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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
k6o1j | - how do lightbulbs know the correct wattage to draw from the electrical current. | How does a 60 watt bulb and 20 watt bulb fit into the same socket yet know to draw more or less amps? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k6o1j/eli5_how_do_lightbulbs_know_the_correct_wattage/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2hwx07",
"c2hxawq",
"c2hxbpj",
"c2hwx07",
"c2hxawq",
"c2hxbpj"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
8,
2,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Wattage is the measure of energy used per time, expressed as joules per second. Amperage is a measure of how much charge is flowing through the wire, expressed in coulombs per second.\n\nIn your house, you will have many different devices that all draw different wattages and currents, but they all are made to run on the same voltage (Joules per coulomb), which is 110V in the US and 240V in other places.\n\nThe wattage of each device is then determined by the voltage that goes to your house and the resistance of each device, using the formula P=V^2/R. Since all the devices run on the same voltage, they have to be made with different resistances to draw different amounts of power.\n\nFor your 60 watt bulb, you can get resistance by dividing 110^2 /60 to get a resistance of 201 Ohms. Once you know the resistance, it's easy to find the current that it draws using V=I*R (.54 Amps).",
"There is a mathematical relationship between voltage, amperage, wattage and electrical resistance. \n\nTo get a 60 watt bulb you have to have a bulb that draws .5454 amps on a 110 volt line (which is what your house has for lamps). That is because watts = amps X volts.\n\nSo you know how many amps this bulb has to draw so how do you get a bulb to draw .5454 amps? You add resistance to the circuit (bulb). To get the correct amount of resistance for a .5454 amp 60 watt bulb on a 110 volt line you need 201 ohms of resistance. We know this because resistance = volts/amps. \n\n\n",
"Just as your garden hose can have different size nozzles, but the nozzle doesn't know how much water to spray, that's determined by the size of the nozzle. \n\nThe filament in the light resists electrical current. Different filaments offer different resistances. More resistance means less electrical flow, means less light, means lower wattage.\n",
"Wattage is the measure of energy used per time, expressed as joules per second. Amperage is a measure of how much charge is flowing through the wire, expressed in coulombs per second.\n\nIn your house, you will have many different devices that all draw different wattages and currents, but they all are made to run on the same voltage (Joules per coulomb), which is 110V in the US and 240V in other places.\n\nThe wattage of each device is then determined by the voltage that goes to your house and the resistance of each device, using the formula P=V^2/R. Since all the devices run on the same voltage, they have to be made with different resistances to draw different amounts of power.\n\nFor your 60 watt bulb, you can get resistance by dividing 110^2 /60 to get a resistance of 201 Ohms. Once you know the resistance, it's easy to find the current that it draws using V=I*R (.54 Amps).",
"There is a mathematical relationship between voltage, amperage, wattage and electrical resistance. \n\nTo get a 60 watt bulb you have to have a bulb that draws .5454 amps on a 110 volt line (which is what your house has for lamps). That is because watts = amps X volts.\n\nSo you know how many amps this bulb has to draw so how do you get a bulb to draw .5454 amps? You add resistance to the circuit (bulb). To get the correct amount of resistance for a .5454 amp 60 watt bulb on a 110 volt line you need 201 ohms of resistance. We know this because resistance = volts/amps. \n\n\n",
"Just as your garden hose can have different size nozzles, but the nozzle doesn't know how much water to spray, that's determined by the size of the nozzle. \n\nThe filament in the light resists electrical current. Different filaments offer different resistances. More resistance means less electrical flow, means less light, means lower wattage.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6ddvek | why are cold showers considered healthy, yet going outside under-dressed puts you at risk of illness? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ddvek/eli5_why_are_cold_showers_considered_healthy_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"di1w8wy",
"di1w9ex"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1. Science has successfully challenged the notion that colds come from being cold. \n\n2. Cold showers are temporary, but if one is trying to do it for health, they should be warm, cold, warm, cold, etc. Cold for perhaps 30 seconds and then hot/warm for 30 seconds, back and forth.",
"I'm no expert, but I think one time I read that cold weather itself isn't actually a cause for illness. For instance, catching a cold isn't because it is cold.\n\nRather, cold weather keeps people indoors and also tends to just be a \"bah-humbug\" on the body, thus as people get more cabin fever, their bodies lose its drive, so even the sniffles get exaggerated because we don't feel like fighting it off...at least I think that's what I remember reading. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
6cvbnk | how is wood kept dry when building a building and it rains? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cvbnk/eli5_how_is_wood_kept_dry_when_building_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhxn45u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Build it as quick as you can when the weather is good then by the time it rains you hope it's got a roof, if it's going to be a drenching rain cover the roof with plastic. \n\nMost of the time water doesn't matter as much when the building is together because the wood is braced and joined in a structurally sound way, not allowing it to warp and it's more of an issue when the lumber is free because you can't hold it in shape. \n\nThink about how you form lumber into curves, you get it wet and then clamp it into a form, as it dries it keeps the forms shape. The whole building is the form."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3gei8n | how do people get "used to" the cold? | I was just recently in a snow town and when I ask locals how they can be wearing a shirt, their response is usually, I'm used to it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gei8n/eli5_how_do_people_get_used_to_the_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctxe3xc",
"ctxfq4u",
"ctxjrfw",
"ctxkkts",
"ctxm35n"
],
"score": [
45,
32,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Body temperature regulation is controlled by a part of the brain called the hypothalamus (which also does a lot of other things). The \"normal\" temperature range where you feel comfortable is determined by what temperatures you are exposed to most often. But there's an even bigger range of temperatures that it's possible to feel comfortable at, and your \"normal\" temperature can move around within that range depending on your surroundings. ",
"I grew up in, and currently live, in Michigan. If I were to step outside tomorrow in the middle of August and it were 50 degrees, I would shiver and go back inside for a light jacket. However, in the middle of winter, when it can be - 20 for two weeks with 3 feet of snow and everybody just gets on with their lives, 50 degrees would feel like summer and I'd easily go around in a t shirt. \n\nTry putting one hand under hot water and the other under cold water for a few minutes, then put both in lukewarm water that is the same temperature. Your hands will feel like they are experiencing different temperatures because they are comparing them to other stimulus. The same thing happens on a bigger scale; if you feel cold but others don't, chances are they've experienced a lot of temperatures much colder and don't feel as cold at that moment by comparison.",
"Exposure is a good start. Do a tough mudder, experience \"Arctic enema\" and you won't feel cold for a year.\n\nThe principle holds true for sensitive teeth, too. If you rinse out with cold tap water every day and take the pain, you will soon be able to chew ice cream.",
"Minnesotan here, your body adapts in various ways, less blood flow to extremities, change in metabolism. You can only adapt so much though and the toughest flesh becomes quite frosty and solid though, I used to be a real tough guy, froze my nose a few times inhaling too much too cold air before i figured out what was going on. ",
"You've gotten some good posts, but I want to add that it works in reverse, too. I live in a very cold-climate area. When people from my area go somewhere with a much warmer climate, they often find it harder to deal with than the locals do. My sister-in-law complains that it's too hot when it gets to 25 degrees (77 Fahrenheit)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6egcpa | how do treasury auctions work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6egcpa/eli5_how_do_treasury_auctions_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dia2k17"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pirate calls Auctioneer. \n\nPirate and Auctioneer negotiate price. \n\nAuctioneer auctions off booty for more than agreed upon price. \n\nPirate decides he doesn't want to sell booty. \n\nAuctioneer and Pirate argue. \n\nPirate steals booty. \n\nPirate always wins."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8slkxm | the difference between eating 1500 calories without exercise vs eating 1800 calories and burning 300 calories with exercise for a man with a bmr of 1800? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8slkxm/eli5_the_difference_between_eating_1500_calories/ | {
"a_id": [
"e10es6b",
"e10fbn9"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You build muscle and stimulate fat loss with exercise and burning calories. You can still lose weight by eating less, but if you also exercise you lower your risk for a lot of diseases related to your heart. Just my best guess honestly, I am not an expert on this at all. ",
"In regards to weight loss, nothing (not counting the previously mentioned muscle loss and disease prevention). It's a touch hard to always be sure about how many calories you are burning, at least off the bat, so it takes a bit more trial and error to figure out where exactly you burn 300calories vs just eating 300 calories less."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
8z5jp2 | what reactions does the body have to a haircut ? | I've always found that, even during a quick trim, after about a dozen 'snips', there's a "warm buzz" sensation in me head.
I assume there's some sort of enzyme or hormonal reaction going on to this unexpected snippage ?
I tried asking this a couple years ago ( perhaps poorly ? ) and didn't get much more in the reactions than "I'll have what *you're* smoking" and such.
So maybe consider that covered ?
I can't be alone in this, no ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8z5jp2/eli5what_reactions_does_the_body_have_to_a_haircut/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2g80ym",
"e2g8dbm",
"e2g8r2a",
"e2gcqlr",
"e2gjdru",
"e2gl73f"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm afraid this really is just you. The body doesn't have any particular reactions to a haircut.",
"There are no nerves, etc. It's more likely you are, for some reason, reacting to the touch or closeness of the them. Anxiety, nervousness, attraction,embarrassment. Like blushing, blood rushes to the surface creating a warm, tingling sensation. I'd guess that's what is happening. ",
"People sometimes experience this (usually described as pleasant sensation) as a result of having their hair groomed. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense as a leftover social behavior of apes picking bugs out of each others fur.",
"Hair is not a body part, and doesn't have any nerves.\n\n\nThe body really has no reaction. The warm buzz is likely from friction heat from the trimmer.",
"If you have long hair, it can feel a bit different after having hair cut. I can notice the weight difference on my head",
"Your hair (except at the follicle) is dead material. It has no nerves. The act of cutting hair is not something you can feel. \n \nBut you can feel the hair being moved due to the nerves in your scalp. You may have a very sensitive scalp. Check out the device that /u/TunnockTeacake suggested. They are cheap and simple, but the sensations that they elicit can be overwhelming. I suspect that you will either really like it, or really hate it. It helps to have someone else use it on you, for some reason. (Maybe the same reason that you can't tickle yourself.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3qetny | how come sometimes when you roll your ankle you can just walk it off, but other times it hurts like crazy and needs days to heal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qetny/eli5_how_come_sometimes_when_you_roll_your_ankle/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwei099",
"cwei25d"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the same reason you can bash your elbow (funny bone) resulting in mild pain, but slamming your hand full force in to concrete will fracture bones. \n\nNot all injuries are equal, and not all injuries are as easy to shake off. \n\nI'm not a Doctor, I just hate twisting my ankle. ",
"Its usually a question of how much you injure it. If you break/tear something it takes longer than if you just push it a little too far."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
88g70o | how does wifi work with multiple devices? | Is the speed split evenly? is it downloading and sending a certain amount per device like 10kb for you, 10kb for you. Does my streaming a movie slow down others while it focuses on large files, or does it slow it for me as well evenly? Is there a limit to amount of devices? How does it know which device to send the next packet of info to when there are many connected.....so many questions, please ELI5 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88g70o/eli5how_does_wifi_work_with_multiple_devices/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwkdbf6"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Imagine wifi like a post office. \n\nEach device connected is like a different customer. It has a different name to the others and has its own little box items get sent to and from. \n\nThere is a team of workers called “Bandwidth” - these guys move the mail to and from the cargo bay, delivering or receiving packages from customers (devices). \n\nNow.. depending on how much they’re paid, the Bandwidth team can only move a certain amount of packages at a time. \nAs a default they try to deliver equal amounts of packages to and from each customer. But there are times when the manager (ISP/Admin) tell the Bandwidth team to put a priority focus on certain customers - allowing them to send off and receive packages at a higher pace than others. \n\nThe manager/depot also decide whether or not, and what, the limit to the amount of customers they can serve at once. This varies by post office though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
b0uwfa | how does soil liquefaction work? | Just saw a .gif showing the earth acting like jello, but Wikipedia is using big person language that's making my brain hurt. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b0uwfa/eli5_how_does_soil_liquefaction_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"eihdbas"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Soil is little grains. It's firm because when you press it the grains push against each other to resist you. Water can mix in with the grains, increasing the space between the grains. A little water lets the grains shift a little, until they can't get past each other, and they lock up to resist you. If too much water gets mixed in, the water gap can become larger than a grain. When this happens, the grains slip past each other, and the ground acts like a liquid, rather than a firm solid. The term for this is \"liquefaction\" or \"liquid like action\".\n\nSome soil, considered sandy soil, has big ole grains you can see. These babies are not able to absorb enough water to liquefy. That's why we use sand and crushed rocks to make the supports for roads, they are very resistant to liquefaction.\n\nOther soil, considered clay soil, is made of super-small grains. When you feel wet clay on your skin, you can feel it is slippery because very small grains mean small amounts of water is enough."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
fympjo | why do you stop getting 'stitches' when running as you get older and/or have been a runner for longer? | My 19 year old daughter had started running again ('couch to 5k') after having not really done much exercise for six years (she used to be a good junior runner). She gets terrible stitches and I really feel for her.
My wife and I have run since we were young and we both remember getting a lot of stitches when we were in our teens and early twenties, but can't remember when we last had one - probably decades ago.
What is it that changes? I wondered if it was core strength, but I don't think I've got much core strength! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fympjo/eli5_why_do_you_stop_getting_stitches_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn0qgpo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Stitches are more or less muscle cramps in the muscles that help you breathe, the more you exercise, the stronger and more endurance they get just like any other muscle"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2g7kwq | when dinosaurs went extinct, how can scientist say that they evolved into birds? | I'm no expert but doesn't an E.L.E. (extinction level event, thanks Deep Impact) pretty much wipes out everything that can't survive? Wouldn't it take a really really long time for a Dinosaur to evolve into a birds as we know it today? Wouldn't they have died out long before they had a chance to?
Edit: Thank you for dropping knowledge asteroids on me! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g7kwq/eli5_when_dinosaurs_went_extinct_how_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckgd92e",
"ckgdaly",
"ckgdbot",
"ckgdhg7"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
29,
2
],
"text": [
"By the time of that meteor, many types of dinosaurs had already evolved into birds. Birds and dinosaurs lived side by side for quite a while.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Put it this way, *homo habilis* is extinct, but there are still humans. Extinction doesn't just happen when a meteor hits, or when humans over-farm. Sometimes the species you develop into just beats out the members of the old species.\n\nThe extinction event that ended the Mesozoic and the rule of the dinosaurs put a lot of them directly on the extinction list, but some of them survived and, in response to new environments, underwent change brought on by selection pressure. The few species that survived have had 65 million years to evolve into a multitude of new things, and these new things survived, while the ones that stayed more \"dinosaur-like\" eventually died out. We call those dinosaurs' descendants \"birds.\"",
"The extinction event that we describe as wiping out dinosaurs didn't kill everything. At the time there were dinosaurs that were markedly birdlike. Some of these survived, and have subsequently evolved into the modern form of what we call birds today. \n\nIf you wanted to be technical, you can in fact say that dinosaurs are not extinct, as birds would thus qualify as dinosaurs. \n\nLikewise, small shrew like antecedents to modern day mammals survived, evolving into the mammalia we see today, including ourselves. \n\nThe extinction event did not 'reset the clock' back to the origin of life, essentially, it simply eliminated a significant amount of the existing species. ",
"In order to better understand this, we need to understanding the definition of an extinction level event.\n\nAn extinction level event do not wipe out ALL life on Earth, rather, it is a widespread and rapid decrease in the amount of life on Earth. Therefore, this does not mean that in an extinction event 100% of all lifeforms are wiped out and Earth is completely uninhabited.\n\nBased on a quick search on the internet (wikipedia), we can learn that the extinction event did not wipe out everything on Earth, however, it did wipe out almost all the dinosaurs. \n\nThe \"almost\" is important as somehow, the avian dinosaurs survived. Scientist later on found that the birds that exist today have ancestors that survived the extinction event."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://youtu.be/vNZF6ynlyxM"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1lu6sb | why does cigarette smoke rise in a straight column then become wiggly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lu6sb/eli5_why_does_cigarette_smoke_rise_in_a_straight/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc2sobn"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Hot air, as everyone knows, rises. So immediately above the burning tip of a cigarette, the air is very hot. And because it's hot it rises quickly and carries the smoke with it in a straight line.\n\nAs it rises the hot air begins to cool and therefore starts to slow down. Eventually it slows down enough that the air it's moving into begins to cause air resistance to the rising hot air and smoke. Because of this it starts to move in little swirls or eddies, and we see the smoke line become wiggly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
dm94cf | - why do humans generally tend to prefer “complimentary” color schemes? is there a particular reason our brains almost systematically reject pairings of colors that don’t seem to “go together”, especially in living environments? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dm94cf/eli5_why_do_humans_generally_tend_to_prefer/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4yqsk4",
"f4z274j",
"f4z4iy0"
],
"score": [
4,
383,
28
],
"text": [
"In terms of complimentary colors I believe it has to do with contrast. Since they are polar opposites on the color wheel it means they are the furthest away from each other, Think blue/orange red/green yellow/purple",
"The complementary colors are opposites - red/green, blue/(yellow/orange) - as you noted. This is fundamental to why we prefer them together and can be illustrated by \"aftereffect\" or \"afterimage\"...\n\nEssentially, when seeing a particular color, the receptors in your eyes that detect that color fatigue and strain -- as they do, they detect less and less of that color. If you stare at a red dot for 30 seconds, and then look to a white area, you'll see a green dot aftereffect. This green dot is the result of the red receptors in your eyes being fatigued and not detecting the red light in the white area -- leaving reds opposite to \"over detect\" (or appear to).\n\nWhen we pair these two colors with each other, we in effect, make it easier on our eyes to delineate the contrasting areas. (We strain the opposite receptors at the same time). It leads to brighter contrasts and less blurring in your vision.",
"You have Red, green and blue receptors for colour in your eyes. \n\nEvery colour we see is made from a mixture of those three colours, since those are the wavelengths of light that those receptors can detect.\n\nWhen you see something Blue, your blue receptors start sending signals to your brain that say \"BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE\".\n\nIf you keep staring at something blue the receptors start to get tired, and it's more like \"Blue blue... Blue.... still blue\" and they get start sending a lot less blue signal.\n\nWhen your receptors get tired that blue starts to look a bit washed out. If you stare at something blue for a while and then look at a white wall, you will see a yellow after-image.\n\nThe reason that you see yellow is because the other receptors - red and green - are still fresh and sending their signals just fine taking turns shouting \"RED! GREEN!!\".\n\nWhite is just a combination of all 3 primary colours. When the blue receptors are tired and all you are picking up now is red and green, they mix and give you a yellow result, which is why you end up with that yellow after image.\n\nNow after you stare at something blue, instead of looking at a white wall, look at something yellow. Because your blue receptors are tired you will see a very pure yellow. Since blue isn't a part of yellow, any little bits of blue light that you see in there are going to alter the colour a bit and make the yellow look sort of washed out (since adding blue to a combination of red and green will just make white).\n\nYou can swap any of the complementary colours in this scenario and it still works.\n\nI believe that when you see something with complementary colours like blue and yellow you find it more pleasing because you are getting a more pure colour signal of each being sent to your brain.\n\nAs for why your brain finds that pleasing I can't really say, but I imagine it has something to do with your brain being lazy, since most things with your body tend to be about being more lazy (or efficient).\n\nIt's probably literally easier on your eyes to look at complementary colours since your receptors will get breaks sending signals as your eyes look at the opposing colours."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2rvzhy | why do most subreddits ban witch hunts? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rvzhy/eli5_why_do_most_subreddits_ban_witch_hunts/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnjrwpz",
"cnjrx8m",
"cnjs1t8"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because whether there is evidence for something or not, mob justice is cruel and it doesn't really care about evidence anyway.",
"Witch hunts usually involve the posting of personal information, which is against one of the few reddit-wide rules. Subreddits don't have a choice.",
"It's too easy to finger the wrong person.\n\nIt's too easy for some vigilante with a screw loose to go do \"unpleasant\" things to the person identified (innocent or guilty). Vigilantism is strongly discouraged in modern society.\n\nIt's too easy for a subreddit to be duped into finding somebody for the wrong reason (think psycho-stalker ex-boyfriend who wants to murder somebody).\n\n...and if you get it wrong, somebody's name, face & personal information are forever online as \"that dude that did some bad shit\", even if they turn out to be innocent.\n\nIf you have actual information which may be of use to law enforcement **you should give that information to the police** rather than posting it to an online forum for millions of people.\n\nBasically - there's too many things that can go wrong with a disorganized mo trying to find \"justice\". If law enforcement needs help, they can ask for it officially."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
365e3b | who are the rohingya people? how come i almost never hear about them? even here on reddit or islamic subreddits. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/365e3b/eli5_who_are_the_rohingya_people_how_come_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"craxfma"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"It's strange you haven't seen it on Reddit, they often make it to the top on r/Islam like [yesterday](_URL_2_) for example.\n\nThe Rohingya are an indigenous population who follow the Islamic faith living in the north of the Rakhine State of Myanmar. Contrary to claims by their government, there is clear evidence Rohingya have lived in the region since the 15th Century and are native to the land. However the Burmese authorities continue to deny them equal rights and the vast majority are still refused citizenship. They can not marry without permission, own land or even travel. There are even some who are limited in the number of children they may have. The word 'Rohingya' has even been banned. They have been described by United Nations as \"the world's most persecuted minority\". Even Aung San Suu Kyi, who is the opposition leader and heralded by the West as a symbol of peace, also denies them citizenship and refuses to recognise their plight.\n\nAttacks against the Rohingya minority have been stoked by some fanatical yet powerful Buddhist Monks. This includes the leader of the 969 Movement featured on the Time's front cover as [\"The Face of Buddhist Terror\"](_URL_3_). AJ+ interviewed him [here](_URL_0_). Self-described as the \"Buddhist Bin Laden\", he has said \"Obama is tainted with black Muslim blood\" and incites hatred against the Rohingya. In addition to little protection by local authorities and perpetuation of false rumours, this has led to an ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya minority including burning down villages. Estimates of over 140,000 have been internally displaced while 120,000 have had to leave by boat in the past three years to neighbouring countries: mainly Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Bangladesh. Unfortunately these countries have been turning back many of the boats and, with nowhere else to go, they are far too often left to die in the ocean metres from land. At this moment there is between [6,000 and 20,000 migrants are stranded at sea](_URL_1_), the majority of whom are Rohingya.\n\nAlthough this is meant to be a simple explanation I can't help but say: 'The world needs to wake up!'."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtAl9zJ3t-M",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/14/406747021/video-migrants-adrift-in-andaman-sea-after-thailand-turns-them-away",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/35z4sr/the_boat_of_starving_rohingya_refugees_that_no/",
"http://content.time.com/time/covers/asia/0,16641,20130701,00.html"
]
]
|
||
ciuh16 | how do icbm travel such long distance in short amount of time? can they be intercepted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ciuh16/eli5_how_do_icbm_travel_such_long_distance_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ev982fo",
"ev98c3f",
"ev9b735",
"ev9lhnw",
"ev9qgtj"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
9,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It's a warhead strapped on a rocket. Rockets go fast.\n\nIf you can identify and properly track the rocket, sure. You'll need a rocket that can go faster than your enemy's.",
"An ICBM is really just a single state rocket booster with a warhead slapped on top. They can go extremely fast at altitude as a rocket engine that carries its oxidizer with it does not lose thrust with altitude, where the air gets thinner means it can go much faster only being limited by heat friction. And yes they are possible to intercept with other missiles. But it is an untested system. As far as i know there are no aircraft that can get to ICBM altitude and launch an AAM at it before its out of firing range making interception very unlikely.",
"Because an ICBM is a just a rocket and rockets go really fast. Rockets that reach orbit are traveling at least 7.8 km/s. ICBMs are only a little bit short of that speed. The very first rockets that sent satellites and even humans into space were literally ICMBs but with a satellite or capsule instead of a nuclear warhead.\n\nCan they be intercepted? Technically yes, but it's really hard even under ideal circumstances. It's like trying to shoot a bullet out of the air with another bullet.",
"ICBM's go super fast and super high. They use massive rockets to propel themselves at speeds that boggle the mind, and use this speed to traverse vast distances. They use gravity to ensure that they come down where they are supposed to. Can they be intercepted? Yes. Easily? No. Because of their speed, radar can have trouble picking them up, and missiles can have trouble tracking them and keeping up to them. Also, due to their height, you need your own massive rocket to reach them during most of their journey, and once they are nearing the ground, you need an even *faster* missile to intercept them before they reach their target. Currently, no functional anti-missile system is publicly described, due to the fact that their functions are top-secret. AFAIK, one of the U.S.'s current systems involves intercepting missiles right as they launch, which is when they are moving their slowest. This requires ships armed with the weapon to patrol most of the world to ensure that they are within range of any enemy missile sites.",
"An ICBM is a multistage rocket. The first two stages will get the payload up a few thousands kilometers in about 5 minutes, the third stage will then propel it towards its target at a 6-7 km/s letting it arrive anywhere on the world in 30 minutes of launch.\n\nThis timing may seem really short, but remember the ISS orbits the Earth every 90 minutes and it doesn't have a big rocket strapped to its back to hurry it along. They also go up far enough that the Earth does orbit under them as their orbital circumference is now 50% longer than the Earth's circumference.\n\nOnce they're headed back in, it will deploy the MIRVs(Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles) of which some are decoys and some hold nukes that will take out a city. The Sub launched Trident II has 8-14 MIRVs on it.\n\nInterception during the Boost phase(initial launch) is easiest from a technical stand point as you've got this big missile that you need to hit and it isn't moving very fast yet. The problem is that they tend to be launched from deep inside a country's territory to protect them while makes this feasibly the hardest stage to intercept them in.\n\nThe other most likely stage for intercept is the Terminal stage when the reentry vehicle with a warhead or a decoy is headed straight at you. Its moving at Mach 10 towards you so you don't have long to hit it. Its now down to about 0.3 meters in diameter and 1 meter long which makes it a pretty small target, and if you miss millions die. Good luck!\n\nThere are also efforts to make the MIRV steerable. When you hear concerns about a Hypersonic Reentry Vehicle this is what it refers to. Its hard enough to hit a 0.3 x 1 meter cone that is flying in a perfectly straight line, it will be even harder if it is taking evasive maneuvers on its way in."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3s582n | why are video games usually released in the fall? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s582n/eli5_why_are_video_games_usually_released_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwu669p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mabye you more likely to stay inside and play video games in the colder weather. Rather than the Spring/Summer when everyone is going out. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8dhaah | how is it possible that the particle accelerator at cern can resist 2 billion celsius? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dhaah/eli5_how_is_it_possible_that_the_particle/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxn4aa5",
"dxn4d4f",
"dxn4h5f",
"dxn5f6d",
"dxnaouq",
"dxnctmj"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
6,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The total amount of energy is not all that much, it's just concentrated in an extremely small area. The amount of material that actually gets that hot is infinitesimally tiny—like 'a few hundred hydrogen atoms' tiny.",
"It's not a gallon of some liquid at that temperature. It's a few particles at that temperature. They are charged particles and so they can be kept from contacting the sides of the vacuum chamber by electromagnetic fields.",
"Temperature is not the same thing as heat. A small group of atoms are heated to that temperature, but it doesn't have the heat capacity to really do anything to the accelerator.",
"Its not a lot of stuff that they heat to that temperature. We are talking a handful of particles. Compared to the mass of the accelerator, this heated mass is very insignificant.",
"Think of like boiling water. To boil a lot of water takes some time and quite a little of energy. But to boil a minuscule amount of water takes much less time, and it uses far less heat. When you scale that down to an incredibly minute amount, it doesn’t take a lot of energy to make it really hot. ",
"Because temperature becomes a silly thing when you get into high-energy (or \"really small\") physics.\n\nFor example, [lasers appear to generate temperatures below absolute zero](_URL_0_). But systems below absolute-zero (that never passed *through* 0 K, because that's **impossible**) are considered extremely hot.\n\nYeah. Quantum mechanics and system energy states are places where words you think you know just lose all meaning."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature#Lasers"
]
]
|
||
my37f | what 'justified' the holocaust at the time? | Something I've always wondered. What inspired the hatred towards Jews (amongst many, many others) and how did this jump to "round them all up and kill them"? How aware were the German public of this happening and did any try to stop it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/my37f/elif_what_justified_the_holocaust_at_the_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"c34rjrc",
"c34scji",
"c34sokc",
"c34u9mx",
"c34rjrc",
"c34scji",
"c34sokc",
"c34u9mx"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Read \"Mein Kampf\" if you can stomach it.",
"*\"What inspired the hatred towards Jews?\"* **Antisemitism** (hatred towards Jews) was common in Germany (and most of Europe) before the Second World War. Many people disliked Jews mainly because of: \n\n* **religion**: The Jews have been blamed for killing Jesus ever since Jesus died, and this lead to that many Christians disliked Jews. Jews were discriminated against as a result of this. \n\n* **jealousy/hatred**: As I just said: Jews were discriminated against. They could not (for example) own land and have certain jobs. The result of this was that many Jews worked in banks, owned shops, worked as accountants etc. Some people were jealous of the Jews, since many of them were wealthy. The jealousy got worse after WW1 because of the financial crisis in Germany were millions of people were unemployed. \n\n* **racism/xenophobia**: The Jews were a minority who had a different cultural background than most people in Germany. I guess you can say that they were the German version of African Americans. \n\n\n\n\n",
"There were a number of different factors leading upto the holocaust. After WW1 Germany was crippled due to the reparations that had to be paid (largely to France) in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles. Combine that with the Wall Street Crash (the US called in all it's loans to help stabilise the economy) and you've got a lot of starving, bitter and impoverished people. \nHitler's promises of making Germany stronger (for example I'm pretty sure he said he would overturn the Treaty of Versailles so that the country could stop paying reparations) and creating a better life meant that he gained a lot of support. He was also backed by a number of wealthy financiers, so his propaganda campaigns were very well-funded. \nSo far as the actual propaganda goes, it was all about making Germany strong again. This meant 'getting rid of' all those who would oppose Hitler's plans or who were seen to 'weaken' society. Whilst obviously the Jews bore the brunt of the Holocaust due to Hitler's extreme antisemitism and obsession with Aryan purity (he actually genuinely believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy to 'dominate and contaminate' white people via breeding), he also wanted rid of anyone who he thought would similarly corrupt the genepool such as homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled and those suffering from mental illness. \nHitler did manage to build an economy and army, industrialise, build the autobahns etc., so there were some positives. And before anyone jumps on me, *no - I do not believe that justifies the Holocaust*. \nEdit: spelling mistake :P",
"Important to note that the holocaust was heavily covered up at the time and remained that way until ~1943. Read more about: Inquiry confirms Nazi death camps (NY Times) and the Grojanowski Report.",
"Read \"Mein Kampf\" if you can stomach it.",
"*\"What inspired the hatred towards Jews?\"* **Antisemitism** (hatred towards Jews) was common in Germany (and most of Europe) before the Second World War. Many people disliked Jews mainly because of: \n\n* **religion**: The Jews have been blamed for killing Jesus ever since Jesus died, and this lead to that many Christians disliked Jews. Jews were discriminated against as a result of this. \n\n* **jealousy/hatred**: As I just said: Jews were discriminated against. They could not (for example) own land and have certain jobs. The result of this was that many Jews worked in banks, owned shops, worked as accountants etc. Some people were jealous of the Jews, since many of them were wealthy. The jealousy got worse after WW1 because of the financial crisis in Germany were millions of people were unemployed. \n\n* **racism/xenophobia**: The Jews were a minority who had a different cultural background than most people in Germany. I guess you can say that they were the German version of African Americans. \n\n\n\n\n",
"There were a number of different factors leading upto the holocaust. After WW1 Germany was crippled due to the reparations that had to be paid (largely to France) in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles. Combine that with the Wall Street Crash (the US called in all it's loans to help stabilise the economy) and you've got a lot of starving, bitter and impoverished people. \nHitler's promises of making Germany stronger (for example I'm pretty sure he said he would overturn the Treaty of Versailles so that the country could stop paying reparations) and creating a better life meant that he gained a lot of support. He was also backed by a number of wealthy financiers, so his propaganda campaigns were very well-funded. \nSo far as the actual propaganda goes, it was all about making Germany strong again. This meant 'getting rid of' all those who would oppose Hitler's plans or who were seen to 'weaken' society. Whilst obviously the Jews bore the brunt of the Holocaust due to Hitler's extreme antisemitism and obsession with Aryan purity (he actually genuinely believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy to 'dominate and contaminate' white people via breeding), he also wanted rid of anyone who he thought would similarly corrupt the genepool such as homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled and those suffering from mental illness. \nHitler did manage to build an economy and army, industrialise, build the autobahns etc., so there were some positives. And before anyone jumps on me, *no - I do not believe that justifies the Holocaust*. \nEdit: spelling mistake :P",
"Important to note that the holocaust was heavily covered up at the time and remained that way until ~1943. Read more about: Inquiry confirms Nazi death camps (NY Times) and the Grojanowski Report."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
60qamr | why is hot food more aromatic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60qamr/eli5_why_is_hot_food_more_aromatic/ | {
"a_id": [
"df8fg79"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That is a good question. I'm going to do something that i hate when other people do it. \n\nRelatively baseless speculation by a layperson who thinks they are smart.\n\nThink about how smell works. You get these little particles in the air and they make it into your nose and little nodes in your nostrils sense them for you.\n\nSo it is fair to guess that two elements are at play here. The amount of these particles in the air and their potency. A good experiment you could try would be to take some vinegar and see how strongly it smelled at various distances. Then heat that vinegar up in a pan and observe the difference.\n\nMy theory is that hot food is just spitting more smell particles into the air."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3zjukm | paying taxes in the us | I've been puzzled by how many Americans appear to consider taxes an expense in the same sense as a mortgage or groceries. I assumed it was a cultural thing and let it go, but it recently occured to me that the entire process of paying your taxes might be very different from where I live.
