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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
e51yxh | i read in an enviromental awareness chart that aluminium cans take 100 years to decompose but plastic takes more than million years. what makes the earth decompose aluminium and why can't it do the same for plastic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e51yxh/eli5_i_read_in_an_enviromental_awareness_chart/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9h3554",
"f9h49hr",
"f9h4lj4",
"f9hdc6n",
"f9hlc10",
"f9hq5hk",
"f9hw8vj",
"f9hwx88",
"f9hx7ud",
"f9hxtl7",
"f9hzq3y",
"f9i0cju",
"f9i1oab",
"f9i9msl",
"f9idyb8",
"f9imu97",
"f9in0a6",
"f9jir8n"
],
"score": [
51,
7842,
688,
9,
10,
4,
5,
68,
5,
2,
31,
12,
23,
14,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Aluminum is a metal and corrodes. Plastic basically just wears down and crumbles into tiny pieces. Remember that aluminum is a naturally occurring element.",
"This \"decomposition\" is really oxidation. Think of the oxidation like \"eating\". Aluminum is like a hamburger so it's really really easy to oxidize, so easy in fact that if other metals weren't added to it, the can wouldn't make it out of the factory. Other things are added to keep it from being \"eaten\" so quickly. Plastics on the other hand are very complex molecules that are very hard to eat. They're big like a huge bowl of jellybeans but also complex, like each one is in it's own wrapper that's really hard to open, so oxidizing plastic is very hard. This is partly by design so that the plastic will last. We can make Plastics that are easy to decompose. Compostable plastics are available, do a Google search for them.",
"Aluminum is a metal that is relatively easily oxidized. In contrast, plastics are polymers made up almost entirely of C-C and C-H bonds which are among the most difficult to break. Just to give you a sense of this, ethane steam crackers operate at near 1000 C. Because of this bond strength, plastics are relatively inert - oxygen and/or water doesn't react with them the same way they do with aluminum. This makes them great for storage and packaging, but really bad from an environmental perspective.",
"There was a time when the earth couldn't decompose dead trees. Eventually microbes evolved the ability. The same will happen with plastic at some point.",
"I have an add on for this EILI5: when a can is broken down \n\n1:what happens to the metal, is it absorbed into the earth and can possibly make a mini aluminium vein of ore \n\n2: if it doesn't do 1 does it just turn into neutriants for flora and is that actually good for the plants or are there bad side effects for them\n\nThanks",
"also, how do scientists now how long it will last? Like, how do they know it'll last a million years when it's physically impossible to observe it for a million years?",
"Noone mention the fact that plastic is nowhere near a millon years? Glas is about a million years not plastic!",
"edit: I said bacteria, but its actually *fungi* that \"learned\" to break down wood\n\nIt's a similar situation to why we have coal in the ground. MIllions of years ago when trees first existed, nothing that lived on earth was good at breaking down and rotting wood. So when trees fell, that wood would just sit there and get buried... eventually time and pressure create coal\n\nBut then... some evolution happened. With wood sitting around, there was free food for the taking if some organism learned how to eat it. Eventually bacteria that could break down wood came to exist, and since it had plenty of food around, it did well. Today, a tree that falls will rot... because there is bacteria that developed around eating dead wood.\n\nPlastic is relatively new. Just like trees were millions of years ago. And just like wood all those years ago, there is no bacteria specialized in breaking down plastic... so it doesn't rot. Yet.\n\nIt is likely that organisms will come to exist some day which thrive on breaking down plastics. But they need years and years and years of opportunity (trees.... or plastic sitting around) before something will coincidentally evolve to do it.",
"even better question \n\nhow does this matter when your aluminum cans are generally all lined on the inside with plastic anyway",
"If you think about it, millions of years ago no trees decomposed. Nothing had evolved that could eat their dead forms. For millions of years trees grew, died, fell over and then stayed laying around essentially untouched by decomposition. This is why we have coal, and I assume one day something will evolve that can eat the abundance of plastic waste we've produced. All we can do is hope it's soon to help us clean up some of the mess, but also that it doesn't destroy our ability to use plastics.",
"All these answers about oxidation are incorrect. Aluminum forms a native oxide that is self sealing. Meaning a thin layer of oxide will form but without abrasion to remove that layer and expose the base metal no further oxidation will occur, unlike a metal like iron which will continue oxidizing all the way through. The only way aluminum \"breaks down\" in nature is by being mechanically dismantled to the point that it is just small bits of aluminum.",
"Well, that’s not entirely accurate. Some plastics do disintegrate under UV radiation quite quickly.",
"It is hard to describe it to a five-year-old, but it is an interesting question!\n\nSome things are made of very tiny blocks we call \"atoms\". Atoms are made of even smaller blocks, and depending on how those smaller blocks are arranged we call a big bunch of atoms \"an element\". Iron is an element, so is Aluminum. They are made of a lot of atoms stuck together.\n\nChemistry has a set of rules about how atoms interact with each other. The rules sort of define a \"shape\" that atoms can have. Some shapes fit together and make big bunches of different atoms called \"molecules\". For example, water is made out of atoms from the elements hydrogen and oxygen, and a water molecule has a kind of triangle shape. \n\nMany metals have a shape that interacts in a weird way with oxygen atoms or molecules that have oxygen atoms in them. The atoms in the metal like to steal oxygen atoms from other things and make new molecules with that oxygen. For example, rust on most metals is actually what chemists call \"iron oxide\", which means it's now a new molecule made out of iron and oxygen stuck together. Pretty much anything a chemist calls an \"oxide\" is something that's combined with oxygen and isn't the same anymore. Rusty things fall apart because iron atoms stick together a lot more strongly than iron oxide molecules do. So eventually, when a rusty thing has turned into enough rust, it's just a bunch of dust.\n\nAluminum and tin, which we usually make cans out of, are the same. They really like to form oxides, so they deteriorate pretty fast if they aren't kept very clean and dry. But they can even be deteriorated by the oxygen in the air! This is why we don't have an awful lot of cans from more than a few decades ago even though we've been making them for more than a century. It's too hard to keep these cheap, thin metals from deteriorating. We'd have to keep them in a vacuum!\n\nSome metals, like stainless steel, have shapes that aren't so good at combining with oxygen. These metals don't really occur in nature, we make them in factories by combining metals together to get \"shapes\" of molecules that give us different combinations of strength, flexibility, and resistance to deterioration. Generally these metals have \"shapes\" that don't make it easy to make them thin or bendy enough to make cans, and since we have to combine metals to make them they're too expensive to make flimsy garbage with them.\n\nWe made plastic because we didn't like this. Plastic molecules are *really* complicated and designed so they don't really interact with many atoms found in nature. Since oxygen doesn't \"steal\" plastic molecules, it can go a very long time without deteriorating. I'm not exactly sure what causes it to deteriorate. I think it has to do with what kind of plastic is used. For example, plastic bags that are a few years old are brittle and break to pieces, but Tupperware from the 60s is still in pretty good shape. And even very strong plastic is very cheap compared to even flimsy metals. \n\nSo naturally, once we figured out how to make something cheap that never deteriorates, we proceeded to make everything we throw away out of it. A few people thought that might cause a problem, but we figured that's a problem five-year-olds like you can solve when you're a grownup, we won't be here anymore!",
"The million year figure is a PoS, with the possible exception for some of the teflon-like plastics.\n\nIn general if energy can be gotten from a chemical reaction then some bacteria does this for a living.\n\nSome decades ago, this particular notion was running around. Some oil company used polyethylene pipe for the low pressure collection in an oil field. Plastic is a lot easier to work with than steel for short fiddly piping.\n\nTwo years later they were springing leaks. Some bacteria in the soil liked PE pipes.\n\nPlastics in sunlight decompose quite rapidly. Black construction plastic is black confetti in about a year unless it has UV inhibitors added. Greenhouse plastic WITH the inhibitors lasts about 3-5 years.\n\nThis doesn't mean it's harmless. Lot of problems with nano particles of plastic. \n\nBut the million year figure is exaggeration and has no substance.",
"Metals “oxidize” which means oxygen from the air binds to the molecules and breaks them apart. Aluminum cans are subject to this process. They rust and slowly fall apart as the air and water literally rip it apart slowly.\n\nPlastic is a catch all term for a lot of products made of different hydrocarbon groups. That alone does not make them stable. In fact you are made of a ton of different hydrocarbon patterns. However, humans decompose easily. Why? Because we are natural. We evolved and bacteria evolved to eat us. We possess patterns in our chemical structure that is repeated throughout nature. \n\nWe made plastic in a lab in the last 100 years. Bacteria have not evolved that eat them. As well natural processes don’t work on these plastic compounds as they are highly stable. This makes plastic subject to the half life of these hydrocarbons without much outside help. This is a very long time.",
"Another way to think about this is where plastics came from. They’re essentially made from what didn’t get digested by the planet in the first place, Because micro organisms hadn’t evolved to digest them yet.",
"has to deal with corrosion. Aluminum is easy to decompose. Plastics is nearly invincible. That has to do with galvanic or not like metallic compounds in the dirt. Although this leads me to another concern. If too many galvanic compounds \nAre in the soil at the time it could cause a poisioned gas which would increase the need for plastics to be recycled. Easier. Plastics basically need to be burned or melted down its not gonna be easier but the more that we try the better we will get at it",
"I really doubt that aluminium cans take 100 yrs to decompose. I would be surprised if one left exposed to the environment would not rust away to nothing in 10 yrs. Especially if there is alot of moisture. The claim about plastics taking a million is also kind of suspect simply because they haven't been around that long. Also, sunlight and heat seem to really weaken plastic. Apparently they break down into micro particles and those persist for a very long time but even those might break down slowly over time. It could be 200yrs or 10,000. Plastics haven't been around long enough to really know how they will react with prolonged (over100 yrs) exposure. Not an expert but the stuff burns quite easily and though it does release toxic fumes, it obviously breaks down in heat."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3rshln | how are audio files structured? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rshln/eli5_how_are_audio_files_structured/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwqzmzf"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Sound is caused by waves in the air, and an audio file is essentially a digital recording of that wave.\n\nComputers can store audio by taking samples of the amplitude of the wave at regular intervals. So for example the sample rate of CD audio is 44100 Hz, meaning it measures the height of the wave 44,100 times a second.\n\nLike with image files, the range of numbers it can store for a single sample is limited. CD audio uses 16 bits per sample, giving it a range of -32768 to 32767.\n\nThere's a clear analogy to image files. The sample rate is like the resolution (by which I mean pixel density, not the dimensions of an image), and the size of each sample is like the colour depth. Increasing either of those improves the quality in different ways.\n\nStructuring an audio file is actually more simple than an image. Audio is 1 dimensional, it's just a series of numbers rather than a 2D grid. If the computer knows the sample rate it can play it back in the proper time.\n\nSyncing with video is simple in principle (although in practice it's not always so easy, it often goes wrong). It knows the frame rate of the video, and it knows the frame rate of the audio. It just has to play back at the correct rates.\n\nMaking synthetic sounds is also simple in principle, but making complicated sounds that sound realistic can be difficult. You just plug numbers in that will produce the waveform you want. So you can easily make a simple beeping sounds like [this](_URL_0_) by plugging the time of each sample into the Sin(x) mathematical function. Because that's all that a real beeping noise like that is.\n\nedit - Although in practice many audio formats are much more complicated than a series of samples. They are usually compressed in some way."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7D1f6U6TpU"
]
]
|
||
2dxhn7 | what would happen to my boobs in zero gravity? | So I wouldn't need to wear a bra? I was hesitant to post this but I'm really curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dxhn7/eli5_what_would_happen_to_my_boobs_in_zero_gravity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cju0yp1",
"cju185t",
"cju2scn",
"cju3klz"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Well they would be free of the grasp of gravity (mostly). So yes the girls would float freely.\n\nOf course you should probably still where a bra... unless you prefer your tits bouncing around in Zero-G.",
"Thanks to Kate Upton and science we know what would happen! [PURE AWESOMENESS!](_URL_0_)\n\nBut you don't even have to wear a bra on earth, there's studies that say bras are useless. They are mostly for comfort, you don't want the girls to bounce around with every movement. ",
"Your boobs won't eventually get saggy after a decade. You also get a little taller because your spine isn't getting compressed.",
"Have you never been in a swimming pool or full bathtub? Boobs are delightfully buoyant."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/yKWvRU-879w"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4my2kf | why should i trust elevators? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4my2kf/eli5_why_should_i_trust_elevators/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3z8oq9",
"d3z901t",
"d3z92wa"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Statistically, they're pretty much the safest form of travel. Safer than cars, planes, bicycles, etc. The cables never break because there are like 20 of them and they can hold far more than the capacity of the elevator. ",
"The cables holding an elevator up don't attach to the body of the elevator directly, instead they attach to springs holding a set of brakes. While there is tension on the cable, the brakes are pulled away from the sides of the shaft.\n\nHowever if the cable snaps, the tension disappears and the brakes are forced into place, slowing the lift. It literally fails safe.",
"Here is a link to [a good ELI5 type explanation of elevator saftey systems](_URL_1_) that includes diagrams.\n\nBasically, they're designed to not fall down the shaft no matter what happens. The elevator safety brake is an old invention, [dating back to 1852](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/elevator.htm",
"http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/question730.htm"
]
]
|
||
7sqi37 | how do computer-based analogue synthesisers work? how are they different to digital synths? | Computers work in 1s and 0s, but analogue synths sound so much nicer than digital ones - what are they doing that's different? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sqi37/eli5_how_do_computerbased_analogue_synthesisers/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt6q33h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Analogue synths sound better because you're more used to their sound, they've been in mainstream music for 30 years now. There are plenty of digital emulators for these that now sound identical though.\n\nWell anyways, these digital synthesisers emulate the inner workings of the older synths in the same way that NES emulator emulates the inner workings of the actual NES."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
c1zg8l | what happens if i play a 1080p video on a 720p display? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1zg8l/eli5_what_happens_if_i_play_a_1080p_video_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"erglbts",
"erglcdy"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The image gets shrunk. There are several ways of doing that. You could just skip pixels.\n\nSo for instance, a line from the image with 8 pixels:\n\n 12345678\n\nwhen shrunk by half would become:\n\n 1357\n\n\nYou don't need to do it by halves, for instance you could do by a third by removing every third pixel:\n\n 124578\n\n\n\nBut that doesn't give the best results, because it looks really bad on fine details. Like if there's a single pixel thick line somewhere it can just vanish entirely when you do things that way.\n\nSo a better way to do that is to average the pixels. If you have a black line surrounded by white and shrink that you get a middle grey sort of line.",
"Depends on the software you play from. Usually it will get just scaled down to fit (losing quality of course)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
dxziju | what is chirp laser pulse | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dxziju/eli5what_is_chirp_laser_pulse/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7xj9cv",
"f7xp5vt"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Chirped Pulse Amplification is the term you are looking for. \nBasically, if you tried to pump too much power into a laser, you'd probably melt the equipment. \nNow instead if you split up a laser beam into little bits, pumped a lot (but not equipment melting amounts) of energy into those little bits one after another, and then put them all back together at the end. \nThen you could get an equipment melting amount of power into your laser beam without actually melting your equipment.",
"We had the chance to have Donna Strickland (one of last year's Nobel laureates who invented the process) give an invited lecture a few weeks ago, and she did a wonderful job explaining the process to a wide audience with fun animation slides. She's given that presentation many times, so I'm sure a recording exists on YouTube if you're interested."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
8whdcn | why checking accounts are more popular than savings in the us? | Checking doesn't give you any interest on your money whereas Savings does. So why do everyone prefer Checking over Savings? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8whdcn/eli5_why_checking_accounts_are_more_popular_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1vixuc",
"e1vj12y",
"e1vj1bz",
"e1vj5hz",
"e1vjqpd",
"e1vke1l",
"e1vmzfz"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
8,
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That’s not always true. I know many of the checking accounts my bank offers have interest. Plus, with some banks you can’t just pull money out of savings whenever you want like you can with checking. ",
"Some checking accounts give you a very small amount of interest, mine gives some fraction of 1%. The interest in savings is so abysmal anyway that people probably would rather have the convenience of a checking account.",
"Checking accounts have unlimited transfers and transactions. Savings accounts do not. A checking is good as a \"working account\" with lots of funds going in and out. Savings have higher interest but are less accessible. On top of all that, most Americans aren't keen on saving money (a poor financial choice).",
"Savings accounts, by federal regulations, place a limit to the number of transactions allowed per statement cycle (typically 2-6 transactions a month). Exceed the limit and you may be fined or have the account converted to a checking account.\n\nThis limit makes it very difficult to use a savings account as a checking account.\n\nAlso, few banks will offer a visa/mastercard debit card linked only to a savings account.",
"You do not have easy access to money in a savings account. There are a limited number of transactions and withdraws that you can conduct in a month (sometimes as low as 2). This means you cannot feasibly use them to pay for your bills, buy groceries, etc. \n\nChecking accounts have unlimited transactions which means they are what you use for the money that you need for spending on things. You put money into savings when you intend to not touch it for a while. But most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, meaning they do not have extra money to put into savings. Instead everything goes to buying their food and pay their bills and rent. ",
"If you're living paycheck to paycheck, a savings account just doesn't make sense. You're spending most or all of the money you earn, so you pretty much don't have any savings and it wouldn't make sense to stick your money into an account where you can't easily use it.\n\nIf you have savings built up... a savings account *still* usually doesn't make sense, because they usually have trash interest rates. You can almost always do better by depositing funds into a pre-tax retirement account such as a 401(k) or IRA, or by investing in various securities that will return better interest rates.\n\nIn essence, the savings account occupies a weird space that just isn't relevant for a lot of people.",
"You'd have to explain more rigorously what you mean by 'popular,' but the reason is probably that while nearly everyone (with access to banking services) has a checking account, not everyone has a savings account.\n\nThere are a few possible reasons for this; one (as other posters have said) would be that you live paycheck to paycheck and therefore need the convenience/liquidity of a checking account. Another might be that you have some money saved, but bypass a traditional savings account completely in favor of keeping most of it in a less-liquid investment account"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6c122l | how do the postal service check contents of a mail/package? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c122l/eli5_how_do_the_postal_service_check_contents_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhr7sil"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"USPS is allowed to open any media mail package. Media mail is used to send books, CDs, DVD, and other printed educational material. USPS is allowed to open and inspect media mail packages by law, and I have heard stories of packages sent by media mail that contain non-media mail items being either returned to sender, or having the receiver be charged extra. \n\nSo I assume that any larger package marked media mail they just open it with a knife, check if it contains any non media-mail products, and then close it with tape. They don't do this with every media mail package of course, I assume its just the larger ones in boxes. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n > Media Mail packages may not contain advertising. Comic books do not meet this standard. Books may contain incidental announcements of other books and sound recordings may contain incidental announcements of other sound recordings. In accordance with standards in the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), Section 170, Media Mail packages must have a delivery address and the sender’s return address and are subject to inspection by the Postal Service™. Upon such inspection, matter not eligible for the Media Mail rate may be assessed at the proper price and sent to the recipient postage due, or the sender may be contacted for additional postage."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://about.usps.com/notices/not121/not121_tech.htm"
]
]
|
||
2z0n6a | how are forbes able to estimate/calculate the wealth of the people on their billionaires list and how accurate is it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z0n6a/eli5_how_are_forbes_able_to_estimatecalculate_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpemuyi",
"cper85f",
"cperebu",
"cpet127",
"cpeu0ze"
],
"score": [
130,
10,
3,
6,
8
],
"text": [
" > This is our 29th year publishing the Forbes Billionaires list. Though we’ve been at it a long time, it is never an easy task. Our reporters dig deep and travel far. To compile net worths, we value individuals’ assets–including stakes in public and private companies, real estate, yachts, art and cash–and take into account estimates of debt. We attempt to vet these numbers with all billionaires. Some cooperate; others don’t. We also consult an array of outside experts in various fields. The Forbes Billionaires ranks individuals rather than multi-generational families who share large fortunes. So Maja Oeri, who has a disclosed stake in pharmaceutical firm Roche, makes the list, but her eight relatives who, with a nonprofit foundation, share a multi-billion fortune do not. In some cases we list siblings together if the ownership breakdown among them isn’t clear, but here, too, they must be worth a minimum of $2 billion together to make the cut. We split up these fortunes when we get better information, as we did with the heirs of Colombia’s Julio Mario Santo Domingo this year. Children are listed with their parents when one person is the founder and in control. Those fortunes are identified as “ & family.”\n\n > We do not include royal family members or dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power, nor do we include royalty who, often with large families, control the riches in trust for their nation. Over the years Forbes has valued the fortunes of these wealthy despots, dictators and royals but we have listed them separately as they do not truly reflect individual, entrepreneurial wealth that could be passed down to a younger generation or truly given away.\n\nTL;DR: Using dozens of sources they value everything the billionaires possess, including debts, and compile the values. They attempt to vet the values with the individuals and some agree while others don't. They have a team of financial analysts listed on their website and other consulted experts in various fields. ",
"A larger number of those on the list have vast holdings in public companies that they founded. Public companies are required by law to disclose all sorts of financial information about the company in the interest of investors. One disclosure is required for any entity (person or corporation), in the US, that owns more than 5% interest in a public company. As such, it's very easy to look up how many shares in a company someone owns. For example, you can easily look up the number of shares that Bill Gates owns in Microsoft. They then add the asset value of major holdings like property, homes, Gulfstream jets, etc and come up with a final value. This is greatly simplified of course, because often the assets of the wealthy are leased or shielded behind all kinds of corporate veils, trust funds, charitable organizations, etc. \n\nThose with vast holdings in private companies are much harder to evaluate. The Koch brothers for example own one of the worlds largest private corporations. Since it's private they are not required to publically disclose anything. This is where some real sleuthing takes place. Some billionaires make the information available-Donald Trump supposedly does. Others of course do not, and Forbes is pretty tight lipped on some of their methods to arrive at final valuations on individuals.",
"The additional question is what is the unofficial Billionaires list, taking into consideration supposed illicit money, as well as capital held by crooked world leaders and looking into the ways old money hides its wealth and keeps it.",
"So networth is everything a person owns? Like shares in a company, cars, homes, bank accounts? \n",
"While these answers are true, there's also the much more hilarious \"behind the curtain\" action in creating the Forbes list . There are billionaires who literally have a PR representative that actively reach out to Forbes, with all of the documentation, stats, data to get them ahead of their competition. Some will be furious if certain other Forbes Billionaires are ahead of them on the list; it's intense!\n\nIs it surprising though? These are some of the biggest egos on earth and competition & wealth is everything to them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3jsj6w | crossfit. seriously, is it really that horrible? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jsj6w/eli5_crossfit_seriously_is_it_really_that_horrible/ | {
"a_id": [
"curx2ag",
"curx2n5"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on what you're referring to. It's fairly dangerous physically if you aren't in at least good physical shape to begin with. There is a lot of extremely dangerous activities that they do from lifting tractor tires to deep squats with heavy weight and without proper training and form people **will** get hurt. This is an instructor problem, not an issue of the sport itself but I find that a lot of crossfit instructors overdo the training for beginners and don't do their job of \"instructing\" and prefer to act as motivational speakers. For upper level classes that's fine but you need to teach beginners good form first. \n\nThere is also one more stereotype that I know of in crossfit and that is that everyone in it is an asshole and, like with instructors, is a crap shoot. I think this is heavily influenced by the price of the classes and the competitive nature of the larger cities where it us more common. LA culture for example is extremely competitive in terms of looks. Everyone wants to be skinny and kinda looks down on anyone who has a modicum of bodyfat. Crossfit feeds on this mentality, charges higher prices, and the people who take the class brag to ALL their friends and coworkers and family and everyone else how **their** workout is harder than everyone else's and how **they** are so ripped and cut. I used LA as the example but this mentality is common in all big cities among people of moderate income who have the luxury of caring about those kinds of things. ",
"Well, crossfit is essentially a cult to begin with and members of a cult are fairly annoying and in your face about.\n\nPhysically, almost all crossfitters use incorrect form that puts a lot of stress on parts of your body that shouldn't have that much stress. Most people that do that will have a lot of problems down the road, not because they are exercising but rather because of the form they do.\n\nAlso most cross fitters are completely out of control with their motion and just look like an erratic drunk guy who is convulsing and having severe muscle spasms."
