe generally don't like patriotism. Hopefully it's obvious that people won't like you much if you start going around boasting about how great the USA is. But most people frown upon patriotism in regards to England or the UK too. The English flag in particular can have some negative connotations to do with far right groups and/or football hooliganism (which is really unfair, but some people do think that). The British flag isn't usually seen that way, but people would still find it a bit weird if you were flying one around for no particular reason.",
"Don't try to engage strangers in conversation, whether they're the checkout guy at the supermarket or someone you pass by in the street. If you're worried about your accent, try to keep your voice quiet. Don't attempt to fake a British accent, you will come off as condescending.\n\nFries are chips. Chips are crisps. We will often refer to a fish-and-chip shop as a 'chippie'. We do sometimes call chips fries (we've been Americanised), but only where they're the thin ones. Good chips are thick-cut.\n\nUnderwear are pants. Pants are trousers. Don't call a fanny bag a fanny bag. The word 'fanny' means 'vagina'. Call it a bum bag instead if you have to. 'Taking the piss' means insulting or mocking someone.\n\nOur biscuits are like cookies, but drier and come in circular packs. You can dunk them in tea, hot chocolate or milk, but people will look at you oddly if you dunk them in coffee. Digestive biscuits, though they sound unappetising, are amazing and you should definitely try some. 'Scones' look like your definition of biscuit, but we cut them open and have them with jam and clotted cream (that's really thick, spreadable cream).\n\n'Toad-in-the-hole' does not contain toads. It is sausages and Yorkshire pudding - which is like pancake batter put in the oven. Most of the bacon over here is back bacon rather than streaky bacon (your type), which means there's more meat and not so much fat.\n\nWe call 'candy' 'sweets', and it refers to non-chocolate stuff only. Our chocolate is much sweeter and richer than yours, and British Cadbury's is to die for (the American stuff they make to a different recipe so it doesn't taste as nice).\n\nDon't insult the NHS. Especially not if you have an American accent. Trust me, just don't.\n\nYou can, however, insult whoever is in government, or how awful the weather has been lately. 'Tories' are our Conservative party, currently the largest party in government, and quite a few people hate them - especially students, because they tripled the university tuition fees a few years ago.\n\nBBC channels don't have ads and are generally awesome. This means that all the other channels have much more subtle ads than American ones. When I visited I could barely watch your tv. Oh, and you'll get used to hearing [this](_URL_0_) if you watch the news.\n\nFootball is a big thing over here, and it's what you guys call soccer.\n\nI can't think of anything else, and to be honest you'll be fine as long as you're not intentionally rude."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2KCO0OKfrI"
]
]
|
|
23t3pf | how do people get max high scores on mobile games? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23t3pf/eli5how_do_people_get_max_high_scores_on_mobile/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch0bdja"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They cheat. Very few, if any, top scores on any game are legitimate. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
370tuo | why is nobody making a a huge deal about the helium shortage in mainstream media? | Even more so, why is it still legal for helium to be wasted on stuff like party balloons? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/370tuo/eli5_why_is_nobody_making_a_a_huge_deal_about_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cripgkk",
"criplpq"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"The media made the sensationalist stuff up in the first place. We're not running out of helium, we're just [running out of cheap helium.](_URL_0_)",
"Because it's not a huge deal. There is no helium shortage. There is more helium on earth that we will ever have use for. There will soon be a shortage of cheap helium, because the stores will soon run out so we will have to mine it again. \n\nedit: very unfortunate typo"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://zidbits.com/2011/08/are-we-really-running-out-of-helium/"
],
[]
]
|
|
82t7tv | is there a physiological or psychological reason why people look up when they're exasperated or frustrated? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82t7tv/eli5_is_there_a_physiological_or_psychological/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvcr901"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"This is something called \"eye blocking\". When someone perceives something they don't like they avert or cover their eyes, even if the thing they don't like isn't something they've seen. This happens in blind children, so it's apparently hard wired. Looking up is just one of the ways people avert their eyes when frustrated."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
a3v240 | how does the zero-gravity life affect one's respiratory, digestive, and nervous system over time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3v240/eli5_how_does_the_zerogravity_life_affect_ones/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb9ldtd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't seem to cause respiration system changes at all. It completely messes up the other two though, resulting in changes in structure and position of the various parts of your brain and digestive system. These arent necessarily dangerous for how we currently do things, since time in microgravity environments is limited.\n\nBut for a trip to somewhere like Mars, these issues have a significant chance of resulting in permanent changes and damage."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1p03vt | earlier today i tripped and scraped my knee. the skin broke and bled but my tights remained intact. how does this happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p03vt/eli5_earlier_today_i_tripped_and_scraped_my_knee/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccxd70x",