Can anybody give me an ELI5 of what the process is like as in the actual steps you go through to pay your taxes? Do you actually get billed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zjukm/eli5_paying_taxes_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"cymogu1",
"cymoor7",
"cymylfe"
],
"score": [
2,
17,
7
],
"text": [
"For a person getting an hourly wage or salary you pay a 6.25% social security tax and from 10 to 35 % income tax. Those taxes are deducted from every paycheck you receive If you own your own business then you pay a 15% social security tax and then 10 to 35% on those earnings. You pay your business tax every quarter to the government. For investments you pay on your capital gains about 19%. There are all kind of deductions that reduce your taxable in come and some people receive tax credits which are really welfare payments. ",
"If you're employed, your employer is required to take estimated income tax out of your paycheck. By April 15th, every household is required to calculate their actual tax owed for the previous year and find the difference between the actual tax and the estimated tax. If too much had been taken out of paychecks, then you get a tax refund. If too little had been taken out, you have to pay extra in. \n\nEstimating tax isn't easy: the US tax system had so many credits and exceptions and special cases that, generally, a lot of people get refunds, to the point that people experience negative taxation - poor families often get all their taxes back, plus something called Earned Income Credit, which is a form of welfare for working low income families with children. \n\nI, like many people, usually come up short because I have self employment income which I'm responsible for my own estimated taxes, and letting the government hold my money for up to a year before getting it back is less than efficient. Also, for example, if you sell a large piece of property, cash out tax advantageous investments, or a variety of other things can have very large tax burdens that unprepared people are surprised to see due when they file their taxes. \n\nThat's federal taxes. Many (but not all) states also have income tax, also due on the 15th, with its own estimated withholding and so forth. \n\nIf you own real estate, like a house, that's taxed as well, each jurisdiction has its own filing requirements for that. That's usually billed out. \n\nOur sales tax is calculated as a line item on purchases, it's not rolled into the price like many other countries. Depending on the amount and location of the purchase, it can be deducted on the income tax. \n\nSpeaking of deductions: there's a lot of other things that can be deducted as non-taxable income on the income taxes, which invites a lot of mistakes and 'tweaking', the latter of which amounts to fraud, but the national tax department, the IRS, has recently been so underfunded that they can barely answer questions from tax payers, let alone actually investigate small fraud, so people deduct home offices that aren't used as such, or hide cash income so as to not pay taxes on it, and so forth. \n\nThis is where people get excited: everyone wants money back from the IRS in the spring, so they want to get their tax filing done as soon as possible, and done so that as much money as possible comes back.",
"FYI - It is also confusing to us when someone from another country talks about a government service and says it's \"free\" (IE \"Our healthcare is free\")."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
7e8jwn | why do cities destroy old football stadiums and not keep them whenever there’s a new football stadium? | Case in point, the Georgia Dome. It’s being demolished today in favor of the Mercedes Benz Stadium. Why can’t Atlanta keep the Georgia Dome for other uses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7e8jwn/eli5_why_do_cities_destroy_old_football_stadiums/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq36mr3",
"dq37iad",
"dq38cpr",
"dq39dg5",
"dq3dfd3"
],
"score": [
17,
10,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Older stadiums are expensive to maintain and if the major sports team isn’t going to be playing there anymore they often can’t find enough business to support the older stadium when all he demand will be for the newer one. ",
"Money. Since maintaining and staffing a stadium is expensive, it has to have a lot of money coming in for it to be profitable. With a new stadium going in, that's where all the money will be going. So now the property that the old stadium is on is worth more than the building. ",
"Unused properties that sit are a liability nightmare. Owners are still responsible to maintain, secure and provide that their property is kept in a condition that is acceptable for everyone. That all costs money. When you have no tenants to recover said costs from, then it's a money drain. \n\nThe Georgia dome will come down, the property owner will do a redevelopment. Most likely within in 5 years that area will be completly rebuilt.",
"Most of the time, there isn’t the need, space, or money to maintain an old stadium when a new one is built. \n\nNFL Football only plays about 10-12 home game at most, including preseason and playoffs, leaving plenty of open dates for other events to use the stadium and it’s not like most cities need 700 dates for giant, indoor events.\n\nThe land where stadiums are built are often in urban cores where land is expensive, and often new stadium is built on former parking that then needs to be replaced by tearing down the old stadium and using that land for parking.\n\nStadiums are expensive to run, given their size, exposure to elements and crowds, and without a primary tenant to cover those costs dependably, who would pay the tab? Do taxpayers pay for it in hopes of hosting a few concerts and monster truck events? \n\nWhen. Detroit built Ford Field and vacated the Silverdome in Pontiac, MI it wasn’t torn down initially because the land wasn’t needed. And it soon fell into disrepair, and was eventually sold for the price of a nicer suburban home—something like $600k for an entire stadium! Which goes to show the economic value of a vacant stadium...",
"* they are expensive to maintain, and get more expensive the older they are\n* there are only so many acts that can draw 80,000 people, most of the time it will sit idle\n* the space is often used for the new stadium\n* if not, it is often prime downtown real estate that can generate more money through tax revenue\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1p6vle | the tetris effect. | I can't even imagine it based only on what I read on the Internet. I may have experience it, therefore I request an explanation and hopefully this term will become clearer to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p6vle/eli5_the_tetris_effect/ | {
"a_id": [
"cczc4g4",
"cczi9v0"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Tetris effect happens when make an activity for a long period of time and after you stop that activity you keep thinking about it.\n\nThis happened with me when I started playing minesweeper, I remember thinking about the many different patterns of the game and the ways the mines could be distributed, I even dreamed about it. It is almost inevitable, your head keeps thinking about these things like if it was automatic.",
"When I was in middle school, it was all I could do to not picture Mario leaping from the top of the blackboard, onto a poster, then jumping up to punch the clock over and over."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5uagvl | how does a "reflex lcd" work? | I have one of those boogie boards with the LCD that doesn't draw any power.
How does this work?
I can only think it works with silver halides but that's not LCD. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uagvl/eli5_how_does_a_reflex_lcd_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddslscy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In a normal LCD you change the polarisation of the crystal with a electrical fields.\n\nBut you can also change it by physical pressing on it. You can do that on a TV or a computer monitor but I don't recommend it since you can damage the display.\nOn boogie bord you change the crystal by pressing on it\n\nThe crystal will stay in the same configuration until a electrical field is applied and that is how the erase function works.\n\nSo the only power that is needed is to erase the screen.\n\nAnother reason that is uses no battery is that there is no light in it so it can only reflect back light and don't work at night. That is the same as a digital wrist watch works. It is called Transflective LCD. \nYou can use Transflective LCD that is controlled like a \"normal\" LCD (backlight) screen. Handheld GPS devises often have that kinds of display combined. They will work in sunlight better then a \"normal\" LCD but the color reproduction will be worse. They alos have backlights for night usage.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
zw5o5 | obama's spending in his first term. | My mother and I got into a political debate, and one thing she kept going back to was Obama's spending. Ive done some research, but it seems that anything I encounter is either people on the right discounting what the left said, and visa-versa (surprise surprise). Spell it out for me reddit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zw5o5/eli5_obamas_spending_in_his_first_term/ | {
"a_id": [
"c688chv",
"c68emll"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"People accuse Obama for a massive increase in spending in 2009, because he took office at the start of that year. However, budgets are approved the year before, so the increase in spending in 2009 is from the Bush administration. If you only count the years for which the Obama administration is actually responsible for, there has been an overall decrease in spending - the first administration with a decrease since Eisenhower.",
"_URL_0_\n\nAnd\n\n_URL_1_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc&feature=youtube_gdata_player",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV-xPS5-GxE&feature=youtube_gdata_player"
]
]
|
|
1yg78p | the difference between crows, ravens, and blackbirds | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yg78p/eli5_the_difference_between_crows_ravens_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfk86n6",
"cfk8aj8",
"cfk8vxn"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Common naming conventions for well known species are a bit of a mess because we retain their historical names that don't really reflect their genetic relationships. Technically a Crow is any member of the corvus genus, which means that the Ravens are Crows as well. There are quite a few types of crows and ravens, so commonly the term is usually synonymous with \"the type that lives near me\". In the US that would be the American Crow and the Common Raven. Ravens, in general, are larger than crows, less vocal, and more solitary.\n\nBlackbird is even a worse term that basically means \"any mostly black bird\", and there are many birds with Blackbird in their name. Categorizing birds that way is akin to categorizing cars by color instead of class or make...you get a whole lot of mixed up members of the same group. ",
"Crows are big black birds that fly around and perch on branches and telephone poles and go CAWW CAWW CAWW.\n\nRavens are like crows, but bigger, with heavier beaks, and \"beards\" (they have feathers on their necks that give the illusion of a neckbeard). \n\nRavens and crows are both live in the same area (Eurasia and North America) and eat the same stuff (fruit, seeds, small animals, carrion, etc.) They are both in the corvid family, which includes jays and magpies and are considered to be the most intelligent birds. \n\nBlackbirds can refer to any species of medium-sized black songbird found all over the world. You know, the kind that fly around woods, meadows, and gardens, sing, and eat worms and berries. ",
"Ravens and blackbirds are large black feathery animals. Crows are men dressed in black that guard the seven kingdoms from what's behind the wall.\n\nNow you no longer know nothing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
civ66c | flat sheets on bed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/civ66c/eli5_flat_sheets_on_bed/ | {
"a_id": [
"ev9c7p5",
"ev9emun"
],
"score": [
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Often the idea is that the flat sheet sits between the possibly sweaty body and the duvet so that you don’t have to wash the duvet quite as often. \n\nPersonally I also often just use a flat sheet as my only cover when I don’t have the AC on.",
"I run hot so I only sleep with a top sheet. Wife has a duvet on top of her that I use to build a physical and emotional wall between us"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
q41g3 | what's the difference between "sex" and "gender"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q41g3/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_sex_and_gender/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3uj8e6",
"c3ujzee"
],
"score": [
48,
2
],
"text": [
"[Here's a visual representation](_URL_0_) of the differences between sex, gender, expression, and sexual orientation. Totally safe for work.",
"Words change meaning over time. Years ago, \"sex\" meant is a *person* male or female, and \"gender\" meant is a *word* male or female, and \"sexual intercourse\" meant the act of two people mating.\n\nPeople starting saying \"sex\" to mean \"sexual intercourse.\" So other people started saying \"gender\" to mean \"sex.\" The meanings will probably keep changing if you wait another hundred years. \n\nSwitching places like this is very common with groups of words. It even has a name: *linguistic drift.*"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17c6c5gg7k9rgjpg/original.jpg"
],
[]
]
|
||
afeklf | how do singers memorize all their choreography? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/afeklf/eli5how_do_singers_memorize_all_their_choreography/ | {
"a_id": [
"edxzxl4",
"edxzxq1"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Lots of rehearsals with a professional choreographer/dance crew. \n\nThese performances can take in millions so I’m sure the talent’s preparation is thoroughly funded in by management. ",
"I was in marching band, so I'm guessing it's kinda a similar process. We would always get the music down really well, then we'd start practicing marching small chunks of the show without playing and slowly put them together until we could march it all. Then finally we started playing and marching together until we could do it all together well."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
26062g | if the ice/glaciers are melting so fast, why aren't global water levels rising very noticeably? | It's a very common news topic. Antarctic ice is melting twice as fast as usual. Being as the Planet is round...where is all of this melted ice going?
If global warming is melting all the ice on the planet, where is all the water going? Is the ratio of Glaciers melting comparable to the water levels rising globally?
Edit: I should have included the link I was reading in my original post.
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26062g/eli5if_the_iceglaciers_are_melting_so_fast_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"chmdu65",
"chmduzk",
"chmdxk8",
"chmdyvx",
"chme3q0",
"chme3z0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are? \n\nEDIT: _URL_0_",
"Its a **big** ocean and the ice isnt all melting at the same time. ",
"There's a lot of fuckin' water in the world, to put it bluntly. If my sink represented the size of the earth proportionally, and I filled it up with water and stuck an ice cube in it, the water level wouldn't rise at all, hardly. Proportionally, that ice cube would be massive! That'd be like an Australia made of ice completely melting and releasing ungodly amounts of water into the oceans! It doesn't matter, though. My sink and the Earth are too damned big to be affected by a RELATIVELY small iceberg.",
"It goes into the ocean and [causes noticeable increases in global sea levels](_URL_0_). The NOAA cites glaciers as an important contributing factor in sea level rise. I'm not exactly sure what the planet being round has to do with any of this, but interestingly, Arctic glaciers which actually sit in the sea rather than atop a land mass do not affect global sea levels (since they are already in the water and displacing as much water as their mass is).",
"The article says this rate raises the ocean .43mm per year, which is 0.0169 inches per year *if* it continues (they only have three years of data to support this, who knows what will happen in the future). This means that it would take 59 years for the ocean to rise 1 inch. In most places 1 inch will not cause any notable damages.",
"Imagine a normal living room. Say 4m by 4m. You put a cubic meter of ice in the room, and let it melt.\n\nMaking some handwaves (ice melts into same volume of water, room is sealed)\n\nHow much water do you think is sloshing over the floor?\n\nAbout 6 cm.\n\nNow, let us try to give you some sense of the size of the \"living room\" of the earths oceans. The average country is 767 731 square km. Thats a bit bigger than Texas. Got that?\n\nThere is 340 000 000 square km of ocean.\n\nThats over 470x larger.\n\nThe reason that the sea levels are rising only slowly is that even with the massive amount of melting ice, the size of the worlds ocean is so large that the additional melt only floods it a tiny bit.\n\nAll sea ice doesn't raise sea levels if melted, because it's already displacing that much water. So the only ice we care about is greenland and antartica. If greenland melted down to the rock, sea levels would raise 7m. Antartica is a bit more dramatic, but only 61m of sea level raise would happen.\n\nNot that much, but stupidly large amounts of the world population live on coasts, which is why it's a problem."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050"
]
| [
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
z7rt8 | how does amazon prime end up being profitable for amazon? | I have been using Amazon Prime for almost 2 years now and love it. I just do not understand how they can be making money on it. I often order small things, under $20 on a Wednesday and the two day obligation falls on a Saturday. So they FedEx Saturday deliver it, or just overnight it to get there on Friday, a day early. I also recently moved and ordered a washer and dryer from them and the prices were slightly cheaper than the department stores, and it was delivered free via a freight service (JB Hunt) . I realize they probably negotiate contracts with FedEx and UPS, but I still have not clue how this works out for them when they only get 80 bucks a year from me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z7rt8/eli5_how_does_amazon_prime_end_up_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"c627cb1",
"c62886b",
"c6288et",
"c629kwo",
"c62dn69"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
15,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It encourages people to order more from Amazon, so it may be a \"loss leader.\" That means Amazon doesn't intend to make money on Prime membership, but it brings people \"in the store\" so they will spend more money on other items that do create a profit. ",
"Amazon Prime works the same way that medical insurance does. In some cases, the amount that Amazon pays out for the services they render to you is greater than the amount that you give them. However, many people use Amazon little enough that they pay more into the system for Amazon Prime than Amazon ends up paying out for shipping those people's products over the course of a year.\n\nAlso, note that even in cases where Amazon pays out more on Prime than they would take in, Prime makes people more willing to buy things online. For example, I doubt you would have purchased a washer and drier from Amazon if you had to pay $200 to get them delivered and installed!",
"It encourages you to keep buying from them. Sure, they'll lose out on shipping costs, but in theory, you might be more prone to purchase from Amazon, so you feel like you're getting your money's worth from your membership. ",
"it's not profitable in of itself. i heard that they include all amazon prime expenses under \"marketing costs\" which has different tax implications than expenses.\n\ni honestly believe amazon truly desires to make their customer experience the best, which does, in the long run, add up to more sales and more purchases, and more importantly, CUSTOMER LOYALTY. prime is only a part of the equation.\n\nEDIT: I think I know how...\n\nAmazon keeps a relatively low inventory on hand. They also have power with the people who sell them stuff (the vendors). Amazon gets the stuff from them and says \"i'll pay you in thirty days.\" Amazon sells you the stuff and you pay them IMMEDIATELY. They now have up to 30 days of \"free money\" because they don't have to pay vendors for a while, and your credit card company gave amazon the money. Multiply this by a million orders, and you have a lot of \"free money\" (aka cash flow) that keeps growing and growing as long as amazon keeps selling. prime ensures that they keep selling, growing their cash flow and cash on hand. as long as a small portion of this cash flow is \"profit,\" they can do very well - and they do.",
"Volume. \n\nSince I've bought Prime, I will often times research things that I want to buy at other sites, then go back to Amazon to make the purchase, since I know that I get free 2 day shipping. Ive bought more through Amazon since I got Prime than I ever did before."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5hahv2 | regardless of their views on climate change, why are a majority of politicians against efforts to improve/protect the environment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hahv2/eli5_regardless_of_their_views_on_climate_change/ | {
"a_id": [
"dayo5cb",
"dayo8a7"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The environment doesn't donate money to campaigns.\n\nAlso just generally not the biggest issue for voters in an awful economy.",
"First, you'd have to define \"improve/protect\" adequately. People disagree strongly on what this actually means.\n\nA road is inarguably an 'improvement' to the environment in terms of human use. Yet many people would oppose building a road based on the notion that they prefer the non-road version of that landscape.\n\nEven once you've built a consensus on what exactly \"improve/protect\" means, you still have to balance it against all the other costs/benefits involved. You seem to want to handwave away the concerns of the coal industry (and its workers), but they don't particularly want to be handwaved away. Their concerns are just as valid as yours.\n\nEven looking beyond the niche interests of the coal industry/workers, everyone is interested in cheap power. Power goes into everything you consume, so any increase in the cost of power means you pay more for everything. You can say \"it's just money\", but ultimately that money translates into human lives on the grand scale - where inefficient resource usage can mean an uptick in mortality rates (amongst many other consequences).\n\nIt's very easy to say \"I want to protect the environment\". But it's never really that simple."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5amvhg | why can't we send bigger files through text message than what we could in 2000? | We have smart phones that can record video in 4k , but the largest file we can send; is a pixelated video and choppy audio. You'd think after 16 years of being a cellphone carrier they would at least make it larger than 300kb. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5amvhg/eli5_why_cant_we_send_bigger_files_through_text/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9houz0"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"Texting does not use the data channels on your phone. Instead, they piggyback small amounts of data on the periodic ID signal your phone sends and receives from local towers. Your phone needs to identify itself to local cell towers so that when you receive a call, the network knows where to route the call so it arrives at the right tower (instead of, say, broadcasting the call wastefully to every tower until it finds you). Likewise, the towers need to identify themselves to your phone so your phone knows that it's connected, knows when it's roaming, etc. This signal doesn't need to be big, just the binary version of \"Hey I'm here, are you there?\" and then some data sent back and forth to confirm that you have a strong connection - basically, \"Say something so I can check if I can hear you...\"\n\nSMS (short message service) messages attach a short block of text and routing information to that ID signal, so when your phone lets the tower know it's there, the message goes along with it. Likewise, when the tower makes itself known to your phone, it delivers a text message sent to you. The SMS character limit has to do with the size of that ID signal. There's a fixed default amount of data that can be sent in that burst: some is used to ID the phone or tower, and then some random data to establish that the connection is good. That data doesn't have to be anything specific, just *something*. Very early on, engineers recognized that it would be pretty simple to attach messages to that signal instead of random code, and created the SMS service. Basically, your phone and the tower need to say, \"Can you hear me?...Yes I can hear you.\" But instead it's \"Tell Bob 'Come over and watch a movie with me.\" \"Got it, you said 'Tell Bob Come and watch a movie with me.'\" Later, a tower tells Bob's phone: \"Linda says 'Come over and watch a movie with me.'\" And Bob's phone says \"Got it...\"\n\nThat signal hasn't changed. SMS is still sent over that ID signal, even as phones and telecom architectures have evolved. There's never been a need to make that ID signal bigger, so there's no reason to increase the capacity for bigger messages, especially with the creation and evolution of mobile data that *does* allow much longer messages to be sent over a different channel. The SMS channel wouldn't be great for messages anyway, since it's not capable of the kind of high-capacity data transfers needed for MMS (multimedia messaging service) or bigger data transfers.\n\nIncidentally, this is why it's so *goddamn ridiculous* when phone companies charge you a dollar per text, or limit how many texts you can send. The ID signal is *required for your phone to function*, SMS is just attached to that and requires a negligible amount of routing to make it work. Yes, it costs them a tiny bit more to send a text, but again, the signal being used to send the text is going to get sent anyway. If you pay literally any amount of money for a text, you are paying for something they basically have to do for free anyway. Which is not to say that the companies don't have the right to make a profit or charge for a service, and texting *does* require some additional work on their part. But it's a little silly to charge a dollar for a text or limit how many you can send.\n\nTL;DR: Your phone has to talk occasionally to the cell phone towers even if you're not using it, and texts hitch a ride on that background communication. That phone-tower chatter hasn't changed much so text caps haven't changed much either."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
agjbcd | how you do specific heat capacity in physics | I just can't wrap my head around it and I would really appreciate some help. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/agjbcd/eli5_how_you_do_specific_heat_capacity_in_physics/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee6n2h9"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Let's start with the heat capacity. That's how much energy you need to add to raise the temperature of the system by 1 Kelvin. So let's say we have a block of material with a heat capacity of 50J/K. So if we add 50 J of energu to this system, its temperature will increase by 1 Kelvin. \nBut now we chop it in two. Now the block will heat up more with the same enrgu increase. Afyer all, there is less mass to distribute the energy into. So our new block has a heat capacity of 25J/K. \nClearly this isn't handy. After all, you'll need to get the hezt capacity for everything you make. It would be easier to be able to say that \"1kg of this material needs X Joules in order to raise its temperature by 1 Kelvin\". And that's the specific heat capacity: how much energy you need to add to 1kg of a material in order to increase its temperature by 1 Kelvin.\n\nThink of it similar to mass vs density: it isn't a property of the *object*, but of the material. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
dde31m | atomic & thermonuclear bombs | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dde31m/eli5_atomic_thermonuclear_bombs/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2g5kvf",
"f2g6yhs",
"f2g8r0t",
"f2g8ym4",
"f2gafuq"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a concept in radioactive materials called a \"Critical mass,\" which is a mass that's high enough to cause a chain reaction. A chain reaction is when the neutrons released from one reaction can trigger another reaction, which triggers another reaction... etc.\n\nSo one way to make a fission bomb is the \"Gun type.\" Make a target of uranium. Make a bullet of uranium. The target isn't heavy enough to reach critical mass, but when you trigger the bomb, the bullet goes into the target and collectively that's enough to make critical mass. That was the Little Boy, the type of bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.\n\nAnother way is the \"implosion\" type. Make a core of plutonium and surround it with a shell. Detonate explosives outside of the shell, the force of which compress the shell onto the plutonium, raising its density to the point where it reaches critical mass. That's how Fat Man, the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki worked.",
"There's an idea called critical mass: you basically need a certain amount of nuclear stuff to keep the reaction going. There are a bunch of factors (density, shape, etc.) that change how much of the nuclear stuff you need to keep the reaction going. You get it to critical mass, and then you shoot a bunch of neutrons at it to get the party started, so to say. \n\nThe two bombs dropped on Japan were constructed in different ways. Little Boy, Hiroshima's destroyer, used what was called a gun design. There were two hunks of uranium in the thing, and when the weapon detonates a hollow cylinder of uranium is shot onto another cylinder. Sort of like if you *very aggressively* put a drink koozy onto a can. And both are radioactive. This type was not as efficient as the next type, which was used in Fat Man at Nagasaki.\n\nThe first ever nuke ever tested and the Fat Man bomb were both implosion type devices. They basically used explosives to push the radioactive stuff together in order to get it critical. Both this design and the one before it were kind of inefficient, and I believe more efficient ways of going about it have been made. \n\nThermonuclear weapons aren't pure fusion. They basically use a bit of the good ol' fission process to start things up, and then use a bunch of tritium to do the fusion stuff. In theory you could get a pure fusion weapon, which wouldn't have nearly as much icky radioactivity, but I don't believe they've been attempted. Now don't go going trying to make a bomb in your basement, you hear?",
"The exact mechanism depends on the bomb in question, as they'v come up with a few different ways of triggering nuclear bombs.\n\nThe simplest and now outdated, 'gun type', was essentially just firing one sub-critical mass of nuclear material at another using conventional explosives, to form a super-critical mass which then exploded. \n\n'Implosion' types have a mass of barely subcritical nuclear material ringed with conventional explosive, when that went off it compresses the nuclear material increasing its reactivity and subsequently going critical.\n\nThermonuclear devices far as I can determine essentially leverage a fusion reaction (kicked off with energy provided from a regular implosion bomb) and its large fast neutron output, to set off surrounding nuclear material far more quickly and efficiently than a regular critical mass explosion would.",
"Nuclear decay is a natural phenomenon... you have a radioactive atom, and it decays into two smaller atoms and releases some neutrons in the process. This process occurs naturally, but it can also be \"stimulated\" if you bump one of those radioactive atoms with a neutron. So, sometimes, one radioactive decay causes a neutron to hit another atom, which causes another radioactive decay. \n\nNormally, these radioactive atoms are spread out within a material. But if you bunch them together or \"enrich\" them, you can make a material such that when one atom decays, it causes another atom to decay, which causes another atom to decay, and so forth. If you do this perfectly balanced, you get a sustained nuclear reaction, which is great for a power plant.\n\nBut what if you want a bomb? Now you want each radioactive atom to cause 2 (or more) neighboring atoms to decay, which will causes 4 atoms to decay, which will cause 8 atoms to decay... after 10 decays you're at 1000 atoms, after 20 decays you're at 1 million atoms, and after 30 decays you're at a billion. Chain reactions happen fast. \n\nSo basically all you have to do is keep some of those atoms separated before you want a chain reaction to occur, and then bring them together when you want your chain reaction to occur.",