]
} | []
| [
"http://i.imgur.com/SuNDcFC.gifv"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
fo0o88 | how does our brain consider something too loud? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fo0o88/eli5_how_does_our_brain_consider_something_too/ | {
"a_id": [
"flcmd4a"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Inside our ear we use very delicate membranes to detect air vibrations. When a noise is very loud, those membranes start to take damage from the shockwaves. So they activate pain neurons which travel to the brain and tell it \"something bad is happening inside your ear!\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
e9ymgu | why when you close your eyes, is it not completely black, and theres a sort of faint static? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e9ymgu/eli5_why_when_you_close_your_eyes_is_it_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"famp23f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your eyelids are made of skin, and skin is not perfectly opaque. Some light still gets through, but not enough to form a picture. Your brain loves to find patterns wherever it can, so it interprets the light that does get through into the closest thing to an image that it can, which is usually a kind of fuzzy static."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2c7ovo | how is it that prostitution so openly advertised for on craigslist with out anybody getting in trouble? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c7ovo/eli5how_is_it_that_prostitution_so_openly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjcrb7i",
"cjcs6sh",
"cjcsgjx",
"cjcsgut",
"cjcx444",
"cjcxn3n",
"cjcxqna",
"cjcxqyu",
"cjcxula"
],
"score": [
92,
8,
53,
5,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"People do get in trouble. There are stories all the time about cops using Craigslist for stings. ",
"The women do it under the guise of \"companionship\" with no financial motive then they will ask if you are involved in any law enforcement then at that point it's two consenting adults and then they will come over and even make you touch them to confirm you are not law enforcement. Then you proceed in your \"companionship\" and they might ask for a \"donation\" of 160 roses which unless you have a greenhouse on the premises you just give them money by leaving it on the dresser as to avoid direct exchange of currency. So basically they straddle the line between a FWB (friends with benefits) and a prostitute as much as possible. The only difference is that a prostitute is cheaper.\n\nEdit: A friend told me this.\n\nEdit2: I get it, this doesn't magically make it legal. But smart escorts go through numerous steps to weed out the possibility of cops. They rarely just say \"be right over to spit roast you and fuck you so get your $200 dollars ready!!\" They are as vague as you can possibly get so when they start to smell the filthy pigs and they bail the situation the cops don't have much concrete evidence on them.",
"I used to prostitute myself to older men on Craigslist when I was 18-20 (I am male btw). It's all about the language: I would put up ads looking for a \"generous\" older man who wanted to \"spoil\" a younger guy, and we would exchange emails about what my \"allowance\" would be. What NAmember81 said is correct, I would go inside his place and make some sort of physical contact to make sure he wasn't law enforcement. I never once was scared I would be arrested, and since I worked on my own it was insanely easy to get away with it all. \n\nWhat I don't understand is the \"escort\" section of Backpage. That is straight up prostitution, right down to the per hour charge, and I have no idea how that website is still around.",
"Prostitution, so long as isn't connected to other crimes like drug use or robbery, isn't a terribly high enforcement priority. This is especially true if it is done discretely.\n\nWhat's more, if it is structured properly, where you pay for the date and the sex just happens, it can be hard to prosecute.",
"In the UK, prostitution is perfectly legal as long as it's not solicited on the street, and as long as one is not a pimp or involved in any way with a brothel.",
"The problem with prostitution is not individual women (or men, not judging here) selling themselves. The problem is trafficking and slavery, which afaik are not advertised on Craigslist. An ethical cop wouldn't waste her time hassling individual hookers; she'd go after the big guys who trick third-world women into sex slavery by offering them jobs as maids, and then keeping them imprisoned and terrified. \n\nNot to say that cops (or the districts who assign their priorities) are always ethical. But most are, most of the time. And individuals selling themselves are just not that big a priority.",
"Half the listings are by the cops. 25% are by scammers. 5% are by psychos. 20% are honest to goodness whores. 1% weigh under 180 lbs.",
"I know at least in my jurisdiction cops ain't got time for all that. It comes down to public perception really: People call the Sheriff's Office and complain about prostitution, but what they're REALLY complaining about is the haggardly looking hooker walking up and down the street in front of their house/business. They really don't care that there is sex being exchanged for money, they care that the walker is bringing other sorts of negative things to their house/business. \n\nThus, when it is happening in some hotel room or some guys house, and not in full public view, no one cares, and so no one calls to complain to their local law enforcement. When no one is complaining, the cops focus on what IS being complained about.",
"In Canada, you are legally allowed to offer sex in trade for money. But it is illegal to take anyone up on their offer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
333pzy | what were the effects of president gerald ford's domestic policies on the us? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/333pzy/eli5_what_were_the_effects_of_president_gerald/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqh8za8",
"cqh9kmr"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Something something low public opinion because of Nixon pardon ",
"Why does it feel like people are asking questions so they don't have to do their homework lately?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
69a31q | why do very successful actors/actresses do seemingly extraneous commercials? | I've been seeing quite a few commercials with some very successful actors and actresses. For example, Thomas Middleditch (Richard in HBO's Silicon Valley) is the new spokesman for Verizon. What I'm asking is why do you think he'd be doing that? It's hard to believe a person feels passionately about Verizon or similar companies, so I don't see why they'd do these commercials. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69a31q/eli5_why_do_very_successful_actorsactresses_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh4ypwy",
"dh51jco",
"dh526bo"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a very simple explanation for this. Money. Even A list hollywood stars will do commercials, although generally not ones that are shown in the US. Now you might think they have enough money but nobody has enough and actors in particular are not known for having secure jobs. So, if you're on TV (not hollywood) then you want to parlay your 5 minutes into a brand that can keep you employed and earning even if your show is cancelled.",
"Easy money. Shooting a movie or a TV show is a lot of time commitment. Shooting a commercial is a matter of days (or day).\n\nIf you negotiate it right, every time the commercial airs you get a small cut. \n\nLevel of effort vs reward. ",
"Because Thomas Middleditch is not a *very* successful actor. Make no mistake, he is doing well, but he has a net worth of about $1.5 million. That's a long way off from private jet money. I don't know how much he is getting from Verizon, but it wouldn't take that much for them to alter his standard of living.\n\nEven well-paid actors know fame can be fleeting. Jim Parsons is currently the highest paid actor in Hollywood, and is doing Intel ads. His show is winding down, and actors who play quirky sitcom characters don't exactly have a great shelf life. He is cashing in, because he maybe has another year or two of this at best until he is just another Steve Urkel. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
ej0hd1 | how do hearing aids work? are they just blasting what they hear directly into the ear potentially causing more damage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ej0hd1/eli5_how_do_hearing_aids_work_are_they_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"fculcvw",
"fcv06v5",
"fcv1rec",
"fcv288v",
"fcv4jii",
"fcv7867",
"fcv9au9",
"fcvbmj1",
"fcvf3tf",
"fcvfms4",
"fcvikxa",
"fcvl1y7",
"fcvno0d",
"fcvsta8",
"fcwpx0k",
"fcww2yx"
],
"score": [
7979,
336,
3,
28,
157,
6,
4,
6,
5,
5,
4,
2,
82,
15,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Hearing aids aren’t just amplifiers - they filter and normalize frequencies to adjust to the weaknesses of the wearer’s ears. They are tuned for individuals by professional fitters. To answer your follow-up question, hearing aids can actually protect against loud sounds since they can block and selectively filter.",
"There are different types of hearing aid, because different parts of the ear could be damaged or defective.\n\nIf you look at [the diagram](_URL_0_), the eardrum vibrates with the sounds in air, but that vibration is transmitted via bones to the cochlea, which is a chamber filled with liquid and soft hairs that are attached to nerves.\n\nSo if every piece of the ear anatomy is \"ok\", then the hearing aid can just amplify the sounds so they vibrate the eardrum a bit harder.\n\nOtherwise, an implanted type of hearing aid could pick up the sounds via a microphone, and apply the vibration directly to the bones (if the eardrum is ruptured). Or, with a [cochlear implant](_URL_1_), the sounds picked up by the electronics are applied directly into the liquid environment inside the cochlea, bypassing the eardrum and the bones completely.",
"You apply a filter, like maybe a bandpass filter, which rejects frequencies outside a certain range. You could mathematically calculate a crude version of it by listening to different frequencies and seeing which ones you can hear. A lot of these ideas are fundamentals of signal processing in electrical engineering.",
"I've been informed (by people who have researched hearing aids quite a bit) is that the belief is that getting hearing aids can actually slow down the deterioration of hearing. I'm not sure what the mechanism for that is supposed to be, though. \n \nThe new, high end hearing aids are pretty nifty (and expensive). They include equalizers so that only the bands which need amplification are boosted. Various different settings can be used for different environments. They can be Bluetooth enabled so that phone calls can go straight to your hearing aids. They supposedly can reduce tinnitus, too.",
"Person who has hearing aids here. In terms of damage there is one thing that bothers me the most because nobody told me that even though It makes sense. Your hearing without them gets worse and worse which is the thing that hit me the most. I think It's because your ears are happy that they don't have to work hard and because of the extra help they don't need to make their job. (That's at least how I got told the reason)\n\nEdit: reason is NOT true at all and was just too simplified.",
"Hearing aids vary. The higher end ones with a good audiologist can even help with tinnitus. My hearing aids from Costco have the feature disabled because Costco only wants to sell to people with mild loss that they can fit and be done with. But the technology with a good team can do wonders.",
"Imagine there are strings of different length inside the ear that vibrate to a well defined frequency and transform the signal to a nerve impulse that the brain interprets as sound.\nWhen those strings snap we stop hearing sounds in that frequency, a hearing aid just \"translates\" those missing frequencies into ones that the person in question can hear",
"I have hearing aids, generally no, they don’t cause any more damage and my hearing is at the “severe” level (before profound/deafness.) hearing aids work by picking up sound in the microphones usually located on the rear and top they send the sound through the tube and into the ear. They also use batteries and I think some are actually rechargeable but mine are not. But I will say that they do blast anything they hear into the ear unless you alter them at a doctors not to, but the result of filtering out sounds to get voices better will lead to a shitton of jumpscares. As a result, hearing aids mostly blast everything they pick up into the ear without discrimination.",
"They do increase the volume of what they hear, but only up to a safe limit, so they don't damage the ear. These limits are set by the fitter based on a hearing test.\n\nThere's lots of other processing that they do to avoid blasting everything, and only what the hearer wants to hear. There is a LOT of research that goes into how exactly to do this.",
"The tech now is pretty amazing. My husband has a set from the VA as a treatment for his tinnitus. He was in aviation fuels on an aircraft carrier during his service. They are specifically tuned to add white noise to cancel out what he hears as alternatively buzzing/ringing. Amazing. He can also answer his phone, stream music, watch movies, etc.",
"Old ones did just amplify everything regardless or frequency or decibels so that far off siren is just as loud as your gf telling you to get off the couch. New ones are really nuanced and high tech so they can tell what to filter and what no to.",
"There are different kinds of hearing aids. The specific type depends on the damage to the ear.\n\nIf you just \"hear bad\" specialized amplifiers can be used to alter the volume and frequency range to improve your hearing.\n\nIf some parts of the ear are damaged a cochlear implant can be used. This is basically a microphone with some electronics that is direct hooked up to the nerves in the inner ear and stimulates them to allow hearing.",
"For starters, I work as an Engineer for one of the largest hearing aid manufacturers in the world, although in the Quality & Regulatory Affairs side of things, so I'm not as well-versed as a member of R & D would be.\n\nI'll cover the second point first, Power and Super Power hearing aids intended for those who have severe and profound hearing loss can be amplified to the extent where they would cause damage to those without hearing loss or with moderate loss.\n\nAs such, any hearing aid should always be programmed by a hearing care professional (audiologists and hearing aid dispensers in the UK) prior to issue, as they ensure that the hearing aid is programmed on safe settings. DO NOT buy hearing aids via mail order or over the internet, as the face-to-face consultation and fine tuning is essential for ensuring safety and maximising performance/troubleshooting.\n\nEffectively, your hearing doesn't get damaged because the only time a hearing aid should put out potentially damaging volumes is at frequencies where the damage has already been done. \n\nAs part of your hearing aid fitting the HCP (Hearing Care Professional) will perform a hearing test, which produces an audiogram detailing your hearing loss at various frequencies, typically up to 8 kHz. This audiogram is then used to determine which hearing aids (if any) are suitable for your hearing loss - typically the less severe your hearing loss, the more options you have as the smaller, custom instruments typically produce less powerful outputs.\n\nIf you are getting an off-the-shelf hearing aid, either called a behind-the-ear (BTE) or receiver in-the-ear/canal (RITE/RIC) with no custom ear mould this can be fitted to you the same day as your test, but if a custom hearing aid or mould is chosen there's usually a 1-3 week turnaround for the aid/mould to be manufactured.\n\nWhen the finished product is available the HCP will program the device to suit your hearing loss - in broad terms it will amplify frequencies which you don't hear well and leave frequencies which you can hear un-amplified, which is why another person's hearing aid won't work for you. Newer hearing aids also perform frequency transposition, where high frequencies (such as the letter \"S\") that patients can't hear well, or at all, are changed to a lower frequency to allow them to hear it.\n\nIn crowded rooms basic hearing aids in a pair will also evaluate the sound that you are hearing to allow you to focus on a single person. This is typically done by determining if both hearing aids are receiving speech at the same volume, as that indicates that you are facing the source of the speech. When this occurs the rear microphones are made quieter to allow you to focus on the person you are facing. \n\nMore advanced hearing aids will scan the room hundreds of times per second to allow speech from all around you to be cleaned up and give a more realistic experience in a crowded room. \n\nOn top of that you have bluetooth functionality, connectivity to phones, TVs, mobiles, FM adapters (primarily in schools), but they don't have any real effect on the basic functionality of the aid.\n\nPlease note, this is a very simple take on a really complicated subject, so there may be sections which aren't 100% correct, but are worded in a way to make it easy to understand.",
"Am hearing aid user.\n\nGood hearing aids amplify high, low, and in-between sounds exactly as much as they need to make a person's hearing normal. I have hearing loss that effects high sounds, so my hearing aids pump up mostly high pitched sounds that mix with real sound.\n\nMost hearing aids max out at certain volumes. Mine stop at 107 decibels, which is around when sound can hurt someone's hearing. If someone needs sound to be louder than that to correct their hearing, they need to get something other than hearing aids (cochlear implant). If real sound is louder than 107 decibels, my hearing aids do nothing. If real sound is 106 decibels, but my hearing aids are supposed to add 10, they only add 1, because they won't go over 107.\n\nThis is good, because only one part of my hearing is broken. There are four steps to hearing: the ear drum, the ear bones, the hearing nerves, and the listening brain. My damage is in the hearing nerves. If sound is too loud, I can still damage my ear bones, and I have. I used to think \"I'm broken, so I don't need earplugs!\" and didn't wear them when I should have, and hurt my ear bones, which made my hearing worse.\n\nHave you ever seen a professional musician mixing board, with all the levers and nobs? A good hearing aid has those same nobs, but all computerized. A good hearing aid doctor is called an audiologist, and will tune a hearing aid to be perfect for someone's hearing damage.\n\nThere aren't that many laws in the United States about hearing aids, so you don't have to be an audiologist to sell them, and you can sell bad hearing aids. There are places where non-doctors sell hearing aids that just blast everything really loudly. They are not good, but they are also cheap. I would not recommend then.",
"I woke up with hearing loss in my left ear, leading to ringing. Got a hearing aid via NHS, was told the following;\n\nEveryone’s hearing gets worse as they age, including people with hearing loss already. \n\nHearing aids may not work for everyone.\n\nThey’re tuned for the frequency you’ve lost (obviously) but can only do so much and will never be 100% again.\n\nWhen I first started to use the aid everyone sounded “robotic” (not in a I-am-a-robot way) \n\nTLDR; Hearing loss sucks.",
"I have wore hearing aids for the last 15-16 years (since I was 16, 31 now). A lot of people have explained this a lot better than I have, but wanted to chime in anyway. \nLike others have said, hearing aids just don't make sounds louder. Little microphones are constantly going on and off and making the sound...sound right. Example, high pitched sounds are really hard for me to hear. My current pair of hearing aids have a program that take those high pitched sounds and bring them to an octave I can hear. An audiologist tests my hearing, and programs the hearing aids to my level of high pitched loss. Same goes for lower, bass sounds. \nProbably not the place of this, but I really need to get it off my chest: I firmly believe those who buy an OTC hearing aid are going to have a bad time. \"Professional\" hearing aids cost a lot (don't get me started on that), but they are custom programmed and fitted for me, and not my mom."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.bksv.com/-/media/Images/Waves/2018/01_Anatomy-of-the-human-ear/Anatomy-of-the-human-ear_01.ashx?h=552&w=875&la=en&hash=CA79680318C10B80E2A4343E8BEA13934C861455",
"https://cdn.prod-carehubs.net/n1/802899ec472ea3d8/uploads/2016/10/a-medical-illustration-of-a-cochlear-implant-original.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4ikzab | redittors of britain: how/when do i use 'sir'? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ikzab/eli5_redittors_of_britain_howwhen_do_i_use_sir/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2ywti6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"These days you could get away without using it at all, if you wanted. There's not really any occasion I can think of where it's indispensable.\n\nBut if you wish to use it, then it's for when you're being deferential to someone. Pupil to teacher, shop worker to customer, that sort of thing.\n\nIt can be overdone, and it can come across as a stereotype - call-centre workers from the Indian subcontinent often fall either side of comfortable - too familiar, using my first name straight away without any introduction, and too obsequious - calling me sir all the way through."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1cc1cd | why do non-southern american black men and women talk with a southern-esque accent? | I live in the Pacific Northwest, and most of the black people I interact with have no connection to the American South within the past couple generations. I don't have any linguistics background and have always genuinely been curious about this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cc1cd/eli5_why_do_nonsouthern_american_black_men_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9f1y82",
"c9f33jb",
"c9f7ji7",
"c9f86n1"
],
"score": [
20,
18,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Give this a read:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I grew up in an all black neighborhood in Pontiac MI. Most of the people I met were at most the third generation of their family to leave the south. Many Southern Blacks came to Michigan during the turn of the century auto boom. ",
"Here's a really interesting article about it. _URL_0_",
"Better answers here than I could come up with, but I confirm, PNW here and I know just what you mean."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English"
],
[],
[
"http://the-magazine.org/12/aint-no-reason"
],
[]
]
|
|
6lqf0w | why are white people called "white people" when many asians (mainly korean, japanese and chinese) have pretty much the same skin color? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lqf0w/eli5_why_are_white_people_called_white_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"djvuspg",
"djvvfdq"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Why are white grapes actually green?",
"Because being \"white\" in the US is a social construct (there's no biological basis for it--it is what society deems it to be). It wasn't too long ago that many people that are now considered \"white,\" weren't (Irish, Italians, Polish, Jewish, etc). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5rje32 | why aren't utility companies more supportive of developing alternative energy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rje32/eli5_why_arent_utility_companies_more_supportive/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd7po8b",
"dd7tmdd",
"dd7tzox"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Utility companies are in the business of making money. Every home solar system represents a lost customer (or more accurately, less to sell to that customer).\n\nAs for why they aren't interested in developing their own alternative energy plants, powerplants are expensive. They don't want to build new ones if they don't have to. New tech comes with inherent risk. What happens if it underperforms? Now you have to run two plants; your old one and the new one. \n\nAdd to this the fact that they already have well established supply chains. If every plant in their system runs coal then all you have to worry about is coal. New plants require new materials, which require you to broaden your supply chains.\n\nBasically More Complicated means More Expensive. Simple is cheap. Companies tend to prefer cheap.",
"I work for an electrical utility company as one of their engineers in the project management side. It is true that utility companies are first out there to make money, but it doesnt mean that they arent out to do the right thing either. We have a department solely to develop or gather new technologies or ideas on how to use more renewable and environmentally conscious methods, but cannot do so at the sacrifice of the current systems stability and current load. Also, a new project or a new site to even test doesnt come quickly, the engineering development to implement any plan be it a standard substation or something new takes years to develop from finding the right site within the network and obtaining the property, doing a full site investigation including any environmental impacts that can occur while at the same time determining the most efficient or cost effective way to build a site. Thats all just gathering the right information and that alone can take up to 2 years, I know of one site where its a standard substation and it has only gotten passed the environmental impacts after being in review for 10 years since the public fought it for so long (which didnt make sense considering we wanted to up the reliability in case of major storms for the same public fighting us). then the actual engineering of all the drawings and details, calculations, site design, and what not, which also needs to be reviewed. \n\nNow this doesnt mean that utility companies arent already doing this, what a majority of the public dont realize is that before even construction starts, putting together the whole package takes a VERY very very very VEEEERY long time as every detail has to be thought through, and a lot of things still get missed. So dont get discouraged, it takes time, it doesnt happen over night, it wont happen in 5-10 years, it will take a LONG time. but it will happen.",
"Mostly because alternative energy sources are a lot like nuclear energy: cheap to run, but expensive to build.\n\nConventional fossil-fuel based energy production has an ongoing cost: they have to buy fuel (coal, diesel, natural gas) to make electricity. But if they don't need the electricity, they can shut off a gas turbine or diesel generator and stop paying for fuel. If the price of electricity goes down, they can shut off a conventional generator and save money. Utilities can adjust the costs of conventional fossil fuel energy based upon demand. Natural gas turbines are especially good at this \"on demand\" production.\n\nBut you don't have to buy fuel for solar panels or wind turbines or wave harvesters. They make electricity at the same price, whether you need it or not. But the interest on the loan that they took out to build them doesn't go down. The payments that the utility has to make on a wind farm or solar array stay the same, no matter whether the price of electricity goes up or down. The utility can't adjust their costs based on demand for their product (electricity).\n\nAlso, nature is less than predictable. Clouds can block the sun, the wind can die down, and the ocean doesn't always have waves. They have to have spare generator capacity to fulfill the demand for power during those times. But if the utility has to have enough gas, diesel, and coal generators to fill the need for electricity without alternative sources, then why build the alternative sources at all? It is just another loan to pay interest on, to them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
kv626 | why perpetual energy doesn't work? | I saw a "troll physics"-esque picture on here the other day (unable to locate) that had a cord you could plug into your laptop's USB port from one end, and the place where the charging wire goes from the other, giving it unlimited energy, as it's supplying itself with energy constantly.
I'm sure this is really stupid, and the answer is probably right in front of my face, but why wouldn't this work if the laptop was fully charged when this cord was plugged in?
Please hold onto your insults and so forth. Took me a few days to even be able to live with myself posting this, but I figure it's better to ask and look stupid than not know.
Thanks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kv626/eli5_why_perpetual_energy_doesnt_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2nh0kd",
"c2nhq1z",
"c2nhqkh",
"c2njbkz",
"c2nkt9w",
"c2nh0kd",
"c2nhq1z",
"c2nhqkh",
"c2njbkz",
"c2nkt9w"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"some of the energy is given off as heat.",
"If you plugged a laptop in that way it might work for a bit but it would gradually run out of power. \n\nImagine you're running around a circular track with a bag of apples, every time you go past the start line you throw an apple away, eventually after a few laps you'll have no apples.\n\nTrack = the route the electricity takes \n\nBag of apples = energy in the battery \n\nAn apple = the energy used by the laptop in a certain period of time",
"I'm not a physics expert, so I can't tell you *why* this is the case, but there is only a finite amount of mass-energy in the universe (you can turn mass into energy what with nuclear power). Since a laptop won't convert mass into energy, let's just talk about energy. Energy can change its form (you can turn motion into light, and light into heat, and heat into electricity, etc) but it can't *duplicate* itself because that would create extra overall mass-energy in the universe.\n\nNow it's theoretically possible to have a system where no energy is lost, *but* this is highly unlikely. In the case of a laptop, not only is energy lost via the heat from the wires but also from everything's the laptop is doing...the motion of the fans isn't preserved, the light from the monitor isn't recaptured and turned into another sort of energy, etc. Energy is leaking out all over the place...which is why you'd need to recharge your battery, which brings in energy from another source (the power plant).\n\nEven if you make the device in question as efficient as possible (use solar powers to capture the light from the monitor and turn it back to energy), you're still leaking energy, no matter how efficient you make it, energy you need to replenish from a third party source. So if you make it as completely efficient as possible, then, well, it'd be pretty hard to tell if it's even on. Even checking if electricity is flowing through the wires will probably result in minor loss.",
"Laptops _consume_ energy. Others here mentioned losses as heat and all, but _even if the cable can transfer electricity without loss_, how this is setup any different from having your normal laptop on a battery? Any energy from the USB comes from the battery, and any energy going in the charger comes from the USB. If there is no loss, the battery recharges itself the exact same amount it has discharged through the USB. This doesn't remedy the battery discharge required to _run the laptop_.\n\nImagine a tank of water with a small opening to run a water wheel below. The wheel turns, work is done. Now imagine you open the tank, scoop some water up, then put it back down into the tank with no loss. How does that give you perpetual energy? _You are still losing water at the bottom opening in order to turn the wheel_.",
"Electricity behaves something like a rope that moves inside a pipe. Ok, imagine you have a circle of actual rope passing over two pulleys. (An old-fashioned clothesline device.)\n\nIf you briefly grab the rope with your hand and pull, one part of rope will pull on the next, making it move. And that pulls on the next, so it moves too. Soon the entire rope is moving like a conveyor belt.\n\nBut the wave of \"pulling\" goes around in an endless circle, right?\n\nSo the rope should move faster and faster and faster, forever.\n\nRight?\n\n:)\n",
"some of the energy is given off as heat.",
"If you plugged a laptop in that way it might work for a bit but it would gradually run out of power. \n\nImagine you're running around a circular track with a bag of apples, every time you go past the start line you throw an apple away, eventually after a few laps you'll have no apples.\n\nTrack = the route the electricity takes \n\nBag of apples = energy in the battery \n\nAn apple = the energy used by the laptop in a certain period of time",
"I'm not a physics expert, so I can't tell you *why* this is the case, but there is only a finite amount of mass-energy in the universe (you can turn mass into energy what with nuclear power). Since a laptop won't convert mass into energy, let's just talk about energy. Energy can change its form (you can turn motion into light, and light into heat, and heat into electricity, etc) but it can't *duplicate* itself because that would create extra overall mass-energy in the universe.\n\nNow it's theoretically possible to have a system where no energy is lost, *but* this is highly unlikely. In the case of a laptop, not only is energy lost via the heat from the wires but also from everything's the laptop is doing...the motion of the fans isn't preserved, the light from the monitor isn't recaptured and turned into another sort of energy, etc. Energy is leaking out all over the place...which is why you'd need to recharge your battery, which brings in energy from another source (the power plant).\n\nEven if you make the device in question as efficient as possible (use solar powers to capture the light from the monitor and turn it back to energy), you're still leaking energy, no matter how efficient you make it, energy you need to replenish from a third party source. So if you make it as completely efficient as possible, then, well, it'd be pretty hard to tell if it's even on. Even checking if electricity is flowing through the wires will probably result in minor loss.",
"Laptops _consume_ energy. Others here mentioned losses as heat and all, but _even if the cable can transfer electricity without loss_, how this is setup any different from having your normal laptop on a battery? Any energy from the USB comes from the battery, and any energy going in the charger comes from the USB. If there is no loss, the battery recharges itself the exact same amount it has discharged through the USB. This doesn't remedy the battery discharge required to _run the laptop_.\n\nImagine a tank of water with a small opening to run a water wheel below. The wheel turns, work is done. Now imagine you open the tank, scoop some water up, then put it back down into the tank with no loss. How does that give you perpetual energy? _You are still losing water at the bottom opening in order to turn the wheel_.",
"Electricity behaves something like a rope that moves inside a pipe. Ok, imagine you have a circle of actual rope passing over two pulleys. (An old-fashioned clothesline device.)\n\nIf you briefly grab the rope with your hand and pull, one part of rope will pull on the next, making it move. And that pulls on the next, so it moves too. Soon the entire rope is moving like a conveyor belt.\n\nBut the wave of \"pulling\" goes around in an endless circle, right?\n\nSo the rope should move faster and faster and faster, forever.\n\nRight?\n\n:)\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
o7ghl | why do hard core republicans not like romney? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o7ghl/eli5_why_do_hard_core_republicans_not_like_romney/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3ezf0x",
"c3ezgut",
"c3ezivt",
"c3f1cqx"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
20,
2
],
"text": [
"He is Mormon and not Christian.",
"He's not as conservative as most republicans, he's a bit moderate. ",
"Romney used to be the Governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the United States (Democrats control the State Senate 36-4!).\n\nSince it would have been nearly impossible for him to get elected in such an environment without at least tempering some of his conservative credentials, he did so. The problem is, doing so provided a legacy of quotes, stances, and legislation that are quite moderate (even liberal) when compared to the Republican party as a whole.\n\nTherefore he is often mistrusted by Republicans from other areas where far more conservative candidates are the norm. His policies that are conservative in Mass. sound exactly like what Democrats might propose in a state like Mississippi.\n\nIn particular, opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been a cornerstone to Republican opposition to President Obama. Specifically, the mandate that every individual purchase insurance. However Romney included the exact same mandate when he passed Health Care Reform as Governor. So he's on record as endorsing the exact policy that is driving Republican opposition to Obama.\n\nThirdly, and an issue that really remains to be seen, Romney is Mormon. This may not seem like much, but many very influential religious figures are on record as opposing the Mormon religion, even going so far as to call Mormonism a \"cult.\" As to how much this may drive many Evangelicals (a crucial conservative voting bloc) to be skeptical of him will be interesting to watch over the coming months. ",
"Everyone at school wants you to act a certain way in order to be part of their group. So you mostly act like they do, but you and your family goes to a different church. \n\nThis really upsets the group you want to be a part of. To the point where no matter how popular you are, the church you go to matters more than anything. So you can't be in their group. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3v91h0 | why companies flood the market with so many similar products | This applies to anything from cars to vacuum cleaners, but I was hunting for a washing machine, and whatever brand you pick, they have seemingly dozens of very similar models. It goes beyond merely having editions for washer/drier and different sizes. Button layouts are different, and minuscule feature differences such as less/more washing programmes or 1200rpm versus 1300rpm differentiate these models.
It should be simple. Have say 3 sizes, and allow a drier feature (as part of a washer/drier), and bang, you've got 4-6 models in total maximum (ignoring colour).
I suppose since other manufacturers are also doing the same, they might feel that their limited range would get 'lost' in the multitudes of choice. However, the iPhone or Tesla Model S is a perfect example of doing one thing, and doing it well. With the right marketing, a company can push just a single washing machine, and have it do very well. For iterative improvements, they could borrow from the software world and have version 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.0 etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v91h0/eli5_why_companies_flood_the_market_with_so_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxlezn6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Marketing. If you have something that makes your product \"different\", it gets noticed. When enough people make something different in the same way, you have to make your product more different. Primarily applies to cars, which do one thing and one thing only: move you from point A to point B faster than walking. \n\nAlso, ergonomics, which is the science of \"what is comfortable\". A slightly different button layout or handle shape might be significantly easier to use for certain people. Probably the most obvious is chairs. You sit in them long enough that the tiniest thing makes them uncomfortable; fix that little thing, and another little thing pops up. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
25q29w | how exactly does a military encirclement so vastly increase the encircling army's combat advantage? | I've always had a hard time visualising large battles involving thousands of soldiers and vehicles. I roughly understand that encirclement forces the encircled army to have to face an enemy that's 360º around, but I still can't quite understand how in most battles getting encircled is pretty much game over.
Can someone explain this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25q29w/eli5_how_exactly_does_a_military_encirclement_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"chjmmbe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you're encircling the enemy, you don't really have to attack anymore. You can just sit and let the enemy starve to death. This usually happens when a large military unit (eg. corps, army group) is encircled.\n\nIf you are encircling a smaller unit (eg. platoon, battalion, regiment), you know exactly where the enemy is, and your artillery will have no trouble saturating that small area with shells, killing most of the enemy.\n\nIn general, encirclements are dangerous because the encircled unit can no longer get supplies (except in rare cases, eg. air drops in Bastogne in WWII) and cannot retreat. The troops must either fight or surrender; the encircling troops can rotate on and off the line of battle and thus can rest. If you are sending well-rested and -supplied troops against tired, poorly-supplied troops, the well-rested troops will often win."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3xaud8 | ok, i'm asking. what does [~] mean reddit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xaud8/eli5_ok_im_asking_what_does_mean_reddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy3193w"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It just means the score is hidden. Usually for about an hour after posting but I'm not sure; that has been my experience. It prevents mass up/down votes probably. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4ylpei | why do some people claim that maps are geographically inaccurate? if true, why do maps purposely show misleading land sizes? for an example, i keep hearing that africa is much bigger in size in real life. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ylpei/eli5_why_do_some_people_claim_that_maps_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6onyn8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to make maps accurate since maps usually are in squares whilst earth is oval. To make a map accurate it would have to be the same shape. Therefore depending on where your country is located on the planet some variations in size must be made to adapt to the square format."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5a24lo | does abstaining from taking medications increase the bodies ability to self heal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5a24lo/eli5_does_abstaining_from_taking_medications/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9d2qfp",
"d9d4bll",
"d9d78vr",
"d9daqhs"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No. Medication either relieves suffering, helps the body balance chemically, or helps it heal. It's not like the body thinks \"oh, that's stuff is doing the work so I can slack off\"",
"Typically no. It depends on the medication and situation in question. Some medications that replicate natural hormonal responses can end up wearing the body out in some ways so the natural production of those hormones or chemicals gets suppressed or reduced. But you'll want to talk to a doctor for any specifics.",
"In most cases, no, but you need to be more specific about which medications you're thinking of. Certainly some like aggressive chemotherapy can inhibit your ability to heal wounds. That said, *most* medications work on some version of giving your body a *chance* to heal... antibiotics do this for example. They'd be useless without your immune system; they act to give it a chance to function properly and clear a pathogen. ",
"No, almost across the board. Take your medications how your doc prescribes it, or have a discussion with them if you question the usefulness of the drug"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
66bnuv | it seems that there are a lot of violence/drugs etc problems with us sport stars but scarcly any violence between the fans in us sport compared to europe. why? | Dear redditors,
i am a huge NFL Fan and every offseason there seems to be Shootings, drug overdose and you name it. Additionaly you have Sport Stars who have to go to jail like Hernandez and so on. Compared to Football in Germany or Europe We do not have that on any scale. I only know a few examples of that stuff, it even is a scandal if some of the players Party too much without causing any trouble.
On the other side there is so much violence between the Fans. While there is just normal violence in every Match even in the 4th League, you have places like in Poland where the different Fans will stab each other (not only in Poland but in cracow they are really vicious). You do not have that in the US.
While I have some theories on why that is, i am a European and I would like to hear from people with more Insight.
Excuse my English, my phone just keep using capital letters... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66bnuv/eli5_it_seems_that_there_are_a_lot_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgh6i7m",
"dgh9nrz",
"dghingb"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Go to a Raiders game. See people get shot and beaten in the parking lot. ALL the time. EVERY game.",
"Interesting question that I don't really have the answer to. From an American perspective I'm kind of interested in why there is such large-scale organized hooliganism around sports fandom in Europe. I mean you'll see American fans wearing their team jerseys and maybe bad mouthing the other team, but it's usually more or less friendly, and even if it isn't, that's a guy who got drunk and started a fight.\n\nWhat you don't see in the US are these groups of supporters who act collectively and are seriously violent toward supporters of other teams. The closest thing to that I can think of is a street gang.\n\nWhich leads me to ask if you have a lot of criminal street gangs in Europe? Maybe that's what fills that niche in Europe instead of local or ethnic identity as we get with gangs over here.",
"I don't know about fans but I think I can address the player violence issue. \n\nIn America, most athletes are not wealthy growing up. African Americans are a large percentage of the athletes in America. It is theorized but by no means proven that [people of West-African descent have genes which may lead to greater athleticism](_URL_1_). However, this group in America has been greatly disenfranchised due to centuries of discrimination including slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc. Currently, [Whites are 5 times richer than Blacks](_URL_2_). \n\n\nSo most athletes in America are more likely to be poor before they make it big and the poor are more likely to commit crimes than the wealthy. When it comes to American professional athletes, they are actually *less likely* to commit crime than people of their former poverty level or even the general population. But they are more likely to commit crime than people that were born into their wealthy status. [Source](_URL_3_). [Second Source](_URL_0_).\n\nI assume that European athletes do not usually grow up in the levels of poverty that American athletes do. Please correct me if I am wrong. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/01/the-myth-about-crime-and-pro-athletes/qlnKoSMkbhuImiS4pO87WJ/story.html",
"https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/14/kenyans-sweep-distance-races-jamaicans-sprints-evolution-shaped-elite-sports/",
"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/17/white-people-95000-richer-black",
"http://www.cnbc.com/id/100942614"
]
]
|
|
1rx2hu | what are the practical uses of infinity? | The question is what it says on the tin. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rx2hu/eli5what_are_the_practical_uses_of_infinity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdrrur9",
"cdrsjhp",
"cdruj3s"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Its nice to use when you have a formula to describe an event and you want to know after a long period of time, what state it will be. To find that, we use limits.\n\n\nTo demonstrate limits, stand before a wall. If you were to step half the distance between you and the wall and repeat this many times, you would say to me \"I am touching the wall, I cannot step any more\". But theoretically, this is impossible. You are always dividing the distance between you and the wall by two, and you can never divide into zero. But if you were to divide the distance by 2 and infinite number of times, the distance is so small (by an infinite amount) that mathematicians like to say that the distance would be zero. Thus, you reaching the wall is equivalent to the limit of dividing the distance between you and the wall by 2. \nA practical application of this could be as follows: you have a plastic pool that you want to swim in, but there is a problem. Your pool has a leak! But you really want to swim. So you decide that you are going to put in the hose and hope that the rate at which the water leaves the hose is greater than the rate at which the water leaves the pool. Using calculus and infinity, we could find almost exactly how much water would be in your pool (at a steady level) after a long period time. \nThis is just one demonstration. There are an infinite amount of applications that we could use infinity.",
"What kind of infinity are you asking about? Certainly there could be no calculus without limits, which you could argue is a kind of use of infinity. It's difficult to exaggerate the importance of calculus.",
"infinity is the nickname of \"as big as you want\". \n\nA line is infinity because you can draw it as big as you want.\n\nNatural numbers are infinity because you can write number as big as you want.\n\nThe number of examples is infinity. :-)\n\n(EDITED: GRAMMAR CORRECTION. The number of my english mistakes is infinity too)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
apdtwg | why men can't move thier penis without closing their butthole? | So, I saw this image _URL_0_ and started wondering why does it work this way? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/apdtwg/eli5_why_men_cant_move_thier_penis_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg7ln7o"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"The penis doesn't have any muscles in it. The only way to move the penis is by contracting and releasing the surrounding muscles, which are the pelvic floor muscles, i.e. the same muscles that control your anal sphincters."