"ccxd79x"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"The surface you impacted wasn't responsible for puncturing your leg. The force/friction was likely transferred through your tights, to your leg.",
"Tights aren't firmly attached to your body, so they can slip, but when skin tries to follow it tears. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4eh64c | how powerful are us states? | I'm doing some studying around, how much power US states have compared to the federal government and I'd love it explained simply. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4eh64c/eli5how_powerful_are_us_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2023a7",
"d202cnb"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"If the federal government is not given a power in the constitution, then the states get to rule on it. If the federal government is given a power, then their rules trump whatever the states say. This is explicitly stated in the [10th amendment](_URL_2_).\n\nThe powers the federal government are explicitly provided are under article 1 section 8 of the constitution, [here](_URL_0_). \n\nBecause of the necessary and proper clause in that section, the government also gets implicit powers to carry about the powers given to it. Since this part isn't explicit, it can be up to courts to decide how a particular activity is valid or invalid. \n\nThe [commerce clause](_URL_1_) in particular is an area of contention, because its full limitations are somewhat vague, and are applied in a wide range of ways. ",
"A US state can generally, though not in theory, differ from the federal government on certain issues, such as drugs or LGBT policy, however it cannot start printing its own currency or raising a separate army from the national guard, which primarily falls under federal control. So basically they're allowed moderate freedom, but they have to bureaucratically fall firmly within the federal government's system."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"
],
[]
]
|
|
2sl480 | the point of "flat-billed" hats and leaving the stickers on them | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sl480/eli5_the_point_of_flatbilled_hats_and_leaving_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnqhjqo"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"When you're poor and ashamed of being poor, trying to look like you aren't poor can seem really important to you. Some poor people decided to keep their hat brims unbent, and left the sticker on. This was to prove that they bought the hat new, rather than used from a thrift store. This trend grew very popular. Eventually, many people started emulating the style whether or not they were poor, simply because it was the popular thing to do."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1i6eau | the ability to be vague in the "ingredients" list on certain foods | I can't think of exact specifics, but we've seen them. Sometimes they say things like *"assorted spices"*. Sometimes on tiny packages they'll even have things like *"and other ingredients*". Sometimes they won't expand on a subset and other times they will *"complex ingredient (complex ingredient's subingredients)"*
If the purpose of the ingredients list, as I understand it, is to exhaustively detail what goes into the food you're eating, how can companies be vague? And what is the threshold for "too vague"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i6eau/eli5_the_ability_to_be_vague_in_the_ingredients/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb1fd0n"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The FDA has very specific rules on labeling, as can be found [here](_URL_0_)\n\nThe rules specifically address 'spices' and indicate they can be listed very generically, as \"spices\" or variations thereof. \n\nAs for why they did it that way, one can only conjecture. Industry lobbying, for one, because spices (as the example at hand) may be secret, or may change frequently, or are otherwise just too difficult to keep updated. They also make up a very small part of the product, not enough to affect anyone, and so there's really no point in listing them.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064880.htm"
]
]
|
|
230x2k | the "helicopter" sound when rear windows are rolled down. | You know when your driving down the highway or whatever, and you have the front windows down a bit, or even shut, and you roll down the backseat windows, we get that annoying noise, that kind of sounds like a helicopter. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/230x2k/eli5_the_helicopter_sound_when_rear_windows_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgsawqu",
"cgsb6xe",
"cgsbdec"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Thank Christ you hear it too!!! Everyone I ever drive with says they don't hear it!",
"It's turbulent air coming in the windows and hitting other air (or the back of the car, this happens in some cars with only 1 window rolled down) at a resonant frequency. \n\nIt doesn't happen in all cars, and it happens much worse in some cars than others. If you adjust one side's windows to be rolled up a little, it may make it go away. But in some cars, like my wife's Kia Soul, it's going to make that noise if you have any window open more than a crack at speeds over 45 mph. This makes me think it's worse if the vehicle has a flat/vertical rear window. Which makes sense to me. ",
"Air pressure constantly builds up and bounces back in the back of the car, creating pressure waves. Since sounds is essentially pressure waves to start with, it makes a loud thrumming sound each cycle. The scientific term is \"Helmholtz resonance\" and is the same effect that makes sound when you blow over the mouth of a bottle (except now you're *in* the bottle!)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
qa8wn | what's the deal with the district of columbia? | I know it's not a state. It gets electors in the Electoral College but no vote in Congress. Why is this? What holds this city-state-thing together? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qa8wn/eli5_whats_the_deal_with_the_district_of_columbia/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3vzjk6",
"c3w0cbl",
"c3w0lz2",
"c3w2bst"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"\"The land of the law makers shouldn't be subject to a state's laws\". A byproduct of this is that the citizens of such area have little representation, you could call the entire district federal land.",