" > how does the actual mechanism work that triggers the explosion like if I just took a hunk of uranium 235 and threw it really hard at the ground, would everything within a mile blow up?\n\nNo, at most you'd have a fizzle\n\nIf you had a 9.8 centimeter sphere of Plutonium-239(slightly sub critical) and threw it at the ground so it compressed a little you would push it into critical mass, but you won't get a city flattening boom. The sphere will heat up and expand at that point and send it flying back into the air.\n\nCritical mass just means you've reached a point where it will be emitting more and more energy over time, but doesn't tell you how fast that energy grows. If you have a 10 cm sphere of Plutonium-239 then its slightly above the critical mass and will get hotter and hotter and release more and more radiation over time until it melts, its critical but just barely.\n\nIf you take that 9.8 cm sphere we started with earlier and squish it all down into a 1 mm diameter sphere in just a fraction of a microsecond, then its energy output is going to skyrocket and a decent percentage of that plutonium is going to reach before it can tear itself apart giving you the tens of kiloton nuclear explosion you're expecting.\n\nIf something goes wrong in the detonator and you only squish it to a couple centimeters then not much of the plutonium will split before the sphere expands from the energy and stops reacting, you'll only get a few tons of explosive power out of it. This is called a fizzle and is when a nuclear device disappoints by not detonating properly.\n\nJust because something is critical doesn't mean its going to go up in a mushroom cloud, unless its super duper critical it'll likely just get warmer and warmer until it melts or pops apart."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
d1q55q | - why clothes that are hang to dry and not dry within a certain number of hours stink? does it mean that the clothes were not properly washed by the machine to start? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1q55q/eli5_why_clothes_that_are_hang_to_dry_and_not_dry/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezp2ryz",
"ezp372d"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Mold can start to grow on them, producing that musty or mildew scent. If clothes stink, you could also be using the wrong amount of detergent or your washing machine may need to be cleaned. I think the mold is normally the culprit, especially if clothes are left in the washing machine after the cycle is done before being hung up to dry.",
"It usually means that some bacteria or mold started growing. Even if you washed the clothes thoroughly, there might be some bacteria or mold spores in the water, or the machine, or even in the air.\n\nBy airing the laundry, and drying it quickly enough, you stop the mold/bacteria from growing (and making smelly chemicals in the process).\n\nClothes that haven't been washed properly still smell of body odor (not that moldy smell). I've heard a good soak in diluted vinegar can help with either smell, if the fabric can't handle a hot wash."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1tr2jx | why is it easier and more natural to extend my mouth to the left side when i smile | for reference I mean a smile similar to the one on the scumbag stacy pic. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tr2jx/eli5_why_is_it_easier_and_more_natural_to_extend/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceaqk97",
"ceaquve",
"cearu3e"
],
"score": [
26,
20,
11
],
"text": [
"I really hope this gets answered because I just spent 5 minutes smiling to myself on both sides of my face.",
"Humans have a tendency to express emotions on the left side of the face more than the right side of the face. The right brain side of the brain is attributed to me more emotional and thus controls the left side of the face.\n \n \nOver the years, evolution has strengthened the trait to be more emotionally expressive on the left side of the face. \n \n \nSource: I am studying Neuropsychology and also _URL_0_",
"For me its the right.\nIS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201204/want-take-good-picture-show-your-left-side"
],
[]
]
|
|
8ol7sb | why do our brains like to synchronize certain repetitive actions? | For example, the old trick of drawing a circle clockwise with your right hand, while trying to draw a counterclockwise circle with your left leg. The hard part is trying to do this, as naturally you want to have both motions going the same rate and the same direction. What about the brain is it that makes tasks like these so difficult? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ol7sb/eli5_why_do_our_brains_like_to_synchronize/ | {
"a_id": [
"e046eys"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I studied brain science in university.\n\n\nThis is actually not your brain but your spinal cord. It contains hardware connections between your various limbs that help them stay perfectly in sync (like for jumping) or perfectly opposite sync (like for running)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2yhy5o | why does taking a picture of an lcd screen result in fuzzy lines and an unclear picture? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yhy5o/eli5_why_does_taking_a_picture_of_an_lcd_screen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpa0t0t"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The LCD screen doesn't show a constant image, it updates several times a second (I think it's 60 times a second for most decent monitors), and doesn't update the whole image at once. This is fast enough that your brain sees it as a constantly changing image and it all blurs together. If you take a photo though, you wind up catching it in between updates, and you get something kinda strange looking."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3p44j5 | why is that when most foods spoil the get soft and mushy, but breads and other starches get harder? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p44j5/eli5_why_is_that_when_most_foods_spoil_the_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw2y9wu"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I think you are confusing the \"stale\" phenomenon with spoilage. Stale bread is perfectly edible. However, the starch molecules that make up its texture have lined up on a microscopic scale to become harder. But it is still OK to eat.\n\n\nSpoiled vegetables have their cell walls broken down by bacteria or yeast action and become limp."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1y6r1c | if a current needs a circuit to flow, how does it get from the power station to my house? are the power lines above my house actually running in both directions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y6r1c/if_a_current_needs_a_circuit_to_flow_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfhu7ew",
"cfhujd2"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The powerlines are 60Hz full cycle. Electrons flow both directions (think of two lumberjacks with a giant saw - one pushes while the other pulls then the other pushes while the first one pulls). The appliance that use 240v utilize the full cycle, the rest (the 120v appliances) use half of the cycle.",
"You're thinking mostly in Direct Current (DC) terms, such as a battery. In this case, one wire would have current flowing from the source (or power station) to your house and a second wire would carry the current back to the source. There is of course a voltage difference between the two wires.\n\nMost power lines are Alternating Current (AC). There still has to be two wire between you and source. The voltage is constantly changing from positive polarity to negative polarity (at a rate of 60 times a second in the US). Along with the, the current will be flowing one direction around the loop briefly, and then reverse briefly in sync (mostly) with the voltage. While the current is flowing in a loop, the power is for the most part only flowing from the power station to your house.\n\nSo, there have to be at least two lines running from your house to the power pole (actually, it's going to a transformer on the pole). Usually, there will be three: two \"hot\" wires and neutral. Using the neutral and either of the hot wires will give you the normal 120VAC out of the wall. Using both the hot wires will give you the 230VAC needed for running something like an electric dryer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1k1jvv | is democracy flawed? if so how? what are it's weaknesses? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k1jvv/eli5_is_democracy_flawed_if_so_how_what_are_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbkes5t",
"cbkesms",
"cbkf9e5"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This might be better asked in /r/asksocialscience. I'm sure you'll get some fairly well thought out and supported responses from that sub.",
"Two drawbacks I can think of, off the top of my head:\n\n1. Minority suppression: If the population consisted of two groups who hated each other, and group is bigger than the other, guess which group will get a raw deal with all laws and rules.\n\n2. Everyone is not really equal: Say you have two nuclear scientists and 10 farms hands in a population. And they had to decide whether to shutdown the nuclear power plant on the farm because it might be dangerous, are all votes really equal?",
"I'll answer for our form of government in the US, which many call a democracy (including me) even though it doesn't fit the technical definition. \n\nThere are a few problems with our form of government. For one, people tend to vote for what they *want* and their own interest rather than voting for what might be best for the community, country, or planet. For example, I live in Colorado. In our state, our representatives cannot raise taxes without voter approval. Our forests are really suffering from beetle kill. You can go up in the mountains near Vail and see mountain sides that are almost entirely dead. That's kindle for wildfires. Almost every election, there is a measure to raise taxes to pay to thin those forests and prevent the spread of beetle kill, but it always gets rejected. A few years ago, I think they needed a million dollars to do it. The last time we voted on the project, I think it was up to tens of millions. It keeps getting costlier, but we continue to do nothing because we don't want to pay the taxes. Then, when our forests burn, we need to declare a state of emergency and use money from the federal government to fight our fires. It's so ridiculous... but that's what we, as the voters, choose. We choose what we *want* (low taxes) instead of what we really need (fight the pine beetle). \n\nI'd say another problem we face is how we choose our Senators and Representatives nationally. In some countries, they have everyone in the country vote. They determine the makeup of their representatives based on the popular vote, so every vote counts. For example, if 10% of the people vote for an environmental/green party, then 10% of their governing body would be from that environmental party. In the United States, we do it differently. Let's say everyone in my district votes, and there are 43% of the vote for a Republican candidate, 41% of the vote for a Democratic candidate, 10% of the vote for a Green Party candidate, and 6% for a Libertarian candidate. With our current system, my district gets 1 Republican representative. Because of the way we do our system, almost *all* Senators and Representatives are Democrat or Republican. It would give parties more of a voice to do it by a national, popular vote. \n\nLet me explain that in a different way. Let's use the same numbers I used in my last example, which were that 43% voted Republican, 41% voted Democrat, 10% voted Green, and 6% voted Libertarian. If the election is all or nothing, then, as a liberal, I would be pretty stupid to vote for the Green Party. They aren't going to beat the major parties, and by not voting Democrat, I would be helping the Republicans win. So, with our current system, we will almost always have just 2 major parties, and it will almost always be a wasted vote to vote for anyone outside of those 2 parties. However, if we had a more national system, I could vote for whatever party I really wanted. I might then vote for the Green Party, knowing that 10% of the people representing me in Congress would be from the Green Party. Suddenly, we could have 3, 4, 5, 6 major parties! "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
ufqwu | why are their different levels of octane for gasoline (regular, premium, etc) and how does that effect my car (and why do some cars need regular while others need premium)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ufqwu/why_are_their_different_levels_of_octane_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4uzm57"
],
"score": [
42
],
"text": [
"To put this into something a five year old might understand...\n\nImagine we gave you three fully-blown balloons. We wrote 87 on one, 89 on another, and 92 on the last one. That number indicates how hard you can squeeze the balloon before it pops. You can squeeze the 87 balloon a little before it pops, the 89 balloon can be squeezed a bit more, and the 92 can be squeezed even harder. The harder you can squeeze that balloon, the bigger the pop.\n\nNow to bring that back up to speed (ha-ha! car pun)...\n\nThe ratings you see on pumps (87%, 89%, 92%) correspond to the ratio of octane to heptane. Those chemicals aren't necessarily important, but it is important to know that the higher that percentage, the more the gas can be squeezed before it ignites and goes pop. Just like with the balloons, the more compression, the bigger the pop and the more power you get from it.\n\nHOWEVER, your engine has to be designed to take advantage of higher octanes or else pouring 92% in an engine designed for 87% is just wasteful. On the other end, pouring 87% in an engine designed for 92% can be damaging to the engine."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2m6sje | why does my vagina pulse after orgasm? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m6sje/eli5_why_does_my_vagina_pulse_after_orgasm/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm1fa6q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Next time it happens check your wrist or throat pulse and see if the pulse there is the same as your heart beat. It probably is. You are likely just feeling the blood pulsing in the sensitized and blood filled (naturally swollen) tissues."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1t660q | why are people rebelling in the central african republic | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t660q/eli5_why_are_people_rebelling_in_the_central/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4pwqs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Francois Bozize was the long-standing President of the CAR until early this year, when he was overthrown by a rebel group called Séléka which is a left-wing rebel group led by the now President, Michel Djotodia. The CAR has seen coups before, including the one that brought Bozize to power, but Michel Djotodia was different because, in a country where 50% of people are Christian and 15% Muslim, he became the first Muslim ruler. Although he dissolved the Séléka, before and after it was dissolved its members have been accused of grievous abuses of human rights, including against the majority Christians. Those Christians, and other opponents of Michel Djotodia, have now become rebels against his ne government. So the conflict has taken on a sectarian (religiously-motivated) aspect which means it could become very bad indeed. So it is on that basis that the African Union, France (the former colonial power), and the UN are intervening to protect civilians. \n\nBefore the recent sectarian aspect, there were few real objectives of the unrest except the overthrow of Bozize and later Djotodia; because of the atrocities and general situation, the violence is self-perpetuating because civilians turned to arms to protect themselves and theit communities."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1auqvk | imagine you're driving a car at the speed of light. would it be possible to move around in the car? | For example, if someone was standing at the back of the car and walked to the front... would he be traveling faster than the speed of light (since the car is already at speed c, and he's moving inside it)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1auqvk/eli5_imagine_youre_driving_a_car_at_the_speed_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c90x9mv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Travelling at the speed of light is impossible - it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to that speed. So instead let's assume the car was really close to the speed of light, e.g. 99.9% the speed of light.\n\nFrom a stationary observer's point of view, the passenger would be walking in slow-motion (because of [time dilation](_URL_0_)) and would never be moving at faster than the speed of light."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation"
]
]
|
|
9872ow | why are wounds more prone to scarring as you grow older? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9872ow/eli5_why_are_wounds_more_prone_to_scarring_as_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4echmq"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"“Wounds on early mammalian embryos will heal perfectly with no scarring or evidence of injury. Once grown, the same skin that would have once healed with no sign of injury will produce a scar if injured. The difference in embryonic growth factors, secreted by fibroblasts, are thought to be the reason for this phenomenon. Researchers who discovered this were able to manipulate the growth factors in adults to mimic those of embryos. Once they did this, they found that the wounds healed scar free”\n\nTruthfully its still being studied but researchers believe certain growth factors effect how fibroblast secretion impacts wound healing. This could mean that the inability of growth factors to repair as well as a lack of sweat glands, hair follicles and sebaceous glands is the reason why collagen is pulled into a single direction alignment instead of the basket weave structure that skin normal forms in, resulting in scarring.\n\nIn older people I’d suggest these growth factors are impaired/reduced as a result of ageing and the impact it has on protein synthesis."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
72ilot | how does the 'controversial' selection on reddit work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72ilot/eli5_how_does_the_controversial_selection_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnite01"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, let's check the [open source Reddit source code](_URL_0_):\n\n\n\n cpdef double controversy(long ups, long downs):\n \"\"\"The controversy sort.\"\"\"\n if downs < = 0 or ups < = 0:\n return 0\n \n magnitude = ups + downs\n balance = float(downs) / ups if ups > downs else float(ups) / downs\n \n return magnitude ** balance\n\nThis isn't a guarantee of what Reddit actually does, but it's probably a good start.\n\nSo, a post's controvery score is two parts: magnitude and balance. Magnitude is a measure of how many total votes a post got (up and down combined). Basically, did people care about this post.\n\nBalance is downvotes divided by upvotes if there were more upvotes), or upvotes divided by downvotes otherwise. So, in other words, the answer to the question \"how close were the votes to evenly divided?\"\n\nFinally, the \"controversy score\" is magnitude raised to the balance.\n\nSo a post that has a million upvotes and no downvotes will receive a score of 1000000^0, which is 1. If half of those voters switch their votes to downvotes, the score becomes 1000000^1, which is 1000000. But if everyone switches to downvotes, the score falls back to 1.\n\nThe most controversial post is the one with the most votes that is also perfect divided between upvotes and downvotes."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/lib/db/_sorts.pyx"
]
]
|
||
bcq7zq | why are anti-biotics prescribed over 10 days? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bcq7zq/eli5_why_are_antibiotics_prescribed_over_10_days/ | {
"a_id": [
"eksmcvx",
"eksmer3",
"ekuhqdk"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because not all bacteria die at once when you take a pill. It is important to really really kill all of them, because bacterial growth is very fast. When you stop after 99 % are killed the infection will come back quickly. \nBuilding up AB resistance is also a problem, why you want to strike hard on bacteria.",
"Antibiotics work to kill off bad bacteria. Bacteria multiplies and grows fast. If you were to only take antibiotics for a few days, you would kill the majority of bad bacteria, but some would be leftover and ready to multiply again (now with traits that offer the bacteria immunity to that antibiotic). This leads to endless cycles of resistant bacteria.",
"It's not always 10 days. It depends on the specific antibiotic and the reason you're taking. Sometimes it's a 5 days, sometimes 7, 14, and sometimes even months for things like tuberculosis. The point is you need to make sure *all* the bacteria are gone. If only 99% are killed after a few doses, that 1% that remains can multiply and the infection will come back, but because those bacteria survived longer, they'll now be resistant to that antibiotic. So it protects you from the infection coming back and also prevents the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in general."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3yhjhp | why is al jazeera quickly becoming a trusted american news source? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yhjhp/eli5_why_is_al_jazeera_quickly_becoming_a_trusted/ | {
"a_id": [
"cydjd1u",
"cydjddv",
"cydjduz",
"cydjdwo",
"cydjgt8",
"cydkcr8",
"cydkk7p",
"cydl2t2",
"cydlc4c",
"cydm2aa",
"cydm869",
"cydnf0b",
"cydnnx5",
"cydnpmt",
"cydo5jo",
"cydo77a",
"cydoda7",
"cydogkt",
"cydogw0",
"cydotg9",
"cydp27p",
"cydp2l9",
"cydp9cn",
"cydpat2",
"cydpb5e",
"cydpibv",
"cydpiot",
"cydpmsj",
"cydpmyc",
"cydpoei",
"cydpr7c",
"cydq20a",
"cydqbwi",
"cydqdag",
"cydqhbp",
"cydqnpg",
"cydqtk4",
"cydqvc6",
"cydqvhn",
"cydqyhp",
"cydr08m",
"cydrbeu",
"cydrddr",
"cydrhjf",
"cydrm4b",
"cydrsxm",
"cydrvb1",
"cyds099",
"cyds0j2",
"cydsakp",
"cydsbpl",
"cydsc5e",
"cydscuu",
"cydsdjx",
"cydseuu",
"cydssyq",
"cydsw1s",
"cydt6r2",
"cydt7ls",
"cydtjru",
"cydtltn",
"cydtmsl",
"cydtoo8",
"cydtr8r",
"cydu5hc",
"cydu98m",
"cyduv35",
"cyduzec",
"cydv365",
"cydv9yp",
"cydvb4t",
"cydvc5s",
"cydvuc4",
"cydw00p",
"cydw854",
"cydwcyn",
"cydwehr",
"cydwide",
"cydwxie",
"cydx1w0",
"cydxl4h",
"cydxwk0"
],
"score": [
328,
3,
55,
1108,
2208,
66,
30,
3,
5,
36,
14,
196,
3,
4,
5,
11,
13,
4,
55,
6,
145,
16,
2,
5,
85,
3,
2,
2,
7,
5,
3,
15,
2,
5,
10,
2,
33,
2,
4,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
18,
4,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
6,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Al Jazeera is very biased. It is just less sensational, so Americans confuse that with reliable.",
"Same as any news source, it has built a reputation by providing reasonably unbiased news over the course of several years.",
"To be honest, while I believe that AlJazeera is incredibly biased, it SEEMS less biased to the average viewer than a channel source such as Fox. ",
"Al Jazeera publishes news with a particular perspective--it is skeptical and critical of American institutions. Some Americans share that perspective, and they are inclined to read news from a source that confirms their point of view. This is also why Russia Today has grown in popularity, despite it being a very obvious shill for the Russian government.\n\nOf course, this is not just true for foreign news sources. People like to read domestic sources that conform to their prejudices, too.",
"If you really want reliable news, you need it from a few outlets and in addition need to do research. No one outlet really provides unbiased news on important issues. \n\nAl Jazeera is certainly worth watching for their point of view. \n\nAs is listening to Vladimir Putin talk. He pokes a lot of holes in the \"US message.\" Not saying he doesn't have his own flaws, or that Al Jazeera isn't biased, just that other sources will get you thinking so you might stand a chance at putting together an actual viewpoint on the issue. \n\nEdit: Yes I mean more than these two sources. I don't get all my news from Vlad, CNN, and Al Jazeera. And to anyone implying the Russian news is somehow different than listening to Vladimir Putin talk, that's cute :P ",
"It is not owned by, nor beholden to, any of the US media conglomerates. So it's free to write about the US in any way it likes.",
"I enjoy checking out Al-Jazeera and RT to get different view points on certain situations. It's quite interesting how many details you'll get when you're not just getting fed info from one news source. Go to NBC/ABC/FOX and they all say the same things about the same stuff as if it's scripted. Instead, pick your favorite American news and stick with it. When a story of interest comes up, double check it with RT/AJ and others. You will find your perspective on that particular story changes due to getting different details from different perspectives.\n\nIt's not anti-American to watch AJ or RT.. it's just smart because of how scripted and biased \"journalism\" is now.",
"Al Jeezera is not afraid to post things from unique perspectives about the US. It's very biased about the middle East though. I wouldn't ever trust it for anything else .",
"Reading multiple biased sources will reveal far more information than an unbiased source would. \n\nThe parts that corroborate you can assume to be true. The parts that only appear on one side build a picture of why it is important to various parties. \n\n",
"AJA is usually my go-to American/international news source if I can't find an associated article on the Beeb. I mostly just prefer their format (full-on stories, each time, compared to CNN for example) and the fact that *generally* there's a lot less sensationalism. As for their bias, I can read and ignore a bias, but not when it devolves into sensationalism or fear-mongering. ",
"They give a refreshing perspective in my opinion. White people in the US get all upset that it's those Muslims lying to us, but over the years I've seen so much hypocrisy in the American outlets... I mean if you consider how during the Iraq war, American media was embedded with American soldiers and cheerleaders the war effort. Al Jazeera presented the other side of the coin. Pretty sure one of their offices got bombed because of that by coalition troops. I'm sure they have distortions of reality as well, but I'm tired of the American media conglomerates basically trying to shape my entire thought process on so many issues.",
"I do a lot of work for Al Jazeera Washington. Most of the stuff on the AJ channel in US/UK is made and edited in DC by Americans and ex BBC Brits who've crossed the pond. There's very few Arabs and Muslims involved.",
"I like that their long written reporting often gives a chance to all sides to reply to the story. Their panels often tries to be much more calmer and going into deeper analysis. It treats the viewer with respect and assumes you are willing to hear more technicalities about an event. They got their rep by being more thorough than most major outlets.\n\nThat said, they favor a middle-eastern point if view. Most of the stories come from there and the American PR version of the events is portrayed as one side only, often challenged. Even if it is sometimes evidently true. ",
"The question begins with the premise that it is a trusted American news source. My question to you would be: what convinced you that this premise is true? ",
"We speak a lot about biases but it's not the only problem in journalism: if you don't understand what you're talking about you just can't do good journalism, even with in good will, even about uncontroversial stuff. \n\nIt seems to me that Western media most of the time just don't understand Middle East and Africa, and can't even recognize what's newsworthy or not, especially American ones which are obsessed about themselves and most of the time will talk about Middle East news only as related to America and American interests. \n\nAl Jazeera, with all its biases that we have to recognize and keep in mind, at least knows what it's talking about.\n\ntl;dr western media report middle east news like 90s newscaster talking about internet and videogame",
"A lot of responses here are related to corporate bias and money influence. However I've heard other things from journalist friends that might also answer the question and maybe someone here in the industry can fact-check me:\n\n* While other US and other news outlets are closing local bureaus, Al-Jazeera is expanding in certain parts of the world (like Latin America for instance)\n\n* The reporters they have hired for AJAM are well-known American journalists that have some degree of reputability. Their format is largely more newsy as a result, rather than entertainment focused (though I do know they have some debate programs that may fall more in line with cable news, every time I've flipped it over its been straight news telling or docs like CNN International)\n\nSo while the perspectives they choose to focus on is different from the other three cable news channels that appeals to a segment of the audience, there seems to be something said to the (apparent) quality of some of its reporting. ",
"I work in media. They have an agenda, but they hire American editors and reporters who make the decisions. From conservatives to liberals, I've heard that they've been fairly represented by them -- much to their surprise. This story keeps coming up. And they do random stories. Had a colleague recently do a story as a stringer on a cockatoo who did tricks. He was just surprised as anyone that this was Al Jazeera who was paying his check.",
"Al Jazeera gives a view different from the west, as does Russia Today. Given how available foreign news is, many people look for other sources which would be separate from American propaganda.",
"AJE is pretty good. It's very similar to the BBC.\n\nThey're funded by Qatar though, so don't expect anything critical of Qatar. ",
"i remember when i was in uni, during journalism 101 during the small group \"labs\" we had an exercise where we looked up the same article (subject) with three different sources- MSNBC, FOX, and al-jazeera, and the al jazeera article had more information and had less of a biased slant than the other two sources. i mean obviously when compared to the likes of fox news that's not saying a lot, but it was generally believed, at least with the uninformed freshman journalism students, that al jazeera was one of the better sources to use due to the aforementioned traits of its content.\n\njust throwing out a semi-related anecdote out there.",
"Good question, they are seen as a legit news outlet in the UK as well. \n\nFollow me through some ELI5\n\nThe Middle East became a huge centre for international focus with no respectable news agency (that reached internationally). \nWhen they started AJ was an agency owned by \"locals\" and operated by \"locals\". They worked predominately in English and Arabic (along with the dialects) to be able to source material and disseminate it internationally. This gave much better/greater profile to news stories occurring in that area. \nSo why is it seen as credible? To a lay person like me, it is because they have to be. As newcomers they needed to be able to legitimise their position alongside CNN, AP and BBC (amongst others) in the field. And to do that would be to provide credible, backed up and researched stories, insomuch as possible. \n\nSo mainly Occams razor, that this seems to be the simplest explanation of how they got their credibility and why it is so important for them to maintain it. \n\nYes their editorials is slanted, but that is the same with every news agency. The difference might be that if Fox gets something wrong they will gloss over it, remove it from the narrative till the next cycle. If AJ screws up then I can imagine them being dragged over coals, at least by the american press. \n\ntl:dr they have to provide credible sources or get branded as a terrorist news agency. ",
"One of the biggest investors in Fox News is a Saudi Prince and that doesn't seem to affect their narrative. ",
"I think Al Jazeera is one of the largest news outlets in the world and has been considered to exist among the top outlets for a very long time. But despite it's considerably shaky ground whereas objectivity is concerned (which isn't saying much today when all media's objectivity is questionable) it became an important source of news directly from the middle east, with lots of live feeds to America, during the beginning of the Iraq war. ",
"Al Jazeera publishes news without regard for western politics. So if the news is regarding what's happening in the west it's one of the better new sources, there's not a sensationalist spin for one side or the other.\n\nIt's my go to news source because they don't try to pander to my political views. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes they say things I disagree with and I like that. News should be what IS there, not what you want to see.\n\nI'm more skeptical when it comes to their reporting in the east though, they have a pro-democratic vibe, but like anyone they have their home bias and it can be seen when reporting on the middle east.",
"In general, I find al jazeera to be sober and considered.\n\nA bit like the world service.\n\nUS news often feels more like an entertainment show.\n\nSource:\nI am a Brit.",
"One reason is that it originally at least had a lot of people from BBC's arabic division. The BBC is still respected as a decent news source I'd say.\n\nThey cover a lot of stuff in depth that many western based outlets don't.\n\nHowever, they're based in and funded by Qatar, hardly a bastion of liberalism even though they're less bad than most middle eastern regimes.\n\nThen again if Fox news is the yardstick you have to have some rather incredible bias in order to be worse.\n\nDon't watch only one news source and understand the background and biases of whatever source you pick.",
"On the Balkans, AJB, is one of few larger news sources that isn't politically influenced and they have aggregated many expirieced and smart journalist and deliver quality news. Sometimes they can be a bit biased(things concerning Islam) but generally they are my go to source.",
"A lot gets filtered out of American media, so people who want an accurate worldview consult news outlets that have no incentive to pander to American exceptionalism. We've got a real, self aggrandizing echo chamber going over here. ",