]
} | []
| [
"https://imgur.com/a/jhZRxLf"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
5b6e0f | what are the consequences of a "crack" in earth's magnetic shield? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b6e0f/eli5_what_are_the_consequences_of_a_crack_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9m3nm6"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The magnetic shield is a constantly moving electromagnetic field being pummeled by solar winds -- energetic particles being given off by the sun and other sources -- so it's not solid that it could have a crack. \n\nIt could have weaker points, which it currently has at the poles -- due to that weakness, we get auroras and some electronics disturbances, but nothing too horrible. Wherever the weakness occur, those particles will leak through.\n\nIf it is *really* weak, like allowing a high amount of solar wind through, we could have something like the [Carrington Event](_URL_1_), where so much energetic particles made it through that telegraph lines worked *without being connected to power* because they were being energized by the solar storm itself.\n\nEdit: [and more recently in 1989](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859"
]
]
|
||
273xre | if a 100 proof bottle of alcohol is only 50% alcohol by volume, what's the other 50% of the liquid composed of? | Just curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/273xre/eli5if_a_100_proof_bottle_of_alcohol_is_only_50/ | {
"a_id": [
"chx581g",
"chx5bps",
"chx6p7q",
"chx6qnn",
"chx8nxa"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on the alcohol, but most of it is water.",
"Water and other ingredients such as flavoring and special elements",
"Almost all of it is water. For vodka, it is distilled to nearly pure alcohol and water is added afterward to make it more palatable (with some varieties adding a small quantity of sugar to round out the flavor). Other spirits are frequently distilled to a lower ABV before watering down the spirit and can hold other organic compounds from the alcoholic slurry distilled to produce the spirit. This slurry is different for different types of alcohol, but always contains yeast.\n\nBrown liquors contain organic compounds imparted from the wood used to mature it.\n\nIn the case of liqueurs, sugars/flavorings are added after distillation depending on the type of liqueur and brand and are the main other component other than water.",
"As I mentioned towards the end of my [large comment](_URL_0_) to /u/Bananajesus, it's mostly water. So 50% alcohol then maybe 49-49.5% water and a very tiny amount of whatever flavors the drink. Most straight bottled spirits are around 40%, and that's still enough to keep them from freezing. You ever leave a bottle of whiskey in the freezer? It doesn't even really thicken up at all.",
"Everything you've ever wanted to know about making liquor [Popcorn Sutton](_URL_0_).\n\nEthanol is too strong to safely drink and doesn't have a flavor. The common term is to \"cut\" the liquor (they do the same thing with some harder drugs.) Diluting it with water makes it safer to drink and anything else is flavoring.\n\nWhat's neat is seeing video where some moonshiners can proof liquor by shaking it in a jar. Since water beads and sloshes slower some moonshiners can get extremely accurate at judging proof."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/273xre/eli5if_a_100_proof_bottle_of_alcohol_is_only_50/chx6nqr"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp56sT66D1U"
]
]
|
|
lapkb | why haven't we all been sucked into a black hole by now? | Shouldn't black holes get more and more dense with every thing they suck in? Shouldn't this lead to more gravity and thus more things being sucked in which would lead to more gravity and....
edit: Maybe I should clarify, it seems like the effect would be exponential growth, and over billions of years it seems like there should be some black holes that have collected entire galaxies by now. Also, maybe explain it to me like I'm 10. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lapkb/eli5_why_havent_we_all_been_sucked_into_a_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2r4wrv",
"c2r57rd",
"c2r5gca",
"c2r6nxj",
"c2r7m7y",
"c2r7ogk",
"c2r4wrv",
"c2r57rd",
"c2r5gca",
"c2r6nxj",
"c2r7m7y",
"c2r7ogk"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
27,
15,
2,
3,
11,
2,
27,
15,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Black holes aren't cosmic vacuum cleaners, they don't suck things in any more than stars do.",
"We have not been sucked into a black hole for the same reason we haven't been sucked into the sun. A black hole is just a dense mass with huge amount of gravity that curves the space-time around it. Gravity is actually a very weak force and can be resisted by motion. \n\nThe earth, the sun, and the galaxy are in motion. So, while we may be attracted to a black hole and may be orbiting a black hole, we aren't being drawn into one. \n\n\nThe important point is, we may be orbiting a black hole like a marble rolling around a curved bowl. If the marble stopped moving it would fall to the centre of the bowl where the black hole is. We will not be sucked into a black hole like a marble on the flat floor with a vacuum cleaner next to it. \n\n",
"Imagine you have a star. Now imagine there's an imaginary sphere around the star that's the size of the star. When the star collapses into a black hole, imagine that imaginary sphere is still there (representing the star's original size). Even though there's a black hole at the center, outside of that imaginary sphere it will not exert any more gravity than the original star did. \n\n**tl;dr: A black hole won't \"pull\" any more than the original star did, unless you pass within the space the star used to occupy.**",
"The hardest thing to understand about astronomy is how absolutely, unbelievably enormous the universe is. Even astrophysicists have trouble comprehending just how HUGE the universe is. The odds of any two galaxies coming into contact with each other are very small. The odds of any two stars coming into contact with each other are very small. The odds of anything coming into contact with anything is vanishingly small.\n\nHere's a great example - when NASA sends probes straight through the Asteroid Belt, one of the most \"stuff-full\" places in the universe that we know of, they do not even calculate the odds of the probe hitting an asteroid. You have a better chance of winning the lotto than a probe moving through the asteroid belt of even being able to *see* another asteroid.\n\nThe reason why you do not see that \"exponential growth\" of black holes is because all that ever happens in gravity is an attraction toward the center of gravity. When something is *astronomically* far away, you can just model its total gravitation as a point. We do this for the moon and the sun, and they're in the same solar system as us! It's nearly perfectly accurate to do so.\n\nSay you have an entire solar system get sucked into a black hole (this can and dose happen). The total mass - and thus gravitational attraction - of that system did not change, nor did its center of gravity. From our perspective, nothing has really changed. It's the same before and after the mass was reduced to a black hole. There is a point in space that we are being drawn to because of combined gravitational forces. It didn't change just because a black hole was involved.",
"It might help as well to get familiar with the inverse square rule. When you move 2x the distance of the gravity source, you only get 1/4 of the gravitational effect. So at a certain (relatively small) distance, a black hole has no more \"sucking\" power than any other star. \n",
"We all have been. This particular black hole is called reddit.",
"Black holes aren't cosmic vacuum cleaners, they don't suck things in any more than stars do.",
"We have not been sucked into a black hole for the same reason we haven't been sucked into the sun. A black hole is just a dense mass with huge amount of gravity that curves the space-time around it. Gravity is actually a very weak force and can be resisted by motion. \n\nThe earth, the sun, and the galaxy are in motion. So, while we may be attracted to a black hole and may be orbiting a black hole, we aren't being drawn into one. \n\n\nThe important point is, we may be orbiting a black hole like a marble rolling around a curved bowl. If the marble stopped moving it would fall to the centre of the bowl where the black hole is. We will not be sucked into a black hole like a marble on the flat floor with a vacuum cleaner next to it. \n\n",
"Imagine you have a star. Now imagine there's an imaginary sphere around the star that's the size of the star. When the star collapses into a black hole, imagine that imaginary sphere is still there (representing the star's original size). Even though there's a black hole at the center, outside of that imaginary sphere it will not exert any more gravity than the original star did. \n\n**tl;dr: A black hole won't \"pull\" any more than the original star did, unless you pass within the space the star used to occupy.**",
"The hardest thing to understand about astronomy is how absolutely, unbelievably enormous the universe is. Even astrophysicists have trouble comprehending just how HUGE the universe is. The odds of any two galaxies coming into contact with each other are very small. The odds of any two stars coming into contact with each other are very small. The odds of anything coming into contact with anything is vanishingly small.\n\nHere's a great example - when NASA sends probes straight through the Asteroid Belt, one of the most \"stuff-full\" places in the universe that we know of, they do not even calculate the odds of the probe hitting an asteroid. You have a better chance of winning the lotto than a probe moving through the asteroid belt of even being able to *see* another asteroid.\n\nThe reason why you do not see that \"exponential growth\" of black holes is because all that ever happens in gravity is an attraction toward the center of gravity. When something is *astronomically* far away, you can just model its total gravitation as a point. We do this for the moon and the sun, and they're in the same solar system as us! It's nearly perfectly accurate to do so.\n\nSay you have an entire solar system get sucked into a black hole (this can and dose happen). The total mass - and thus gravitational attraction - of that system did not change, nor did its center of gravity. From our perspective, nothing has really changed. It's the same before and after the mass was reduced to a black hole. There is a point in space that we are being drawn to because of combined gravitational forces. It didn't change just because a black hole was involved.",
"It might help as well to get familiar with the inverse square rule. When you move 2x the distance of the gravity source, you only get 1/4 of the gravitational effect. So at a certain (relatively small) distance, a black hole has no more \"sucking\" power than any other star. \n",
"We all have been. This particular black hole is called reddit."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5uftef | why haven't we domesticated chimpanzees? it seems to me the utility of having quasi-human pets is so high that we should have been working towards this by now. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uftef/eli5_why_havent_we_domesticated_chimpanzees_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddtmjgf",
"ddtmotg",
"ddtmuaz",
"ddtoc78",
"ddtr6j3",
"ddtwcbc",
"ddtxlev",
"ddtywo7",
"ddu0sww",
"ddu21ln",
"ddu5q6c",
"ddu9cti",
"ddujecs"
],
"score": [
14,
133,
4,
4,
83,
5,
15,
145,
25,
12,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They're big, they can be dangerous, they breed slowly, and they don't like being selectively bred. Not any animal can be domesticated, and chimps have many reasons why it would be difficult.",
"Have you tried domesticating a three year old human child? You'd have similar challenges, except that chimp can deglove your entire skull when it's cranky. ",
"There's only around 300,000 Chimps in Africa (wild) right now compared with nearly 43 million household dogs in the US. The numbers aren't strong enough to justify keeping them as a pet. Also, Chimps can be fairly aggressive and could kill a child or adult. ",
"Some people tried to bring up a chimp just like a baby. A newborn chimp got sent to a family and they were treating him just like a normal baby. His name was Nim Chimpsky, you can google his wiki page, theres a lot about him. But! there is a certain comedy podcast that made an episode about him. It's super funny, you can check it out [here](_URL_0_)",
"A chimp is smart, and really fucking agressive. People like to think chimps are playful babies but that's like the first few years. Once they reach mating age they are some of the most violent and savage animals in the world. A male chimp, to assert dominance, could easily tear a normal human apart.\n\nChimps aren't pets, they are dangerous wild animals. And you can only be alpha for a few years before it realizes you ain't shit.",
"Actual domestication takes time, and selective breeding. I suppose you could selectively breed for traits that would lead to less genital mutilation and other undesireable behaviors. [They've done it with foxes](_URL_0_). Much of the difficulty probably comes in when you're initially selecting for the traits you want. Domestication is not so much a matter of training, but breeding. ",
"Because they're stronger than us, and they rip people's faces and genitals off when they get mad.",
"Domestication usually requires an animal that is easily controllable (lab mice) or has some sort of follow the leader instinct we can highjack. \n\nHorses for example are herd animals, their herd has a dominance hierarchy and they're quite social animals (they littrealy get depressed and stressed out without company). I wouldn't want to be the first person to try and tame a wild horse but given a low stress environment around humans they basically go \"oh well I guess this is my herd now and this funny looking pink thing is is boss horse, ok, cool\"\n\nZebras meanwhile are aggressive and panicky motherfuckers, their herd structure is rather individualistic and competitive and while they can be got to tolerate humans, they're not really all that chill with us. These are animals that semi-routinely fuck lions up. Given enough time and effort it might be possible to domestica zebra it would take a very very long time and hardly be worth the effort (People have tried many times, it doesn't work) \n\nChimp meanwhile aren't just aggressive, but outright murderous and they're strong enough to littrealy rip your arms off and beat you with it. They're also predators and humans are kinda made of food. This make a really really really bad candidate for domestication. \n",
"A woman in Connecticut raised a chimpanzee as you would a child.\n\nWhen the chimp became an adult, things didn't go so well. _URL_0_",
"_URL_0_\n\nHurray for educational animated youtube videos on exactly this subject.\n\nTL;DR Long Generation aren't great for domestication efforts ",
"An angry chimp will rip off your face and genitals. No other reasons needed, as far as I'm concerned.",
"Cuz chimps are fuckin terrifying. Dead-ass: about 7 years ago, I remember hearing in the news about a domesticated chimp ripping off his long-time owner's face for literally no reason. He just snapped one day.",
"To anyone saying it is hard to domesticate chimps, I would like to point out that Bonobos are docile \"domesticated\" versions of chimps, and we as humans are really domesticated versions of previous rugged hominids. \n\nIt's possible. There aren't many of them. There isn't much point."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thedollop.libsyn.com/128-nim-the-chimp"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_(chimpanzee)"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
d43kox | why do breasts feel warmer and actually radiate heat sometimes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d43kox/eli5_why_do_breasts_feel_warmer_and_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"f07m5f7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The skin is very thin and there are lots of blood vessels. It's like the cheeks, another place that can flush when the person is aroused."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1ld4ts | why were cave paintings so "bad" in terms of perspective and other elements in comparison to how people draw today? | Were there no talented artists back then who understood or observed dimensions, perspective, lighting, shadows, vantage point etc... I understood the concept of vantage point when I doodled from as early as I could remember: Four lines converging, items get smaller and may angle inward (further) as they reach in. I also remember observing shadows and lighting when I was just doodling: Light source casting shadows.
Why didn't cave drawings show these features? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ld4ts/eli5_why_were_cave_paintings_so_bad_in_terms_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cby1fh4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Being able able to draw using a three-dimensional perspective is primarily something which you learn from others; this sort of abstract understanding of how to represent 3D objects in 2D doesn't tend to come naturally.\n\nIt is thought that Brunelleschi (around the 1400s) was one of the first people to really discover and understand how objects on a 2D canvas can be altered and scaled in size to give the illusion of three-dimensional depth when he experimented with painting outlines of buildings on to mirrors. It wasn't until Alberti in the mid 1400s that there was a developed theory surrounding linear perspective and instruction available on how to properly incorporate perspective into paintings.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
cwl9qc | before there were search engines like google, how did we request files from the world wide web? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cwl9qc/eli5_before_there_were_search_engines_like_google/ | {
"a_id": [
"eycfpwk",
"eycg6zg",
"eycgiw4",
"eycgv92"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"When you request a file, your computer asks another computer \"Hey, can you send me this file?\" and that other computer sends the file to you.\n\nSearch engines do not store files, they simply say \"Hey, if you're looking for these kinds of files, this computer might have some you're interested in\", like a phone book giving you numbers for plumbers or carpenters.",
"Well before Google there was Webcrawler, but mostly, you just had to already know the URL address.",
"The same technology for requesting a file is still used today. Google and search engines before it just made *finding* the site you want possible.\n\nIn order to visit any website you just typed out the full URL. How did you know the URL? It would be written somewhere such as an ad. Of course once you have the URL you can also keep it bookmarked.\n\nAlternatively, the web had web directories - websites that simply had lists of other websites, divided into categories. You usually set up the directory as your starting URL and went on from there. For example, [this](_URL_0_) is what Yahoo looked like back in 1996.",
"I remember _URL_0_ but is was much more a question/answer site that a search engine. If you knew where the file you were looking for was you could navigate right to it. You could also use the computer to search for a file name on another computer. But before search engines it operated like the dark web (the real one where files are just uncataloged) and you had to know the file name and location of what you wanted.\n\nWe actually used physical encyclopedias not long ago."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo.com/"
],
[
"askjeeves.com"
]
]
|
||
3jc7gp | what is happening when a website is down for just me? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jc7gp/eli5_what_is_happening_when_a_website_is_down_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cunzqpd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It could be a firewall issue where your firewall disallows connections to that site, DNS issue where the websites IP address (basically where the website lives) can't be found, an issue with your ISP where they're experiencing downtime, a proxy issue where the proxy can't access it among other things. Browsers normally give some kind of error code when an error like this happens so you should try searching about that, or if you're using Windows try the Network Troubleshooter and tell it that you can't access a specific site."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1117hp | how the winner is determined in an american presidential debate? | As a Canadian, I of course watched the united states presidential debate. I did so partly for entertainment and partly because as a Canadian I fear the effect of another moron at the helm of the power across the border. These things affect us northerners because our helming moron often has bro-mantic affectations toward yours, and we wind up invading little countries on the other side of the planet for no reason.
Anywho. I can't understand how Romney could be seen as the victor unless they are graded by the speed at which they spew vague factless drivel.
Please help? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1117hp/eli5_how_the_winner_is_determined_in_an_american/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6iemwp",
"c6ihbnk",
"c6ihor8",
"c6ik7n4"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The press covering the presidential debate are expected to decode meaning from an event without seeing the evidence of that event's impact. They are trying to interpret how a candidate performed, and how well it resonated with the public, and if it had any sway in motivating people to vote for them instead of their opponent. Those results come a few days later when the polls catch up and are able to reflect the actual results instead of the projected results from the pundits.\n\nLet us put it into a metaphor. Let's cast the press as a sports reporter watching a hockey game where their view was obstructed from the end of the ice to the start of the player's box on both sides. They can see center ice, and the majority of the playing, but the goals are blocked from view, and there isn't a scoreboard. They have to interpret what might have been a big score based off how each team is playing. Is one team playing defense more than the other, are they playing sloppy or are they being quick and decisive with the puck. Based on what they see, they make their best guess at who had scored the most goals (i.e. won over the most voters) simply on their interpretation of their performance on the debate stage. This is why they read into every minute detail of the debate, and do silly things like equipping voters with scoring knobs to adjust when they [like or dislike what a candidate is saying](_URL_0_).\n\nThe reason Romney was picked the victor is he played like the winning team. He was on offense more than defense, he handled the questions quickly and decisively, and he outperformed expectations. Obama on the other hand wasn't as crisp in handling of the questions, was playing defense more than offense, and when he had his power plays (When Mitt gave him a big opening to score) he failed to convert on them. We won't really know the results until next week's polls come out.",
"Confidence, articulation, relatability, and not staring down at your podium the whole damn night.",
"It's opinion. It's exactly like trying to determine what the best burger place in town is. There is no objective score. ",
"Try viewing with less bias.\n\nMost people are going to think Romney did better, mostly because he seemed confident and Obama seemed like he had no responses and didn't qant to run on his record. Politics is about getting the most people to like you. Since most people think Romney won, he did."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c156.0.403.403/p403x403/246627_288363814602517_89750240_n.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1iaw6f | why are engineers paid far lesser than management/sales/human resources? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iaw6f/eli5_why_are_engineers_paid_far_lesser_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb2os3e",
"cb2oy9u",
"cb2pnb3"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"First of all, are they? Does it not depend on the place of employment and exact role in question?\n\nSecond of all, management is often a much harder job than actually doing the work itself. It's one thing to have a problem set in front of you and focus 100% on solving it, but it's quite another to try to co-ordinate groups of people, organise things, delegate, keep an eye on the bigger picture, etc. Those are, I imagine, far rarer skills and ones you can't simply get a degree in.",
"We're not...at my company engineers make vastly more money than sales/HR. ",
"Engineers aren't usually paid less than HR.\n\nEngineers are and should be paid less than managers because the managers are in charge of the engineers (and often are engineers). I mean, it seems obvious that the person in charge of the engineering department, and responsible for the directing the work of 20 engineers, should be paid more than any individual engineer.\n\nCompensation for sales varies, but it is true that some salespeople can make more more money than engineers. And in many cases this is completely justified. A company doesn't make money because engineers have designed something clever; a company makes money when someone buys that product. And the sales people are responsible for that happening. So if a sales person negotiates a 5 year, $100 million dollar contract, he probably is more valuable than any particular engineer, since he's probably ensured that the company can continue to exist for the next several years.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
29ww73 | please explain to a nonmerican why 9/11 changed everything. | I mean this with the utmost respect to those that died and those that suffered. I even have a family member that lost a very close friend who was working in the trade centre so im not completely remote from this.
What I am curious about is what made 9/11 special in a world where acts of terrorism are not uncommon (and in some parts of the world are particularly common), acts of terrorism against american targets are not unheard of and even acts of terrorism within the US were not unheard of.
What was it about 9/11 that changed the world? or at least changed Americas perception of the world, leading to war in 2 middle eastern countries, which has changed the world.
Edit: Thank you for all the responses, it seems there isnt really a simple answer to a really complex issue (surprise surprise) Certainly the world has changed since that happened but Im still finding it hard to pinpoint exactly why. It seems in general there was a feeling of shock/vulnerability which was exploited by people at the top to get a lot of laws/institutions set up that might not have gone through otherwise.
I still dont understand why you guys invaded Iraq, Afghanistan I get, but Iraq not so much. Theres the 'but oil' argument, but the US is a massive oil producer in its own right, and the cost of the war financially surely far outweighs any benefit. The best guess I can make has to do with when Bush Jr said 'This is the guy that tried to kill my dad' | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ww73/eli5_please_explain_to_a_nonmerican_why_911/ | {
"a_id": [
"cip9ex6",
"cip9tnf",
"cipcjlw",
"cipdaob",
"cipew1d",
"cipmyed",
"cipppr3"
],
"score": [
21,
9,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1. It was the first attack on U.S. soil since World War II, introducing a whole new generation of postmodern Americans to deadly conflict at home.\n\n2. Though the Cold War ended sometime between 1989 and 1991, the Cold War super patriots who created America's self-image and image abroad during that time did not simply die or disappear. They're still alive *now*, and in 2001 they were leading the public dialogue in the direction of American exceptionalism and grandiose military exhibition. In other words, the same kind of people who told us to fear Russia were telling us to kick the shit out of the Al Qaeda.\n\n3. The attacks killed over 3,000 people from countries around the world, including previous U.S. rivals such as China and Russia. It was a very *Independence Day* kind of unifying catastrophe.\n\n4. The military industrial complex and oil industry saw a new opportunity for profit in war in the Middle East. This has happened before, though.\n\nEdit:\n\n\\5. The U.S. Federal Government, for debatable reasons, has been using 9/11 as an excuse to beef up security measures in every state in the country. For example, before 9/11, security checkpoints at airports consisted of only the most basic pat-downs and weapon-detection protocols. Now these same checkpoints are a major stop on the way to your plane.",
"Americans had always felt insulated from international terrorism. This brought it into our homes for the first time. ",
"Now it takes hours to get on a fuckin plane.",
"Imo it was a lot to do with America's sense of invulnerability being disturbed. Other countries would have still been massively affected but not quite to same level. I think it also had a lot to do with the whole thing being so widely televised and lasting over a long period of time. Usually when a bomb goes off or whatever you only see the wreckage and people saying how awful it was, in this case you saw all day coverage with people jumping out windows and then the buildings collapse, it was pretty shocking stuff even compared to a situation where a bomb killed 5000 people in a normal way. ",
"marketing and political gain. Nothing **actually** changed from 9/10. Our political leaders totally used the awesome (from a marketing perspective) visuals to justify various pet projects and authoritarian power grabs.\n\ni doubt anyone in the US was more than 2 people removed from knowing someone who died so, nationally, there was an emotional connection that made most people feel like \"something had to be done\" whether it was invading a country that wasn't involved or giving airport security the option of tipping old ladies out of their wheelchairs.\n\nbasically, the US populace got punked and we still don't want to admit it. \n",
"In short, it made us realize that a) there were people out to get us, and b) we were indeed vulnerable. On the inside, the government used 9/11 as leverage to get away with a lot of security measures, surveillance, Homeland Security, the NSA, the TSA, who knows what else. Back when it happened it's understandable, but nowadays it's just fearmongering.",
"If you watched those towers fall after being hit by airplanes(!), it was TRAUMATIC! Nothing like that has happened on the mainland before. The earlier attempt on the WTC didn't come off. Oklahoma was dramatic, scarring even, but this was a hit in the center of NYC! I doubt the Irish Republican Army or the Tamil Tigers ever did that much damage in a single terrorist act.\n\nThe shit that followed was mainly our overreactions.\n\nWe lost less than 4,000 people and in response toppled the Saddaam regime in Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 - and as a consequence of the chaos we unleashed, they have lost about 70,000 civilians since 2003. But, it's OK because democracy. Meanwhile, it's business as usual with the country from where almost all the attackers came from: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A country that indoctrinates its children with an extreme form of Islam.\n\nNow, we get to kill civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the process of hunting down terrorists/Taliban/insurgents/Islamists. But, it's all OK because our intentions are good and that's the most important thing, *intentions*. The bad guys kill innocent people on purpose-\nwell, OK, so do we. Or, at least we initiate actions that we know will kill innocent people, BUT, we're sorry and we really wish we didn't have to.\n\nOur government gets to spy on us for \"security.\"\n\nOh, and no more lotion on airplanes because Al-Qaida loves to moisturize.\n\nAnd we'll never see a balanced budget ever again because we'll be in an ever-deepening abyss of debt forever. We had budget surpluses a few years in the 90's.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1lmzps | why is it socially taboo to "denounce, disagree with, or completely go against" israel? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lmzps/eli5_why_is_it_socially_taboo_to_denounce/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc108mx",
"cc11oqu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You should repost this to /r/changemyview. \n\n > Explain to me why I am not supposed to think this way? \n\nThis should be in /r/changemyview, for sure. You'll have a much better response.",
"It's not taboo. But the Israel conflict is part of a quite impressive media propaganda war. All directly involved parties make insane profits on it. Arafat for example became a billionaire simply by embezzling development aid. Even got a peace nobel prize for it.\n\nWhatever, if you comment on this conflict, make sure you know exactly what you are talking about. No wild rumors, no conspiracy theories, no fantasy propaganda blogs, only cold hard proven facts. This way you get at least the respect of the people who's respect is worth something. But even then you will get a lot of hate from other sides. No matter if and where you take position, you will make enemies by just mentioning this conflict. Too many fanatics, crazies and idiots on all fronts.\n\nIf you care about sophisticated manners, you will avoid hate topics like politics, religion and sexuality anyway. Their only use is to make people angry and undignified. If you don't care so much, at least avoid emotionally overcharged topics like Israel. Every idiot out there has an opinion on it. The less they know, the more convinced they are to know the absolute one and only truth. The most passionate ones are also the most boring enemies you could possibly make. Fighting them is tedious, only steals your time. Nothing to win there. So while it's not taboo, it's usually bad taste, bad manners or social inexperience. It's your choice, no one will stop you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5j3ls0 | why can't the whole world join forces to end the syrian conflicts? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j3ls0/eli5_why_cant_the_whole_world_join_forces_to_end/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbd3yul",
"dbd90g1",
"dbderwv"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the world can't agree on what the end should look like. The Russians and Iranians want Assad to stay in power. The US and Saudis don't. Most other countries not in the immediate vicinity don't really care. ",
"Because it all started when other people started meddling into other people's affairs for their benefit.",
"The conflict in Syria sprouted out of a civil war between rebel forces and the current governmental regime. Now we have ISIS as a factor, as well as the United States and Russia essentially acting out what is known as a proxy war: each superpower backs a certain side, and essentially get to war against each other without expending as many of their own troops and resources.\nSo now, favoring either side of the conflict in an attempt to bring peace essentially means publicly opposing one of the two most powerful nations in the world, which no one is willing to do.\nAlso, until the threat of ISIS made it a bit more of a global issue, most nations had no interest in getting involved, preferring to let the country work out it's own issues, and unless human rights violations are occuring, the U.N. has little right to step in.\nHope this helped!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
b07gfw | why is killing sperm bad when millions are produced everyday? | I hear about things like skinny jeans killing sperm but why is it bad when millions are produced everyday and most people are not planning to have a child any time soon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b07gfw/eli5why_is_killing_sperm_bad_when_millions_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"eicjj5v",
"eicjmxu"
],
"score": [
12,
7
],
"text": [
"It's not that it kills sperm, but tight clothing such as skinny jeans and briefs are said to reduce sperm count. That is, it reduces the amount of sperm you are producing which can inhibit fertility. This isn't \"bad\" unless you are actively trying to have a child.",
"The myth about skinny jeans killing sperm is just that: a myth. Don't put any stock in it.\n\nGenerally speaking, cells dying where and when they're not supposed to can be a problem if they clog up bodily processes, but I can't think of any problems that excessive sperm cell death might cause."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
707jhj | why is it hard for people to change thier beliefs? what causes us to grip on to things that have been proven to be false? | Wow! Didn't expect this much attention! There's lots of great responses here. The reason behind my question is that it seems really easy to say, "oh snap I guess you are right and I'm wrong", which is apparently hard for people to do. This is true for me in pretty much everything. I just was wondering why it is difficult for others to do. Lots of good reasons here though!