"Each state is it's own government which participates in this union called the United States (\"of America\" cause that's where they are). This group of 50 governments is managed by a FEDERAL government.\n\nLet's say you're in elementary school and on the playground there are many gangs of little 7 year-olds. Each gang has it's own rules and code and style. However, to keep the gangs working together on the playground, the playground needs to be managed by a teacher. If the teacher was part of one of the gangs and bound by its rules, it wouldn't be fair for everyone else.\n\nBy analogy, this is why the Federal capital (Washington DC) is not in any state, it needs to be \"impartial\" and it's the Constitution (the \"rules of the playground\", if you will) that say this.\n\nThe Electoral College is how the states vote for new president which the Federal capital government should have a say in. However the Congress is the state's ways of changing or adding laws. Seeing as in the law-making-and-deciding process, the Federal capital is \"represented\" by the President, it doesn't have a place in the Congress too. I dunno exactly though, that's how I'd justify it though my way of putting it is certainly not a perfect argument (and nor is the US a perfect system of government).",
"The District is created under authority of the US Constitution. For a long time it was directly managed by Congress itself. It wasn't until the 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, that the District had any electoral votes. Then in 1973 the Home Rule Act was passed which created a local government body that governs the District. However, Congress still has to review the laws they pass and has authority over their budget.",
"The Constitution.\n\nArticle 1 of the US constitution outlines voting rights for Congress. Among other things, it says that only states are represented in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The District of Columbia is not a state... ergo it does not get to vote in Congress. Under Congressional rules (not the constitution), DC gets a non-voting \"delegate\" (NOT a Senator or Representative) who can vote in committee and participate in floor debate, but who cannot vote on any legislation.\n\nArticle 1 also permitted the establishment of a district *ceded* by state(s) to be the seat of government, i.e. the capital city. Virginia & Maryland ceded the land that became the District of Columbia. This put the land under the control of Congress. The portion ceded by Virginia (mostly Arlington & Alexandria, VA) was returned to that state in 1846. In other words, all of present-day DC was donated by Maryland.\n\nThis has the effect of making the national capital sort of an unorganized incorporated territory. The residents are not residents of any state but rather under the direct control of Congress - which, being made of up representatives of the states, has never cared that much.\n\nIn 1961, the 23rd amendment was passed & ratified, giving DC the same number of votes in the electoral college as the state with the fewest number of votes (currently three votes.) This is why DC residents can vote in presidential elections.\n\nIn 1973, Congress passed the home rule act, delegating many municipal functions to a city government while retaining ultimate veto power over any DC action. This is why DC residents can vote for a mayor and city council.\n\n**TL:DR;** \n\n* DC residents DO pay federal taxes (highest per capita in the US) \n\n* DC residents DO vote for President \n\n* ...but DC residents DO NOT have a Senator \n\n* ...but DC residents DO NOT have a Representative\n\nThere have been many proposals to grant Congressional voting rights to DC residents using a variety of means. \n\n* Simplest would be statehood for DC. But this goes against the idea of DC as a neutral place not in any state.\n\n* ...or Congress could return the Maryland part of DC to that state as it did with the Virginia part in 1846. DC residents would then vote for MD senators & reps. \n\n* ...or Congress could restrict \"DC\" to a minimal footprint around the federal buildings & monuments and return the rest (i.e., residents) to Maryland. \n\n* ...or DC could be granted Congressional voting rights - though not a state - by amendment. This was tried in the 70s and it failed.\n\nReasons why DC residents do not have voting rights yet: \n\n* 1. The city is majority African-American. \n\n* 2. It would likely mean 2 more Democratic senators and 1 or more additional Democratic representatives.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
49djm0 | where does the first person each season catch the flu from? | I know the flu is seasonal (influenza flu) - but it HAS to start somewhere each season. Where does that unlucky person catch it? As I understand it, the virus doesn't live too long outside of a human.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49djm0/eli5_where_does_the_first_person_each_season/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0qwsyf",
"d0qwufr"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"The flu is always going around. During the summer months, if someone with the flu sneezes outside, the flu virus sprays out from their nose and mouth, and then floats down to the grass where it doesn't get transferred to anyone.\n\nDuring winter months (flu season), the same sneeze happens in doors where other people come in contact with it, contract the flu and then proceed to spread it further.\n\ntl;dr - the flu virus is always out there spreading, it's just during flu season that humans conduct activities more conducive to spreading the virus.",
"The flu is always circulating, there are lots of flu cases during all months of the year. The quantity greatly increases during the winter months. It does not \"go extinct\" in the summer, it just becomes less prevalent."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
17m8m4 | how does the tsa continue to function despite the 4th amendment? | The fourth amendment protects from unreasonable search and seizure and yet the TSA can take your liquids if they're not clear and are larger than a certain size, can pat you down, you have to go through the body scanners, etc. How are these not considered a violation of the 4th amendment?