"Whatever beliefs one may have about a religion, culture, race or ethnicity arises naturally out of our experience with members of the group and will always be biased by that experience in some way. \n\nBut you never apply beliefs or anxiety about a class of people/religion/culture (which is an abstraction) to actual individuals. In this case, Al Jazeera should be judged on its merits, just as any Arab/Muslim individual walking in the door and applying for a job should be judged on his/her merits.\n\nAl Jazeera has been pursuing good quality journalism, and they don't do a bad job. They have a different perspective, which is not a bad thing.",
"First, we enjoy guaranteed free speech/press. \n\nBut more to the point, how did we end up with Fox \"news,\" which is clearly right-wing propaganda, and blatantly distorts the news and outright lies?\n\nIf you can demonstrate that any one news source is always objective, never panders to a certain demographic, and never reports anything without thoroughly fact-checking it, please let me know. If not, you're better of getting your news from a variety of sources, and be glad you can hear a middle-eastern perspective.\n\nMeanwhile, don't worry - President Trump will banish all Muslim media from our Christian shores...\n\n/s",
"Umm how many of you \"Al Jazeera is biased\" parrots have actually watched it? How about a link to a 'biased' article",
"Actually, as an Arab that has lived in Egypt and Yemen during the arab spring uprisings (and later on, the fall of Morsi and the IB), here's my perspective:\n\nAljazeera USED to be the most popular and trusted news network in the middle east. But due to how they covered the arab springs and how they played into the political battlefield, they are now mistrusted. \nPeople now trust independent channels (like Mayadeen for example, a channel run by an ex-aljazeera reporter) and social media outlets. \n\nI personally don't believe a word they say about Yemen--as I have family in the country and some of them are political players on different sides of the struggle. \n\nI understand however how western viewers would handle it as a reliable source. When I lived in Vancouver, Canada and in many cities in western Europe, people often cited news to me from Aljazeera that I knew for a fact weren't true. \n\nIt must be noted that they Aljazeera is based in Qatar. A young, oil wealthy country, with no roots and a seriously filthy agenda in the middle east. \n\n\n\nEdit: They do have a bias towards the West. And they are the most westernized arab news channel, closely followed by Al-Arabiya, a saudi based news channel (although their female anchors dress freely and avoid any negative news about the kingdom)\n\nIf you are looking for reliable news on the Middle East, it will require alot of research into freelance journalists and specific blogs/online newspapers. I could recommend some if needed. ",
"Every news organisation has selection bias. AJ happens to have a different selective bias than all other US news organisations, so they report on things that CNN et al do not. \n\nGenerally, I find their reporting more in depth and serious and grown up than US networks. Yes, they have their own selective biases, but their actual reporting is pretty good I would say. Especially their documentaries. \n\nIf you want an objective view (or as objective as you can get from news networks) you really need to view a bit of all of them. Personally, I prefer AJ because when they talk about somethin in depth, they tend to have actual experts, philosophers even where it helps, having proper discussions. On US networks, I find it is more special interest arseholes shouting at each other.",
"It's really not. Reddit is a haven for anti american sentiment so you will find a lot of viewers here but the majority of americans do not. If you want to talk about a news organization that's bias and reports inaccurately than this is the perfect one.",
"It's not.\n\nIn this thread you'll see everyone who lives inside a bubble and doesn't realize it.",
"It's biased but less biased than most of the US news sources(and far more skeptical of the US). Also they have some amazing interviewers like Mehdi Hasan(look at his interview with the government funding Al Jazeera...)",
"Have you ever watched AlJazeera? If anything it most resembles BBC world. Their reporters and talking heads are largely British. Any news source is going to be biased, Al Jazeera (at least the English version, I can't say anything meaningful about the Arabic version) probably no more so than CNN or the BBC, certainly no more so than Fox News. \n\nTheir being based in Qatar and not in the west does mean their bias will be different from channels you're more familiar with, so you notice it more",
"I am assuming this is in reference to Peyton Manning using HGH and the only way I see Al Jazeera being legitimatized is if that HGH was shipped from a country were Al Jazeera reports. ",
"I have not heard this about Al Jazeera. It's not what I would consider trusted. And this ELI5 smells like an ad.",
"I have spent many many years trying to find the right combination of news sources that fulfill my most wants/needs in reporting: diverse world coverage, fact checked, non-speculative writing/reporting, and event, not \"expert-interview\" based coverage. \n\nA few years back I ended up choosing Al-J America, and Al-J English for their straightforward approach. (note: when I say straightforward it means outside of the current American media style we have today). I don't get all the \"experts\" (paid pundits) opinions on hypothetical scenarios loosely related to the original news story (coughCNNcough)... Secondly, they both cover stories that go completely unmentioned by other outlets like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, Bloomberg etc... \n\nAfter watching Al-J English for a few months. I found myself unable to switch over to CNN for more than 10 minutes... This was because their reporting was so speculative, and not event (or fact) based it made me angry. \n\nSo, idk about everyone else, but those are my personal reasons for trusting / relying on them for my (tv) news. ( Reuters and AP are my other 2 main sources) \n\n",
"Because as an American why would I trust American news? ",
"Because it's trendy to the 18-22 crowd. Telling everyone they watch Aljezzira makes them sound wordly, and it pisses off their conservative parents. ",
"Al Jazeera is not a trusted American news source. This thought is simply the result of the PR campaign they launched because nobody trusts them. ",
"Facts:\n\nFox has a pro-Republican bias.\n\nABC, CBS, NBC & CNN have a pro-Democrat bias.\n\nAl Jazeera has a pro-Islamic bias.\n\nBias is bias. BBC probably has a pro-UK bias but that has the least effect on us right now, so BBC is probably your best bet.",
"With all the politics going on involving the Middle East, we *need* a Middle-Eastern-based news source. Al Jazeera tells us what's *actually* happening there, as opposed to what the politicians want us to think. American news media in particular is very good at ignoring the rest of the world, while Al Jazeera focuses on it. Furthermore, Al Jazeera, being non-American, gives us a sense of perspective that we can't get with American media.\n\nAl Jazeera also happens to be very good, unlike, say, Pravda. They do good journalism. They could be doing terrible journalism and just be a biased pro-ISIS source (the ISIS magazine is a great example of terrible journalism with a pro-ISIS bent), but they're not; they're a reliable news institution in the Muslim world. So, in the balance, they provide both quality and perspective, and that's a good thing for all of us!",
"AJA has *positioned* itself marketing-wise as the rationale, counter-propoganda machine to US mainstream media. \n\nFolks that are attracted to that positioning include those that detest US mainstream media, those that detest the US, those that detest irrational and or manipulative (filtered, biased) media coverage.\n\nFor the reasons stated elsewhere, I could never watch nor support them. Memories of AJA calling for death to American soldiers, for example. In addition, I freely admit to being a supportive US citizen... I believe a greater good is served when US-centric propaganda is successfully deployed around the world. AJA undermines that goal.",
"It's not, but reddit is a liberal echo chamber so you might think it's becoming an American news source if all you read is reddit",
"In the case of the Paris terror attacks, they were the only live tv news source I could swallow because they were simply reporting things as they were ongoing. Every American outlet had idiot talking heads on wildly speculating before they'd even secured the Bataclan. It was an extreme case of American media trying to instill fear and anger instead of reporting facts.\n\nWhen it comes to everyday news, I do subscribe to a lot of \"least worsts\" so I can piece together an objective view, Al Jazeera being a leading international source is among them.",
"The phrasing of your question implies that what you are asking is true. The Al Jazeera marketing team may as well have written your question.\n\ne.g. The Smucker's jam marketing team would ask, \"What makes Smucker's so good?\" and not \"Is Smucker's any good?\"\n",
" > quickly becoming a trusted American news source\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAl Jazeera *not* listed in top 50 Online News Entities.\n(Total number of unique visitors; as of Jan. 2015)",
"It's not. It's ratings are atrocious and it reports on the war on terror with a sympathetic twist to the jihadists. After this Peyton manning thing is debunked it will really have zero credibility. ",
"well be cause they are reliable in their information, not really partial to political sides, and they give in depth videos/interviews on what is happening in the middle east and other countries.\n\n other american news channels just skim for a moment about the middle east/other countries and usually displays the negatives of the middle east, while supporting a political side, and often displaying too much stories that helps no one like some random town is having a pride festival when they should talk more about major relevant events. ",
"Is it?\n\nI mean, they aren't really in the top ten in terms of traffic.(Someone else pointed out below, not even in the top 50) I have never heard anyone mention hearing a story or reading a report from them, in my own experience.\n\nLike, the only time I've ever read \" Al Jazeera quickly becoming a trusted American news source\" is in the topic for this thread. ",
"I can tell you as a person who recently discovered AJ+ and who had ten years in the news business in a major US city...the reason I like it is because it is at least actually journalism. \n\nI know it has a bias, absolutely. But \"journalism with a bias\" is a huge step closer to actual fair and impartial news in this country, where everything is a sensationalistic cavalcade of sound bytes, catch phrases, and fear-mongering.",
"It's not a trusted American news source. Who told you that?",
"Al-Jazeera is having a tough go at it with their recent Peyton Manning story ([which is filled with holes] (_URL_0_)). So that might hurt them on the \"trusted\" front.",
"A few years ago many of the BBC reporters defected to AJ. They brought with them a large audience.",
"I always found educated working class Americans thirsty to know an outsider's prospective on their country and it's policies. Give them an english speaking immigrant and that topic will always come up. Now, they have a TV channel who gives them that perspective at the touch of a button, in the comfort of their homes.",
"Long after Fox, CNN, and MSNBC quit caring about the war in Afghanistan, Al Jazeera continued to cover it, and their coverage was usually pretty balanced and not just trashing America. I know a lot of veterans who have respect for them because they hired American reporters (the one I met was a prior Marine) to embed with US military units. ",
"I'd trust (but verify) Al Jazeera for all news EXCEPT for anything pertaining to the Middle East, just like RT has been generally trustworthy for news pertaining to anything EXCEPT for Russia.",
"AJ America is somewhat separated from the AJ middle East.\n\nAJ America strives to be fairly balanced, pure news. \n\nWhat's wrong with having a news channel with an Arabic name?",
"Ya it's not.\n\nthey are the one's who broke the Peyton Manning stuff and nobody is taking it seriously because of the source and fans are pretty pissed because even though he is prob guilty he used HGH for a neck injury when there was a high probability he would not play again. ",
"simply put: because cnn.\n \ncnn was where people looked when msnbc went too far off the deep end and fox went full rabid dog. but cnn went full retard.",
"The top two comments are talking about their unique \"point of view.\" But that's not why I started watching Al Jazeera. I started years ago when they were just an international channel I got included on my cable package. Now everyone can get them. They do the news differently. It isn't some multi-million dollar news personality standing in front of the camera vaguely describing a scene. Instead they show you the footage. Their reporters rarely have much camera time. While CNN put 8 different reporters faces on the screen Al Jazeera was running near continuous footage of Arab Spring. Just actual video with someone translating the Arabic source or explaining in English what we were seeing. \n\nYou really don't see much of a Qatari influence on the actual content. They were aggressively reporting on uprisings in Bahrain and they're basically the same country separated by a half hour plane ride over the Gulf. They've even been following the Guardian stories about the World Cup in Qatar and how workers are treated like shit. Their editorial staff claims to be quasi-independent and I don't think there's any strong evidence of the royals interfering with the station (to their great credit)",
"Once upon a time, the world had no public Internet. Only research universities and governments had access to the 'Net.\n\nCourses were taught in high schools and universities, on the topic of Journalism. Philosophy departments taught critical thinking. Business departments schooled students in business ethics. Integrity was a term that educated people knew.\n\nNow, Reddit is cited as credible news. Anyone can game Wikipedia, yet it is seen as authoritative. No mainstream news outlet practices journalistic integrity. It is all slanted, clickbait yellow journalism, biased as fuck.\n\nWe are headed for the world of Mike Judge's \"Idiocracy.\" It will be remembered as the first documentary on the real world of 2100.\n\nTD;DR: America is fucked. The population are uneducated morons without any critical reasoning abilities.",
"I watch Al Jazeera every day. I learn something everytime I watch it. By American standards it is unbiased journalism.\n\nThough owned by Qatari billionaires the network is critical of fossil fuels, the Qatari government etc.\n\nThe investigative journalism is top notch. I commend their brave journalists for their efforts. They have bureaus across the globe so you have new correspondents on the ground, everywhere.\n\nI will say that the network is a bit harsh against israel, turkey, Saudi Arabia, with good arguments. But they are biased towards some countries, like Iran. Still, relative to cnn msnbc or fox it is great.",
"You know, Al Jazeera and I met under extreme circumstances. I was an American with, especially at the time, limited Japanese language ability, who just so happened to be living in Japan during the Tohoku earthquake/Tsunami, and the resulting Fukushima reactor meltdown. Al Jazeera was one of, if not the single most reliable source of English language information available to me online at the time (AP wasn't bad, but they seemed to be a lot slower). Also, please note that I lived in Sapporo on the northern island of Hokkaido, where nobody died and there was no damage. I didn't even feel the big earthquake because I was riding my bike.\n\nAnyway, the reason Al Jazeera was so great was because of this: while they certainly weren't the only news outlet covering the story, they were pretty much the only news outlet who didn't see fit to imply that the island nation of Japan had been completely destroyed/had sunk in to the sea. Obviously it was a horrifying disaster and so, so many people died... But the Al Jazeera coverage was fast, and the death tolls were conservative. I will be one of the first Americans to throw in against American news media sensationalism.\n\nThey were also the only coverage of the reactor meltdown that wasn't entirely insane. I was 350 miles away from the power plant and I ended up having to talk several people in Oregon out of buying up iodine so that the people actually fucking needed it could have some. The media managed to convince America and everyone in Japan (the few who survived the Atlantis style apocalypse, that is) was irreversibly irradiated and that now the radiation is after YOU! Al Jazeera had much better, less doomsday sounding coverage.\n\nOh, and I survived. I actually had an unrelated cancer scare not long ago but it turned out to be NAFLD caused by losing 30lbs in two months.\n\nAll that said, after that whole mess I found Al Jazeera to be less useful. I should have listed to Speed 2 about relationships formed in extreme situations.\n",
"The BBC laid off a big part of their foreign reporting. A middle-east rich guy hired them all to make AJ. So its basically BBC-Middle east.",
"Al Jazeera is being trusted by people because it's not an American news source. \n\nAmerican news sources are owned by American commercial interests who have nothing to gain by showing unbiased news.",
"The story I heard is that that's where a lot of reputable BBC reporters (especially the foreign correspondents) went when Rupert Murdoch started ~~telling~~ [pushing for] them to \"tailor their message.\"\n\nThese were the good reporters, those who would not sacrifice the news for the story. They simply quit. Al Jazeera was looking to expand at the time, and they allegedly said \"oh, you folks need a job? Here's decent pay and an opportunity for journalistic integrity.\" As a result, Al Jazeera's journalistic cred jumped by leagues overnight.",
"Al Jazeera's early reputation as radical and incendiary was based on the programming they created for Arab audiences in the Arab world. I've seen some of this programming and it is the equivalent of Fox News but for anti-Israel, anti-West people living in the Arab world. Like Fox News they take the point of view that other news sources are all liars and they'll tell you the truth, and like Fox News they play directly into the hatred and prejudices of their base audience, telling them what they want to hear.\n\nAl Jazeera also produces news programming for western audiences and they take a completely different approach with this. They hire reputable reporters often educated and trained overseas in Europe and the US, and they imitate the BBC, presenting the facts in the driest way possible. They have actually done some great reporting and all other US-based TV news operations are so sensationalist and crappy these days that Al Jazeera winds up standing out and actually looking good.\n\nThese are really two Al Jazeeras, which is the source of confusion behind your question. If you occasionally see an Al Jazeera news story shared by someone you know in the US, it is fair to get confused and say \"wait a second, aren't they that radical Arabic station?\" Yes, they are, and no, they aren't.",
"You should watch Control Room (streamable on Netflix I think). It's an incredible documentary about Al Jazeera and its coverage of the invasion of Iraq. I gained a lot of respect for them. They're certainly not concerned about presenting everything to Americans from the perspective we're used to and comfortable with.",
"It's always good to look at an issue from other people's perspective. Al Jazeera has gotten an unfair representation as a pro-terrorist network in much the same way that many people represent the whole middle east as pro-terrorist. They're simply a major regional news source.\n\nHell, there are times when you could clean up the logos (and other identifiers) and a lot of people couldn't tell the difference between AJ and BBC based solely on the format.",
"Al Jazeera isn't beholden to the same media interests that Western media outlets are: Groups like Time Warner, News Corp, and Comcast all have an effect on their news subsidiary operations, and are usually interested in easy, lazy reporting that doesn't cost a lot of money or deliver any shocks to the business system.\n\nAl Jazeera is beholden to the Qatari royalty, just like everyone else in Qatar. This means while they won't do any good or deep reporting into anything the Qatari government doesn't want them to, they are not held back from doing in-depth reporting on issues occurring in the United States and Europe.\n\n",
"I probably would have trusted them a couple days ago, but the Peyton Manning PED thing definitely killed that ",
"Because they are paid by different people than other news sources, and so are allowed to report on anything they want any way they want... Outside of Qatar.",
"its my understanding that they are trusted because they have little bias (impossible to have none) and as a non-american company they provide better coverage to important events that take place outside of the US, something that US-based \"world news\" does very poorly.",
"Simple answer: Aljazeera doesn't peddle western propaganda. And very surprisingly they don't peddle Arab propaganda. They are unbiased and report things as they happen. BBC World is kind of similar in this regard. ",
"Because Americans are tired of the partisan politics played by the so called 'journalists' in America!\nFrom what I have seen of Al Jazeera they report the NEWS\nPeople in America are tired of the liars on both sides > ",
"Al Jazeera is the largest news agency with the most reporters in the most countries.\n\nThe name may be middle eastern, but they are based out of so many countries. \n\nAdd to that, they have no western sponsors and don't need to hold back on a story about Donald Trump because Trump owns part of their network, ect.\n\nIt's a different viewpoint. And it's been a solid news source for decades, but the US and Canada heavily limit how much they can report on over here",
"Honestly, the short answer is \"why shouldn't they be?\"\n\nThe only reason people don't like Al Jazeera is because of the association of the name with terrorism. It's a bigoted and short-sighted assumption, which pretty much sums up whether you think you should listen to them or not...",
"Because there is no reliable news source within the US. Ever since Ronald Reagan proclaimed we have so many news sources we don't need to regulate access, we've had a steady march of big bucks buying the airwaves. You think all those ads for pharmaceuticals are trying to sell you the drug? Nope. They're buying CBS, NBC, ABC to keep them quiet on the amount of money big pharma makes. Big Pharma bought off congress and got a law passed prohibiting the government from bargaining on price when buying drugs. Canada's drugs cost a small fraction of what America pays. You are not going to hear about that on the news, though, unless you watch Al Jazeera or some other outside news source.\n\nAlso, most Americans associate Al Jazeera with broadcasting terrorists threats and have come to think Al Jazeera is terrorists friendly. In fact, Al Jazeera has put together a world wide network of good, responsible journalists who are out to report on news, not on agenda (i.e. FOX)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/digital-top-50-online-news-entities-2015/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_29315173/peyton-manning-hgh-allegations-its-freaking-joke"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3g9tor | does it matter which oven rack you cook your food on, and if so why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g9tor/eli5_does_it_matter_which_oven_rack_you_cook_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctw5t6s",
"ctw69s5",
"ctw7odd"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well the higher it is the closer to the heat source so you should probably put the thing you are slow cooking lower down.",
"Ideally, no, because if you keep the oven door closed, the air inside the oven will reach an equilibrium temperature (this is why preheating your oven is important) but in practice, the closer you are to the heat source, the hotter and faster your food cooks.",
"An oven cooks food from the different methods. \n\nConvection which may be fan assisted, hot air rises, cool air goes to the oven floor where the heating elements reheat it. \n\nInfrared heat from either the top or bottom heating elements.\n\nRadiant heat from the oven walls.\n\nBeing in the middle of the center rack helps the food be equidistant to all 3 heat sources, and promotes even cooking.\n\nBeing close to top, near intense direct heat from the heating element (broiler) helps brown the top, and if left too long will burn it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4ba7l2 | how does my throat not get confused more often and send food and liquids down my wind pipe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ba7l2/eli5_how_does_my_throat_not_get_confused_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"d17ccok",
"d17cjc1"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"anotomy. when you swallow, a flap of skin called the epiglottis covers the trachea and allows food to just go down the esophagus. \n\nedit it appears that its not a flap of skin, but a cartilage structure. \n\n_URL_0_",
"When you swallow, there's this little flap that acts like a train junction. When there's nothing on the track, The junction goes to \"Air Station\". When the track senses a train, the junction redirects the train to \" Belly Station\". If the junction doesn't notice the train, and the train goes to \"Air Station\". There's a jam. This is called choking. But the train station is hella smart and rarely jams."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiglottis"
],
[]
]
|
||
lkl3l | why are black holes not very dense? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lkl3l/eli5_why_are_black_holes_not_very_dense/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2thp9m",
"c2thv63",
"c2thp9m",
"c2thv63"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"A black hole is made of 2 parts - the singularity and the event horizon.\n\nThe singularity is very, very dense and contains all the matter or energy in the black hole. Singularities actually probably make the shape of a super, ultra thin & small ring in the middle of the black hole.\n\nThe event horizon can be any size, from less than the size of a tip of a needle, to the size of multiple suns. Black holes that are very small do not exist for very long however, for complicated reasons.\nThe event horizon is basically an imaginary sphere where gravity becomes *just* too powerful for anything to escape. If you looked at a black hole, what you would see (or wouldn't see, technically) is the event horizon.\n\nA black hole is both of these parts. Because everything between the event horizon is nothing but space and light / matter in the process of being sucked in, most of the black hole's volume / size is empty space. \n\nOnly in the very middle of a black hole is the ultra, maybe infinitely, dense object. (Density = mass / volume, if the volume is infinitely small, then the density will be infinitely large, regardless of how much mass there is.)",
"ELI5 - Black holes are SUPER dense. They are just very small. If you took all of the everything that the earth was made out of, and made a black hole out of it, it would be roughly the size of a golf ball. Yet it would still contain every atom that the original earth was made up of - just smashed into that one tiny spot. In fact, if you were as far away from the core of that particular black hole as you are from the core of the earth right now, you'd feel the exact same amount of gravity - because you'd have the same amount of matter pulling on you.\n\nYou *could*, if you were being silly, argue that the black hole was less dense because the huge area that used to contain the earth was now basically completely empty (because all of the earth's mass has been smashed into one tiny sphere). If that's what you were getting at then... Well, it wouldn't be scientific at all, but... there you go.",
"A black hole is made of 2 parts - the singularity and the event horizon.\n\nThe singularity is very, very dense and contains all the matter or energy in the black hole. Singularities actually probably make the shape of a super, ultra thin & small ring in the middle of the black hole.\n\nThe event horizon can be any size, from less than the size of a tip of a needle, to the size of multiple suns. Black holes that are very small do not exist for very long however, for complicated reasons.\nThe event horizon is basically an imaginary sphere where gravity becomes *just* too powerful for anything to escape. If you looked at a black hole, what you would see (or wouldn't see, technically) is the event horizon.\n\nA black hole is both of these parts. Because everything between the event horizon is nothing but space and light / matter in the process of being sucked in, most of the black hole's volume / size is empty space. \n\nOnly in the very middle of a black hole is the ultra, maybe infinitely, dense object. (Density = mass / volume, if the volume is infinitely small, then the density will be infinitely large, regardless of how much mass there is.)",
"ELI5 - Black holes are SUPER dense. They are just very small. If you took all of the everything that the earth was made out of, and made a black hole out of it, it would be roughly the size of a golf ball. Yet it would still contain every atom that the original earth was made up of - just smashed into that one tiny spot. In fact, if you were as far away from the core of that particular black hole as you are from the core of the earth right now, you'd feel the exact same amount of gravity - because you'd have the same amount of matter pulling on you.\n\nYou *could*, if you were being silly, argue that the black hole was less dense because the huge area that used to contain the earth was now basically completely empty (because all of the earth's mass has been smashed into one tiny sphere). If that's what you were getting at then... Well, it wouldn't be scientific at all, but... there you go."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
fqrftn | how are radiological examinations like ct or mrt of moving organs (i.e. heart) carried out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fqrftn/eli5_how_are_radiological_examinations_like_ct_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"flskk5a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a long-standing problem with radiology. \n\nFor lungs, you simply ask the patient to hold their breath for 10 seconds or so. This usually accomplishes the task of fixating the lungs.\n\nFor the heart, you hook up some electrodes to the patient which measures the rhythm of the heart. Then you synch those electrodes to the CT/MRI. So the machine knows where the heart is in time, and then when you reconstruct the image, you pick only the images taken at the same phase of the rhythm."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
k7hhj | why are the paperback book versions not released at the same time as the hardcover? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k7hhj/eli5_why_are_the_paperback_book_versions_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2i2f6h",
"c2i34xb",
"c2i3lzf",
"c2i7hd7",
"c2i2f6h",
"c2i34xb",
"c2i3lzf",
"c2i7hd7"
],
"score": [
13,
9,
3,
2,
13,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"To try to encourage [force] eager readers who want the book first, to pay more for the hardcover version.",
"A first release of a book, unless from a major author, will generally be low volume. The publisher wants to maximize profit, so they make a hardcover book that only costs a little more to produce but can sell at a higher profit margin. If the book takes off they need to meet volume and will mass produce the paperbacks. ",
"Paperback books have historically been poorer quality, and so were only really marketable once a book gained popularity through sales of the better-quality hardcover.\n\nAdditionally, it used to be a better cost trade: paperbacks used to only be cost-effective for very large runs.\n\nNow, it's mostly tradition and market segmentation. It's been that way for so long, that no one really thinks to change it. And, fans of the book/author/series will buy the hardcover version at a higher markup because they can read the book immediately -- if there was a paperback copy available, some hardcover-buyers would buy it instead, reducing profit for the publisher.",
"Hardcover is to movie theater as paperback is to DVD.",
"To try to encourage [force] eager readers who want the book first, to pay more for the hardcover version.",
"A first release of a book, unless from a major author, will generally be low volume. The publisher wants to maximize profit, so they make a hardcover book that only costs a little more to produce but can sell at a higher profit margin. If the book takes off they need to meet volume and will mass produce the paperbacks. ",
"Paperback books have historically been poorer quality, and so were only really marketable once a book gained popularity through sales of the better-quality hardcover.\n\nAdditionally, it used to be a better cost trade: paperbacks used to only be cost-effective for very large runs.\n\nNow, it's mostly tradition and market segmentation. It's been that way for so long, that no one really thinks to change it. And, fans of the book/author/series will buy the hardcover version at a higher markup because they can read the book immediately -- if there was a paperback copy available, some hardcover-buyers would buy it instead, reducing profit for the publisher.",
"Hardcover is to movie theater as paperback is to DVD."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
x0wiy | twitter / fb / g+ paid followers/fans? | I've seen lots of new website that basically sell traffic, traffic to your content on Facebook, Twitter, G+, YouTube, etc.