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/707jhj/eli5_why_is_it_hard_for_people_to_change_thier/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn11vo0",
"dn12fed",
"dn13544",
"dn15qk8",
"dn1674p",
"dn168n4",
"dn16kpn",
"dn16nmm",
"dn1734h",
"dn183ru",
"dn18foa",
"dn18i1f",
"dn18jbn",
"dn18wow",
"dn191hy",
"dn19l7m",
"dn1a9iw",
"dn1aatq",
"dn1aojk",
"dn1b5uu",
"dn1bd9v",
"dn1bed7",
"dn1befa",
"dn1bhcf",
"dn1br0e",
"dn1c7wq",
"dn1cb54",
"dn1cfw6",
"dn1cnh1",
"dn1d28x",
"dn1d5km",
"dn1dnqp",
"dn1dqgu",
"dn1e0ju",
"dn1e9e6",
"dn1earb",
"dn1ey0r",
"dn1f10z",
"dn1f52r",
"dn1fd7f",
"dn1fqte",
"dn1fvfl",
"dn1g2zc",
"dn1gkt6",
"dn1gl2t",
"dn1gnge",
"dn1gxcn",
"dn1h1qn",
"dn1h5em",
"dn1h9ks",
"dn1hafc",
"dn1ixo5",
"dn1js61",
"dn1l2us",
"dn1l5sg",
"dn1m3nb",
"dn1m94y",
"dn1mt6r",
"dn1ndsx",
"dn1og65",
"dn1ogrl",
"dn1pnaq",
"dn1q8yh",
"dn1t45o",
"dn1tbmc",
"dn11vo0",
"dn12fed",
"dn13544",
"dn15qk8",
"dn1674p",
"dn168n4",
"dn16nmm",
"dn1734h",
"dn183ru",
"dn18foa",
"dn18i1f",
"dn18jbn",
"dn18wow",
"dn191hy",
"dn19l7m",
"dn1a9iw",
"dn1aatq",
"dn1aojk",
"dn1b5uu",
"dn1bd9v",
"dn1bed7",
"dn1befa",
"dn1bhcf",
"dn1br0e",
"dn1c7wq",
"dn1cb54",
"dn1cnh1",
"dn1d28x",
"dn1d5km",
"dn1dnqp",
"dn1dqgu",
"dn1e0ju",
"dn1e9e6",
"dn1earb",
"dn1ey0r",
"dn1f52r",
"dn1fd7f",
"dn1fqte",
"dn1fvfl",
"dn1g2zc",
"dn1gkt6",
"dn1gl2t",
"dn1gnge",
"dn1gxcn",
"dn1h1qn",
"dn1h5em",
"dn1h9ks",
"dn1hafc",
"dn1ixo5",
"dn1js61",
"dn1l2us",
"dn1l5sg",
"dn1m3nb",
"dn1m94y",
"dn1mt6r",
"dn1ndsx",
"dn1og65",
"dn1ogrl",
"dn1pnaq",
"dn1q8gb",
"dn1q8yh",
"dn1t45o",
"dn1tbmc",
"dn22zhq",
"dn281h0"
],
"score": [
123,
17,
4718,
52,
79,
9,
6,
32,
346,
4,
2,
64,
284,
2,
2,
3,
8,
5,
3613,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
3,
830,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
8,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
123,
17,
4718,
52,
79,
9,
32,
346,
4,
2,
64,
284,
2,
2,
3,
8,
5,
3613,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
830,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
8,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
15,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Familiar feelings and memories are sources of comfort, and changing that is often seen as a threat even if the beliefs are contrary to fact. This is called [cognitive dissonance.](_URL_0_)",
"Its difficult for people to digest that their entire life is based on some wrong belief. Better to believe in something proven to be false, rather than believing that their entire life was based on a false.",
"The terrific blog \"You Are Not So Smart\" tackled this question back in 2011.\n\n[The Backfire Effect](_URL_0_)\n\n > **The Misconception:** When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.\n\n > **The Truth:** When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.\n\nThe best paragraph from that which summarizes the answer:\n\n > Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.\n\nCheck out the whole thing. [It's really worth a read.](_URL_0_)",
"Another aspect is that some positions we hold are a large part of our identity. If how you see yourself is, in part, as belonging to a group that believes a thing, it will be more difficult to accept contrary evidence to that idea. Topics that are integral to our identity are the most difficult to look at objectively and are protected the fiercest. ",
"I think it depends on the subject. This is a big issue with religion, but a lot of us have political beliefs that don't necessarily have a correct answer, so there's a spectrum of dissent that's commonplace. It's kind of like how in grade school you learn how to make arguments and counterarguments -- while that's fundamental to education, it can lead folks down paths where they give clout to themselves for believing something false because \"I believe what I want.\" I don't think it's unique to American culture, but there's always a line of rhetoric to combat something [whether it's false or not], and that's all someone needs to stave off the obligation to seek truth and find a medium. For example: \"Guns don't kill people; people kill people.\" \n\nWith religion, it comes down to fear. The elephant in the room is that religion is, objectively, nothing more than an old form of governing that trades obedience by the masses with the answer to our greatest fear -- what happens when we die? Kind of a brilliant concept to begin with. As we became more intelligent beings our creation of religion followed, so while we look at it as dumb now, it actually is quite a compliment to our imagination as we evolved as intellectually superior beings. \n\nIt's incredibly difficult for people to reconcile that with the fact that as societies have connected and became globally aware of one another, it's very apparent that religion is a culturally-unique construct and not universal. I think many people subconsciously or quietly keep their awareness of this to themselves, while still protecting their beliefs. \n\nIt's not stubbornness of embarrassment as I think it is raw fear of not being comfortable with the unknown. 13-year old me was miserable with this, but 27-year old me is blissfully content with admitting that I know nothing. Giving up Christian beliefs was incredibly tragic for me. ",
"It can be as simple as having reasons to disbelieve the source. If the facts are coming from someone or somewhere you think has a personal agenda or is otherwise unreliable, it is reasonable to question the validity of a new idea without being able to personally verify the information. I witnessed firsthand the rigging of the primaries by the DNC, try convincing the average Democrat. They consider me an invalid source and try to shame with labels. Whaddayagonnado. Bottom line is your facts are only as true as your source.",
"Your beliefs are part of your sense of yourself, your ego, so an attack on your beliefs is experienced as an attack on you personally (which can actually be seen with brain imaging). This is why people get defensive and upset more than seems justified when arguing about deeply held beliefs like politics and religion, and why people get especially bent out of shape over anything related to identity politics.",
"Why do so many lost and lonely people tend to fall into religion or even cults? \n\nWhen you don't have much of an identity then that(being whatever institute, belief, culture etc) becomes your identity, at that point when it's proven false your brain goes into a white blood cell mode and attacks whatever is challenging its identity. People don't want to be lost or lonely aside from sociopaths, psychopaths, and some introverted personalities. We as humans want to feel like we are part of something, like we belong, and the brain will go to ridiculous lengths to conserve it, even if it's protecting a lie. \n\nShort term it works, long term is how people get stuck at shitty jobs they don't like or broken marriages.",
"I see that this has a Biology tag, but I think it's much simpler to explain in philosophical terms.\n\nThe philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend explains this by going back to Galileo and the Copernican Revolution. Even though we think of science and facts as clear and real now, it wasn't the only way of explaining everything back then. The point that Galileo made to help people understand that all of the arguments for a stationary Earth are wrong wasn't that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In fact, Galileo praised Copernicus for continuing to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun despite all of the evidence that doesn't support it (like the fact that you might, without an adequate understanding of gravity, assume that everything on Earth would be flung out into space due to the centrifugal force).\n\nGalileo explained how the Earth moves around the Sun not by telling everyone it was true, but by explaining to them that the Earth is like a giant boat, and you don't have to run as fast as the boat to stay on the boat. Relativity explains why we don't experience the movement of the whole planet, and why bricks fall in a straight line when dropped from buildings.\n\nThe idea here, was that Galileo didn't come up with a \"new shocking truth that will change the way you think about the universe\"... that's why people were able to change their minds (over time) about what was at the center of the solar system. It isn't widely believed because it's true, it's widely believed because it fits our *experiences* that we all know that we have had. It explains something really abstract that couldn't have been experienced by a person then (and has been experienced directly by an extraordinarily small number of people since).\n\nWhen things are abstract and intangible, we tend to put something there that seems less so, or take a guess and stick with it until our model of how something works creates a contradiction. Note, however, that the experience of being on a spinning planet doesn't have too much to do with how we observe our everyday lives, so it requires a lot of abstract thinking to keep believing it, regardless of the fact that it is, indeed, true. The more directly we experience things, the more we tend to just keep believing that that's how things work. The more we work with the categories of experience, explaining things to people, building consensus, etc., the more open we are to \"changing our beliefs\" to fit a model that makes those experiences make sense to us.",
"Because you tie your identity to your beliefs, right or wrong, it's just something people do. So if you are told something you believe is wrong, you take it as you as a person are wrong, or bad, and you want to not feel bad so you fight the evidence and the claim against your beliefs. ",
"I think the main reason is that if you change your beliefs, you have to admit that you were wrong in the first place. No one wants to admit they were wrong, because that makes them feel stupid.",
"I am going to use Magic for this because most of my local children love MTG analogies. Lets say I want to play [Serra Ascendant](_URL_4_). Now, because I want to play Serra Ascendant, I also want to gain life, which means I should consider [Martyr of Sands](_URL_3_), which means I should only think about white cards and I probably want [Soul's Attendant](_URL_0_), which means I want [ Ajani's Pridemate](_URL_1_). Then, on review I notice I am playing a lot of 1 drops, maybe [Ranger of Eos](_URL_5_), what about Proclamation of Rebirth and, and, and.....\n\nNow I keep doing this logic until I come up with a deck and at some point which card I started with gets lost. I just know they are all here because they support each other. This is how I see most beliefs work (and any knowledge, really). I play the deck for a few years, slowly fine tuning and sharping it over time. Updating my beliefs with experience, but I never really start over. Then one day someone comes along and tells me \"screw Serra Ascendant, you should play [Norin the Wary](_URL_2_).\" I laugh, Serra Ascendant is my best card. I think about all the synergies with the rest of the deck, all of the memorable games I won with it. Plus, Norin the Wary has always been a terrible idea, why would I ever think that...\n\nTl;Dr: When confronted with a totally new idea, I would not only have to change my challenged position, but all of the positions and beliefs I built on top of it.",
"The shortest, explain-like-you-are-5 answer is *emotions.*\n\nFor many people, their feelings are in bad shape, just like when you don't exercise your body and you lose strength and have a hard time doing strenuous activities, if you don't exercise your emotions they become very fragile and as a result people tend to hide from things that make them uncomfortable.\n\nThis kind of hiding usually means believing in something that makes them feel better about themselves or their decisions, and if someone questions that belief, they start to feel that discomfort rise and they hide even deeper in that belief. This is why logic and facts don't change them.\n\nSo how do you change them? You can't. You can only give them the facts and the chance to change themselves and go through that discomfort on their own, at their own pace. Be happier with your life and *show* a better way to live instead of trying to force others to bend to your own beliefs, or you will end up pushing them further away.\n\nHow do you keep your emotions healthy enough that you don't end up hiding also? You exercise them by facing uncomfortable things, by listening to people who have different ideas and trying to understand them, by doing something hard like being empathetic to strangers, to loved ones, to the less fortunate. By examining your own weaknesses and mistakes and learning to stop feeling bad about your embarrassing or distressing thoughts, and learn to forgive yourself and learn positive lessons. By letting yourself feel bad about things, by letting yourself cry when you need to and laugh whenever you can. Feelings of fear and anger are instinctual feelings to fight discomfort, and need to be broken down and understood so they become something positive.\n\nYour emotions are like muscles, and like developing muscles, it hurts at times. ",
"I'm sure one of the episodes of \" Adam ruins everything \"covers this, you should just watch all the episodes till you find it though cos it's interesting as he'll and you will learn so much.",
"There is something more that can be done with our minds during sleep / dreaming. It's crazy how many people do not believe this shit. I didn't until I had my own experience (a shared dream / premonition that played out in real life.)",
"I actually read an article by a neurobiologist in which he stated that our synaptic connections are actually treated in the brain like protected entities. The brain actually defends them. So, when beliefs are challenged, our very thought processes are set against the challenging ideas in order to protect the existing patterns. \n\nOnly with a very sharp mind can we overcome such defense's. ",
"It's easy to confuse your opinions with your identity. It takes a strong sense of self to not be threatened by different belief systems. Self-awareness and emotional maturity are the true signs of confidence. ",
"\"Proven\" by whom? Scientists and political flacks have lied or been mistaken on many occasions. One notable example, nutrition scientists maintained for decades that fat is bad and that we should eat carbohydrates. Our current crisis with obesity and diabetes are the result.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It depends one what level of belief you mean. If we are just talking about a simple belief like trivia, our resistance to accepting that we're wrong is likely due to reputation. That is, if we are shown to be wrong about something, the implication is that we are not reliable.\n\nThink of it in evolutionary terms. Much of our pre-history involves developing trust between people. An untrustworthy person could steal from you, kill you, or otherwise use you for their gain and turn on you when convenient. Earning and demonstrating trustworthiness as a reputation would have been important to survival. Those who proved untrustworthy, such as liars, could be punished, killed, expelled from the tribe, or even just ostracized and not selected as a mate. All these mean they were less likely to survive and reproduce. Those predisposed to fearing being judges as unreliable, and who instinctively acted to protect their reputation, would have reproduced more to pass on their genes.\n\nThis is why \"saving face\" is so important to both individuals and cultures, especially historically. People would kill others who questioned their honesty and integrity: duels, honor killings, and so forth. Even the parts of culture where challenging somebody's claims or confronting people is considered impolite is built on this notion of protecting reputation. \n\nSo changing belief is an admission that you were wrong and that your claims are unreliable. Sometimes that instinct can be far too strong in some people, unwilling to admit to any mistakes. It may depend on whether you are alone in the belief and everyone is against you, in which case maintaining your position risks lowering your status in the group, or if you have a \"tribe\" of believers backing you up and defending the belief *raises* your status with them.\n\nIf we're talking about a fundamental belief like a god, political basis, or the nature of how things work, and a whole collection of other beliefs derive from it, all of the above is still true but there is a complicating factor. Now accepting that you are wrong means much of your world view is all wrong and needs to be re-built from scratch. That can actually be very disorienting to deal with. We often call this effect, \"cognitive dissonance\" when we realize our beliefs are inconsistent and feel disoriented and confused about it.\n\nYou can think about belief systems as a \"locally\" consistent collection of beliefs. Like if you have. A religious belief in a god and you understand how people, society, behaviours, history, nature, and so on all derive from that. If you then challenge that this god exists, none of your other beliefs make sense. You now don't understand anything you thought you did. Your have to re-learn why people act the way they do, how the world works, how you should behave, etc.\n\nIt's a lot easier to just dismiss minor challenges to core beliefs, and use your larger understanding as protection against challenging it. You also have a whole social network that believes the same things so you feel comfortable maintaining the belief. Challenging it just does you no good in any practical social terms, and causes great cognitive and social harms to you. You won't *want* to challenge it, and even be scared of that. \n\nBut, we all have these inner thoughts and may lead you to question core beliefs, perhaps driven by outside information or because you want to come up with good answers to fight back against a challenger and discover there are no good answers. You then have problems to deal with, like all derivative beliefs and what to do about your life being tied up into this belief system: friends, family, job, culture, etc. Clergy who lose faith have a real life decision to make as they have to start life over, including job skills.\n\nPolitical parties can act like religions too. They start to take on collections of dogma, and challenging those beliefs makes you a traitor to the tribe, and your social circle and position in it will suffer, especially if you are a politician who has a similar dilemma as clergy.\n\nSometimes life is much, much easier to refuse challenging your beliefs. The exception is, of course, when you have a social culture where challenging beliefs is rewarded and praised, like science. That is hard to instill in people though, largely because it goes against our tribalist instincts. It's a lot of hard work to have social value in a culture where challenging beliefs is rewarded, as that takes a lot of education, thought, and intellectual prowess. A culture of defending beliefs is easier because all you have to do is repeat them and become aggressive or violent against challengers. \n\n",
"People lie to themselves when thoughts cause them emotional discomfort. Also when people think they've found some truth they believe they have a moral imperative to convince others when really we should all share thoughts and be open to them being challenged.",
"I think it boils down to: people don't want to be wrong. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, they just don't want to be \"wrong.\" So they refuse to change their belief because then they have to admit that that one idea they held onto so firmly was wrong. ",
"In a word: Fear. \n\nHuman emotions have evolved in order to give us strong negative reactions to anything that might harm us. When we feel afraid, unsure, unsafe our biological reaction is fight or flight. Humans tell ourselves and each other comforting lies in order to prevent us going into fight or flight mode and feel self assured to prevent us from those negative emotions caused by our biological reactions. It's the same reason for sheep mentality. The unknown presents potential threats to our safety and well being so we'll do whatever it takes, even lying to ourselves about our safety and well being in order to prevent those negative emotions from arising. ",
"Imagine avoiding sex your entire life, or other things you crave that your religion says no to, while people around you enjoy those things.\nYou want it to be worth something, all the sacrifice, all the time you put in praying, going to churches, etc. Challenging someones beliefs in a lot of ways is like indirectly saying that they have thus far wasted their life.\n\nAt the same time you are taking away their past, you are taking away their future in the afterlife.\n\nIf they stop believing they are counting themselves out of their afterlife visage. If they stop believing they replace that with nothing but empty death which can be too much to deal with.\n\nIt's a complete world view collapse of both past, present and future and most of the time we offer them no relief for that pain while we flippantly challenge their beliefs.",
"\"People hate being poked in their axioms.\" - Jordan Peterson\n\nWhen someone has held a belief for a long time, they have based a lot of their decisions on it. If those decisions haven't destroyed their life then that belief or theory is, at least in that regard, \"true.\" If you poke the belief, you're not just poking *it,* you're stirring the whole hive of past experiences that ride on it. \n\nIf you tell a married person that their spouse has been cheating on them since they've met, they will be reluctant to admit that their marriage has been a sham. Beliefs are like unfaithful spouses. You say you want to know about their infidelity, but would you really, if that means you'd have to rethink your entire life? \n\n\"There is no polite way to tell someone 'have you considered that maybe you've wasted your entire life?'\" Dan Dennett [edit]",
"Beliefs are tribal. \n\nWe repel outside evidence by believing harder. But, if someone within the tribe -- or perceived to be within the tribe -- changes his mind, we are much more open to persuasion.\n\nReally [good work is being done at Yale](_URL_0_) on changing minds around climate change. ",
"What do you believe to have been proven false beyond all doubt? ",
"Identity politics.\n\nWe identify with our beliefs so we find it hard to change them because we see them as an attack on our being.\n\nThat's why it's good to keep a distance from your politics. Be neutral and don't identify with either side. Don't let people make you feel like you **belong** to a certain camp.\n\nStay on the center and you'll live a much healthier life",
"Simply put, the world is incredibly complicated. To admit how little we know is to invite a sense of fear. To navigate this incredibly complicated world, we cling to certain values that have seemingly served us well in the past. As soon as something you know is proven to be outright wrong, it not only calls into question that value, but the very process through which you have attained those values. \n\nFor example, if a girlfriend cheats on you and you thought them to be a good person, you have a choice. Do you:\n1. Decide she was the exception to the rule and presume you have good judgement and she was an anomaly, OR,\n2. Realise that maybe you don't understand people (like anyone at all) as well as you thought you did and potentially everyone in the world is lying to you. \n\nIn reality, the answer lies somewhere to the middle, but those are the two things your subconscious chooses between. \n\nEssentially, to question one presupposition you have relied on to carry you through life for years opens the floodgates to questioning all of them and people are scared of that. \n\nOf course, a continuous analysis of your own choices, motivations and beliefs is the only way to truly become a great and reliable person who benefits not only yourself but those around you. The irony being that most people are terrified of the process that makes you into that person. Me included, even though I'm aware of it. ",
"As a rational person that admits I know fuck all but tries to gather all the info I can and make a decision...\n\nLet me be the first to admit, I've been wrong when I thought I was right. Even after being presented with the facts I thought I was right.\n\nI use to go around saying Star Trek was stupid....as a sci-fi fan, I never like...questioned myself why I never watched it....it was like I was on auto-pilot just saying it sucked.\n\nThen one day I watched it, and it was bad ass, the old and new series.\n\nI can't tell you how many times like...just pick anything right, like the mayweather mcgregor fight...I'm a huge mcgregor fan and argued that he gassed, this and that yada yada.\n\nBut then when you hear a certain person present certain arguments, you have this light bulb moment where for whatever reason you had a mental block to looking at it from that perspective.\n\nIt's weird I dunno...no matter how much I try to articulate myself, I can admit that I can be wrong about anything...yes anything. I just make the best decisions I can, and be the best I can be.\n\nAnd yes, I argue with people, say I'm right, this and that.\n\nMaybe a lot of it just comes from a lazyness to fully explore every idea I'm not sure.\n\nWhen people shoot the shit back and forth that's one thing...but I do think when a truth is being decided, or an interpretation of ideas/facts, I think it should be taken very seriously and done very thoroughly, and just really try to explore every perspective.\n\nSigh...I just take comfort in the evolution of intelligence and A.I. and tell myself that me and the rest of the human race is so fucking dumb, that it's not even worth trying to answer the big questions right now....\n\nIt's just so weird...cause even though right now I can say that I've been wrong enough times where I swore up and down I was right, I still will think I'm right about religion being stupid as hell, republicans being stupid as hell, astrophysics being super cool, sci-fi being super cool, etc etc.\n\nI seriously think everyone should smoke weed at least like 20 times. It's worth it for the change in perspective. Weed can make anything fucking fun, it's crazy....it kind of proved to me that our minds/consciousness's are so malleable like...I could take a drug that made me a religious zealott and I wouldn't even realize it....\n\nMeh, humanity and life is a fucked up place dude....round and round the intellectual circus I go, ending up everywhere and no where at the same fucking time.",
"At least pertaining to religious beliefs, God cannot be proven to exist or not exist, if you think the existence of such has been proven false, it's a bit ridiculous really.\n\n*I am not religious (agnostic I suppose, appreciative of the good religion can teach, not naive to the monstrosity it can wreak ), but you cannot say the existence of a god(s) has been proven false or proven for that matter, unless you are an adamant Atheist or Nihilist, and man Nihilism is bleak as fuck ",
"Being proved wrong is equivalent to \"insulting one's intelligence\" or being proved to not be as smart as previously advertised.\n\nThis has big ramifications because some people actually make a living by deceiving others. You lose part of your social status each time your are proven wrong and that may incur financial loses or other serious consequences.",
"I'll try to keep it brief but:\n\nWhy do people need such strong beliefs? From a psychological perspective, humans crave confidence in their own beliefs as a means of mental stability. In situations where they are unsure, they will often look to others for how to act. This is known as 'information social influence' and classical studies on it are Jennes 1932 and his bean experiment or Abrams 1990.\nHaving certainties makes people feel secure.\n\nWhy is it hard for people to change? The feeling of insecurity and the possibility of being incorrect is very hard for some people to adapt to. In fact baseline just admitting they may be incorrect is simply too difficult of a task for some people and their ego. Further; their parents believed it, they were raised to believe it how could it possibly be wrong? Some people are very closed-minded and take solace in that too often without realising this is perhaps a mistake and more flexibility would benefit them.\n\nDo people believe what they say they do? Sometimes, but not always. Kelman described 3 types of conformity: Internalisation, compliance and identification. With internalisation in particular there is great conviction for the belief they have taken on and they will express this privately and publicly which is not always the case, compliance for example are beliefs held often just to be social and accepted. Supporting a certain sports team only around certain friends would be an example of this weak kind of belief system, where as religion is an example of internalisation where a person fully accepts the beliefs of others as their own.\n\nHow does change occur? Normally slowly, often by the influence of a minority that is reasonable and 'may actually have a point' this builds until it becomes accepted as majority/mainstream thinking. Rights for animals, black people and women all show very strong examples of this over the last century.\n\ntl;dr: Confidence, not knowing what you are supposed to think or having what you are sure of questioned makes us feel insecure which we dislike. People conform by different mechanisms, the beliefs they obtain during this process in certain circumstances become very hard to challenge and the level of adaptability comes down to other factors also such as personality and environment.",
"Most of the time the proof that something is wrong requires either too much analysis to understand, or a belief that this new evidence is correct.\n\nOlder people lived through all kinds of claims ranging from global cooling to global warming to climate change caused by men to climate change influenced by men. So you either believe the latest science thing you hear, and likely be wrong, or you believe what you always believed, and likely be wrong. One is maybe more likely than the other, but there's still a good chance you're on the wrong side.\n\nFor most people switching beliefs won't have any positive impact. At worst the new scientific consensus is later reversed, and you are known for being a fool who can't even stick to a position. Kind of like the food pyramid is considered wrong now.",
"In the simplest terms possible. Because of pride. If your beliefs are wrong, then your are wrong. To admit you're wrong would be to admit some kind of failure in your part. Some people would rather stuff toothpicks between their nails than do that. ",
"By far the scariest thing on Reddit is the absolute certainty that things \"have been proven false\" (or true). Over the course of human history, including the modern times, nothing has been more dangerous than that certainty. It terrifies me about the Reddit generation.",
"People attach their beliefs to their identity. It's not something they know or think, but their beliefs are an aspect of who they are. To change their beliefs is to fundamentally change themselves and their worldview, which is a lot harder to modify than a mere fact they though to be true. It involves their emotions, personal history, memories, and cognitions from life experiences.",
"Your brain is receiving sensory signals from your eyes nose skin and ears, and it is having to in real time, decode understand and react to the current situation. Basically your brain creates the hallucination of reality from the perception from your sensory organs but because what you perceive agrees with what others perceive, we call it reality. \n\nOur brain through evolution is hard wired to recognize forms and figures and almost instantly be able to recognize and analyze the \"threat level\" of your surroundings. This is helpful for survival. If we could not so quickly analyze and react, our clawlessness, furlessness and lack of large teeth combined with terrible camouflage would surely have meant our species could not have made it. \n\nHow would your brain function if it didn't trust itself? If it was wired to question its interpretation rather than trust the perception that was digested by the brain. I'll tell you, you would have much more anxiety, more like a deer, easily frightened and unable to quickly react to large stimuli as it overwhelms the senses.\n\nHope this is the answer you were looking for. :)",
"Because memories and beliefs are hard-wired in your brain. A memory is an actual physical structure in the brain interconnected with millions of other neurons. New evidence means new connections in the brain, so if accepted you end up believing in the new while still believing in the old, even though one contradicts the other.",
"Ooh, something I'm semi-qualified to answer! This is right in my field of research at the moment. There's a HUGE number of explanations for this so I'll just list the biggest reasons that immediately come to mind.\n\n1. Confirmation bias: people have a tendency not only to seek out, but to better remember information that is in line with their beliefs. It feels good being proven right, and so more often than not when debating an issue, we search up evidence that will support our point, rather than actively seeking to disprove ourselves. Even when we come across information that goes against our beliefs, we better remember information that supports our beliefs after the fact. E.g. for someone who doesn't believe in the human-caused climate change theory, they will much more easily and readily recall the studies and things they found online that disconfirm climate change, than the studies that support. In this regard, to many people your ELI5 alludes to, the things that you would suggest disprove their beliefs must seem few and far between compared to evidence supporting their beliefs.\n\n2. Naive realism: is an effect whose three tenets state (1) we believe we see the world objectively (2) we expect others to come to the same conclusion so long as they're rational and exposed to the same information (3) we assume that anyone who does not come to the same conclusion my be either biased, ignorant, or irrational. Basically, we take the huge assumption that the world is objectively how we see it (it'd be pretty hard to live life otherwise, always doubting your own perceptions of everything from temperature, to social etiquette, to valid science.) E.g. it's alot easier for someone who doesn't believe in the human-caused climate change theory who already takes in selective media through the websites they visit, and news they watch (as affected by the confirmation bias), to think that people who present a different point of view are ignorant or irrational, than to adopt a new belief.\n\n3. Rather than taking someone else's viewpoint as a distinct viewpoint, in discussion settings, individuals with differing beliefs tend to view the other side as attacking their beliefs, while they believe they are objectively presenting their beliefs. Both sides think this, and as a result discussions like this often don't get anywhere. This also ties in with what's referred to as the conflict spiral. Since both people feel attacked, in a debate/discussion with differing beliefs, people tend to present their opinion more certainly and more strongly than what they actually believe. E.g. if someone who doesn't believe in the human-caused climate change theory is feeling attacked and backed into a corner in a debate, it wouldn't make much sense for them to express the mixed messages and merits of both sides of the issue, even if they believe there is a few good arguments on the other side and even if they're only like 85% certain of their view. They want to \"win\" this argument so they portray themselves as being absolutely without doubt, and the climate change believers and having no merit in their argument whatsoever. Both sides engage in this, and rather than conversing to understand each other's view, they try to convince each other with increasing argument extremity, and get increasingly frustrated when this doesn't work.\n\nSource: I'm a final year undergraduate honours psychology student conducting research in political psychology attempting to reduce falsely perceived adversary viewpoint extremity (known as the false polarization effect) through perceiving the adversary as an intelligent friend.\n\nIf anyone's interested I could post some relevant studies, but I'm too busy to look them up at the immediate moment. Confirmation Bias, and Naive Realism should be pretty easy to look up online. The conflict Spiral and study on people's perceptions of others in debates is more recent research and could be a little harder to find. Hope this helps explain!\n\nedit 1: changed some unintentionally biased wording (changed \"denier\" to \"someone who doesn't believe in human-caused climate change theory\" (we all fall prey to biases!)\n",
"I think it boils down to animal instincts, as the top post states.\nIt's like a self defense mechanism.\nIt's flat out denial. \n\nWith denial, what are you doing?\nBasically you're protecting yourself from reality, because you can't admit that you're wrong, or that you have a problem.\n\nAs civilized human beings, you would think that we would realize this as a weakness.\nBut many of us still see it as strength.\nThat's the core of so much ignorance I feel like. \n\nMany of us don't seem to realize that there is a big difference between being in denial about something when, say, you have to push yourself to do something. \nPerhaps you have to convince yourself that you're stronger that you really are to get a few extra reps at the gym, or to continue working 100hrs a week while starting your own business.\nThat can be a benefit of denial.\nBut the difference is those things require other components as well. \nDiscipline. Self control. \nDiscipline and self control isn't easy.\nSo, you are combining some of your most firmly rooted animal instincts (denial/self defense mechanisms) which are easy because they come natural to you, with what we have learned generally works for most people as civilized human beings (discipline and self control). Things that are not easy.\n\nThis is much different than trying to justify a lack of self control, discipline, and the self awareness it takes to realize this.\n\nIf you can't accept reality, that is a genuine weakness. It's a lack of self control and discipline. Generally a complete lack of self awareness as well. \n\nWe all get duped. We all get confused.\nWe all get hurt. Some us more so than others. This can and generally does make it more difficult for people to change their beliefs.\nTechnology has added to the confusion, hurt, and getting duped.\nIt has allowed for us to have our beliefs challenged like never before.\nMeanwhile, some people still try to stay in their little bubble, and I feel like, that's okay if you're simply trying to avoid the confusion and chaos. \nBut It's not healthy to stay in your little bubble to avoid accepting reality. \n\nSome of us were raised to be free and think for ourselves. Some of us didn't have a choice but to learn on our own and think for ourselves because our parents weren't around. \n\nAnd some of us were raised in households were things were quite strict, traditional, and where we were basically told or manipulated into how to think (by our parents).\n\nI think that, is a HUGE difference.",
"My dad refuses to believe that our government would manipulate information to create a false flag incident like Gulf of Tonkin or be conicity in 9/11. He feels any effort to expose him to the facts diminishes his service and heroism to his country. He'd simply prefer to rely on cognitive dissonance to deal with theses things because the truth exposes him to a world he'd rather not recognize he's a part of creating.",
"According to Jonathan Haidt in his excellent book *The Righteous Mind*, rationality is merely a tool emotions evolved in order to fulfill their inherent desires. The misconception is that emotions somehow are superfluous to the human experience, an artifact of human history. This is not the case. Every desire and *want* you have is inherently emotional - inherently inherent - and your rational mind is merely co-opted as a tool to fulfill those desires. Emotion gives you the what, and rationality gives you the how.\n\nGoing off the beaten path a bit, when it comes to **belief**, we're talking about something that could be more closely tied to your emotional desires than you realize. There's a desire to conform to society, to be *right* and proper, but this desire could come secondary and tertiary to a desire to placate your deepest fears and fulfill your deepest fantasies about reality.\n\nTL;DR humans are emotional creatures and rationality is a tool that may be utilized for various purposes you don't realize, both in yourself and the person you're trying to convince",
"I will go against the grain here a little bit . I think the main reason is that it is immensely difficult to 'prove' anything more complicated than a basic statement of fact.\n\nBecause to argue honestly means saying things like 'the preponderance of evidence says' or 'it is highly unlikely that', phrases which leave room for doubt. So people who want to believe something simple seize on the *possibility*.\n\nSeriously, unless you've argued against a slick religion apologist or someone deep into conspiracy theories, you have no idea just how difficult it is to conclusively prove something. \n\nI've always said that average person would probably lose a debate on something ridiculous like the Sandy Hook 'conspiracy' or the moon landing 'hoax' for this reason. ",
"It would appear that consciousness is nothing more than a system by which the subconscious can navigate the world, an ongoing process of acquisition and the gathering of information. This information is then used to formulate an understanding of the physical world. The more varied the stimuli the conscious mind is exposed to, the more divergent the understanding. The greatest polymaths of every age seemed to perpetually be choosing new areas to explore and delve deeper into. Limiting the areas of discovery to a certain sphere of experience or prevailing opinion only limits the understanding. The goal being that the whole new perception is ultimately greater than the sum of the experiences upon which it is built. Consciousness changes ingrained perception most rapidly when expectations are subverted. If everything proceeds as ever, what use is it to analyze the same experiences hoping to garner new meaning? The brain streamlines what would otherwise be an overwhelmingly complex process. Processing sensory input and absorbing new ideas would be inefficient and unbearably complicated if the mind were incapable of formulating simple narratives and rationalized explanations for the complexities of daily experience. The effectiveness of the process is entirely dependent upon the scope of the preexisting summary narratives. The greater the scope of the summary narrative, the greater the ease with which things of great complexity can be satisfactorily explained. The stronger the grip of an ideology the easier it is to ignore experience that doesn't coincide with the internalized narratives of one's subconscious. It is no accident that very nearly every major religion on the planet has some sort of confessional aspect accompanied by some form of reflective or meditative practice. The rationalization of things not fully explained by the simplistic process of apperception requires retrospection and a deeper sort of cognition to alleviate the hysteria of not understanding. Keeping an open mind is the practice of allowing ones summary narratives to be bypassed for the purpose of entertaining a new, and likely more nuanced understanding. If one were to remove this system of narratives and understanding or alter it in some irreparable way it would be impossible to interpret the torrent of incoming stimulus. We might be seen as going mad, as sinking into a sort of self destructive intellectual nihilism. If our experience is destroyed, our behavior will become destructive. We have the right and the duty as a sentient species to explore our inner selves thoroughly, to escape from the outer world, to break away. We must unerringly insist on self-analysis, however frightening this may be. This is our only means of choice, our only true assumption of responsibility, we should not fear the necessity of losing restraint in order to know ourselves.\n",
"Ok, literally like you're five: Fear of change, laziness, lack of introspection, misinformation. \n\nAdopting new ideas is difficult for some people. The dogma's/beliefs they hold lay at the foundation of their personality. \nChanging beliefs/religion would mean that some'd have to adapt their behaviour, and potentially break away from the most fervent members of their community/church/family (peer pressure).\n\nMankind as a whole is relatively lazy: most technological advances serve the purpose of easing our daily toil. Schools don't always have time to teach free thinking/open-mindedness and curiosity. Not everyone'll spontaneously challenge his own views and positions.\nThus, why would someone bother change his perspective if he's in his comfort zone?\n\nSociety and streamline media make a great job of shaming/alienating different views, it takes a lot of courage and perseverance to go against the grain. Seems like they're still trying to divide mankind in two parts: we good, they bad.\nWhen everyone agrees with your views, you get the feeling you're doing well, which in turn strengthens your faith in your ideas.\n\nThis is luckily all starting to change thanks to the Internet (not looking at you FaceBook), and easier access to educational material ( b o o k s ). ",
"The mind is divided into a rider and an elephant. The rider, who speaks and is reasonable (supposedly), is our intellect and we like to think he guides the elephant, but he really exists to explain the actions of the elephant. The elephant, our emotional part, does things automatically and believes not new information but what we already believed. We try to persuade other's riders when we need to persuade the elephant. You need to get to the truthiness, the feeling. If you don't feel like it could be right you will find so many reasons why it isn't right; the rider will find reasons why the elephant is stomping around. If you want to persuade someone, talk to the elephant. \"Gut feeling\" is what you need to change, which is why it is so hard to change people's minds about anything.\n\nJohnathan Haidt talked about this metaphor in *The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and be Politics* in great detail and I highly recommend the book. Here is part of an interview which he explains the elephant and rider piece _URL_0_",
"I don't know why this is tagged Biology. This is a lot more to do with psychology. Just as a foundation of our own sanity, all people believe themselves to be infallible. That is why you judge yourself based on your intentions and others based on their actions. _You_ are not bad. You have _reasoning_ for that bad thing you did. Or you _meant_ to do good. Even objectively bad things you have done are excusable. They were learning experiences or an exception to the rule that it was bad.\n\nBeing _wrong_ is a part of this. People have a hard time believing they are wrong. Evolutionarily, it may be that self-doubt leads to incorrect decisions or an inability to make decisions. But believing oneself to be infallible is a foundation for _all_ humans, across the board. Even those who think they are open to being wrong or even think themselves to be bad people. They fall into the same pithole that when someone tells them they are bad or incorrect, they defensively shoot it down.",