Note: I'm not necessarily against these precautions, however I don't see how they're constitutional. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17m8m4/how_does_the_tsa_continue_to_function_despite_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c86s9eb",
"c86sa43",
"c86toyi",
"c86xfsf"
],
"score": [
12,
32,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Nothing the TSA does is an unreasonable search or seizure, for a huge variety of reasons.\n\nFirst and foremost, nobody's required to travel by air. Going to the airport and passing through TSA security is purely a you thing; you're entirely free to *not* do that if you don't want to.\n\nSecond, TSA policies are publicly announced and uniformly applied. If they take *my* fingernail clippers, they're also going to take *your* fingernail clippers, and both of us should have known better than to bring fingernail clippers anyway, because there are clearly posted signs all over the airport telling us not to bring fingernail clippers.\n\nThird and finally, TSA policies impose only reasonable delays and inconveniences on the public. Given the importance of airline security, having to wait an extra five minutes and not being able to pack a utility knife in your carry-on back are both entirely reasonable constraints on those who choose to travel by air.",
" > The fourth amendment protects from *unreasonable* search and seizure\n\nThe lower courts have decided that what the TSA is doing is *reasonable*, and the Supreme Court hasn't said otherwise. The lower courts think it is reasonable because previous events have shown that air travel can be a danger to individual and national security, and the elevated precautions have become necessary.",
"Implied and assumed consent.",
"Because it's an elective procedure. You can decline the search.\n\nI mean, you also decline the privilege to fly in doing so."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4433xb | if the earth can be used to ground charged objects, why is dirt not a good conductor? | And where do the electrons go, if dirt doesn't conduct electricity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4433xb/eli5_if_the_earth_can_be_used_to_ground_charged/ | {
"a_id": [
"czn1rhi",
"czn6956"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"A one-inch cube of dirt will not conduct electricity very well. In technical terms, it has a high resistance. By comparison, a one-inch cube of iron, copper or gold will have a very low resistance.\n\nHowever, resistance doesn't just depend on the material - it depends on the size of the object. In particular, the higher the cross-section area of the object, the lower the resistance. A 2-inch-thick copper wire, for example, has much lower resistance than a quarter-inch-thick copper wire.\n\nThe Earth is not useful for grounding because dirt is a good conductor in general, but because the Earth is huge.",
"It's more to do with surface area. Dirt doesn't conduct well unless it's rich in minerals like iron or copper. Moisture helps. Think of it in terms of ohms per square cm. Whatever area you have in contact with the earth is parallel resistance. A large enough metal rod can be essentially a short to ground. And it doesn't really take much, a few feet will do. The earth is at ground potential by definition. A good way to get a good ground is to use a water pipe. The pipe is a very good conductor and is in contact with earth for it's entire length. Everything conducts to some degree. The electrons go from whatever is more negative to whatever is more positive. They just dissipate into the earth (or from). When you pour water on the ground where does it go? It just seeks the lowest point. But electricity moves at nearly the speed of light. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
7jpogq | why is it not possible to have drugs like mdma in the body indefinitely so you can have good feelings and keep the serotonin levels high? | The effects lasts for hours but is it possible to feel euphoria permanently?