ELI5:
* have any of you ever tried it?
* who actually creates the traffic, or are they all bots?
* any tips on finding people who can generate the traffic (not the reselling websites)?
* does a process like this have any staying power in the future of social media?
TIA
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x0wiy/eli5_twitter_fb_g_paid_followersfans/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5iar3j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > have any of you ever tried it?\n\nI have not.\n\n > who actually creates the traffic, or are they all bots?\n\nMostly bots, some real people thrown in there. Real people may not be that invested, so might be functionally indistinguishable from the bots. Bots may actually be better.\n\n > any tips on finding people who can generate the traffic (not the reselling websites)?\n\nDo whatever it is you're doing well. Mention it from time to time, and do it well. Develop a fanbase and let them spread it. Don't expect to pull in six figures, or even to be able to quit your day job. Do whatever it is you're doing because you love doing it.\n\n > does a process like this have any staying power in the future of social media?\n\nNot really, no. That said, other processes will replace it. But the consumer - that is, the real people you are trying to target, will always get more savvy at spotting bot-inflated things and will start to reject outright things that smell inflated. So the new process will look different. Search Engines will figure out how to filter it out, so the new processes will work around it.\n\nThey're still no excuse for actually delivering a product. May work in the short term, but if you aren't actually doing interesting things, it'll ultimately fail."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
553lm2 | does earth look as it does in pictures (blue and all), when seen from the lunar surface? | Does Earth also light up the night sky on moon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/553lm2/eli5_does_earth_look_as_it_does_in_pictures_blue/ | {
"a_id": [
"d878604",
"d87awqx"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Look at [this photo of the earth](_URL_0_) (yes, it is real!) taken from the surface of the moon.\n\nThe moon does not have an atmosphere, so there are no air particles that change how we see the earth. Also, it never lights up the sky, because in a way, there is no sky.",
"Earth does reflect light to the moon.. it's faintly visible too.. called earthshine.. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Earthrise_over_Compton_crater_-LRO_full_res.jpg"
],
[
"https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/earthshine.html"
]
]
|
|
1qdbe0 | why don't all climbers use paragliding to get off for example mount everest? | It's got to be a lot safer, right? The descent is dangerous as hell. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qdbe0/eli5_why_dont_all_climbers_use_paragliding_to_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdbo5tg",
"cdboa5z",
"cdbob7r",
"cdboxbd",
"cdbpdmi",
"cdbpr7z",
"cdbq200",
"cdbqhof"
],
"score": [
46,
2,
14,
3,
9,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Getting to the top is hard. Taking all that extra equipment up is hard work.",
"I believe there are a lot of Problems.\nThe first one is the Pressure, not sure if the parachute would open up.\nIn addition to that, the wind is a major aspect, you really need where its coming from that nearly all the way down.\n\nBut i'm not an expert. Just my thoughts about that.\n\nOf course the extra Equipment. as mentioned before.",
"_URL_0_\n\nELI5 as i understand it:\nThere are people that like the hard act of going up the Mountain, so there a probably those who also like going down the Mountain.\n\nSomebody in a Google Presentation once talked about different kinds of fun. His most loved was the one where it's hard to accomplish something, but being able to talk about the succeed ist what makes it good, and being one of those who succeeded.\n\nTaking the easy route down probably kills alot of the Fun, after everythings over. It just isn't as spectacular.\n\nAlso for Paragliding down there have to be certain weather conditions which probably aren't often met.\n\nAnd finally, lets say the Weather is always fine and all, why wouldn't people just fly up with an helicopter? Stay for a few minutes, and then fly back? \n\nHope you get it, have a nice day :)\n\n",
"I hike a lot and I can tell you that it much easier to go up in some cases than come down. This is because going down bruises the knees much more.",
"You have to learn how to fly a paraglider and it is not trivial. They can suffer from parachutal stall where descent speed is very high if brakes are over-applied.\n\nAir gets thinner as you climb higher so you have to run faster to achieve take-off. I have flown paragliders in the Alps and take-off is much. much harder than it is at sea level and landing speed is also higher.\n\nParagliders are prone to collapse in the winds which occur near sharp objects such as cliffs.\n\nParagliders are not as heavy as hang-gliders but they are heavier than parachutes and dragging them tp the top of a mountain would not be trivial.\n\n",
"Because those who can hike need not necessarily be good paragliders and good paragliders need not necessarily be good hikers...!! ",
"I found this in TIL\n\n_URL_0_",
"How the fuck you gonna carry a paraglider up Mt Everest?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.xcmag.com/2013/05/60-years-of-everest-paragliding-and-hang-gliding-on-the-worlds-highest-peak/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1qcliw/til_that_in_2011_two_men_paraglided_from_the/"
],
[]
]
|
|
3snzk9 | how do you find a lawyer if you are in jail? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3snzk9/eli5_how_do_you_find_a_lawyer_if_you_are_in_jail/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwywlmw",
"cwyy373",
"cwyzk77",
"cwyzvah",
"cwz0gu4",
"cwz0r7h",
"cwz1hwl",
"cwz2ubt",
"cwz3azo",
"cwz3p0u",
"cwz57b8",
"cwzdtgf"
],
"score": [
54,
59,
8,
2,
2,
29,
8,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"In the USA, if you're charged with a crime and don't have an attorney, one will be appointed for you. \n\nIn the case of questioning, if you demand a lawyer, the questioning must stop - they're not required to get you a lawyer or help you get a lawyer. That may mean a day or so in jail until you're arraigned and appointed a lawyer.",
"This will vary based on where you are. In Canada, when you are arrested or detained, you have the right to a lawyer, the right to be told about your right to a lawyer, and the right to consult with your lawyer \"without delay\".\n\nThere's a toll-free number in each province that will let you speak with a lawyer, over the phone, for free, 24/7. If you want to use this, the cops have to let you. Generally, they'll dial the phone, connect you with the service, and walk out of the room.\n\nTypically, that'll be enough to satisfy the legal requirements, and the cops can continue to question you. Even if you say \"I don't like that lawyer, I want a different one.\" You don't have the right to talk with *whatever lawyer you choose* immediately before the cops can question you. If you did, and you're smart, you'd pick a lawyer that you know to be on vacation or something, and say \"Hey, couldn't talk with my lawyer, so you can't question me.\"\n\nCanada is different from the US though, in that you don't have the right to have a lawyer *present* during any interrogations. You just have the right to talk with one beforehand, and to re-consult if your legal situation changes (e.g. the guy you allegedly stabbed dies in the hospital and the cops tell you this; or after you're arrested for drunk driving, the cops find 10kg of heroin in your car).\n\nSource: am Canadian lawyer",
"In the holding cell, when I was arrested, there was a list of bail bonding companies on the wall. They had telephone numbers, and a landline phone just outside the door to use. When I called one to bail me out, he also knew of lawyers to talk to. Bail bonding companies are open 24 hours, lawyers aren't. But they spring you out of jail, and you talk to the lawyer the next day, etc etc\n\nEdit: You have to have a bit of cash to hire a bail bondsman. Your bond fee is 10% of your actual bail. So if you commit a crime and your bail is set by a judge at $4,000, you pay a bondsman 400 bucks, the bondsman pays the court 4000 bucks, and then if you show up to court, the court gives the money back to the bondsman, and he pockets the 400. If you don't show up, then Dogg the Bounty Hunter comes after you. If you're rich, then you already have 4000 bucks, and just give it to the judge directly, and they let you out. \n\nIt's kind of fucked up really, because you are a lot more able to defend yourself if you're not in jail. You can get on the internet to look up the consequences of your actions and what to do about it. But you have to pony up some cash at first in order to get out of jail to begin with. \n\nI was totally broke when it happened, so one of my friends paid 200 bucks for me to get out of jail, and I am forever grateful. If it were not for him, they were going to hold me until my court date, which was months away. \n\nAlso, it wasn't DUI; it was unlawful discharge of a firearm. DUI is trashy /s.",
"You are either prepared and have a lawyer you know. Keep a card or add them into your phone contacts. Or you are more likey fish bait and will remember one of those stupid bill boards on the highway (1800callsam) where I live. ",
"In Scotland the local defence lawyers will have a rota system to determine who the \"duty lawyer\" is. Anyone being brought in to custody who doesn't have a lawyer but wants one will have the duty lawyer contacted on their behalf.",
"Public defender, checking in. Our office keeps a cell phone that we affectionately call the \"jail phone\". Jail staff have the number, and if someone (the rare thinking type) wants to speak to an attorney before taking a breath test, for example, they call the phone and one of us picks it up. We take turns carrying the damn thing around. \n\nAfter you've seen the judge, and the judge has found probable cause for the charge, you'll either be appointed a public defender or given the chance to hire your own lawyer. Then you plead not guilty, and, in most cases, then you plead guilty to accept the state's generous offer of little to no jail time. \n\nPlease, people, if they tell you that you have the constitutional right to an attorney than for the sake of all that is rational please use it. Call a lawyer before you give the state literally everything they need to convict you. ",
"This is more complicated than it sounds. A friend of mine was arrested for a DUI, booked into county jail and was unable to make a call. There was a pay phone available, but he had to enter his id number which was quite long and in small print on his name band. Problem was, they didn't give him his reading glasses and nobody would help him. Basically he was stuck in jail because of poor eyesight. ",
"In the England and Wales solicitors are on a rota. There is always a \"duty solicitor\" available and if you ask for a lawyer and don't have one of your own, that's who gets called in.",
"There are state appointed lawyers that operate for free that I am sure every police station is required to have the number to along with local lawyers",
"All the bars in my college town use wristbands with the name and number of lawyers, you know, just in case. ",
"Public Defenders and Court-Appointed Lawyers are not generally assigned until the defendant has satisfied the court that he or she is indigent, and unable to hire one. In my jurisdiction, that can take some time. My most recent appointed client had been in jail for a month before I received the appointment. He was released shortly thereafter, and now awaits further proceedings. \n\nRegardless of the involvement of a lawyer, an arrestee may refuse to answer questions from the police, and that refusal will not be admissible against the arrestee at trial. Also, requests for a lawyer are not admissible to show consciousness of guilt. I advise clients to always refuse to answer questions, even pre-arrest, except for questions about identity. Answer those, so that the outside world can know you are in jail, and because it's an offense to give a false name when legally detained or arrested, especially if there's an active warrant at the time.\n\nWhen you say \"I want a lawyer\" or \"I don't want to answer any questions,\" the police are supposed to stop questioning you. The request for a lawyer will end questioning until a lawyer is involved, and surely thereafter unless the lawyer sees an advantage in talking to police. A refusal to answer questions only forestalls the next round of questions for some waiting period, usually the next day. So, request a lawyer. \n\nMost clients who privately engage a lawyer from jail have help on the outside, someone who contacts the lawyer and requests that he or she visit the arrestee, and maybe try to secure release. It's often a good move to have a lawyer work on your release rather than a bondsman, because the lawyer will try to save you money by seeking a reduced bond amount or a Personal Bond. Often the court is encouraged to reduce bond by the involvement of a privately-hired lawyer, especially if it's a lawyer the court knows.\n\nAs for the cops letting you browse the internet for lawyers, nope. In fact, the jails here in Texas have all contracted with private phone providers to scam arrestees out of anywhere from 15 to 25 bucks to make a phone call to anyone. And those calls are very definitely being recorded and reviewed by police. Your best move is to trust a friend to get a lawyer to visit you. Most lawyers are willing to visit you in jail because you will probably hire the first lawyer you can.\n\nI've created an app for my clients, and for prospective clients, which is basically a Mayday button on your phone. I'll have it in operation soon, and intend to vend it to other lawyers too. When the user is stopped by police, he opens the app and sees a big red button. If he knows he's going to be arrested, or if he's asked to get out of the car, he presses that button as he exits and I get a notice that he's in trouble. A call to the jail confirms the arrest and I'm working on release before he's even been booked. There are other features, including recording audio of the encounter, with streaming upload so police can't interfere with it. Also a GPS feature that tells the lawyer where the arrest is happening, and even tells the lawyer if the phone is being brought into a jail or impound lot. Another feature will be a video of the lawyer instructing the officer that the client had counsel will not answer questions, because people are usually too timid to assert those rights directly to an armed and suspicious stranger. I am pretty hopeful people will like it.",
" > Let's say you never want to talk to the cops, ever. Could you automatically seek a lawyer and never talk to cops?\n\nIn the USA that is correct. Most lawyers would advice you against talking to the police because anything you say to them can ONLY be used against you. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
43zkb0 | is there anyway for a human body eating the right foods and doing right exercise to be 100% efficient leaving no waste products | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43zkb0/eli5_is_there_anyway_for_a_human_body_eating_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"czm636i",
"czm6ds5",
"czm6e2l",
"czma1pb",
"czmiulb",
"czmkvzy",
"czmnrt5"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
43,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I am assuming you mean no poop. Some babies who are breastfed can go a couple weeks between poops...because they use almost everything in the breast milk they are fed.\n\nThere are also people who receive intravenous nutrition because of digestive tract problems....I don't actually know if they poop at all.\n\nIn terms of any waste, we break the food we eat down into nutrients, these nutrients are used and the human body makes waste products that we can't recycle and end up removing from the body via urine. Also, we convert the food we eat into CO2 that we breath out.\n\nSo, no. Since we are creatures that need to take in energy-rich molecules and then use chemical processes to turn those into less-energy-rich molecules, we will always make waste. The difference in energy between the molecules we take in and the molecules we excrete is the energy we use to do the things we do.",
"Interestingly this is related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which roughly states that if you transform energy, you produce entropy (or ELI5, waste) \nIf you could transform energy 100% efficiently, then you'd get perpetual motion machines. ",
"No. Many of your waste products are the result of metabolic activity, the breakdown of dead red blood cells, and so on. Even if you have a great diet, these processes still continue and are necessary for life.",
"If you mean no poop, no. Only a small part of poop is undigested food, the majority is water and bacteria!",
"A follow up to this: If you obtained nutrients from fluid would you defecate? Or would it be just diarrhea because there is no substance to solidify it?",
"There was a guy who literally ate nothing for over a year, he still pooped occasionally. So, I'm gonna say no, you can't escape death, taxes, or poop. ",
"Think of your body like a waterwheel. Water moves _through_ the waterwheel and comes out the other end while the wheel produces energy, but that doesn't mean that it would somehow be optimal for a waterwheel to have water come in at the top and not leave at the bottom. Much of your \"waste\" is fiber, which moves through the digestive tract and is important to keep it healthy. Much of the water you drink passes into your body and then outward as urine, carrying with it toxic byproducts of cellular metabolism. Both have to come in and go out again to perform that function."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3ukb51 | what is going on with russia and turkey? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ukb51/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_russia_and_turkey/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxfkas3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Russia and turkey were on decent terms.\nRussia sent planes to Syria to fight ISIL.\nTurkey shot down Russian Fighter Jet.\nRussia asked for apology, turkey says no.\nRussia says turkey is supporting the terrorists.\nTurkey says no.\nRussia is advising russians not to travel to turkey because of terrorists threats (this is 12% of turkeys tourism).\nTurkey is pissed.\nRussia sends warship towards the area, and puts down anti-aircraft missile launchers in syria, but they can fire in around 1/3 of turkey.\nTurkey is relying on America to calm things down.\nRussia blames America for leaking their flight paths and says whole thing was preempted and turkey were waiting for them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
caojmr | is there a limit to how fast a mobile phone can move before it can’t keep a signal? | I’m not 100% sure how phones work but I’m curious if there is a limit to how fast a phone could travel before it was unable to keep a signal / 4G? For example if you put a phone in a cat. How fast would it have to travel before it stopped getting a signal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/caojmr/eli5_is_there_a_limit_to_how_fast_a_mobile_phone/ | {
"a_id": [
"eta44u9",
"etb4c9z"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, there is a limit. For a cellphone to operate, it must be in communication with one or more cellular signal towers, each of which covers a certain area. If the phone is traveling too fast, it will not have time to send data to/from the cell tower before it is already out of range. Granted, this would have to be at a very fast speed: something like a jet.",
"It would depend on what breed of cat you put the phone into. Your average house cat has a top speed of around 30 mph compared to a cheetahs top speed of 75 mph. As other posters here have stated, if the cats move to quickly between towers they could lose connectivity. I'm not sure at what speed the phone lose this connection, but to answer your question, I believe it would be somewhere between house cat and cheetah."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5lj296 | bicameral legislatures - how do they work and why do they exist? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lj296/eli5_bicameral_legislatures_how_do_they_work_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbw33ci",
"dbw387p",
"dbw3agj",
"dbw3cp4",
"dbw8rst"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A bicameral legislature is a system in which two bodies are responsible for making laws. Both bodies must agree on and pass a bill before it can be signed by the PM/president/whatever and become a law. \n\nThe United States is an example of a bicameral legislature. The two bodies that make up our congress are the Senate and House of Representatives.\n\nThe Senate is composed of 100 senators--2 from each of the 50 states.\n\nThe House of Representatives is composed of 435 reps, with the number of representatives from each state being decided based on the population of that state, but each state is guaranteed at least 1 representative. California is currently the most populous state so it has the most representatives.\n\nThe purpose of doing this, at least in the US, is to try and strike a balance between the lawmaking power of highly and sparsely populated states. If we only had the HoR, then a few states where a lot of people live could dictate law to a larger number of states where fewer people live. If we only had the senate, then more populous states would have less voting power per citizen because each state has the same number of votes. Both of these situations are undesirable if your goal is to provide for as equal of representation as possible in the federal government, so we have both as a compromise.",
"Probably the oldest example of a modern bicameral legislature is the United States Congress. The House of Representatives is the lower house and the Senate is the higher house.\n\nThe rationale behind the U.S. Congress having two houses was a compromise between the large and small states. The number of representatives apportioned to each state is based on population (with the largest state having 53 and the smallest states having 1) while every state has exactly two senators. Otherwise the two houses have essentially the same responsibilities; almost all legislation must pass both houses.\n\nThat's not the only reason to have a bicameral legislature but it's one reason they've been adopted in so many other states.",
"Well, as one with limited knowledge on this subject, I can only explain it to you by using the example of the United States's bicameral legislature. \n\nBicameral means two houses- essentially two legislative bodies. Those two houses are the Senate and the House of Representitives. The two houses have different duties. For instance, the Senate approves a president's cabinet positions, while members of the House would vote for the president in an election if there was a tie in the electoral college. There are many differences besides that, feel free to google for more. \n\nThe number of Reps per state depends on population, while 2 Senators are chosen from every state. This was a way to appease both large states (who liked the population side to it, as they would have more representation), and the small states (who liked that they were ensured the same number of Senators as everyone else).\n\nSo they serve different purposes. In the case of the US, it was a matter of appeasement to large and small states, while also being a form of checks and balances on a tinier scale (as the two houses have different duties). \n\nI hope my limited teenage knowledge helped! ",
"Most democracies operate under a representative government. Unicameral legislatures simply have one \"house\" where representatives elected by the people meet to discuss new laws.\n\nBicameral legislatures have two \"houses\". In some cases the \"lower house\" is elected by the people, while the upper house is appointed by something/someone else. Sometimes, both houses are democratically elected.\n\nCanada (my country) has an elected House of Commons and an unelected Senate. The Senate's members are appointed by the Prime Minister, and are usually members of his party. They serve until they reach the age of 75. However the Senate's primary function is to look for loopholes and errors in bills passed from the HOC. Once a bill goes through the Senate, it is signed by the Governor General, who represents the Queen (though in practice, the Prime Minister), and it becomes law.",
"There have been several answers for the first question so I'll address the second one. The US's Congress is based on parliaments in Spain, England, and other European countries. The purpose of those original bicameral legislatures was to provide some form of representation to wealthy landowners (nobles, lords, aristocrats, etc.) as well as regular people (the so called common man). This was to balance the competing political interests between the few wealthy people, and the many poor people. This idea formed the basis of the American one which balances the rights of small population states against large population states.\n\nThe ultimate goal in a bicameral legislature is to balance two groups who both have political power."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
j3xcd | how does counting cards work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3xcd/eli5_how_does_counting_cards_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28xzpt",
"c28y9fu"
],
"score": [
30,
2
],
"text": [
"In blackjack, you are much more likely to beat the dealer using a deck that has more \"big\" cards (aces, face cards and 10's) and less \"small\" cards (2's, 3's, and 4's). One of the reasons for this is that the dealer *must* take another card when he has a hand of 16 or less, so the more high cards there are left in the deck, the better his chances of going over 21 and losing, while a lot of low cards means he has a good chance of getting a very strong hand, like a 19 or a 20. Another reason is that a lot of aces and 10's mean more blackjacks (two-card 21's) for players, which pay out more money than just winning the hand. Because of this, if you know there are a lot of high cards in the deck, you should bet more, and if you know there are a lot of low cards in the deck, you should bet less.\n\nThe easiest way to count cards is to just keep one number in your head. When a new deck is used, start at the number 0, and watch every card as it is played. Every time you see an ace, a face card or a 10 played, subtract one from your count. Every time you see a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 played, add one. That way you keep a pretty good idea of what kind of cards are left in the deck. If your count is at -6, for example, you know that there are more small cards left in the deck than big cards, so you should make a small bet. If your count is +8, you know there are many more big cards left than small cards, so you should make a very large bet.",
"[Assuming the five year old is familiar with the basics of blackjack.]\n\nYou keep a running count like so: every time you see a 2-6, add one to the count. Every time you see a face card or ace, subtract one. Divide by the number of decks remaining to be dealt. The higher the count, the more you bet.\n\nIt works because small cards benefit the dealer, whereas big cards benefit the player. For example, if the remaining cards are rich in small cards, the dealer is less likely to bust his hand. So, the richer the deck is in big cards, the more you want to bet."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3awkny | why does my doctor prescribe me 800mg ibuprofen when he could just tell me to take 4 200mg pills? is there something better about 1 800mg pill over 4 200mg pills? | Wouldn't it be easier for him to tell me to take 800mg at a time. I can but 200mg pills at the store without a prescription. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3awkny/eli5_why_does_my_doctor_prescribe_me_800mg/ | {
"a_id": [
"csgmn9v",
"csgnzeu",
"csgo4ya",
"csgp24a",
"csgpngf"
],
"score": [
3,
36,
27,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Price maybe? Also, I'd much rather take 1 pill than 4, I hate taking pills. I don't see any reasons other than those two factors.",
"When a Doctor prescribes 800mg ibuprofen, he is usually referring to the dose that you should take; writing it in a way that's easiest for him to get the desired dose. He is not instructing you or the pharmacist to only take/give a 800mg tablet. It also has the additional benefit that the prescription dose will be covered by insurance rather than paying for OTC. However, for people that do not have insurance, the pharmacy that I work at direct people to buy it off the shelf because its cheaper. ",
"Generally speaking when a doctor prescribes you 800 mg Ibuprofen they come with an enteric coating that helps you digest them with less stomach upset. Taking 4 200mg ibuprofen would be enough to cause a lot of people to have stomach pain and nausea or vomiting. The prescription-strength 800mg pills are coated with a substance to help avoid all that.",
"/u/omfgzakum seems to make a lot of sense (and speak from personal experience as well), but I think /u/HoHoHo_Its_Santa raises an interesting point about stomach upset.\n\nA tiny tiny fraction of any given coated pill is the actual medicine which is why both the 800mg dose and the 200mg dose of ibuprofen are probably the same physical size, so each of those four 200mg pills in your stomach would be digested at the same rate as the 800mg pill. This means that your stomach has access to four times as much surface area of pill to break down, which would mean (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the medicine might have different absorption rates. I'm not sure how pills are constructed since that would be relevant to absorption, but it's interesting to consider.",
"There are other ingredients in the pill besides the analgesic. If you were to take 4x200mg pills instead of 2x400mg pills you would be ingesting more of the ineffective ingredients. Plus it's just more convenient and cost effective to swallow 2 pills instead of 4"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3j0qln | how do high liquors makers (like scotch) forecast demand 6/8/12 years in the future? is scotch really aged for that long or is it some magic marketing math? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j0qln/eli5_how_do_high_liquors_makers_like_scotch/ | {
"a_id": [
"culauck",
"culb7wv",
"culctel",
"culd644",
"culdhb6",
"culdmrq",
"culdpua",
"culdt32",
"cule1lj",
"cule4un",
"culfcmh",
"culfiu2"
],
"score": [
11,
71,
3,
3,
31,
2,
2,
4,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The same reason why most diamonds mined today are stored in large underground vaults or diamond mines burned instead of mined.\n\nThe High-end distilleries know that alcohol will be in demand for years to come, so its a very safe investment to age your alcohol instead of selling it directly as the cheap stuff. Alcohol gets more expensive the more it ages, so by looking at todays prices for aged alcohol, you can predict pretty roughly how much you would gain by waiting X amount of years instead of releasing it instantly.",
"A lot of these distilleries have been around for a long time so they have tons o' data for drinking trends, pricing, operating costs, and so on. Spirits supply or demand has been more consistent than most products for the past eighty years. There'd be some guesswork, but as long as their margins are wide enough that they still sell their product competitively, they'll stay in business and have more knowledge the next time around.\n\nStarting your own distillery would be another matter, though. I'm currently starting my own company (not a distillery) and pricing is a really complicated issue, much less the market generally.",
"It really is aged that long, and it can be a difficult process to estimate, and can cause a lot of problems if you get it wrong. Maker's Mark had a problem with this last year (I think) where they had miscalculated demand ahead of time and tried watering down their liquor to meet demand because it was their flagship product. ",
"Google 'Scottish Whisky Distillery bankruptcy' to see how bad industry got before the Japanese came along and bought up swathes of distilleries in the 80's. You need a lot of capital to keep your distillery operating in the bad times. ",
"Some liquors are aged to a certain number of years and then 'sealed' to prevent further aging / oxidation etc, thus allowing the distiller to release the exact same '15 year' liquor for multiple years. In reality, it may have been 15 years old 3 years ago, it was just removed from the aging process.\n\nI did some research on the Sazerak 18 year rye a few years ago and learned that people have been drinking the same 18 year rye for several years now. Buffalo Trace just releases small portions of the same batch each year.\n\nSorry for lack of source - I'm on mobile right now.",
"Scotch whisky with an age can still be a blend of single malts from various ages - that is a 12 year may contain some 16 year and some 8 year. \n\nMacallan have stopped labelling their bottles with age. ",
"A few years ago Knob Creek bourbon didn't account for the uptick in the bourbon industry. So there was a shortage on it bc the barrels in aging weren't enough to cover demand. ",
"On a similar note, I've heard that American whiskey companies are stepping away from listing the alcohol's age on bottles. As technology allows whiskey to artificially age faster, it's much more cost effective for these companies to turn the product around faster.\n\nAny experts here to chime in on this trend? Will this kill American Whiskey?",
"The aging is done in the cask, not the bottle. Taste flavors are affected by the barrel wood. So 18 year scotch was in the barrel for 18 years. Once it it bottled, it has a shelf life of years, but glass is inert, and has zero affect on the flavor. As long as it is kept well sealed and out of sunlight, which can degrade various chemicals (photo-degredation), bottled aged booze will last virtually forever.\n\nAge is still only determined by time in the cask, so a 50 year old bottle of 18 year scotch is still just 18 year scotch. ",
"To answer the supplemental question, remember that booze is very, very old, historically speaking. As a species, we were getting drunk almost before we were making bread. So once we figured out distillation...we were pretty much gonna use it to get wasted. \n\nSo liquor would originally have been consumed fairly shortly after it was distilled - but over the course of many, many years people came to realize that laying it down for a period of time made it taste better. Now, we're not talking about a business here - we're talking a village making a bunch of hooch and laying a barrel or two out in a barn while they got shitfaced off the rest. But over time they would store it longer and longer, and some people would get better and better at making it, and at some point along the line people started trading between villages, and paying money for it.\n\nHundreds of years later, we're still doing the same thing, just on a much bigger scale. ",
"There are lots of things going on. \n\nFirstly, most Scotch sold is blended. If it says \"12 years\" that is the minimum age of the scotch in it, but they can change the ratios or even the individual scotches used. They mix malt and grain scotch so if they need to adjust, they can. \n\nSome scotches are single malt (or single grain) and some blends really focus on consistency, so forecasting matters. Still, they get it wrong sometimes. When they overestimate demand, they sell their excess to blends or drop their price a little. Sometimes they'll even create a special edition (e.g. keep an 18-year old one extra year and create a limited edition 19-year old). Alternatively, they can keep it post-bottling to smooth out demand. When they underestimate demand a little they raise their price or go to their stored excess from previous years. \n\nWhen they underestimate demand by a lot, however, they might be forced to rebrand completely. For example, in the last couple decades the global demand for scotch has skyrockets, especially due to Asian demand. We've seen lots of companies raise their prices significantly and we've seen lots of others change their branding. For example, to keep up with demand, Johnny Walker stopped producing Black label (guaranteed to be 12 years) and started producing \"Double Black\" with no age guarantee. They also dropped Green Label which only had malt whiskey (more expensive) and a 15-year age guarantee. Gold Label (18-year guarantee) became Gold Reserve (no age statement) and Platinum became the new 18-year old at a higher price. \n\nSimilarly, Macallan decided to replace it's age-labelled whiskeys with much younger whiskeys with no age statement (branded Amber, Gold, Sienna, Ruby). \n\nSo while these old distilleries have been pretty good at projecting demand, they haven't been perfect, and we can see how they make post-hoc adjustments. ",
"Scotch is a very in-demand good. Its defining feature is that it is made in Scotland and is aged for quite a long time, usually at least 10 years (for the established names, and yes, it truly is aged that long). The large and famous distilleries such as Macallan, Glenlivet, Laphroig, etc., are producing a very limited quantity of whiskey to satisfy drinkers across the globe. Their space, water, casks, (whiskey is very selective about water and casks), and time are always going to be limited, while demand is growing yearly. In short, it's highly unlikely that there is ever going to be a meaningful surplus of Scotch. The problem whiskey producers have actually been facing (particularly in bourbon, which is exploding as a market) is a meaningful deficit. This was the fiasco faced by Maker's Mark when they decided to lower their ABV; businesses are looking at a need to choose between lowering the quality of their product in order to produce more, raising prices, or becoming absurdly scarce, such as the Four Roses Limited Edition releases or Pappy Van Winkle. Aside from Pappy, the idea of scarcity in whiskey is not an appealing one, especially not to bourbon consumers.\n\nWith newer distilleries, the question is different, and might speak to how these things \"even start.\" Whiskey can be drunk immediately after it is made, without being aged at all. This is typically clear whiskey that is generally perceived to be low-quality, what you might know as \"moonshine.\" That is likely how people began to drink whiskey. As to how aging begins in a commercial sense, the answer is more complicated. It is unlikely, if you produce good whiskey, that there won't be a market for it nowadays, as it is an exploding industry. However, there is always the danger that your whiskey will turn out poorly, or that money or interest will run out before your batch comes to fruition. Thus, most new producers start by working with a large distillery that produces mainstream liquors (the Buffalo's Trace distillery does a ton of this work, for example), buying up young or off-model liquor from established distilleries and using it in blends or re-branding it, or selling moonshine or other extremely young whiskeys."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3s17fk | how is lettuce able to be picked, shipped, processed, and shipped again, and still be green but if i don't finish a bag of premade salad in a week the lettuce turns brown? | EDIT: Front page thanks so much guys!!