"Just my 2c here but everything we *know* is rooted in a belief. Knowledge itself is rooted in axiomatic thoughts... Just like knowledge about the outcome of a mathematical operation relies on axiomatic thoughts about the relationships between numbers. Much like a house, beliefs represent a foundation, and knowledge represents the structure built on it.\n\nAs a result, any challenge to beliefs, especially beliefs which underpin someone's perceptions of right and wrong, or beliefs which underpin a person's perception of purpose and personal value, are grave threats to their entire way of life. To most of us insane apes, it's far better to continue with inaccurate beliefs rather than disrupting all the knowledge built on top of them, especially when the knowledge, while inaccurate, is still good enough to allow a pretty successful life.\n\nWe even have a term for someone whose beliefs have been successfully changed and been left with a collapsed structure of knowledge: *existential crisis*.\n\nThe thing is, existential crisis can end very messily. People will try to make the smallest possible change they can to maintain what was already there in their minds, to maintain as much knowledge as they can. Or make insane workarounds. Or be left gibbering and panicked until they hurt themselves or others. Moreover, even if someone CAN recover from existential crisis, it doesn't mean it's easy or quick. Much like after a natural disaster, it takes time to clean up the debris, time that could have been spent doing anything else.\n\nSo of course humans have evolved to defend our *foundations of knowledge* against an attack, and when we see similar attacks, to further insulate our beliefs from harm, because those beliefs are foundations which support knowledge.\n\nIf you want to challenge someone's beliefs, you're going to have to sell them on having an existential crisis. And good luck with that.",
"Prove? You can't prove anything except in mathematics. Everything else is just providing evidence. You can't intuitively explain things without holes and those holes can be pretty damn big.\n\nTo truly understand something you need to dig really deep. Ask enough why questions and you end up with \"we don't know\".\n\nIt all boils down to trust. You TRUST that the guy explaining it is truthful. You TRUST that the science is correct, you TRUST.\n\nUsually the guy doesn't explain it correctly, usually the science is not bullet proof, usually the government/corporation etc. has an agenda. If you dont trust it, you won't believe it. For them we are like a super religious cult, because we are. Unless you personally dig all the way down to the axioms (aka you have a PhD in the thing) you simply believe it is true because someone said it is.\n\nA lot of our conceptions of science and facts are misleading. For most things we can't explain them. We can give a rough guess, but unless there is a mathematical model that is correct 100% of the time in our experiments, it's a VERY rough guess. Most things are fundamentally unpredictable and unexplainable like weather and if you dig deep enough, everything is like that.",
"It's all linked to the same human nature that makes it so easy for the media to persuade people.\n\nOur species developed communication in order to pass truths on to people who hadn't learned them yet.\n\n\"Don't drink from that pond, you'll get sick.\"\n\n\"Don't eat mushrooms, they are poison.\"\n\n\"Here is how you can try to set a broken bone.\"\n\n\"Here is a set of walking instructions to find a place that has awesome blueberries this time of year.\"\n\nOur brains are wired to accept all communication as a truth that needs to be remembered for our own survival. Unfortunately this can be taken advantage of.\n\nIn the case of changing beliefs? Well that means that you have to admit to yourself that someone might have been untruthful with you and that you were foolish.",
"Cognitive Dissonance!\n\nI'm a former Jehovah Witness. I struggled to accept that my beliefs weren't true. I was indoctrinated and brainwashed heavily since I was a child. JWs colloquially refer to their belief as \"the truth.\" So, upon learning how corrupt the Watchtower Society is (essentially JW's divine headquarters), did I simply accept that my beliefs were false? Hell no! At first I thought it was lies, then I made up excuses (oh, it's just imperfect men, no big deal) to finally accepting that it's not \"the truth.\" So, essentially, there's massive psychological cycles at work when this kind of change happens. If something petty that you believed is proven false, you wouldn't have an emotional breakdown. If you found your beliefs which you called \"the truth\" were proven false, you would have an emotional breakdown. Deep down, you know that. So cognitive dissonance is a protection against it, even if it fights clear and straight logic.",
"In my life time eggs have been declared good then bad then good then bad then good for you by a majority of experts. In the 60's we were going to run out of food, in the 70's the world was going to plunge into an ice age. In the 80's we were going to run out of oil. Hang in there, global warming and rising sea levels will follow suit. ",
"I find all the answers are written from the point of view of reason. I can give you my opinion as a Christian and I think is not possible to apply reason to something that lives in another dimension of perception.\n\nFor me a religion is just a set of rules, very different from spirituality. I don't consider myself a religious person but a spiritual guy. \n\nWhen you say \"proven to be false\" is from a scientifical/factual point of view. We you live a profound change in your life you feel it in a spiritual way and l you won't be able to understand it in your whole life using your cognitive or emotional intelligence, I'm talking about different dimensions of understanding and feeling.\n\nI think people who don't believe in nothing(\"religious\" level) only think in terms of cognitive and emotional intelligence so your brain tells you \"it's nonsense to believe in something that has been proven to be false\" I've read the facts, I saw a video that proved this or I studied physics and you can't prove that etc etc.\n\nFor me there is a whole new dimension that you can't undersand unless you experiment it by yourself.\n\nI believe strongly because of my faith. not because I \"know\" for \"fact\" that it's true.",
"Sometimes they have a load bearing wall between their living room and kitchen. If this is the case, it becomes very difficult to take out that wall to give the house a more open feel. ",
"Because history shows that many of \"proven\" facts are false. Earth is flat, tomatoes are poisonous, we are center of universe, bears don't exist, cats can't hear low frequency sounds, global cooling, oceans level rise will kills us all by 2015. Science is mostly theory and isn't proven, its all best guesses so many people take \"facts\" with a grain of salt. ",
"Maybe they haven't been proven to be false? I'll stop believing when people give real reasons.",
"“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” -Carl Sagan",
"You want a real ELI5?\n\nPeople find fighting and lying easier than rebuilding a persona built on \"wrong.\" ",
"Human beings shape their view of the world constantly building on what they already know. We group things in a way that makes it easiest for us to understand and we seek identities too. Having a sense of understanding is a really comfortable feeling.\n\nHowever, when one of your beliefs is challenged, it is almost natural to become defensive of it because our perspective of the entire world is shaped on those beliefs. Visually I would compare it to building a house of cards, and when your house of cards is neatly stacked 100s of levels tall, you find out a playing car way down at the bottom is actually not a playing card but a plan square piece of cardboard. You can't replace the cardboard with a real card now without rebuilding the entire house, so it's easier to convince yourself and that the cardboard is a playing card or close enough to one that it doesn't even matter.\n\nThings need to have a concrete meaning in order to progress beyond it. It gives us a step to reach a higher level of understand which makes us very comfortable. Being open minded asks us to constantly reshape every thing we know, believe, and learn. This is not nearly as comfortable, since we want to find something true and commit to it.\n\nIf someone came up to me tomorrow and said there was some new kind of math that made all other mad obsolete or wrong, I'd probably keep doing the math I learned my whole life because I care about being able to deduct things from the world using it and it's worked since I learned it as a child.\n\nAbstract analogies to describe normal human behavior I think. Hopefully this all doesn't just sound crazy.\n\n",
"My boyfriend wrote this actual question and he's so happy it made it to the front page! :) thanks everyone for replying and putting in your thoughts. ",
"I think it was Victor Frankl's book \"Man's Search for Meaning\" that explained it best. The first bit describes his time in a holocaust concentration camp; he takes a moment to refute Freud's misguided notion that \"it's all about sex\" - people did various things, good and bad, as captives or captores, and very little revolved around sex. Then he goes on tod escribe his own theories. Basically, he says, as people grow up people build a world-view in their mind - this is how th world operates, this is how things happen and how people work. We have our biggest mental stress and other problems when we encounter situations at odds with what our models in our brain tell us what should be happening. \n\nSo if you believe in God and Jesus, or Communism, or white supremacy, or the inherent goodness of man, or that climate change is a hoax - or whatever - this model is ingrained in your brain. Having to admit it is wrong means having to completely change your world view which would . People will often deny (or at least ignore) evidence in front of their eye rather than change this world-view. Dealing with contradictions to their beliefs is stressful. \n\nWhy? because their entire behaviour is based on this model of the world. To change, they would have to completely rebuild their idea of how the world works from teh ground up, and that's a lot of work and very stressful. ",
"If your knowledge is like a web and you have to change one section of it it makes everything else you believe that much more prone to failure. We build our whole view of the world this way. If you let one thing go then you have to reexamine everything. Most people have a natural inclination to not want to do this. And rightfully so because it can be traumatic to the point of debilitating...\n\nAs an very quick example: This is why tragedies such as accidental deaths of close family or friends can be so hard to deal with. You believed they would be around, you made plans, you had a future, the plans you made involved that person etc. etc. etc. When that is no longer the case everything has to change. Not an easy task. \n\nBut when people get older, or get sick that web flexes and changes slowly, you have time to reinforce the other sections, so even though it is tragic, it is not as traumatic.",
"I think it has a lot to do with the perception of other people's beliefs as well. Example: climate change. I grew up on a farm in central Texas. I've seen in my own life fluctuations in the micro-climate of my area, increased severity of droughts, increased severity of storms, increased frequency of dry- line fluctuations, etc. So yes I do believe in climate change as far as data and information is concerned, but I do not think it is the doomsday scenario that everyone seems to think it is. Because of this I am accused of being a denier and an ignorant jackass that doesn't believe in science. It's as though every belief in the world is broken down to a 0 or 1. Where either you 100% agree or you 100% disagree, and you're either 100% right or your 100% wrong. \n\nI personally think that despite our best efforts everyone is both right and wrong at the same time, and everyone has beliefs that are influenced by personal preferences or external dogmas. And we are too quick to assume that if someone disagrees with one thing than they obviously disagree with everything. \n\nNow as for the flat-earth people, there's no hope for them. ",
"Are you not a person with life experiences? Are you not a person any life at all? How has the answer to this question not dawned on you at all?...oh right, karma. ",
"Well, i could be wrong here, but maybe because they really believe that He/It is alive?",
"Familiar feelings and memories are sources of comfort, and changing that is often seen as a threat even if the beliefs are contrary to fact. This is called [cognitive dissonance.](_URL_0_)",
"Its difficult for people to digest that their entire life is based on some wrong belief. Better to believe in something proven to be false, rather than believing that their entire life was based on a false.",
"The terrific blog \"You Are Not So Smart\" tackled this question back in 2011.\n\n[The Backfire Effect](_URL_0_)\n\n > **The Misconception:** When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.\n\n > **The Truth:** When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.\n\nThe best paragraph from that which summarizes the answer:\n\n > Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.\n\nCheck out the whole thing. [It's really worth a read.](_URL_0_)",
"Another aspect is that some positions we hold are a large part of our identity. If how you see yourself is, in part, as belonging to a group that believes a thing, it will be more difficult to accept contrary evidence to that idea. Topics that are integral to our identity are the most difficult to look at objectively and are protected the fiercest. ",
"I think it depends on the subject. This is a big issue with religion, but a lot of us have political beliefs that don't necessarily have a correct answer, so there's a spectrum of dissent that's commonplace. It's kind of like how in grade school you learn how to make arguments and counterarguments -- while that's fundamental to education, it can lead folks down paths where they give clout to themselves for believing something false because \"I believe what I want.\" I don't think it's unique to American culture, but there's always a line of rhetoric to combat something [whether it's false or not], and that's all someone needs to stave off the obligation to seek truth and find a medium. For example: \"Guns don't kill people; people kill people.\" \n\nWith religion, it comes down to fear. The elephant in the room is that religion is, objectively, nothing more than an old form of governing that trades obedience by the masses with the answer to our greatest fear -- what happens when we die? Kind of a brilliant concept to begin with. As we became more intelligent beings our creation of religion followed, so while we look at it as dumb now, it actually is quite a compliment to our imagination as we evolved as intellectually superior beings. \n\nIt's incredibly difficult for people to reconcile that with the fact that as societies have connected and became globally aware of one another, it's very apparent that religion is a culturally-unique construct and not universal. I think many people subconsciously or quietly keep their awareness of this to themselves, while still protecting their beliefs. \n\nIt's not stubbornness of embarrassment as I think it is raw fear of not being comfortable with the unknown. 13-year old me was miserable with this, but 27-year old me is blissfully content with admitting that I know nothing. Giving up Christian beliefs was incredibly tragic for me. ",
"It can be as simple as having reasons to disbelieve the source. If the facts are coming from someone or somewhere you think has a personal agenda or is otherwise unreliable, it is reasonable to question the validity of a new idea without being able to personally verify the information. I witnessed firsthand the rigging of the primaries by the DNC, try convincing the average Democrat. They consider me an invalid source and try to shame with labels. Whaddayagonnado. Bottom line is your facts are only as true as your source.",
"Why do so many lost and lonely people tend to fall into religion or even cults? \n\nWhen you don't have much of an identity then that(being whatever institute, belief, culture etc) becomes your identity, at that point when it's proven false your brain goes into a white blood cell mode and attacks whatever is challenging its identity. People don't want to be lost or lonely aside from sociopaths, psychopaths, and some introverted personalities. We as humans want to feel like we are part of something, like we belong, and the brain will go to ridiculous lengths to conserve it, even if it's protecting a lie. \n\nShort term it works, long term is how people get stuck at shitty jobs they don't like or broken marriages.",
"I see that this has a Biology tag, but I think it's much simpler to explain in philosophical terms.\n\nThe philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend explains this by going back to Galileo and the Copernican Revolution. Even though we think of science and facts as clear and real now, it wasn't the only way of explaining everything back then. The point that Galileo made to help people understand that all of the arguments for a stationary Earth are wrong wasn't that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In fact, Galileo praised Copernicus for continuing to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun despite all of the evidence that doesn't support it (like the fact that you might, without an adequate understanding of gravity, assume that everything on Earth would be flung out into space due to the centrifugal force).\n\nGalileo explained how the Earth moves around the Sun not by telling everyone it was true, but by explaining to them that the Earth is like a giant boat, and you don't have to run as fast as the boat to stay on the boat. Relativity explains why we don't experience the movement of the whole planet, and why bricks fall in a straight line when dropped from buildings.\n\nThe idea here, was that Galileo didn't come up with a \"new shocking truth that will change the way you think about the universe\"... that's why people were able to change their minds (over time) about what was at the center of the solar system. It isn't widely believed because it's true, it's widely believed because it fits our *experiences* that we all know that we have had. It explains something really abstract that couldn't have been experienced by a person then (and has been experienced directly by an extraordinarily small number of people since).\n\nWhen things are abstract and intangible, we tend to put something there that seems less so, or take a guess and stick with it until our model of how something works creates a contradiction. Note, however, that the experience of being on a spinning planet doesn't have too much to do with how we observe our everyday lives, so it requires a lot of abstract thinking to keep believing it, regardless of the fact that it is, indeed, true. The more directly we experience things, the more we tend to just keep believing that that's how things work. The more we work with the categories of experience, explaining things to people, building consensus, etc., the more open we are to \"changing our beliefs\" to fit a model that makes those experiences make sense to us.",
"Because you tie your identity to your beliefs, right or wrong, it's just something people do. So if you are told something you believe is wrong, you take it as you as a person are wrong, or bad, and you want to not feel bad so you fight the evidence and the claim against your beliefs. ",
"I think the main reason is that if you change your beliefs, you have to admit that you were wrong in the first place. No one wants to admit they were wrong, because that makes them feel stupid.",
"I am going to use Magic for this because most of my local children love MTG analogies. Lets say I want to play [Serra Ascendant](_URL_4_). Now, because I want to play Serra Ascendant, I also want to gain life, which means I should consider [Martyr of Sands](_URL_3_), which means I should only think about white cards and I probably want [Soul's Attendant](_URL_0_), which means I want [ Ajani's Pridemate](_URL_1_). Then, on review I notice I am playing a lot of 1 drops, maybe [Ranger of Eos](_URL_5_), what about Proclamation of Rebirth and, and, and.....\n\nNow I keep doing this logic until I come up with a deck and at some point which card I started with gets lost. I just know they are all here because they support each other. This is how I see most beliefs work (and any knowledge, really). I play the deck for a few years, slowly fine tuning and sharping it over time. Updating my beliefs with experience, but I never really start over. Then one day someone comes along and tells me \"screw Serra Ascendant, you should play [Norin the Wary](_URL_2_).\" I laugh, Serra Ascendant is my best card. I think about all the synergies with the rest of the deck, all of the memorable games I won with it. Plus, Norin the Wary has always been a terrible idea, why would I ever think that...\n\nTl;Dr: When confronted with a totally new idea, I would not only have to change my challenged position, but all of the positions and beliefs I built on top of it.",
"The shortest, explain-like-you-are-5 answer is *emotions.*\n\nFor many people, their feelings are in bad shape, just like when you don't exercise your body and you lose strength and have a hard time doing strenuous activities, if you don't exercise your emotions they become very fragile and as a result people tend to hide from things that make them uncomfortable.\n\nThis kind of hiding usually means believing in something that makes them feel better about themselves or their decisions, and if someone questions that belief, they start to feel that discomfort rise and they hide even deeper in that belief. This is why logic and facts don't change them.\n\nSo how do you change them? You can't. You can only give them the facts and the chance to change themselves and go through that discomfort on their own, at their own pace. Be happier with your life and *show* a better way to live instead of trying to force others to bend to your own beliefs, or you will end up pushing them further away.\n\nHow do you keep your emotions healthy enough that you don't end up hiding also? You exercise them by facing uncomfortable things, by listening to people who have different ideas and trying to understand them, by doing something hard like being empathetic to strangers, to loved ones, to the less fortunate. By examining your own weaknesses and mistakes and learning to stop feeling bad about your embarrassing or distressing thoughts, and learn to forgive yourself and learn positive lessons. By letting yourself feel bad about things, by letting yourself cry when you need to and laugh whenever you can. Feelings of fear and anger are instinctual feelings to fight discomfort, and need to be broken down and understood so they become something positive.\n\nYour emotions are like muscles, and like developing muscles, it hurts at times. ",
"I'm sure one of the episodes of \" Adam ruins everything \"covers this, you should just watch all the episodes till you find it though cos it's interesting as he'll and you will learn so much.",
"There is something more that can be done with our minds during sleep / dreaming. It's crazy how many people do not believe this shit. I didn't until I had my own experience (a shared dream / premonition that played out in real life.)",
"I actually read an article by a neurobiologist in which he stated that our synaptic connections are actually treated in the brain like protected entities. The brain actually defends them. So, when beliefs are challenged, our very thought processes are set against the challenging ideas in order to protect the existing patterns. \n\nOnly with a very sharp mind can we overcome such defense's. ",
"It's easy to confuse your opinions with your identity. It takes a strong sense of self to not be threatened by different belief systems. Self-awareness and emotional maturity are the true signs of confidence. ",
"\"Proven\" by whom? Scientists and political flacks have lied or been mistaken on many occasions. One notable example, nutrition scientists maintained for decades that fat is bad and that we should eat carbohydrates. Our current crisis with obesity and diabetes are the result.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It depends one what level of belief you mean. If we are just talking about a simple belief like trivia, our resistance to accepting that we're wrong is likely due to reputation. That is, if we are shown to be wrong about something, the implication is that we are not reliable.\n\nThink of it in evolutionary terms. Much of our pre-history involves developing trust between people. An untrustworthy person could steal from you, kill you, or otherwise use you for their gain and turn on you when convenient. Earning and demonstrating trustworthiness as a reputation would have been important to survival. Those who proved untrustworthy, such as liars, could be punished, killed, expelled from the tribe, or even just ostracized and not selected as a mate. All these mean they were less likely to survive and reproduce. Those predisposed to fearing being judges as unreliable, and who instinctively acted to protect their reputation, would have reproduced more to pass on their genes.\n\nThis is why \"saving face\" is so important to both individuals and cultures, especially historically. People would kill others who questioned their honesty and integrity: duels, honor killings, and so forth. Even the parts of culture where challenging somebody's claims or confronting people is considered impolite is built on this notion of protecting reputation. \n\nSo changing belief is an admission that you were wrong and that your claims are unreliable. Sometimes that instinct can be far too strong in some people, unwilling to admit to any mistakes. It may depend on whether you are alone in the belief and everyone is against you, in which case maintaining your position risks lowering your status in the group, or if you have a \"tribe\" of believers backing you up and defending the belief *raises* your status with them.\n\nIf we're talking about a fundamental belief like a god, political basis, or the nature of how things work, and a whole collection of other beliefs derive from it, all of the above is still true but there is a complicating factor. Now accepting that you are wrong means much of your world view is all wrong and needs to be re-built from scratch. That can actually be very disorienting to deal with. We often call this effect, \"cognitive dissonance\" when we realize our beliefs are inconsistent and feel disoriented and confused about it.\n\nYou can think about belief systems as a \"locally\" consistent collection of beliefs. Like if you have. A religious belief in a god and you understand how people, society, behaviours, history, nature, and so on all derive from that. If you then challenge that this god exists, none of your other beliefs make sense. You now don't understand anything you thought you did. Your have to re-learn why people act the way they do, how the world works, how you should behave, etc.\n\nIt's a lot easier to just dismiss minor challenges to core beliefs, and use your larger understanding as protection against challenging it. You also have a whole social network that believes the same things so you feel comfortable maintaining the belief. Challenging it just does you no good in any practical social terms, and causes great cognitive and social harms to you. You won't *want* to challenge it, and even be scared of that. \n\nBut, we all have these inner thoughts and may lead you to question core beliefs, perhaps driven by outside information or because you want to come up with good answers to fight back against a challenger and discover there are no good answers. You then have problems to deal with, like all derivative beliefs and what to do about your life being tied up into this belief system: friends, family, job, culture, etc. Clergy who lose faith have a real life decision to make as they have to start life over, including job skills.\n\nPolitical parties can act like religions too. They start to take on collections of dogma, and challenging those beliefs makes you a traitor to the tribe, and your social circle and position in it will suffer, especially if you are a politician who has a similar dilemma as clergy.\n\nSometimes life is much, much easier to refuse challenging your beliefs. The exception is, of course, when you have a social culture where challenging beliefs is rewarded and praised, like science. That is hard to instill in people though, largely because it goes against our tribalist instincts. It's a lot of hard work to have social value in a culture where challenging beliefs is rewarded, as that takes a lot of education, thought, and intellectual prowess. A culture of defending beliefs is easier because all you have to do is repeat them and become aggressive or violent against challengers. \n\n",
"People lie to themselves when thoughts cause them emotional discomfort. Also when people think they've found some truth they believe they have a moral imperative to convince others when really we should all share thoughts and be open to them being challenged.",
"I think it boils down to: people don't want to be wrong. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, they just don't want to be \"wrong.\" So they refuse to change their belief because then they have to admit that that one idea they held onto so firmly was wrong. ",
"In a word: Fear. \n\nHuman emotions have evolved in order to give us strong negative reactions to anything that might harm us. When we feel afraid, unsure, unsafe our biological reaction is fight or flight. Humans tell ourselves and each other comforting lies in order to prevent us going into fight or flight mode and feel self assured to prevent us from those negative emotions caused by our biological reactions. It's the same reason for sheep mentality. The unknown presents potential threats to our safety and well being so we'll do whatever it takes, even lying to ourselves about our safety and well being in order to prevent those negative emotions from arising. ",
"Imagine avoiding sex your entire life, or other things you crave that your religion says no to, while people around you enjoy those things.\nYou want it to be worth something, all the sacrifice, all the time you put in praying, going to churches, etc. Challenging someones beliefs in a lot of ways is like indirectly saying that they have thus far wasted their life.\n\nAt the same time you are taking away their past, you are taking away their future in the afterlife.\n\nIf they stop believing they are counting themselves out of their afterlife visage. If they stop believing they replace that with nothing but empty death which can be too much to deal with.\n\nIt's a complete world view collapse of both past, present and future and most of the time we offer them no relief for that pain while we flippantly challenge their beliefs.",
"\"People hate being poked in their axioms.\" - Jordan Peterson\n\nWhen someone has held a belief for a long time, they have based a lot of their decisions on it. If those decisions haven't destroyed their life then that belief or theory is, at least in that regard, \"true.\" If you poke the belief, you're not just poking *it,* you're stirring the whole hive of past experiences that ride on it. \n\nIf you tell a married person that their spouse has been cheating on them since they've met, they will be reluctant to admit that their marriage has been a sham. Beliefs are like unfaithful spouses. You say you want to know about their infidelity, but would you really, if that means you'd have to rethink your entire life? \n\n\"There is no polite way to tell someone 'have you considered that maybe you've wasted your entire life?'\" Dan Dennett [edit]",
"Beliefs are tribal. \n\nWe repel outside evidence by believing harder. But, if someone within the tribe -- or perceived to be within the tribe -- changes his mind, we are much more open to persuasion.\n\nReally [good work is being done at Yale](_URL_0_) on changing minds around climate change. ",
"What do you believe to have been proven false beyond all doubt? ",
"Identity politics.\n\nWe identify with our beliefs so we find it hard to change them because we see them as an attack on our being.\n\nThat's why it's good to keep a distance from your politics. Be neutral and don't identify with either side. Don't let people make you feel like you **belong** to a certain camp.\n\nStay on the center and you'll live a much healthier life",
"As a rational person that admits I know fuck all but tries to gather all the info I can and make a decision...\n\nLet me be the first to admit, I've been wrong when I thought I was right. Even after being presented with the facts I thought I was right.\n\nI use to go around saying Star Trek was stupid....as a sci-fi fan, I never like...questioned myself why I never watched it....it was like I was on auto-pilot just saying it sucked.\n\nThen one day I watched it, and it was bad ass, the old and new series.\n\nI can't tell you how many times like...just pick anything right, like the mayweather mcgregor fight...I'm a huge mcgregor fan and argued that he gassed, this and that yada yada.\n\nBut then when you hear a certain person present certain arguments, you have this light bulb moment where for whatever reason you had a mental block to looking at it from that perspective.\n\nIt's weird I dunno...no matter how much I try to articulate myself, I can admit that I can be wrong about anything...yes anything. I just make the best decisions I can, and be the best I can be.\n\nAnd yes, I argue with people, say I'm right, this and that.\n\nMaybe a lot of it just comes from a lazyness to fully explore every idea I'm not sure.\n\nWhen people shoot the shit back and forth that's one thing...but I do think when a truth is being decided, or an interpretation of ideas/facts, I think it should be taken very seriously and done very thoroughly, and just really try to explore every perspective.\n\nSigh...I just take comfort in the evolution of intelligence and A.I. and tell myself that me and the rest of the human race is so fucking dumb, that it's not even worth trying to answer the big questions right now....\n\nIt's just so weird...cause even though right now I can say that I've been wrong enough times where I swore up and down I was right, I still will think I'm right about religion being stupid as hell, republicans being stupid as hell, astrophysics being super cool, sci-fi being super cool, etc etc.\n\nI seriously think everyone should smoke weed at least like 20 times. It's worth it for the change in perspective. Weed can make anything fucking fun, it's crazy....it kind of proved to me that our minds/consciousness's are so malleable like...I could take a drug that made me a religious zealott and I wouldn't even realize it....\n\nMeh, humanity and life is a fucked up place dude....round and round the intellectual circus I go, ending up everywhere and no where at the same fucking time.",
"At least pertaining to religious beliefs, God cannot be proven to exist or not exist, if you think the existence of such has been proven false, it's a bit ridiculous really.\n\n*I am not religious (agnostic I suppose, appreciative of the good religion can teach, not naive to the monstrosity it can wreak ), but you cannot say the existence of a god(s) has been proven false or proven for that matter, unless you are an adamant Atheist or Nihilist, and man Nihilism is bleak as fuck ",
"Being proved wrong is equivalent to \"insulting one's intelligence\" or being proved to not be as smart as previously advertised.\n\nThis has big ramifications because some people actually make a living by deceiving others. You lose part of your social status each time your are proven wrong and that may incur financial loses or other serious consequences.",
"I'll try to keep it brief but:\n\nWhy do people need such strong beliefs? From a psychological perspective, humans crave confidence in their own beliefs as a means of mental stability. In situations where they are unsure, they will often look to others for how to act. This is known as 'information social influence' and classical studies on it are Jennes 1932 and his bean experiment or Abrams 1990.\nHaving certainties makes people feel secure.\n\nWhy is it hard for people to change? The feeling of insecurity and the possibility of being incorrect is very hard for some people to adapt to. In fact baseline just admitting they may be incorrect is simply too difficult of a task for some people and their ego. Further; their parents believed it, they were raised to believe it how could it possibly be wrong? Some people are very closed-minded and take solace in that too often without realising this is perhaps a mistake and more flexibility would benefit them.\n\nDo people believe what they say they do? Sometimes, but not always. Kelman described 3 types of conformity: Internalisation, compliance and identification. With internalisation in particular there is great conviction for the belief they have taken on and they will express this privately and publicly which is not always the case, compliance for example are beliefs held often just to be social and accepted. Supporting a certain sports team only around certain friends would be an example of this weak kind of belief system, where as religion is an example of internalisation where a person fully accepts the beliefs of others as their own.\n\nHow does change occur? Normally slowly, often by the influence of a minority that is reasonable and 'may actually have a point' this builds until it becomes accepted as majority/mainstream thinking. Rights for animals, black people and women all show very strong examples of this over the last century.\n\ntl;dr: Confidence, not knowing what you are supposed to think or having what you are sure of questioned makes us feel insecure which we dislike. People conform by different mechanisms, the beliefs they obtain during this process in certain circumstances become very hard to challenge and the level of adaptability comes down to other factors also such as personality and environment.",
"Most of the time the proof that something is wrong requires either too much analysis to understand, or a belief that this new evidence is correct.\n\nOlder people lived through all kinds of claims ranging from global cooling to global warming to climate change caused by men to climate change influenced by men. So you either believe the latest science thing you hear, and likely be wrong, or you believe what you always believed, and likely be wrong. One is maybe more likely than the other, but there's still a good chance you're on the wrong side.\n\nFor most people switching beliefs won't have any positive impact. At worst the new scientific consensus is later reversed, and you are known for being a fool who can't even stick to a position. Kind of like the food pyramid is considered wrong now.",
"In the simplest terms possible. Because of pride. If your beliefs are wrong, then your are wrong. To admit you're wrong would be to admit some kind of failure in your part. Some people would rather stuff toothpicks between their nails than do that. ",
"By far the scariest thing on Reddit is the absolute certainty that things \"have been proven false\" (or true). Over the course of human history, including the modern times, nothing has been more dangerous than that certainty. It terrifies me about the Reddit generation.",
"People attach their beliefs to their identity. It's not something they know or think, but their beliefs are an aspect of who they are. To change their beliefs is to fundamentally change themselves and their worldview, which is a lot harder to modify than a mere fact they though to be true. It involves their emotions, personal history, memories, and cognitions from life experiences.",
"Your brain is receiving sensory signals from your eyes nose skin and ears, and it is having to in real time, decode understand and react to the current situation. Basically your brain creates the hallucination of reality from the perception from your sensory organs but because what you perceive agrees with what others perceive, we call it reality. \n\nOur brain through evolution is hard wired to recognize forms and figures and almost instantly be able to recognize and analyze the \"threat level\" of your surroundings. This is helpful for survival. If we could not so quickly analyze and react, our clawlessness, furlessness and lack of large teeth combined with terrible camouflage would surely have meant our species could not have made it. \n\nHow would your brain function if it didn't trust itself? If it was wired to question its interpretation rather than trust the perception that was digested by the brain. I'll tell you, you would have much more anxiety, more like a deer, easily frightened and unable to quickly react to large stimuli as it overwhelms the senses.\n\nHope this is the answer you were looking for. :)",
"Ooh, something I'm semi-qualified to answer! This is right in my field of research at the moment. There's a HUGE number of explanations for this so I'll just list the biggest reasons that immediately come to mind.\n\n1. Confirmation bias: people have a tendency not only to seek out, but to better remember information that is in line with their beliefs. It feels good being proven right, and so more often than not when debating an issue, we search up evidence that will support our point, rather than actively seeking to disprove ourselves. Even when we come across information that goes against our beliefs, we better remember information that supports our beliefs after the fact. E.g. for someone who doesn't believe in the human-caused climate change theory, they will much more easily and readily recall the studies and things they found online that disconfirm climate change, than the studies that support. In this regard, to many people your ELI5 alludes to, the things that you would suggest disprove their beliefs must seem few and far between compared to evidence supporting their beliefs.\n\n2. Naive realism: is an effect whose three tenets state (1) we believe we see the world objectively (2) we expect others to come to the same conclusion so long as they're rational and exposed to the same information (3) we assume that anyone who does not come to the same conclusion my be either biased, ignorant, or irrational. Basically, we take the huge assumption that the world is objectively how we see it (it'd be pretty hard to live life otherwise, always doubting your own perceptions of everything from temperature, to social etiquette, to valid science.) E.g. it's alot easier for someone who doesn't believe in the human-caused climate change theory who already takes in selective media through the websites they visit, and news they watch (as affected by the confirmation bias), to think that people who present a different point of view are ignorant or irrational, than to adopt a new belief.\n\n3. Rather than taking someone else's viewpoint as a distinct viewpoint, in discussion settings, individuals with differing beliefs tend to view the other side as attacking their beliefs, while they believe they are objectively presenting their beliefs. Both sides think this, and as a result discussions like this often don't get anywhere. This also ties in with what's referred to as the conflict spiral. Since both people feel attacked, in a debate/discussion with differing beliefs, people tend to present their opinion more certainly and more strongly than what they actually believe. E.g. if someone who doesn't believe in the human-caused climate change theory is feeling attacked and backed into a corner in a debate, it wouldn't make much sense for them to express the mixed messages and merits of both sides of the issue, even if they believe there is a few good arguments on the other side and even if they're only like 85% certain of their view. They want to \"win\" this argument so they portray themselves as being absolutely without doubt, and the climate change believers and having no merit in their argument whatsoever. Both sides engage in this, and rather than conversing to understand each other's view, they try to convince each other with increasing argument extremity, and get increasingly frustrated when this doesn't work.\n\nSource: I'm a final year undergraduate honours psychology student conducting research in political psychology attempting to reduce falsely perceived adversary viewpoint extremity (known as the false polarization effect) through perceiving the adversary as an intelligent friend.\n\nIf anyone's interested I could post some relevant studies, but I'm too busy to look them up at the immediate moment. Confirmation Bias, and Naive Realism should be pretty easy to look up online. The conflict Spiral and study on people's perceptions of others in debates is more recent research and could be a little harder to find. Hope this helps explain!\n\nedit 1: changed some unintentionally biased wording (changed \"denier\" to \"someone who doesn't believe in human-caused climate change theory\" (we all fall prey to biases!)\n",
"I think it boils down to animal instincts, as the top post states.\nIt's like a self defense mechanism.\nIt's flat out denial. \n\nWith denial, what are you doing?\nBasically you're protecting yourself from reality, because you can't admit that you're wrong, or that you have a problem.\n\nAs civilized human beings, you would think that we would realize this as a weakness.\nBut many of us still see it as strength.\nThat's the core of so much ignorance I feel like. \n\nMany of us don't seem to realize that there is a big difference between being in denial about something when, say, you have to push yourself to do something. \nPerhaps you have to convince yourself that you're stronger that you really are to get a few extra reps at the gym, or to continue working 100hrs a week while starting your own business.\nThat can be a benefit of denial.\nBut the difference is those things require other components as well. \nDiscipline. Self control. \nDiscipline and self control isn't easy.\nSo, you are combining some of your most firmly rooted animal instincts (denial/self defense mechanisms) which are easy because they come natural to you, with what we have learned generally works for most people as civilized human beings (discipline and self control). Things that are not easy.\n\nThis is much different than trying to justify a lack of self control, discipline, and the self awareness it takes to realize this.\n\nIf you can't accept reality, that is a genuine weakness. It's a lack of self control and discipline. Generally a complete lack of self awareness as well. \n\nWe all get duped. We all get confused.\nWe all get hurt. Some us more so than others. This can and generally does make it more difficult for people to change their beliefs.\nTechnology has added to the confusion, hurt, and getting duped.\nIt has allowed for us to have our beliefs challenged like never before.\nMeanwhile, some people still try to stay in their little bubble, and I feel like, that's okay if you're simply trying to avoid the confusion and chaos. \nBut It's not healthy to stay in your little bubble to avoid accepting reality. \n\nSome of us were raised to be free and think for ourselves. Some of us didn't have a choice but to learn on our own and think for ourselves because our parents weren't around. \n\nAnd some of us were raised in households were things were quite strict, traditional, and where we were basically told or manipulated into how to think (by our parents).\n\nI think that, is a HUGE difference.",
"My dad refuses to believe that our government would manipulate information to create a false flag incident like Gulf of Tonkin or be conicity in 9/11. He feels any effort to expose him to the facts diminishes his service and heroism to his country. He'd simply prefer to rely on cognitive dissonance to deal with theses things because the truth exposes him to a world he'd rather not recognize he's a part of creating.",
"According to Jonathan Haidt in his excellent book *The Righteous Mind*, rationality is merely a tool emotions evolved in order to fulfill their inherent desires. The misconception is that emotions somehow are superfluous to the human experience, an artifact of human history. This is not the case. Every desire and *want* you have is inherently emotional - inherently inherent - and your rational mind is merely co-opted as a tool to fulfill those desires. Emotion gives you the what, and rationality gives you the how.\n\nGoing off the beaten path a bit, when it comes to **belief**, we're talking about something that could be more closely tied to your emotional desires than you realize. There's a desire to conform to society, to be *right* and proper, but this desire could come secondary and tertiary to a desire to placate your deepest fears and fulfill your deepest fantasies about reality.\n\nTL;DR humans are emotional creatures and rationality is a tool that may be utilized for various purposes you don't realize, both in yourself and the person you're trying to convince",