> Because the levels of this feel good chemical increase well beyond its normal threshold, when the drug leaves the body, the levels of serotonin plummet, often leaving the drug user in withdrawal.
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jpogq/eli5_why_is_it_not_possible_to_have_drugs_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr882z9"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Mdma triggers your brain to release all its serotonin at once, essentially. You only have a limited amount. When the effects of the drug wear off, your brain rubber bands and takes it all back in and then some, leaving you out of balance, in a process called reuptake. This is what causes the depression afterwards. \n\nThis is also why a serotonin reuptake inhibitor works for depression, it blocks the receptors that take back serotonin, leaving more active serotonin than your brain normally regulates. \n\nToo much mdma can cause serotonin syndrome, which can affect your ability to regulate body temp among other things, and it can kill you. It's actually a good thing mdma only works so much, else we'd have a lot more injuries. While mdma rarely is the direct cause of death, it's effects on other systems can be. \n"
]
} | []
| [
"http://psychedelics.com/mdma/what-is-suicide-tuesday/"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
9ymtbu | why does copyright last so long if companys dont make money from their old products anymore since they're most likely discontinued? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ymtbu/eli5_why_does_copyright_last_so_long_if_companys/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea2iyi7",
"ea2jmf6",
"ea3vlxm"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the companies that push to make copyrights last forever are the companies that continue to profit from their works from long ago. Why would Disney want Mickie Mouse to be public domain? ",
"Because some things *aren't* discontinued. Like Mickey Mouse, Disney can still sell all kinds of merch about a cartoon character that's 90 years old. We'll set aside all the hubbub about corporations and their abuses real or imagined against the copyright system. Maybe you wrote a book, and receive royalties on it, and if you die then perhaps your kids can still continue to receive royalties on it through your estate.\n\nBut copyright extends to many things. Software code for example. There are many things from decades past still running such as old mainframes in banks, or things written new but incorporating old code to build upon. Or a painting, if you painted a masterpiece at the age of 19, you can still get royalties from places reproducing your painting to sell at age 85. Or movies, it seems like every time a new standard for home video comes out, companies release their popular works and classics on the new medium like Blu-Ray, even if they've stopped pressing DVDs of it years ago.\n\nIt gives you the option to continue marketing and profiting from your creative work. Whether you decide to continue to license your play for Broadway shows or not is up to you.",
"It's true that *most* things stop being profitable before their copyright runs out, but some things don't, so there's still an argument for extending the copyright term, even if it's not very good. \n\nCopyright is all about ensuring that creators are compensated enough to want to create. For a period of time, nobody can reproduce your work without your permission, so you can either be the only person who sells your creation or sell your permission to others. The length of copyright determines how long you can milk that income stream, so the longer it is, the more you stand to earn. In theory, some things are created under 95-year copyright that wouldn't be created under 75-year copyright. The creator would look at the potential income and say \"Eh, not worth the effort\". \n\nHowever, you make a good point about how most things stop generating revenue before the current copyright term ends. This means that the additional benefits to a creator from extending the copyright even further are quite small, because they only matter in the unlikely event that a creation is still viable 95 years later. If I'm drawing a cartoon character, and there's only a 0.000001% chance that it will be a smash success on the level of Mickey Mouse, increasing my earnings in just that event doesn't increase my *expected* earnings that much, and that's what determines whether I bother to draw the character. \n\nAs to why the copyright term *actually* became so long, it was at the behest of companies like Disney who controlled properties that they already knew had enduring appeal. They care a lot about how much a smash success can earn because they've collected a bunch of them. The ironic thing is that all of those properties were created under shorter copyright terms, so we know for a fact that we didn't need 95-year copyright to incentive them! The last 20 years of Mickey Mouse-based profits have been pure corporate welfare. \n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7d6omo | to what extent, if any, does the large amount of space debris around earth affect global warming? | I was watching a space debris video here...