Here is what I have learned: My fridge sucks, all my food is gassed, ice my lettuce, and eat it quicker. Thanks | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s17fk/eli5_how_is_lettuce_able_to_be_picked_shipped/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwt4dw9",
"cwt4lk7",
"cwt5vhf",
"cwt8f27",
"cwt9kph",
"cwtb2sw",
"cwtbf7y",
"cwtbu5f",
"cwtccmt",
"cwtce4o",
"cwtcnj8",
"cwtcqfs",
"cwtct2s",
"cwtcunb",
"cwtd7qs",
"cwtd9m0",
"cwtdakp",
"cwtdpme",
"cwtft2x",
"cwtg1g0",
"cwtgyr9",
"cwthk1m",
"cwtifit",
"cwtkdbh",
"cwtkdfy",
"cwtm03d",
"cwtnw2v",
"cwto5uc",
"cwtod66",
"cwtqw12",
"cwtvrtj",
"cwtwhqg",
"cwtwnym",
"cwu0yw2",
"cwua6y1"
],
"score": [
3189,
1995,
106,
34,
11,
3,
2,
401,
2,
3,
16,
4,
24,
2,
8,
2,
12,
3,
6,
4,
4,
30,
4,
3,
2,
89,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Your fridge isn't running at incredibly cold and controlled environments designed to be completely free of any fungi or bacteria that may rot the vegetable. There's a reason that packed salad is in an airtight bag. ",
"Holding lettuce in water during processing and keeping them stored in a cool, low oxygen environment helps keep them fresh from picking to processing.\n\n\nOnce processed they are packed in air-tight sealed containers with a mix of gasses aimed at keeping their shelf-life and nice green colour. \n\n\nGenerally if you want to keep your salad pretty green store it iced-water in the fridge.",
"I work at a restaurant with a salad bar, we store our lettuce in an airtight container with ice water which we change daily, it keeps it fresher much longer. So they probably do something similar during shipping to keep it fresh as long as possible.",
"There is a lot of science behind how they keep produce fresh until purchase. They control the temperature and humidity in a warehouse (varies on the fruit or vegetable). They even cool down the 18 wheeler beds before shipping. So besides the vacuum seal of lettuce in the bag, think about how often you open and shut that fridge door in a weeks time aswell. Keeping a constant of certain a temperature is a big part of it.",
"Generally, cutting up fruit and veg exposes more of it to oxygen and microbes. \n\nApples can sit on the shelf for many weeks, but within minutes of cutting it, it will start to turn brown. You can store carrots for a long time in a root cellar, but try chopping one up and putting it away. It will dry out and be very unappetizing within a week.\n\nThe bottom line: a bag of salad mix is very heavily processed and meant to be served within a few days. ",
"There is a product called a lettuce crisper which may go by a bunch of different names that you put a lettuce in which keeps it fresh way *way* longer. I'm pretty sure contact between the leaf and plastic/surface of something causes fast decomposition. The lettuce crisper is a round airtight container with a spike you put the lettuce on and a slightly raised grill at the bottom so the spike/bottom of the lettuce doesn't sit in any water that condenses inside. ",
"I used to work as a produce manager. One thing you always have to do is make sure you squeeze out all the air inside the bag. There is a gas in there that keeps it fresh but once that gas makes contact with oxygen, it makes the salad break down faster.",
"I work for a company that make the salad bags here in the UK. There are a few reasons. One, a week is a long time for lettuce. The lettuce is picked on day one. Sent to us by day two AM, processed (cut, washed and bagged) and in our distribution chain by day two evening. Its in store day 3. Its 3 days old, its so far been washed and prepared in a very clean environment and packed in a bag containing a perfect mix of gasses to keep it fresh and safe to eat.\n\nLets say you buy it on day 5. Then keep it in your fridge for 7 days. Its 12 days old now, and if you're like me, you've had your grubby hand in there a few times too. Not much stuff lives to see 12 days without some kind of life extension aid, by preservation or natural defence (skin etc). ",
"The bags in the supermarket are filled with inert gas to retard decomposition. When you open the bag the decomposition process accelerates",
"Temperature and atmosphere control are part of it. Humidity control is especially important (it's a leaf, it needs water; see transpiration).\n\nPut it in [this thing](_URL_0_), and follow the instructions for use. You won't be able to halt decay entirely, but I've had lettuce stay crisp for so long that I didn't feel comfortable eating it, even though it looked fine.",
"I worked in produce for a while\n\nWith things like lettuce, we'd do something called crisping, where we chop a sliver off of the base, then let it soak in water for a period, letting it suck up some water and refirm. Due to this, it also has to be fresh enough to be able to suck up water anyways. We would also get it pretty often and put it out for sale typically the same day we got it\n\nThe premade salads aren't able to get this treatment, and on top of this, they may be sitting in the freezer for weeks until shortly before their expiry date",
"am i the only who purchases those costco romaine hearts and has had them last for 1-2 months at a time?",
"Worked in a factory that packed up the salad while in school, the bag is pumped full of nitrogen to slow down decomposition.",
"As well as keeping it cool and using inert gasses in air tight bags, as mentioned, one should remember that that bagged lettuce is already quite old.\n\nBefore you bought that fresh bag of lettuce, it was picked, shipped processed and shipped again. It may be well over a week old before hitting your store shelves.\n\nSimilarly, your \"fresh\" fish was frozen and in the hold of a boat for weeks before being warehoused, shipped and finally thawed and placed on display in the fresh case at your supermarket.",
"I've directly seen this process a few times when working for the large companies that do this where I lived. One of the is the largest in the world last I checked. \n\n1. Those first 4 steps all occur within 12-24 hours at most.\n\n2. The salad is at your local grocery within 2 days for most of the US and 3 days anywhere in the states.\n\n3. The lettuce is temperature and humidity controlled from the moment it gets processed. This prevents it from \"turning brown\".\n\n4. The moment you open the bag is really when the lettuce begins the fastest part of the \"decay\" cycle. \n\n5. The lettuce is only a little over a week old when you've had it in your fridge a week so it's really not odd. ",
"it's moisture content. They practically immerse it in water at the grocery store, when I get home I immediately separate, wash and dry and store in a ziploc with two p.t.'s. Lettuce lasts up to two weeks. same with my fruit. Wash separate and cut, then put in a single layer, not touching, in air-sealed container. Strawberries last almost a month. Everything must b perfectly dried though.",
"If you find that you can't get through a full bag or box of mixed greens before they start to get soft and brown, I have a solution. Make a warm salad or sauteed greens. You won't have to worry about the softening greens because you are going to be cooking them down, rendering all of them soft. I like to reserve the crispiest pieces to put on top for a nice balance of fresh crunch with the softer cooked greens. Garlic+olive oil and crushed red pepper sauteed with a bag of mixed greens makes a nice side. \n\nOne of my favorite sides goes like this. Saute garlic in olive oil until nice and fragrant, toss in some crushed red pepper flakes and zucchini cut into approximately .5 inch cubes. Cook it until the zucchinni just begins to soften, mushy zucchini doesnt work here need to keep it crunchy, toss in a few tablespoons of balsamic vinegar and some fresh black pepper. Whisk it so that it forms an emulsion and then pour it over some room temperature greens. Delicious warm salad with balsamic and zucchini.",
"You sort of answered the question by asking it. Produce arrives in the store fairly close to the end of its usable life. The store's inventory is carefully managed to try to stock only as much perishable stuff as they think they can sell in the limited time available.",
"Once salad green leaves are chopped up the cell walls where they were cut re destroyed and oxidation occurs faster. I remember years ago when processors were still using metal blades for cutting, you could barely get 3 or 4 days out of bagged salad tops, about 15 or so years ago, maybe a little longer they switched to water blades where they basically use water to cut the leaves, it causes less damage.",
"The reason it goes bad so fast is that bags are what's known as modified atmosphere packaging. The air in the bag is replaced with nitrogen so the product can't break down and stays fresh longer. The down side is that after oxygen is reintroduced the quality degrades at a increased rate. ",
"I actually work in produce. A lot of this information is not quite right. Bagged salads are not packed with special gasses.\n\nThe reason this works is that lettuce is harvested and shipped to production facilities the same day. It is then Made into bagged salads the day it arrives. Figure from Harvest to bag 48 hours tops. Then it is back to a warehouse to ship out almost immediately. We ship out salad at night that was produced in the morning for the most part.\n\nAt least that's the case for West Coast production. East Coast production is a little different. Material is sealed with nitrogen gas to ship back east. It is sealed in bags that hold about 1000 pounds of lettuce. In transit it basically does not age. When it arrives same story, it is processed and back to a warehouse to ship out within the day.\n\nTurn time in bagged lettuce is quick. Lots of product gets donated or thrown away because its too old to sell in a day or so. Most product is made against preexisting orders though. We make it and know where its going.\n\nTL;DR Bagged salads are made with lettuce that was often harvested ripe and ready to eat within the last 24-36 hours.\n\nEdit: corrected spelling, punctuation and clarified some points.",
"I work in transportation. Lettuce is cut from the field and shipped 6-8 hours later. It is always shipped using team service(2 truck drivers, 1 truck) so that the truck never stops moving. It is also cooled in a fridge before being loaded on a refrigerated trailer that is kept at a continuous temperature of 34 degrees F for the entire dueration of the trip. It will be cut in California and be in the Northeast 48 hours later for processing. It is processed that same day then shipped out over night to local grocery stores. So in roughly 72 hours (even less if it is not going across the entire country) it goes from the field to your grocery store shelf, while being kept at 34 degrees F for the entire duration of transit & processing. You get the vast majority of the shelf life, 3 days of transit vs 7 days in your fridge.",
"Its because its cut up. When its whole you can regrow the lettuce by replanting the flat chopped bit at the bottom of the head of lettuce. The lettuce can regrow a couple times if you leave it that way but it doesn't taste as good.\n ",
"This thread is one of those two or three serious answers, and hundreds of on-fire or they-might-just-be-high hilarious answers. And I still don't know what the answer is, but I feel better.",
"the lettuce is covered in dark green leaves that are taken off. you never see these but these preserve what you end up eating",
"I really hope somebody reads this since the top few posts don't mention it at all.\n\nOP, your **HEAD** of lettuce is the stem which the leaves are still attached to.\n\nYour bag of salad **MIX** is all leaves picked from the stem. It's a bag of leaves.\n\nLeaving the leaves on the stem and selling the full head of lettuce will keep the leaves much longer than picking them and putting them in a bag. They will continue to draw moisture from the stem to stay hydrated and crisp. Leaves that are picked will rapidly lose moisture, get floppy and wilted and turn black.",
"I don't know how it's done these days in supermarkets, but in a small town grocery store 20 years ago we got iceberg lettuce in flat bulk pallets. As others here indicate, it went straight from the semi truck into the cooler.\n\nThen the next day we'd open a flat case, and strip off the 2 or so outer layers, and wrap them individually for display. What you saw on the store shelves, *just* had 2 layers of outer \"not totally crisp\" leaves stripped off.\n\nWe'd be left with cases full of partly wilted outer layers. Was a whole separate thing to store those and take them out to the goose pond on the edge of town and feed the geese, hucking handfulls of lettuce over the fence.",
"A big factor many here missed:\n\n > I don't finish a bag of premade salad in a week the lettuce \n\nLettuce rots much faster after it has been cut. Whole intact leaves / heads keep much longer.",
"Note to all: The produce in your fridge is alive.\n\nIt's all about water retention. The cut bagged lettuce leaves lose water quickly when not in a humidity controlled environment. The unopened bag keeps humidity high and the leaves are able to maintain their internal water pressure. They are still alive in there!\n\nWhen the bag is opened the large exposed surface area and the cut edges of the leaves cause all the water to move out of the tissue causing it to die. Once its cellular machinery is no longer working, opportunistic fungi will start eating it. Live leaves have ways of keeping this from happening.\n\nA whole head of lettuce though has a relatively small exposed surface area, just the outside of that sphere. Therefore water escapes it more slowly and it stays alive longer.\n\n",
"It's almost like we know how to ship food. But we can't figure out how to ship it to the place where people NEED it. So weird how that works ",
"I might be semi qualified to answer this question because I sell equipment that helps cool produce. I can give a general answer...\n\nMost farms are massive industrial businesses. They have their cold chain and supply chain down to a science. The time between field and super market varies between 1-5 days.\n\nFrom the time the produce is picked from the field, it enters the cold chain (where the produce is cooled through air chilling, hydro cooling, etc.). Once the produce enters the cold chain it never leaves until it arrives at your local supermarket. If the target temperature has risen (even by a degree or two), the cold chain has been broken. When this happens, your produce starts to go bad quicker than when it was in the cold chain.\n",
"Better yet, why do we grow, pick, ship, process and ship again what is essentially water with very little nutritional value. Lettuce is really just an expensive why to transport cold water if you ask me.",
"I know this has blown up and you might not get a chance to read this but I hope you do.\n\nI was a truck driver and drove loads for Fresh Express.\n\nFresh Express loads are dispatched at 50 Miles per hour, AKA from the plant, to your Grocer's Distribution center the salad travels at 50 miles per hour, including fuel stops, and pee breaks. Your Grocery DC will split the Fresh Express load and have it to your grocery store probably within the day.\n\nThose Salad in a bags aren't exactly super old lettuce.",
"Not a scientist but a back yard gardener here. When we pick, wash and store our lettuces in a large ziplock bag in the veg drawer of the fridge they last about two weeks. Sometimes longer. However if we let them sit dry in the colander and uncovered they die the next day. This must be the \"low oxygen\" in the bag? Very curious about this now.",
"Think the e. coli helps keep it fresh; when you wash the lettuce, it removes the e. coli, and the lettuce wilts."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Prepworks-by-Progressive-Lettuce-Keeper/dp/B000OUY2QO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1447020228&sr=8-2&keywords=lettuce+crisper"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1jee8e | how pre-electronic recording worked? | I mean, before microphones. Jelly Roll Morton era. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jee8e/eli5_how_preelectronic_recording_worked/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbdubfi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The basic concept is you start with a cone that concentrates the soundwaves. Connected to the end of this cone is a needle which is vibrated by the sound traveling through the cone. This needle then cuts a groove in a wax cylinder or disc, recording the sound.\n\nTo play it back you just need to put the needle in the groove and let it trace back the pattern, transferring it's vibrations into the cone and reversing the process. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5c4c86 | why does the direction left have negative connotations in western languages (while right has the opposite) | For example in English left also means the past tense of to leave, while right means the right decision. Furthermore, in Spanish right, "derecha", means law. Furthermore in Italian left is "sinistro" (which comes from the same word sinister does in english). Lastly in French right "driote" means straight, while left "gauche" also means clumsy/silly.
I know these words have political ties and, historically speaking, the left would have been more radical/anti-establishment, but if I'm correct this assosciation didn't start until the French revolution when those in the assembly who were against the king sat on the left, while those in favor of the monarchy sat on the right. This obviously would have happened much later than for the direction left/right to have the same negative/positive connotations they do in not just romance languages, but many western languages as a whole. For this reasoning I am wondering where this comes from. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5c4c86/eli5why_does_the_direction_left_have_negative/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9tkc6w"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This [Wikipedia article](_URL_0_) looks interesting. It looks like it all flows back to Latin one way or another, and probably from handedness.\n\nIt could come from the fact that 90% of the population is right side dominant, and most people aren't very ambidextrous. This probably lead to an association with the right hand being more useful (and less clumsy) than the left.\n\nThe etymology of the word suggests a relationship to the Latin word \"rectus\", which means \"ruled\", which is itself \"from an Indo-European root denoting movement in a straight line.\" The word \"write\" is a homophone (a different word that sounds the same as another word) that comes from the Old English word for \"work\". I wonder if it's just a coincidence that you \"write with your right hand\".\n\nThe word Left appears to come from the Old English word for \"weak\".\n\nIf you were trying to come up with names to indicate your dominant and non-dominant hands the \"ruling\" or \"working\" hand (which draws and writes better) might make sense for the dominant, and the \"weak\" hand could make sense for the non-dominant one.\n\n\"Sinister\" in English can connote moral weakness, and the unnatural...\n\n...such as writing with one's left hand ;)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinistral_and_dextral"
]
]
|
|
4zew8z | why is there activism for women to have equal representation in office jobs and politics but not in other male-dominated fields like mining, construction and related fields where they are equally or less represented in? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zew8z/eli5_why_is_there_activism_for_women_to_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6v7vya",
"d6v87nl",
"d6v9nsc"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Who says there isn't?\n\nGranted the voices are few and far between, but they're there, same for feminists who wanted to be on the draft.",
"There are! But when it comes to women have equal say in society and equal economic power, the focus is going to be on white collar jobs rather than blue collar jobs. A big part of feminism is also how men are excluded from professions like childcare. My GF is in childcare and has seen it first hand, she actually quit a job because the owner straight up said they would never hire a man.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Compare politics and coal mining. A fairly equal amount of women and men in politics means no gender is less involved in the important decisions of our society.\n\nNothing like that happens because of an equal amount of both genders in the coal mining industry.\n\nYou speak of office jobs and then secretarial and administrative jobs. \nSecretarial and administrative jobs are commonly performed in an office.\n\nActivism in any form is never spread equally over all places it could be. People want something and then there is sometimes activism happening. Just like people are affraid of some things but not other things that are equally dangerous.\n\nSince you mention something like coal mining, are you trying to make a point that women don't want shitty, risky jobs? There are jobs that wear your body down and include health risks. For example care of the elderly (not sure what those places are called in english) includes alot of bad lifting etc that wear people down. Also some type of factory jobs. \n\nBut imagine you were a guy (I don't know if you are) and your country had, just as a toy exampe, 1% guys in important positions in society and high paying jobs but also 1% guys in house cleaning jobs. Which would you feel was more important to try and change?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
42odlt | by what logic do "sovereign citizens" feel that the laws don't apply to them, when they quote the same established law as as their justification or protection? | In short, how do they ever think [THIS](_URL_0_) won't happen? What is their logic? I can not figure it it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42odlt/eli5_by_what_logic_do_sovereign_citizens_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"czbtw8v",
"czbu94s",
"czbx1w4"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"I guess their logic is something along: they were merely born in the US, but they didn't agree to the laws at any point. The laws were just forced on them.\n\nThat's the only 'logic' I can come up with.",
"\"Logic\" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe it, and there are many variations, but they essentially believe the current US government has no legal jurisdiction over them because it's a product of a conspiracy that subverted some earlier, much more minimalist US government.\n\nSome obsess over the fact that names are usually written in all-caps in legal documents (they claim the all-caps version of their name refers to some fictional 'corporation,' not to them), or claim that the fringes on some courtroom flags mean those courts only have jurisdiction over maritime law. Huge misunderstandings of debt, money, and the Federal Reserve are also common.\n\nThe ADL maintains a pretty extensive [report](_URL_0_) (PDF link) on the movement that you may be interested in.",
"Think of it this way: why do you have to obey the laws of people you've never even met? You didn't consent to being an American citizen (or wherever your place of birth is). You were born, but then you were forced to obey by the laws of others. In this way, are you ever really \"free\"?"