"I will go against the grain here a little bit . I think the main reason is that it is immensely difficult to 'prove' anything more complicated than a basic statement of fact.\n\nBecause to argue honestly means saying things like 'the preponderance of evidence says' or 'it is highly unlikely that', phrases which leave room for doubt. So people who want to believe something simple seize on the *possibility*.\n\nSeriously, unless you've argued against a slick religion apologist or someone deep into conspiracy theories, you have no idea just how difficult it is to conclusively prove something. \n\nI've always said that average person would probably lose a debate on something ridiculous like the Sandy Hook 'conspiracy' or the moon landing 'hoax' for this reason. ",
"It would appear that consciousness is nothing more than a system by which the subconscious can navigate the world, an ongoing process of acquisition and the gathering of information. This information is then used to formulate an understanding of the physical world. The more varied the stimuli the conscious mind is exposed to, the more divergent the understanding. The greatest polymaths of every age seemed to perpetually be choosing new areas to explore and delve deeper into. Limiting the areas of discovery to a certain sphere of experience or prevailing opinion only limits the understanding. The goal being that the whole new perception is ultimately greater than the sum of the experiences upon which it is built. Consciousness changes ingrained perception most rapidly when expectations are subverted. If everything proceeds as ever, what use is it to analyze the same experiences hoping to garner new meaning? The brain streamlines what would otherwise be an overwhelmingly complex process. Processing sensory input and absorbing new ideas would be inefficient and unbearably complicated if the mind were incapable of formulating simple narratives and rationalized explanations for the complexities of daily experience. The effectiveness of the process is entirely dependent upon the scope of the preexisting summary narratives. The greater the scope of the summary narrative, the greater the ease with which things of great complexity can be satisfactorily explained. The stronger the grip of an ideology the easier it is to ignore experience that doesn't coincide with the internalized narratives of one's subconscious. It is no accident that very nearly every major religion on the planet has some sort of confessional aspect accompanied by some form of reflective or meditative practice. The rationalization of things not fully explained by the simplistic process of apperception requires retrospection and a deeper sort of cognition to alleviate the hysteria of not understanding. Keeping an open mind is the practice of allowing ones summary narratives to be bypassed for the purpose of entertaining a new, and likely more nuanced understanding. If one were to remove this system of narratives and understanding or alter it in some irreparable way it would be impossible to interpret the torrent of incoming stimulus. We might be seen as going mad, as sinking into a sort of self destructive intellectual nihilism. If our experience is destroyed, our behavior will become destructive. We have the right and the duty as a sentient species to explore our inner selves thoroughly, to escape from the outer world, to break away. We must unerringly insist on self-analysis, however frightening this may be. This is our only means of choice, our only true assumption of responsibility, we should not fear the necessity of losing restraint in order to know ourselves.\n",
"Ok, literally like you're five: Fear of change, laziness, lack of introspection, misinformation. \n\nAdopting new ideas is difficult for some people. The dogma's/beliefs they hold lay at the foundation of their personality. \nChanging beliefs/religion would mean that some'd have to adapt their behaviour, and potentially break away from the most fervent members of their community/church/family (peer pressure).\n\nMankind as a whole is relatively lazy: most technological advances serve the purpose of easing our daily toil. Schools don't always have time to teach free thinking/open-mindedness and curiosity. Not everyone'll spontaneously challenge his own views and positions.\nThus, why would someone bother change his perspective if he's in his comfort zone?\n\nSociety and streamline media make a great job of shaming/alienating different views, it takes a lot of courage and perseverance to go against the grain. Seems like they're still trying to divide mankind in two parts: we good, they bad.\nWhen everyone agrees with your views, you get the feeling you're doing well, which in turn strengthens your faith in your ideas.\n\nThis is luckily all starting to change thanks to the Internet (not looking at you FaceBook), and easier access to educational material ( b o o k s ). ",
"The mind is divided into a rider and an elephant. The rider, who speaks and is reasonable (supposedly), is our intellect and we like to think he guides the elephant, but he really exists to explain the actions of the elephant. The elephant, our emotional part, does things automatically and believes not new information but what we already believed. We try to persuade other's riders when we need to persuade the elephant. You need to get to the truthiness, the feeling. If you don't feel like it could be right you will find so many reasons why it isn't right; the rider will find reasons why the elephant is stomping around. If you want to persuade someone, talk to the elephant. \"Gut feeling\" is what you need to change, which is why it is so hard to change people's minds about anything.\n\nJohnathan Haidt talked about this metaphor in *The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and be Politics* in great detail and I highly recommend the book. Here is part of an interview which he explains the elephant and rider piece _URL_0_",
"I don't know why this is tagged Biology. This is a lot more to do with psychology. Just as a foundation of our own sanity, all people believe themselves to be infallible. That is why you judge yourself based on your intentions and others based on their actions. _You_ are not bad. You have _reasoning_ for that bad thing you did. Or you _meant_ to do good. Even objectively bad things you have done are excusable. They were learning experiences or an exception to the rule that it was bad.\n\nBeing _wrong_ is a part of this. People have a hard time believing they are wrong. Evolutionarily, it may be that self-doubt leads to incorrect decisions or an inability to make decisions. But believing oneself to be infallible is a foundation for _all_ humans, across the board. Even those who think they are open to being wrong or even think themselves to be bad people. They fall into the same pithole that when someone tells them they are bad or incorrect, they defensively shoot it down.",
"Just my 2c here but everything we *know* is rooted in a belief. Knowledge itself is rooted in axiomatic thoughts... Just like knowledge about the outcome of a mathematical operation relies on axiomatic thoughts about the relationships between numbers. Much like a house, beliefs represent a foundation, and knowledge represents the structure built on it.\n\nAs a result, any challenge to beliefs, especially beliefs which underpin someone's perceptions of right and wrong, or beliefs which underpin a person's perception of purpose and personal value, are grave threats to their entire way of life. To most of us insane apes, it's far better to continue with inaccurate beliefs rather than disrupting all the knowledge built on top of them, especially when the knowledge, while inaccurate, is still good enough to allow a pretty successful life.\n\nWe even have a term for someone whose beliefs have been successfully changed and been left with a collapsed structure of knowledge: *existential crisis*.\n\nThe thing is, existential crisis can end very messily. People will try to make the smallest possible change they can to maintain what was already there in their minds, to maintain as much knowledge as they can. Or make insane workarounds. Or be left gibbering and panicked until they hurt themselves or others. Moreover, even if someone CAN recover from existential crisis, it doesn't mean it's easy or quick. Much like after a natural disaster, it takes time to clean up the debris, time that could have been spent doing anything else.\n\nSo of course humans have evolved to defend our *foundations of knowledge* against an attack, and when we see similar attacks, to further insulate our beliefs from harm, because those beliefs are foundations which support knowledge.\n\nIf you want to challenge someone's beliefs, you're going to have to sell them on having an existential crisis. And good luck with that.",
"Prove? You can't prove anything except in mathematics. Everything else is just providing evidence. You can't intuitively explain things without holes and those holes can be pretty damn big.\n\nTo truly understand something you need to dig really deep. Ask enough why questions and you end up with \"we don't know\".\n\nIt all boils down to trust. You TRUST that the guy explaining it is truthful. You TRUST that the science is correct, you TRUST.\n\nUsually the guy doesn't explain it correctly, usually the science is not bullet proof, usually the government/corporation etc. has an agenda. If you dont trust it, you won't believe it. For them we are like a super religious cult, because we are. Unless you personally dig all the way down to the axioms (aka you have a PhD in the thing) you simply believe it is true because someone said it is.\n\nA lot of our conceptions of science and facts are misleading. For most things we can't explain them. We can give a rough guess, but unless there is a mathematical model that is correct 100% of the time in our experiments, it's a VERY rough guess. Most things are fundamentally unpredictable and unexplainable like weather and if you dig deep enough, everything is like that.",
"It's all linked to the same human nature that makes it so easy for the media to persuade people.\n\nOur species developed communication in order to pass truths on to people who hadn't learned them yet.\n\n\"Don't drink from that pond, you'll get sick.\"\n\n\"Don't eat mushrooms, they are poison.\"\n\n\"Here is how you can try to set a broken bone.\"\n\n\"Here is a set of walking instructions to find a place that has awesome blueberries this time of year.\"\n\nOur brains are wired to accept all communication as a truth that needs to be remembered for our own survival. Unfortunately this can be taken advantage of.\n\nIn the case of changing beliefs? Well that means that you have to admit to yourself that someone might have been untruthful with you and that you were foolish.",
"Cognitive Dissonance!\n\nI'm a former Jehovah Witness. I struggled to accept that my beliefs weren't true. I was indoctrinated and brainwashed heavily since I was a child. JWs colloquially refer to their belief as \"the truth.\" So, upon learning how corrupt the Watchtower Society is (essentially JW's divine headquarters), did I simply accept that my beliefs were false? Hell no! At first I thought it was lies, then I made up excuses (oh, it's just imperfect men, no big deal) to finally accepting that it's not \"the truth.\" So, essentially, there's massive psychological cycles at work when this kind of change happens. If something petty that you believed is proven false, you wouldn't have an emotional breakdown. If you found your beliefs which you called \"the truth\" were proven false, you would have an emotional breakdown. Deep down, you know that. So cognitive dissonance is a protection against it, even if it fights clear and straight logic.",
"In my life time eggs have been declared good then bad then good then bad then good for you by a majority of experts. In the 60's we were going to run out of food, in the 70's the world was going to plunge into an ice age. In the 80's we were going to run out of oil. Hang in there, global warming and rising sea levels will follow suit. ",
"I find all the answers are written from the point of view of reason. I can give you my opinion as a Christian and I think is not possible to apply reason to something that lives in another dimension of perception.\n\nFor me a religion is just a set of rules, very different from spirituality. I don't consider myself a religious person but a spiritual guy. \n\nWhen you say \"proven to be false\" is from a scientifical/factual point of view. We you live a profound change in your life you feel it in a spiritual way and l you won't be able to understand it in your whole life using your cognitive or emotional intelligence, I'm talking about different dimensions of understanding and feeling.\n\nI think people who don't believe in nothing(\"religious\" level) only think in terms of cognitive and emotional intelligence so your brain tells you \"it's nonsense to believe in something that has been proven to be false\" I've read the facts, I saw a video that proved this or I studied physics and you can't prove that etc etc.\n\nFor me there is a whole new dimension that you can't undersand unless you experiment it by yourself.\n\nI believe strongly because of my faith. not because I \"know\" for \"fact\" that it's true.",
"Sometimes they have a load bearing wall between their living room and kitchen. If this is the case, it becomes very difficult to take out that wall to give the house a more open feel. ",
"Because history shows that many of \"proven\" facts are false. Earth is flat, tomatoes are poisonous, we are center of universe, bears don't exist, cats can't hear low frequency sounds, global cooling, oceans level rise will kills us all by 2015. Science is mostly theory and isn't proven, its all best guesses so many people take \"facts\" with a grain of salt. ",
"Maybe they haven't been proven to be false? I'll stop believing when people give real reasons.",
"“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” -Carl Sagan",
"You want a real ELI5?\n\nPeople find fighting and lying easier than rebuilding a persona built on \"wrong.\" ",
"Human beings shape their view of the world constantly building on what they already know. We group things in a way that makes it easiest for us to understand and we seek identities too. Having a sense of understanding is a really comfortable feeling.\n\nHowever, when one of your beliefs is challenged, it is almost natural to become defensive of it because our perspective of the entire world is shaped on those beliefs. Visually I would compare it to building a house of cards, and when your house of cards is neatly stacked 100s of levels tall, you find out a playing car way down at the bottom is actually not a playing card but a plan square piece of cardboard. You can't replace the cardboard with a real card now without rebuilding the entire house, so it's easier to convince yourself and that the cardboard is a playing card or close enough to one that it doesn't even matter.\n\nThings need to have a concrete meaning in order to progress beyond it. It gives us a step to reach a higher level of understand which makes us very comfortable. Being open minded asks us to constantly reshape every thing we know, believe, and learn. This is not nearly as comfortable, since we want to find something true and commit to it.\n\nIf someone came up to me tomorrow and said there was some new kind of math that made all other mad obsolete or wrong, I'd probably keep doing the math I learned my whole life because I care about being able to deduct things from the world using it and it's worked since I learned it as a child.\n\nAbstract analogies to describe normal human behavior I think. Hopefully this all doesn't just sound crazy.\n\n",
"My boyfriend wrote this actual question and he's so happy it made it to the front page! :) thanks everyone for replying and putting in your thoughts. ",
"I think it was Victor Frankl's book \"Man's Search for Meaning\" that explained it best. The first bit describes his time in a holocaust concentration camp; he takes a moment to refute Freud's misguided notion that \"it's all about sex\" - people did various things, good and bad, as captives or captores, and very little revolved around sex. Then he goes on tod escribe his own theories. Basically, he says, as people grow up people build a world-view in their mind - this is how th world operates, this is how things happen and how people work. We have our biggest mental stress and other problems when we encounter situations at odds with what our models in our brain tell us what should be happening. \n\nSo if you believe in God and Jesus, or Communism, or white supremacy, or the inherent goodness of man, or that climate change is a hoax - or whatever - this model is ingrained in your brain. Having to admit it is wrong means having to completely change your world view which would . People will often deny (or at least ignore) evidence in front of their eye rather than change this world-view. Dealing with contradictions to their beliefs is stressful. \n\nWhy? because their entire behaviour is based on this model of the world. To change, they would have to completely rebuild their idea of how the world works from teh ground up, and that's a lot of work and very stressful. ",
"If your knowledge is like a web and you have to change one section of it it makes everything else you believe that much more prone to failure. We build our whole view of the world this way. If you let one thing go then you have to reexamine everything. Most people have a natural inclination to not want to do this. And rightfully so because it can be traumatic to the point of debilitating...\n\nAs an very quick example: This is why tragedies such as accidental deaths of close family or friends can be so hard to deal with. You believed they would be around, you made plans, you had a future, the plans you made involved that person etc. etc. etc. When that is no longer the case everything has to change. Not an easy task. \n\nBut when people get older, or get sick that web flexes and changes slowly, you have time to reinforce the other sections, so even though it is tragic, it is not as traumatic.",
"Am I the only one bothered by the \"their\" typo in the post?",
"I think it has a lot to do with the perception of other people's beliefs as well. Example: climate change. I grew up on a farm in central Texas. I've seen in my own life fluctuations in the micro-climate of my area, increased severity of droughts, increased severity of storms, increased frequency of dry- line fluctuations, etc. So yes I do believe in climate change as far as data and information is concerned, but I do not think it is the doomsday scenario that everyone seems to think it is. Because of this I am accused of being a denier and an ignorant jackass that doesn't believe in science. It's as though every belief in the world is broken down to a 0 or 1. Where either you 100% agree or you 100% disagree, and you're either 100% right or your 100% wrong. \n\nI personally think that despite our best efforts everyone is both right and wrong at the same time, and everyone has beliefs that are influenced by personal preferences or external dogmas. And we are too quick to assume that if someone disagrees with one thing than they obviously disagree with everything. \n\nNow as for the flat-earth people, there's no hope for them. ",
"Are you not a person with life experiences? Are you not a person any life at all? How has the answer to this question not dawned on you at all?...oh right, karma. ",
"Well, i could be wrong here, but maybe because they really believe that He/It is alive?",
"Because your beliefs aren't just a set of facts you hold. You are continuous with them and your personal identity is shaped by how you relate to them. Challenging your beliefs is seen as challenging your identity as a person. And we evolved from animals who had no reason to care about what was true. Mental assaults are seen as similar to physical assaults.",
"Everytime there's a little insignificant error my brain just has to highlight it and the only way to get it out of my head is \"their*\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance"
],
[],
[
"https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193499",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=383181",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=113512",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=121263",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=serra+ascendant",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=425844"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/b5SaY8tcNCo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance"
],
[],
[
"https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193499",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=383181",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=113512",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=121263",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=serra+ascendant",
"http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=425844"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/b5SaY8tcNCo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
bhcyx3 | how is my macbook air able to play videos at 1080p up to 4k, with a screen resolution of 1440x900? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhcyx3/eli5_how_is_my_macbook_air_able_to_play_videos_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"elru5ye"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"From wikipedia:\n\n > 1080p (1920×1080 px; also known as Full HD or FHD and BT.709) is a set of HDTV high-definition video modes characterized by 1,920 pixels displayed across the screen horizontally and 1,080 pixels down the screen vertically;\n\nObviously there's not enough pixels for standard 1080p. However, computers can downsample images - basically, they simulate the larger screen, figure out what the best colors for the larger but less numerous real pixels are based on their location, and then shows that composite color instead.\n\nSay you had a screen that was exactly 1/2 the size of the video. Lets say that the four small pixels were like this:\n\n`BLUE | BLUE`\n\n`BLUE | RED`\n\nTo compress that to a single larger pixel on the low-res screen, you'd make a color that's 75% blue and 25% red - a blueish purple. There are some fairly complex algorithms that map between larger images and smaller screens in such a way that it's visually appealing, but that's the rough gist of it.\n\nEdit: typos."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
36xoot | why would someone have small mirrors taped to their windows? | I walk by this apartment building on my street every day and I noticed they have small, round mirrors taped to every window, facing towards the street.
Why would someone do this???! It's been driving me nuts! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36xoot/eli5why_would_someone_have_small_mirrors_taped_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"crhytm0",
"cri1e1g",
"cri1fpm",
"cri343l",
"cri5i5w"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
12,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe some Feng Shui weirdness? I don't know. \n\nEDIT: I like the explanation that it's to help birds see that there is an impediment in their chosen flight path. ",
"Do they have sort of an octagonal frame? If they do, the family that lives there probably believes in some flavor of Chinese superstition, where the mirrors prevent evil spirits from entering your house because the spirits see themselves in the mirror and get scared away.",
"I've heard of people hanging CDs on their balconies to repel pigeons. Maybe this is something similar?",
"My guess is they've had birds hitting their windows, so when a bird is heading for the window it sees the reflection in the little mirror moving opposite it's motion so it avoids smashing into what looks otherwise like an open space. The converse is they have them there so the dog/cat inside the apartment doesn't jump up thinking the window is open, smashing into the glass.",
"clearly they have a series of other devices located about the place such that a laser beam reflects through the whole series, being demodulated at the end point to allow audio and visual surveillance of their neighborhood.\n\nSmile! You're on panopticon, old-school edition!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
16nsma | what does it mean to claim something on your taxes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16nsma/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_claim_something_on_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7xplf0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Let's say you're a photographer. You make $50,000 a year and you pay a 10% tax rate -- $5,000 each year.\n\nYou buy a new camera for $10,000. As a photographer, you *need* good cameras to do your job properly; it's a work expense. So you *claim this on your taxes*. When you report your income, you say \"Well, I made $50,000 -- but I spent $10,000 on a camera I *needed* to do that work.\" \n\nNow your state says \"Okay, since it was a necessary expense, your real income is only *$40,000*. So you'll pay $4,000 in tax.\"\n\nYou don't get the $10,000 you spent on the camera back, like some people seem to think. You just have the money you spent on work-necessary things deducted from what you report as your income."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2lij7s | regarding the panspermia theory, why would this be more likely than life being formed on our own planet? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lij7s/eli5_regarding_the_panspermia_theory_why_would/ | {
"a_id": [
"clv5ycr",
"clv7vl5",
"clvb1xw"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Timing is one possibility.\n\nThe earth is about 4 billion years old, the universe is 14 billion or so.\n\nIf evidence emerged that suggested live did not have enough time to evolve on earth alone, that would support panspermia as the likely origin of life.",
"It isn't. Panspermia is not a \"theory\" in the scientific sense, it has no evidence to support it, it's just a conjecture.\n\nIt hasn't been helped by the fact that the biggest supporters of it are scientific cranks like Chandra Wickramasinghe. For at least the last 20 years, he's been regularly making breathless announcements that he has STUNNING new evidence of panspermia, but when it comes time to actually pony that evidence up for scientific review, he suddenly discovers he left it in his other pants, or the dog ate it, or some shit. No mainstream astrobiologists take him seriously any more.\n\n",
"IMHO, panspermia isn't really a useful hypothesis, not because it's necessarily unlikely, but because it attempts to deal with a problem that does not yet exist.\n\nIt is assumed that the origin of life (abiogenesis) is a relatively rare event in the cosmos. The conditions on a world must be just so for complex, self-replicating systems to arise out of nothing. Panspermia makes the presence of life on a planet a more likely event, because now either the life could have arisen there OR the planet could have been seeded by some event (meteorite crash, etc.). If, for example, all the solid planets in our solar system supported life and yet we found it to be otherwise rare in the cosmos, we might look around and go, wait a second, why is this solar system special? One possible explanation would be that impacts carried microbes from planet to planet, which would eliminate the need for multiple independent abiogenesis events.\n\nIn the absence of any known life anywhere else, however, the utility of this idea is pretty limited. Maybe it's possible, and maybe it could, hypothetically, explain unlikely phenomena such as unusual distributions of life throughout the cosmos or relatedness of life forms from different planets. However, until any sort of life is found outside of earth, it's basically just a concept/possible explanation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5t2ilg | what is the thought process of americans who are surprised that many people around the world hate the united states? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t2ilg/eli5_what_is_the_thought_process_of_americans_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddjmh4q",
"ddjmof6",
"ddjmsg4",
"ddjmtct",
"ddjn342"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As an American who is aware of all those things, it is very weird that people argue with me when I say that those who don't hate us are just laughing at us. Either way we aren't real popular around the world, except when we blow cash at the tourist spots.",
"I can almost guarantee that the people who are genuinely shocked are the same ones that believe that the USA is unequivocally the greatest country in the world.\n\nI have no doubt that the rest of the world is laughing at us at best, if not outright loathing us. And for good reason. I don't have any love for my country, and wouldn't expect someone else looking from the outside in to like us, either.",
"Lack of education and understanding mainly. The U.S. contributes billions a year in aid and almost signal handedly polices international trade routes throughout the globe. To anyone just reading that soundbite, the U.S. sounds amazing and would be astonished to hear that they are disliked.\n\n",
"I think it's the fact that most people in the US are completely isolated from non-Americans, combined with relentless nationalistic propaganda ingrained in our culture.\n\nOh yeah, in case you haven't noticed, there's a long term trend of anti-intellectualism going on in the US right now that shits all over anything more nuanced than \"They hate us for our freedom.\"",
"FWIW, we have also maintained stability in places like Europe and Korea for literally decades, make huge contributions to charity, disaster relief, and provide medical support in places no one else can/will go. To focus on places like Iraq, Syria, and Libya as fuck ups is to ignore the tremendous benefits the US has given to the world. I have met many people who understand that their countries absolutely rely on the US for foreign and military aid, and many people who would be living under oppressive dictators if it was not for the US. \n\nAnd FWIW, I don't really give a shit what people in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Pakistan think about anything. They are enemy countries and they deserve to be destroyed. I don't expect them to like us."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
92dbso | how are box office earnings reported by movie theaters, and how are the total earnings calculated? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92dbso/eli5_how_are_box_office_earnings_reported_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"e34tqvz",
"e34w28z",
"e35ksbz"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the money taken for a ticket goes to the movie studio, and the theater makes their income off of concessions. The theaters must report ticket sales information and pay the studio their cut, so it's actually relatively easy for the studios to publish earnings numbers. ",
"I'd like to know why theatres and movie studios don't arrange a better offer of cuts so the customer isn't completely fucked in the process of having to pay $45 for 2 people after concessions. \n\nWe have a theatre that lets you bring in your own food...I mean they don't encourage it but they won't stop you. They also serve alcohol and it's the only thing you can't bring in..but buddy of mine who worked there said \"you could walk in with a papajohns pizza and you likely wouldn't be turned away\". \n\nOn the flip side I had a water bottle in my hand walking up to the theatre and when I was within 20 feet of the doors the speaker guy came on \"Excuse me sir, no outside drinks or food, please discard before coming in\". Like fuck you.",
"Box office ticket sales are reported to RenTrak which is a service that keeps track because of the large number of parties who are paid based on this number..\n\nTheaters receive all the proceeds until it reaches a pre-negotiated amount. After that the theater gets only around 10% depending on their agreement with the distributor.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2ibtrb | how websites like youtube and facebook handle the amount of people accessing the site simultaneously. | I don't really know anything about networking or whatever, so in this regard I am basically a 5 year old. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ibtrb/eli5_how_websites_like_youtube_and_facebook/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl0qeo8",
"cl0td44"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"There are many, many places that can serve the content of these sites. When you try to access the site so-called load balancers will get a local, non-busy resource to actually do the page creation for you and send the content and all that. ",
"Lots and lots of servers spread out around the world. \n\nA datacentre is a building designed to house servers and related equipment. Normally companies rent out space at one of them however companies like Google (which runs YT), FB, etc are large enough to have their own datacentres due to their specific and demanding bespoke requirements.\n\nHowever, the traffic levels are so high and users' speed and uptime expectations are so demanding that just one DC won't be enough. So what they do is build multiple DCs around the world and use special networking rules to determine which DC is closest to a user. This way, European users hit European servers, NA users hit NA servers, etc. \n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4lqr9d | why are medical procedure prices at hospitals in the us not easily available to the public? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lqr9d/eli5_why_are_medical_procedure_prices_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3pf1z9",
"d3pgd5o"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"1) they don't want to have medical price wars.\n\n2) there are about 20 different prices for any procedure depending on who and when the payment is made, basically ranging from Medicare's/Medicaid's price to prepaid cash on barrel to insurer reimbursements to uninsured cash after the fact to what the insurance companies are told it should cost. ",
"The amount of money that a procedure costs is going to be dependent on the procedure codes that the hospital or doctor decide to bill for. The problem is that it's impossible to determine what procedure codes you're going to bill for BEFORE the procedure itself occurs, especially if it's a surgical procedure.\n\nLet's take an example from a field that I know pretty well by this point, gastroenterology. Let's say you saw a gastroenterologist, he's recommended that you undergo a colonoscopy to remove and analyze polyps, and you've agreed to do it. If you asked the doctor for a price point, he honestly could not tell you what you will pay, especially if he's also going to charge you for the pathology. Firstly, he may not know how many polyps are going to be removed, because he hasn't actually examined your intestine with a colonoscope yet - the more samples he takes out, the more pathology is going to cost. Secondly, he may be in the middle of a colonoscopy and discover a small tumor - he didn't know that it was there, but he's not going to ignore it, finish the procedure, tell you that he found a small tumor that may or may not be cancerous, and order another colonoscopy to remove it; he's gonna take some hot forceps and he's going to remove it in the middle of your polyp procedure. But that's an entirely separate procedure, and the doctor absolutely needs to be paid for that part as well, so he's gonna charge your insurance company for it. This isn't an uncommon scenario - about 25% of colonoscopies that I see end up having some other procedure attached to it that the doctor only knew he would need to perform midway through the original procedure. There's about 4 separate codes that I see regularly, and they all have different price points based on the materials that the doctor needs for those specific procedures.\n\nThis isn't even getting into what your particular insurance will pay for each particular procedure code. They're all different, and what you yourself will be paying depends on your specific plan and whether you've met your deductible (if you have one). And the exact amount is going to be determined by your insurance company, not the facility. \n\nThe overall cost is going to depend on the extensiveness of the procedure that's being performed, as well as any extraneous procedures that the doctor or facility decides to perform during the initial procedure simply because they don't want to take risks with the patient's health. Unfortunately, both of those things are impossible to determine before the procedure itself occurs.\n\nIt's a fundamental problem of medicine, but hopefully, one can see why we do this. Understand that if we stick to preplanned procedures with set prices, we end up with ridiculous situations like the \"I took polyps to see if you have cancer or not, and noticed a gigantic tumor that was probably cancerous, but I didn't do anything about it because that's not what we were here for; you'll have to schedule another date if you want that removed\" situation. That's a whole 'nother level of insanity that we should not be striving for."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
87punw | when driving at night why do the headlights on other cars seem much brighter some nights & much dimmer others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87punw/eli5_when_driving_at_night_why_do_the_headlights/ | {
"a_id": [
"dweoydr",
"dwf0jql"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Two major things:\n\n1. Some lights **are** much brighter than others. Modern LED/Xenon/Halogen lights are significantly brighter than older incandescent designs.\n\n2. Headlights are adjustable and lots of cars just don't have their headlights aligned properly so, instead of pointing at the road in front of the vehicle, point straight ahead, upward or even into oncoming traffic.",
"The amount of surrounding light will greatly influence how you perceive headlights. \n\nIt’s my understanding this has to do with pupil dilation. \nYour pupils grow large at night to take in more light. So approaching a light after being in darkness can be blinding. \n\nThough you may not notice, nights vary in darkness. Whether it’s moonlight, or the amount of surrounding light sources, things effect how dark it really is. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
34hf8v | where does the electricity go when something is plugged in but not charging? | Or is fully charged, or is plugged into the socket but not hooked into anything | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34hf8v/eli5_where_does_the_electricity_go_when_something/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqupzsy",
"cquq5tq",
"cqv74bt",
"cqvc6fv"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"it doesn't go anywhere. if the charger is not putting the energy into the phone battery, the electricity doesn't flow. ",
"It doesn't. A small amount is wasted by the charger (just as if nothing was plugged into the charger) and a small amount is used by the device (which would come from the battery if it wasn't plugged into the charger).",
"The same place the water goes when a tap is off.\n\nIn both cases there is pressure, but no flow. And in both cases power equals pressure times flow, so no flow means no power.",
"It's all like water in a closed system of pipes; by plugging something you're increasing length of pipe."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
kzgum | why do we have 7 days in the week? would society suffer if there were 8 days? | Would an extra day of weekend be bad for anyone? Who decided that there should be 7 days in a week? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kzgum/why_do_we_have_7_days_in_the_week_would_society/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2oign0",
"c2ojb3u",
"c2ojf0y",
"c2okcio",
"c2oign0",
"c2ojb3u",
"c2ojf0y",
"c2okcio"
],
"score": [
46,
54,
7,
9,
46,
54,
7,
9
],
"text": [
"It would probably decrease economic output. The 7 day week thing is based on lunar cycles. It takes 7 days between the 4 phases, and the month was based entirely on the cycle of the moon. When we switched calendars we kept that aspect, based on tradition. ",
"The Beatles song *8 Days a Week* just wouldn't be as effective anymore. ",
"It would be bad because it would make the average (American) life expectancy plummet from about 78 years down to 76.64.",
"Check out information about the 28 hour day. I would totally do this.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It would probably decrease economic output. The 7 day week thing is based on lunar cycles. It takes 7 days between the 4 phases, and the month was based entirely on the cycle of the moon. When we switched calendars we kept that aspect, based on tradition. ",
"The Beatles song *8 Days a Week* just wouldn't be as effective anymore. ",
"It would be bad because it would make the average (American) life expectancy plummet from about 78 years down to 76.64.",
"Check out information about the 28 hour day. I would totally do this.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dbeat.com/28/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dbeat.com/28/"
]
]
|
|
1rebe2 | why don't radio stations play more variety? | it's always the seemingly same 20 songs. Also every city seems to have the same types of radio (oldie, alt rock, hip hop, etc). I imagine radio stations themselves get tired of playing the same stuff all the time, why is there seemingly no radio station not on satellite playing variety? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rebe2/eli5_why_dont_radio_stations_play_more_variety/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdme1j7",
"cdme3lp",
"cdmeo84",
"cdmg0mh"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The goal of a radio station isn't to provide variety but to appeal to a specific population.",
"It's all demographic-based. If a teen girl turns to her favorite Top 40 station and Macklemore isn't playing nearly 24/7, she'll go to the station that does /r/circlejerk Macklemore. If they play a big variety, they'll get less viewers. Sadly, it's the truth. ",
"I think they assume that people don't listen ALL DAY... so they have the most popular songs on a fairly frequent rotation. But yeah... if you do have the radio on all day the repetition gets pretty annoying.",
"I was curious about this too about a decade ago. I just stopped listening to the radio, because it was a constant repeat of the same very mediocre to bad songs. The reality is that large corporations started to buy up radio stations in the 70s. In an effort to save money, they created playlists and just repeated them on different stations throughout the country. In short, research Clear Channel, and it will all make sense."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
85k6vp | if a normal gps can work without a data connection, why can’t our phones and tablets get the full functionality of a gps while offline? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85k6vp/eli5_if_a_normal_gps_can_work_without_a_data/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvxz7o0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's a good question. I've often wondered about that as well. I've seen this in weather apps. They can tell you everywhere you are but up to a certain point...then you're directed to turn your location on for \"full features\"."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5f9b7o | why/how can "darknet" or "deepweb" exist, especially if a lot of illegal things supposedly happen there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f9b7o/eli5_whyhow_can_darknet_or_deepweb_exist/ | {
"a_id": [
"daihjwj",
"daini3w"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Because it relies on special encryption techniques so that the systems that host the sites and the people who run them can remain anonymous.",
"The 'Deep Web' is really just a broad term to refer to anything that isn't indexed by search engines. There's a ton of very normal stuff on the deep web. \n\nThe Dark Web is a subset of this, which is only accessed via special software. You can't really control what software people use, nor what information they communicate (especially encrypted) so it's practically impossible to stop it from happening."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3eo1j5 | if donald trump "doesn't represent" the values of the gop as some have stated, why is he leading the race for the gop nomination? don't his poll numbers show that he represents gop values better than anyone else in the race? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eo1j5/eli5_if_donald_trump_doesnt_represent_the_values/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctgqp4x",
"ctgqxiv",
"ctgqyu1",
"ctgrkev"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"He doesn't represent the values of the party leadership and, more importantly, their top financial contributors. This doesn't matter to him, as he can finance his own campaign, but it definitely rustles the jimmies of anyone hoping for corporate handouts to their GOP campaign.",
" > Doesn't the fact that (according to recent polls) more Republicans want him as their president than any other \"establishment\" candidate demonstrate unequivocally that he actually represents the party's values more accurately than Perry, Bush, or others do?\n\nThat's not really the conclusion you can draw. He's doing the best out of anyone, but he's not anywhere close to a majority - he's averaging just under 20%. He could still be way out of the mainstream, and it's just that the mainstream voters are split across about a dozen other candidates.",
"He is everything a Republican wants. A person who isn't afraid to speak his mind and the truth about our country.",
"- He's a celebrity - if George Clooney or Mark Cuban ran for president they would get a lot of early votes\n\n- There are a lot of angry and pissed off voters, and Trump's bombastic speaking style and self-reliance will get him some support\n\n- In more in depth polls much more people would not vote for him in the primary/general because nobody sees him as a viable long term candidate (no clear agenda, scandals (Trump U, divorces), and past democratic support)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
49i4rn | why do people talk about depression like it has no cause? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49i4rn/eli5_why_do_people_talk_about_depression_like_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0rxxhx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Though depression can be caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, what people mean when they say that depression has no cause is that, often, depressive episodes arrive randomly, without regard to external stimuli or events. Unfortunately, it's difficult to combat this sort of thing because there's no particular action you can take to avoid it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1snl2w | what are exactly ashes? and how are they formed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1snl2w/eli5what_are_exactly_ashes_and_how_are_they_formed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdzdcgl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It varies. But typically it is made up of calcium carbonate or calcium oxide. It tends to have some iron oxide and other minerals that the wood had contained that didn't fly out the chimney. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2waja1 | how can stores like target close hundreds of stores and lay off thousands of employees, yet still have stores "opening soon" for which they are "now hiring?" | Saw the news that Target will be closing "all 133 stores in Canada" and "over 17,000 employees" while the CEO rakes in $61 million.