> _URL_0_
...and was thinking about the micro copper filament experiment in the 20th century. If there is no significant affect by space debris on global warming, how much debris might be needed to see an affect? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7d6omo/eli5_to_what_extent_if_any_does_the_large_amount/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpvfhau",
"dpvfjge"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Very little right now. You would need enough debris in orbit to make space flight impossible, and it would cause bigger problems for our weather patterns.",
"We would need to actively blot out portions of sunlight, and we aren't even close. The key bit about green house gas emissions is that they don't block incoming and outgoing energy evenly. They block outgoing energy while letting incoming solar radiation pass.\n\nSo overall space debris would cool the eart, but it would need to cast literal shade to do so."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/gse/ESA_Space_Debris_Office"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4g9sxg | why do many people, when in a rested position, rapidly tap their feet? | I find many people (including myself) tapping away at their feet seemingly uncontrollably while they sit or lie back. Is it something to do with ADD? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4g9sxg/eli5_why_do_many_people_when_in_a_rested_position/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2fpc4o",
"d2g9ypj"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Restless leg syndrome. It's just a compulsion, we kinda feel an urge coming, and then when we do it, it gives a sense of relief. ",
"It's not RLS. It's what is mostly referred to as \"nervous energy\" or hyperactivity. It is something I do but not always. I was a highly energetic child growing up. I loved rocking chairs. Even now, as an adult, when I'm lying in bed, if I don't fall asleep immediately, which often I do not, I am moving my feet from side to side. In the gym, between sets, I'm sitting on the bench rocking back and forth, like some kind of psychotic contemplating my revenge or something. It's just a desire or need to be moving. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
6wui5z | with all of the flooding in texas how are people not being electrocuted staying in their houses, standing in water near electrical outlets? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wui5z/eli5_with_all_of_the_flooding_in_texas_how_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmauolu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When a short is caused on the electrical grid, the local breaker goes. Thus, there's generally not electricity where flooding has reached the electrical wiring.\n\nWater is actually an insulator, but dirty water is conductive. Humans are more conductive, so the issue isn't really standing in water, it's standing in water that has an electrical current running through it. Since the breaker should go when the current is flowing directly out into the water, there's minimal risk to people standing in the water."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
x4x2e | automobile turbochargers & intercoolers, and how they work together. | I know the basic principles, but to hear it again from someone else would be benficial.
Turbo's force fuel into the engine, and the intercooler recycles the air that's being expelled?
Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x4x2e/eli5_automobile_turbochargers_intercoolers_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5j7vc5"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Turbos force air into the engine. It is, by definition, an air compressor.\n\nWhen you compress something, it gets hot. Inflate a tire with a bicycle pump and feel the pump cylinder after the fact...\n\nInnercoolers are heat exchangers, radiators, that come inline after the turbo charger, after the air has been compressed. By cooling the now extremely hot air, it becomes denser. Denser air means more air can be packed into the cylinder. More air, more fuel, more power..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
qom1q | the differences between vga, dvi, and hdmi | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qom1q/eli5_the_differences_between_vga_dvi_and_hdmi/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3z7rsj",
"c3z7srz",
"c3z8biv",
"c3z8h4n",
"c3z9c5w"
],
"score": [
159,
5,
9,
16,
4
],
"text": [
"**VGA** is an analog video signal, as opposed to a digital signal. A digital signal is when you send the image as a stream of zeroes and ones. An analog signal is when the image is converted into a wave that represents the analog brightness of every spot on the screen. \n\nDigital is better because if a digital signal is slightly deformed but still readable, the image will be perfect. If an analog signal is slightly deformed, then the image will be slightly deformed.\n\n**DVI** is a format that supports digital and analog signal. The goal was to make a digital standard, while keeping a compatibility with the old VGA standard. So you can find [adapters](_URL_0_) that allow you to send a VGA signal to a DVI connector (it will use the analog ability of DVI though, it will not turn it into a digital signal).\n\n**HDMI** is an extension on the DVI digital format. HDMI is only digital, it does not support analog signals. It is compatible with the DVI digital format, and you'll find [adapters](_URL_1_) that allow you to send a digital DVI signal to a HDMI connector.\n\nBut HDMI is more than just DVI with a different connector. It adds more functionalities: it supports another color space (another way to encode the pictures), it supports signal encryption, it can send digital audio as well as the picture, HDMI devices can talk to each other through the cable...\n",