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffr23coOmI"
]
| [
[],
[
"http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Lawless-Ones-2012-Edition-WEB-final.pdf"
],
[]
]
|
|
a06181 | why does the usa have a passenger rail system of a third world country? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a06181/eli5_why_does_the_usa_have_a_passenger_rail/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaew0pg",
"eaew2eh",
"eaew8vt",
"eaeyame",
"eaf8kpj",
"eafacvh"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
7,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most people don't want to travel by train. It's usually around the same price to fly.\n\nOur roads are also much better set up for road-tripping, gas is cheaper, and more Americans own cars.",
"Because rail is extremely expensive and is mostly unprofitable without massive public support. \n\nWhen car ownership is high, the market for air traffic is highly developed, and the road network is good it's just really, *really* hard to build a high speed rail line that's competitive. Depending on the route, rail in the US would often cost several times the alternatives for passengers (assuming the rail line wanted to break even).",
"Alot of our infrastructure is based around highways and roads, not rail. It's the other way around in Europe, many of the large cities and hubs are built around the railway system. This makes it far more convenient to use rail for transportation rather than car. The fact that the countries are smaller helps as well.\n\nIt doesn't help that a lot of our passenger rail infrastructure between states is shared with and rented out by freight rail companies like BNSF and Suffolk north. This means that they share the rail with freight trains, and freight makes more money than passenger trains and get priority as a result.\n\nPlane and train tickets cost the same, it's a few hours to Portland by plane where I am. Its 2.5 DAYS by train for coach. It is not worth it.",
"The US has a great rail system, in the coridor from DC to Boston whine population density is high enough. Sure, there is also poor rail service in Iowa, but that's because the population density is too low and the distance to the next town is too large.",
"Tbh living in the UK you get mediocre public transport and mediocre roads so I'd rather have good roads and bad trains... It is really just mainland Europe that has a \"good\" rail system (can't really comment on Asian or African). EU rail works because of government intervention although would happily have someone correct me or provide a source to back up that claim.",
"The US is big. Dallas to LA is 1400 miles through mountains and desert\n\nAustin to San Jose is 1700 miles through...mountains and desert\n\nPeople want to go to Austin for SXSW...they want to ride on a train for days or fly?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
31ev2b | how did china end up with 90%+ han chinese? equaling more than a billion people? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31ev2b/eli5_how_did_china_end_up_with_90_han_chinese/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0x5tk",
"cq13703",
"cq18xip"
],
"score": [
38,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Edit: History/geography teacher, really rusty in Chinese history, but here´s the really simple version:\n\nThis question can be answered in two parts:\n\n1: The Han are \"native\" to the east of China, the coastal areas and the land between the two giant rivers I can´t remember the names of. Because of more bountiful harvests the Han could grow and maintain a much larger population than other groups in the area we today know as China.\n\n2: Mao´s regime wished to restore China to its former glory. China is made up of a large ammount of territories, a huge area and a lot of minority cultures. The problem with a nation like this is that it rarely \"survives\", as can be seen by Chinas history (the rise and fall of all the dynasties). To deal with this, communist China made it VERY beneficial for Han-chinese to move away from their \"native\" territories to other areas of China, like Xinjiang or Tibet. High-status positions, like chief of police etc. are usually filled by Han-chinese, even if the majority of the population are of another culture. This started in the 50´s, and is the reason you can find Han-chinese everywhere in China, and not only in the eastern parts.",
"This isn't a *bad* question, but it is a complicated question, because it's not *exactly* clear what you're asking.\n\nFirst, are you talking about 漢語, the broad term for Chinese languages, or about a cultural group, or about a genetic group?\n\nSecond, when you ask why *China* ended up with 90% Han Chinese, are you asking why the borders of the area with 90% Han Chinese are where they are? Or why in the area where the Chinese are a majority, they are an overwhelming majority? Or why the area of Han Chinese prevalence is geographically compact? Or something else?\n\nIt's an important question because you can answer individual questions by breaking them down and comparing them to the answers to the comparable questions about other linguistic/cultural/genetic groupings, but it's hard to answer them all in one go.\n\nAnyway, the history of this is primarily as follows: Han Chinese culture began as an agricultural civilization in the Yellow River valley. This immediately started to give them a rate of population growth that outstripped that of surrounding non-agricultural peoples, and they began to expand. However, their form of agriculture (and eventually, administration and society) was adapted specifically to the climate and hydrology of the Yellow River, so it was hard for them to expand beyond the limits of this regions. This meant that the first stage of Chinese civilization was largely a fight for control of this valley. At the start of recorded history Chinese culture was beginning to reach parts of the Yangtze River valley, but it was the periphery of the cultural zone.\n\nOver time, the Huanghe and Yangtze valleys filled up, but there were still obstacles to exporting Chinese culture south of the Yangtze, or to the north and west. To the north and west there were pastoral peoples whose ability to defend their lands from expeditions by the central government (or even raid the rich lowlands themselves) exceeded the actual value of these lands. Transporting supplies from the rich valleys and coasts into the semi-desert steppes to fund expeditions against barbarians became a continuous headache for successive Chinese governments, who would much rather bribe the barbarians than conquer them. \n\nAgainst the communities to the south of the Yangtze, on the other hand, there was no real challenge in using the resources of the two river valleys to conquer the less advanced southern kingdoms, but tropical diseases and coastal piracy were a check on the ability of Han culture to flourish there. Pure population pressure doesn't appear to have encouraged many people to leave the (relatively) prosperous north for the (relatively) primitive South, but once the South was under direct political control, every new political crisis (rebellion, invasion) in the heartland caused a new wave of refugees to flee South. Over time this lead to the clearing of a great deal of land and administrative solutions to the South's problems, and it became the most economically vibrant and part of China, with the Han population there expanding as well.\n\nFinally, in the 19th century advances in metallurgy permitted the Qing emperors (themselves a dynasty descended from non-Han Manchu invaders) to add light (i.e., horse-drawn) artillery to their armies. This permanently shifted the balance of power between the pastoral peoples and the central government, and within the space of a few decades the Qing Empire was able to accomplish something that had eluded three millenia of Chinese military strategists: crush the nomads and extend China to its present borders. At this point there was no longer a military risk in living along the frontier, so the Han began to push the frontier west.\n\nThis is a very over-simplified explanation, both historically and conceptually (that is, your question could receive a clearer answer if it were more specific). I hope this answers some of your questions.",
"Why is China 90% Han? [Sinification](_URL_0_)\n\nChina has been a power for a very long time. From the mystical Xia dynasty to modern days, China has encountered many ups and downs. When we look at the history of the region we can see that since antiquity many nations have either waged war on China for its land and riches or wanted some form of its culture (language, arts, goods, etc). An example would be the great Yuan dynasty founded by the Mongolian conquerors. The Yuan even though they imposed laws forbidding intermixing of people and even marriages eventually learned that in order to rule China and its Han populace one had to rule like a Chinese ruler. So we see adoptions of the bureaucratic system, language, arts (One example would be valuable paintings often times would have many seal marks from their collectors aside from the original artist). People begin to co-exist and soon everyone was \"Chinese\" through the process called sinification.\nAnother aspect you might look at is how Buddhism although its root is from India Buddhism was drastically changed to suit the Chinese people."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization"
]
]
|
||
83sxup | why is the mouth so much more high maintenance compared to the rest of the body? | Why is it that the our teeth, gums need to be maintained and looked after multiple times a day and are generally more demanding to keep in good shape compared to the rest of the body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83sxup/eli5_why_is_the_mouth_so_much_more_high/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvkbxcm"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Our modern diet leads to a lot of bacterial activity in the mouth, much more than our ancestors (with a low-sugar diet) usually had.\n\nTo be fair, the female genitals also require a lot of maintenance, perhaps as much as the mouth or more."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7qe4ez | how do underwater matches maintain their burn? | How do matches like this keep burning underwater?
_URL_0_
This video seems different than storm proof matches _URL_1_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7qe4ez/eli5_how_do_underwater_matches_maintain_their_burn/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsof9rr"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"They use a combustion that creates it's own oxygen. \n\nThe only thing that puzzles me is how they can maintain there burn under the pressure of the water. \n\nThe logical explanation would be that the oxygen, the burn creates, pushes the water outward. So it creates a steady air bubble around the flame.\n\nDont take my word for it though. I am just trying to think logical."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/uco-stormproof-underwater-matches/?scroll=y",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wgzy6/eli5_how_do_stormproof_matches_work_and_should_i/"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
3bsiat | why are african americans one of the most religious groups considering christianity was essentially forced on their ancestors and used as a justification for slavery? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bsiat/eli5_why_are_african_americans_one_of_the_most/ | {
"a_id": [
"csp3aau",
"csp3gdy",
"csp4eeb",
"csp4i66",
"csp4qke"
],
"score": [
4,
52,
17,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Disclaimer: I'm white as all fuck, and don't know what I'm talking about.\n\nThat said: One might imagine that a religion based on the inherent equality of all believers would hold some appeal for one of history's arguably most oppressed peoples, no? Especially when that religion promises membership in a heavenly paradise free of earthly pains.\n\nBut many African-Americans have followed your train of logic. That's why the Nation of Islam exists, having seen Christianity as a \"white man's religion\" and harkening back to a religion that has historically had a prominent and important African membership.",
"The message of the bible is a lot easier for the poor and downtrodden to swallow than it is the rich and wealthy.\n\nIt puts the heaviest responsibility on those with the ability to help, the rich, and tells them to share their wealth to the point of not being wealthy anymore.\nIf you don't care for your fellow man, you will end up like the goats in the parable of the goats and the sheep.\n\nWhereas for a poor suffering person, \"the meek shall inherit the earth\". \nThe bible promises that the suffering of the world will be put right in heaven, and the evil of the world will be justly judged.\n\nSo basically, it's because people made African Americans slaves and used Christianity to justify it that the message of Christianity became so popular with them.",
"Christianity is conceived and written as a consolation for oppressed people. Some oppressed people find consolation in it. ",
"Back when they were enslaved, African Americans were sort of forcibly educated to be Christian with the idea that it would make them accept their place as slaves. But it sort of backfired when they *really* liked the idea of Moses, the guy who freed his people from slavery. That extra hope of \"someday we will be freed like the Israelites were\" that was tied directly to Christianity helped connect it to their culture permanently.",
"Here's an article about this topic from Christianity Today, February 21, 2014: [The Inconceivable Start of African-American Christianity: \nWhy slaves adopted their oppressor's religion—and transformed it](_URL_0_).\n\nI think part of the explanation is the simple fact that African slaves were uprooted from their traditional cultures and religious traditions, and surrounded by a dominant culture with a different faith. They were separated from their families, frequently the slaves in a community would be from several different African cultures, and often children born in slavery would not be raised by their own mothers. All of these factors would make it nearly impossible to maintain ancestral religious traditions, especially when the slave-owners only tolerated religious expression that matched their dominant system."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/inconceivable-start-of-african-american-christianity.html"
]
]
|
||
ab3gny | how do people get penny size, or bigger, black heads in their skin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ab3gny/eli5_how_do_people_get_penny_size_or_bigger_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecx8pcs",
"ecx8rqe",
"ecx8wqe",
"ecxap9k"
],
"score": [
20,
32,
7,
16
],
"text": [
"do you mean how they physically get that big? or why do ppl let it get that big without dping something about it?\n\npuss is dead macrophages among other bodily things and if there is no resolution to an infection or release (as in a pimple being popped) the body will keep producing the fluids and macrophages to fight an infection and the site will just keep grtting bigger and bigger. usually it will pop itself with slight pressure if it gets big enough but if its deep, it can keep growing to huge sizes\n\n\nedit: macrophages engolf bacteria/infected cells.on second thought i dont know why the lymphatic system doesnt effectively drain these areas. if its a function of there is no drainage in these areas or the drainage isnt enough for what is getting pumped in by the body idk\n\nedit2: fun fact, this is basically what apendicitis is. poop that clogs the appendix allows bacteria to grow and it swells with no where for the pressure to be released until it pops and you die!",
"I guess people will either assume it’ll go away or it’s in a place they don’t see too often. Perhaps people are scared of medical professionals or scared of what it may be and would rather not know",
"All that nasty stuff is dirt, sebum oil, bacteria and all kinds of yummy stuff that when it gets trapped or blocked will start to build up. If you don't wash your face or if the pore goes deep enough, it will build and build and build under the skin because it is trapped and has nowhere to go. Thus, your monster zit",
"It looks like the big ones are called a dilated pore of Winer.\n\n\"A dilated pore of Winer is, essentially, a really, really big blackhead. They're named after L.H. Winer, who published a paper on them in the Investigative Journal of Dermatology in 1954. (“It is usually filled by a keratotic plug which, when removed, allows the further expression of a relatively small amount of white, soggy keratin,” Winer wrote. “The patient usually gives a history that the condition has been present for several years and that he frequently expresses cheesy material from the lesion only to have it refill within a period of a month.”)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
43c4oa | how do police investigate a suicide? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43c4oa/eli5_how_do_police_investigate_a_suicide/ | {
"a_id": [
"czh5qcl",
"czh6rv4"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Somehow I can see this leading to a \"LPT: How to murder somebody and make it look like a suicide.\"",
"The same way they investigate a murder, usually. Especially since they don't know if it's a suicide when they first arrive on the scene. A lot of murders are made to look like suicides, so even if it looks like a suicide, they're usually going to wait until they hear the coroner's ruling before they declare it a suicide rather than a homicide.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n^^^Source: ^^^I ^^^used ^^^to ^^^watch ^^^a ^^^lot ^^^of ^^^Law ^^^ & ^^^Order ^^^and ^^^CSI."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
ez9vgl | heats of solution | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ez9vgl/eli5_heats_of_solution/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgluw0c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All molecular bonds contain energy. In order to dissolve something in a solvent, some bonds within the something must be broken, some bonds within the solvent must be broken, and new bonds must be formed between the solvent and the dissolved something. The breaking of these bonds absorbs energy, and the formation of the new bonds releases energy. The total amount of energy change is the heat of solution. Sometimes, the heat of solution will be positive, sometimes negative."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2mt7v9 | what causes the picture to roll over on old tv sets? | As I was binge watching Mad Men on Netflix, I noticed that the pictures on the old TV sets would constantly roll over, usually vertically. What caused this? And how did improvements to modern TV sets ultimately render this a non-issue. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mt7v9/eli5_what_causes_the_picture_to_roll_over_on_old/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm7dxhv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is caused by wee mistune, which causes TV to become out of sync from the signal. Modern TVs are able to detect that de-sync and fine tune accordingly. Additionally, now there isn't any analog broadcasting, so that means that instead of sending picture and audio, like on a radio, TV stations send packets of data, like watching a YouTube video via WiFi."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
24cri1 | why some people suffer from fear of flying when it is the most safest way to travel long distance? ? | Many many people suffer from fear of flying, however it is one of the most safest ways to travel compared to other modern methods? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24cri1/eli5_why_some_people_suffer_from_fear_of_flying/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch5ua0h",
"ch5ua7b",
"ch5ud2d",
"ch5ulii",
"ch5uo13",
"ch60fpm"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
3,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"because your in a metal tube thousands of feet in the air going hundreds of miles an hour with thousands of parts controlled by two people you don't know. ",
"It seems to most likely be related to the common human fear of falling. No other form of travel has that as a regular possibility. Although there are a fair number of people who have an intense fear of driving across bridges because then falling is a possibility while driving.",
"i probably can find irrational fear in your life too. everyone is scared of something.\n\nand yes, flying is safe, but planes sometimes fall. like many here said: you're high, you're going fast and you're not in control and probably don't even know what is happening with pilots. probably you don't even know about malfunctions until they told you and if something goes wrong it will go wrong all the way.\n\nif something happens to engine in car/bus, driver just stops and it's not a problem, just inconvenience. in plane it's (big) problem.",
"The thing is, whatever reason says, you're 30,000 feet up with no visible means of support.\n\nThere are courses available for people who are scared of flying. One thing they do is try to explain to people what some of the things they are seeing and hearing mean. Things like: Why the wings wobble so much, what all the different bumps and thumps are, why passengers are always asked to keep their seatbelts on even when the seatbelt light is switched off, that sort of thing.\n\nAlso, of course, the media affect our perceptions of the relative risks: a fatal road accident is usually not a big deal, but the smallest plane-related incident is widely reported.",
"if you crashed in a plane, you'd probably be dead;\n\nif you crashed in a car, you'd probably survive. ",
"TLDR: Bad experience on a plane, don't feel safe, can't even think about flying without freaking out a little bit. \n\nI am afraid of flying. It began when I was 13 and in a \"near miss\", the plane was losing cabin pressure and descended very rapidly. My ear drum was damaged, but that was the extent of the damage. I flew again immediately to complete the current trip, however the next time the opportunity presented itself I couldn't imagine getting on a plane. I am now 32 and have flown once since, it was a horrible experience for me and everyone with the misfortune of being near me. White knuckled, gasping for breath, name a symptom of a panic attack and I had it. The dread stems from what I call the absence of the illusion of safety. I know the physics of flight, and the rate of accidents compared to automobiles, but I do not feel safe. This deep seated feeling amplifies every shake, shimmy, and noise, a slow banking turn that should be ordinary felt like barrel rolls. I realize this rambling and poorly written, forgive me even sitting at a desk thinking about flying has my chest tight and my mind racing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
44r3lr | how can emotional distress cause someone to faint? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44r3lr/eli5_how_can_emotional_distress_cause_someone_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"czs7u9n",
"czsaxve"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"When your brain gets overwhelmed, sometimes it decides that the best thing to do is to just shut down for a while and hope things are better when it turns back on. ",
"First let's discuss why people faint. Pretty much what happens is your brain isn't getting enough blood flow (usually due to low blood pressure) so your body tries to fix this problem by knocking you out (Simply put) . When you faint you usually fall down in a manner that makes it easier for your heart to pump the blood to your brain. (It's easier for your heart to push blood at an incline or horizontally than vertically). \n\n\nSo when you're under emotional distress, your heart pretty much slows down and your body is trying to correct the issue of your brain not having enough oxygen. To simply put it anyway."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
8fjv50 | why can't we have the characters '\', '/', ':', '*', '?', ' < ', ' > ', '|' in a file's name in windows? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fjv50/eli5_why_cant_we_have_the_characters_in_a_files/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy43idj",
"dy43k45",
"dy43tq7",
"dy45kzr",
"dy486i9",
"dy48m7g",
"dy496sm"
],
"score": [
20,
615,
2,
25,
4,
2,
194
],
"text": [
"It has to do with coding/parsing. For example your computer uses \"/\" as a directory designation so C:/my documents/pictures it would recognize as 3 different levels of folder. If you were to name an image file \"apples/bananas.jpeg\" and your computer went to look up that file when you click on it it would instead see \"bananas.jpeg\" in the \"apples\" folder. Each symbol has its own meaning and effect.",
"Each of them has a special meaning on the command line, so if they showed up in filenames they would lead to ambiguity.\n\n\\ is the path element separator on Windows and / is both the path separator on Unix-style systems and the normal command switch character.\n\n: is the character that indicates a drive name as well as being the path separator for old (pre-OS X) Macintosh systems.\n\n? and * are characters used as wildcards (aka globs) when specifying files.\n\n < and > are used to redirect input and output to files.\n\n| is used to send the input of one command to the output of another command.",
"They had special meaning in how DOS handled the command line so they was not allowed in FAT file system. Null is also not allowed. It is hard to enter but is used to determine the end of the name.\n\nThe simple to explain is \\ that separate folders and/or files, : was only for drives like C: and devices like COM1: the other was used for other tings in dos command line so they forbid them too but you could have done like UNIX and allow usage with quotation and escape characters.\n\nSo the standard has been keep for compability reason. NTFS that is the most common windows file system can have any characters except for / and null but the win32 API that almost all Windows program uses have the limitations you mentioned.\n\nLinux and other UNIX system allow for anything except / and null in filename and NTFS and windows had a POSIX api that have been replaced with other UNIX system so NTFS had to be compatible.\n",
"Because allowing that would make it too easy to really screw up.\n\nOther OSs like Linux are a lot more permissive when it comes to what characters you can use in filenames, but that comes at the cost of really simple shell scripts not really working the way you think they will if somebody actually goes all out an uses them.\n\nThat is okay, though Linux people are all for giving their users the ability to shoot themselves in their own feet if they want to.\n\nMicrosoft has a very different philosophy, they assume that idiots will use their OS and do everything in their power to idiot-proof it so that users and developers can't hurt themselves too much.\n\nWith that comes a ton of restrictions like allowed characters in filenames that might not be strictly needed but make live a lot easier for everyone.\n\nSome characters like \"*\" and \"?\" are wildcards that mean any characters or any character. Allowing you to use them in filenames would open up the question of if you mean them literally or in their wildcard form when referring to a filename with them in it.\n\nOther characters are used in commandline to redirect output like > < |: and might be misinterpreted in that context. \"\\\" is separates folders in windows and so on.\n\nThere are also a bunch of words that you are not allowed to name a file because they were used for something special all the way back in the days of Microsoft DOS like \"PRN\" and \"LPT1\" which used to have to do withe printers and others like \"CON\", \"AUX\", \"NUL\" and \"COM1\" and so on.\n\nIn theory you could probably do away with these restrictions, but Microsoft feels it is better to be safe than sorry so even today you are not allowed to use any of these out of fear that it might break something because programmers simply assume that you would not be able to use them.\n\nThese assumptions can lead to all sorts of interesting effects when you mount a file-system from for example Linux in Windows where the rules are more lax and have to realize that the Windows OS is able to see these files but won't allow you to actually interact with them because it insists files like that couldn't possibly exist.\n\n",
"Relevant [Xkcd](_URL_0_), maybe?",
"These are reserved characters utilized by the OS. It basically boils down to syntax, the same reason you can't name a variable \"if\" in most programming languages because it's a reserved keyword. \n\nApplications that parse anything utilize a syntax and when things don't adhere to that syntax things break.",
"None of these are really five-year-old explanations. Here’s my stab:\n\nSuppose you named your dog “dessert.” After that, whenever you ask your parents “Can I have dessert?” they wouldn’t know whether to bring you sweets or the dog. Similarly confusing dog names might be: the trash, the car, etc.\n\nSpecial characters are like that, they have another meaning already and so if you use them as a name the operating system (your parents) gets confused. Windows takes the approach of not letting you use them as names. Linux requires you to be more specific about what you’re referring to - think of this as it making you say “Can you bring me my dog, dessert?.”"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://xkcd.com/327/"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
19owt3 | opening up at bank account for the first time. what terms/phrases should i'm be familiar with? what do i bring? what should i look out for and ask about? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19owt3/eli5_opening_up_at_bank_account_for_the_first/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8q0d3e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you visit the bank, ask if they have a \"Plain Talk\" version of their account rules. Most terms and conditions agreements are little booklets of dense, tiny text -- daunting enough that most people never touch it. But nowadays, [most banks have produced Plain Talk versions](_URL_0_), which essentially condenses down the important points into easy-to-read text on one page. Stuff like how fees are calculated, how long it takes for deposits to clear, what happens when you overdraft your account, stuff like that. \n \nEssentially, it's a tl;dr version of the account agreement with simplified terms for easier understanding. The bank I work for has such a Plain Talk page for our main account, and it's pretty simple, easy and clear to understand. I would ask for that, and if you can understand what's on that sheet of paper, you're about 95% covered with all the important stuff. \n \nOf course, still ask lots and lots and lots of questions at the branch before signing up for anything. But a Plain Talk sheet is a good place to start."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/07/04/bank-america-bank-other-banks-agree-simplify-list-bank-fees/1nice3p2VTWBS0UKrZQknO/story.html?camp=pm"
]
]
|
||
5d78j7 | why is there serotonin syndrome, but not dopamine syndrome caused by elevated levels of the respective neurotransmitters in the blood? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d78j7/eli5_why_is_there_serotonin_syndrome_but_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"da2c8yj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are syndromes associated with too much dopamine. Psychosis for one thing. If you do enough methamphetamone you'll have delusions and hallucinations from too much dopamine among other things."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3ktdr7 | what is the point of the assessments on job applications? what makes employers think applicants are not going to choose the answers that make them sound like the best candidate for the job? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ktdr7/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_the_assessments_on_job/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv0arvb",
"cv0lkbd"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It assesses what each candidate's thinks the answers that make them sound like the best candidate for the job. Which is itself useful. ",
"I think it's just a way to filter out people and narrow things down for the person doing the hiring.\n\nAs a person who has failed some of these, they can be frustrating, especially because they don't tell you *why*.\n\nThey tell you to be honest, but they seem to just be looking for a certain type of worker that isn't going to cause trouble. Are they looking for someone who answers every situation \"I would tell a manager if I saw this\" or are they looking for someone who can handle situations and isn't being a constant tattletale? \n\nIt feels like a silly little game that other generations never had to deal with. I've seen these for entry-level minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart. Some of the workers I've seen don't speak English too well and I wonder how they did on the assessment. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3rmfae | why does the cable company care how much you use your internet (data cap) but not how much tv you watch? | Doesn't HD on a cable box use pretty much the same bandwidth as HD on YouTube? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rmfae/eli5_why_does_the_cable_company_care_how_much_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwpbf0t",
"cwpbf6e",
"cwpdoy0",
"cwprew0"
],
"score": [
18,
6,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"It depends on the type of TV you have. If its regular cable then the cable company just broadcasts all the shows to you all the time so its no concern of theirs how much you watch. If it's any sort of IPTV like digital cable or a service like U Verse or X Finity or a lot of digital cable offered then the bandwidth for the TV shows is isolated and only used for shows. So you really have a bigger internet pipe then you think but part of that only allows for tv traffic.",
"When you have a television provider, all the channels you pay for are broadcasted to your home 24/7, the bandwidth is being occupied 100% of the time, it has no effect on the provider if your are watching tv or not. Internet is different, you request websites and whatnot, data is only being used when you are using it.",
"I addition to the other answers given - cable bandwidth used for TV is usually either from inside your region or country - and if it's a foreign station than that single incoming stream can be duplicated locally and distributed.\n\nYour TV line is also always transmitting and people are just connecting to listen in.\n\n**Imagine your TV is like a pair of headphones and the TV signal is a mp3 player - more people can just use a headphone jack splitter to \"listen\" to the same channels - and you simply change what mp3 player you are plugged into when you change channels.**\n\nYour internet usage could comprise of multiple long distance connections. It costs the company more to have data travel between country's, particularly ones that are isolated. \n\nYou are also uploading, not just downloading when you are using the internet, unlike your cable box.\n\nExpanding this long distance connection is costly so if you are going to be using more of the available bandwidth on these connections over the course of a month, than they expect you to pay more.\n\n**Using the analogy above the ISP needs to have a pair of headphones for each one of its users for when they send something to them, and they have to have an mp3 player for each of their users to change tracks whenever the connected user wants the next \"track\" (webpage, song, video, etc.)**\n\n___________________\n\n**If you are going to need to use more of the headphone/mp3 player's time than they need to buy another set so that other people can still use it when you have it on shuffle 24/7 - and this costs them more**\n\n**Finally** they are restricting how much data you use when watching cable - regardless of how many channels you can record at a single time on a single box - you as the end user can only **watch** a **maximum** of 1 HD stream at a time 24 hours a day each month. - Yes you could record and all that but they probably charge you for the maximum number of channels your box can record anyway at once so its not like they are loosing money.\n\n**TL;DR**\n\n* Cable TV is usually local data, or uses single constant streams over longer distances - these can then be tapped into by anyone on the same line since it's only receiving not sending.\n\n* Web access uses more long distance connections than TV.\n\n* You can only watch so much TV.",
"Most of the current responses don't take into account the fact that the companies are trying to monetize their bandwidth by restricting it and creating something akin to scarcity. That is the primary impetus here, greed.\n\nIn the US, the government has provided about $200 billion to major ISPs so that they would create a modern, competitive internet infrastructure for the entire country, no strings attached. Predictably, the companies pocketed this money and it was not used to increase the speed or range of their roll out.\n\nThese companies have \"unspoken\" non-compete agreements with each other and utilize local, municipal, state, and federal legislatures whenever possible to protect their monopolies. When looked at rationally, the internet is a utility and should be supplied and regulated as such. There is minimal competition, and the barrier to entry is staggering, of not illegal.\n\nThe result is our current system, perpetuated by greed, where the only impetus to improve service, speed, be etc only ever comes when a extremely well funded newcomer comes to a market.\n\nThat is why next generation technologies allowing long range, wide area access are so critical. Eventually, the entire world will have wireless internet access. We are waiting to see whether that means ZuckerNet® or the actual internet, \"surveilled by Google\", but it is coming sooner than we think."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1huasw | doubling down in blackjack | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1huasw/eli5_doubling_down_in_blackjack/ | {