However, I know of two Targets - Target Expresses, specifically - opening near me (Berkeley and San Francisco). | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2waja1/eli5_how_can_stores_like_target_close_hundreds_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cop1ny3",
"cop1ofs"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"A lot of it depends on location. Aside from the CEO's ridiculous paycheck, most of it is about a specific store's profitability. If a store doesn't make money, it's pointless to keep it open. It's possible they're leaving Canada because of new policies or laws going into effect, or they just don't have a big enough market to keep trying at. ",
"This is quite simple actually if you study a bit you will realize Target is closing Canadian stores. The stores opening near you are in the U.S. Target's sales in Canada are bad. Target's sales in America are doing great. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
39j5t9 | what is the fair tax act of 2015 and its pros and cons? | _URL_0_
This is the bill in question.
I saw post saying it allows us to keep our whole paycheck, and abolishes the IRS? What is it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39j5t9/eli5_what_is_the_fair_tax_act_of_2015_and_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs3t153"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"same thing ignorant people have been putting on their beater truck for decades.\n\nAbolish the IRS and charge a flat % \"sales tax\" on purchases.\n\nWhats curious is that its the poor that support it. the ones that spend 100% of their income and would get taxed hard, while bill gates can bank 99.9% of his income and wont pay a dime on it because he didnt spend it at walmart."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/25"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
294zm2 | why do i think something is a good idea when i am in bed at night, but when i wake up the next day i am too nervous to do it or think it wont work out? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/294zm2/eli5_why_do_i_think_something_is_a_good_idea_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cihgxxa",
"cihgz2e",
"cihh8p2",
"cihhf2i",
"cihhn2u",
"cihjc3l",
"cihl63n",
"cihnhf6",
"cihnrbv",
"cihonqn",
"cihr0hd",
"cihr62b",
"cihro8e"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
15,
5,
210,
13,
37,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the next day is dark and full of terrors.",
"Are you a drinker by any chance?",
"Because when you're tired, your brain is less active, about 1/3^rd as active IIRC. If your brain isn't working that hard, you become less anxious, which causes you to think more logically and less based on emotion.\n\nWhen you're done sleeping, your brain is back at full power with normal levels of anxiety. I suggest masturbating in the morning then try testing the integrity of your ideas",
"Your serotonin levels are higher before you go to bed and are cratering when you first wake up. ",
"Everything your brain does requires energy, including \"nothing.\" Specifically, to stop yourself from having certain types of thoughts (let's call them \"dumb ideas\"), other parts of your brain capable of critical thinking, evaluation, scenario modeling & if-then extrapolation have to exert metabolic energy. Late at night, when you're tired, your brain has quite a bit less energy, and that means less energy for inhibitory functions. \n\nThat means your thoughts are freer to wander haphazardly, following their own chains of association without anyone trying to fact-check them, edit for decency or obscenity or simple shame. This can be \"bad\" but it can also be good to have \"dumb ideas.\" For one thing, you might learn something about yourself and how you \"really\" think when the scolds of logic and morality let down their guard. For another, they said the pacemaker was a \"dumb idea,\" etc.",
"Because you aren't faced with actually having to complete whatever task or make whatever decision it is that you're thinking about. This means that your impulses or fight/flight aren't part of the equation. \n\nIt's the same reason you tell yourself you're going to do something the next day, because it's the smartest thing to do and would be the most productive thing to do, but when the time comes, you don't want to do it out of laziness. ",
"Every single night I promise myself I'm going to get up early and make a healthy breakfast before work but every morning I push the snooze button until the very last minute and go to work hungry and hurried.",
"Different mood, different ambiance, causes differences in perception.\n\n",
"Because your bed is a magical place where all your dreams come true. ",
"I've been wondering this too. What should i trust more, my night self or my morning self?",
"I know for me its because I am sober in the morning.",
"For essentially the same reason that we make impulsive decision when we're drunk. Reduced inhibition means that we're free to think or do things we ordinarily stop ourselves from thinking or doing. Being tired has the same effect in a lot of ways as being drunk, so your mind is more or less free to wander. The next morning, you're free to think of all the reasons you shouldn't do something, whether they're good or not.",
"Not a scientist, but I think ideas are always way better in theory, and when it comes time to execute, laziness sets in and we try to come up with as many \"excuses\" to not follow through with the idea. If the benefit outweighs the risk, your brain gives the proverbial green light."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4h6u6c | why can people discern absolute color through sight but not absolute pitch through hearing? | To clarify, I can look at an object and be able to name its color, but I can't hear a note and name its pitch. How come? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h6u6c/eli5_why_can_people_discern_absolute_color/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2nvjhd",
"d2nxfwv"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There is more to it than that.\n\nYou may be able to give a color grouping, but many people when faced with hundreds of hues have trouble sorting them in order, there are actually tests you can take online to show how good you are at identifying color variation.\n\nSome people have what is called perfect pitch, they can hear and identify music notes, and even replicate them simply by hearing them. Many of the very best musicians have that talent. Bradley Nowell from Sublime supposedly had it, and his musical range was fantastic.\n\nIt's estimated that about 1 in 10,000 people have this ability.",
"Mostly it's due to training and evolution. It is important for you to be able to identify absolute color. There are a *ton* of color signals in nature, from what is food, what is poisonous, which animals are prettier. If you're looking a frog, for instance, you need to know *right now* if it's bright orange and red (so, you know, [poisonous](_URL_0_), not \"is this frog more or less red or green compared to this leaf?\"\n\nSound, on the other hand, is more valuable as relationships between pitches. You kind of need to know if a pitch is high or low, but otherwise pitch only matters in relation to other pitches. You don't need to know that this noise is precisely A440, you just need to know that it's half the pitch of this other A220 that sounds the same, and half-*way* to this E330. A high pitch doesn't necessarily mean anything, but a high**er** pitch than normal does (excitement, fear, etc.). If you just looked for absolute pitch as an indicator, people like [Maria Bamford](_URL_1_) would sound permanently afraid of anything. Instead, we notice her normal pitch and then notice if her voice goes higher or lower.\n\nHowever, with the right training, people can absolutely have perfect pitch. It's most commonly associated with [synesthesia](_URL_2_), which makes a kind of sense because synesthetes often associate pitch with color (which we naturally want to be processed absolutely rather than relatively). In cultures that use a tonal language (like Chinese), where the pitch isn't just inflection but a part of the actual grammar, the instances of perfect pitch seem to be higher ."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/11/poison-dart-frog-pumilio-defenses-s2048x1372-p.jpg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe17RymMqWI",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia"
]
]
|
|
5kx2sh | why monster energy is bad for you and how much better is the zero calories version for you? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kx2sh/eli5_why_monster_energy_is_bad_for_you_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbr7ztc"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"I don't know of any objective reason they are any worse than your average soda. The added vitamins, guarana and such are relatively safe substances. The caffeine content is high but realistically is equivalent to two stiff cups of coffee - plenty of people drink more coffee than that on a daily basis. \n\nThe only issues I know of regarding energy drinks are basically overconsumption, or people consuming them in place of water. I know of at least one case of kidney failure, but that person was drinking upwards of 6 energy drinks a day in place of water while doing heavy construction work. The issue was more dehydration than anything. \n\nBasically just don't exceed 1-2 a day and drink plenty of water and it's no different than drinking Coke. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2xmgi0 | it's sunday night during winter and a storm starts dumping snow all over the roads, what is going on behind the scenes to get all the roads cleared for monday morning? | I see city/state plows and private plows and trucks dumping salt, what is going on behind the scenes to plan, act and coordinate all of this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xmgi0/eli5_its_sunday_night_during_winter_and_a_storm/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp1f23g",
"cp1litd",
"cp2iwtu"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"City and highways plan accordingly.\n\nThe highway patrols sends snowplows up and down the highway regularily so there isn't too much snow to push at once.\n\nThe city often spreads abbrasives on sidewalks and street corners before the storm to keep it safe until they pass.\n\nDuring the snow they will focus on clearing the main roads and will clear the bus stops.\n\nIn the early hours(4AM to 7AM), if there is too much snow, they will send plows and snow blowers( and trailer trucks to take the snow to a disposal site or a river/coast) to clear the main roads in the way traffic is going during the morning rush hour. They will then do the roads going across the city and then clear the roads being used for the evening rush hour.\n\nMontreal is known for their efficiency in this SO here is what they do:\n\n* They post signs attached to the parking sign telling the snow removal crew will pass in about 12h( they often forget so but lets no go into this)\n\n* The tow truck usually pass 2-1h before the crew blaring horns 2-3 times over 30 mins. any car left is usually towed out of the way but not impounded\n\n* the sidewalk plows push all the snow toward the street. then a wheeled Bulldozer powers through the many snowbanks and ice left near the curb and brings to a level that makes it easy for the\n\nLastly a grader brings all the snow to the center of the road and [this](_URL_0_) happens\n",
" > What is going on behind the scenes to get all the roads cleared \n\nIn the Sun Belt, not much can be done simply because there aren't many plows and not much salt. Salt will be applied primarily to bridges since a bridge will ice before the road does. Schools will be closed, since there's no way all the snow will be cleared before school buses would have to run.",
"I have moved to a rich little town this year (no I am not rich) and I have been absolutely AMAZED at what they do to clear out the snow. It is a very small town but there is literally a fleet of plows at work the entire time it is snowing. In my little neighborhood which has maybe 3 dozen houses (on large lots) I swear there were up to three plows at a time and they literally went by like once an hour. They would spend time waiting until there was a little snow built up. As far as I know the same thing was happening at the same time all over town. THEN when there was snow built up from shoveling and plows in the main part of the town they brought in dumpsters and those bucket construction vehicles and literally scooped up the extra snow and hauled it away never to be seen again. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE6N7CDV-9s"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3ii6km | why can shots injected in your butt go anywhere, while other shots need a vein? | Wow, came back from class and the gym and this had way more replies than I expected! Thanks for all the input! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ii6km/eli5_why_can_shots_injected_in_your_butt_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"cugm8dg",
"cugqnda",
"cugsbhj",
"cugsn09",
"cugtx4u",
"cugu69o",
"cugvb81",
"cuh1145",
"cuhac55"
],
"score": [
772,
43,
5,
40,
3,
12,
129,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's called an Intramuscular injection and it doesn't have to be in the ass. It is often in the shoulder or thigh, too. Basically a slower delivery method than an Intravenous injection. Used when you want the drug to hit slower. ",
"no injections (other than IV) actually go directly into the vein. it either goes into the fatty tissue or into the muscle. (or directly under the skin, like with a TB test/PPD)",
"The muscle has a rich blood supply so when a big ball of fluid is deposited within the belly of the muscle, osmosis moves that fluid slowly into the general circulation. It's basically the same way nutrients are picked up in the small intestine when you eat food. ",
"I feel I should add that it also depends on the type of injection. Some substances have to go IV because they're damaging to the extravascular tissue.\n\nSource: am a nurse",
"Not that I am an expert, but it depends on the drug and its pharmacokinetics and formulation. Some drugs get metabolized by the body before they get absorbed and distributed to the site of action. \n\nIdeally, people want to create oral drugs because that is the easiest form for administration. Some of these drugs cannot be taken orally or is less effective orally, so they create other means of administration, including intramuscularly. Eventually, these drugs, whether taken orally or intramuscularly, gets delivered to the veins where the drugs get distributed to where it needs to go. \n\nIV injections is the most direct since it goes directly to the vein, so you don't have to deal with gastrointestinal absorption or absorption through muscles, etc. Some drugs are not well absorbed when given by oral or IM so they need to be given directly by IV or that the amount that is effective through these routes is too much and will lead to toxicity, so you can give a safer and more effective amount by IV.",
"There are 3 kinds of shots: intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intravenous.\n\nIntramuscular shots go deep into the muscle (big needles, scary shots, these are the worst IMHO). Subcutaneous shots go just under the skin (tiny needles, usually less than 1 cm). Both of these kinds of shots allow for a slow release of medicine into the bloodstream.\n\nIntravenous shots go directly into the vein, and directly into the bloodstream. About 5 seconds after the shot, the meds are EVERYWHERE throughout your body, so it's a very quick release.\n\nSome meds are best slow released (like interferon: \"poisonous\" stuff that actually holds your body back from killing itself from for example multiple sclerosis or cancer). Others are best quick released (like serobutinol (sp?): A steroid which can restore eyesight in the event of an MS attack on the optic nerves). They all suck; but it's better to feel the pinch than to die or be blind or what have you.\n\nEdit: grammar, some ideas",
"I often give shots to kids.\n\nThere are lots of different ways that we can take medicine. Some medicine, we take with our mouths, like when you take cough syrup. Some medicine, we put it on our skin, like when you use a goopy lotion on a cut. Some medicine has to go into our muscles in order to work to make us healthy. Your butt has a pretty big muscle in it, and so do your legs and arms. When we need to put medicine into your muscles, we can use a needle to give you a shot, anywhere in that big strong muscle. Some medicine has to go right into our blood to work best. This medicine is serious stuff, given when we're really sick or in pain. To give that medicine, we put it into your veins--those are the tubes that carry blood back to your heart. Usually, when someone is sick or hurting enough that we need to use medicine that goes in the blood, we can put a soft, flexible tube into your vein--usually in your hand or arm--so we can keep giving medicine over a long time. We call that soft, flexible tube an \"IV.\" While it's scary to get an IV, and it will pinch when it goes in, once it's in place you can keep getting medicine without getting more shots.",
"Basically, it depends on the medication, how much of it, how frequently, and how quickly you need it.\n\nIntravenous (IV) access, especially in the really big veins like the femoral vein in the leg or internal jugular vein in the neck, lets you give things reliably, quickly, and in large amounts. It can sometimes be difficult to get an IV, and if you're only giving one dose of a medication it may be unnecessary.\n\nIntraosseus (IO) access is a last resort for IV-ish access. Basically. If you can't get an IV but want to give something in a way that needs one, you can always drill into a large bone and start pumping things into the bone marrow. Painful, higher risk for infection, and generally you're doing it as the crap hits the fan. The usual targets are the shin, the shoulder, or the sternum.\n\nIntramuscular and Subdermal are sort of the \"easy mode\" ways to give medication. You can't really mess them up. But you also can't give large volumes (you can't do large amounts of IV fluid), and every time you want to give another dose the person has to get stuck again. Also, some medicines have risk of causing tissue damage if used this way so they have to be through the IV.",
"It's an intramuscular injection and from a technical standpoint, it can't go anywhere in the butt. It has to be landmarked properly. Intramuscular or IM injections can also be done in the upper arm and thigh if necessary. These injections are usually done with medications that are slower acting or that the health care professional doesn't want taking effect right away. A lot of antipsychotic medications are delivered in an outpatient manner in this fashion, especially when they are long acting medications. You deliver drugs through an IV route - direct administration into a vein - if you want the medication to take an almost immediate effect. \nAlso, certain drugs are not effective via IM or IV. Depending on the medication, the health care professional needs to know what route the drug is most effective by and then administer it properly. \nSource - my brain, I'm a nurse. \nHope this helped! :) "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2g3bcm | why is music mixed down on very expensive speakers, while usually listened to on cheap speakers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g3bcm/eli5_why_is_music_mixed_down_on_very_expensive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckf7rtn",
"ckf80p0",
"ckf8ngv",
"ckfcw4r"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"So that the quality will always be the best it can, regardless of whether you have spent £5 or £50,000 on your speakers.",
"It's not *exclusively* mixed on good speakers. An engineer I know keeps this piece of shit computer speaker next to his $16k monitors so he can always be sure his mixes will translate to the worst possible listening environment.\n\nPeople tend to think the only difference between good and bad speakers is bass response. If that were true, any pair of speakers could become god tier if you added a subwoofer, which is obviously not the case. One of the biggest factors is actually sensitivity and dynamic range. Shitty speakers, due to having poor DR, will obscure a lot of detail in the music. We mix on very sensitive systems so that we can be sure the detail is good; poor systems won't reveal those details, but at least we know that good systems will.",
"Well you say 'expensive' and 'cheap' speakers but there's a lot more to it than that. You can spend thousands on a pair of speakers hooked up to your music player, but if you don't have a decent DAC or amplifier to drive the speakers, or you've placed it in a bad listening environment (i.e. in the corner of the room) then you would probably be better off with a pair of 'cheap' speakers. \n\nTo answer your question, if you mix & master music in a proper environment then the music will sound good. If you don't, then it will sound shit. You can't have a rubbish mix and expect it to sound great just because you built a whole sound system worth hundreds of thousands, that's basically trying to polish a turd.",
"Most studios keep an inexpensive set of speakers in their control rooms to \"check\" their mix on . Often these are the brand \"Auratone \", who started marketing as \"used in recording studios \" without mentioning they were the sub-par reference monitors in studios. Genius. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
50s62c | how do smoke detectors at professional kitchens tell apart fire smoke from grill smoke? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50s62c/eli5_how_do_smoke_detectors_at_professional/ | {
"a_id": [
"d76iwvg",
"d76ixww",
"d76iyly",
"d76k4c5",
"d76lysh",
"d76t15j"
],
"score": [
3,
18,
4,
60,
28,
9
],
"text": [
"A standard commercial kitchen in most places is equipped with a vent hood anywhere smoke would be expected. The little bit of smoke (compared to a real fire) coming from a grill is pumped outside pretty quickly if the vent system is working the way it's supposed to.",
"Our fire system (in the hoods) is temperature based. A piece of metal (forgive me, I forget what metal is it) with a relatively low melting point holds springs. When there is a real fire the metal melts and the springs activate the fire suppression system. \n\nSource: line cook",
"I believe smoke detectors in kitchens tend not to use smoke (or not rely purely on smoke) as a method for detecting fire; instead they often will try to detect heat directly. There are a few ways you can do that, for instance by measuring the ambient air temperature or using infrared sensors. Of course, it can be quite hot in a busy kitchen anyway, but a fire might create a rapid spike in temperature that is easily detectible as an anomaly.",
"I’m in the UK, so I’m not sure how relevant this is for you, or whether it pertains to your specific question…\n\n\nI was having the smoke alarm in my (domestic) kitchen go off every time there was any smoke in the air (even from toasting bread). So, I spoke to the London Fire Service, who advised me to ditch the *smoke* alarm and replace it with a *heat* alarm. I took their advice and have not had a single false alarm since. The unit resembles a smoke alarm and cost just a couple of pounds more.\n\n\nTheir website explicitly states : [An alarm installed inside the kitchen must be a heat alarm rather than a smoke alarm](_URL_0_).",
"Fire technician here, they are actually heat detectors. They go off when either the temperature reaches a predetermined level (say, 63c) or the temperature rises too rapidly.\n\nEdit: There are all sorts of heat detectors. Commonly used are 63c and rate-of-rise combined (goes off when either of the conditions is met), but fixed temperature (without the rate of rise) exist, and higher temperature ones (some places have high normal temperatures)\n\nYou can also use infrared and the like, but they are expensive and specialist when a normal thermal will do.\n\n",
"Restaurant owner here. Lots of wrong answers. \n\nThe simple answer is that there are no detectors anywhere you'd expect heat or smoke. \n\nAbove the cooking equipment, there's a vent system that draws out smoke and is designed to withstand fire. If someone lights a greasy rag on fire there, it would do very little damage, and if it does, there's a dedicated suppression system that fills all the cooking equipment with foam. \n\nThis in ONLY activated manually though, and costs about $500 to recharge and recertify. \n\nElsewhere in the kitchen, normal heat detectors exist, but are often on bypass switches in case you need them off for a while. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fireservice.co.uk/safety/smoke-alarms"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1uy8sy | how come our smartphones can pack a 1080p screen, but no handheld portable console even has a 720p screen? | ELI5: How come our smartphones can pack a 1080p screen, have data capabilities, and last for about a days worth of regular usage, but no handheld portable console even has a 720p screen?
also, how come if we have a 5 inch phone with a 1080p screen, why cant we attach 4 of them or whatever to make a monitor with a 4k resolution or greater (i know 4k is already out but you guys know what i mean) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uy8sy/eli5_how_come_our_smartphones_can_pack_a_1080p/ | {
"a_id": [
"cemuc33",
"cemumjs"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The first I am guessing comes down to cost and battery life. Remember playing games on your phones kills the battery quick. Handheld consoles people want hours of use. \n\nThe later I would assume that would be a syncing issue, also I can't really see the purpose of doing it",
"The real cost of your smartphone is probably somewhere in the $500-$700 range. No one is willing to pay that much for a handheld console."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
dolleq | the difference between neutral and ground in electricity. | I installed my hard wired oven and there is two hots and a neutral, which is also serving as a ground. When are they the same and when are they different? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dolleq/eli5_the_difference_between_neutral_and_ground_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"f5oryv1"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Neutral is return in an AC circuit. Without it, the appliance will not sense the potential and it will not work. On an AC appliance ground is attached to the housing in case of a short between the circuitry and the housing. This keeps the appliance from electrocuting someone who touches it while it is shorted. It should also trip the breaker on the circuit the appliance it plugged into. It is a separate line from neutral. If you connect the together the circuit will still work, but your protection is gone. You are also putting current in you ground circuit and that can have unintended consequences.\n\nIn a DC circuit ground can be a source, depending on what the voltage of the circuit is. It can also act as the negative pole of a battery."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1rhkok | how does a radio transmitter/receiver work? | So I know a little bit about electronics. Ohm's law, power law, series/parallel circuits, resistors and capacitors, etc.
One thing I just never understood was how a radio transmitter works, and how a radio receiver works.
One thing that has always bothered me is that we always learn that electrical current follows the path of least resistance. So if there is this random antenna wire hanging off this circuit, why does the signal travel down and get broadcast?