"VGA is analog, has been in use since the 80's.\n\n\nDVI is analog/digital, supports much higher resolution, and since about 2000 has been replacing VGA.\n\n\nHDMI is also digital, is very much like DVI, but also supports audio as well as video.\n\n",
"Then why does HDMI from my laptop to my flat screen look awful, but VGA looks great? Perhaps because the screen is only \"HD compatible\" and not true HD?",
"The plugs \n-\n\nVGA is a plug with only an analog channel.\n\nDVI is a plug that can be used in three ways. There's an analog channel (equal to VGA) that you can use to transport analog content over it, there's a regular-sized digital channel that you can use to transport digital content and there's a double-sized digital channel for images that are too heavy for the regular channel.\n\nHDMI is a plug with a single regular-sized digital channel, an audio channel and an arbitrary-data-channel. The digital channel is pretty much equal to the DVI regular-sized digital channel. The audio and arbitrary data aren't on the DVI plug though.\n\nDP is a plug that contains a single digital channel that's very different from DVI and HDMI. There's a variant, called DP++ which contains a DP digital channel and a DVI regular-sized digital channel, where you can use cheap converter plugs to use either of the channels.\n\nThe channels \n-\n\nThe analog channel transmits a flow of data that contains an image per timeinterval. It has no concept of pixels in fact; it's a continuous stream where only the frames and lines are delineated. It contains space for your analog monitor's analog components to catch up, so between lines and between frames there's a fairly large pause.\n\nThe digital channel that DVI and HDMI use are basically the analog channel pre-sampled at a prefixed rate and then sent out as a digital signal. The pauses in the analog signal that only make sense for analog devices are also present (!).\n\nThe DP digital channel contains all the information that DVI and HDMI would transmit but not in a continuous-data-stream format but instead in a packetized format. It therefore easily drops the pauses in the DVI/HDMI/VGA data streams.\n\nThe use \n-\n\nIn basis you can use whatever cable or connector you want to connect things together. As long as there is one type of signal that the source transmits, the cable can carry and the target can receive it will work. So stacking a VGA to DVI and a DVI to HDMI converter won't work, because there's no full path that makes it through these converters. \n\nThere are things called \"active converter\" which actually read a signal and transmit a completely different signal. These do allow you to connect arbitrary things together with whatever cables you can connect to them. For instance, you use these to tie analog-only devices to digital-only transmitters, or DP-only transmitters (new ATI video cards) to DVI-only receivers (older monitors).",
"Since we're discussing all of the display connectivity standards, let's add DisplayPort and Thunderbolt onto this. How do those figure in?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411VFP0HAZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg",
"http://www.2direkt.de/i-sell2u/images/bilder/AH0001.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
162wie | polysexuality | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/162wie/eli5_polysexuality/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7s83zz",
"c7s8eg8",
"c7s9v96",
"c7sf5bm"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Do you mean Pansexuality?",
"The simple version is that polysexuality is just sexual attraction to multiple genders and usually, thought not *necessarily*, both sexes. The [wikipedia article](_URL_0_) states that:\n\n > Polysexual is a sexual identity \"used by people who recognize that the term bisexual reifies the gender dichotomy that underlies the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, implying that bisexuality is nothing more than a hybrid combination of these gender and sexual dichotomies.\"[2]\n\nSo polysexual people don't care as much about sex and gender as bisexual people. They see the strict categories of male and female as being too restrictive, but they are not fully gender blind in the way that pansexual people are.",
"[Maybe this will help?](_URL_0_)",
"Polysexuality is like the little cousin of Pansexuality. They are similar, but there is a very distinct difference.\n\nPolysexuality encompasses a love for many different kinds of people. Unlike bisexuality, it encompasses more than just loving men or women. However, there is a limit. Poly means \"many\", implying a limit. Pan means \"all\". Pansexuality has no limit to human sexuality, and embraces all kinds of attraction, for people who identify as genderqueer, asexual, male, female, etc. \n\nDoes that clear things up? "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysexuality"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv5k9w6Hpi4"
],
[]
]
|
||
4j8rje | how is an ollie even possible with a skateboard? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j8rje/eli5_how_is_an_ollie_even_possible_with_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d34n393"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Start with a skateboard on the ground:\n\n _\n\nWith your right foot, press on the back of the skateboard so that the left tip rises:\n\n \\\n\nOptional: The rising edge of the left side of the board is now firmly pressing against your left foot. You can move your left foot upwards to drag the board higher due to friction for a higher ollie.\n\nNow, you press the left tip downwards with your left foot. Since the center of gravity of the board is in the very center, the board moves like a seesaw in mid air:\n\n —\n\nNow your board has some height! When it falls, it returns to it's original position:\n\n _\n\nTL;DR:\n\n _ \\ — _"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