"a_id": [
"caxzqkb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In most rounds of blackjack, a player will hit (draw another card) as many times as he or she wants, then chooses to stand (stop) once comfortable with the value of the cards. If the player wins, that player receives a prize equal to their bet. When doubling down, the player has to double his or her bet. In return, the player gets 1 and only 1 hit. If the player wins, the prize is doubled, but a loss involves losing twice as many chips. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ba96h1 | what is the mechanism behind how we gargle water and why does it help a sore throat? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ba96h1/eli5_what_is_the_mechanism_behind_how_we_gargle/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek9v2ei"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Water follows salt, and this includes the water in whatever germs caused the sore throat. Pulling out water kills the germs, and salt is good for humans as an electrolyte.\n\nAlso, even the simple agitation from the action of gargling helps to dislodge mucus and other gunk to get it down or out.\n\nEdit: I know you didn't specify saltwater, but even plain water helps."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
9gxayz | why do some older racing cars have taped x's over their headlights? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gxayz/eli5_why_do_some_older_racing_cars_have_taped_xs/ | {
"a_id": [
"e67hn43",
"e67huil",
"e67hwyu"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"So if the headlights are hit, the glass won’t shatter everywhere and cause danger to other cars on the track. This is done with wood to windows if there’s a hurricane ",
"Glass headlights. Often an effort to mitigate the risk of glass shards making their way to the track itself. Cars also race with their windows down. Same idea.",
"Those cars had glass headlight covers, which could shatter if hit by another car or a piece of launched gravel. Tape helps prevent that.\n\nModern cars use clear plastic headlight covers that won't shatter into small pieces."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3s48zx | how did florida become the go-to state for retirement? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s48zx/eli5_how_did_florida_become_the_goto_state_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwtxub7",
"cwu0yqu",
"cwu33d5",
"cwu4btf",
"cwu6h4o",
"cwu8erp",
"cwub6jg",
"cwuf2rx",
"cwuk8ax"
],
"score": [
192,
2,
15,
6,
45,
4,
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"From [this Slate article](_URL_0_):\n\nLeading up to Tuesday's Republican primary in Florida, Sen. John McCain sucked up to the 65-and-older crowd at The Villages retirement community by decrying the cost of prescription drugs. Mitt Romney went after the same age bracket by attacking the Arizona senator's Medicare voting record. Senior citizens are a political force in the Sunshine State: 3 million of Florida's 18.7 million residents are seniors, the densest concentration of elderly folk in the country. How'd Florida get to be so full of old people?\n\nGood weather, effective marketing, low taxes, and a herd mentality. In the first half of the 20th century, the concept of moving to warmer climes upon retirement didn't really exist—seniors generally lived with relatives to conserve funds. But the advent of Social Security payments in 1940, as well as the post-World War II economic boom, made it possible for grannies to live independently. During this same period, real-estate developers were buying up land in Florida (one of the least populated states in the South) and trying to capitalize on the region's tropical climate. Boosters put together promotional videos touting the state as a \"fountain of youth,\" which they screened all across the northern United States. Seniors, flush with their Social Security checks, were among those who heeded the call.\nADVERTISING\n \n\nFlorida also made economic sense for retirees: The cost of living was low, and the legislature did its best to make homeownership affordable. In 1934, Floridians approved the Homestead Exemption Amendment, which eased the burden on homeowners by exempting property taxes on the first $5,000 of a permanent residence. In 1980, the legislature boosted the exemption to $25,000.\n\nAt first, the elderly migrated to cities like Miami and St. Petersburg. But in the '60s, big development groups began building gated communities, which lured seniors with amenities such as golf courses and sewing classes. Like the postwar boosters, these developers have focused on marketing. (For example, the chiasmus \"We give years to your life and life to your years\" draws residents to Century Village.) Some cities, worried that too much gray hair could damage their reputations, helped along the exodus to gated communities by making urban living less geriatric-friendly. In St. Petersburg, for example, city administrators removed the green public benches that had lined the sidewalks, ostensibly for aesthetic reasons, but also because they were popular with tired seniors.\n\nWord-of-mouth within northern communities helped solidify Florida's status as a retirement mecca. Before air travel became customary, pioneering New Yorkers took Interstate 95 straight to Miami, and Midwesterners took Interstate 75 to Tampa. Then they'd brag about the high life to friends back home and set off a stampede. Demographers call this phenomenon \"chain migration.\" It helps explain not only why Florida has remained so popular among retirees, but why (despite the ease of air travel) the state is still segmented according to northern geography, with New Yorkers in Palm Beach County and Detroiters in Naples.\n",
"because Florida is Paradise--We have no snow or ice, old people hate snow and ice--and we have sunny skies 12 months of the year, old people don't like gray steely skies of Northern Winters--and our trees are green all year, old people hate seeing those dead trees up North during those 5 month winters--and our Ocean/Gulf actually have color here, not like NYC and the Northeast, old people like color in their oceans--sure its hot and humid in the summer, but old people don't feel it as bad, and many of them are anemic lol",
"Back in the day, at least, Northern retirees / pensioners could sell their homes and easily afford a nice place in Florida with plenty of money left over. The land in Florida was cheap and readily available. The weather was easier for an older person to handle since the winters are so mild. The economy was (and still is) strong because of tourism. There is a lot to see and do. Florida also saw the rise in retirees and so the political and social structures down there are very welcoming to them (lots of doctors and hospitals, stuff like that). ",
"I live in the panhandle. It is now 68 degrees. The first time it has dipped below 70 this season.",
"Things tend to roll downhill thanks to gravity. So imagine millions of really old people in New York and New Jersey falling down every day, many of them unable to call for help. Every time they fall they roll a little further south, eventually collecting in the lovely little drain trap we call Florida.\n\nSome of them do get stuck in the Everglades, which is why that swamp smells so bad, but most tend to bounce from coast to coast, collecting in thicker and thicker masses the further south you get.\n\nSource: Live in FL",
"Only two things stop me from selling my house in Massachusetts today and moving south. #1 My son has very close friends here and I couldn't uproot him at this age (11). #2 The kids' great aunt and grandmother are very close to them and would never move. Every winter, I die a little more inside. There are limits to what I can put up with though. When my son turns 16yo and/or the elderly relatives die, I am outta here.",
"It's warm year round and it has no state income tax. Also, if you go in 3 out of 4 directions, you will hit a beach. No brainer really",
"As mentioned below, its warm all year round and no state income taxes. Also since warm is perfect for wearing flower shirts, plaid shorts, and white socks with flip flops..................",
"I think the major points are the weather and the fact that there isn't any state income tax. When you're retired and living on a fixed income, why not spend it in sunny Florida where you won't get taxed as much as most states?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/01/why_is_florida_gods_waiting_room.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
43ot8h | what is going to happen since i neglected to sign up for health insurance by january 31, 2016? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43ot8h/eli5_what_is_going_to_happen_since_i_neglected_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"czjqhjz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If you're exempt from the penalty, you're still exempt, no matter how big it gets.\n\nYou don't exactly have many options. Unless you have a qualifying life event, you have to wait until 1/1/2017 to get a health insurance plan.\n\nIf your income is as low as it seems, you likely would have qualified for free coverage under medicaid if you just applied before the deadline."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5sh3oz | why are there basically no red or blue stars in the nightsky? | The Doppler effect says that things that move to us appear more blue and things that move away more red. But when I look at the nightsky, I only see the standard light. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sh3oz/eli5_why_are_there_basically_no_red_or_blue_stars/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddf03ap"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because red-shifting and blue-shifting are really only noticeable on scales far beyond what your own senses can accomplish. \n\nIt's the same reason a car moving away from you doesn't seem like it is suddenly more red, and why a lady walking towards you doesn't look blue. You need special equipment to sense the \"shift\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2tmhqn | how can the iranian nuclear program be "limited" in such a way that reactor grade uranium can be produced but weapons grade cannot? | The current strategy for dealing with Iran is finding a compromise that lets them continue their research programs but limiting it to nuclear energy production(not weapons). If nuclear enrichment is just increasing the concentration of fissile U235, then I would expect the way they do it is by running a centrifuge to separate the isotopes. But it seems to me that if you can get to 85% or whatever the reactor grade is by that method, you could also get to 99% or whatever weapons grade is by simply doing the same thing, but longer/faster. What exactly can be done that would allow the production of nuclear fuel but stop production of WMDs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tmhqn/eli5how_can_the_iranian_nuclear_program_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"co0cb24",
"co0cdt5",
"co0cft7",
"co0djf9",
"co0e0n3",
"co0h5os",
"co0lw6c"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
24,
3,
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Honestly, there's nothing really stopping the iranians from *trying* to make weapons grade uranium. \n\nHowever, the israelis have taken many actions against Iran's nuclear program including killing Iran's scientists and destroying their centrifuges.",
"I'm not a NukE, but I am en engineer in the nuclear industry. To my understanding, if the reactor runs on uranium then it's simply a matter of time spent in the reactor to end up with some appreciable amount of weapons grade fuel mixed in with all the other fission products in the solid fuel pellets.\n\nTo control time spent in the reactor, you'd have to control the reactor. Which means having the reactors in another country, which defeats Iran's goal of energy independence. You could control the fuel manufacturing (before irradiation and energy production) and the fuel reprocessing (after irradiation), but that also defeats the point of energy independence because you have to do this mfg/repro in another country to control it.\n\nSo, current fission power plant operations cannot really be controlled in the sense that you're referring to it, in part because they were designed to produce weapons grade material to enable the production of nuclear weapons. At this point we only use about 5% of the energy available in civilian grade fuels because of the buildup of these other fission products and their effects in the core's production of energy and it's stability.\n\nSo, nuclear power without nuclear bombs? Theoretically Thorium based reactors are getting there - if I recall, India is getting close to having an experimental reactor based on thorium as the fuel rather than uranium. That needs more time and money though. Iran doesn't want to wait, whether it's for energy independence or nuclear weapons.",
"Commercial Reactor grade is 5%, weapons grade is 80% plus, though pretty much every warhead rests in the 90% plus range.\n\nPlausible suggestions to allow Iran to continue the production of nuclear fuel without limiting the program are : \n\na) Continual IAEA observation to ensure they don't enrich further\n\nb) Limiting the total amount of centrifuges they can have.\n\nThe problem for option 1 is that most of the enrichment works like a pyramid. Ie, the higher the enrichment is, the less material you need to process and the faster the process goes. Allowing them to enrich as much as they want to a lower enrichment means that they can already lay down the base, where most work needs to be done.\n\nFor example, processing 1 ton of feed natural uranium to reactor grade costs 800-900 Swu*, while going to reactor grade only costs 1200. (20%, used for research reactors, lies at 1100). Thus, allowing them to have a stockpile of lightly enriched uranium is a significant asset if they want to break out.\n\nLimiting the total amount of centrifuges also isn't going to work, because a simple 1 GW reactor requires about 140 000 Swu per year. A bomb meanwhile, requires about 4000.\n\nThus, there are no inherent technical solutions. Any effort and solution will need to be diplomatic. \n\n*Separative Work unit : Basically a unit of how much effort your centrifuges do. Iran's first Gen centrifuges do 1 SWU/year in optimal conditions, Second generation is about ten times as efficient. \n\nA modern, Western Centrifuge ranges somewhere between 40-60 IIRC.\n\nAddendum : \n\nI forgot to list 2 additional options. One being to limit the amount of nuclear material they can have, which wouldn't really work because nuclear reactors use so much more material than bombs.\n\nThe other is to force them to immediately convert material to fuel elements, which can't be further enriched. However, this relies on them not secretly building a deconversion plant.\n\nAll in all, all the restrictions are only going to buy you time, perhaps 2 years at most, till they have enough nuclear material to build a bomb. Whether they have the knowledge to do so, and what they're going to do with 1 bomb is the question.",
"I think this is a great article going over it \n\n_URL_0_",
"Can anybody blame them for wanting nukes when their neighbors are Israel and ISIS, and their only ally in the region is getting bombed by the US",
"Yes, the technology is the same. So Iran could theoretically continue to enrich to achieve weapons grade uranium. The attempts to limit the Iranian nuclear program stems from the periodic IAEA monitoring of enrichment levels to ensure sub-weapons grade enrichment (I think their imposed limit is set at 20%, while weapons grade enrichment is typically > 90%), preventing the expansion (and even reducing) of their current enrichment capability via centrifuges, and limiting the development of the other technical aspects of the bomb itself besides the fuel. It's not a foolproof strategy since it depends on accurate reporting and monitoring on both sides, but it's the best option besides a good faith agreement since Iran already has enrichment technology and is aggressively seeking progress.",
"You have to understand something: **The \"Iranian nuclear threat\" was always just a pretext** for a policy of imposing regime-change in Iran, and has nothing to do with nukes, just as \"WMDs in Iraq\" was just a pretext and had nothing to do with actual WMDs. So the answer to your question is that these talks are not really about enrichment limits in Iran -- that's just the cover.\n\nIAEA Director Elbaradei himself noted that Iran was consistently willing to place additional limits on its enrichment program, beyond the requirements of the NPT (which imposes no limit, as long as there is no \"diversion for non-peaceful uses of nuclear material) \n\n > I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers.\n_URL_8_\n\nANd he explained why\n\n > “They weren’t interested in a compromise with the government in Tehran, but regime change – by any means necessary,” \n_URL_1_\n\nAbout 40 countries today CAN make a nuke if they wanted to on short notice _URL_13_\n\nSo Iran has joined 1 out of 4 nation in the world in having this \"capability\"\n\nNote that there's nothing illegal about this \"capability\" and in fact the NPT itself not only requires the sharing of nuclear technology \"to the fullest extent possible\" and \"without discrimination\" but under Article 10, countries that want to make nukes are perfectly legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty. Iran, however, has offered repeatedly to self-impose additional limits on its nuclear program rather than to withdraw\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_6_\n\nThe US on the other hand has consistently ignored or even actively undermined potential deals, in order to keep the \"Iranian nuclear threat\" pretext alive for regime-change, even pressuring the Europeans to not make reasonable deals with Iran\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_5_\n\nEven under Obama, the US killed a deal *after* Iran had agreed to the terms. The Turks and Brazilians who had been acting as intermediaries were so peeved at Obama for this, they publicized a letter that he himself had written to them, endorsing the same terms of the deal just weeks earlier \n_URL_7_\n\nThe NPT requires signatories such as Iran to declare their nuclear sites and nuclear material, and the job of the IAEA inspectors is to then verfiy that all the declared nuclear material has been accounted for. In Iran's case, this has consistently been the case -- thus Iran's nuclear program has consistently been quite legal.\n_URL_14_\n\nThe US however started pushing the speculation that Iran is \"seeking breakout capability\" and so these negotiations are supposedly intended to \"prevent Iran from making nukes\" by \"limiting enrichment\" there, but apart from the regime-change pretext, in fact the rest of the world supports Iran and **thinks these US-imposed limits are actually intended to create a cartel of nuclear-fuel providers** to the rest of the world who will be forced to be their customers, after the oil runs out.\n\n_URL_10_\n\n_URL_11_\n\n_URL_12_\n\nThat's why the Non-Aligned Movement has been consistently very critical of how Iran is being treated on enrichment\n\n_URL_2_\n\n _URL_9_\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7214191/iran-nuclear-program-guide"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05iht-edzarif.html",
"http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/",
"http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/682728/",
"http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a97vcbHPcRZA",
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10007603/Iran-how-the-West-missed-a-chance-to-make-peace-with-Tehran.html",
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html",
"http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals",
"http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_brazil-reveals-obama-letter-in-spat-over-iran-nuclear-deal_211443.html",
"http://www.newsweek.com/elbaradei-iranians-are-not-fanatics-80021",
"http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/what-cable-news-didnt-tell-you-the-non-aligned-movement-meeting-strengthened-irans-hand-vs-us-israel-azad.html",
"http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/bush-proposals/",
"http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/opinion/12iht-edferguson.2781236.html?_r=0",
"http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NAFuel",
"http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html",
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace"
]
]
|
|
3w547z | why can the company i work for legally claim "made in the usa" when half of their stuff is from taiwan, canada, or other chinese made companies products just re-branded? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w547z/eli5_why_can_the_company_i_work_for_legally_claim/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxtfwp2",
"cxtghqt",
"cxtgnvw",
"cxtk3xc",
"cxtm7k5",
"cxtngyk",
"cxtnkel",
"cxtnlv4",
"cxtnv7u",
"cxto9bl",
"cxtoqeo",
"cxtovju",
"cxtp7dm",
"cxtpekq",
"cxtplrh",
"cxtq14e",
"cxtq5ed",
"cxtqaan",
"cxtrg2p",
"cxtrkc4",
"cxtrtkk",
"cxtrvry",
"cxts7m7",
"cxtsced",
"cxtse0t"
],
"score": [
368,
44,
7,
62,
9,
365,
4,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
4,
11,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Would you like the short answer or the long answer?",
"Legally, as long as its assembled in the US, you can claim \"Made In America\". Doesnt matter where it was built. \n\nPractically speaking, made in america = built in china but assembled in america by mexicans",
"Ford and Dodge/Chrysler vehicles are 90% made in Mexico and China. Final assembly takes place in the U.S. (you drop your Mexican engine and transmission into your Chinese chassis) and then they can legally say \"Made in USA\"",
"I worked for a company that did this with made-to-order PCs and servers years back - but with refurbished parts. They would buy cases of refurbished popular items (graphics cards mostly, but some other items like networking and wifi cards as well) - they would bring the items into the secure area where all of the expensive stuff was kept - and then a teams of two or three guys would take all of the stickers indicating 'refurbished' off with heat guns and solvents - and then sell and charge for these items as if they were brand new.",
"You could also consider the cost and not just the origin of the materials. Not from a legal standpoint, but if you think about it WHY does being made in america matter to people? Because they want american workers to be getting a piece of the pie. They want american jobs.\n\nWe get into questions about what point does something qualify to be made in america. If trees are grown and cut in canada, then shipped the the us, are the boards made from those trees made in america? What if we use that wood and turn it into a lamp? A product is more than the sum of its parts, the specific configuration of all the pieces makes a product what it is.\n\nNow in your case its a bit more dubious, I don't know if you add anything else to the products that originate from america. Do you modify any of the parts, or assymble them in a way that makes the product significantly different? Ultimately I think if you have a job here in the states putting something together made from parts of foreign origin, even if it doesn't legally meet the standard for the phrase \"made in america\" in spirit it provides exactly what people expect from those products, american jobs.",
"For the garment industry, if the process is started and finished in the USA it can be labeled MADE IN THE USA. I was working in a union shop and they cut the material in the USA and shipped it over seas. Factories in several countries would sew the garments to our exacting standards. Union sewers would sew a MADE IN USA tag in the garment and these would be sold as Union made USA garments. ",
"In Japan I believe it is they have a city called \"USA\" so they can legally clam it was made in USA",
"Short answer... They can't, especially if they sell into California. Compared to the FTC, California has tighter rule for \"made in the USA\" with specific numbers (90%). See: _URL_0_",
"This is interesting to me, as I used to work for a manufacture where almost everything was domestically manufactured except the electric motor of the product. Because the cost of the motor was a significant proportion of the overall product, they felt they had to remove the made in U.S.A.\n\nAlmost the whole product had its origin within the U.S. but they still didn't any to open up any liability.",
"\"Made in USA\" refers primarily to final assembly, which can be as easy as screwing the parts together. \n\nCars, electronics, etc., made in the USA typically say \"using domestic and foreign parts\".\n\nThere are laws, but none of them say that all of the parts and assembly has to be done domestically.",
"For a job I went to the plant where Champion athletic gear is made. It's made in the Lancing state prision in Lancing, KS. Everything says made in the USA. I spoke with the guard. He said there is lots of loop holes, but any changes to the shirt at all they can claim USA. All they do is sew a tag on the shirt. It's also made by prision slave labor. Don't buy Champion gear.",
"I find it funny while working at Toyota here in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, that the Lexus RX that I build is more North American than a Ford or GM. A Toyota has more N. American parts in it than actual N. American vehicles. ",
"I've seen some solid comments on here. Especially those of u/BalsaqRogue . I'm a customs broker and the practices at your company do sound sketchy. Kitting does not by default change origin. There needs to be significant value from US origin goods in the kit. Something like a shave kit put up in a sleeve made in China a razor made in USA and a tweezer made in Vietnam could arguably have a made in USA tag. But just combining things together that are all of foreign origin does not a US good make unless it makes a different thing. \nIn Marysville Ohio the make Honda cars. Origin wise they are US goods even though a high percentage of parts are imported. \nIt is about changing the nature of the good (tariff shift) and adding value. \nIn your case does not sound like either practice is sufficient for made in USA status.",
"It's Christmas. Your making your friends some cookies, you buy eggs, milk sugar and chocolate and bake that shit up into some cookies. You tell your friends you made the cookies because you did. Ya sure all the ingredients come from different places but you baked that shit.",
"Here is the case of [Chicken and Seafood sent from USA to China for processing, and then sent back to USA to be sold as a domestic product](_URL_0_).",
"I worked with an apparel company that sold stuff \"Made in the USA\" in stores and catalogs. It was their main selling point. I went inside their factory and there were probably 30 to 40 workers, all immigrants working at minimum wage, removing the original tags and replacing them with the new company tag that said \"Made in the USA\".\n\nI guess it was OK because the tag was actually made in the USA.\n\nI always wonder if those millions of American flags sold around Independance Day are actually made in some sweatshop somewhere in a third-world country.\n\nEdit: There was a big case recently regarding a watch company that marketed the \"Made In USA\" thing a lot. The Feds investigated them: _URL_0_\nNow they're supposedly transparent about all of their watches and show what percentage is made in the USA.",
"It might just be that nobody has legally challenged them on it, and if push came to shove a court would find that this violated labeling/advertising laws.",
"It's not legal, and if the FTC finds out your company is going to have a bad time. If it was something like \"Assembled in the USA from US and foreign components\" that *might* fly depending on the scenario. \n\nHere's a link to the FTC website with more info: _URL_0_",
"What company ? The public deserves to know. ",
"Where were the 'Made in the USA' tags from?\n\nPerhaps those were printed in Boise, Idaho or some shit like that and technically the tags were indeed made in the good old US of Murica.",
"My dad was on a business trip one time with a chinese company. They asked if they could brand it \"Made in the U.S.\" even though it was all done in China. Their moral explanation for doing so was because \"No one would have to know\".",
"Turn around and Sue their asses. If you don't I'm sure they will and laugh their their assesall the way to the bank. ",
"It's different in the aerospace industry. There's ITAR and other regulatory bodies, and you would go to jail for this.",
"Some companies establish \"Enterprise Zones\" within the country they manufacture in. Within these zones, they can legally say made in the USA. This is very common in Vietnam. ",
"I worked for a cookware company that slapped a big \"Made in USA\" logo on every box. At best, the cookware vessels were made in the USA, but every other part (all handles, lids, spoons, spatulas, etc) was made in China. Sometimes every part was made in China, but all the components were shipped to the states and assembled here so they could say Made in USA. \"Made\" often seems to mean assembled. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20150925-column.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/03/chicken-from-china-your-seafood-is-already-being-processed-there/"
],
[
"https://niallluxury.com/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-made-usa-standard"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
8nmfc1 | if too much sun is bad for our eyes and we should wear sunglasses, how did humans not get bad eye sight thousands of years ago? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8nmfc1/eli5_if_too_much_sun_is_bad_for_our_eyes_and_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzwle4r",
"dzwlqjq"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They did get bad eyes historically. \n\nHumans also tended to live shorter lives too. So middle age was much sooner than the ~ middle aged humans today of 35-45 years old. \n\nSunglasses are tools we have invented to make our lives easier and longer- like the usage of animal skins to protect us from wind and rain, sunglasses are used to protect our eyes. Human vision deteriorated faster before sunglasses were used, just like humans died sooner from cold exposure before using hides for warmth. \n\n",
"Most people couldn't read until fairly recently, so having what we now consider “good” eyesight wasn't important unless you were a long-range combatant or a sailor.\n\nBesides that, as others have said the life expectancy was pretty low until about 200-300 years ago. People usually just didn't live long enough for it to be an issue."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
7g5z29 | teacher just said that when gravity is the only acting force, an elephant and a feather would fall at the same speed. | This makes no sense, as an elephant has greater mass, and therefore a greater pull towards the earth. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7g5z29/eli5_teacher_just_said_that_when_gravity_is_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqgpxwe",
"dqgpy6d",
"dqgq5ga",
"dqgq6pf",
"dqgqaag",
"dqgqjil",
"dqgsv0a",
"dqgsvsd"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
6,
39,
71,
5,
3,
4
],
"text": [
" > This makes no sense, as an elephant has greater mass, and therefore a greater pull towards the earth.\n\nBut the elephant also has more ~~momentum~~ inertia, a greater resistance to change in its movement. It turns out that having more mass makes it more difficult for objects to move at exactly the same rate as it increases their gravitational attraction, exactly canceling each other out.\n\nEdit: Here is another way to think about it. Imagine you just have one atom which is falling into a gravitational field. It will fall at a certain rate. Now imagine that you have a second identical atom next to it, not attached, just by its side. Clearly that atom should also fall at the same rate.\n\nNow imagine that you stick those two atoms together. Why should they fall any faster than they did when unattached? Each atom would need to be pulled along by the other but there is no reason for either atom to fall faster! Massive objects are just bigger clumps of individual atoms so now it should be clear why an elephant wouldn't fall any faster than a feather when just considering gravity.",
"The speed is dictated only by the acceleration, which is the same for both (g). The mass has not effect on speed. In reality the feather falls more slowly because of air friction. ",
"The more massive something is, the harder it is to change its velocity. An elephant has more mass than a feather, so it takes more force to move it. \n\nMore specifically, earth's gravitational force is equal to F=mg, where m is the object's mass and g is earth's gravitational constant. Newton's second law of motion says that F=ma, where F is the sum of forces that act on the object, a is the object's acceleration and m is the object's mass. So in this case, ma=mg, and the mass cancels out, resulting in a=g. ",
" > ...when gravity is the *only acting force*...\n\nIf you did this on Earth, gravity wouldn't be the only acting force. Air resistance plays a huge role in how fast something falls, and that is what causes the feather to fall much more slowly.\n\nSomewhere with no air, they would fall at the same speed. Not nearly the same; exactly the same.\n\n > ...as an elephant has greater mass, and therefore a greater pull towards the earth.\n\nYou said it right there: the elephant feels a larger force from gravity than the feather, but an elephant is also that much heavier. The result is that they will *accelerate* at the same rate, despite the elephant involving more mass and more force.\n\nYou can google a fantastic little video of an astronaut on the Moon dropping a feather and a hammer. It's neat to see this actually happen.",
"Think of the elephant as a million feathers tied together. A million feathers don't fall faster than one feather, whether they are tied together or not. (If you ignore the effect of the air, which is of course huge.)",
"Your teacher is (approximately) correct. The speed of a falling object in a free fall is independent of object mass, excluding air resistance. Air resistance is specifically excluded, so we won't have to worry about that, and your teacher is correct, in practice. In theory, the object falling also imparts a gravitational pull towards the Earth, and the gravitational force is dependent on the mass of the pulling object, so the elephant would impart a greater pull on Earth, but due to the minimal size of an elephant in relation to a planet, this difference is practically non-existent. Note that realistically air resistance affects this, but it was specifically excluded.\n\nThis was first proven (well, proven so that we have record of it) by Galileo Galilei. He dropped balls of same material but different masses from the tower of Pisa and found that they hit the ground at the same time. This can also be observed in space: there was an experiment made on the Moon with a feather and hammer being dropped. Moon has no atmosphere, so there is no air resistance, and they did hit the surface at the same time, proving that Galileo, and your teacher, are correct.",
"The acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on mass. From the same height and from a complete standstill, very object falls at the same rate, if there is no other force acting on them (wind resistance). \n\n[You can watch a test on the moon](_URL_0_) where a feather and hammer are dropped, and without the atmospheric resistance to slow the feather, you can see that they fall at the same speed. ",
"In vacuum they would fall at the same speed, but not on Earth due to air resistance. NASA did an experiment on the moon where they droped a feather and a hammer at the same time and they hit the surface of the moon at the same time. Think there's a video om YouTube of it "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/5C5_dOEyAfk"
],
[]
]
|
|
92bwyv | what happens to an asteroids material when it burns up in the atmosphere? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92bwyv/eli5_what_happens_to_an_asteroids_material_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"e34i90f",
"e359zp9"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"First off, because a lot of people don't realize it, I want to point out that typically this *is not* much material. The majority of shooting stars one sees are probably about the size of a grain of sand.\n\nAs far as what happens to the material, it turns into gasses or melted particles. Beyond that, all they are is dust on the wind. ",
"It’s estimated that between 5-300 tons of cosmic dust and meteorite dust falls on earth every day. The stuff that burns up just falls to earth eventually "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1p6ptr | how colliding particles creates "new" particles | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p6ptr/eli5_how_colliding_particles_creates_new_particles/ | {
"a_id": [
"cczak0c",
"cczaozg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This process is called nuclear fusion.\n\nEvery element is made up out of protons and neutrons in it's core.\n\nThe amount of protons determine what kind of element it is.\n\n\nHydrogen for example is made up out of one proton.\n\nSmash 2 hydrogen atoms together hard enough and you'll wind up getting an element with 2 protons. And that element is called Helium.\n\nThe same principle applies for heavier elements.",
"At the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, they combine protons, which are one of the particles that make up atoms. Protons are made of smaller particles called quarks, which come in \"flavours\" called names like up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm. When you collide protons, they break apart into the quarks they are made of. These quarks can then rearrange themselves into other particles made of quarks - hadrons - or can change \"flavour\" to a different quark, which again produces more particles called bosons. All these particles can then decay into all sorts of other particles, producing yet more particles"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.