Edit: I'm not asking about AM/FM. I know exactly what they are. My question is how do you produce an electromagnetic wave using just a closed circuit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rhkok/eli5_how_does_a_radio_transmitterreceiver_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdnd4b7",
"cdnd9l9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"quick question: do you have trouble with the principles of an electromagnetic antenna itself (\"how do i get a signal in/out of the air?\"), or is it more on the technical side of \"how do i get the signal out of the antenna\"?",
"There are a couple of ways to transmit radio signals, but the principle is the same for all of them: \n\n* We create a carrier signal with a certain frequency \n* Then we add a signal to the carrier signal\n* We start transmitting that signal\n* A receiver picks up that signal \n* He subtracts the carrier signal\n* All that remains is the original signal\n \nThe difference between the various transmitting methods is the way we add the signal to the carrier signal. [Example](_URL_0_) \n\nThe reason why the signal gets transmitted is power. A whole lot of power. It's very dangerous to stand close to powerful transmitters because it would be like standing in a microwave. \n\nHope this answers your questions a bit :)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.ni.com/cms/images/devzone/tut/dhall_analog_modulation.JPG"
]
]
|
|
2wgxmv | i live on the 7th floor of my apartment building. how the heck does ants still get up here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wgxmv/eli5_i_live_on_the_7th_floor_of_my_apartment/ | {
"a_id": [
"coqpxpk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Ants like warm cozy buildings too! They're also really into food, which you have."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
famc7r | server side, whats the difference between _url_1_ and _url_0_? are both websites on the same server or what? i get that the slashes mean folders, but dont really get the dots | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/famc7r/eli5_server_side_whats_the_difference_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiz131r",
"fiz3bby"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The way a domain works is it is registered to an IP for the webserver. Then that Web server will have a rule of what page to load first, what is accessible etc. Like you say slashes can be folders, but that can also be generated to make it readable by Web apps. A subdomain is just saying point to this folder of a website on the same server instead of the primary website folder.\n\nAt the same time a sub domain can also be generated by a Web app. It is all very dependent on the use, and what interaction thee is to the primary site. The easiest way to understand it is a Web app is a website that can generate its own links based on information in the database, like reddit, whereas a static website is just hard written Webpages.\n\nSo if you made a website about you, and had a test website in a subdomain, that would have a rule saying to point to another folder. But on a webapp, you may tell your system to create a subdomain for certain functions in the webapp, like a store front.",
"From a network design POV: www._URL_0_ and www.subdomain._URL_0_ are different DNS queries. They might have the same IP address (same server) and they might not.\n\n(this isn't quite how it works, but it's easier to explain this way): the browser will first get the IP address of the DNS server for \"com\". That server is then asked for the IP address of the DNS server for \"_URL_0_\". That server in turn is asked for the \"www._URL_0_\" server (or, in the second case, for the DNS server for subdomain._URL_0_ and from there the server for www.subdomain._URL_0_.\n\nThis is all done via the DNS system. If you own _URL_0_, you'll populate it with all of the servers that you will be directing traffic to.\n\nNote that the server for www._URL_0_ might be the same server as for _URL_0_ -- it's all up to you how that's organized.\n\nThe folders, though, aren't handled by the DNS system, and these are just passed to your server.\n\nNow, the big question you have is, \"when do I pick one versus the other\"? And the answer is: it depends :-)"
]
} | [
"www.subdomain.domainExample1.com",
"www.domainExample1.com"
]
| []
| [
[],
[
"example.com",
"subdomain.example.com",
"www.example.com",
"www.subdomain.example.com"
]
]
|
||
egu39x | why do some tasks become more difficult to do when you think about it? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/egu39x/eli5_why_do_some_tasks_become_more_difficult_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fc9sgu6",
"fc9umvr"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Probably has a lot to do with expectations. Thinking about it makes you question if you’re doing it right, depending on what said task is may debate if it’s good enough for them. I’ve always felt this with work and school. It’s easy for me to watch movies and analyze them on my own will but a challenge to do so for a grade.",
"Because it really is \"auto-pilot\". You've learned, probably through repetition, how to do something well enough that your consciousness isn't involved in the process anymore. When you focus on this process you get in the way of automation, like you're stopping someone going through a checklist to bother them about the weather or something so they can't keep doing this job, so you to start over to re-activate the routine (or just slowly do it manually yourself again).\n\nThere also seem to be other factors. Our consciousness seems to actually be pretty shit at most things. For example, you can give someone a problem and then either have them sit there and think about the problem for a couple of minutes before trying to solve it, or instead distract them for that time so they can't think about it before making them try to solve it, and generally people seem to do better when they *don't* have the opportunity to consciously think about the problem. Basically, most of your thinking goes on 'below the surface' and is managed by modules whose processes are completely invisible to the person, who only experiences their results as a general feeling that the answer is probably X but they can't tell you why (though if they are intelligent they can come up with plausible-sounding lies to justify those feelings, without even realizing that that's what they're doing).\n\nConspicuous exceptions to this are problems that our brains are bad at. Randomness is one of those. Human brain can't do randomness to save its life, unless you teach it how first - and even then you gotta keep reminding it. Statistics is another. We're decent at somehow acting like intuitive bayesians (our brain isn't *actually* doing bayesian statistics, because it doesn't know statistics, but whatever it is that it is doing generates results at a close approximation of it) when it comes to stats we have direct personal experience with, but for anything else your intuitions are just crap and you have to whip out the pen and paper or otherwise consciously employ methods that you have learned how to use that aren't intuitive at all.\n\nTL;DR is our \"auto pilot\" systems are better at just about everything than our conscious systems are, though they need to be trained to get to that point.\n\nThis does kind of beg the question of what's the point of consciousness to begin with it it keeps getting in the way of more effective processes, but you'd have to ask someone smarter than me for that one."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
8uvldh | how to gain weight with a fast/high metabolism? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8uvldh/eli5_how_to_gain_weight_with_a_fasthigh_metabolism/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1ihknm",
"e1ihste",
"e1iizb9",
"e1iklpb"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
19,
3
],
"text": [
"Consume a lot of calories. It's that simple. \n \nYou could also cultivate a sedentary lifestyle, although that's not really a good idea. \n \nSome people would say that you should also make sure that the calories come mostly from carbohydrate-rich foods, but that's arguable, and possibly varies from person to person. ",
"Eat a lot more regularly and eat foods high in protein like chicken and tuna. It'll still be a slow process though ",
"Eat more than you burn. Calories in > calories out = weight gain.\n\nStatistically, you don't have a fast metabolism. You just don't eat as much as you think you do.",
"I've struggled with gaining weight my whole life. I've always been so skinny and no matter how much I work out, it's impossible for me to gain any muscle. I always thought it was because of my fast metabolism, but I'm realizing it's because I'm just not as hungry as most people. I feel like I eat enough in a day, but when I added up how many calories I eat on an average day, it was like barely half of the amount I'm supposed to have. I need to figure out which foods have a lot of calories and eat those I guess, because I always find I just can't make myself eat enough. I get too full."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9s48yr | who comes up with names for prescription meds, and why do they all sound similar? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9s48yr/eli5_who_comes_up_with_names_for_prescription/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8lwyi2",
"e8lx101",
"e8lxin2",
"e8lymyi",
"e8lyqk9",
"e8lzd29",
"e8lzgg0",
"e8m06qv",
"e8m0hry",
"e8m2jje",
"e8m45s5"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
228,
629,
62,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Branding companies have creative naming teams, or use creative naming companies. There are many rules and requirements: uniqueness, memorability, sounds and not meaning anything in any language.",
"They use focus groups and marketing dudes, they all sound different enough to be unique but similar enough to be instantly recognize as medicine.",
"All chemicals have a systematic name which is a name that describes exactly what chemical it is. If you were to translate these names literally it is something like \"a five carbon loop with an oxyhydrogen bond at one end that is connected through a nitrogen atom at the other end to a six carbon loop\". The systematic names are shorter then the direct translation but still quite long. So it is usually shortened, and shortened again. The brand names are usually variants of these shortened systematic names. This may answer why they sound similar. But the brand names are made up by the marketing department and can in theory have nothing at all to do with any systematic chemical names.",
"A lot of meds sound similar because it is indicative of what drug class they are in. Here are a few examples:\n\n-Caine = local anesthetic \n\n-mycin = antibiotic\n\n-olol = beta blocker\n\n-statin = for cholesterol\n",
"They're designed by marketing to sound Latin-ish Greek-ish (sometimes based on the actual chemical name, sometimes not), because science/medicine terms sound like that, which makes the drug look more legit.\n\nThe names also need to be unique and trademarkable, because scientific names can't be trademarked (anyone can sell acetaminophen, but only Johnson & Johnson can sell Tylenol).",
"One reason they sound wierd, nowadays that is, is that they want the names to be pronounceable in many languages all over the world.",
"Naming agencies do, or even branding agencies. Since the pharma industry has to follow lots of regulations when naming (generic name, active substance, has to be distinguishable when written, a set amount of syllables, different morphemes that are allowed/aren’t allowed, LOTS of market research and waiting for clearance through the different project steps, etc.), they inevitably sound the same in the end. Pharma research, naming, and approval are really complicated things. ",
"The generic names are purposely designed to be confusing and hard to pronounce. When a company produces a new drug they get both patent and trademark protection. The patent only last for a few years but the trademark lasts as long as you maintain it.\n\nSo if you create a new drug and give it the generic name, \"Sildenafil\" and market it under the brand name \"Viagra\" everyone associates \"Viagra\" with boners. Once your patent runs out you get to keep that name and your competitors need to either establish their own brands or they get to use a 4 syllable word with phonemes that don't fit well together.",
"The reason some names are similar is because they work through the same mechanism in your body. This is done to keep it simpler (I believe the FDA requires the same ending, but I'm not sure) and easier for them to sell. A few examples of this are -statins[inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase=lower cholesterol made by the liver], -olol [beta blocker=decrease heart rate], or -prazole[inhibits sodium/potassium pump in the stomach=less acid]. \n\nIf companies are trying to get people (or doctors) to use it, it's a lot easier for them to say it works just like that other drug you already use only it is x, y, or z different. Unfortunately these same endings only apply the the generic name. \nCompany's choose whatever brand name they want. famotidine=Pepcid vs ranitidine=Zantac vs cimetidine=Tagamet.\n\nSometimes companies choose a brand name based on what it does, like flomax makes it easier to urinate for those who have prostate problems. Another good example is miralax which is a \"miracle\" laxative! Other times they just decide to give students one more garbage name to Learn.\n\nThe only real naming convention that is guaranteed are monoclonal antibodies (except those who were made before the convention was established)! They end in -mab(a shortening of monoclonal antibody) and basically add letters to tell you if it derived from a mouse, humon, monkey, a combination, etc.\n\nTLDR drug companies control over what brand name their drug is, but the generic name attempts to be standardized in most cases if we know how it works when it is named.",
"A lot of drug names are contractions of the IUPAC names for those drugs or related to their structures:\n\nIbuprofen: isobutylphenylpropionic acid\n\nAcetaminophen/paracetamol: N-acetyl-para-aminophenol\n\nTetracycline: Has 4 rings in its structure.",
"They're indicative of the class they belong to,\nAlso of their structure or function \nFor example:\nCimetidine : CYAno METhyl guaniDINE - structure related. Other drugs followed trend such as Ranitidine \n\n\nSertraline (because it acts on the SERT - serotonin reuptake receptor) \n\nFun fact: amitriptyline - they named it as such because it was linguistically hard to prescribe due to the combination of Is and Ys, therefore people would know it by its original brand name \n\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
74hrle | howcome that thiner blood reduces bloodpressure? | wouldn't thiner blood have a bigger volume? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74hrle/eli5_howcome_that_thiner_blood_reduces/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnycuy4",
"dnycwr0",
"dnyd85g"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Thinner blood doesn't mean it gets watered down, so to speak. It just means that it flows through capillaries more easily. Less restriction on flow means less pressure as the heart pumps blood.\n\nImagine taking a squeezable bottle of maple syrup out of the refrigerator. While it's cold, you have to squeeze the bottle really hard to get the syrup to flow out.\n\nNow, put the syrup in the microwave and warm it up. Now, it flows much more freely, and you don't have to squeeze as hard to get the same amount of syrup. When you warmed it up, the volume of the syrup didn't change significantly.",
"Thinner blood would have a larger volume if you had to fit the same amount of \"stuff\" into a larger amount of fluid, but that's not what's happening. Typically if you have \"thinner\" blood, there's just less stuff in there. This shouldn't be confused with blood thinner drugs, which actually reduce how well blood forms clots, rather than literally make the blood more dilute.\n\nThink about it like pushing water through a pipe versus pushing molasses through a pipe. The molasses will exert more force on the walls of the pipe because it's difficult to move, hence more pressure.",
"A \"blood thinner\" doesn't necessarily thin out your blood. Medically, they're called \"anticoagulants\", which means they reduce the ability of blood cells to stick together and form clots. \n\nIf you have a clot in a vein, like having a rock stuck in a hose, the pressure increases as the flow is reduced due to the blockage. When a \"blood thinner\" helps break down that clot, and blood can flow freely, pressure is reduced.\n\nSome also have the effect of dilating veins and arteries, making them physically larger. A bigger pipe with the same flow is going to have less pressure in it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1osoja | how did cows and pigs become the prime sources of meat? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1osoja/eli5_how_did_cows_and_pigs_become_the_prime/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccv6jdv",
"ccv7qw4"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's because they are easy to farm. No other reason than that. Although bacon is incredibly tasty....",
"It's really because that is their best use. There are many animals that can be domesticated, and each tends to be used for its best function.\n\n- Horses and dogs: work\n\n- Sheep: wool\n\n- Cattle and goats: milk and meat\n\n- Chickens: eggs and meat\n\n- Pigs and turkeys: meat\n\nThe list goes on. As to why these two are the primary sources, well, they're the biggest of the \"meat\" group."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1ax30u | the economic situation in cyprus and why it's attracting so much attention. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ax30u/eli5_the_economic_situation_in_cyprus_and_why_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"c91j9i8",
"c91jjg2",
"c91kxph"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"OK, banks in Cyprus are in financial trouble. Government wanted to tax private citizens bank accounts to pay for a bailout. Didn't matter how much you had, they would reach in and take a certain % dependant on how much you saved. So if you were a good saver and had sacrificed to keep some money, the government was going to take part of it. It didn't pass so it won't happen for now. The problem now is that the citizenry is scared shitless that it will happen so they're trying to remove money from the banks to hold cash. Banks closed down so it wouldn't happen because people pulling cash out of banks is really bad for the economy since they make money on loans. If you put 1000$ in a bank they can loan out most of that with the assumption that it will be there for a while. If everyone comes to collect, they don't have the money to loan or pay out for those loans so the whole thing collapses. It's bad policy and sets a really bad precedent. If they do it there, it gives other countries the idea that they can do it. If that happens and there's a huge bank run, shit could go bad in a hurry.",
"If the Cypriot banks cannot secure enough funding then Cyprus can not qualify for the Eurozone bailout it needs to pay its debts. If Cyprus is declared insolvent in this way it may be forcibly ejected from the Euro. Which means a return to the Cypriot pound, which may mean run away hyperinflation and worthless currency. Germany, the U.K and the other solvent Eurozone countries do not want to bail out Cyprus because they've been providing a tax haven for the dirty money of Russian oligarchs, because corruption is rampant and because Cyprus has been allowing arms to be smuggled to Assad in Syria through its waters. If Cyprus is allowed to collapse confidence in the finances of the other Eurozone countries that are in trouble, primarily Italy and Greece will be damaged because investors will question whether the richer Eurozone countries care enough about the Euro to bail out its members without strict conditions. \n\n",
"* Cyprus bases it economy on being a tax haven, largely for dirty Russian money.\n* Cypriot banks makes bad investments in Greece, lose money, can't cover current deposits.\n* Cyprus tries to get a bailout from the EU, EU not enthusiastic about bailing out Russian tax evaders and money launderers.\n* EU demands $6 billion or so of depositor money be part of any bailout, tells Cyprus they get cut off on Monday.\n* Cypriot parliament flat out refuses, because it would hurt their citizens, but mostly because it was drive away their shady customers. Also, their shady customers are really scary.\n* Cyprus goes to Russia for a bailout. Surprisingly, Russia is also not interested in helping tax evaders and money launderers.\n* Cypriot parliament now considering a 25% tax on depositors over about $100K. If they don't pass this by Monday, their largest banks, and possible the entire country, will be insolvent."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
207g3c | why do i feel more full after eating a bag of chips than an apple? | Carbohydrates? I know a typical apple weighs more than a bag of air and some chips, so that shan't be it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/207g3c/eli5_why_do_i_feel_more_full_after_eating_a_bag/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg0kn76"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's a hormone called [leptin](_URL_0_)\n\nWhen you eat things high in fat content, they stimulate a release of leptin which stimulates the satiety response (i.e. tells your brain that you're full). Apples don't cause as strong a stimulation as chips."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin"
]
]
|
|
c9vnt4 | how far up into space are we affected by country's laws? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c9vnt4/eli5_how_far_up_into_space_are_we_affected_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"et3ddpk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The generally accepted boundary of space is 100 kilometers, also known as the [Karman Line](_URL_0_), but this isn't absolute. The US military, for instance, uses a standard of about 80 kilometers (because it equates to about 50 miles).\n\nEven in space though, a country's property is considered to be under its sovereign authority and protected by treaty and convention from attack or remote hijacking.\n\nIf a murder occurred in a spacecraft somewhere in space, including any sort of orbital or lunar station module, it would be under the jurisdiction of the country that owned the spacecraft, station, or the station module it happened in."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line"
]
]
|
||
1sz47w | why can i control an erect penis with my muscles and not a flaccid one? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sz47w/eli5_why_can_i_control_an_erect_penis_with_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce2p5yi"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You're actually controlling muscles at the base. You can control it flaccid, it's just nit as noticeable because the lack of rigidity."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5hb0e3 | why does an orgasm feel better if you have gone a long time without having one? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hb0e3/eli5why_does_an_orgasm_feel_better_if_you_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"daysw0i",
"dayyrs7",
"daz35ew"
],
"score": [
22,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Right. Most addictive drugs are addictive because they cause a rush of dopamine from the brain, and when such drugs are used often a larger dose is eventually required for the same rush. Same thing with orgasms: when you go a while without one the brain has a stronger reaction to the dopamine.",
"For myself at least, i can't say that's true. There have been times where i'd gone weeks without an orgasm, had one, and it was alright. it was an orgasm, but not body numbing. Then there's times where i'll orgasm days in a row, and some are incredibly strong and powerful, body shaking. Then a few days go by, and my next orgasm is alright. ive never noticed a pattern of orgasm strength compared to length of time gone without. I'm a female; for reference, by the way. ",
"I've always thought it's the same concept as an earthquake. The more buildup equals a stronger release. I'm on some brain meds for a medical issue and I usually feel clouded and not fully myself. But when I have certain orgasms, like one in 15 or so, I get such a large rush it almost blocks the medicine and I get to feel like myself for 10 minutes. I have tried to google it many times and nothing really comes up, but my fiance believes it's real. Brain chemicals are real. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
21t5cg | what is the difference between boiling water and microwaving water? | Like does the water changes in any way? or is it the same result? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21t5cg/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_boiling_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"cggay10"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are some good but half finished answers in here.\n\n1. There is no difference between water that is boiled in a kettle, and water that is boiled in a microwave. In either case, it is just hot water. There is no radiation in in the water, it is just hot water.\n\n2. It is possible to superheat water in a microwave, where the water is over 100 degrees, but is still in it's liquid form. If you put in a spoon or something, it might explode. It is unlikely, but possible. [Here](_URL_2_) is the Mythbusters clip where they prove it's true, and here is the [Snopes](_URL_1_) article about it. Wikipedia and all chemistry websites will also say the same thing.\n\n3. It is tradition to use a kettle. Microwaves are generally fine if you are careful, but tea has a lot of customs associated with it that people like to follow.\n\nSo everyone who's posted in this thread so far is right in their own way. Stop downvoting each other.\n\nAlso, [here](_URL_0_) is probably the best explanation you'll get about this phenomenon. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/06/04/microwaving_water_for_tea_why_are_the_results_so_lousy.html",
"http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0"
]
]
|
|
6573hv | i get why cruel punishment is illegal but why is unusual? why can't punishment be as differentiated as crime is? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6573hv/eli5_i_get_why_cruel_punishment_is_illegal_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg7xsn1",
"dg7yp86"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It is actually punishment that is both cruel *and* unusual that is targeted by that statement, and anyway it isn't directly about how cruel or how unusual a punishment is, but rather whether it is a breach of human dignity.\n\n > The \"essential predicate\" is \"that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,\" especially torture.\n\n_URL_0_",
"\"Unusual\" in this case means \"arbitrary\" and \"irregular\". It's a prohibition on judges turning a process of law-based justice into bizarre personal power trips, and an *attempt* to ensure that people know what to expect from a given verdict.\n\nIt came as a reaction against the laws of 18th-century and earlier European societies based on medieval custom where noble magistrates had wide latitude to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted unless they were of equal or greater rank, and the results were often gruesome and random. \n\nSo the prohibition on \"cruel\" is self-explanatory, but the prohibition on \"unusual\" is meant to ensure that punishments are actually prescribed in laws and aren't just being made up by judges to entertain themselves or grandstand for mobs.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment"
],
[]
]
|
||
epf3it | why does the human body need multiple feel good hormones like endorphin, dopamine etc? why can't the body use one feel good hormone for all purposes that need one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/epf3it/eli5_why_does_the_human_body_need_multiple_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"fej1t5k",
"fej3i7g"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Because these aren't actually 'feel good hormones' and each one is involved in its own way with feeling good. The exact effects neurotransmitters have on the brain are super complex, and our best understanding of them right now is roughly \"well, we see these a lot when people are happy, so we'll call 'em happy neurotransmitters\" - this is despite the fact that these neurotransmitters show up in other contexts too.",
"Because it's not that simple. Brains are really complicated and we don't fully understand them. Pretty much every neurotransmitter does multiple things, dopamine does a lot of motor control stuff as well as an example. These chemicals do distinct things and make us feel good for different reasons, calling them feel good hormones is a bit reductionist.\n\nEndophins are natural painkillers and stress relievers that can make you kinda loopy (in fact opiods hijack this system). You know about the runners high? that's from endorphins. This is why they feel good to us. They shut down pain and stress.\n\nDopamine is linked into our bodies reward system and is critical for learning. Our brain uses dopamine to reward us when we do something good. It feels good so we do the thing again to make us feel good again."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2rettb | how is it that the same coax cable that was used for analog cable tv is also able to transmit 100mbps internet?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rettb/eli5how_is_it_that_the_same_coax_cable_that_was/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnf6zkv",
"cnf7826",
"cnf993t",
"cnfanm4",
"cnffiez"
],
"score": [
5,
22,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it isnt the same coax cable. I learned the hard way, and tried using an old style coax cable (it was still in the packaging, and purchased fairly recently).\n\nInternet and phone would cut out every 5 minutes due to bandwidth issues. When the tech from the cable company showed up, he was more impressed i could find that kind of coax cable in the first place than anything else.",
"When transmitted over long distances, digital data is actually transmitted using analog techniques. What most people think of as true digital signals are generally only useful for sending data short distances. \n \nThe digital data is encoded on a high frequency analog signal using one or more *modulation* techniques. Modulation simply means that the normal sinusoidal signal changes in a way that encodes the digital data. \n \nA simple example of a modulation technique is to change the amplitude of the signal slightly to indicate a 0 or a 1. For example, a low amplitude can mean 0, and a high amplitude can mean 1. Or you can use changes in amplitude instead...low to high amplitude transition means 0, and the opposite means 1. (That's actually a more reliable method.)\n \nA [sine wave](_URL_0_) can be described by three basic parameters: its amplitude, its frequency, and its phase. Modulation will change one or more of those things to indicate the transmission of binary information to the receiver. \n \nAnalog coax that was used for sending high frequency analog TV signals can simply be re-purposed to send high frequency analog signals that encode digital data. A modem (**mo**dulator/**dem**odulator) is used at both ends to encode/decode the information to/from binary and send it on its way over a \"digital\" link such as ethernet. Which originally used co-axial cables, and is also transmitted using modulated analog signals. ",
"It also had to do with the fact that it uses a different frequency for each TV station and others for the internet. Your TV or cable modem works similar to how a radio does, out of all the signals it can receive it picks one out and decodes only the signals that occur in that frequency range. Instead of using the air as the way to send the signal, TV and internet use a cable to increase the amount of the signal that gets to the customer because of how much more information is sent.",
"The real magic behind the data transfer isn't the cable, but the process of multiplexing and demultiplexing. It's the reason you have one coax cable but can flip through over 100 channels on the same signal from one cable. It's a process that happens in most data transfer methods that want to capitalize on a single communication channel. _URL_0_ ",
"By the same techniques which allow us to have cell phones (of various types) and TV signals and FM and AM radio signals and WiFi, etc. etc. etc. all transmit through the same airspace. With the added bonus that on a cable, you don't have to fight for control of the spectrum, and the caveat that the particular cable you're using has an upper limit on the frequency it can handle.\n\nTL;DR: Each type of signal is (most commonly) encoded into a different frequency spectrum. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://hobohome.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sinewave.gif"
],
[],
[
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/multiplexing"
],
[]
]
|
||
1628hl | why no one develops an mmo for console gaming. | I would love to see PC-style MMOs on Xbox Live, why has no one done it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1628hl/eli5_why_no_one_develops_an_mmo_for_console_gaming/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7s0tee",
"c7s114t",
"c7s3dlj",
"c7s3gpa",
"c7s43hw",
"c7s4o11",
"c7s4uw1",
"c7s6tsr",
"c7s70ye",
"c7s71ns",
"c7s7vj3"
],
"score": [
114,
26,
11,
12,
4,
8,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is mostly a lack of keyboard. \nYou will be interacting with other players and have to type instructions. Barring that, you can use VOIP, but not everyone is comfortable talking all the time to strangers. \n\nThe biggest obstacle is key bindings. You are given so many abilities There's just no way you can fit them all on a gamepad. On one toon in WoW I have 60 bindings, including macros, and that's not even considered a lot. This isn't NES days where there is an attack defend and action button. It's impossible to fit that on a gamepad. \n\nGuildWars2 does a good job of reducing the binding clutter, but even it it was on a console, a mouse is much quicker for even menial tasks like changing gear.",
"FFXI is the only current MMO that's multiplatform and lets you play with people on the different platforms. It's on Xbox Live, PS2 (with the HDD add on) and PC. It's recommended to use a keyboard to play the game and it's very group based combat.\n\nIt's spiritual successor, FFXIV, will be re-released later this year and will be on both PC and PS3.",
"DCUO (DC universe online) is an MMO and free-to-play after I fucking bought it a while ago",
"There are a few, Phantasy Star Online, FFXI, FFXIV, and there's one more I can't think of... But yeah there's a couple.",
"Well it has been done a few times, FFXI and the upcoming PS3 release of FFXIV, DC Universe Online, and Phantasy Star Online to name a few, but none of those have had huge success. Most of these have been attempts to directly port MMOs designed for PCs to consoles, so its not hard to see why they didn't do all that well. Once somebody decides to really work on a console-only MMO and does it well, other people will follow. So the reason that nobody does it, is because nobody has done it.",
"Imagine Nintendo releasing a Pokemon MMORPG....",
"Phantasy Star Online was great, you heathen.\n\nAnd Final Fantasy 11....nvm. Lets just stick with PSO.",
"There are a variety of issues that I can see, a lot of which have been discussed already and they're mostly valid to some extent. The one that really stands out for me as being both unavoidable and particular to consoles is the update issue. If we're talking about your usual MMO then we're talking about something that loves to be updated frequently. New content, special events, balance fixes, whatever. Each of those updates would cost the developer a certain amount of money to push out through the console network and those fees are higher than you'd think if you don't know anything about them. That's a lot of overhead that would have to be covered if you're looking to make a console MMORPG, and we all know just how predictably profitable MMOs are.\n\nSo if we're talking about something that's going to be updated once every five weeks you're going to have to have a hell of a pitch put together to convince someone to fund the development of a game that will bleed money so regularly.\n\nThat's a bit reason why you see highly coop dependent but static games rather than full fledged, constantly evolving, traditional MMOs.",
"I think the point made by some posters about keys and keybindings is partially valid, but I think the most important factor is a lack of power.\n\nA console has very little RAM, is usually streaming at least some of it's content from a DVD at worst or a 5400 RPM drive at best, and is designed to be wireless-friendly.\n\nAll of these are technical limitations which hamper the game and level design style of an MMO. You could probably get away with doing something like Guild Wars, but it wasn't a very good MMO : /\n\nI'm sure the graphics and effects could be tuned down to the point where it would work, but an MMO (visually) is all about the spell effects and particles and animations. \n\n",
"If you're going to make an MMO for Xbox Live you have to use their system to host it which precludes putting the game on PC or PS3 to expand your user base. They made an exception for Final Fantasy XI Online but it was an exception made to try to curry favor in the Japanese market.",
"\"PC style MMOs\"\nWhat you call \"pc style\" (so I am assuming world of warcraft etc) is all based around keybinds, hotkeys and whatnot. possibly comparable to strategy games; the xbox game of that halo strategy game is considered pretty damn difficult, because it tries to copy what PC is good it using xbox controls and fails miserably, swapping keybinds with more than one press of a key, etc. It's explained on other comments on the thread, for example the keybinds etc.\n\nwhy don't they have MMOs ***in general***? A couple of reasons. (I'm not the best writer, so I'll sum it up at the end so you get a basic idea of what I mean)\n\nMostly, it boils down to **mainly** A: people not wanting to take risks and a little of B: subscription cost. These arguments will not apply to every company, but it certainly will to most.\n\nfirstly, on the XBox 360, a good target for a new MMO IMO (OMG!), you already pay for a regular subscription for the online service. If add another subscription bill, they'll likely argue with \"we already pay for multiplayer, we won't pay twice!\". the other option of microtransactions is there, but the \"big money\" is *seen* (by publishers etc) to be made by subscription style mmos. therefore, they won't risk trying something \"different\". Look at Call of duty, they won't dare change a thing incase it scares off customers, even if it might be an \"improvement\". ditto for the style of game, they won't try and sell an MMO that doesn't play like a \"standard\" one because it's basically untested waters; it could be an expensive failure! most companies/publishers/customers won't take the risk.\n\nSecondly, the PC \"style\" (WoW etc) has gameplay that basically skinner-boxes (google it) you into playing more; it effectively tricks you into playing more of it. and if you play more, you have to pay more. the controls (all of the keybinds etc) play a big part in this. in other words, the gameplay of a PC mmo is good at making people become \"addicted\", or just making it part of someone's routine. now, on controller, this gameplay is harder to emulate. Therefore, companies may not trust that a different game, better suited to a controller, could make a big enough \"addicted\" playerbase.\n\nin summary:\nBasically, alot of the most important people in \"making a game happen\", such as heads of companies, publishers, people who fund etc, often won't trust \"new\" ideas. for the same reason you see alot of sequels; they have an established audience, a certain \"type\" of person who will buy. a console MMO would not only be on a different system which doesn't usually have the MMO genre, but it would also need to have different gameplay *within* that genre. to them, thats you saying \"a target market we don't know exists (fans of that playstyle) within a group we don't know is there (console gamers who want an MMO) on a platform not associated with the product (consoles)\". would YOU invest possibly millions into that?\n\nsorry if this was hard to read, I'll change stuff that's causing problems for readers. Other comments on this post are equally valid, esp. that one about communication/interaction with players. I'm trying to explain a reason why a game would never make it TO the drawing board, let alone get past it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6lf9oj | why are phone numbers 10 digits, but companies/organizations can have short numbers you can send a text to? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lf9oj/eli5_why_are_phone_numbers_10_digits_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"djtcy47"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are called [short codes](_URL_0_ ). It was a \"feature\" built into the SMS standards, like 911 emergency or 411 information. The company pays money (like an 800 number) to have messages to that number forwarded to them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_code"
]
]
|
||
5sh24a | is hunger a signal that your body needs calories or that your stomach needs volume? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sh24a/eli5_is_hunger_a_signal_that_your_body_needs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddf0clx",
"ddffsja",
"ddfin1r",
"ddfl2ty",
"ddfruf2",
"ddfrvya",
"ddfu0fy",
"ddfvt57"
],
"score": [
566,
19,
12,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Both. There are hormones in your body that are triggered when you have enough or are in need of glucose. These are known as leptin and ghrelin. Your grehlin levels increase as your body uses up the glucose. When you are consuming it, your body will produce insulin to process it, and also leptin, which inhibits the receptors the ghrelin attaches to, so you will lose that urge. There's another chemical called galanin that has a similar function for fats.\n\nOn the other side, there is a chemical called cholecystokinin that is released when your stomach and intestines fill, making you feel full and turning off your appetite.",
"This [wikipedia article](_URL_0_) does a good job of explaining it in simple terms. I would say the answer is neither. Hunger is a result of the activity of a number of hormones. Your stomach never needs volume. The signal (hormones) that you are hungry could be a false positive.",
"In your most likely case, it's neither. In the typical modern person, hunger is actual a signal that you feel like you should eat because your used to doing that at regular intervals",
"As far as I understand its neither. Some peoples hunger signals can get completely messed up and get hungry a lot to permanently regardless of food intake. Not sure exactly the mechanism but its something in the brain not related to your current nutrition or emptiness.",
"I am always borderline anaemic and lost a lot of blood in early December. I'm trying to lose weight but I have been ravenous since then ... all I do is eat and sleep. How much can I blame the low iron and how much is me being lazy?\n\nI wanted to start lifting weights again, hoping that it would wake me up or stimulate some energy?\n\n44/f/250 paraplegic t-11 32yrs off work for 3yrs",
"What about stomach acidity? Is that not a factor here?",
"Related question: sometimes when I'm super hungry if I push my stomach out all the way it creates this nasty stretching/squishing noise. What IS that!? ",
"I have been a fatass for the majority of my life. About 6 weeks ago I drastically changed my eating habits. I'm very aware of what I put in my body and how much I put in my body. I feel like I rarely feel hungry, but I feel like I need to eat when I feel my energy levels fall. This may seem stupid, but is that what hunger feels like? I'm consuming about 1000-1200 calories a day. I've lost about 35 lbs. so far. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1stmm1 | why do so many businesses play awful quality"hold" music on their phones. | I'm sitting on hold right now with Staples customer service and just listening to this terrible quality music, it is driving me nuts.
I get that traditional phone lines can only transmit so much data, but why don't businesses play music that doesn't sound like it's being chopped up?
And added question, what causes the music to sound bad? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1stmm1/why_do_so_many_businesses_play_awful_qualityhold/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce15qys"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The music that's used for hold is usually a default music track provided by the company's phone company. Phone companies don't want to spend a lot of money on a non-functional part of their service, so they buy a cheap track of music that won't have to licence from record label.\n\nA company COULD choose to pay for for a custom music feed (local radio station, their own talk track, or sometimes even their own music playlist) but that's something that has costs associated with it (the service itself and licencing the music). \n\nAs for being on hold, they CAN'T hear you... at least not in any of the call centers I've worked in. Placing you on hold basically allows the agent to stop listening to you and research your issue, document your call, or talk to a coach/supervisor. \n\nIf they place you on \"hold\" and you DON'T hear music, then they probably have you on mute, at which point they can hear you. If you're paranoid. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
91npw2 | why do indigenous people in places like canada have naturally darker coloring, but indigenous people in scandinavia and iceland, which are similarly northern, have very light coloring? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91npw2/eli5_why_do_indigenous_people_in_places_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2zesa8",
"e2zh4yq"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The native peoples of Scandinavia have European ancestors. The ancestors of the native peoples of the Americas came across the Bering Strait and were the descendants of East Asian peoples. ",
"In Canada's far north, which is similar latitude to Scandinavia, the Inuit are pretty light skinned. For example Paris France is on the 49th parallel which is Canada and US's western boarder, most of Canada lives below or just barely north of this. Populated areas of Canada are no where near as north as Scandinavia. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
cbz4bs | why does some food, such as oatmeal, seems to get more nutrisious when it has been heated | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cbz4bs/eli5_why_does_some_food_such_as_oatmeal_seems_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"etjigs6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You break down the cellulose and other indigestable material with heat. What's left can be broken down more thoroughly and more of it can be absorbed to be used by the body. Breaking the food down first makes more of it available to your body."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8hocsf | why we like the foods that we do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8hocsf/eli5_why_we_like_the_foods_that_we_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyl9pie",
"dylgnjk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you grow up eating foods with certain flavors and textures, you'll usually continue to enjoy those same kinds of foods. Your brain has been trained to recognize those as safe foods, thus you feel comfortable eating them. If you try new foods, your brain will often compare it to what you've had before. If it's too different, you might not like it at first. But continued exposure will usually train your brain to accept it eventually.",
"YOU: KahBhumes answer is great. see that.\n\nHUMANS: your ancestors survived by eating these items. therefore they passed on genes so you enjoy those same items. you don't like to eat poop (i'd assume)... it's because any ancestral humans that preferred to eat poop instead of fruit and meat didn't live long enough to pass on \"poop loving\" genes. only \"good food\" loving genes were passed on (by other ancestral humans) and those are the genes you got.\n\nits the same reason we have no \"off\" switch for fat and sugar. our ancestors survived by eating ALL the fat and sugar they could find. the reason why that was fine was that there really wasn't much at all. if you found 2 pieces of fruit, you ate it all. now we live in a time where there is plentiful fat and sugar, and we have no biological \"off\" switch for it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
25en0o | what, if anything,will happen to the great lakes if sea levels rise to the extent that their predicting? | Every time I see projected simulations on what will be flooded, the great lakes seem to never rise equal to the ocean. Is there a reason for this?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25en0o/eli5_what_if_anythingwill_happen_to_the_great/ | {
"a_id": [
"chghpp3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Rising sea level is caused by arctic ice melt, which won't flow directly into the Great Lakes, as there are no significant glaciers in the St. Lawrence watershed.\n\nSince Lake Ontario is over 70m above sea level, it will take a while for the sea level to rise that far. Overall, there will be no direct effect for quite some time.\n\nBut that doesn't mean nothing will happen. The same factors that result in rising sees will like alter rainfall patterns. Over time, this could alter their size. However, inflowing water and evaporation only account for about 1% of the water in the lakes, so their water levels are pretty resistant to short term climate changes.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4qrttt | what exactly will most likely happen if the fbi indicts hrc a) before the convention or b) after the convention but before the election? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qrttt/eli5_what_exactly_will_most_likely_happen_if_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4vbt1z",
"d4vc48y",
"d4vcmn3"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"An indictment won't legally affect her ability to run. A conviction will. If it does happen before the convention, there is a possibility that delegates will switch to Sanders. But tbh, a lot of HRC supporters are quick to dismiss this sort of thing as irrelevant and as a right-wing political attack, so they may stick by her despite the looming trial. Either way, an indictment helps the Republican nominee.",
"It really depends on the seriousness of the charges.\n\nIf they look likely to be dismissed in court or won´t really affect her ability to run and win, then it probably won´t have an effect.\n\nIf the charges are more grave and will drag her through years of trial with an end result that could see her in jail, then it´s a different story.\n\nIf that happens the consequence will be one of the following:\n\n* If it is before the convention, it´s likely she suspends her campaign and Sanders wins by default\n* Alternatively another contender will be made eligible via special process and it will be chaos during the convention\n\n* If it comes out after the convention, she will resign from being the nominee and it will most likely default to her running mate\n\nAll these consequences include, that she will resign. This is because as I stated before, regardless of the convention there can only be two outcomes to the investigation:\n\nIt either is or is not damaging enough to make her resign from the campaign herself. There won´t be a middle ground where she feels she can continue to run but a trial might strip her of that legal right, etc. That doesn´t prevent Republicans from using that fact against her during the campaign but there will be no case where she´ll run a full campaign and suddenly be stripped of the right to do so because of the trials.",
"They will not indict her. The issues have been well investigated. At the very worst she was careless. (And even that is not entirely proven.) She didn't break any laws in force at the time and comported with the already well-established norms at the time for Cabinet secretaries, although those norms were already changing. As Secretary she had the power to classify or declassify any State Department material at will and so could not be prosecuted even if she stood on the pitcher's mound at Yankee Stadium and read the names of secret U.S. agents. Moreover, her emails did not contain any classified documents at the time. Some were *later* classified, but it's not illegal to disseminate non-classified material no matter what happens to it afterwards. Any news source you are reading that admits of any but the tiniest possibility of an indictment is letting it's biases get in the way of the facts.\n\nAnyway, to your actual question. If she were somehow indicted before the Convention, she could either ignore it (an indictment is not a conviction) and secure the nomination as planned or release her delegates. If she released them, things might get interesting, because there will be a scramble for her delegates among establishment heads. Likely contenders would be Biden riding in as a white knight, whoever Clinton picked as VP if that was announced already, maybe Warren. Most likely the voting would go past the first ballot, but the establishment faction would eventually negotiate and land on someone, who would win the nomination. Sanders almost certainly would lose, because Clinton's delegates won't vote for him, and he has nowhere near the numbers to get it done on his own.\n\nIf after she gets the nomination, she has little opportunity to do anything. She could promise not to serve if she got elected, I guess. There are probably provisions in the Party rules about how to replace a nominee that becomes unavailable, but ultimately states get to decide who goes on their ballots, and there might not be any opportunity to change them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.