a8r2fj | how did we human know what bacteria and virus cell made up of? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8r2fj/eli5_how_did_we_human_know_what_bacteria_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"eccyee5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"We can easily observe bacteria with microscopes. Viruses are much smaller, and usually require electron microscopes to see. Before this, we could determine what they were made of by cultivating them (breeding them) and putting them in a centrifuge. This allows us to separate out components of cells for individual observation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
bsw6gt | how does electrocution in water work? | It’s well known that it’s deadly if you drop a toaster in a bathtub, but what happens if someone drops it in a large swimming pool? What happens when lightning strikes the ocean? Will it kill fish or people in the nearby vicinity? Also why does this electrocute you in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsw6gt/eli5_how_does_electrocution_in_water_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"eor7vfj"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Let's understand principles first. \n1. The maximum current flow will occur along the path of least resistance.\nThat is it. \n\nNow consider your first scenario.\nIn bathtub, when live wire(the one that is at high alternating voltage) touches the water, it will find the path of least resistance. This could be a path in water to say the drain pipe which is solid metal and is connected to your plumbing system which is usually at ground potential. Now this could provide a path of least resistance and you will not be harmed. However, say you or your limbs provide a path of least resistance, the current flow through your body will kill you because this amount of current actually generates a lot of heat which reduces your body's resistance and allows more current to flow to cook you 'ripe'. The case in swimming pool and bath tub is same except that the chances of current flowing to ground are high due to multiple holes dug in it(for electrical and plumbing outlets). The video in the following link will help you understand.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nHow does it kill?\nWell the current basically wreaks havoc on your nervous system. Consider that you pass such high current through a wire that is not designed to tolerate such high current. This causes burns too since your body heats up. Also, major risk of electrocution is fibrillation. Consider, your heart like a drum beating at a constant rate and some powerful elephant grabs the drummer by its trunk and bangs him on the drum black and blue with its own random rhythm. Surely, your heart is not working as it should and this loss of rhythm is called fibrillation. This is what kills people in majority of scenarios due to electrocution.\n\nNow let's see how our friends in the ocean are doing.\nWhen the lightning strikes ocean, the huge current flowing through atmosphere to the ocean which then discharges via path of least resistance. Now for current to harm fishes it actually has to travel below the surface where fishes usually are.\n\nAlso majority of the current flows along the surface of water. ( I will try to get back to you with\nELI5 version of this). \nHence the current harms only certain fish within the area.\nThe following link discusses the probability of harm.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://youtu.be/-9dNmFEn3iY",
"https://youtu.be/6Dd6_TghcE0"
]
]
|
|
98ppdm | - why does a half moon look like a straight line down the center of the moon while a quarter moon shows the curve of the earth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98ppdm/eli5_why_does_a_half_moon_look_like_a_straight/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4huioj",
"e4hwr7b",
"e4ia8g9"
],
"score": [
25,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"A quarter moon doesn't show the curve of the earth, it shows the curve of the moon!\n\nThe dark part of the moon is shaded by the moon itself in the same way that if you stood facing a bright light your front half would be lit but your back would be dark so someone looking at you from the side would see you being half lit and someone looking at you from an angle would see an odd line from where your body shades itself.",
"Take a ball that has a seam in it, like a plastic one made from two halves, hold it with finger and thumb on the seam at opposite sides, and slowly spin the ball. When the seam is closer to the visible edge, it looks more curved. When the seam is right in the middle of the visible half, it looks straight.\n\nIt's the same, but the seam in this case is the edge of the sun's light (the sunrise/sunset on the moon).",
"I think you may be misunderstanding what is actually going on with the moon's phases. \nThe moon's phases are seen because the sun is illuminating one half of the moon (which is a sphere), while we on earth are viewing this sphere from different angles. \nWhen the earth is between the sun and the moon (not in a perfectly straight line) we see a full moon. \nWhen the earth and the moon are approximately the same distance from the sun, we see the moon with \"a straight line down the center\". \nAs the moon moves closer to the sun than the earth, we see more and more of the side that is not illuminated by the sun, this is where we see a crescent shape. \nYou can simulate this for yourself at home with any sphere (basketball, piece of fruit, etc) and a flashlight. \n\nIt is reasonably rare that the sun, earth and moon form a straight line, however when it does happen, we call this a lunar eclipse. In this situation we actually do see the curve of the earth on the moon. \nWhen the moon is closer to the sun than the earth and the sun, moon and earth form a straight line, the moon actually blocks out the sun, this is a different type of eclipse, called a solar eclipse. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.